text:
Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 670

how to upload a DVD cover from 2007
Hello friendly helpers, I would like to upload on this page here Catherine (1986 TV series) the DVD cover from this television series. https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/English/TV_Series/Marion_Sarraut/Marion_Sarraut_TV_Serie_Catherine.htm (I have a copy in a larger size of course, even with the autograph of the girl on the cover ;-)

Can someone please guide me how I have to upload it, where and what I have to write? All I understood so far is something about fair use? Thanks a lot for helping me with this matter. I know that Wikimedia Commens is very strict. Best Laramie1960 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hey Laramie1960. It's not totally clear which image you're wanting there. Maybe if you can be more specific someone can walk you through it, or you can file a request at WP:Files for upload. Right click on the exact image you want, click "open image in new tab" and then copy/paste that url, rather than the url to the website, at least if you can.  T J W  talk   19:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi TWJ talk,

okay, this is again a link to see the cover: https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/images/dvd/catherine-il-suffit-d-un-amour-dvd-1986.jpg maybe best without the signature of the actress. I got this also in a higher resolution if necessary. Best Laramie1960 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Laramie1960 ✅  T J W  talk   22:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hello TJW talk,

almost forgot to thank you here in the Teahouse also for your great help. Without your advices and helpful hand that lovely cover would never be there now :-) I was told to give up, but I said it cannot be, an article is so much nicer with an image. Have a nice day and believe me your help is not just appreciated by me. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

communicating with editors
I have started to add information to wiki pages and now a user (Iztwoz) who is "Guild of Copy Editors" and member of various Wiki projects has kindly reverted my addition. So, how can I communicate with Iztwoz to learn in what way I best can contribute to the pages that he/she edit and looks over? I can´t find a textbox which I can direct to Iztwoz??? /Figgep

Figgep (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Welcome to the Teahouse. There are two ways you can communicate with the editor. At your talk page, type  and the editor will get a notification. Alternatively you can visit User talk:Iztwoz and click "New section" on top of the page to add your comment. I must be very clear though, do not copy and paste directly from a source. It's called plagiarism (or copyrights violation) and it will usually result in indefinite block. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 08:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Figgep. I've just finished reverting the rest of your edits (those did not revert) and I've redacted all of the page histories. You must not infringe on copyright and engage in plagiarism again, now that you've been informed of the issue. We take these types of violations very seriously, and as Alex Shih indicates above, they quickly result in blocks. That being said, we are a forgiving community, assume good faith, and if there's no repeat there's no problem. Here I assume you just did not realize you could not take previously written text and paste it here as your own writing. I will leave you a canned template on your talk page about this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Fuhghettaboutit, I am of course fully aware of the word and meaning of plagiarism! Was just the first time writing anything here on wiki and did not think about this, since all the text written on Human Protein Atlas about normal tissues, cancer etc. have been written by myself. But, since they are publicly available at our site (proteinatlas.org), I will start re-phrasing and minimize re-use of my earlier sentences. Thanks for pointing this out, one has to learn somehow how this works! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been marked for speedy deletion, but I rewrote the page. How will I know if I've solved the issue?
I haven't even submitted my page yet and I received,

"A tag has been placed on User:Shelbypaiget/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic."

I've re-written and taken out "puffy" wording. How will I know if it's okay now? Shelbypaiget (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. While pages in sandboxes usually are not speedy deleted, they can be in certain circumstances, like if the page is considered too promotional even for a sandbox. Since it was deleted I can't tell you exactly what was promotional about it(an administrator who sees this page will likely look at it, or you can ask the deleting administrator) but I can say that if it merely told of a company and its services, or used promotional language, it likely would not be acceptable even in a Sandbox.  Wikipedia pages must do more than merely tell about a company, they must indicate with independent reliable sources(click WP:RS to review what those are) how the article subject meets notability guidelines, in this case WP:ORG(those for businesses).   Wikipedia is not like social media; not every company merits a page here, and Wikipedia is more selective about its content.
 * I'm not sure if you are associated with the subject you are writing about; if you are, it would be what is called a conflict of interest; click on WP:COI for more information. If you have other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like the page User:Shelbypaiget/sandbox already got deleted, repeatedly. It's a good idea to ask – which is exactly what you did. We'd need to see that page to have an opinion though. Since normal users cannot see deleted pages and the page has been protected from further re-creation, I suppose we need to ask an admin for their opinion. Just keep in mind that promotional content is not just a style issue. Related problems like notability also often play a role. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just taken look at the last version of the page, and yeah, that ain't a suitable article by a long shot, sorry. It reads like something you'd see on the company's website: the company's policies, how the product can be used, notes on how great the security is, the advantages of its business solutions... The deletion was entirely in line with Wikipedia's policies; I'd have nuked it myself if I'd seen it first. Yunshui 雲 水 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Alisha Panwar
How to unblock and undeleted my account  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A141:DC93:0:0:1E2C:80AC (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hello anon. Please see Guide to appealing blocks, which includes instructions in how to request your account be unblocked on the user talk page of the blocked account. Please do so on the talk page of your original account in the case that the original account (whichever one that is) complies with our policy on usernames. Your article has not been deleted, it has been moved, and is currently at Draft:Alisha Panwar.  T J W  talk   13:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ...which has now been deleted G5.  T J W  talk   15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Alisha Panwar
How to unblock and undeleted my account can you undeleted my account address is here Alisha Panwar  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A141:DC93:0:0:1E2C:80AC (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Alisha Panwar was deleted and creation protected. You are currently logged out, but I know of now user accounts in connection with this article that are blocked. If you want to re-create the article based on Draft:Alisha Panwar, you need to file a request here: Deletion review. Note that at its current state the draft is not admissible. You need to cite all information you give with reference to reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears that you attempted to appeal here Requests for undeletion but your request is empty. Please improve the draft up to standard and re-file the request. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. It looks as if was blocked for sockpuppeting. Block evasion is a very bad thing, you shouldn't do it and I think it's too late for you to regret. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Significance of Usernames in red
I have a student who is working in a contested subject area. When we look at the history page for the article, trying to get a sense of the interested community, many of the usernames are in red and there are no user pages associated with them. Does the red indicate these accounts have been deleted? Are these users no longer active?Jagrif02 (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Jagrif02. Any page which hasn't yet been created - including userpages - will show as a redlink. Deleted pages will also show as redlinks, but in the case of user pages, it's usually just the case that the user in question is relatively new and hasn't created their userpage yet. Yunshui 雲 水 15:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jagrif02 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Page Deletion Inquiry
Hello. I contributed an article on behalf of company Haver Analytics for submission which was subsequently delted by an editor. I have read the guidelines regarding relevancy and souring, and provided lots of cited articles and publications to satisfy these requirements. Our page is not marketing material, but ackwoledging the contribution of our CEO and her company to the field of economics and data analysis. Furthermore, similar companies in our sphere have featured pages with apparent less external source qualification:

Examples

 * Bloomberg Terminal
 * Eikon
 * EcoWin

How are these acceptable and my submission was not? I would like to link to the draft page to allow you to gain my perspective, but it appears that upon deletion, I am not able to even access the draft space of my article that I was able to edit and review prior. Can you please inform how this can be recovered? I find it hard to believe that I would have to start over from scratch because of rejection from one editor.

I would be in great appreaciation of some guidance on how to move forward with my contribution.

