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

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


WP teahouse logo.png

page about yourself[edit]

Hey. how do i create my own page and insert an info box?Aakash Yaduvanshi (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Check reverts of individual user[edit]

Is there any way to filter contribution looks of an individual user to see which edits I have made that were reverted so I can find what contribution I made which I shouldn't have or should discuss? David Condrey log talk 18:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! If you know the username of the user, head over to, fill in the user name of the desired user and add 'David Condrey' into the Search field and click Submit. It should list the reverts that the user has made only if he or she has indicated your username on the edit summary. ///EuroCarGT 20:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I edit using a mobile?[edit]

hi wiki,this is Jegan, fromIndia. i use wikipedia through mobile. i have trouble creating an account and editing.please suggest me something i can do with the mobile as i don't have any computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jegan. You have plenty of options for mobile access - see Help:Mobile access. Your access is a little restricted compared to registered users (see IP), but you can still edit a lot of Wikipedia pages. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

how do i request that an article be undeleted?[edit]

I recently had an article for being accused of advertising, but how do I request that it be undeleted? The information I provided detailed who a person was and the work he has done. I don't understand how could convey this information any other way. How this was advertising?DerrinRogers (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@DerrinRogers: Hi Derrin The page cannot be undeleted as it was full of copyright violations by your copying and pasting previously written text marketing his publications into the page, as well as material from his MarketersMedia press release. A big part of the reason it read as advertising was because it contained all that advertizing copy, but frankly, pretty much all of the text after the first two sentences establishing basic details about the subject read as written for a sales brochure, intended to convince just how wonderful the person and his products are and was full of detail about what he believes, rather than simple facts about him. An encyclopedia article is not written to convince and does not convey the writer's opinion about the subject or read as if written by someone who knows the person. To give an example, a statement like his "passion is that the Holy Spirit of God, by the mercy of Jesus will lead the way for individuals to understand and go forth in life, being a blessing to others" has no place in an encyclopedia article. Another problem is that, as far as I can tell, the article did not contain any reliable secondary sources discussing the subject, so there was no evidence the subject is notable, as we use that word here to indicate that the world has taken note of the subject by publishing such substantive material about them in reliable sources independent of them. That is true of most of the people in the world, by the way, including me. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Creating a wikipedia article[edit]

I'm very lost as to how I would submit my draft for review & also how to add references to my article

Onyx03080 (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


what is teahouse beacause i don't know and plesee block Materialscientist and Bilcat cause they Vandalism everithing Addinqaisara (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Addinqaisara: It's a place to ask questions about Wikipedia! Hope you enjoy it here! --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Addinqaisara Welcome to the Teahouse, Teahouse is a place where you can get help from other editors. Teahouse is made up of volunteered contributors known as hosts. You can ask questions on Teahouse and other experienced editors will respond to your question as soon as possible. And they will do their best to answer your questions. --Chamith (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
can you show me how it works Addinqaisara (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
can you show me how it works Addinqaisara (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I just did Face-smile.svg. I just answered your question.--Chamith (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What is this web page?[edit]

What is this web page? I did not know that Wikipedia provides anything other than information similar to a modern day dictionary. RM Sacramento 2602:306:CEA0:B4F0:1468:AFF9:4627:1F44 (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IPV6 user. I guess you're referring to this page on which you have posted the question. The answer is, as it says at the top, that this is a page where people can ask questions about using and editing Wikipedia. Incidentally, one of the things Wikipedia is not is a dictionary: it does not define words (except incidentally): it contains articles about subjects collecting and summarising what has already been written about them elsewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is more than a dictionary. Wikipedia is the most awesome thing on the Internet. When you look back at the guys who first had the vision for something like the Internet, people like computer pioneer Doug Engelbart their vision of what computers could eventually do is being realized by Wikipedia. But coming down to Earth Wikipedia is a hypertext encyclopedia. It has articles on all sorts of topics from academic topics such as computer science and biology to popular topics like TV shows, celebrities, and movies. It is edited by unpaid volunteers who donate their time. The quality of the articles has been evaluated to be close to some of the best for profit encyclopedias. Here is an article that describes wikipedia in more detail: wp:what is Wikipedia If you are interested in helping out here are some good articles to start with wp:your first article wp:42 The wp:Teahouse, where you asked this question is a place where editors come and ask questions about how to edit the encyclopedia and other editors try to answer them. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Article not published (Wolfgang Victor Ruttkowski)[edit]

Hi there!

On Sep. 30th I tried to upload an article about the author Wolfgang Victor Ruttkowski. What is wrong with the article and what do I have to do in order to get it published on Wikipedia?

