Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TH/Q)
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.

Contents

WP teahouse logo.png

Contributions[edit]

Hello Friends How one can see someones contributions? Usually we see his/her user page and talk page. Thanks and regards Aftab Banoori (Talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple - just go to that user's userpage or talkpage and select "User contributions" from the "Tools" menu on the left of your screen. Yunshui  11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Yunshui
I am really very very grateful
You people are great
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 11:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure. You can also access a user's contributions by putting their username into the Special:Contributions page, but personally I find doing it from the Tools menu to be quicker an easier. Yunshui  12:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Yunshui hello again
I tried both, you are right first method is easy
Thanks once again
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

?????[edit]

Is there any polls or discusions I can take part in? I did this manually because if I use blue ask a question button it is at the bottom of the page, Why? I already asked that 2nd one but nobody has answer it yet probably cause it hasn't been seen. --DangerousJXD (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit watchlist page proposal[edit]

I want to propose an extra facility on Edit watchlist pages which would allow me to put a comment there to remind me when and why I put a page there but what I've read at the Village Pump doesn't seem very helpful - too technical for me. Can anyone tell me where I should put such a proposal. Seems to me that such a change may require a modification to the wiki software. Jodosma (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jodosma: Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse. Here we answer questions about editing Wikipedia rather than potential changes to the software framework. I'm afraid Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is the relevant board for your proposal—just post your suggestion there—no one will bite you. Good luck!  Philg88 talk 08:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Phil, I had looked at the Idea lab and Technical; neither seemed appropriate so that's why I came here. I just needed a nudge in the right direction! Jodosma (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

how to cite[edit]

Hi, what's the difference between cite web and ordinary ref tags, and which one should be used, and under which circumstance? I noticed that cite web will automatically place quotes around the reference. How do I use the cite web tag, and what program do I use? Dark Liberty (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dark Liberty, welcome to the Teahouse! Technically speaking, you put {{cite web}} and the others inside the <ref>...</ref> tags, like this: <ref>{{cite web|...}}</ref> The difference between using {{cite web}} and writing out the source information from scratch is that {{cite web}} formats everything automatically for you.
Wikipedia does not require you to use these in any case, as long as you keep the formatting consistent within an article. If you do want to use them, though, you can use the RefToolbar or enter them manually. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that the tool that administrators use? I find cite web quite burdensome and difficult to use, it's much easier to just put in a ref although I prefer to use the cite web interface because it allows for more information. Dark Liberty (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dark Liberty:, admins are no different from the whole pool of editors and some do use the CS1 citation style which includes {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} etc and others don't. As Anon126 says as long as an article is consistent in the referencing style used that is all that is required. Personally I do use the CS1 templates and I enter them manually, perhaps because I'm sad enough and been around long enough to remember most of the common parameters so filling them in by hand is fairly easy for me. Other people find the RefToolbar to be a great tool and use that. Nthep (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

double photos[edit]

Last week, while in Petersburg, Virginia, I used a phone app to find places without pictures on wikipedia. Today on my laptop I uploaded the photos I took on that day. That for the Petersburg Courthouse historic district uploaded and posted just fine, ditto with the McKenney Building and Peabody School, all of which are on the National Register of Historic Places and thus show in the Summer of Monuments Maps of Monuments feature (I'm not vouching for my own artistic abilities nor computer expertise). But two seemingly identical images of the same building appeared in the preview and final infobox for the First Baptist Church (Petersburg, Virginia) (a Virginia historic site perhaps not on the NRHP), although the infobox only contains one link. Perhaps i made a mistake in copying the infobox and editing it for another pictureless article, for Gillfield Baptist Church, because the same doubling thing happened there. I'm sure I didn't upload the picture twice, especially the second time. Is part of the problem the huge infobox template? I edited out quite a few lines, but lots of blank lines remain.Jweaver28 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jweaver28, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed one of the articles in this edit. What you want to do is leave out the brackets and the File: part of the file, and just put the file name and the extension. You can denote the image size in the imgsize section, and put the statement for the image in the caption section. You can see Template:Infobox church for instructions for each parameter. KJ Discuss? 02:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox to article transfer[edit]

I recently created an article about a notable person on Wikipedia. I wrote the article first in my own sandbox, and then polished it before I copied my work into the article namespace. I know that the correct way to move an article is not to simply copy and paste the text into a new title (as it erases the page history), but does that apply to my sandbox as well? Right now, there is a notice on my newly created article that says that the page history of my sandbox should be merged into the history of the article, but shouldn't my sandbox be my own personal workspace for articles? If it is, then why does its history matter in the article namespace? On top of that, the page history of my sandbox contains versions of it when I was working on a separate, completely unrelated article. So if the history was actually merged, it would bring unrelated content to the history of the article. Should the two revision histories actually be merged? Eventhorizon51 (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Eventhorizon51: As long as no third-party makes any substantive edits, there's no problem with you copying and pasting the content you wrote, and there's no need for any history merge. On the other hand, if third parties did make any substantive edits then copying and pasting it would present a copyright problem. But where that occurs, we can merge just the edits that were involved and not prior ones for different content (though it's a bit of a pain). Looking at your sandbox's history there's no need for any history merge here. To avoid this issue in the future, though, just create dedicated sandboxes. Wikipedia provides a default sandbox when you click the link for "sandbox", at the on-the-nose title "User:name/sandbox", but sandboxes are just subpages of you user or user talk namespaces and you can create as many as you'd like, which can be at any title. Typically users create them specifically for one article, at the intuitive name: "User:name/title article is expected to be moved to" So, for example, for the most recent article you created, the way to start it with an intuitive title and with a dedicated history would be at User:Eventhorizon51/Rosanna Pansino. Done this way there's no issue of uninvolved edits, and you can just move it when its ready for the mainspace. By the way, once you move such sandboxes, it's a good idea to tag the resulting sandbox name redirect for speedy deletion with {{Db-g7}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Foreign words and phrases[edit]

I have been italicizing foreign words and phrases, using the Chicago Manual of Style convention that words that are not in an English language dictionary should be italicized "bachata" but Spanish language words that have made it into the dictionary--salsa for example or macho, are not. But before I go further, I thought it smart to ask. (Just to be clear, I am referring to Spanish (or other langauges) that appear in English language Wikipedia pages. Gracias! Juamari (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Juamari. In general, writing style in Wikipedia is outlined in the Manual of Style. In this particular case, the relevant section would be WP:ITAL. Under the foreign words section, it instructs to 'Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized.' KJ Discuss? 02:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding answers in Teahouse[edit]

