Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 631

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 625

←

Archive 629

→

denied posting of my page: Music scene Berkeley California

I created an article on a musician under the broader page I call the Music Scene in Berkeley California. The article was reviewed and denied inclusion. How can I go about understanding the problem(s) and fixing them?

I also see a reference to the article possibly having been or soon to be deleted. How do I determine if it has been deleted?

Thanks, Steve Dowler Sdowler (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The draft Draft:T.A. Talbott was deleted on July 16th on the grounds that it had been abandoned. I cannot see any other details, but perhaps the deleting admin User:Sphilbrick could help if you want the article back to work on it. There is advice on your talk page that perhaps you have not read? We already have an article Music of California, so I'm not sure that we need a separate article on music in Berkeley unless it has been written about in reliable sources. Google doesn't find anything about T.A. Talbott for me. Dbfirs 20:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dbfirs, I presume you meant in your reply that the page will be deleted July 16 2017? Or was it deleted July 16, 2016? In any case, I'll checkin with Sphilbrick to see if I can get it back so I can fix it.

I wasn't aware of the deletion potential and was very lax in fixing this article.

Sdowler Sdowler (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted in July 2016, Sdowler. You can see that information if you click on this link: Draft:T.A. Talbott. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want it back, you just have to ask.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is now back in draft space, but does not have even a single reference. Dbfirs 07:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

protection

how do you protect a pageSvgManiac (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@SvgManiac: Hello and welcome. Only administrators can protect a page; to make a request that a page be protected, you can visit this page and follow the instructions there. Please note that pages are only protected for certain reasons, such as stopping vandalism or an edit war; a page cannot be protected simply to lock a page to a certain version. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@SvgManiac: Looking at your edit history and comments on the talk page, I would say that you cannot have a page protected to preemptively prevent vandalism, or to prevent people who don't like the person you are editing about from editing that page(unless people who don't like him are actively vandalizing the page). As long as an editor is acting in good faith, it doesn't matter if they like the person. As long as they can cite their edits to a reliable source, their edit can likely go into the article. You can't keep negative information about the person you are writing about out. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Article in Mar-Apr 2014 was deleted by Haworth for 'plagiarism' - should NOT have been deletedf

In Mar-Apr 2014, as a fairly new user on Wikipedia (Sustainability1), we wrote and posted an article on "Climb-and-Collapse" dynamics in population systems. It was a LOT of work, objective, data-based biology, and well-written etc. SUDDENLY, ALL of our hard work (the entire article)was GONE, having been abruptly and unnecessarily (and discourteously?) deleted by Haworth for "plagiarism" of copyrighted material.

At the time, the "delete" said something like it was plagiarism because "I know it when I see it." We didn't think about that as we worked on prepared the Wikipedia article because with expertise in the field, we had already written widely on the subject matter involved including publication elsewhere as OPEN-COURSEWARE resources. Nevertheless some "bot" perhaps found matches between an important new Wikipedia article and some of our other OCW resources posted elsewhere on the web.

The article that we posted and which was deleted WAS NOT plagiarized - (unless of course, any scholar who uses the same wording that he or she has used in other venues is now to be deleted due to "SELF-plagiarism?")(Imagine if Albert Einstein were still alive and he attempted to post an article on particle physics on Wikipedia and an "editor" or a "bot" unabashedly and unthinkingly deleted the article because the scientist had plagiarized himself.)

Anyway, being busy with other venues at that time (and fairly inexperienced with Wikipedia details), we did not want to go through ALL THAT CAREFUL and CONSCIENTIOUS work AGAIN only to have it deleted, so we just left Wikipedia.

It has bothered us ever since, however, that for those around the world who turn to Wikipedia for correct, IMPORTANT, scholarly, and referenced information on science, mathematics, and history, etc., some of the most important biospheric data sets and understandings in the history of civilization are missing today because of an abrupt deletion that could have been avoided and/or resolved by courteously raising the concern.

Lastly, if all of that original work for the Mar-Apr 2014 deleted article still exists, it would be nice TO HAVE IT RESTORED. [And possibly consider a policy that accommodates or permits "self-plagiarism?") (If Shakespeare were alive today and tried to post one of his plays on Wikipedia, would bots and some editors immediately delete the entire play due to "plagiarism?" (Or would Shakespeare or Hemingway or Nobel Laureate have to re-word every single line and sentence in the entire play or speech into a modified and less-perfect form?)

Partly was a disservice to someone trying to contribute to Wikipedia, but was far more seriously a disservice to citizens around the world who look to Wikipedia as an important source of data and information.

