Hello, The Average Wikipedian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Good afternoon (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Average Wikipedian, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi The Average Wikipedian! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Tardigrade , please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at User:Sp20136761 (you have identified it as vandalism on the talk page), are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Typing "Hello" in the user page is not considered as vandalism by the public. Thank you.Good afternoon (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I’m The Average Wikipedist on French Wikipedia/ Je suis The Average Wikipedist sur Wikipédia française
I'm The Average Wikipedist who made a rename request at fr.wikipedia.org.
Je suis The Average Wikipedist. J’ai fait une demande de renommage mon compte utilisateur sur fr.wikipedia.org.
The Average Wikipedian (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, although I agree that AJ+Bamniya is likely a candidate for speedy deletion, I did want to draw to your attention that tagging an article 60 seconds after creation is a bit bitey and doesn't really assume good faith. This, of course, doesn't apply to things like adverts or attack pages, but generally giving a new user 10+ minutes is a good rule of thumb. --Non-Dropframetalk12:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Non-dropframe:Agreed and noted. The thing is that most of these articles don't get touched and the article creators may be unresponsive. I usually assume good faith if I see that the users are newcomers without much experience and don't have a track record of vandalism. In this specific case, though, it is hard to imagine that the creator would be able to expand enough and notability may not be established. Also, it seems like, from the username, that it could be promotional and be a COI. Given the lack of context, the creator could easily rewrite the information in draft space until the article is in good shape so I don't mean to express hostility. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't misunderstand -- that article was absolutely going to be deleted sooner or later. It's just that near-instant deletion notification after creating an article can be jarring for new users and scare them off. Giving the article 10 or so minutes to sit just makes the nomination seem a bit less...hostile, I guess you could say. I'm certainly not suggesting you were being hostile, it's just how a new user might perceive it. --Non-Dropframetalk14:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I totally understood what you meant. I'll try to contact them on their talk pages to reassure them. I know that the fate of most of these articles are less than promising, so I shall try a more friendly approach in the future. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you're correct. And 10 minutes is a guideline, not established policy. The reason I brought this up to you was because your tag happened literally within one minute of page creation. I just wanted to bring to your attention how an new user might perceive that. --Non-Dropframetalk14:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 15:04:42, 28 July 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Luckybrian
Thank you for reviewing my article draft. Apparently you declined to accept it because Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. Although I have not included footnote notations, I cite 17 reliable, published sources in my draft.
Please see the Wikipedia article "Silver Lake (Mojave)." The author cited three references, which were not footnoted.
Please see the Wikipedia article "Theodore Roosevelt National Park." Only in the capsule and photograph boxes, not the text, did the author cite three references with footnotes.
If I footnoted each citation in my draft, they would number well over a hundred. Can you please advise me how I can cure the defect in a workable manner?
@Luckybrian: Perhaps you could take a moment and read my comment on the page. The layout is a major issue too. However, going back to the references problem, remember that the "notes" section in your draft does not contain sources. Usually, a "notes" section does not include as many notes as yours, and in this case they are not counted as references to begin with. It would be best that you read WP:LAYOUT for relevant guidelines and common practices. There is generally no distinction between so-called "Primary references" and "Other references". Even if those are reliable sources, the citation style is not clear. You could read guidelines such as WP:CS which give loads of advice on referencing. Generally, you should use templates and add inline citations, instead of just general citations not linked to any specific part of the text. The organization of the content of the draft is really odd for a Wikipedia article. Judging by the table of contents alone, it is rather like a travel guide cross history book. You could put the separate parts of the history in subsections under a "History" section. However, such content now is really very long and is too large a part considering the length of the entire article. The tone is not very encyclopedic either. The obituary bit is exceptionally strange. I don't understand why such an article would need an obituary, and it really isn't the way standard Wikipedia articles are written.