I have really appreciated the helpfulness of teahouse hosts, however, if it takes me several days to check this site, I have trouble finding the answer to my question. The clickables seem to be the name of the person who answered, talk, and teahouse itself. Thanks!Juamari (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi !Juamari - If you look at the top right of the page you will see a menu that includes "Contributions" - that links to a log of everything you have ever done on this site (with very few exceptions) listed in chronological order. All the log entries link directly to each edit. So you can just look it up and click your way back to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
More specifically Juamari, it depends how long ago your question was asked.
If it was some time ago, you can put your name in the "Question Archived?" box, under the contents panel of this page, it will then come up with all the posts including your name in the Tea-house archive. Currently there are none, as all of your posts are recent and still on this page, whereas my name occurs 67 times, and the active teahouse hosts will have several hundred.
As your posts are recent, when I do a "Find" (Control F on most browsers) for your name, I see your name currently occurs 12 times on this page (It will be 13 when I save the page). You can do this and then reputedly click "next" on the find, to run through all the uses until you get to the one you want. - Arjayay (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

lack of citations...[edit]

Hi there, I was just wondering.....if evidence, documentation, and words and actions from the person in question create an implication, then can said implication be deemed objective or is neutral ground still required. Furthermore, if there are unsourced statements, should these not then fall into the realms of being objectively incorrect through lack of evidence? I'm just trying to work out how the system here works as there seems to be a strange inconsistency as far as I can see. Ecifitra (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ecifitra. It is always best to provide a link to a specific article when asking such a question, since context and the specific circumstances matter very much. But let me try to answer: If a notable person's words and deeds create an "implication", then we expect reliable, independent sources to take note of that implication in order to deem it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. For example, let's say some celebrity blogs "I like leprechauns" and later says on Facebook "I am flying to Ireland". Let's say that independent, reliable sources ignore those posts. Those are two trivial factoids and you can't add "Celebrity X is traveling to Ireland to search for leprechauns" to that biography. But if the New York Times or another solid reliable source runs a story about this celebrity's leprechaun hunting, we can mention it too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright okay?[edit]

I have found a source of information that I can use. It appears to allow verbatim copying. Here it is:

© Copyright 1995 Christopher Tipping. This chapter may be freely reproduced and distributed for noncommercial purposes. For more information on copyright, see Copyright & Permitted Uses.
Copyright & Permitted Uses
As provided by copyright law, each chapter in this book is copyrighted by the author as of the date of first publication. Notice of copyright is at the end of each chapter.
For noncommercial use, the chapters in this book may be freely reproduced and distributed in part or in whole provided the source is cited. The suggested citation for a chapter is:http://www.entnemdept.ufl.edu/walker/ufbir/contribute_copyright.shtml

Is this copyright valid so that I can copy the source verbatim?

bpage (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope! Wikipedia's licensing (CC-BY-SA) also requires that content also be allowed for commercial use. For future reference, WP:COPYOTHERS is the official policy on this, and also describes how to properly copy and attribute copied content. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer!
bpage (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Bpage: Hey bpage. Please be aware that if you do find a source that bears a free copyright license compatible with ours (or is in the public domain) you still must provide attribution to that source to avoid plagiarism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

adding resource links[edit]

is it okay to add a movie review link under resources for a movieA Southern Horror Fan (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, A Southern Horror Fan, and welcome to the Teahouse. External links for professional movie reviews should not be added in the External Links section, but they should be used to source statements in the Reception section of the movie. For more information, see WP:ELMAYBE. KJ Discuss? 23:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Adding to this excellent answer, please note the word "professional". There are lots of amateur movie review bloggers, some of whom may have interesting things to say. But linking to such amateur blogs is widely considered spamming, and should be avoided. We are looking for professional movie reviews in reliable publications with professional editorial control. There are plenty of them to choose from. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Image request[edit]

Where can I ask for new images, not in commons? I'd like to ask for a cheese-head hat image. Thanks. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MarciulionisHOF and welcome to the Teahouse. Before you request a photo, it is recommended that you look for photos yourself; The Free image search tool might come in handy. If there aren't any images suitable for uploading, you can add Template:Image requested to the talk page of the article topic. For complete instructions, please see Wikipedia:Requested pictures. KJ Discuss? 23:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Start a second article while first still in Sandbox[edit]

Hello! My first article (Callawassie Island) just got accepted. I am working on improving it . . . editing, citations, photos, etc. Now I would like to start a second article, but my first article still appears in my sandbox. Am I doing something wrong? My first article was done mostly through 'trial and error'. I have a difficult time comprehending Wiki terminology so basic common words will help me to understand what I should do.

Thanks Much! Csboes (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Csboes and welcome to The Teahouse. You can improve the article in mainspace if you want. That's what we call it when it is a real article and not one of your user pages. To get it there you would move it, which you can do if you registered more than four days ago and have at least ten edits. Or one of us could do it for you. If you want to leave the article where it is, you can click User:Csboes/Second article and start a second article. You would change "second article" to what you want it to be called.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Since I'm still working on my first article, I'll leave well enough alone for now.

I'll use your suggestion to start the second article. Keeping my fingers crossed!

Another question, I'm currently logged-in and requested that I remain so for 30 days, but everytime I come back to do some work I'm logged-off. Any suggestions?

Appreciate your time! Csboes (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Csboes: Check your browser settings for cookies. Not accepting them for this site is likely to forget your logged in status. Fiddle Faddle 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[Csboes to go back to your original question, you draft article was accepted and your sandbox page has been moved to Callawassie Island. What has happenned is that the move leaves what is called a redirect behind so when you try and go to your sandbox page User:Csboes/sandbox the software takes you to Callawassie Island automatically. You can tell this because under the title it will say "(Redirected from User:Csboes/sandbox)" Click on that link to your sandbox and this tells the software not to follow the redirect but leaves you at your sandbox page which you can then edit to remove the redirect code which will look something like #REDIRECT [[Callawassie Island]] {{R from move}}, you can just delete it all. Nthep (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

How long does it take for a review for a draft?[edit]

Hi y'all I submitted a draft for review yesterday, and was just wondering how long it would take for a response. I'm not expecting it to be fast, but I would just like an idea about how long it would take. Thanks so much Ireallyliketrains (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Ireallyliketrains and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the topic of your article is already covered in a section of Doctor Who (series 8). Sorry to disappoint.  Philg88 talk 18:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Philg88. I made the page because we know that Missy will be a prominent character in the future of series 8 and also it may be difficult for people to find who the character is or what we know about. Ireallyliketrains (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ireallyliketrains: You're welcome. At the moment Missy (Doctor Who) is a redirect to Doctor Who (series 8). Wikipedia does not need an article about every single character in every single TV series on the planet and unless Missy becomes a major phenomenon in her own right there is no need for her to have her own stub article. We don't know what will happen in the future and Wikipedia does not use a crystal ball to decide. I suggest that you start a discussion on the talk page of Doctor Who (series 8) article and see what other editors think. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 05:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

just wrote my first article in sandbox, how do I submit it for review?[edit]

hi,

I just wrote my first article and want to submit it for review, I don't see the move tool.

Any thoughts would be helpful. Oh, I've only been a user of wikipedia for 2 days now.