Thank you for Wikipedia and for considering the points offered above. Sustainability1 (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sustainability1. I think you might be confusing plagiarism and a copyright violation. If material is published elsewhere and is subject to copyright, then it cannot be posted on Wikipedia because, as it states beneath the edit window, "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", and such a release is incompatible with the text being copyrighted. If you attribute the text to its source, it isn't plagiarism, but it can still be a copyright violation. If Einstein were alive and posted text here that was subject to copyright, then yes, it would have to be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote here tells me that the license on the original is incompatible with the requirements of Wikipedia. All content on Wikipedia must be available for any use and you said that the original was licensed for non-commercial use. ~ GB fan 15:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sustainability1: I assume you refer to User:Sustainability1/sandbox. It was deleted by User:RHaworth as a suspected copyright violation of http://en.calameo.com/books/0006765194f4d3958d2c4. It can be viewed and restored by administrators but if it's a copyright violation then it should not be restored. http://en.calameo.com/books/0006765194f4d3958d2c4 is marked with the license terms "Attribution - NoDerivs - NonCommercial" (CC BY-NC-ND) at http://en.calameo.com/read/0000000012ca0ed594e4a?authid=I2gqrk9RAWwc. This is not compatible with Wikipedia which allows derivative works and commercial reuse of our content. We use CC BY-SA ("Attribution - ShareAlike"). See Wikipedia:Copyrights. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Sustainability1. I'm sorry that your first experience of editing Wikipedia has been unsatisfactory. Judging from the above, you are not aware of various matters in how Wikipedia works. The first is, as the other editors have already explained, copyright material may not normally be used in Wikipedia. It is possible for the copyright holder to explicitly release it under a suitable licence (see Donating copyright materials, but this is rarely done for text, because it is rare that material written for another purpose is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is most often evident when people post promotional material; but it is also the case that much that is suitable for academic publication is not appropriate for Wikipedia: a Wikipedia article should not contain any speculation, argumentation, or conclusions: it should only summarise what the reliable published sources say, and should not go beyond them. I'm not clear whether or not the text of the Calemeo article would be acceptable or not, because I haven't examined its sources, so I don't know whether it synthesises or draws conclusions beyond them or not - if it were to be used as a Wikipedia article (supposing that the copyright issue had been handled) it would be greatly preferably if it were referenced to sources sentence by sentence.

One more point: you repeatedly refer to "we". Please be aware that Wikipedia accounts may not be shared. If there are several of you, then you should create and use individual accounts (you don't have to use your real names: I do, but many people do not) so that edits can be ascribed to individuals. --ColinFine (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Will this article pass the notability test?

Hi,

I've written an article on the International Bond & Share Society. I would like your opinion on whether it will be suitable for Wikipedia. What's the best way to share the text that I've written?

Thanks, SteveSjmaier (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sjmaier: Please provide a link to this article. You dont seem to have edited it under this username. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't find any article, draft, or userspace draft with a title at all close to "International Bond & Share Society", or mentioning that phrase on this Wikipedia edition, Sjmaier. Is it possible that it was on another edition of Wikipedia, that is, the Wikipedia for a different language? In any case, please do provide a link. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply; I've put a draft copy in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sjmaier/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload

Will that work for you?Sjmaier (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sjmaier: You will need to save the edit before we can see it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that - guess it shows that I've not done this before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sjmaier/sandbox&action=submit Sjmaier (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been working on the article - and learning as I go along. I hope that you can see this draft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sjmaier/sandbox/International_Bond_%26_Share_Society Sjmaier (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Sjmaier - that draft has no references whatsoever, let alone the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that are required to show notability.
Until you have added such references, it is difficult/impossible for other editors to assess whether the subject is notable, or not. Please see WP:Notability and Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on what is required and how to add it. - Arjayay (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arjayay - thanks for the prompt reply and advice. I'll work on the references.Sjmaier (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do some pages have editing locks?

I was wondering why some pages have editing locks. On some pages I want to edit something, but it doesn't let me. Some information is not really up to date.

Thank you

WarriorsFan30112335WarriorsFan30112335 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If there has been disruptive editing on the page in the past, pages are protected to stop the disruption. ~ GB fan 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@WarriorsFan30112335: (edit conflict) Hello and welcome. Pages are usually protected from editing or 'locked' due to vandalism or a content dispute such as an edit war. Protection can be limited to IP and new users, or to all users except administrators in some extreme cases. If you want to edit a page and cannot, you should post on the article's talk page; at the top of every article should be a tab saying "Talk"; if you click that it will take you to the article's talk page where you can then ask someone else to make the edit for you. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

If you click the "View source" tab then you get instructions and a link for submitting an edit request. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a place for a funny face in Wikipedia?

I found this image some time ago File:NewAC.jpg.
I've asked the uploader to rename the file so that a name would reflect and describe what the image contains (User talk:Acol37#Image file naming) but got no reply.
A few days ago I found out the image is included in List of EastEnders crew members where it has a caption 'Writer Andrew Collins'. In the same section #Writers the article Andrew Collins (broadcaster) is linked.
Together with the uploader's nick (Acol37) it made me believe the file is an Andrew Collins' selfie, so I hurried to add it to the infobox in A.C. bio article.
However, soon I found some comments at the file's talk page suggesting that the 'face' is not necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. So I undid my addition – but what should I do next?

Should I insist on renaming the file? Or request renaming myself with {{rename media}} instead?
Is my deduction reliable enough to request renaming 'AC' to 'Andrew Collins'?
Is the file actually 'too weird' or funny for Wikipedia? Can such funny selfie be considered as means of autopromotion? If so, should the file be deleted rather than renamed?
If it is kept, will it be appropriate to add it to the bio article...?