Thank you very much for your help! Rebecca Scardy Rebecca Scardy (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Rebecca Scardy Welcome to the teahouse. Look at the top of your draft article here: Draft:Wolfgang_Victor_Ruttkowski You will see a box that starts like this: "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability..." In that box you will see a bunch of Wikilinks that point you to articles that describe the requirements for wp:notability for a Wikipedia article. This one is especially important for your draft article: Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) As of now your article has no inline references. That is automatically a reason to not get published. All significant statements in any Wikipedia article are supposed to have references. You put the code for the reference after the relevant claim(s) it supports. Then at the bottom of the article you put this tag: {{reflist}} and it takes all the references, orders them, and leaves them at the bottom. There are other ways to do references as well, that's just how I usually do it. I think this article would also help you: wp:references for beginners Hope that made sense, feel free to ask follow up questions if it's still not clear. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Categories[edit]

Hello there!

I have a question about how to determine the category of my article.

Recently for a class project, we have become new wikipedians and are working on stubs and requested red articles. I do not remember what category I chose, but I found a red text requested article and researched to create one.

There is a note on my article, Cocteaufest, that I should properly categorize it. Any ideas? Just want to make sure I am completing this correctly...

Thanks much! Andrew Thiessen (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. If it's not already active on your account (I can never remember whether it's opt-in or opt-out, these days), you should add HotCat to your Preferences (under the "Gadgets" tab). Once it's running, you can click on the + symbol at the bottom of any article to add categories. The beauty of HotCat is that it autopopulates, so if you start typing a possible category (for example, "Festivals in..."), HotCat will produce a list of possibilities. It make life a great deal easier... Hope that's helpful, Yunshui  14:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Yunshui! Thanks very much for your recommendation. I have added it to my preferences and I believe I added a proper category. You are right - that was very easy! It took away the notice and listed the category at the bottom. I will work on further categorization of the article... Thanks again! Andrew Thiessen (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Andrew Thiessen. It looks like you chose the categories well. I made one tweak, though - Category:Music festivals is a subcategory of Category:Festivals, so I removed the latter. Generally you should choose the most specific categories that apply and avoid redundancy. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Article deleted due to advertising or inappropriate external links[edit]


I am a first-time article creator.

My article regarding Tiger (danish store) was deleted due to advertising or inappropriate external links. It was never my intentions to violate any of the wikipedia terms, and I would like change whatever is violating. The problems is, that I don't know whether the problem is advertising or the external links and more specific which of these should be changed.

Is it possible to get a clarification regarding this?

Regards Daniel

DanielFromberg (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello DanielFromberg Welcome to the Teahouse by looking at your contributions I found your page Tiger (Danish store) which wasn't deleted or tagged for speedy deletion. Could you clarify your question please.?--Chamith (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming Daniel is referring to this edit, where he replaced almost all of the content of Tiger (Danish store) with promotional claims such as "Tiger is a Danish design store with a quirky, ever-changing selection of own-designed and branded products at affordable prices" and an excess of detail on the company's structure and policies. Daniel, Wikipedia is not Tiger's webhost. We don't allow companies to use Wikipedia for advertising, especially if they try to do so by co-opting our articles for their own ends. What you'd written would have made excellent copy for Tiger's own website - but an encyclopedic article about the company is not the same thing as a company website.
I should also mention that if you work for Tiger, as seems likely, then you are violating Wikipedia's Terms of Use by not disclosing your conflict of interest. I would recommend that you use your userpage to clarify whether you are being compensated for your additions to Wikipedia. Yunshui  13:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggest merge categories[edit]

How would you suggest that two categories be merged? For example the categories : for Film crew and Filmmaking occupations David Condrey log talk 09:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi David, you can propose and discuss category mergers at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

how add link to article in wikipedia but in another language in wikipedia?[edit]

hello everyone,

my quickie q:

how do i add a link to an existing article within wikipedia but located within another language in wikipedia?, i.e.; publisher, Ugo Mursia Editore, is in italian wiki article but not recognized by the english wiki. Would this do it? it seems there must be an easier way?:


  1. ^ [1], Wikipedia article on publishing house, Ugo Mursia Editore, in Italian.

thank you Voglioimparare3 (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is called an interlanguage link. It is formatted like this, [[:it:Ugo Mursia Editore]], yielding the link it:Ugo Mursia Editore. The disadvantage of doing this is that it takes mostly English-speaking readers to an Italian language article and does not notify editors that Ugo Mursia Editore does not exist the way a redlink does. I suggest using the "link" template, formatted like this: {{link|it|Ugo Mursia Editore}} which yields Ugo Mursia Editore (it). Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Voglioimparare3: You can also use the {{ill}} template, which will list the article as requiring translation and automatically remove the red link once that has happened.  Philg88 talk 09:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming new comers[edit]

Come do you welcome someone and send invitations to the teahouse? (In new comers' talk pages) -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk page[edit]