Thanks very much Peteuberg (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Am I correct in assuming that by ...on behalf of company Haver Analytics... you mean that you are paid for your contributions by this company, in a broad sense? (If your boss asked you to do it, it counts as "paid contribution" even if it is not directly linked to a bonus.) If so, please immediately read WP:PAID and make the necessary disclosure.
 * You can ask to retrieve the text of the draft at WP:REFUND to keep working on it, but usually, if it is deleted even from draft space, it means you should start from scratch.
 * You say you have read the guidelines about notability and sourcing, but I am not sure you understood them. I am guessing here (since I cannot read your draft, and after all errors happen), but if it got deleted, it most likely was not sourced remotely well enough. The point is not to have some or a lot of sources, it is to have good sources, that simultaneously (1) address the topic subject in detail, (2) are reliable, and (3) are independent of the subject. If you can provide such sources here, I could tell you if they are OK in that regard.
 * As for other articles, please read WP:OSE. Feel free to nominate those articles for deletion (I can do it on your behalf if you give a detailed rationale) if you think they are too lightly sourced, but don't bring up the point to discuss another article. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * . Hello and welcome.  I would add to the above that OSE or "other stuff exists" is a poor argument, because each page here is judged on its own merits.  Wikipedia is not like social media or directory websites, it is more selective about its content.  Please understand that not every company merits a page here, even companies within the same field.  In addition, a page does not have to be formal marketing materials or selling something in order to be considered promotional; I can't see your page either, but if all it did was cite primary sources explaining what the company does, that is not sufficient for an article.  Wikipedia has little interest in what a company says about itself, but what third parties state about it instead.
 * You may also want to click on and review WP:ORG, the notability guidelines for companies, to learn what is being looked for in terms of notability. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , some information in WP:FAQ/Organizations might also be helpful and covers most of the commonly asked questions about company-related editing. GermanJoe (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has an interesting deletion history, from what I'm able to discern. deleted Draft:Haver Analytics on 6 September, under CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", presumably the version  was referring to. A non-draft Haver Analytics article was deleted back in 2007 for essentially the same reason; that version began "Haver Analytics is a leading provider of economic, financial, industry and forecast information." If the draft was anything like that, its deletion was appropriate, because Wikipedia's voice should never designate any entity as "leading", "award-winning", "innovative", etc. — such language, if used at all, must be in the form of a direct quotation from a reliable source. The draft had been restored via WP:REFUND in January of this year after having been deleted as abandoned (i.e. not edited in over 6 months) in December 2016.
 * While it is sometimes possible to strip out promotional language from an article or draft, doing so can be difficult and tedious, and sometimes the entire structure of an article or draft is promotional, making it more practical to "blow it up and start over". Perhaps Alex Shih, a regular Teahouse contributor, will stop by to shed further light on the state of the draft most recently deleted. It's worth noting that only Wikipedia administrators (not just any editor) can delete articles, and all administrators have significant experience which led to the community granting them administrator duties and privileges. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 16:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look at both deleted pages, the mainspace version was a fairly typical "corpcruft" advertorial - singing the praises of the founder and CEO and name-dropping "notable relationships" with other orgs - the kind of article that is routinely zapped under G11. The draft version was simply blatant spam. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Same thoughts with . There are borderline cases on occasion, but this wasn't one of them. Alex ShihTalk 02:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hello, . I'm afraid that if you are even entertaining the concept of contributing an article "on behalf of company Haver Analytics", then you have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose and operation of Wikipedia, nd you're likely to hve a frustrating experience. Wikipedia articles are not "on behalf of" anybody except Wikipedia: as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is not Haver's business whether or not we have an article about them, or what it contains. Having said that we do wish our articles to be accurate as far as possible, and if we had an article, Haver (or you) would be welcome to make suggestions for improvement. As for creating an article: you are discouraged, but not forbidden. But please take note of what other replies have said. --ColinFine (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

how to add a source
how do you add a source to your edit? Ilovemathtothe6power (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. If this relates to the edit you attempted to make at Hall, Montana, we need an independent reliable source(WP:RS) that states the information you are attempting to add.   All information in Wikipedia articles needs to be cited. Information on citing sources can be found by clicking WP:CITE. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll add that since it seems to be a population figure you are adding, you may be able to get information from the US Census Bureau or a different government agency, either state or federal. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much!

Ilovemathtothe6power (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

tone issue about an article being created
Draft:Wicanders

I need help doing a final revision of the tone of the article linked above. I have attempted to make all the adjustments recommended by the reviewers. Please feel free to give guidance and revisions recommendations.

Insulatedpolar (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * It still reads like an advertisement. Which of the references do you believe provide evidence that the subject is notable? Maproom (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Pinging because it seems  forgot to when answering. And repeating the pings to  and   because I forgot to sign my comment. /o\  GrammarFascist   contribs talk 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Jornal Economico is one of the biggest sources of media in Portugal, it is essentially the Portuguese version of The Economist. Dinheiro Vivo and Marketeer are also reputable Portuguese sources. Before being recommended to remove the section, I had references to the Ceo of the Group passing from Business Insider and Forbes. This company is a part of the biggest Cork Manufacturing company in the world, and is the biggest cork flooring company in the world. I'm not sure how to further prove it's notability outside of that fact.

Insulatedpolar (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Jornal Economico may well be a totally reliable source, but the only reference to it appears to be based on either an interview or a press release from Corticeira Amorim, and so is not independent of Wincanders, and is incapable of contributing to their notability as Wikipedia uses the term. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How to edit individual references that are part of a Reflist?
I have found an error in an attribution in a reference. When I click (edit), the Editing page shows the following: "==References==" ...followed by "Reflist" enclosed in double braces. No actual markup is displayed for the individual references, and (so far) I can't figure out how to get access to the individual references so I can make the correction. I've read the Template:Reflist page, the Help:Footnotes page, and the Help:Automatically generated reference list page, but without success.

How can I edit individual references that are part of a Reflist in a page I haven't created?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freevito (talk • contribs) 17:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Welcome to Wikipedia. The reference is defined at the place in the article where it is used, not in the references section.  This is explained in Help:Footnotes, but you might find it more clearly explained at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks David! Corrections made. --Freevito (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

May I thank all who assistd me?
I wish to thank all who assisted me over 12 days creating, reviewing and approving my article. The first I ever attempted to create starting with thousands of words filtered down to about 50! My special thanks to jmcgnh for sticking with me through thick and thin and ww2censor who offered the most simple and direct instructions for adding an original photo. Just 12 days from scratch to finish and I think it is all it needs to be.Palukiwa (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Status of Draft Pages
How can I check on the status of draft page "2nd Watch" that I submitted for approval?Nmaus2017 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. Other than your post above, there is no record of any contributions under your username, and I could not find the page by typing in the title you provided.  If you created the article before your username, or created it while logged out, please link to the draft in question. Thanks 331dot (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User talk:<IP_ADDRESS> may help? --David Biddulph (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

My text is not saved anymore on the article I am working at ?
Hello friendly helpers, somehow all of a sudden text I write cannot be seen when I click save. I have done it now twice, but it is still not there. I begin to believe my page there is bewitched... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laramie1960/Catherine:_One_Love_is_Enough#cite_note-6

This is what I get: The begin of the Catherine Novels It all had started on the day Juliette Benzoni attended a Quiz show called: [5] Le Gros Lot (in Association with the National Lottery in France). Though she failed on the second last question, the next day, Gérald Gauthier,. instead of:

The begin of the Catherine Novels
It all had started on the day Juliette Benzoni attended a Quiz show called: Le Gros Lot (in Association with the National Lottery in France). Though she failed on the second last question, the next day, Gérald Gauthier,.

The first Publishers (1962) Article (1963) stood in line to buy the rights for the Catherine story. The names of these first countries were Germany, Holland, Spain, Sweden, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, England.

It is really strange, because so far when I deleted something or when I copied it and added it above or beneath I had no trouble at all.

And what is so odd, the text is there when I click edit. Does someone know what is going wrong at the moment? Because the part where I write about the location of the story is actually there, and that is what I had done just before I clicked enter. Thanks for checking for me. Kindly, Laramie1960 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hey Laramie1960. You forgot to close your ref. You had  instead of , so the software thought that literally everything that followed was a reference, instead of part of the article.   T J W  talk   18:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I am sorry for all this "mess" I send here. I have no idea why this is happening. On my page everything is clean and clear. so really odd.

Thanks for having a look. Best Laramie1960 (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi TJWtalk,

thanks again for helping me out. That article is really bewitched, I am totally frustrated at the moment. It seems the more I want to do it right, the more it gets messed up. But thats the way it is when something starts on the wrong foot. Have a nice evening, best to you. Laramie1960 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Do people sometimes prefer not having a Wikipedia article about them for more clicks to their website? (e.g. Global Challenges Foundation)
I created the 2017 Global Challenges Foundation Prize draft and now I'm wondering whether there are some organizations, conferences and alike which prefer not to have a Wikipedia article about them as they might wish for people to not read a Wikipedia article but go directly to their website.

While a Wikipedia article doesn't prevent anyone from going to the actual website and typically links to the official website it might decrease the pageviews of official websites. Is there data on this? And what would you think organizations such as the Global Challenges Foundation prefers? Note that having a Wikipedia article about an organization can have many advantages even if it potentially(?) decreases pageviews of the official website while it doesn't necessarily increases awareness about the organization/... or improves the information about it when compared to the website's content such as: better recognition (i.e. people assuming that something can't be that important if there isn't even a Wikipedia page on it) and oftentimes clearer, aggregated (many sources) and shorter information on the subject.

Also they might want to have article appear only after a while as they'd want people to get the information from their website instead for a specified time.

But as most organizations don't seem to be willing(?) to communicate with Wikipedia such as by creating talk page entries I can only guess. I don't want to do anything that will have unintended effects.