Thanks, Vero VeroOvid1 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vero!

After you save your changes and return to the page you have created, there should be a message that says "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work in progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable." with a blue triangle picture on the left. Below this text box should have a green button that says "submit draft for review". just click on this button and you should be fine. I'm not really sure how long it could take for a response (i'm new too and i submitted an article) Hope this helps! Ireallyliketrains (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@VeroOvid1: Hi there. I've added the requisite template to your sandbox draft. All you have to do now is click the big button that says "Submit your draft ..." Cheers,  Philg88 talk 18:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new to editing here at Wikipedia. I can't really say that I have any clear idea on how things work here, but I'm trying my best to observe the way they do, and apply them as guidelines to guide my own involvement here. I was wondering if anybody could tell me whether drafts that you post in the sandbox will be visible to everyone on Wikipedia, or only visible to you until you "submit them for peer review." Thanks. -Aleydis Sinclaire

Hello Aleydis, and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts, in the sandbox or anywhere else, are visible to everyone, even people who don't have Wikipedia accounts. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Arthur goes shopping,first please excuse me my poor English is not my first language. I made a draft(you can say something about it if you want https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_de_Andrade ,I know I have a lot of work to do on it).My question is: what is the steps for an article before to appear on the search engine on the web (google, yahoo, etc), even in Wikipedia engine? I mean: first step is to write in sandbox, after that to submit the draft, etc. I want to understand the procedure standard. Thank you very much.Leedskalnin (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

how recover lost messages in user talk?[edit]

Had 2 messages this AM, but somehow lost them while reading the first. How recover? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TBR-qed and welcome back to The Teahouse. Nothing has happened to your talk page today. By clicking on "talk" beside your name above, you should be able to see everything.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I think I know what you may have done. You saw the message about "New messages" but once you clicked on that you couldn't see both messages. I think it works if you scroll down.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the criteria of being listed as public figure in wikipedia?[edit]

I see many people listed themselves as a Public Figure without any evidence that they are public figures. I COULD OFFER MANY EXAMPLES. So what is wikipedia's criteria of being listed as public figure in wikipedia? or anyone can just list him/her self as the public figure no question asked?

I'm asking this question as I like to improve Wikipedia; the best free encyclopaedia on earth. BEST REGARDS 82.31.133.91 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello User with an IP number and welcome to the Teahouse. The question is not if a person is a public figure or not, it's if the person is notable in some way. You can read all about what makes a person notable at Wikipedia:Notability (people). And no, nobody can "...just list him/her self as the public figure no question asked". Questions are always asked. If you want to help improve the Wikipedia, why not do the Wikipedia Adventure, look further up on this page, and learn all about it. Best, w.carter-Talk 18:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
You could offer many examples, but other stuff exists. Those may be articles we would now consider unacceptable.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions appearing at the bottom of the Teahouse[edit]

For some reason, questions from some users are appearing at the bottom of this page, instead of the top. See the question from DangerousJXD ‎for example. He is using the big blue "Ask a Question" button but they are going to the bottom, and others are apparently suffering from the same problem. This means that they are in danger of being missed by many of the readers here. Has anybody come across this sort of thing? Could it be related to using a mobile phone? Gronk Oz (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What makes a product notable?[edit]

I created an article about a software product, but it has been flagged for deletion as it is non-notable. Is simply adding independent 3rd party reviews enough to make it notable? I'm struggling to find a way to make it notable without it looking like an advertisement.Mikesheen (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, adding citations to detailed coverage in multiple independent sources (such as reviews by major financial magazines or daily newspapers) should be sufficient to prove notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My Wiki entry has been altered completely[edit]

I have only tried to put one entry on Wikipedia. The process is beyond my skill level. Each entry I have made (even though I cite references) is changed or removed completely. Do others have the same problem?Davidg58 (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very common problem. It gets easier with experience, but it is still difficult. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

about a draft[edit]

I have a draft " Draft: Andrea de Andrade Wikipedia, samba dancer"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_de_Andrade) and I have an opinion from an administrator(he say that article don't have any kind of notability-after I revised and try to put a lot of reliable sources).I need other opinion. Can anybody take a look on the draft? I need more opinion about draft. Thank you very much. Leedskalnin (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leedskalnin and welcome to the Teahouse. I looked at your draft and it needs a lot of work if it is going to be considered. First, this is an encyclopedia and not a fashion magazine, no need to start with the measurements of the person or her dresses. You have much to trim away. You can look at this article about another samba dancer to see how it can be done: Luma de Oliveira. Also take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Carter, thank you very very much for your information and for the link to Luma de Oliveira, I was trying to find some samba dancer article but I found it.You give me very serious clue about what to do with my article. Thank you again.Leedskalnin (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Leedskalnin, it appears English is not your first language. You are having problems with spelling and verb tense. These are not serious problems because they can be corrected, but you (or someone) do need to make the article easy for us to read. The more serious problems are the type information included and how it is described.
And the references should show a title and possibly a publisher and date. This way if the information cannot be found later using your links, new links can be found.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Vchimpanzee,I apologize for my poor English (I'm from Romania), I know, when I talk I don't stay very much to correct the spelling>Thank you for obs.about references,indeed I miss to put the date and publisher.But tell me about references itself, they are reliable or not.And about the problem linked with the information in the article.Give me a clue.Thank you very much!Leedskalnin (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How to summon an admin[edit]

There is an ongoing disputed in an article between me and another person, and I want other peoples opinion on that. And an admin of course. Which templates can I use or How can I call for an admin ? Denizyildirim (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Denizyildirim and welcome to the Teahouse. I'll take a look and get back to you.  Philg88 talk 11:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Denizyildirim: Ok, I've left a note on the relevant talk page. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Predominant Use Study[edit]

I want to write a detailed article about Predominant Use Study. I'd like to know is it suitable for publishing on Wikipedia.org?Sumaira.haque (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sumaira.haque. If your article is entirely based on material published in reliable places, then it may be suitable. But it must be a neutral account of what the reliable sources say: it must not contain any original research, so it must have no argumentation, synthesis or conclusions which are not already present in at least one of the sources it cites. --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I add PDF files to support the authenticity of the page published[edit]

Hi,

I have recently published the page 'Dr. Sitaram Ganesh Desai' I want to upload the Certificates and News Paper cuttings (as old as published in 1962)to support the authenticity of the statements made in the Page. News papers are of 1962 etc..and hence are not available on the Web to give the links. Hence I would like to add the scanned copies of them in PDF format...