Why is my user talk page different to everyone else's? E.g. Annonymus user's -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sad -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Your user talk page looks like most peoples, just messages and conversations. If however you are talking about your user page then you can customise that pretty much how you want. If you want some ideas go to Wikipedia:User page design center to see what can be done and more importantly how to do it. But I'd suggest that at the same time you look at improving some articles as we all need to remember that Wikipedia is primarily an encylopedia not a social media site. Nthep (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternate way to create red link?[edit]

This page here: List of female rulers and_title holders has a listing for Jeanne of Albret (d. 1444), Countess of Dreux - the original author simply input the brackets around the name to create a link. But in this case, it's automatically linking to the wrong individual, Jeanne d'Albret (7 January 1528 – 9 June 1572). There is no page for Jeanne of Albret who died in 1444 but obviously putting brackets around the name doesn't work to automatically create a red link. So how do I correct this? Is there another way to create a red link or do I have to remove the brackets altogether? I do not know about about Jeanne of Albret d. 1444 to create a page on her, I am just trying to correct links on this page. Robin McNally (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robin McNally. A common way to distinguish people with the same name is to add qualifiers to the name, e.g., Prince William, Duke of Cambridge vs. Prince William, Duke of Gloucester. I changed the erroneous link to Jeanne of Albret, Countess of Dreux. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank You! --Robin McNally (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Robin McNally: See also WP:PRECISION and in this case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). If a guess at a future article name is not suited for display in an article then you can use a piped link like [[Jeanne of Albret, Countess of Dreux|Jeanne of Albret]] to produce Jeanne of Albret. I don't mind displaying the long name in this example. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I did wonder if that was a possibility but I wasn't sure if it was a good method to use for pages not created yet, since it may not be clear what the title of the article will be when created. I will keep both in mind in the future.--Robin McNally (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Article Help[edit]

Hello, I am a first-time article creator. My article Draft: Marco, Inc. was deleted because of ambiguous advertising.

I had external links to the company's Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, and YouTube pages. I am wondering if that is what the ambiguous advertising refers to and hence, why the article was deleted?

If so, I am 110% okay with taking those sections out and making the proper changes. I am just not quite sure what part of the article they referred to when talking about the ambiguous advertising.

Is there any way to restore my deleted article or do I have to re-start all over again?

Thank you. St. Cloud (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@St. Cloud: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. You can find the information you need in WP:REFUND. That tells you how to get the draft restored so you can work on it some more.
As for the "ambiguous advertising", I assume the person said "unambiguous advertising". That means the person clearly believed the article to be promoting the company. It's not the sources you used, although those are not ideal. It is the tone of the article. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view and sources connected with the company will not provide that. You can put facts in your own words, but you cannot appear to be promoting a company. Just state facts about the company that have been discussed in detail in independent reliable sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I get on Wikipedia?[edit]

I would like to get the small non profit I work for onto Wikipedia. Am I allowed to create the page myself or am I took close to the subject matter? If I am too close how do I go about finding someone to create a page?

OutrunTheSun (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The answer depends upon how well you can write in a neutral manner about the organisation. The best advice is to go to WP:AFC and use the link to create an article. Once created, submit it for review and listen to and embrace the advice in the reviews. However, your org may fail WP:CORP start out by giving that serious thought. Fiddle Faddle 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, OutrunTheSun. Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for asking before charging ahead and doing it. The direct answer to your question is that you are allowed to create the page, but quite strongly discouraged from doing so, because it is likely that your conflict of interest will make it hard for you to write in a sufficiently neutral way. However, there is a prior question, which is whether any article on your organisation would be acceptable. Wikipedia does not have articles on everything: it requires that subjects be notable (in a special Wikipedia sense), which means roughly that several independent reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers) have thought it worth writing about already. Your characterisation as "a small non profit" suggests to me that this will not be the case, though it might.
My advice to you would be to find several reliable published sources, independent of your organisation, which have written about it at length. If you cannot find these, then don't waste your time: no article about it will stick at present. If you find the sources, then either post a request at requested articles, with the sources, and wait, probably several months, for somebody to be interested enough to write about it; or, if you want to have a go yourself, use the articles for creation process, disclose your connection on your talk page, and be prepared for reviewers to be merciless when you eventually request a review. --ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I would also chime in here with a bit of additional advice. Having reviewed many WP articles submitted for publication what I often see is that even when an organization has enough substantial coverage to meet the standards of WP:CORP they create an article that is written like a promotional piece or a pre-paid magazine article and give far too much coverage to non-notable details and praise. So if you do write an article, make it short, simple and to the point. Then cut it back by another 30% and submit it for publication. Remember this is an encyclopedia not magazine. Good luck.-- KeithbobTalk 21:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


hello,primehunter can i create any type of templates?will they also be deleted as like as articles are deleted?Jojolpa (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jojolpa: This is a general help page with many helpers. There is no reason to ask for a specific editor in a new question. If you have a question for me personally, for example because it involves past edits by me, you can contact me directly at User talk:PrimeHunter. There are different policies for articles and templates. Templates can be deleted per general or template criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, or after a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. If you tell what the template is intended for then we may be able to say more. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Best way to get help from an Admin?[edit]