So I'd like to ask for relevant data on the pageview-relationship of these types of articles, relevant past statements and cases of this and your opinions on this in general and the draft I linked in particular.

WikIdeaCatalyzation (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising portal. It's longstanding Wikipedia policy that (except in the case of a few edge cases of living people with marginal notability), whether or not the subject wants to be covered on Wikipedia has no bearing on whether an article is kept or not. (I suspect most subjects would prefer they not be covered. Because of the way Google works, Wikipedia pages are generally near the top of search results, and a lot of people hate the fact that Wikipedia articles are neutral and cover the negatives as well as the positives.) ‑ Iridescent 20:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Iridescent said, which is entirely accurate, it's generally acceptable to link to a company or personal website in the infobox. If a reader wants, they can skip reading the Wikipedia article and go straight to it. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Also google routinely lifts Wikipedia content and Wikidata from the Wikimedia project, so having a Wikipedia article positively affects the company's google search results. (but does not necessarily drive traffic.) Α Guy into Books ™  § ( Message ) -  22:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Finding the proper place to ask my question
I would like to prepare a short biographical article about a living academic. I believe this person meets the criteria under Notability (Academics) but I would like feedback from others who are more experienced before proceeding. Is there is a proper place to address questions of this nature here or elsewhere on Wikipedia?

thank you, Bruce SIAM Bruce (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. You are welcome to ask your question here, or if you would prefer, you can ask at the Biography WikiProject, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, happy to ask here but will also post elsewhere if anyone thinks I should.

The person in question is Samual Gubins. Ph.D. Johns Hopkins 1970; Chairman of Department of Economics and Vice President for Finance, Haverford College, 1968-81; Sr. Vice President, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1982-87; Chairman, Pennsylvania Humanities Council, 1988-94; President and Editor in Chief of Annual Reviews, a nonprofit scientific publishing organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_Reviews_(publisher)), 1995-2015. Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

So for starters, looking for confirmation that Dr. Gubins meets the criteria for notability. If so, I'll try to begin building the biographical article.

Again, thanks.

Bruce SIAM Bruce (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Additionally: Here is biographical sketch of Dr. Gubins posted by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences: https://www.amacad.org/peerCollaboration/profile.aspx?c=psa&q=gubinsSIAM Bruce (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * There are specific notability criteria for academics; they can be found by clicking WP:NPROF. As I look at the criteria, one of the listed ones is "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)" and you post above that this person was at one point a named chair of a college department, so it seems to me that the meet at least that crierion and would merit an article. They may also meet other criteria as well. You will just need to show that, and the other information that will be in the article, with independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that he held a named chair, ? Holding a named chair and being the chair (head) of a department are different things. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, thanks. I clearly missed that one. It still might be worth giving it a shot, though. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A good way to start a new article is to visit Articles for Creation which allows you to submit a draft for review before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your feedback, I will get to work on a draft for the Articles for Creation page.SIAM Bruce (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What to put on user page
What should I put in the empty box to create my userpage.Squattergame (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Welcome to Wikipedia. You don't need a user page at all.  If you want one, advice on permitted content is at WP:User pages.  --David Biddulph (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

arthc breach of copyright NOT
I am trying to post on your system and now it states its a breach of copyright, I am the web administrator to the museum and know its not a breach, you allow all these other museums to post why not us.

I think you need to look at your system and allow our page.

But if you still don't think its right, and yes I have tried a few time to port our content then we will just not you your system and not recommend any one else too

ArthcGundagai (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hey ArthcGundagai. This was not done by "our system" it was done by an editor, and was done because the content was copied and pasted from elsewhere online. In almost all cases this is a violation of copyright and is basically illegal. If the museum would like to licence their content so that it would not be a violation of copyright, they can follow the steps at WP:CONSENT.  T J W  talk   00:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Hello and welcome. If you wish to use copyrighted materials here, permission needs to be properly given.  Please click on WP:DCP and read it to learn how to do so, and on what doing so actually means do as Timothyjosephwood states above.  It just isn't accurate that we "allow all these other museums to post".  While we don't prohibit people associated with museums from posting, they also must do so in accordance with Wikipedia policies, including those on copyright.
 * As you state you work for the museum, you also need to review the conflict of interest policy(WP:COI) as well as the paid editing policy(WP:PAID). Doing the latter is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you have a paid editing relationship. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia never allows anyone to "port their content" because it is not a website that hosts such content. It is an encyclopaedia that has articles (owned by all editors equally) about notable topics.  All such articles must be written in an encyclopaedic style, and content ported from elsewhere is very seldom suitable, even if copyright-free.  Your username is that of an organisation.  This is not permitted under Wikipedia rules, so the account has been blocked.  You will need to create an individual account.    D b f i r s   08:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to edit or remove a hyperlink I added that did not work
Hi everyone!

This was my first attempt at a Wikipedia edit and I have botched it! I'm so sorry about that. I thought I had read and knew enough, but I didn't. I'm working on a podcast about the unsolved homicide of Jennifer Servo, a TV reporter who was murdered 15 years ago this week. I created a website for that podcast and I wanted to link it to Ms. Servo's Wikipedia page. I also want to add documentation to her page (in the near future) so (according to the banner on her page) it does not get "merged, redirected, or deleted", which I do not know how to do either. I'll research it.

I'm not sure now the steps I took, but would someone please be kind enough to look at the very bottom of Ms. Servo's page and you will see the non-hyperlink wwww.JusticeDelayedPod.com. I put that in and it is a legitimate site about Ms. Servo, although I'll let you guys make that final decision. I also plan to add more to my own website about Ms. Servo over time.

Thanks for any help you can provide. Even just deleting my website addition is fine. At some point after I do more research about how to add it, I'll try again. Thanks so much and sorry for the extra work I'm giving to someone. Sharonnewmanedwards (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I removed the link from the Jennifer Servo article. Please see WP:ELNO. We generally don't add links to our own sites. If you want to add a link to a site that you're involved with, you have a conflict of interest. You should propose your link on the article's talk page rather than adding it to the article. No harm done, though. Welcome! ~Anachronist (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Try to find some news coverage to show notabilty. also reading WP:N may help you. Α Guy into Books ™  § ( Message ) -  08:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit for review
I was advised to use reviews for my edits, but I don't know how to do this and couldn't find it on the Help:Editing article. I don't think I had marked it as a minor edit. --Candide124 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. I see that reverted your edit to Gastrointestinal perforation. I'm not sure why, as the sentence about self-inflation to diagnose intestinal perforation makes perfect sense to me (albeit a bit lacking in detail); I'm also not sure what Doc James meant by "reviews" in that context. Hopefully Doc James will stop by and we can discuss the change here; alternately the two of you can talk about it on the article talk page. Generally when you have a conflict with another editor over different versions of an article, the article talk page is the best place to discuss it, though depending on the nature of the conflict (like if the other party is engaging in obvious vandalism or copyright violation or some other kind of edit that should prompt a warning) sometimes it can be better to post on the  other editor's talk page. When trying to attract the attention of an editor to a page other than their own talk page, remember to ping them; I pinged Doc James by using the U template, like so:   The Teahouse is a good place to come to if that approach doesn't work (the other editor ignores you or you can't come to an agreement). Also remember to give the other editor time to respond; we're all volunteers here, so we're often busy with "real life" in between editing Wikipedia. — GrammarFascist   contribs talk 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So the source was from the 1880s. Would be good to use a more recent source.
 * What does "successfully tested the diagnosis of gastrointestinal perforation by inflation with hydrogen gas" mean? Did he have a perf before hand then added hydrogen gas to confirm it? How would it be confirmed? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . We have particularly stringent standards for the type of reliable sources used in medical articles or in any other Wikipedia article that makes a medical claim. If you read and study WP:MEDRS, you will understand that "review" articles in this context are broad medical journal articles that review and analyze the results of a large number of more specific medical journal articles on a specific medical topic, and summarize the current state of medical knowledge on that topic. Because any one research study can be an outlier, review articles are considered the "gold standard" for referencing Wikipedia articles that make medical claims., have I summarized this matter properly? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the WP:MEDRS does mention "There are exceptions to these rules of thumb: History sections often cite older work". --Candide124 (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure so works from the 1980s or 1990s would be fine for the history section. This does not mean that works from the 1880s are also fine. Does any recent secondary source support this? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My company page is declining every time since all details are True : Rent4free.com
Since my company is a startup there is a limitation to get reliable source. then how can i publish my company page. Only reliable source company will publish. How could you people know they are reliable or not. How start up company can make aware to people about the company. If something about the company is not true you can decline, sine all the details are true again declining. DisgustingPrasanthprasuhari (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is.  It is an encyclopedia, and not a forum to publicize or promote a company.  Not every company merits a page here.  As such, Wikipedia is more selective about its content than social media or other forums for businesses to discuss themselves.  Companies must already be notable as shown in independent reliable sources to merit an article here. You cannot use Wikipedia to generate notability or attention for your "startup".
 * If you just want to promote your business, you will need to find another forum in which to do so, be it social media or elsewhere. You may be able to find such a forum by clicking WP:OUT.  331dot (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Unless you have significant coverage in independent sources you are not notable. There are ways to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool, all of which are against Wikipedias policies and editors here will stop you from doing them, if you try to get round the policies you may be indefinitely blocked. My advice is to wait until your business has got some independent coverage and then submit a request for article creation. Someone will then make an article if your company passes the WP:N and WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. Α Guy into Books ™  § ( Message ) -  14:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Procedure for integrating Social media links in Knowledge graph
I happened to come across several cases that in Google search using some company name or person's name brief Wiki info along with social media links also appear on the right had side of the search window. According to my knowledge when we want to integrate such links through Google knowledge graph Social media schema codes can satisfy the need and in Wiki's case how we could make social media links made available in Knowledge Graph Trishna2017 (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ask Google, not us. John from Idegon (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi Trishna2017. Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Trishna2017 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Seeking a process how to search a pattern of articles
Hi! There! I like to complete any type of incomplete wiki articles by adding, including, concluding relevant required information, subject, reference and media files. I also like to help respected wiki editors to develop their articles by re-arranging paragraphs and adding features. Therefore, I am Seeking a process how to search such type of articles that may, need to add reference, sentences, information. I mean, how can I easily get incomplete Wikipedia articles? are there any key word to search or any specific format?