Thanks

Msd1962 Msd1962 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Msd1962, welcome to the Teahouse. You do not need to upload scans of newspapers onto the internet in order for them to be useable as Wikipedia sources. Instead, cite the newspaper articles themselves. Some information on how to cite different sorts of sources can be found at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. You might find the "news article" examples at Wikipedia:Citation templates to be useful in getting more ideas on how to format these. Citing a newspaper article as a source is still acceptable even if the newspaper article is not available online.
Certificates are not really useful as sources. Material need to have been published by a reliable source so that other people can access it. Uploading scans of them to the internet does not solve this problem. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Msd1962: Hi there. I have moved your article to Draft:Sitaram Ganesh Desai because it requires additional work before it can be considered for the main Wikipedia article space. All articles must provide references to significant coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. I have also added a template so that you may submit your work for review once the necessary improvements have been made.  Philg88 talk 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added News Paper Reporting references wherever available. and I have the news paper cuttings for the same. The Title 'Sanskrit Pandit' has been conferred by the Government of Maharashtra and has issued the Certificate for the same. Do I have to upload it? and if so how do I upload the same?? Can it be moved to th main Wikipedia article space now?? Good amount of references have been given now.

Msd1962 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Msd1962: Sorry, but in a word, "no", it isn't suitable for a move to Wikipedia mainspace. You need to address the issues flagged at the top of the article including the removal of bolded text. As I said above, references need to be more than passing mentions of the subject. You may also wish to remove the list of students who studied under him as these do nothing to help establish notabiity. Good luck!  Philg88 talk 09:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have corrected the text in Bold.

As regards the names of the Students...They all are Well-known personalities and I thought giving their names would add Notability

The Bombay Municipal Corporation has given Dr. Sitaram Ganesh Desai's name to one of the roads in Mumbai (The Google Map link is attached to the page) is also an important point to prove the Notability as No Civic body in India would give the name of the person to the road unless he is Notable..

Well...now I leave it you all...

Thanks...

Msd1962 (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Msd1962: Hello again! Your article is now in the queue and will be reviewed as soon as possible, although I'm afraid that there is a serious backlog at the current time. Please also note that notability on Wikipedia is not inherited from other people. Best,  Philg88 talk 12:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

COI: Moving section into its own article space[edit]

There is a section in an existing article that I feel merits an article in its own right. The original article is John Travis (physician) and the section is the Illness-Wellness Continuum. This is a model that has been (and still is) widely used in relation to wellbeing and I feel it is sufficiently notable to move into its own space. I have expanded the original section - currently residing in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fbell74/sandbox

As I have a connection to the creator of this concept I wanted to get the views of editors on this to see if it maintains neutrality.

Any help would be gratefully received. Fbell74 (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fbell74, I'd like to strongly recommend that you discuss this issue with the subject specialists at WP:WikiProject Medicine - they will know how best to deal with it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Roger (Dodger67) I'll check it out 112.205.139.48 (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Where/how do I create a title for my page[edit]

I wrote a new article in Sandbox, but I don't see where of how I can name it. I already pressed Send, so it is in the que. What now?Juamari (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. User:Juamari/sandbox will be renamed to an appropriate name if and when it is accepted as an article by an Articles for Creation reviewer. It is currently awaiting its first review; this can take from several weeks to over a month. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

proper format for using <ref> </ref> in citing a Reference[edit]

Am having trouble using the format <ref> </ref> in citing a reference. Have gone through the error message 4 times & still says same error. Would appreciate an experienced Wikipedia editor's help in walking this newby through the process.PLMaclay-Burns (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, PLMaclay-Burns, welcome to the Teahouse. The format is simply <ref>Source information here</ref> Pay close attention to the punctuation. I've already fixed the ones you added to William Maclay (Pennsylvania senator). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
That was actually me.[1] I guess Anon126/R made the same change afterwards and it became a null edit. PLMaclay-Burns, I suspect you click a ref icon or link twice. Only click it once. This inserts both the starting and ending ref tag. See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Can a website be used as an independent source?[edit]

Can a website be used as an independent source for referencing a wiki article? (Ref: Jurgens Ci entry still in preparation)Kalamazoo54196.215.154.69 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a website can be used as a reference, but it must meet our standards as a reliable source. That means it should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Each source has to be judged in context. Some indications that a website is reliable will be that is affiliated with an organization or published with a good reputation, that the articles are signed by the authors, that it has professional editorial control, that it corrects its own mistakes, and that other reliable sources often cite its material. The same standards are applied to books, newspapers, magazines, journals and any other type of published source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Kalamazoo 54, thanks for your question. Websites can sometimes be independent sources, but it depends on who owns the website. It's also important that the website be reliable and contain substantial information about the organization. Can you post the website here and I can give you a better idea if you're on the right track. Also, just wanted to inform you that in your above post, you weren't signed into your account, so just be sure to do that in the future before you post. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

hello i would like to know y is wiki deleting my information on this page[edit]

Chaltabagan Lohapatty Durgapuja? this information is a history and it is self edited both in wikipedia and on the website ,i have no copyright issues so i want wikipedia to publish it for the purpose of public information .i am new to wikipedia and it difficult to follow the rules and regulation.can a way be suggested to help me out with this editing .thanks!L c jais (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello L c jais. I understand Wikipedia rules are hard to grasp for newcomers. The article you are asking about is as I understand Chaltabagan Lohapatty Durgapuja . In addition to the copyright issue, we will also have to check whether this organization is notable, that is has the organization been covered in so-called independent reliable sources; like newspapers, magazines, books etc.? Organizations that are only described by the organization itself will not be notable for inclusion at Wikipedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
yes there are various newspaper edits on the net abou this L c jais (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The right approach if there is sufficient coverage in newspapers (that is in-depth coverage, not just mentions in passage) would be to write an article based on what newspapers etc. has said about the organization, rather than just copy the homepage. Newspaper articles etc. should be used as references in the article. The article must also be written neutrally; that is not being promotional in tone. Since you appear to have a Conflict of Interest, you ought to use the Articles for creation procedure, where some experienced Wikipedians will check the article before it is published to see if it is truly notable. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Iselilja can you please help me out with the publication of my article L c jais (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
L c jais If you start a new article in your sandbox based on relible sources (newspapers, magazines etc), I can look into it for you. But please read what I wrote above. I cannot tell you yet whether the organization is notable for Wikipedia; I first need to see how many sources and what kind of sources there are. Best, Iselilja (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Iselilja i have no clue how to write on wikipedia i wrote an article and now i can give you some reliable links to help m ein the editing to publish a new oneL c jais (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand it's difficult. If you have links to reliable sources, you can post them on my talk page, and I will look into it to see whether they are sufficient material for an article. If you know of other sources that are published in reliable media, books, but not on the internet, you can mention them to me, because they are valid sources too. Iselilja (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing help: Naming Wikipedia links protocol[edit]

If I am using the wikipedialink function in my document or edits, how can I abbreviate or slightly alter the name in my entry (for brevity or style) and still have it link to the correct page?Juamari (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Juamari, wikilinks can be linked directly as you did above, such as [[Earth]] giving Earth. If, however, you wanted that to say something else, you could do the following: [[Earth|The planet]] giving The planet. Hope that helps! Sam Walton (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox help[edit]

Where can I find information on how Sandbox functions, right now I am stuck with a page that has my username as a title.