However, I enjoy reading your message because it shows that you want to improve and that is the spirit of Wikipedia, so please be welcome to continue to ask for ways to improve and I am very willing to help. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigsburg
Esteemed Average Wikipedian, I don't know how you write articles. I see a red link on a great person who died, fill it, take care of interwiki linkage and talk page tags, expand a bit, - and find your tag of refs needed. Would you please give me 30 minutes before doing such a thing? After looking around that a festival of decades will probably have sources? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I'm really sorry for having upset you, but I am also a bit confused. I may have rushed a bit, having tagged the article you wrote five minutes after creation, but surely the exact same thing could have been done by someone using Page Curation and be seen as normal. I see a new article, I click it, it appears notable, but the only thing I see is the official website, so the natural thing to do would be to tag it for more references. Also, I don't understand why you should be so furious about the whole thing. Such tags are so common on Wikipedia. Moreover, such an experienced editor like you should well know that you could have used draft space and moved it very easily. I don't see the problem with tagging it. It is perfectly normal and happens to loads of articles. Please don't use such adjectives as "esteemed" on my name. I find it quite rude to be honest. You don't have to attack me and give me such a reaction just because I gave an article a tag. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't furious, and am sorry if I came across that way. I am always in bad shape if the people die about whom I write, sorry for that as well. It happens too often. Jon Vickers was the last one where I found a tag awful for an article people look at because the person has died. The barnstar for me referencing it - making it fit for ITN - is still on my talk. - Drafting is a good idea, but doesn't work for me. - English is not my first language, perhaps that explains what may still be open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MulticoreWare
Thanks for your feedback. The initial article was the final draft after many revisions, and I consider it ready for Wikipedia. I shouldn't have used the term "draft" in my comments.Tvaughan1 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Princessella123: It is much improved. Just one slight issue: Are the medical schools mentioned supposed to be part of universities? Is it possible to be more specific instead of linking to the respective cities? Also, you could add the infobox without the image before the copyright problems are solved. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Average Wikipedian: Thanks for your helpful comments! I've now added an infobox and also updated the links of the medical schools (please see below). Yes, in fact these medical schools are part of the respective universities. Could you arrange for the edits to be "approved and implemented"? Thanks a lot for your support. Princessella123 (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Princessella123: Perhaps you would like to add links in the infobox, and perhaps clarify the medical schools (I'm still not sure if I'm getting it right, do you mean Oxford as in the city or the university) and compile a final version since it's actually quite good now and I am pretty sure I can implement the changes without being reverted. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Average Wikipedian: Done! I've just sent my final request. Sorry if you were still uncertain about the medical schools. I rephrased the sentence a bit and believe now it is clearer. Also, I inserted a link which explains the term: In the United Kingdom, medical school generally refers to a department within a university which is involved in the education of future medical practitioners (cf. Medical school in the United Kingdom). Looking forward to your response. Princessella123 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Princessella123: Sorry for disturbing you, but I noticed a problem with your referencing technique. Although there are many good sources, there are templates we use to make citations more clear. I shall implement the changes anyway since these are trivial formatting issues and there should be no problem with you editing them directly as long as the references remain the same. See H:CS1 for a useful list of templates. Don't be too worried, I shall put forth your suggestions and I don't think it should meet opposition. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Average Wikipedian: May I ask you to alter two very minor things? In the "Research" section, a comma should be added after "REM Networks" and it should read "uncovered" instead of "discovered". I'd do it myself but I'd like to follow the rules. THANK YOU! Princessella123 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Diaploki (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully this is the right place to talk to the average wikipedian :-)
Thanks for the advices on the draft:stitch com
I did my best to follow your guidelines to improve my first article.
Please check as I resubmit
(Diaploki (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Request on 10:35:05, 7 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Blackburn cycle
Please say what is giving you a problem.
The 'Blackburn Cycle' massively reduces CO2 emissions from petrol engines, but it is not known, not being tested or debated. This is important new technology. If Wiki is not for this what is it for? I can paste a letter which includes a brief CV and gives background if this helps. Please advise.
Anthony Blackburn
@Blackburn cycle: You have to understand that Wikipedia is not a place for original research, as apparent from your username. You could read other articles on science, but the fact is that (if properly written) none of them are like the draft you submitted. For one, it reads like a news article. It doesn't read in an encyclopedic tone as we require on Wikipedia. That's why we told you to read WP:What Wikipedia is not. Secondly, it is clear that you are in a conflict of interest since everything points to you being the inventor. Furthermore, after some Googling, although there are online resources citing this engine, it may not meet general notability guidelines. The reason for this is because most of the sources are primary or affiliated, while if such an innovation were to be notable, there would be third party coverage such as that from newspaper articles, which don't seem to appear. Please do not paste the letter as it is not going to help further notability.