Your's Sincerely --- Willy-nilly (talk) 07:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Wikipedia articles are rated for completeness by a class system. When a class rating is assigned to an article (you'll find them at the top of the talk page), that also adds the article to a category. The least complete articles are called stubs. You can find them by searching out the category. Examples: Category:Stub-Class school articles, Category:Stub-Class Indiana articles. John from Idegon (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Another thing you might try is looking at Category:Wikipedia article cleanup. Articles which have problems are often tagged with maintenance templates which in turn adds the article to a category page where other similar articles can be found. You can just pick a category and see if there are articles you might be able to clean up. You can also join Wikipedia:Cleanup or WP:GUILD since those WikiProjects focus on article clean up, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon and Marchjuly, Thank you for your helpful informative comments. Moreover, actually when I ever first signed in with this of my ID then a notice were appeared at the top of my Wikipedia page. The notice was saying almost like this:- You can help others article to improve by adding information. Now it does not appears. But I need to get such articles to contribute with them. --- Willy-nilly (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Missing Questions
After the beginning of Sept. I submitted two questions. Coming back here I don't see them here or on the archive page. Any idea if you received them? I would just like to know before typing them out again. I did sign them and they did seem to be transmitted to the Tea House. Maybe they went to a higher authority, I don't know. I doubt the "higher authority" business. Nicodemus (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * both of your questions were replied to and can be found in Teahouse/Questions/Archive 667, sections 2 and 5. Nthep (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

How can I upload a Picture and link it to a person already mentioned on Wiki?
My grand father's name is mentioned in the recipients in Khan Sahib and Khan Bahadur pages. I want to make page for his achievements and upload his picture on the page and link it to the two pages mentioned above. Can you please help me with that?AliHKhan (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does your grandfather meet this guideline? In the sense that he is notable, he will meet the general notability and biography notability guidlines? My name is not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 09:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes he does. My Grand father was awarded the Titles of Khan Sahib & Khan Bahadur which is already mentioned and so must be verified. Those titles were awarded to him by the British Government for his excellence in the service. Plus he fought in the World Wars I & II for the Royal Army, that must also be verifiable for you. Also he was the 1st Director General Survey of Pakistan, so that also can be verified. Lastly, he was Honored with the Rank of Lieutenant Colonel by the Pakistan Army. There were many more contributions that our countrymen need to know so I would like to mention them on his own page.

 * Then, my father too was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Pakistan Army. He became the Chief Instructor Inter Services Intelligence. Plus he also served as Advisor to the Prime Minister UAE. So tell me, how shall I proceed?AliHKhan (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, he clearly has a lot of background to him. That clears loop one -- that he is significant. Yet notability comes in the existence of sources and references to back up these claims. What could you show us?
 * Because you have a relation to him, you have a conflict of interest. This will mean that if and when you do create this article, it must be created via the articles for creation process, and when that article is submitted and approved for mainspace, you must not make any direct edits to the article due to your conflict of interest.
 * <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 10:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "This will mean that if and when you do create this article, it must be created via the articles for creation process" It means no such thing. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Putting the request on Article for creation will take forever, I suggest you make a page for (Muhammad Hassan Khan?) at User:AliHKhan/sandbox/COI-draft/Muhammad Hassan Khan and include any sources you can find to make it easier for some to create an article. Α Guy into Books ™  § ( Message ) -  10:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Α Guy into Books ™ § ( Message ) -  10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Aguyintobooks: Thanks a lot for your time and the suggestions. Also I would like to add that the Sources and References to back up the claims are reliable institutions of a country. Do Wiki Editors have any access to their records or do I(The Claimant) have to provide them?

When you said "Include any sources to make it easier for some create an article" in your last sentence, does that again mean I have to provide the sources? Please clarify.AliHKhan (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Please let me know how can I upload a Picture?AliHKhan (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Ok, it is actually quite simple. When an editor says "provide a source" what they mean, and all you actually have to do, is provide a link or citation to direct someone to a document which proves what you have written is true.

 * For evidence provided by an institution, you will need to identify the publication where it was written. (book, webpage, audio or video recording etc.)
 * If its on the internet, insert the URL into the citeweb template. Example:.
 * If its a book, . It is important to find the ISBN, and if you cant, then finding an online store that sells the book and providing the link is a good idea.
 * If its a report, government announcement etc. then you should write down details such as its title, publication date, author and subject so that someone has a reasonable chance of finding it.
 * The sources do not need to be in English, any language is fine, and you do not need to translate.

 * To clarify, the source is not the institution you got the information from, but is the actual document you have obtained. So you should describe the document, rather than describing how you got it. Generally speaking the document has to have been published, the definition of this is quite broad, but a personal letter received from the government will not count as a reliable source. Α Guy into Books ™  § ( Message ) -  11:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Pictures can be given to Wikipedia at: wikimedia commons. Α Guy into Books ™  § ( Message ) -  11:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Great help. Almost clear about these things, still one ambiguity, how to upload the picture on this page?AliHKhan (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia doesn't actually keep the images on the page (it just looks that way). So the image has to be uploaded first, and then a link is put on the page and the image will appear when you save it. Example link: . for more detail see Picture tutorial. If you have a spare hour, you can also read about references at Help:Referencing for beginners.  Α Guy into Books ™  § ( Message ) -  11:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Once upon a time 7th season
Would there be a dream sequence for Henry as he grew up without his family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blyons9 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Blyons9. This page is for question about contributing to Wikipedia. You can ask general knowledge questions at the Reference Desk. For this, I think Reference desk/Entertainment might fit, though I'm not sure if your question is speculation or not, in which case it might be unanswerable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

i read Wikipedia:Your first article. and dont want to go through sandbox or article wizaerd
i want to make a article how do i do this without article wizard or sandbox after i read Wikipedia:Your first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgrrgrsd (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your message and welcome to Wikipedia! We're trialling a six-month project where only autoconfirmed users can create articles.  You'll have to either start editing other articles first for a while or work on the sandbox version.  Thanks,   Dr Strauss   talk   22:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome. I'm just curious as to why you don't want to use the wizard, as it is a helpful tool for new users. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Rgrrgrsd. Given your prior edit (which I have reverted and hidden as a blatant copyright violation), are you thinking of writing about the Mazda Wankel engine? If so, we already have an article at Mazda Wankel engine. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits that reference a website that is inaccessible
Is this user's edit valid? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Gygax&curid=12848&diff=800636438&oldid=800380516

The source that they reference is behind a login-wall, and it seems like vandalism to me.