Hi, I'm having a difficult time with a single purpose editor whose strategy for ownership of an article is to attack and harass anyone who changes it. Recently they have begun attacking me and continue to attack despite warnings by myself and another editor on their user talk page. At this point some Administrator intervention is needed. Posts at ANI can create a lot of drama and become convoluted so I'm hesitant to bring it there. It seems like a very straight forward case to me. One that an individual Admin could handle efficiently without a lot of drama. Should I use the Admin help template on the offending editor's talk page? Or is there an Admin here who would be willing to look at the situation here and advise me? Thanks in advance. KeithbobTalk 15:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob: I actually had a very similar situation to deal with myself recently where I did not desire to go to ANI or other public forum. I find it's best to go to an admin you trust and explain the situation to them using the "E-mail this user" feature on the lefthand side. Most admins should have this enabled. Hope the situation is resolved soon. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice and encouragement. I've put a note on the page of an Admin who has been active here at Teahouse recently. Hopefully they will guide me along. Thanks!-- KeithbobTalk 00:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Same link in infobox and External links[edit]

For article Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior the diocese website appears in 2 places

  1. infobox on the right side
  2. in section External links

Is is OK to remove the second one in Ext. links?

Should I put a reason on the article's Talk page lest another person will Undo the change?

Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings JoeHebda, welcome to the teahouse. This is a judgement call. IMO redundancy is not always bad. Just because the URL shows up in two places in the article doesn't require that one of them is deleted. My feeling would be that the web site is very relevant to the article and hence it's fine to have the URL both in the info box and external links. But I don't edit pages on churches or similar organizations so I don't know what the accepted standard is and you may be right. I would definitely suggest starting a new section on the talk page and raising the question there before you do the edit. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the quick response...the more I think about it, yes it seems best to leave the wikilink in both places. As long is as this is one of those gray areas, might as well just leave it.

There does not appear to be any standard way of writing these.

Thanbks! JoeHebda (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I feel its overkill to have it in two places and there is no requirement that it be in both places. However, there is no policy against it either and in most articles it is listed in both the infobox and EL.-- KeithbobTalk 15:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is a policy. It's called WP:OVERLINK. According to this policy the words understood by most readers shouldn't be wikilinked.Usually a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.--Chamith (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes that is the correct guideline for wikilinks, but this discussion is about URL's appearing in both the infobox and external link section which have their own guidelines. Best,-- KeithbobTalk 20:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I thought he was speaking about wikilink when he said external links because he said "yes it seems best to leave the wikilink in both places". Pardon me if I didn't answer your question correctly JoeHebda--Chamith (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Why my edit was undone??[edit]

I edited Actor Aadhi page few days ago. Made many edits, added a lot of content found in regular sites that posts about movies and all the changes that I made was there for weeks but now I visited the page only to see all my edits and the new content is removed. Why was all what I did to the page undone??? May be who ever has done that could have informed me before doing it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsbridge (talkcontribs) 13:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there @Letsbridge: Welcome to the Teahouse. It's usually best to ask the editor who reverted your edits (in this case, Materialscientist (talk · contribs)) before seeking outside help. That's usually the easiest and quickest way to get the answer you need. If there's still a conflict after that, then getting input from other editors is appropriate. By the looks of it, Materialscientist did indeed leave you a note on your talk page explaining their reversion:
"Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you."
To expand on this further, content added to Wikipedia should have references showing the source that information is coming from - especially for biographies of living persons. Help:Referencing_for_beginners provides a nice guide for this.
I also noticed that a lot of the content you added to the page were quotes praising the actor. Wikipedia's goal is to cover article subjects in a neutral manner, adequately representing what is covered in reliable and independent sources. While having a few quotes representative of the overall reception of actors is fine, giant lists of quotes and praise don't do much from an encyclopedic standpoint, and could be considered promotional.
Let us know if you need any more clarification or information. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Progress request - Draft Wiki-entry "King Alfred School, Plön.[edit]

Last Monday, 14 Oct 14, I drew the "short straw". On behalf of my former-class-mates and members of the former pupils of the long-closed King Alfred School, Plön (Wyvern Club). As I am a Wiki-novice, so I am sure my draft entry requires editing etc. How do I find out the progress and acceptability of my draft? MikeWyvern4859 (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! You can submit it to "Articles for creation", where professionals will look over your entry to see if it is good for Wikipedia. They will tell you what they think about the article as soon as they are done looking. You can submit your entry by editing the entry and adding '{{subst:submit}}' (without quotes) to the top of it. I hope this was helpful to you! PhilrocMy contribs 13:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Philroc, Thank you for your prompt and helpful reply and advice. I am about to follow it. Once again, thank you. MikeWyvern4859 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! PhilrocMy contribs 16:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
We actually don't have professionals here. Just experienced volunteers.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

wow politics in wiki[edit]

I was thinking wiki is the best place to put information related to public. But i didn't know the "power" of editors who can delete the articles with nonsensical reasons without doing a bit of research on their own.