CiaPan (talk) in a multi-level confusion, 22:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm still learning how to use Wikipedia from under the bonnet. I did upload this file - a long time ago, so I can't vouch for its continued relevance - but didn't know the drill and didn't know how to properly name a file. By all means re-name it if you know how. But I'd rather upload a newer pic. I just don't know the ropes well enough re: jpeg files.

Acol37 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Acol37: I replied at your talk page: User talk:Acol37#Image file naming. --CiaPan (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The image got renamed to a more meaningful and descriptive name (File:Andrew Collins 2006.jpg) and moved to Commons (c:File:Andrew Collins 2006.jpg). --CiaPan (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Renaming/Replacing articles

I have run into several instances were a page for a subject redirects to a related page but should exist on its own. Example(1): "Panax", a plant genus, redirects to "Ginseng" which is the common name for some of the species. The "Ginseng" article says, "This article focuses on the species of the genus Panax, named Panax ginseng and P. quinquefolius." This is a VERY good idea. However, since there is no "Panax" article, a lot of information not related to Panax ginseng and P. quinquefolius, including a list of Panax species, is included. I would create a "Panax" article but I do not know if it would be accepted or implemented. Example(2): A plant species name (Aptenia cordifolia) has been determined to be a synonym for (Mesembryanthemum cordifolium). Wikipedia has an article for Aptenia cordifolia and redirects Mesembryanthemum cordifolium to it. Obviously the article needs to be edited to change the names (and probably more). Again, I would edit the article but how would the redirect and article pages be changed. I can not find a process for this.User-duck (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi User-duck. You can change a redirect by following the redirect and then click "(Redirected from ...)" below the title. See more at Help:Redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, User-duck. Perhaps better would be to use the article wizard to create a draft of a new article under the articles for creation project. That would mean that an experienced editor would review the draft once you thought it was ready and submitted it for review. When and if the draft is approved, the reviewer will move it to the article mainspace, and handle any issues with the previously existing redirect, or ask an admin to assist if that is needed. This method avoids many problems with articles that are still in the process of preparation. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, DESiegel. I am familiar with the article wizard, but I thought that was for creating new articles. And I do not remember a way to say that the draft was a rewrite. That is why I mentioned "process". Also, I did not know how to change a "redirect" (very easy and I learned a lot about "disambiguation"). I have already edited the Panax page. It was basically a cut-n-paste of information from the Ginseng article, particularly the List of species. Therefore, I think a review is not needed. Besides the "talk" pages, I do not know how to request a review of an article. This would be helpful for major edits. Also, some articles are so bloated with tidbits, stuff that should not be in an encyclopedic article. The original redirect was appropriate since Panax is the "ginseng" genus. But the article focused on only two of the species. I am a plant enthusiast and when I look up Panax I want to learn about the plant, not the crop. It similar to the difference between Zea (plant) and Corn. Thanks again, I am off to make some Zea edits.User-duck (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, User-duck. Apparently i misunderstood -- i had thought, from the conversation above, that this was to be a new article. No we don't have the same sort of review process set up for major revisions that we do for AfC drafts, or not that I am aware of. Please note, in case you were not aware, then when one does a copy&paste from one Wikipedia artice 9or indeed any page) to another, the source must be attributed for copyright purposes. please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for details on how to do this, if you didn't already know.

Sometimes an editor who wants to do a major revision, say of Ginseng (since you mentioned it) will create a page with a name similar to Ginseng/revision and invites other editors to look at it before copying it into the article proper. But that isn't a formal review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article where there was previously a redirect is sort of writing a new article though, isn't it? I would say that this is a situation where using the article wizard could be appropriate. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

how to add pictures/photos and how to start a page from scratch

I have not figured out how to add a photo or a picture with subtitles (or without, in that case). Please tell me how. I also do not know how to create a new Wikipedia page from scratch.Huygtfrd (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Huygtfrd, and welcome to the Teahouse. Creatign a new article from scratch is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. It is often better to edit existing articles for a time first, to get some of the feel of how things are usually done. But here are some steps which, if followed, are I think likely to lead to success.

First, review our guideline on notability, and the relevant special guideline on notability for the type of article you plan. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, if you are connected with the subject Disclose your connection in accordance with WP:COI. If you are being paid or editing as part of your job, see WP:PAID. This is absolutely required, omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, Gather sources. You want independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop, an article will not be created. Sources do NOT need to be online, although it is helpful if at least some are. The independent part is vital in this case. Not press releases, nor news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or its affiliates. Not strictly local coverage. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the org in detail. But those significant sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is rejected, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As for adding images, see Help:Menu/Images and media, Help:Viewing media, Help:Files , and Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Formatting and illustrating articles/Adding images. I hope those are useful to you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on draft:A List

Hello! I'm interested in getting some feedback on draft:A List. Is this a good place for that? Cloudlessly (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Cloudlessly.