On a side note, the draft should be moved since the title isn't very appropriate. Just "Blackburn cycle" or "Blackburn cycle engine" (without quotes) would do, depending on what the subject of the article actually is. More questions are welcome. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 11:29:13, 14 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Blackburn cycle
I visited the tea house with David Biddulph who seems to think my web page www.blackburncycleengine.co.uk is a business site. I have no business interests. I simply want to make the world aware of the 'Blackburn Cycle' which is a different cycle to the usual Otto Cycle and much more fuel efficient which in turn produced much less CO2 emissions which in turn would lead to much less Global Warming. My first priority is to get one Car Maker to know this technology exists and works really well, regardless of any financial return. If, later, I obtain some payment this would be welcome to repay my heavy patent costs etc. Perhaps the title should be changed to 'Blackburn Cycle Engine' to avoid conflict with bicycle shops. If you need further changes or any information please indicate.
Anthony Blackburn (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackburn cycle: I advise you to read my previous advice before any further actions. The draft does not look like a Wikipedia article and its notability is yet to be established. Remember, you don't generate notability for the subject of the article. It has to have notability before the article is created. Please read the many guidelines which will help. You can find a lot of help on the welcome message I sent on your talk page. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 18:50:33, 15 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MidasRezerv
I tried to submit an article after getting editing assistance from the second editor that declined my submission. I went through two re-writes so far, and the last decline was due to the language reading too much like an advertisement, so I re-wrote it, and went to the editor to get a review before submitting a third time. There were other editors that commented on it, but did not mention the language needing to be changed again, so if you could give some feedback as to what language needs to be changed, that would be awesome!
Hey, thank you so much for reviewing my page. I had forgotten to add the resources but now I added 9 of them. You mentioned reorganisation, could you give me a hint on what I should reorganise? Thank you
You left a comment under my submission yesterday. It's my first article, and I think it fits all the criteria to become a Wikipedia article. I will have time this evening to do more edits. I'm going to take out the iTunes, Facebook, and band camp references. When you said some references were not reliable were you referring to those? I would appreciate any feed back you might have and will do my best to fix this article.
Thank! BanditRVA (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BanditRVA: Yes, including the YouTube ones, and most of the references following the bullet points are not suitable either. Read WP:RS for guidelines. Please also delete those primary sources and blogs which aren't properly verified. The organization is not very neat, particularly with the "Work" and "History/Member Info" sections. First of all, very few articles are formatted like this. Secondly, this seems quite promotional. Thirdly, after a quick Google search, I don't see many independent sources, so I am beginning to doubt the notability of the band since there is a lack of coverage from reliable sources. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm confused as to what you have just done with my 'Harry French (Loughborough)' entry?
@N14lcp: I was using Twinkle and intended to tag the article (by the way it isn't strictly "yours") for copy editing. However, before my Twinkle action, WikiDan61 changed it to a redirect. As a result, the tag was no longer needed so I undid the tagging. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@N141cp: As for what I did to your article, I changed it to a redirect to the article about Loughborough University, because individual university dormitories are not generally considered notable unless there is something unique historically or architecturally about them. Henry French appears to be just another dorm at a college. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!14:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I submitted an article for review in early August and received feedback regarding its publication issues. Since then, I have edited the article and was wondering when I will be hearing something about that review.
I look forward to hearing from you.
@Jessicahatterman: First of all, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Secondly, you haven't submitted the draft and finally I would decline the submission because:
Hi there! I appreciate the feedback, though I'm still at a loss as to the neutrality of sources issue; the awards are substantiated, the press angles are standard local press success stories (at the largest local daily in the UK), and the financial information etc is backed up by partners.
I'd really appreciate your help on this one! If it's a case of removing sections and condensing the content, I'll happily take your lead.
@TGPMatt: One of the major concerns is that the article is not written neutrally. The content is somewhat slightly promotional and the wording could be less "positive", and some details which are not notable or strictly necessary could be skipped and removed (for example explaining what the Prader-Willi Syndrome Association is seems pretty redundant as the name is quite indicative). More importantly, looking at the references provided, they are almost exclusively praising or promoting the company, together with using affiliated sources instead of independent sources reporting on the company. The notability is not easily visible, and I would say it generally has enough coverage but the some sources would not be appropriate. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Average Wikipedian:I've made as many changes as possible to reflect these requests (cutting down, sticking to the facts), though with the sources provided, I'm wondering if that's more the state of British local press than anything else; it's a cheerleader of any business success, really. I'll happily remove specific sources and restructure around your requests, but I've resubmitted in the meantime. Appreciate the help.