If the editor thinks he knows better than the contributor, what is the point of making the articles editable? nirmal (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

HELLO Nirmal,welcome to teahouse. Wiki is not a place to promote individual company,business.why don't you make the article in your own sandbox and ask administrators for it's approval?Jojolpa (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

ok. (nirmal (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
Greetings Nirmaljoshi welcome to the teahouse. I think you may not understand how editing works here. There are a few restrictions (e.g., on pages that cover very controversial topics) but for the most part any editor can undo any other editor's work. That can be frustrating at first for new editors because your first few edits may all get reverted. It takes a while to learn what is good Wikipedia content, references, etc. So when another editor undoes your edit that just means they think your edit doesn't add to the article and/or your edit violates some Wikipedia policy. You don't have to just accept that you can open a dialog with the other editor. The best way to do that is on the talk page of the article in question. If they are watching the article they most likely will be watching the article talk page as well and will see any new comment you add there trying to debate an issue. Also, you can contact the editor directly on their personal talk page. You can leave them a message asking why they reverted your edit. BTW, look at the edit summary before you do any of that, depending on the edit sometimes it's possible to just put the reason for the reversion right in the edit summary. Hope that helps, if any of that is unclear feel free to ask a follow up question here or on my talk page: User_talk:MadScientistX11 Cheers! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks for your good answer. I wish all the users were like you who would explain before taking action.

(nirmal (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC))

Speedy deletion[edit]

Can someone delete the articles amazingest and bestest? I don't know how -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Annonymus User 1000: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The articles have already been deleted by an administrator. For further reference, only administrators have the power to delete pages on Wikipedia. If you believe that an article should be deleted under the Deletion Policy, you should tag the page for deletion. There are methods such as speedy deletion for articles that meets the speedy deletion criterion, and proposed deletions for uncontroversial deletions, but the general method is to go through the WP:AFD process. KJ Discuss? 11:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Well it wasn't deleted when I asked this question... I'm just glad that it is deleted. -- Annonymus User 1000 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Song: Red River Valley[edit]

Are you aware that the tune to "Red River Valley" was used by the Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the XVth International Brigade as their song "The Valley of the Jarama" during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)?. I find it hard to believe that Ford and Steinbeck were not aware of this as the Abe Lincolns were an important cause in Hollywood. I wonder if there is any record of any connection99.133.162.158 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Welcome to the Teahouse, but I'm not sure if you're exactly in the right place. This is a place for new editors to ask questions and receive help from other, experienced editors. If you have a question, feel free to write in this section or ask another question in a new section. Furthermore, please be aware that Wikipedia is not a forum. Regards. KJ Discuss? 11:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If this is a question about content, post in Talk:Red River Valley (song). Click on "New section" at the top.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft having trouble getting approved[edit]

Hello, I have created a draft 3 weeks ago entitled Draft:You (Marcia Hines/Rita Coolidge song). I am wondering if there is some problem with my article, as I inquired about it this evening and there seems to be some snag. Please help?? Thanks.JGabbard (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JGabbard. Your draft was declined due to problems with the sourcing. One of the main claims to notability is that the song reached #25 on Billboard's Hot 100. But your reference #4 is to an Eric Carmen song. Plus, your reference #5 is a dead link. Fix up the article, remove bad references, add better ones, and you will probably receive approval if you resubmit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so very much, Cullen328! References are now replaced with good links.JGabbard (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Now Someone Is Trying To Delete My Article[edit]