Also can I save my work in sandbox without going "live" or submitting it to the editors if I have not finished it yet? Juamari (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Juamari and welcome to the teahouse! I'm assuming you're referring to the User:Juamari page - this is your User Page and should be used to identify you as an editor; your interests, articles, and other relevant information. Your sandbox is located at User:Juamari/sandbox, where I've just added a template which contains a link to the button you'll eventually press to submit your article. You can write your article there, saving edits as you go, and it won't be facing editor scrutiny until you click the green 'Submit your draft for review' button! Hope this helps and happy editing. Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Entered article in Italian. Acceptable ? Title:La Colonna Gamucci. Needs lot of editing.[edit]

I believe the subject is very interesting. Unfortunately I dis the only original research (so I have to quote a source of which I am the author. Do you want to help with basic editing ? Thank you, 142SPlle 142SPlle (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 142SPlle, welcome to the Teahouse. Did you know there is a Wikipedia in Italian? You can write your article there. But for now, someone may come and translate this article for you. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How do I add pictures to my post?[edit]

I've read several tutorials, but still am unsuccessful in adding thumbnails to my post.Sgray538 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sgray538: Welcome to the Teahouse. You used the entire URL of the file where the title of the file goes. I've fixed that by removing the "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/" bit. --Jakob (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Painting a welcome picture[edit]

I'm new here but I've been told there are discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict. Initially, I thought this was posted to discourage me from contributing, but now I wonder if this is a necessary concept. "This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies."[2]

I'm asking: Do "standards of behavior" include something against the act of shaming? I've just been painted as a character in this cartoon by the unsupported allegation that I cry/chant/siren 'antisemitism' at <insert fish story>.

"you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic (excuse for attack)" - link

Certainly, unsubstantiated slander is the wrong way to welcome new contributors. No wonder this editor (read: gate-keeper) goes on to complain about other editors destroying the way he feels the article should look like. Other than wishing to know what the discretionary sanctions say about this conduct, I wonder if this the first time this editor has done this and is it considered permissible under "standards of behavior"? (I sure hope not) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume Wikipedia shrugs off winks and grins such as the following "Israeli ministry.:)" stuff, but I'll note it anyway for posterity.[3] Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I'm replying to your message on my talk page. I understand that this bothers you. Please refer to WP:DR to understand what you can do about it (begin by discussing it directly with the user at issue). But, at a glance, I don't think that this edit, on its own, is so serious as to warrant administrative sanctions.  Sandstein  20:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sandstein:,
Thank you for giving some direction. I'd appreciate more input on (a) what the "standards of behavior" say about painting fellow editors as a crying Muslim (or Jew). And (b) the history of the user in question. For now, justification is the response-type I received.[4] To be honest, reading WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE from the DR link provided is just too much for me. Please help. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC) + MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
My advice is to spend as little time as possible on, frankly, unproductive disputes about the pettiness of others, but rather to focus on improving our article content and discussing that instead of one another. I'm sorry, but that's all the advice I can give you. Our basic standards of behavior are linked to from WP:5P.  Sandstein  05:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Chronology of this page[edit]

The chronology of this page is currently out of order. New posts top and bottom. Can someone please sort this out? (I can't do large edits at my present location) Best, w.carter-Talk 11:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just rearranged the posts [5] -- benzband (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How long before new article is accepted for publication?[edit]

Hi Wikipedians,

Could someone tell me how long it is or when an article submitted becomes accepted for publication on the wiki site? I have created a document "Philip Howell" with proper citations. Someone (Orangeman) has suggested more citation which is fine, and now amended for these. The person in question is referred to on Wikipedia in other notable articles several times (more than ten). The person was a notable WW1 general, and therefore much of his career be verified in any case from the military records.

Also I need to know how to add photographs and about the process for this? Plus also who creates the summary table for an article?

With many thanks,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCFHowell (talkcontribs) 15:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC) 
Currently your work is just sitting in the draft space Draft:Philip Howell and will remain there unless further actions are taken. I have added a template to the top of the draft that you can use to "submit" the work to the review team's queue by clicking on the green button when you are ready.

(and it was @Orangemike: who did some initial tidy work.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Accepted I took the liberty of moving it forwards. Fiddle Faddle 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)




Someone reviewed my user page...[edit]

What does this mean? --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol All new pages should be reviewed, and you can find them on Special:NewPages. TranquilHope (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This puzzled me when it happened to me, too. Basically, they are looking for serious mis-use such as attack pages or blatant hoaxes, which get deleted straight away. But there is such a backlog that currently it is about 30 days behind. New pages patrol has the details if you feel like some reading. I like the section "Be nice to the newbies". --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lovely place. --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What should I put on my user page.[edit]

You read the headline. Doggy dogg. :)--DangerousJXD (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey DangerousJXD. It's really up to you. A lot of editors often talk about how the contribute or what they're interested in doing on Wikipedia. Some editors put a little info about themselves, some none at all. Some folks like userboxen, others don't. When I had this same question when I started editing, I just looked around at other people's user pages and took what I liked and left out what I didn't. Just avoid things that might come off as promotional. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Motto[edit]

Hi All,

I was at Wiki-mania and listened to an interesting talk on disputes between editors and the problems of recruiting new editors.

Anyway, the talker (sorry can't remember his name) mentioned a Motto that should be adhered to by all editor on Wiki. It went something like this "Regard everyone has having good intent".

Can anyone tell me this exact Motto?

Thanks Alex2121a (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions about things.[edit]

Can you tell me about Barnstars and Kittens and Food and when and who should I give them to?I want to upload pictures for articles about people that don't have a picture. I read the article on how to but can you explain the process in a step by step explaination?I want to make an article about a childrens show. Step by step please?Is there anything else to do other than the obvious things like editing?How will I know when someone has answered this? --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - You have covered a range of topics, so I will try to give an overview, and please feel free to come back to the Teahouse and ask if you have more specific questions.
  • Editing Wikipedia can sometimes be a thankless task. Barnstars and kittens and food and coffee etc are all informal ways that Wikipedia editors can show one another support, encouragement and thanks. I can't speak for anybody else, but I find a word of thanks lifts my spirits like little else. There are no hard-and-fast rules; if you think somebody deserves a pat on the back then take a look at Kindness Campaign for ideas about how to share the love.
Okay, while I was typing this I just got the cookie you sent, so you obviously have this one in hand already! Thanks.
  • The best way to upload a picture is to upload it to Wimimedia Commons, where it can be re-used by many projects. The first, vital thing is be sure you own the Copyright and are willing to release the picture for anybody to use however they want. Then on the left hand side of any Wikipedia page, under "Tools", click on "Upload file" then select "Commons Wizard". This is a step-by-step wizard to upload your photos. Once the file is uploaded, it is just a matter of editing the relevant article to tell it where to show the image by adding a line something like [[File:filename.jpg|thumb|right|Caption for the image]] at the appropriate place.
  • If you want to create a new article, my best advice is to start by editing some existing articles to build up your experience first. Then when you feel ready to jump in to create a new article, the best guide is Wikipedia:Your first article; it might look a bit big, but it guides you through the whole process.
  • If you're looking for things to do, Wikipedia:Community portal is a great place to start. Also, there may be a Wiki-project for a particular subject area which interests you such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Television perhaps.
  • Finally, when somebody answers typically they will include a Ping at the start, which will notify you. In future, if you use the button to "Ask a Question" at the Teahouse, it will put your question at the TOP of the page, where it is more likely to catch people's eyes.
I think that's it for now; come back and ask again (I do!). --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Lots of help. While I am here can you tell me how to make those drop down menus that are everwhere? Rookie huh? --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Figured it out. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you figured it out, DangerousJXD. Often the easiest way to see how something is done, is simply to click the Edit tab for a page which already has a good example, and copy the code from there. That may not be very sophisticated, but it works really well. Plus, once you know the name of the command or the template used, you can look up the help for it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly how I figured it out. :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I really need your help...[edit]