In the lead section, when the draft includes Stein said that ... that is a quotation, albiet an indirect one. It therefore requires a citation directly after the statement.
In the synopsis section, I wish that the individual statements were individually cited, rather than a group of several cites at the end of the paragraph. It would be clearer what source supports what statement. Even if some sources were cited twice.
Please provide page numbers in the citations when possible.
You might consider using the |quote= parameter in the citations to make it clear exactly how each source supports the draft.he play ever had a professional or non-student production?
Is there sourcing for a "critical response" section?
In the analysis section, has anyone reliable other than Bowers and Stein herself analyzed this? if so some other analyses should be referenced, I think.

On the whole a good job for a draft. All only my opinion, of course DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Log in problems

I am having a huge amount of trouble logging in this week. I am a registered user, but when I go to login, after entering my password, I get what seems to me the nonsensical response of "No active login attempt is in progress for your session." Well, yes, there is an active login attempt, and I'm the one making it. Sometimes I appear to have successfully logged in to Wikipedia, but then when I go to another page on the Wikipedia site, it shows once again that I'm "Not logged in." I have been a registered user of Wikipedia for some years now, but this problem has only started occurring in the past week or so.

I have the feeling that someone (i.e. some editor or administrator) may be blocking IP addresses, perhaps even a range of them, in an attempt to try to block vandalism on Wikipedia. I frankly don't know much about how the Internet works, but it's my impression that IP addresses can change every time someone logs on or off to their ISP, can they not? I've even tried shutting down my Internet connection and then starting it up again in the hope of getting a different IP address, but that doesn't seem to work this evening either. At any rate, it's extremely frustrating to be unable to log in and to then be given a gibberish response like "No active login attempt is in progress for your session" repeatedly. And after three or four tries logging in I get a message about (if I remember correctly) being shut out to avoid a possible hijacked connection (?). I'd like some help but I don't know how I'm supposed to get an answer without being able to log in. By the way, my Wikipedia Username is NicholasNotabene.

107.77.217.214 (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Every few months I find that my ISP has placed me in a range of IP addresses that is blocked from editing on Wikipedia. These sorts of blocks do exist, but they do not result in the symptom you are reporting. IP-range blocks prevent editing but do not prevent logging in. Something else must be going on and it might be a setting in your own browser for how cookies are handled – that's just a guess, not based on any detailed knowledge of how WP handles logins. Try a different browser or a different computer as a way to get more information about the symptoms you are experiencing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

How do I make the most of being part of the welcoming committee for new users beginning to edit the wiki?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 22:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello DoctorWho42 and welcome to the Teahouse. I like your combination of two Brit-SF memes in your username.

There are actually a few robots that form the initial welcoming committee for new WP editors. They do things like place "welcome" templates on new users' talk pages and hand out invites to the Wikipedia Adventure and the Teahouse. There are also a group of editors on WP:Recent changes patrol who are likely to pick up on earnest new editors who could use a helping hand — although sometimes a slapdown is required. New users are also likely to show up here at the Teahouse or over at WP:Help desk if they have questions.

In order to be helpful to new users, it's good to have some experience under your belt. But if you watch recent changes, or watch arriving questions here or at the help desk, you are welcome to insert your advice when you have something to contribute. Just remember not to bite. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Inquiries from Nazim Hussain Pak

How to change Username?

My current Username is Nazim hussain Pak. I want to change it to Nazim Hussain Pak. Please guide me how I can change my Username.

Sinner (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nazim hussain Pak. See Wikipedia:Changing username. You can use the link on "Simple" under Wikipedia:Changing username#Venues:. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Why wikipedia and wikimedia commons are so porn?

If Wikipedia and Wikimedia commons are just for educational purpose, then why are so much porn pictures on wikipedia and commons. Most of these pictures do not have any educational purpose, these are just to have a porn website. Only a small number of pictures are enough to cover educational purpose. Why all porn material from wikipedia and Wikimedia commons is not being deleted?

Sinner (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: Hello and welcome. Please see the content disclaimer. Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of all human knowledge and as such it is not censored for any reason. Yes, the article about the male anatomy will have pictures of it throughout the article; the article about the female anatomy will have the same; the article about sex will have pictures dealing with that. Note that 'porn' has a very specific meaning and that usually does not include basic images of anatomy. If you do not want to see images that offend you, you can visit this page for instructions on how to suppress them on your computer. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Reading this page may also help you understand this. While Wikipedia will not remove images just because they might be offensive to someone(which is the case with many types of images, not just images of human anatomy or the human body), if you feel that an image is truly inappropriate for an article, you should bring it up on the article talk page of the article the image is in. I realize this may not be what you want to hear, but I hope this helps you understand how things work here. Please ask any other questions you have. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nazim Hussain Pak. Adding to the above, it is an important principle here that Wikipedia is not censored. What one person considers porn, another person may consider educational. That being said, I am not aware of indisputably pornographic images here on Wikipedia. We have some explicit photos used to illustrate specific topics. If you can mention a few articles, that that would be helpful. Wikimedia Commons is a free image repository, and it has its own policies and its own administrators. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictures are still being displayed!

I have turned off pictures from page Nudity on my skin.css page. The pictures are still being displayed. Please edit my page skin.css such that its pictures are not displayed to me. Thanks!