Dear The Average Wikipedian,
Thank you for the review of the wiki article about Gaurav Narayanan
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gaurav_Narayanan&redirect=no
Can you please help me to fix the issues as I dont really get if I am still using "Peacock terms" and in non neutral point of view.
I have resubmitted this article quite few times and being novice user, I might have overlooked some of wiki rules.
Please help me exactly where is the flaw so that I can correct and resubmit.
Thank you for your help.Editandsave (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Editandsave[reply]
@Editandsave: Simply put, the draft is quite promotional. I don't think that the successes mentioned were as successful as claimed. It also appears like it was written by someone related to him to know so much without having to cite many sources. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Average Wikipedian,
Thanks for the reply. I am not sure if it looks promotional. I had earlier used many internet references regarding the subject's work. But later after initial review from wikipedians removed all. I had used the references from newspapers and entertainment media links. My simple goal was to create a wiki page ( biography) for this new movie director. Kindly guide what exactly I should do here. Thank you very much for your help
Editandsave (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Editandsave[reply]
Dear The Average Wikipedian,
Would greatly appreciate your help here to correct the issues in this article for resubmission. Kindly guide me. Thanks in advance. Editandsave (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Editandsave[reply]
@Editandsave: Now that there are just two sources, I'm beginning to doubt the notability of the subject. Perhaps it takes time for notability to be established. If I were to review it again, it would still not meet notability guidelines. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Average Wikipedian, Thanks again for the comment. Does that notability means proof and reference with the subjects name in the work done? If that is the case then the movies that he has directed/acted has place in Wiki with his name in those pages. I have sited only couple of references to start with, assuming that the existing wiki evidences are sufficient to prove the subject's notability and his work. Kindly let me if I am wrong. I have resubmitted again with some changes. Please check and let me know if it meets the wiki policies Editandsave (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Editandsave[reply]
You wrote 26 Sept on Miscellany for deletion: Keep: Although the referencing is poor and definitely does not meet standards, it is a user page which can be developed properly through proper sourcing.
Thanks. How can I improve sourcing? If you click on the references (IEA Statistics) you can find all the data. What is the problem? Rwbest (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwbest: That is the problem precisely. It is all based on one single source, it has next to no encyclopedic information apart from the table and thus isn't very useful, since basically much of it is copying the source. The article on world primary energy consumption has the same problems, just that we cannot WP:PROD it because it is still sourced and informative, we cannot speedy delete it because it doesn't meet any of the criteria, perhaps we could nominate it for deletion through AFD but that would mean losing the data. I might consider merging it into world energy consumption, though, since the data can fit there together with some facts and prose to go with it, as with the draft you wrote too, but first of all you should bring that up on the talk page of that article to see if anyone disagrees and why. Note the other users' !votes on the deletion entry: "original research" (you have to include more published sources), "as a user draft I dont see any current deletion rationale, but as a potential article, its got a LONG way to go" as in you do have a LOT of work to do. Perhaps you could try to read more Wikipedia guidelines. You don't seem very familiar with them and it would be helpful to read some. By the way, note that when the article was PRODed, the reason was "simply a rehash summary of a IAE page, no significant third party coverage." See Template:WelcomeMenu for loads of links and links to other links. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is based on a single source, yes, but why is the IEA not accepted as a very reliable source? It is not the IAE. The International Energy Agency consists of about 200 energy experts from about 30 countries. The same data are also published by other worldwide organisations, e.g. World Energy Council, with slight differences. I can refer to the WEC too, but that doesn't help the reader of World primary energy production much. I hope (s)he likes my short summary of the very large sources. It is not a simple copy, it took me many hours to compile the table.