Hello! I made an article Jessel Mark Magsayo.. it is about a boxer.... actually he doesn't have a title yet.. but he is a professional boxer. what can I do for it not to be deleted? please help me.. this is the link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessel_Mark_Magsayo Graciana2314 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Graciana2314. Please review our notability guideline for boxers. Unless the subject of your article meets that guideline, I am sorry to say that it is likely that the article will be deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Flame of the Forest[edit]

I have edited the title "Flame of the Forest" for Butea monosperma . The flower of it really resembles a flame by shape and by colour . The flowers of Delonix regia and Spathodea campanulata do not resemble a flame at all . Please answer me why you can not accept my editing . Thanks !

Kmobio - your edit to the Flame of the Forest disambiguation page was to remove all the other links to alternate meanings of "Flame of the Forest". There is plenty of well-documented evidence that the name is used at times for all of those different meanings, regardless of your personal opinion about how appropriate (or otherwise) they are. Stating that your edits are "the true knowledge" does not take carry the same weight in Wikipedia as evidence and references. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Help! How to change a main picture?[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering how I can change the main picture of a wiki page. I do own the rights to the picture so don't worry about that! Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsgirl84 (talkcontribs) 00:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Helle Johnsgirl84. If you own the rights to the picture, then you may license it by following the procedure in donating copyright materials. Note that in dong so, you will be granting a non-exclusive but irrevocable licence for anybody to use the picture for any purpose: Wikipedia does not accept material with permission for only Wikipedia. If you do license it, please do so at Wikimedia commons, so that it can be used in any Wikipedia and not just the English language one. --ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I delete my Wikipedia user account?[edit]

How do I delete my Wikipedia user account? LouiseLevergneux (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You can go to WP:RTV for instructions to vanish. TranquilHope (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Chatimity[edit]

Hi.

I wish to add up a wikipedia page for Chatimity, which is a Bangalore, India based social networking startup. It is available on android, windows phone and iOS with android being a major one. Chatimity also has a user base of more than 2 million users.

So I am just curious to know if it qualifies to be on Wikipedia?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratporetw (talkcontribs) 16:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to research that, and make the determination. Using the WP:AFC process will help you to achieve reviews on the way. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Footballbox collapsible[edit]

Hello. Im mostly creating and editing football articles. I create some of them in my mother language - bulgarian. The problem is there are quite inaccurate stuff about this template. For example, if someone scored an own goal you write {goal|minute|o.g.}. In bulgarian there aren't any template like this. There are many templates missing. My question is can I create them and how? IvanMilkov (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IvanMilkov. We only have information about editing English Wikipedia here. Each language Wikipedia is administered separately. I suggest that you contact an administrator or experienced editor on Bulgarian Wikipedia regarding how new templates are implemented there. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

unregistered user 86.172.40.147[edit]

Hi I was the person asking about Valid TV sources on british programmes downthread. After posing the question, a fellow editor and someon here advised me to write the problem on the Through the Keyhole talk page, which I did, however I don't know if anyone will answer. anyhow soon after I had posted the question, I noticed that 86.172.40.147 had started enforcing his rein on various British programme pages eliminating sources and episode guides citing WP:NOTSTATS and WP:OVERKILL, but, he has not only been targeting game shows, but documentary series and travel series and the like. I don't know what programmes WP:NOTSTATS entails. This user however, is now constantly deleting informations from various pages nightly and has gone on to many pages in the space of a few days and will continue to do so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.172.40.147). I did talk to a few of my British editor friends on the BBC side and they tell me that Press Office spoilers are fine as well as Radio Times are valid. (I've been using them for years), but 86.172.40.147 is totally against this. Even AldezD did not have problem with my use of ITV sources.

If this user is going to continue reverting and deleting program pages on a nightly basis, my enthusiasm for participating on Wikipedia will diminish for fear of getting chided and reverted by this user. I don't think there is any way that we can reason with him. He's already gotten warned on his talk page. I am thinking of starting a dispute against this user, but as he is unregistered, perhaps nothing will happen. Can anybody please help? 173.179.185.186 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, @173.179.185.186:, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you've found the wrong forum for this kind of problem. You probably want to try someplace like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard instead. Hope you are able to work through the issue amicably. --Jayron32 20:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy question: Different articles for same topic differentiated by tense[edit]

Over the past few months in a few different editing discussions related to possible merges and deletions I've seen a general issue come up several times and I was wondering if there are any Wiki policies related to it. The question is this: in general does it make sense to have different articles for a concept and the discipline that forms the basis for that concept? So for some specific examples there is currently an article for the concept meme and for memetics or for the concept frame and frame language and for the computer science concept object and object-oriented programming. To me this makes no sense. The concept meme can't be discussed without discussing memetics and the same for those two computer science examples. However, it seems to happen a lot and I was wondering if there is any official policy? MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, @MadScientistX11:, and thanks for stopping by! I don't know of any official policy. If a specific instance of this is bothering you, you can begin a merge discussion on the talk page of one of the articles you think need to be merged, you can read here for how to do that. In general, however, it is important to note that Wikipedia articles can be too long, and sometimes these sets of articles are intentionally split up to prevent one of them from being too long. See Wikipedia:Article size for an overview. Which is not to say that is the case in EVERY example you can find. But it could be with some; sometimes the split into two related topics is necessary for length or other considerations, sometimes it is instead more appropriate to merge the articles. It is different in every case, and each case should be taken on its own terms on a case-by-case basis. I hope this helps! --Jayron32 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Help improving an article[edit]

Hi everyone.

Full disclosure: I'm being paid to edit a page. I would like to remove the boxes at the top of the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rutka, regarding neutral point of view and neutrality.