Sinner (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: Perhaps don't go to the page Nudity if you don't want to see naked pictures? It's pretty easy to avoid pages with possible naked or suggestive pictures if you pay attention to the title of the page.

I've fixed your common.js and common.css per the instructions here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Turn off images of these articles for my browsing

I admit that the tools are available to turn off images but the problem is that I have tried my best to use these tools but I could not activate the tool on my account. If I completely turn off the pictures then I will not be able to see pictures from those articles which are not prohibited in my jurisdiction. I tried to turn off pictures from some specific articles. I tried not to make some mistake but I remained unsuccessful. This is the only problem. As an experienced wikipedian, if you turn off pictures of these articles by editing or asking someone other to edit my skin.css page, then I shall be very thankful to you for your kindness.

Sinner (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: Help:Options to hide an image#Disable images on specific pages says "create a page at Special:Mypage/skin.css". The link is supposed to redirect you to a page for your current skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, for example User:Nazim Hussain Pak/vector.css if you have "Vector". I see you created User:Nazim Hussain Pak/skin.css instead. Maybe the redirection doesn't work in your browser. You can also add the code to User:Nazim Hussain Pak/common.css to hide the images no matter what skin you have. Here is the code for either css page:

.page-Nudity img {display: none;}
.page-Toplessness img {display: none;}
.page-Topfreedom img {display: none;}
.page-Nudity_in_film img {display: none;}
.page-Nudity_in_sport img {display: none;}
.page-Pornography img {display: none;}
.page-Naturism img {display: none;}

PrimeHunter (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Writing colorful text

I want to ask how I can write colorful text in wikipedia?

Sinner (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nazim Hussain Pak: You're looking for Help:Using colours. Please be aware of and follow the guidelines at WP:COLOR and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Color, too. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Good User

What are qualities of a good wikipedian?

Sinner (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sinner. A good user is generally considered to be someone who is WP:HERE as opposed to someone who is WP:NOTHERE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nazim Hussain Pak. I think that understanding and upholding Wikipedia's five pillars is an important part of being a good editor. Looking at your own contributions, I see that you created the articles Chak Shafi and Chak Choti Shafi. Both of these articles are lacking in references. If you look at the pillars and at Wikipedia:Verifiability, you'll see that readers of articles should be able to check that information has come from reliable, published sources. These two articles will need to have references to such sources added, or otherwise the unsourced information is likely to be removed. I also note that with this edit, you added the comment "The information is based on my approximation" to the Chak Shafi article. You should never add your own approximations to articles - only information that can be verified by checking reliable sources. I hope that helps. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Nazim Hussain Pak. I would say that a good Wikipedian always tries his or her best to improve the encyclopedia. S/he works with others as well as possible. S/he is WP:CIVIL. S/he finds and cites appropriate sources for statements in articles, both ones that s/he has added, and ones that need citation when s/he starts to work on an article. s/he generally complies with guidelines and policies, except when there is a very good reason not to. Even more, s/he complies with the consensus of other editors. I would also agree with all the comments above. None of us is the ideal "good Wikipedian" at all times, but many strive to achieve that ideal. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Nazim Hussain Pak. I have been searching for possible sources to use in the two village articles, and I'm starting to wonder if they are in fact both the same place. The co-ordinates given in the infobox take me to the same location on a map. Could you clarify, please? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I am going to redirect Chak Choti Shafi to Chak Shafi, as that appears to be the correct name for the village. If you object, Nazim Hussain Pak, please reply here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My problem is at its place!

From early morning, I have been trying to turn off some pictures and pictures from some specific articles. I have tried my skin.css. But the entries that I enter in it do not turn off images. The advice to not visit these pages is also given to me by many users but I want to visit these pages without seeing their images. I am in search in search of a helper who will turn off pictures from these articles by editing my skin.css page.

Is someone on this great encyclopedia to help me???

Sinner (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Rather than starting a new section with the same query, please post in the section about this above, Nazim Hussain Pak (making sure that you have read the replies you have received there). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Linking section of Manual of Style without explanation about linking to automatic translation sites ...

There are certain references in an article about surveillance in a police state. The best source of info you have about such cr@p are pieces of information relating to the stasi files (much better going with Deutsche Gründlichkeit than with "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is" types of Clintonesque). How do link to an automatic translation sites? You would route a link to: http://www.gvoon.de/ddr/stasi/dokumente/woerterbuch/zersetzung-operative.html as https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gvoon.de%2Fddr%2Fstasi%2Fdokumente%2Fwoerterbuch%2Fzersetzung-operative.html Albretch Mueller (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Albretch Mueller.

Sources in other languages are allowed on Wikipedia, there is no requirement to provide a translation. I suggest citing the original and users who need help can invoke automated translators of their own choosing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Albretch Mueller, while not required, there are two things that are fairly common practice, and will make things much easier for readers.

Use the |tran-title= parameter in a citation template such as {{cite web}} to provide an English-language version (manually translated please) of the title of the source. if you do this, please also use the |language= parameter to specify the language that the source is in.
Use the |quote= parameter to give a brief manually translated quote that makes it clear how the source supports the statement(s) in the article.