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources states In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. That applies to the IEA. (I refer to the data, not to the scenarios which are less reliable.) Rwbest (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwbest: I am not saying that it is not a very reliable source. First of all, one source is not enough. Secondly, the research of just one organization is represented in the draft. There should be more research cited other than that by the IEA. Other published sources are needed, partly to confirm the facts provided, and partly to achieve better neutrality if there are any different findings. I know that the table is not a simple copy, you need wikicode for that, but the information inside pretty much is, if it is in line with the reference. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwbest: OK let's get this straight. You merged an article into a user space draft without asking on the talk page for opinions and requested for deletion which was performed. So now there are no mainspace articles on the subject? Could you explain your rationale a bit? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried to put World energy supply in main space but could not. This name is attached to World energy consumption. So I put it in user space draft and wait for review. Now I understand that I've to ask opinion on a talk page. I can try merging in World energy supply, so should I ask on that talk page? There is talk about overall revision, but by whom? Please advise. Rwbest (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwbest: To be terribly honest I'm beginning to lose my patience on this particular case. You keep on asking for me to give advice but you make irrational decisions which are not constructive in any manner. If you are not sure if you are doing the right thing you could always voice out your next move specifically and ask for a comment, which you haven't, causing troublesome decisions. Now that you have caused the deletion of the original page, I really am not sure what you should do next. Frankly speaking it is a bit too late for you to be asking these kinds of questions. Even now I still don't know what you're asking me. Could you ask a clearer question? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwbest: Here's my comment. If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. This is definitely an unorthodox and illogical move. Why are you going to take the long route and hope for the article being "replaced"? I have no idea why you would want an existing article to be replaced and make copy-paste moves. I think this is just a matter of common sense. Why can't you simply add the information to the article? Moreover, can't you see that the words "consumption" and "supply" are different? Forgive me for being blunt, but I am mesmerized by your stubbornness. First you wanted to merge a userspace draft on energy production and consumption, completely ignoring the being completely opposite, which I must stress is a smaller problem compared to you merging the articles the wrong way round (why put something public into userspace and request deletion?) instead of adding your sourced information into the mainspace article and perhaps considering a move? And why wouldn't you ask for opinions on the relevant talk pages (especially before requesting deletion, which is now only reversible if you go find the admin who deleted it to request for it to be restored). Seriously, you should read through your plan:
The aim is that this combination will eventually replace World energy consumption. Then I'll ask comment on User talk:Rwbest/World energy supply. It will take some time.
Now I'm going to tell you why this is frankly an awful plan using plain logic. First of all, you don't have to go through the combine and replace thing. Otherwise we would have to create a new article every time we edit a page. Then of course you don't ask in userspace. No one will even notice you starting the discussion, so of course it is going to take some time. It'll literally take forever. If you ask, of course you'd post on the mainspace article's talk page and go to the talk page of relevant WikiProjects to attract attention and ask for comments. Makes sense, right? I hope you get all of the information and stop imagining that your plan is perfect. It is quite flawed, so as an inexperienced editor you should try to ask for more opinions and actually learn. That's how all of us get to grips with Wikipedia. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I wasn't sure about what to do, so I asked advice. You began to lose patience. I decided to combine World energy consumption and World energy supply and ask comment on the latter talk page. That will not work, you say.
You are not right that I don't see the difference between consumption and supply. Supply is more. In my draft World energy supply covers both production and consumption and a clear distinction is made. On the contrary, World energy consumption covers not only consumption but also "primary supply", so it is a misnomer. In fact, World energy supply redirects to World energy consumption, so a change of name is in order.
Then my move will effectively "add the [my] information to the article", but not simply. I'm afraid that much outdated content has to be deleted. It will be an overall revision.