"Speedy deletion nomination of File:Emma Bee Bernstein.jpg[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on File:Emma Bee Bernstein.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fiddle Faddle 00:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)" Tractatus11 (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that if a photograph appeared in a public magazine, I would have no problem with copyright. Would someone like to clarify this? Or are we just trying to find any reason to delete this article? Tractatus11 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tractatus11: No, you're wrong. An image is copyrighted unless the person who took it explicitly says that it isn't. Just being publicly available isn't the same as being free to use. --Jakob (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The notice is clear. The file is unlikely to be your copyright, the more so since it is declared to be a self portrait. The copyright will be vested in the estate of the deceased subject of the picture. The article is not subject to the speedy deletion notice, but the file is. Fiddle Faddle 00:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If the magazine can use it, and it's public, why can't wikipedia? Can I get permission from the magazine to use it for wikipedia? Tractatus11 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
How are other artworks shown on wikipedia articles? Surely the people who wrote the articles of those artists do not own the copyright to their work, nor are they public domain.Tractatus11 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
We have literally tens of millions of freely licensed photographs available on Wikimedia Commons, every one of which has been released by its copyright holder. Those photos can be used by anyone, for any purpose, for free, with only the proper credit. I upload my own photos quite often under a free license. If you took that photo, you can do the same. If you didn't take it, the photographer or their estate owns the copyright, not you or Wikipedia.
99.9% of photos published in magazines are copyrighted and restricted from general usage on Wikipedia. Exceptions are historical photos first published before 1923, as copyright has expired. Also, photographs taken by employees of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain. There are a handful of other exceptions.
We do have some limited exceptions for Non free images, one of which seems to apply here. Non free portraits of people who have died are allowed, if no free one is available. It must be a lower resolution version. Please read that link, and follow those instructions carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This person in dead, and this was in a public magazine. Do I have any chance of contesting this? I really would like to add her art to the article.Tractatus11 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The fact that she is dead is highly relevant. The fact that the magazine is "public" is completely irrelevant. Photos published in magazines are almost always copyrighted. Please read WP:NFCI #10 as I suggested above, and upload the photo to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) with a fair use rationale on that specific, narrow basis. Do so if and only if your article is accepted to the main space of the encyclopedia. Such images are not allowed in draft articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
How does WP:NFCC apply to Draft space? Do you know offhand Cullen328? --NeilN talk to me 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
NeilN, the policy says "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." My understanding is that the exemptions are administrative pages where borderline cases are analyzed. Draft articles do not fall under such an exemption, as far as I know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
NeilN Just wanted to say Cullen328 is right (as usual). There are bots that monitor sandbox and other draft pages and if you have a picture in there that is only licensed for specific articles the bot will delete those images from the draft files. That happened to me when I was working on some articles about a musician and his albums. Also, while I'm at it Wiki Kudos to Cullen328 and Timtrent for your amazing patience and politeness dealing with this user. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
We don't know whether the website or magazine paid for bringing the photo, or got permission from the copyright holder, or broke copyright or something else. Being in a magazine does most definitely not mean that others can freely copy a photo. In a below section you wrote "I went through the upload image wizard process, and I believe it said if an image was already used in a magazine it was public, and okay to use on wikipedia". The upload wizard says no such thing. A Google image search on Emma Bee Bernstein gives many results so a free photo might easily exist and then we cannot claim fair use with no free alternative. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You are correct, PrimeHunter, that we don't know for sure how that image got into that magazine. But none of the options you have identified affect the overwhelming presumption that the photo is copyrighted, lacking evidence to the contrary. We can use a low resolution version in a main space biography of her under WP:NFCI #10, and possibly #7 if it is a self-portrait representative of her style as a photographer, but not more broadly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tractatus11, here's what I suggest. 1) Get your article approved for mainspace. 2) Look for pictures of the subject which are not copyrighted (i.e., have a free license). 3) If you can't find one, post to my talk page and I will help you upload an appropriate fair use photo. --NeilN talk to me 01:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 'Fiddle Faddle' just went on my page and wrote a long-winded, full-of-shit explanation of why my subject is not notable, and 'Huon' just deleted my photo (Not to mention the two other 'ppl' ho mangled my article in the draft stage.) So we'll see if it makes it to the main page. I should have just written it without going through this (misogynist) reviewing process, but it was my first article and I was glad to take constructive criticism and wait. Ha ha. Thanks, everyone. Lovely bunch. Thanks for pissing on Emma Bee Bernstein's graveTractatus11 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If you will take on board the criticism you have been given instead of lashing out at all and sundry you will stand a far better chance of the draft being accepted. You have work to do. Find more references that prove her notability and you are home, free. Notice that you are the only one who has been abusive here. Everyone else is remarkably patient with you, and trying to guide you forward. So please do the research and add the references that meet the stated needs. I did note your abuse aimed at me. I have ignored it. Fiddle Faddle 02:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Important Factors in Adding a Person to Wikipedia[edit]