Neither of this is at all required, but I think that both are good practice. I would advise against linking to any particular automated translation site. Those who wish to use machine translation can select their own site. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

May I know why are you deleting my articles

My articles are often deleted without no reason. I know that I did not put reference in the article Fault(geology), but 1 guy did not put a suitable reference (citation number 7) in the part of Strike-slip fault. So instead of his/her part, why did the Wikipedia delete my part. I request you not to delete my article.Badri K Vishal 2006 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: Question already answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 617#May I know why are everyone deleting my articles., and sockpuppetry reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Badri Vishal and Mansi Krishna. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

However, to explain, this was not a case of deleting an article, but of reverting an edit, and, if an edit is reverted, it should be discussed on the article talk page. I don't see any discussion at Fault (geology). Making the same edit again after the edit has been reverted is edit-warring. Please discuss rather than edit-warring. (Of course, if you are a sockpuppet, please go away, but this is general advice.) If your English is such that you don't know the difference between deleting an article and reverting an edit, please consider editing the Wikipedia in your first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Badri K Vishal 2006: comparing one bad edit with another is not a good idea. If you add information the responsibility lies entirely with you to add a suitable reference to back up what you say. You have a history of adding poorly or unsourced information to science topics which resulted in you being indefinitely blocked from editing on 4 June, see User talk:K. Badri Vishal#May 2017. Since then instead of addressing this issue you have consistently tried to sidetrack the block by creating new accounts and continuing the poor standard of editing. Until you address your behaviour and understand what level of competence is needed to edit Wikipedia and then apply for your block to be lifted on one of the existing accounts, your accounts will continue to be blocked on sight. Do not continue to create new accounts; as the responses above show your current conduct receives no sympathy at all. Nthep (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

How to add links.

Hi I started this originally to just play around but then I found out how I could help. All I need to know is how to include a link in an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasty Gamer (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tasty Gamer and welcome to the Teahouse.

I suggest you take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners as a place to get started. References are really important when you add material to Wikipedia and this should help. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Tasty Gamer. By "links" do you mean links to other Wikipedia articles, or links to web sites not part of Wikipedia, or links as part of citations to sources? They are handled differently.

Links to other Wikipedia articles are made by enclosing the name of the article in double square brackets. For example, if I wanted to link to the article "Energy" I would enter [[Energy]]. This would render as Energy. If I wanted a different word to display in the article i would "pipe" the link. I might enter [[Energy|activity]] which would render as activity.
Links to external web sites should appear only in an "External links" section near the end of an article, or in a few limited cases, in an infobox, usually near the start. They should never be placed in the text of the article body. Please read our guideline on external links for what links should and should not be placed in articles. Excessive linking is not acceptable.
Citations to sources that can be found online should include a URL. As jmcgnh says above, Help:Referencing for beginners and the pages linked from it explains in detail the ways to format and insert citations, including the user of URLs. I personally prefer the methods using cite templates, but that is in no way required, and some other experienced editors prefer other methods.

I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Review

Hi - I wrote my first article yesterday in sandbox and submitted for review. It was reviewed and declined due to inadequate sources - only one. I've since added numerous sources. What is the process to re-evaluate my article? Does the same editor have to do so, or another editor? Thanks in advance :)BCPdigital (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@BCPdigital: Just click the "Resubmit" button at the top of the sandbox draft. RudolfRed (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hey, If a user vandals their own userpage/talkpage, is that eligible for a revert? Or they are free to type anything in their userpage/talkpage? This is because I have seen IP Addresses quite a few times now who do that on their own page, and always wanted to ask if they had to be reverted. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If depends, Adityavagarwal, on what sort of vandalism you mean. Random profanity? feel free to revert. See WP:UP for what is or is not acceptable on a user page, although that is aimed more at the page for a logged-in user. Users are given more freedom on their user pages than on almost any other page, but there are still limits. Attacks may not be hosted there, nor what amount to personal web pages (see WP:CSD#U5). And of course copyright infringements may not appear anywhere on the project. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Could you see this? However, despite his final warning, he keeps doing it. I reported the IP Address. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, thanks as always for the help.

Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Hey, it doesn't seem to me that he has been blocked yet, despite your edit. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Block log:

18:51, 26 June 2017 DESiegel (talk | contribs | block) blocked 68.228.254.131 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked) (repeated vandalism) (unblock | change block)
22:23, 17 March 2017 Oshwah (talk | contribs | block) blocked 68.228.254.131 (talk) with an expiration time of 72 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Disruptive editing) (unblock | change block)
23:56, 29 January 2017 Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 68.228.254.131 (talk) with an expiration time of 23:47, 30 January 2017 (anon. only, account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Vandalism) (unblock | change block)
23:47, 29 January 2017 Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 68.228.254.131 (talk) with an expiration time of 24 hours (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) (unblock | change block)

Oops I had failed to block the IP editor's talk page access. Done now. Sorry. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Edna Meade Colson

Hello Wikipedians. I was adding an infobox to Amaza Lee Meredith and I noticed that there wasn't a page for her partner Edna Meade Colson Draft:Edna Meade Colson. I attempted to create a page for her and it failed review because my writing was too closely synthesized from the source material.