X6wie72UelocEdjk (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping.   Dr Strauss   talk   23:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi X6wie72UelocEdjk. We do not require sources to be accessible for free, or that they be online at all. If we did we would shoot ourselves in the foot, since vast numbers of the best sources are on paper alone. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:RSC and WP:OFFLINE. Meanwhile, vandalism only refers to bad faith, deliberate attempts to harm the project. Misguided edits are not vandalism, if indeed there is any problem here, which is not manifest from the edit itself, nor any reason presented in your post. Whether this edit belongs or not for other reasons, e.g., undue weight, encyclopedic judgment, etc. is a different question. (I would only say that the edit could be formatted better to use the citation template's quote field.) You can always discuss the edit on the article's talk page, Talk:Gary Gygax, or with the user directly at his talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

How to add pictures
Can anyone tell me how to add pictures in a Wikipedia article? It would be extremely beneficial if someone does so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahir M (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please read Picture tutorial for how to do this. Please also read Image use policy on what kind of pictures are appropriate. We can give more specific guidance if you want to explain what kind of images and which articles you are talking about. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 * If you click on Upload File under Tools on the left hand side of the page it will take you to the Wizard for uploading a photo. It is best if the photo is of your own making since any photo. An original of your own.  Once you upload the photo the instructions are easy and direct on how to place it on your article though it might not show up if your article is a Draft:Palukiwa (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Blockng
Hi Teahouse,

I was just wondering, who blocks people? Can anybody block anybody?

Thanks,

WarriorsFan30112335WarriorsFan30112335 (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Only administrators can make blocks.  The policy is at WP:Blocking policy. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


text:
California State Route 282

State Route 282 (SR 282) is an east–west state highway entirely within the city of Coronado, California. It is a spur of SR 75 and connects the rest of the state highway system with Naval Air Station North Island. The road is part of a link connecting to the metropolitan area of San Diego via SR 75 and the Coronado Bay Bridge. The entire route uses a one-way couplet, with Third Street in the westbound direction and Fourth Street in the eastbound direction.

Third and Fourth streets, as part of the Coronado street system, have existed since the 19th century, and were paved in the early 20th century. SR 282 was designated in 1968, around the time the San Diego–Coronado Bridge was opened. Attempts to build first a highway, and later a tunnel, to allow base traffic to bypass the Coronado city streets, were rejected by voters in 1974 and 2010, respectively.

Route description
SR 282 begins at Alameda Boulevard as a one-way couplet consisting of Third and Fourth streets. The portion of Alameda Boulevard between Third and Fourth streets is also part of SR 282 westbound. McCain Boulevard and Tow Way continue west from the Fourth and Third street intersections with Alameda Boulevard into Naval Air Station North Island, respectively. Third and Fourth streets continue through the intersections of I–J avenues, Palm Avenue, and D–H avenues, passing through a residential area. Third Street goes by Palm Park, and Fourth Street by Triangle Park; both are at the intersections with Palm Avenue. SR 282 travels slightly southeast towards its terminus at SR 75 (Orange Avenue).

SR 282 is part of the National Highway System (NHS), a network of highways that are considered essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility by the Federal Highway Administration. In 2013, SR 282 had an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 13,300 on Fourth Avenue between J Avenue and Alameda Boulevard, and 24,200 on Alameda Boulevard between Third and Fourth Streets, the latter of which was the highest AADT for the highway.

History
The intersection of Third Street and Orange Avenue dates back to at least 1890. Coronado began to commission the paving of much of its street system in the early 1910s. In November 1911, the board of trustees in Coronado approved the paving of Third Street from Orange Avenue to what was K Avenue. It soon became the goal of the city to have all streets paved before the 1915 San Diego World Exposition. The streets west of Orange Avenue were to be handled in one contract, using "decomposed granite and oil." Third Street had already been paved with this material by 1913.

SR 282 was initially designated in 1967 solely along Fourth Street from SR 75 to the Naval Air Station; however, it was not to be in effect until the San Diego–Coronado Bridge was completed. Nevertheless, before the bridge opened, the designation was added in the 1968 legislative session, along with the portion of Orange Avenue from the Coronado Ferry landing to Fourth Street, which was to be removed once the Coronado Bay Bridge opened. The designation came into effect on February 21, 1969. In April, plans were under way to repave Fourth and Third Streets and add signals at the Orange Avenue intersections. The bridge opened on August 3, 1969. In September, the City of Coronado added Third Street as a truck route going westbound to the base, in addition to the already-existing Fourth Street truck route leaving the base.

In 1974, Proposition N was proposed to attempt to resolve concerns regarding traffic in Coronado. The plan was to build another highway along the northern and eastern shore of Coronado Island, to bypass the busy residential and commercial districts and provide easy access to the North Island Naval Air Station from the western end of the bridge. The proposition asked voters whether the City Council should "actively pursue" the matter. Previous proposals had included widening Fourth Street to be able to handle traffic in both directions. Critics contended that the highway would block the view of the San Diego Bay. Coronado Mayor Rolland McNelly opposed the proposal in early November 1974 as it would require approval from over 30 government agencies and would force the city to continue with it, although some declared the road "impossible to build." The voters rejected this plan, and the City Council then voted to keep traffic along Third and Fourth streets, closing the gate at First and Second streets. The bridge and the resulting traffic continued to be a hotly debated issue in the early 1980s. A plan in 1981 to convert Fourth Street into an expressway leading to the naval station was strongly opposed by the public due to the required demolition of structures and a lack of evidence that the plan would succeed in reducing traffic; by this time, Third and Fourth streets had been converted into one-way streets between the bridge and the naval station.

In April 2006, the Navy commenced construction on an entrance to the Naval Air Station from the intersection of Third Street and Alameda Boulevard. The new entrance was completed in July 2007, and the existing entrance and exit on Fourth Street was made an exit-only station. Before then, traffic entering the base had to continue southwest on Alameda Boulevard, making a left on Fourth Street. This change was expected to reduce congestion in downtown Coronado.

The City of Coronado has attempted to have a tunnel built from the Coronado bridge to the San Diego Naval Base numerous times, and hired Ledford Enterprises to help with the lobbying process in 2002 and 2006. The city endorsed a proposed study in 2004 to determine possible alternatives to resolve the traffic issues, which included keeping the status quo. On June 8, 2010, Coronado voters decided against Proposition H, which would have advised the city to undergo further investigation into building a tunnel between the Coronado bridge and the San Diego Naval Base. This concluded ten years of studies and proposals by the city of Coronado to find a way to reduce traffic to the naval station during rush hour. Critics of the proposal did not believe that the tunnel would resolve the traffic issues. Following this, the Coronado City Council voted to abolish the Tunnel Commission.

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: California State Route 282


text:
Guðbjörg Aradóttir

Guðbjörg Inga Aradóttir FRES is an Icelandic entomologist and researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) in the UK. Her work identifies novel crop protection solutions against insect agricultural pests and the diseases they transmit. She is particularly known for her research on plant resistance to cereal aphids and the Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus

Guðbjörg has previously worked at the Natural History Museum in London and the Icelandic Institute of Natural History. She is a fellow and trustee of the Royal Entomological Society. In 2021 she founded Mamore Research and Innovation Limited, a consulting firm that provides services to public and private organizations in research and experimental development on natural sciences and engineering. Some of her work has been used to help farm sustainable and resilient crops without the use of pesticides in regions susceptible to insect pests that threaten crop growth.

One of her publications, Common resistance mechanisms are deployed by plants against sap-feeding herbivorous insects: insights from a meta-analysis and systematic review suggests that insect-resistant plants in the same plant family exhibit the same defense mechanisms to repel certain insects. Phenotypes generally include a higher content of organic chemicals and density of trichomes on leaves that repel sap-sucking insects, which utilize stylets to puncture the plant's tissue and suck out its nutrients.

title: Guðbjörg Aradóttir


text:
Cookbook:Anchovy

| Basic foodstuffs | Seafood | Fish

The anchovies are a family (Engraulidae) of small oily fish found worldwide. They are an important food in various cuisines, known for their strong umami flavor when processed.

Characteristics
Fresh anchovies are silvery and small—about 5–10 inches long. The flesh is moist, plump, and mild in flavor, with many small pinbones.

When processed, usually by curing or fermenting, anchovies develop a strong savory flavor. After processing, they are often available canned, dried, in paste, or as fish sauce.

Selection and storage
Selection of fresh anchovies is much like any other finned fish. It should be shiny, most, and firm, with no fishy smell. Cured anchovies should still be meaty, with a very savory flavor—over-cured anchovies tend to get a metallic flavor and grainy texture.

Fresh anchovies should be kept refrigerated. Tinned anchovies should be refrigerated after opening.

Use
Fresh anchovies can be fried. They can also be lightly pickled, such as in Spanish boquerones en vinagre.