Do I need to contact the person who flagged the page? Or are there other ways to remove these items? I'm not sure I'm the best person to make these changes.

I'd appreciate any advice.

Thanks! Varblues69 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Varblues69, in doing a quick read-through, I find nothing that appears to be non-neutral; however, I'm not exceptionally familiar with the norms for articles on people working in medicine. JamesBWatson was the last editor to make a major change, so I'll leave a note with him to see if he agrees. If you intend on adding information to the page, do note that you cannot add any material that appears to be promotional. You might like to have a conversation with CorporateM about how to add information to an article neutrally, despite the fact that you are being paid. Ryan Vesey 00:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Varblues69. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest here. Please do so on your user page as well. The tags on that article are the result of extensive editing by Deptofsurgery, an account which has been blocked for promotional editing to this and related articles. Do you have any connection to that blocked account? I recommend against removing these tags, until all concerns about promotional editing of this article have been resolved. Since you are a new editor and are paid to edit this article, you are in a very poor position to evaluate whether or not these tags are appropriate. Discuss with other editors instead. By the way, I wikilinked and copy edited the article a bit, to show good faith. I expect no paycheck for my work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I have removed one of the two templates as there do not appear to be any outstanding issues with the article. Varblues69 might help us to remove the other by suggesting independent third party sources on the talk page of the article, Talk:James Rutka. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Proper Wikipedia articles are representative of what's beens said about the subject in credible, independent sources, however the current article relies exclusively on primary sources, such as press releases and bio pages. Our policies about living people require that we remove poorly-sourced information immediately, without discussion, which means currently most of the article needs to be deleted. Additionally, in order to qualify for an article he must be the subject of multiple, credible, independent sources that cover him in-depth - otherwise we just don't have enough quality source material to write it. It may be a good AfD candidate.
Before you accept a job for pay you need to verify whether you can ethically obtain the client's desired outcome in compliance with Wikipedia's rules. One lesson every paid editor learns eventually is how to be selective about which jobs you accept. If you are being paid to write an article, but Wikipedia's rules dictate the article be deleted, there is no way to resolve that conflict of interest. So I would start by seeing if you can find multiple, credible, independent sources such as press articles or other profiles. CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Thanks so much for the advice and feedback! I will be sure to mention that I am doing paid work on my user page.

I believe I can provide, or at least recommend, neutral third-party links for the article in question.

Thanks! Varblues69 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly Arbitrary Editing[edit]

I edited this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians

There were several problems:

1. Notable members of this community (it's an ethnic group) are not mentioned- such as supreme court justices, and chief ministers, and central government ministers. 2. Unknown and unimportant minor celebrities are listed. 3. None of it is cited as often is difficult in list pages. 4. Isn't structured well.


A more experienced editor, with mysterious motives decided to revert my version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=622563030

He argued that not everyone listed was given citations.

This is absurd because the new one had as many citations as the old one if not more. Many of the people I added have wikipedia entries which show that they are members of this ethnic group. The new version in all ways was better organised and more encyclopedic than the old version.

Further many of the people listed are famous and are well-known to be from this particular ethnic group.

Why this is absurd:

-A more organised article was reverted to an absurd one. - Instead of improving the list by providing citations etc. it was blanket reverted. - The burden of citations is far excessive. I am not sure any other list page has the level of citations or evidence that the editor demands.

Since I am new to wikipedia editing, I would like to ask what can I do regarding this case?

I am persuaded my contribution was a positive one, and if this is the nature of editing in wikipediawho wish to destroy articles using pretexts than constructively improving them,then I susppose I have reason to leave this community. What should one do?


Jutsis (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed by looking at the history of this article the same user Sitush has done the same thing before: he has reverted a much more decent list to an absurd useless one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=589127793

It seems to me that this editor has an axe to grind regarding this page, since there are many lists on wikipedia which doesn't have citations for every entry.

Further the same user has edited another related list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Christians

Jutsis (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jutsis. Welcome to the Teahouse. Please do not presume that a difference of opinion over content is vandalism. It is a failure to assume good faith and assuming good faith is important to this community.
Wikipedia is not a directory of people in general and only people with their own Wikipedia article should be listed as notable. The burden of adding reliable sources lies with the person adding material. It is not reasonable to expect others to do it. If you have further queries about editing that page you should raise them on the talk page for that article.Charles (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jutsis. The editor you have criticized, Sitush, is one of our most respected editors in the highly contentious area of the castes and ethnic groups of India. Your first step is to discuss the matter with Sitush, in a friendly, collaborative fashion, not in a confrontational way. If approached this way, I am confident that Sitush will explain his reasoning. By the way, you should never, ever use the word "vandalism" in this way. That word refers to deliberate, unambiguous efforts to damage the encyclopedia. Sitush is not a vandal. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jutsis, I am sorry if I didn't not make my reasoning clear. Wikipedia requires that almost everything we say in an article is verifiable by reference to reliable sources, which is why citations are necessary. In the case of articles that are biographies of living people (we often call these "BLPs"), when the statement being made is particularly personal in nature - religious belief, sexuality, caste affiliation, etc - the consensus of the community is that the reliable source(s) must demonstrate that the person being written about self-identifies with the claim. A newspaper might say that a famous actor is a Hindu, for example, but unless the newspaper is quoting the actor it will almost certainly not be acceptable as a source for the statement on Wikipedia; similarly, although many newspapers have mentioned the caste of Amitabh Bachchan, we know from interviews with him that he rejects the very idea of caste and refuses to be identified with one.
The problem with your contributions, and with those of many other people who add names to India-related caste and religious lists, is that they didn't even satisfy the general verifiability requirement, let alone the more stringent BLP one. I understand that you meant well but you simply cannot do this, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not understand why list of Indian groups need to have a more stringent criteria than nearly every other page of lists of people other groups such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_European_Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_West_European_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Americans

and many many others.

By above criteria most of the above lists and many many others should be deleted completely. This all seems very arbitrary and dubiously so. The reason why I edited the St Thomas Christian list was because I thought such lists were of some value.