Dr. Colson is considered noteworthy, but I lack the skills to create an article. I am now familiar with her life and work, so if an interested editor would reword the article, it would provide me a great deal of information on creating an acceptable article in the future. Thank you WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello WomenArtistUpdates and welcome to the Teahouse.

I took a look at your draft. I agree that this draft could form the basis of an encyclopedia article, but you need to find some more references to substantiate factual assertions in the article. One symptom of too-closely following another source is that you may not develop your own sources. You have several citations, you need to find a few more and then write your article based on what the sources say. If you don't have a source for some factual matter, you leave that out.

If, after you go through this process one or more times, you don't feel like the article provides a suitable picture of the subject, it may mean that you have to dig some more. Or it could mean that there are not enough sources to create an article at this time.

So my advice is to go through the material you looked at to become familiar with her life and work, determine how reliable each one is, and see how the information you've gathered supports Dr. Colson's notability by Wikipedia standards. It's not always easy, but you get a great sense of accomplishment when it's all done. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello jmcgnh

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question and looking at my draft. The way I understood the comment by the editor was that the references were fine and the subject was notable. The issue the editor had was that I had cribbed too much material. Evidently it matches the source material too closely ("A nice article on a notable subject but too closely synthesised from here. Please rewrite in your own words"). I did my best to write the article by just stating the facts and in my own words, but failed. I was hoping that an experience writer would take a shot at the article so I could see how one uses "their own words".

Thank you also Cordless Larry for cleaning up the references. I will use that coding in future.

Anyone with an interest in African American Virginian Feminist Educators Draft:Edna Meade Colson please take a look and help a rookie writer :) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Need counter-vandalism assistance

I recently spotted that User:177.42.223.250 seems to have a habit of adding unsourced claims about dates of birth or death to biographical articles, and then linking those articles to Wikipedia pages about the claimed years of birth (or death). See Special:Contributions/177.42.223.250. I have spent an hour or so reverting some of those edits, and have now also discovered a similar pattern by another anonymous account: Special:Contributions/191.33.96.84. Sigh.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to review (and revert, if appropriate) all these edits today; perhaps not even this month. But that doesn't mean that these dubious edits should linger any longer than necessary.

In general, is there a way for me to flag up an editor to have their edits reviewed? I looked at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit, but did not see an obvious place there to file such a report. (Did I overlook anything?) I also looked at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but it seems to be more about requesting blocks than reviewing/reverting edits, and is only applicable if the vandal is likely to be active in the immediate future. Please WP:PING me in your reply. Thanks! zazpot (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Zazpot. I don't know of an appropriate place to report this sort of thing. I have just reviewed the edits of Special:Contributions/191.33.96.84 and reverting a number of them. Note that as per WP:DOB, we should not usually give the exact date of birth of a living person, and never if it is unsourced, as it all too often is.

The standards for what gets included on the year pages are in my view much too vague. They get many fewer eyes since we stopped routinely linking years in articles. Thanks for this report. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi DES, thanks for your reply and for helping to revert some of that user's unconstructive edits. Disappointing that there isn't a more structured way to handle this sort of thing. This is not the first time I have encountered a situation like this, but I think it is the first time I have reported it to other editors. If I wanted to propose a structured way to resolve such situations, would Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals) be the right venue? zazpot (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine, Zazpot. On further thought, a report at WP:AN would be appropriate. I don't know that this sort of thing happens often enough for a noticeboard of its own. But you could propose it, and see what people think. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks DES. I'll give some thought to how best to proceed. zazpot (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Whistle-blower options

I have knowledge about unethical/criminal activities of a large corporation I work for as an independent contractor. I have worked with a journalist who published an article based on the information. It was published in Buzzfeed two years ago with significant documentation. I would like to write a few sentences on the wikipedia entry of this company and cite the article written by the journalist, but, I do not want to be identified as the source of the wikipedia post because I don't want to lose my position. Is there a way to do this?108.14.66.225 (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Registering an account may enhance your privacy because your IP will no longer be publicly visible when you've logged in. However, your anonymity cannot be guaranteed under any circumstances. In any event, if the alleged activities of the corporation were already reported in the media, then it sounds as if the whistle has already been blown. Maybe the relevant Wikipedia article should reflect that, maybe not; it's impossible to say without knowing the exact details. But Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for righting great wrongs, and it is usually not a good idea to write about companies you work for or contract for. (See our conflict-of-interest guideline for more information on that.) Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 13:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

How do users get banned from editing?

Is there a "report" function? Or does an admin just happen to stroll on by and ban after checking edit history? How does it work? The Verified Cactus 100% 00:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (also somewhat new here), multiple avenues can be taken to deal with the issue. Should a user engage in disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, bullying or other bannable offences, other users will issue warnings on their talk pages. Should these warnings mount, or if the user refuses to heed them or engage with them, an administrator is notified. They can investigate their edit history and interactions with other users and act accordingly. If this plan of action fails, there is always (gasp) ArbCom, where investigations get very serious indeed.