Cured anchovies are a key ingredient in various condiments, such as Worcestershire sauce, fish sauce, and anchovy paste. These are used to add a savory and salty umami flavor to foods. and common as a pizza topping.

Dried anchovies may be used to make stock or broth.

title: Cookbook:Anchovy


text:
Talk:Max Griffin

Requested move 30 August 2021

The result of the move request was: Max Griffin (fighter) moved to Max Griffin. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 * Max Griffin (fighter) → Max Griffin
 * Maxwell Griffin → Maxwell Griffin (soccer player) or Maxwell Griffin (soccer)

– Primary topic per Google results and page views.

https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Max_Griffin_(fighter)|Maxwell_Griffin  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 00:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the first proposal, per |Maxwell_Griffin pageviews. Maxwell Griffin is fine where he is. 99to99 (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support 1. Moving Maxwell Griffin seems unnecessary, we can just use hatnotes. 162 etc. (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the first, oppose the second since Maxwell and Max are different names.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The soccer player is also known as Max Griffin: . DrKay (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support both due to page views. –– FormalDude  talk  00:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Max Griffin (fighter) → Max Griffin per nomination, accompanied by Max Griffin → deleted to make room for move and oppose Maxwell Griffin → Maxwell Griffin (soccer player) per 162 etc. and Ortizesp. A hatnote atop each entry, indicating each sportsman's plain name without a parenthetical qualifier, would indeed suffice. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose both moves proposed; the first one because I don't think there is a PRIMARYTOPIC, the second because the long-standing and well-established disambiguation would be '(soccer)', not '(soccer player)', as shown recently in the discussion at Talk:Quinn (soccer). Pinging those who have !aleeady voted who might not be aware - . NB even if the first article is moved, then the second should stay where it is and simply hatnote between the two per WP:TWODABS. GiantSnowman 11:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it just being (soccer) but the fighter definitely is the primary topic.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 18:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose the second. (1) The qualifier, if needed, would be (soccer); see Naming conventions (sportspeople). (2) But no qualifier is needed. There's no evidence that the fighter is called "Maxwell". For all I know, he might have been christened Max, Maximilian or Maximus, or something else. Narky Blert (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Max Griffin


text:
User:Left108

A student of Bangladesh. Currently studying Bangladesh's renowned college (Notre Dame College, Dhaka). He is a programer. He has many achievements.
 * 1) Faisal_Shifty

title: User:Left108


text:
Talk:Gibson Hummingbird

Removed a section
Hi, I deleted a section entitled "model variants" with its content: It cited a "Hummingbird Sheryl Crow" (does not exist), and listed the Southern Jumbo and Country Western as Hummingbird variants (if anything this is the other way round, the Hummingbird could be envisaged as a SJ with more bling, also both of these models pre-date the Hummingbird, the SJ being introduced in 1942!) In fact, both these models now have their own pages, see Gibson Southern Jumbo and Gibson Country Western. In their 1960s incarnations, these models did share many features with the Hummingbird, but a cited web description as "variants" on one site is in my view misguided. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gibson Hummingbird


text:
Template talk:books of the bible

Book number
This template labels a book with a number - surely this depends upon which 'Bible' is being used - might it be better left out? —SaltmarshTalk 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Template talk:books of the bible


text:
User:Tori.wreghitt/TWA/Earth/2

Shape and structure

Tectonic plates

Surface

Atmosphere

Weather, climate, and water cycle

Orbit and rotation

title: User:Tori.wreghitt/TWA/Earth/2


text:
Organic Chemistry/Foundational concepts of organic chemistry/Atomic structure/Filling electron shells

<< Shells and orbitals | Octet rule and exceptions >>

When an atom or ion receives electrons into its orbitals, the orbitals and shells fill up in a particular manner.

There are three principles that govern this process: 1) the Aufbau (build-up) principle, 2) the Pauli exclusion principle, and 3) Hund's rule.

Exclusion principle
No more than one electron can have all four quantum numbers the same. What this translates to in terms of our pictures of orbitals is that each orbital can only hold two electrons, one "spin up" and one "spin down".

Build-up principle
You may consider an atom as being "built up" from a naked nucleus by gradually adding to it one electron after another, until all the electrons it will hold have been added. Much as one fills up a container with liquid from the bottom up, so also are the orbitals of an atom filled from the lowest energy orbitals to the highest energy orbitals.

However, the three p orbitals of a given shell all occur at the same energy level. So, how are they filled up? Is one of them filled full with the two electrons it can hold first? Or do each of the three orbitals receive one electron apiece before the any single orbital is double occupied. As it turns out, the latter situation occurs.

Hund's rule
This rule is applicable only for those elements that have d electrons, and so is less important in organic chemistry (though it is important in organometallic chemistry). It says that filled and half-filled shells tend to have additional stability. In some instances, then, for example, the 4s orbitals will be filled before the 3d orbitals.

Building atoms with quantum mechanics (advanced topic)
The equations (like the Legendre polynomials that describe spherical harmonics, and thus the shapes of orbitals) of quantum mechanics are distinguished by four types of numbers. The first of these quantum numbers is referred to as the principal quantum number, and is indicated by n. This merely represents which shell electrons occupy, and shows up in the periodic chart as the rows of the periodic chart. It has integral values, n=1,2,3. . . .  The highest energy electrons of the atoms in the first row all have n=1. Those in the atoms in the second row all have n=2. As one gets into n=3, Hund's rule mixes it up a little bit, but when one gets to the end of the third row, at least, the electrons with the highest energy have n=3.

The next quantum number is indicated by the letter m and indicates how many different types of shells an atom can have. Those elements in the first row can have just one, the s orbital. The elements in the second row can have two, the s and the p orbitals. The elements in the third row can have three, the s, p, and d orbitals. And so on. It may be funny to think of s, p and d as "numbers", but these are used as an historical and geometrical convenience.

The third kind of quantum number ml specifies, for those kinds of orbitals that can have different shapes, which of the possible shapes one is referring to. So, for example, a 2pz orbital indicates three quantum numbers, represented respectively by the 2, the p and the z.

Finally, the fourth quantum number is the spin of the electron. It has only two possible values, +1/2 or -1/2.

Pretty much only computational chemists have to treat quantum numbers as numbers per se is equations. But it helps to know that the wide variety of elements of the periodic table and the different shapes and other properties of electron orbitals have a unifying principle--the proliferation of different shapes is not completely arbitrary, but is instead bounded by very specific rules.

Afbau Principle (it means 'building up'):- It states that the orbitals should be filled according to their increasing energies Thus the lowest energy orbital which is available is filled first. The increasing order of energies of the various orbitals is:- 1s,2s,2p,3s,3p,4s,3d,4p,5s,4d,5p,6s,4f,5d,6p,7s,5f...... The order of increasing of energy of orbitals can be calc. from(n+l) rule or 'Bohr bury rule' According to this rule, the value of n+l is the energy of the orbital and such on orbital will be filled up first. e.g. 4s orbital having lower value of(n+l) has lower energy than 3d orbital and hence 4s orbital is filled up first. For 4s orbital, n+l=4+0=4 For 3d orbital, n+l=3+2=5,therefore 4s orbital will be filled first.


text:
Talk:List of Old Shirburnians

Jimmy Edwards
Edwards' biographical article indicates he was educated at King's School in Wimbledon, not at Sherborne. I've no idea which is correct. Fairlightseven 07/12/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh
Waugh did not attend Sherborne School - I don't know where this came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

His brother Alec Waugh (author of Loom of Youth etc) did however...

John Falconer
Did John Falconer attend Sherborne? —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Alan Turing
This entry; 'Alan Turing OBE, FRS, mathematician and instrumental figure at Bletchley Park', is one of the most denigrating entries that you could have possibly made. One could question why his name is not listed in the 'Intelligence' section, for a start. One could ask why his contributions to computing are not identified. Certainly 'Academia' is not where many would place a person so important to modern computing, even though he thought he was writing an academic paper at the time. Think about what you are not achieving. Get real! 11:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Old Shirburnians


text:
Talk:Conditional preservation of the saints/Archive 1

additional passage
An excellent article! I added one more biblical passage under the section "Scriptures that have to be reconciled". <IP_ADDRESS> 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Categorization Furthers Misconceptions
I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian in my beliefs, and it is frustrating to see people attack the issue of eternal security only from the perspective of one of these views. As such, I believe there should be content expressing the fact that there are views outside of the two most commonly referred to.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Losing Salvation?
Can someone please start a program to stop incorrect terms being used regarding the theological term of salvation. It is not possible to loose your salvation. That is equivalent to saying I lost my keys. you simply misplace something and can not find a way to immediately recover the item or thing. People do not loose their salvation ever. They either neglect their soul to the point of not taking care of the gift God has provided or they simply and unequivocally "sell" their new found "birthright" in Christ. I do not loose Christmas gifts so to speak. I neglect them to the point of decay or I take them back. In other words. People sell out when it comes to what is most precious to them. Hence the plain to understand story of Esau selling his birthright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I prefer the term "forfeiting" salvation. I agree that it is not accurate to say that anyone can "lose" their salvation as if losing one's car keys.  No theologian teaches that it is possible to "lose" salvation as such. I have changed the terms "lose" and "lost" to "forfeit" in this article. Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why This Page
I started this page as resource for armchair theologians to read neutral, accurate descriptions of various theological systems. I noticed that Calvin's Perseverance of the Saints had a very well-developed page, so I tried to mimic that here.