I don't imagine that my plan is perfect. There must be talk, not on my page but on World energy consumption which has to be renamed. Rwbest (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwbest: You have to consider the page title. Even if you make a clear distinction within the article, the title must cover the major subject, or the other way round. Redirects are just redirects. They can be changed. The fact of an article being a redirect to another as a misnomer can easily be fixed by a simple change. You still don't have to create a new article to replace outdated content. Just replace the information on the existing article. I don't understand the problem with that. Note that you don't WP:OWN any information or article. Finally, world energy consumption is well written and well sourced; the only reason why the information has to be replaced is because the information is outdated. I doubt that a move is needed. Clearly the part talking about supply is a small fraction of the article and supplementary to the consumption information given. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
World energy supply is a gigantic industry that starts with extraction of raw fuel, goes on refining, converting, processing, generating, and finally transporting fuel and electricity to end-users. Only then energy is consumed, dissipated as useless heat. I'm not going to work under the title World energy consumption. Rwbest (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwbest: Wikipedia is not for you only. If you don't want to work under the title, don't do anything. You don't WP:OWN anything on Wikipedia. It's not about your opinion. Nor it is your sole decision to decide what's kept and what isn't. You can't just do whatever you like. There are guidelines, policies, community consensus and user friendliness in mind. In my personal opinion, there is not problem with the title world energy consumption. And anyway, please stop trying to do things the long way round. That's not helpful and wastes a lot of time. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recognize at all my intention in what you think that I am doing. You are fighting a caricature. I just try to find a place in Wikipedia to write about some aspects of energy supply that are not yet described elsewhere.Rwbest (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwbest: Conveniently, for your case, world energy supply exists as a redirect to world energy consumption, meaning that you don't have to go through the AfC process or create a new article. Just use the Template:Under construction. Which makes all of your plans which waste a lot of time even more ridiculous. Just go ahead. That's the easiest solution. I'd be surprised if you don't take such a golden opportunity. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shane Stevens (songwriter) - draft page
Hi - you reviewed the Shane Stevens page I created for review (thank you!). I fixed the external links at the bottom to be named with the appropriate articles they link to and fixed the broken link. Please let me know if you think this is good to go or if there are any extra things I should do. Thank you!
I'm writing to ask advice - I'm wondering where the promotional tone is - I've tried to source almost everything, and as I've been working on Louisville, Kentucky inventors, I admit this person intrigues me, but I've tried to be very mindful of using an encyclopedic tone. That's why I thanked LaMona for the help with those edits.
Is the concern due in part to the article is about an inventor and his achievements? The subject of this entry created and patented a unique way to cook food that is used by chefs in restaurant and commercial kitchens throughout the world, his patents kicked off the mass-production of fast-food in the 1960s and his patents on washing machines are still in use after 57 years. Perhaps the facts sound promotional, but they're verified by objective sources.
Please point out the promotional tone in the draft and could someone point to an example of a more objectively written entry of an inventor? Every entry I see on Wikipedia about an inventor seems promotional (some very promotional) when their accomplishments are discussed.
@WmArbaugh: The inclusion of "Collectramatic®" in the lead with its impacts is already quite promotional, especially when making the claim
“
After nearly 50 years, Shelton's Collectramatic is still the most widely used production pressure fryer throughout the world.
”
which is supported by two obviously affiliated sources (Winstonind and Winston Industries).
Subsequent sections contain words such as "success" and generally are not providing biographical information of Mr. Shelton but somewhat showing off his inventions. You can mention his inventions but not write of them like advertisements or promotional leaflets as they contain phrases that appear so. Examples include "Subsequent research proved food could be prepared to exacting precision using Shelton's Controlled Vapor Technology, allowing chefs much greater control over interior and exterior moisture, temperature and time during the preparation of many foods." which sounds way too consumer oriented.
The sources cited are mostly primary. See WP:RSE, which also discourages overuse of patents as references. Those to Winston Industries are not that appropriate either. More references should be to independent sources. If you have further enquiries, feel free to ask me or post on the Articles for Creation talk page. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for reminding me (and pointing out that there is indeed a logo by the same name, only citing some entirely different company, quite embarrassing actually!), but I am currently hunting the (c) holders of this graphic which is already 15 years old. As soon as I have that, the logo goes up (under a different name, to be sure). --WernR (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added several new sources to the article now, what do you think? (logo upload is still pending, as the copyright holders ask me where this will go, not being able to "see" the entry) --WernR (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WernR: I can read a tiny bit of German, not enough for some of the sources. There are many references indeed, I just cannot be sure for myself how independent and reliable they are. I'll leave it to other AFC reviewers to decide. On the surface it looks OK to me. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote POV
You requested inline citations for North Caucasus Line. Since the article summarizes one book and almost everything can be found in the index, I don't know why inline citations would be useful. As for tone or style, I am mystryfied. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Benjamin Trovato: There are large sections without a single inline citation, where some of the paragraphs do need better referencing. Also, regarding the tone, I find sections such as "Who were the Caucasus Cossacks?" of unencyclopedic tone. Even the section title is a question, whereas questions don't usually appear anywhere in encyclopedia articles unless found in quotations. The "History" section could also be copy edited for some specific places where the tone is not very good. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hippocrashed: The source you gave me is primary. How would you want me to show notability? From my experience, Chinese Wikipedians adhere quite strictly to the notability guidelines and will delete articles that don't meet the requirements fairly quickly. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipposcrashed: I hope it's fine for you if I work on it a bit later. I haven't been able to squeeze much time for editing lately. Could you wait for about a month? I'll try to get it done by the end of June, when I will have much more free time. Sounds fine? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipposcrashed: Just to inform you I have come out of a Wikibreak and work has started in my zhwiki sandbox but it will take some time because my computer is undergoing some fixes here and there. I'm surprised that the microcalligraphy page has not been deleted on enwiki. It's in such poor shape. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for May 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Portlick Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victorian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heliaster microbrachius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regeneration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, as you have made major contributions to this article I am informing you that it has been nominated for AFD and that you are allowed to vote whether it should be kept or deleted and to explain why at the AFD discussion linked from the article.Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Review needs your help
Hi The Average Wikipedian,
As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).
Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.
Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.
It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.
Hello, The Average Wikipedian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I noticed you are a beginner-level JavaScript programmer...
I found you listed at Category:User js-1 (probably because you posted the corresponding userbox on your user page), and thought you might be interested in improving your skills by getting involved with developing user scripts, hobnobbing with other JavaScript programmers, and organizing and improving JavaScript articles and support pages.
The WikiProject also organizes every resource it can find about JavaScript out there, such as articles, books, tutorials, etc. See our growing Reference library.
If you would like to join the JavaScript WikiProject, feel free to add your name to the participants list.
@The Transhumanist: Thanks for the notification. I'm js-1 because I am really pretty crap at the stuff and only have a basic understanding, but even though improving my JavaScript skills isn't one of my top priorities it does sound quite interesting and I'll look into it if I have the time, interest or need. Thanks again for the message (sounds like the WikiProject does a lot of work) I really appreciate the opportunity. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was wondering if you could scrape up some free time to do a little beta testing on some user scripts I have written. They actually work, but I've only tested them on Firefox.
Beyond beta testing, if you'd like to take a closer look to learn more about JavaScript, keep in mind that I've written extensive notes about the source code on the scripts' talk pages to help beginners understand how they work. Along with links to further descriptive explanations.
So far, there is:
User:The Transhumanist/OutlineViewAnnotationToggler.js – this one provides a menu item to turn annotations on/off, so you can view lists bare when you want to (without annotations). When done, it will work on (the embedded lists of) all pages, not just outlines. Currently it is limited to outlines only, for development and testing purposes. It supports hotkey activation/deactivation of annotations, but that feature currently lacks an accurate viewport location reset for retaining the location on screen that the user was looking at. The program also needs an indicator that tells the user it is still on. Otherwise, you might wonder why a bare list has annotations in edit mode, when you go in to add some. :) Though it is functional as is. Check it out. After installing it, look at the body of the Outline of cell biology, and press ⇧ Shift+Alt+a. And again. The annotations should disappear and reappear again.
User:The Transhumanist/RedlinksRemover.js – strips out entries in outlines that are nothing but a redlink. It removes them right out of the tree structure. But only end nodes (i.e., not parent nodes, which we need to keep). It delinks redlinks that have non-redlink offspring, or that have or are embedded in an annotation. It does not yet recognize entries that lack a bullet (it treats those as embedded).
It is my objective to build a set of scripts that fully automate the process of creating outlines. This end goal is a long way off (AI-complete?). In the meantime, I hope to increase productivity as much as I can. Fifty percent automation would double an editor's productivity. I think I could reach 80% automation (a five-fold increase in productivity) within a couple years.
There's more:
User:The Transhumanist/StripSearchInWikicode.js – another script, which strips search results down to a bare list of links, and inserts wikilink formatting for ease of insertion of those links into lists. This is useful for gathering links for outlines. I'd like this script to sort its results. So, if you know how, or know someone who knows how, please let me know. A more immediate problem is that the output is interlaced with CR/LFs. I can't figure out how to get rid of them. Stripping them out in WikEd via regex is a tedious extra step. It would be nice to track them down and remove them with the script.
Hello, The Average Wikipedian. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, The Average Wikipedian. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello The Average Wikipedian! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk17:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