Out of curiosity, has a specific incident and/or user prompted this query? - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

PS - I am quite likely to be entirely incorrect here, and am ready to learn a thing or two on this process myself in such an eventuality - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey The Verified Cactus, Stormy clouds. There are multiple ways but here are some highlights. After a user has been sufficiently warned (typically through an escalating series of warning templates, see WP:WARN) (though you don't always start at a first level and go up incrementally, it depends on the severity of the issue), after the editor persists with whatever the issue is, they are reported for a block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). Another way (see the discussion just above this one) is because of a username problem. That happens through Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention WP:UAA. Another avenue is people who are found to be sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Another is through a report and discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). See also the notice at the top of that page, which list other noticeboards that blocks may issue out of, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Another rather large source is just administrators doing various rounds. For example, I do a lot of copyright patrolling, and when I take action on a copyvio, I may look at the editor's other edits (where there's smoke there's fire). If I find lots of copyvios, and the user has not been issued a final warning, I will issue one, and if there's copyright violations after I check back → block. That sort of activity can of transposed to other areas. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention. This is all about blocks, not bans, which is what I think you were talking about. A ban Is something else.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As User:Fuhghettaboutit says, those are how users get blocked, and a ban is something else. Users can be site-banned from the English Wikipedia by consensus of the community at WP:ANI or WP:AN. Users can also be banned by the Arbitration Committee. Banning is a formal process that also results in a block. You were probably actually wondering about blocks. I suggest that you read both the blocking policy and the banning policy. They contain information about bad behavior to avoid. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw that someone was banned just because some people wanted it and nobody helped him, so I think it can happen to anyone any day. I don't think that's right. Dolberty (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That quite simply isn't the case. Whilst any administrator can issue a block, if they do so without good reason then a) the block will be lifted and b) the administrator risks having their tools revoked, or even being blocked themselves. Bans, as explained above, are something else, and can only be imposed after community discussion. In other words, it can't happen to anyone - if you are blocked or banned, there has to be a good reason for it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The administrator wrote that there were enough votes and there was no reason to wait. Dolberty (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you must be mistaken, Dolberty. Blocks should not imposed according to any voting system. Could you provide a link to the discussion concerned? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That said, people do sometimes use the term "!votes", but discussions should be closed by taking into account the quality of arguments, not just the numbers. See WP:!VOTE on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

My guess is WP:AN#User Roadcreature / Guido den Broeder. Lectonar (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

In which case, my point stands - there were very good reasons to reinstate that particular ban. Again: you cannot be banned/blocked for no reason. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand everything, but Lectonar you just voted and ignored what he said. He asked for evidence and you didn't give any. That's not ok. But I don't want to get involved. I have a school project to do and I am leaving this topic. I just saw that it can happen to anyone simply because people don't like you, and that's still what I see. Dolberty (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with people liking you. Hardly anyone here actually knows anyone else, so liking or disliking a person doesn't come into it. The only criterion is whether or not your behaviour is good for the project - if you are disruptive, you get blocked/banned, regardless of whether you're the sweetest little old granny on earth or a tattooed thug with personal hygiene issues. Conversely, you can be a raging psychopath and as long as you stay within the rules, you can edit here forever. It's nothing personal. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes people say you behave badly because they know that is how to get rid of you, not because you really did. It has happened to me in school, so I know. Dolberty (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dolberty - I don't know what happened to you in school and am not sure either whether I want to know or whether I am interested. However, you seem to have decided, after two days of experience as a Wikipedia editor, that Wikipedia isn't fair and that it treats some editors badly. I won't spend much effort trying to persuade you otherwise, because, when an editor starts off with the idea that the system is unfair, it usually isn't worth trying to reason with them. The particular case in point is proving controversial, but the real issue seems to be whether the user, who had previously been banned for very good reasons including sockpuppetry, was unwisely unbanned and needed to be banned again. This isn't the place to argue that case, but the case is about whether the punishment was appropriate to the crime, not whether the editor was punished without a crime. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you guys! And yes, I meant blocked, not banned, my bad. The Verified Cactus 100% 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I didn't expect it to be fair and came here anyway, but I do think there was no crime so that is the case I am making. I also think that people shouldn't be punished more than once for the same crime but that is not what happened here. Dolberty (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dolberty - We have been trying to guess what your issue is about. Either you are referring to something else, or is there is plenty of evidence of an offense. Maybe you are saying that, once a punishment has been reduced (even if imprudently), it should not be reinstated. But maybe we are not discussing the same case, because you say that there was no crime. As I said, I don't know what happened to you in school, but you obviously are looking for miscarriages of justice. You might be able to help Wikipedia by finding actual miscarriages of justice, because I am sure that there are some, but just coming in deciding that you are looking for evidence that the world is unfair doesn't help anyone, not us, not victims of injustice, not yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to look any further if that was my goal (it isn't) because this is one. He asked for evidence and nobody had an answer. Now you, too, say there is plenty of evidence, but how can you, Robert McClenon, know when nobody provides any? Dolberty (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)