What are some of the most important things to keep in mind while adding a new person / profile / article to Wikipedia? I know that it cannot be completely promotional. However, I also know that it can be promotional if it is true. What crucial information needs to be in the content, how many editors need to be a part of the article, how many citations, etc..? Thanks! Wes6000 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wes6000. No Wikipedia article should be "promotional" in any way. Instead, our articles should be written from the neutral point of view, and all promotional language should be avoided. The "crucial information" should be a summary of what the reliable, independent sources say about the topic. The minimum number of editors is one. Much more important than the number of citations is the quality of the citations. A handful of solid sources (respected newspapers, journals and books) is much better than a large number of mediocre sources (blogs, YouTube videos, social media posts, scandal and gossip sites, self published material, and so on). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This is great. Thank you for the enlightening information. How can I become a bigger part of Wikipedia as a editor and helper? Wes6000 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
That is simple in concept, Wes6000. Simply expand and improve existing encyclopedia articles, or write new articles, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Once you have a good understanding of policies and guidelines, which comes through months and years of active experience, then help newer editors with the challenges they face. This is a collaborative project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is there a problem with my page? I am not using it to advertise[edit]

Excuse me, my name is Tracey and I want to know why there is a problem with the page I have just spent hours on uploading? ArtizianCatering (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ArtizianCatering. It is a good thing to want to share information about something that you think is important. Unfortunately, you chose a username that indicates that there may be a conflict of interest. Also another editor left a message on the talk page of the article that you created suggesting it that it should be moved to your sandbox. Do you know how to do this yourself, or do you need some help moving it? In addition, you should create your user page. And then you should probably request a change in your username to something more neutral. I can help you do this also, if you need help. But you need to move your article into your sandbox to prevent its deletion.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Tracy, your Wikipedia article has been 'rescued' and placed into my sandbox to be edited. But for your article to be put back onto Wikipedia, it's very important that you change your username. The instructions for changing your username are posted on your talk page. Your article will not appear on Wikipedia unless you change your username into something that looks like it's NOT affiliated with the business. Please let me know if you need help doing this. I certainly can guide you in the process of changing your username. I think there's a good chance that your article can be edited into something useful for people who are looking for information on your topic.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. Thank you so much for your advice. This is very new to me. I have never posted on Wikipedia before, so thank you for rescuing my Wikipedia article and placing into a 'sandbox' to be edited. Yes I would like my article to be put back onto Wikipedia and, as requested, I've changed my username. Please can you reinstate my article. I have followed advice so my own name is used to be more credible. Have I done things correctly? I do believe that, now we have introduced Foodology into our industry sector (thus creating a new approach to catering), there might be a great many future contributors, which is the future value of the thought process of Foodology. I have every confidence that it will shape a continuously evolving approach to a new way of thinking we've created and be a useful source of reference for anyone looking for information on a topic I was responsible for introducing. ArtizianCatering (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding a link to a specific section of a wikipedia article[edit]

How can I add a link to a specific section of a wikipedia article, rather than the whole article without it being shown as an external link? Gmk7 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Gmk7: You can append a hashtag and the name of the section to the end of the article name. For example, Blueberry#Origins will link to the "Origins" section of the Blueberry article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmk7 (talkcontribs) 22:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Rejection of my article, not based in fact or evidence[edit]

I would like to get a second opinion on my article for EMMA BEE BERNSTEIN, which has apparently been rejected due to the subject 'not being notable enough'. This is complete hogwash, and I suspect a personal issue with the wikipedia editor under their assumed persona.

Bernstein's photographs have been reviewed in the New York Times. She wrote a notable book. Her death was written about in THE NEW YORK POST, and ect. The link to the New York Times article was conveniently removed by some other editor 'fixing' my article. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS, and I would like another editor to take a look at my draft and review it fairly immediately

Here is the draft:

I implore other editors to take a look at it, who do not have a hidden personal agenda.

If the article is still rejected, I will take the draft and the story to the media. I am not kidding. Tractatus11 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note placed on the Tractatus11's talk page KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 22:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Tractatus11. It appears that there are a couple of things that you don't yet understand about Wikipedia. First, we are a community of volunteers, about 80,000 of whom are considered active. Do you think we would care if you took the story to the media? It would be far from the first story critical of Wikipedia - have a look at Criticism of Wikipedia. Second, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is civility. And one aspect of civility is that we don't accuse someone of a hidden agenda just because we don't like their decision. That said, the subject looks notable to me. I see you have resubmitted it; I would suggest pinning down more of the biographical details with citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I have examined all edits by others in the page history [2] and found no sign that a link has been removed. If you think otherwise then please give a diff as evidence. See Help:Diff. Some links were moved to more appropriate places. Maybe this confused you. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
My article was also reviewed by someone in India who has no arts background, and admits to speaking 'passable' English. Is this really the right person to be reviewing an article about a writer, or culture and the arts in america?