Anyway I intent to create a new page of something of the nature: List of prominent people of Kerala with christian heritage or ancestry, and by-pass self-identification and other problems. Jutsis (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not fix the problems that you say exist in those other articles? I can assure you that the India stuff follows policy, even if some other lists may not. I'd also advise you against creating the new page that you propose: not only would it fail to avoid the issues as you hope but it would probably fall foul of WP:POINT and might well just end up being pruned of poor content and then merged. As with categories, we don't create lists for just any old thing, although I can't remember what bit of policy says this - perhaps @Cullen328: can. If you must have a go, I suggest that you draft something in your WP:Sandbox first or, perhaps better, use our Articles for Creation process. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Covered in Notability of stand-alone lists and Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations in What Wikipedia is Not.  Philg88 talk 15:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

USING CITATION TEMPLATE[edit]

Please tell me what is wrong with the following citation. Thanks

In the 20th century, philosophers and the general public came to apply the name “instrumentalism” to one of a group of modern schools, movements, or doctrines, including pragmatism, logical positivism, operationalism, experimentalism, and behaviorism.[1]Empty citation (help) </ref> [2] TBR-qed (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC) + cited the right way by w.carter

It lacks parameter names. Try again, above the item {{Reflist talk}}, with parameter names. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Clicking the help link reveals Help:CS1_errors#empty_citation which explains with precision what yo need to do. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm still confused. I started with parameter {{cite book, then |author. then |first name, which all disappeared in preview. And I couldn't understand the ref list or help link. Please try me again.TBR-qed (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@TBR-qed:You simply forgot to specify what is what. The order has nothing to do with it, the specification for the parameter is the key. The ref should be written like this: <ref>{{cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl |title=Conjectures and Refutations |date=1965 |pages=4-5}}</ref> . And you can't place two books in the same ref. You have to make two separate refs for them. Clearer? Best, w.carter-Talk 20:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I got it. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ Empty citation (help) 
  2. ^ Popper, Karl (1965). Conjectures and Refutations. pp. 4–5. 

Uploading pictures[edit]

In the 3 articles I have made, which are Dusicyon avus, Dusicyon cultridens and Fuegian dog, I have wanted to add pictures. I know I have to draw the pictures myself and upload them, but when I do, they get deleted as they are considered "childish" and "unencyclopedic". Anyway, I have done the best I can to draw the pictures. What must I do? The pictures are childish because I am a child.

The first version of a drawing of Dusicyon cultridens, which I drew and called a "reconstruction", was deleted because it was "by no means of one". Then I uploaded the same picture, called it a drawing, and positioned the camera so the picture was straighter. That picture got deleted.

Then I drew a picture of a Fuegian dog, based on the detail that it resembled a fox, and I tried to make the picture as lifelike as possible. I hope that picture didn't get deleted. WHAT EXACTLY MUST I DO? Remember, I am only a child, so my pictures always come out childish.Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to draw the pictures yourself. You just need to find a picture online that will allow the picture to be used for other things.Mirror Freak 12:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Scottishwildcat12. I'm not sure where you are hearing that they were deleted for being "childish." The image that you uploaded for use in the first article you note was deleted because it was a copyright violation. If you could link to the names of some specific images, perhaps we can help you... --Jayron32 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Jayron32, I believe Scottishwildcat12 is referring to these images. Scottishwildcat12, while commendable that you took the time to draw these images, I don't think that we can use them in the article, what these articles need is taxonomic sketches done by professionals who have seen specimens. Because these animals are extinct (so taking a free photo is impossible), we can probably claim fair use on a copyrighted image from a book or website. This is a little tricky to get right. Scottishwildcat12, could you point us towards a book or (even better) a website with sketches of what professional biologists think these animals looked like when they were alive? --LukeSurl t c 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Scottishwildcat12, articles do not need pictures. For articles about extinct animals no-one really expects a picture. I suggest you don't worry about pictures for these articles. You're doing good work with the text! Cheers --LukeSurl t c 08:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
As I am only a child, I do not know what fair copyrighted images are. You cannot just stick any picture from the Internet onto Wikipedia, or it will be copyright violation. But if you mean to ask me to find books and Websites that contain taxonomic sketches, I can include them as external links in the articles. I have found some websites with really good taxonomic sketches of Dusicyon avus. :) Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Why vandalism? Most edits?[edit]

Who has the most edits on Wikipedia out of all the people on here? Why do people vandalise Wikipedia? --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Koavf has the most edits on the English Wikipedia. People vandalize Wikipedia for many reasons and you can read a Wikipedia essay about that here. However, with the many people on Wikipedia to counter vandalism, I believe that it is pointless to vandalize. TranquilHope (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
DangerousJXD - For a more complete list, you might like to check out Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once more. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Sometimes what is considered vandalism can be an attempt to make things better. Usually, the word "vandalism" is reserved just for edits that are obviously detrimental and those are almost always jokes or trying to push some extreme point of view. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Counter?[edit]

Does each page have a visit counter sort of thing? As in a counter or something like it to say how many people or how many times a page has been visited. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to view the Wikipedia article traffic statistics of a page, press "View History" and "Page view statistics". TranquilHope (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
DangerousJXD - to access that information, go to the page in question. At the top left, under the Wikipedia logo, is a bunch of blue links. Towards the bottom of that list, under the heading "Tools", click on "Page information". You will see all the informaiton you could want about that page, including a link at the bottom to the counter. Enjoy! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

bot?[edit]

Why do I see a lot of people have bot in there user name? --DangerousJXD (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DangerousJXD. Those aren't people, those are automated robot programs. See WP:BOT for details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
If the account has bot in the name, it means it is a bot. A person with bot in their name would be violating Wikipedia:Username policy as it is misleading. TranquilHope (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Clarification! --DangerousJXD (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestbot help.[edit]

I am trying to do the one time suggestbot thing on my talk page. Where I have to paste this there. I just can't do it. It is the phone I am using. I don't have a computer. Can someone do it for me or do I have to do it? If someone does do this for me I only want the one time one. Thank you in advance. --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I did it for you. You just have to wait for a bit. TranquilHope (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox.[edit]

Tell me everything. Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: The sandboxes allow you to experiment without harming anything in the content of the encyclopedia. Go wild. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Can you help with my suggestbot question? --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeking for help.[edit]

I'm new at wikipedia. So with which kind of articles I should start writing?

                        Buddhi Prakash Meena (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism![edit]

How do I "patrol for vandalism"? Do I just go around checking pages or something or is there a specific place to go? I would love to do something to fight vandalism. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If your account is at least four days old and has at least ten edits, you can enable a tool called Twinkle by going in the Gadgets section of your Preferences page. Enable Twinkle and hit the save button. You can go to Special:RecentChanges to check the recent changes and you can sort by unregistered users or New editors' contributions if you wish. If you spot any vandalism, press the rollback (VANDAL) button and Twinkle will undo that edit without an edit summary. Their talk page will also pop up so that you can give them a warning template. Make sure to read Wikipedia:Vandalism to see how to respond to vandalism and see what warnings to give. WP:WARN has all the warnings and WP:UWLS has some useful information about which warning level to give. Make sure to be careful on what is actually vandalism and what is a good faith edit. After 200 mainspace edits, you may want to enroll at WP:CVSCHOOL if you want. After 400 mainspace edits, you should request permission for rollback to use vandalism fighting programs like Wikipedia:STiki and Wikipedia:Huggle. TranquilHope (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the great answer. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions bottom.[edit]

Why are my questions appearing at the bottom when they are supposed to be at the top? I use the blue button for every question I have asked. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD:. Not sure; I just tested the button out in this edit here, and it posted to the top of the page for me. Can anyone with more technical knowledge than myself address this? I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know whether it makes a difference, but @DangerousJXD: is using a mobile phone. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)