I did my darndest to cite everything, and am confident there is no original material. If you find spots that require a citation, bring them to my attention. In light of all the work that I put into citing everything, please do not change things that are citation-specific. Please feel free to add more.

I also did as much as I could to maintain neutrality of the page. If there is a problem with neutrality, please don't automatically change it - let it be discussed here first. If you are going to make any major changes, please leave your reasoning here.

(7 hours later) Enjoy! David Schroder 04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Since significant changes have been made to this article, it was appropriate that I let readers know who and why these updates were made. I'm Steve Witzki and I have been reading, writing, and researching the topic concerning the security of the believer for nearly 20 years. This does not make me an expert, just someone well read on the topic.

 * I appreciate the work of Dave Schroder that gave this page its start. I talked with him about doing some updating and he encouraged me to do so. Please note, if you look in the History section you don't see my name with the recent changes made. I'm not sure why this happened. I logged in and it said that I was logged in, but it doesn't show this in the History. Nevertheless, here are some of the reasons why I felt an updating was needed.

 * More sources needed to be used to demonstrate the essential unity between Arminian writers/scholars from the past and present.

 * Arminius and the Arminian leaders after him (the Remonstrants and John Wesley) needed to be given more attention on this topic, especially since this article falls under the heading of Arminianism.

 * The comment in the previous article that “the Remonstrants never completely affirmed the ability to forfeit one’s salvation” was not historically accurate. It is true that they initially maintained their leaders uncertainty on the possibility of apostasy. However, sometime between 1610, and the official proceeding of the Synod of Dort (1618), the Remonstrants became fully persuaded in their minds that the Scriptures taught that a true believer was capable of falling away from faith and perishing eternally. This was clearly communicated in 1618 in “The Opinions of the Remonstrants.”

 * Since belief in apostasy has been historically associated with Arminianism, attention needed to be given to defining apostasy and explaining its dangers. This was necessary due to the fact that Calvinist and Arminians define apostasy much differently. This new section replaces the previous section titled, “Doctrine,” for the reasons explained below.

 * The "Doctrine" section that featured a comparison of Ashby (Reformed Arminian) and Harper (Wesleyan Arminian) needed to be omitted for several reasons. First, Ashby misrepresents what Classical Arminians have believed in when he wrote: “To understand the Reformed Arminian position, we must recognize that one is not saved by quitting sinning. Nor does committing sin or failing to confess sin cause one to lose salvation” (Four Views on Eternal Security, 172). All Christians would agree with the first statement, but it is the second one that Ashby makes that does not line up with Classical Arminianism.

 * If Ashby is suggesting that he is representing Reformed Arminianism from James Arminius onward, then he definitely is not representing RA accurately. Arminians believe that persevering in faith (which manifests itself in love and obedience) is the condition for remaining in a saving relationship with Christ; and persevering in unbelief (which manifests itself in sin and disobedience) is the condition for severing this relationship. Sinning against God’s revealed will is evidence that a person is developing an evil, unbelieving heart that leads to a person falling away from the living God (Heb 3:12-19; see Robert Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will, 204-208).

 * I. Howard Marshall says, “sin is an act and attitude which is incompatible with the obedience of faith, and hence constitutes a denial of faith. (Kept by the Power, 197). This is the same view that the later Remonstrants held in “The Opinions of the Remonstrants”: True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish. (See article)

 * In my readings in the Works of John Wesley (and other Wesleyan Methodist scholars), and from the Later Remonstrants (or Reformed Arminians), I find that they agree on the following issues on this topic:

 * God’s grace is necessary for faith from first to last; persevering in faith is necessary in order to remain in a saving relationship with God; God protects and preserves his people through faith; and faith expresses itself in love and obedience. They both hold that “without holiness, no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14). They both see sin as opposed to true and living faith. They both agree that Christians can backslide and recover from it through repentance. They both agree that a Christian can go from backsliding to eventual apostasy and perish eternally.

 * While some Arminians disagree as to whether apostasy is irrevocable, clearly, Wesley, in his "Serious Thoughts on the Perseverance of the Saints," saw some passages teaching that apostasy was final and total. Since Classical (Reformed) Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism have so much in agreement on this issue, I don’t feel there was warrant for separating them as before. If you disagree, please feel free to interact with me on this page.

 * I have also updated the Comparisons with Opposing Views with much needed quotes from primary resources for both Traditional and Non-traditional Calvinists. Of course, the Notes section needed to be updated with new information being added. I omitted the Criticism and Responses section since these will be covered in an External Link Article. I will be providing a lot of articles (in PDF Format) for the External Link section. This is sorely needed to improve the usefulness of this article. These articles will enable interested readers to research this topic further before needing to buy books which go further in depth.

 * It is my hope that others will provide suggestions and interact with my updates before making significant changes. I spent a ton of hours re-reading and combing through all of the Arminian resources used in this article. It was my intention to adhere to the standards set by Wikipedia for their articles: maintain a neutral point of view; no original research; use verifiable and reliable resources. Please let me know if you think I have failed to abide by these standards.

 * Thanks, SWitzki<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Resource List (Arminian, Traditional Calvinist, Non-traditional Calvinist)
Greetings,

I have significantly updated the resource list for each of the views. I have read all the books in the resource page except for a couple. I thought it was logical to put them in order from oldest to newest. I have excluded some resources in the Arminian section since they do not, in my opinion, represent the best scholarship. All the books in the Arminian section are published by reputable publishers except for one (Dan Corner’s book is self-published). I have stayed away from self-published works since, whether people like it or not, they generally are not well-received or respected by those in the publishing or scholarly community. I am not saying this is right, but only making an observation from my own readings and from a recent conversation I had with a Christian author who has had a lot of books published and helps others to become published. Dan Corner’s book is well-known via the internet and his website, so I thought it was prudent to include this work. To the best of my knowledge, all the books in the resource section are still in print. Of course, this is important for those wanting to research this topic further.

Thanks, SWitzki<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, I have to protest this article receiving "Top" importance rating. That rating is at this point used to determine which articles are of the greatest importance to the subject of Methodism in general, so articles like Methodism, John Wesley, and other articles which are, basically, the ones that would be most necessary for a full coverage of the subject in an encyclopedia. I do not believe, based on my own, admittedly limited, knowledge of the subject that this subject is that central to the topic of Methodism requires that it be given the Top priority rating. If you can convince me and the other editors why you believe it is so vital an article to the topic of Methodism to be valid, of course, then I would have no doubt that the rating would be maintained. But I honestly have to wonder whether the topic of saints in general is that important to Methodism as a whole, let alone a subtopic within the broader topic of saints in Methodism. John Carter (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Greetings John,

 * IMO this article deserves to be of “Top Importance” in Methodism for several reasons. John Wesley and other Wesleyan/Methodist scholars after him spent significant time defending conditional security and the possibility of apostasy. Wesley wrote two lengthy pieces specifically against the fifth point of Calvinism—the Perseverance of the Saints. It appears that Wesley was in theological debate with Calvinists through much of his ministry (see Allan Coppedge, “John Wesley in Theological Debate”). In a number of his writings Wesley felt it was important to show the biblical, theological, and logical problems with the other points of Calvinism (i.e., TULIP). Wesley believed that there was an “insidious danger of false security and moral complacency,” in believing the fifth point of Calvinism. He did not believe that it helped to promote holy living among God’s people. Of course, holiness was, and still is, a very important issue to Wesleyan/Methodists. To this day, Wesley is known as an Arminian theologian and Arminians are known for believing that it is possible for true Christians to sever their saving relationship with Christ through persistent unbelief characterized by sin and disobedience. This belief has always been central to Arminians like Wesley. For these reasons I believe the “Top Importance” rating for the Methodism work group should definitely remain the same. Blessings, SWitzki (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Salvation?
"The Arminian position is accurately portrayed by someone throwing a lifeline to a drowning man and saying 'grab hold of this and keep holding on tightly until I pull you to safety.' I would maintain that no one rescued in this way would dream that he had saved himself or even made a 'contribution' which merited his rescue. He would be filled with gratitude towards his rescuer"

Reach for this lifeline (rope?) and hold on "tightly". Holding on tightly takes work. Not to criticize but it appears to be a flawed analogy. I believe we agree that Salvation is a free gift, unmerited favor (grace through faith alone). If it is not something we earn then why would we have to hold on to it tightly? Once you gain the gift, the only way you lose it is by giving it back. You would need to make a very concious decision to give it back. Losing it would indicate that you just forgot it was there and it went away. Salvation cannot grow stale.

I do not condone gaining salvation and then ignoring the life Christ wants you to live. If you are truly saved you will want to please Christ and live at the center of His will. I don't think you can lose your salvation by not attending church or by not praying etc. It is a deliberate act of hating the Holy Spirit and trampling Jesus under your feet and rejecting God. If that is what it takes to lose salvation then you don't lose it, you give it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the sentiment you are expressing, but this talk page is not a discussion forum for debating the merits of Arminianism. Do you have some concern about the article? (FWIW, I think that quotation is neutral and suitable for inclusion here.) --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The comments about "throwing a lifeline to a drowning man . . ." are no longer a part of this article. SWitzki (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

List of verses
I have again redacted the list of verses used to support this doctrine that was added by User:<IP_ADDRESS>. A few verses are sufficient (cf. WP:LAUNDRY on overly long lists), though I'm not fixed on the particular verses that are currently listed. The most important directly related passages should be listed here, and the rest can be supplied as chapter/verse references only or omitted. For instance, I'd recommend that Jas 4:17 ("Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.") be removed since its connection is harder to discern than, say, Ga 5:4 ("You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.").

Also, it might be handy to break up the verse pro and con lists to include more prose describing the relevant interpretations of the verse (with sources, of course) -- something akin to what is already done for Jn 5:24 and 10:27-28. For instance, "traditional Calvinists" agree that there can be backsliding but define it differently than Arminians (to wit, the permanent backslider enjoyed the benefits and blessings of the covenant community but was not truly saved -- not all Israel are Israel, Ro 9:6), and so some verses (e.g., Mt 24:13: "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.") don't obviously conflict with that viewpoint. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Greetings,

 * I've chosen to use the ESV translation as the primary text because I think it is a slightly better reading translation than the NKJV. I choose to include other translations as well, such as the ISV translation (International Standard Version). You can easily find out about this new translation with a simple google search.

 * In the past there has been at least one person who shorted up the List of Scriptures Used for Support because it was viewed as too long. In Wikipedia’s vocabulary it could be considered a “Laundry List.” I agree that such lists can be too long, but when is a list too long? How many “bullet points” are too many? I observed that the biblical support for the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints has a 36 bullet point list. That’s more than we have for Conditional Preservation (25). I looked at the article on laundry lists and it reads:

 * The goal of Wikiproject:Laundromat is to scrub laundry lists from articles when they detract from an article's usefulness, and salvage usable content from those laundry lists into readable, encyclopedic text. A list can also be the best way of presenting detailed material, and it is not intended to remove such lists.

 * In my opinion, the present list of Scriptures does not detract from the articles usefulness, but is the best way of presenting the material for those investigating this issue. While it would be easy to make the list much longer, I don’t think it is necessary. This article should provide a nice entry into the topic and point people to resources that look at it in more detail.

 * It should be noted that I have omitted Picirilli’s comments that appeared at the end of the original Scripture list. They are excellent comments, but I’ve chosen to include his comments in an article I placed in the External Link section. It’s called: “Arminian Responses to Passages Used to Support Perseverance of the Saints.” There is no original research in this lengthy article, I simply quote Arminians (found in the Arminian Resourse section) who have responded to these passages in their books.

 * Blessings, SWitzki<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I believe that any verse claimed to be in favor of losing salvation must necessarily be taken out of context, I will concede that there are some that seem to suggest the possibility. However there were a few on the list that seem to be obviously referring to something else or not relevant, so I removed them. I can see the value of having a list of verses for and against, though. Perhaps I should expand the list of opposing verses since there are more that explicitly affirm eternal salvation. Also, in providing an explanation on the later list, I was unable to cite a reference properly, so I left it inline hoping that somebody could fix it. Kainosnous (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * There is no need to remove verses that Arminians have seen as referring to conditional security and the possibility of apostasy. This is an article that reflects views of Arminians from their own writings. You are welcome to your own opinion about whether a particular verse is relevant or not, but your opinion does not matter when it pertains to accurately reflecting what verses Arminians have used to support their position. The standards set by Wikipedia for their articles: maintain a neutral point of view; no original research; use verifiable and reliable resources has been followed. If you look at Arminian scholar Robert Shank's book Life in the Son you will see that he lists 85 verses in Appendix A (p. 333-337) to support conditional security, which includes the verses you thought should be removed. Your two articles that were added to the External Link section have been removed since they do not reflect the Arminian position and the External Links section has been dedicated to Arminian views reflected in the article. I would add that there is no need to add additional opposing verses since anyone can go to the Calvinist perseverance of the saints article and find a longer list of opposing verses. Those that are here are good representatives and need not be expanded upon.ClassArm (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I thank you for your correction. I had believed that both lists were NPOV and thus subject to being thinned out. Since the first list is from the verses traditionally used by Arminians, I can see how it is important to keep the list intact to show their perspective. I have added that clarification to the article so that others don't make the same mistake that I, and seemingly Flex a few paragraphs earlier, have made. However, I disagree with your removal of my other edits as that section is clearly the place for opposition by "Those who hold to perseverance..." The explanations are popular and well documented refutations of this particular doctrine, and as such would not be better suited to "Perseverance of the saints". The reason for the edit is not only to provide a more neutral point of view, but to give context to the proceeding scriptures such as is done with the previous section. Furthermore, without this context, a person may incorrectly conclude that these two sections provide unresolvable contradictions in the scripture. I believe that there may be better references to this view or that the wording may be improved, but I feel strongly that it is important to this particular article. If you could think of a better place within this article for it (such as an "Other Views" section like the other article) or perhaps better wording, then I would encourage that edit. Kainosnous (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you for adding that clarification. I agree that the list should stay as is for the reasons I provided on the discussion site earlier. I still disagree that there needs to be a place for opposing articles in the external link section. Since anyone can access articles in favor of perseverance of the saints on its site, there is no need to place them on this site. Nevertheless, I have added to the See also section a link to Perseverance of the saints and mentioned that it has articles in the external links section that support its position. I don’t have any problems with the perseverance of the saints site not having external link articles that oppose their position. They do, but they don’t need to since they could simply provide a link to the conditional security site where a person could find plenty of articles in favor of its position. As to the two sections being in contradiction, I have provided a better subheading titled: “Scriptures that appear to contradict conditional security.” I also provide the following two sentences after this list: Arminians would argue that they have adequately provided explanations for how these verses and others can be reconciled with conditional security. These explanations, taken solely from the writings of Arminian scholars and theologians, can be found in the external link article: "Arminian Responses to Key Passages Used to Support Perseverance of the Saints." I hope that this has addressed some of your concerns. I think that your feedback has helped to improve this article. ThanksClassArm (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reason for removal of self-published books
According to Verifiability, sources that are usually not reliable are self-published sources. Why? They give the following reason: Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

For this reason I have removed the two self-published books from the Arminian section.ClassArm (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Original Research
The last paragraph in the Historical backround section appears, from the footnote, to be original research. Is there no source that states this? Indyguy (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Correct call by Indyguy here. Thus, the paragraph was removed. ClassArm


text:
precovery

Noun

 * 1)  The use of previously gathered data (especially photographic images) to recover a recently discovered object (typically a small solar system body).
 * If you look for your new object after discovery, it's called "recovery". [...] if you find your new object in some old data that someone took before you discovered your object, it's called a "precovery".
 * Quaoar [...] is a Trans-Neptunian object orbiting the Sun in the Kuiper belt. It was discovered on June 4, 2002 by astronomers Chad Trujillo and Michael Brown at the California Institute of Technology [...] The earliest precovery turned out to be a May 25, 1954 plate from Palomar Observatory.
 * 1)  The act of resting before a long night, weekend or season of binge drinking.

title: precovery