Please take another look. I will make minor chnages if you really think they are necessary. But the subject is indeed "notable" for a number of reasons. Thanks. Tractatus11 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tractatus11: Which part of the need for civility do you fail to understand? Your behaviour here has been unpleasant, hectoring and threatening so far. You do not endear yourself to anyone here and you still expect a review of your draft in a speedy manner? Good luck with that. Pull your horns in, apologise, and start over. Fiddle Faddle 23:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I am being perfectly civil. But, yes, I think if wikipedia shows some prejudice about young female artists, who have myriad accomplishments, not being "notable" enough for wikipedia, that might be of concern to a lot of people...Tractatus11 (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tractatus11: No, you are being uncivil. You call into question the ability of someone who acts as a volunteer reviewer, and you threaten a press exposé. And you think you are in the right here! You are the only one in step. I say again, pull your horns in, apologise and start over.
For what it's worth, your draft will be treated on its merits by a reviewer when they get to it. That may be today or in a few weeks. You may as well work on some of the rather poor formatting you have in the references section in the meantime and continue to improve the draft. But your antics here will get you no priority.
People here are people, with the frailties people have. Your stridency is aggravating the people you want to be on your side. Can that be a good idea? I mean seriously, can that be a good idea? Fiddle Faddle 00:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fiddle Faddle--you are the last person I would take advice on "civility" from. "pulling in my horns"?....spare me. Either someone who barely speaks English, and knows nothing about the arts, or someone with a hidden agenda has "reviewed" and rejected my perfectly fine article. Yes, I am annoyed.Tractatus11 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If you need help from others you shouldn't obtain it by threatening them or accusing them. Look at how you asked your question, you tried to manipulate other editors by dragging media into it. Yes, I know it's disappointing when your article get rejected but there are certain policies on Wikipedia which applies to everyone. Rules are rules. You have to understand that we all do make mistakes. If you think someone else made a mistake there is a way to ask them about it. Your manners discourages other editors chance to help you. Please be nice to others. Wikipedia is not a social media where you can bully others. I hope you will understand and turn a new page--Chamith (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tractatus11: You will do as you wish. If this means that you continue to stamp your foot and complain then you will do that. IN due course people will get fed up enough with you to ignore you. The person looks notable. Make sure your references verify that and await a review peacefully. I imagine the next review may accept it. But your behaviour towards others here needs to change from petulance and anger to working with people. Getting the people you wish to help you upset with you is not a useful skill. I suggest you unlearn it. Fiddle Faddle 00:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There was no help or civility in the way my article was reviewed and rejected. No explanation. No help. Just "not notable." Which is clear to anyone who knows anything about the arts in America as simply untrue. If the article needs a little work, fine. This person was completely unhelpful and (excuse the "incivility"--ignorant of the subject.)Tractatus11 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tractatus11: It really is time to stop this. No-one cares, you know. We do care about your behaviour, not your draft. And your behaviour will, in due course, if it continues for long enough, result in your being blocked from editing. Take a step away form the keyboard and your combative stance. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we . push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. However, you make folk want to avoid reviewing this one lest they get a tirade from youFiddle Faddle 00:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute. You were upset because one editor declined your review. And you came here to manipulate other editors to get your article accepted?. If I were you I would have ask for help in a peaceful manner rather than blaming all the editors.--Chamith (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I care. I care about my article, and a lot of other people are going to care about my article. My behavior is not as important as my article. My main problems have been aired. I am open to all sorts of criticisms, and have been on teahouse before asking all kinds of questions in good spirit--but "not notable" is ludricrous.Tractatus11 (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The notability of this person is open to debate, Tractatus11. A single five paragraph review in the New York Times is not usually considered enough to establish the notability of an artist or creative professional. The essay in the New York Post is by her long term friend and co-author. Accordingly, it is not an independent source and does not help establish notability. I see no evidence so far that the book she co-wrote is notable by Wikipedia's standards. In this case, there is also an element of a biography of a person notable primarily for one event - her tragic suicide at a young age. Memorial articles are highly discouraged here. It is up to you to show her notability convincingly, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Questions about her notability are far from "hogwash" and "ludicrous", but are instead entirely routine when evaluating new articles. As for other editors having some "personal agenda", either furnish proof or consider withdrawing a baseless charge.
You are welcome to write an article about your experiences here on Wikipedia. Please be sure to link to this conversation, so that your readers can see the aggressive way you have conducted yourself on what is supposed to be a collaborative project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The article is in the Draft: namespace as a submitted draft. Please read WP:OWN. Please also read the terms and conditions under which you submitted this draft. It may well be accepted at some point in the future. I imagine some people will even enjoy reading your work and the work of others. And to achieve that faster you need to ameliorate your tone and behaviour. That behaviour influences the speed at which it is likely to be reviewed. Of course, someone may take pity on you and review it just to get it, and your tirades out of the way, but it isn't likely. The article appears to have a picture in it uploaded in breach of copyright, too. You need to rectify that. There is a system for validating copyright and you need to use it. Fiddle Faddle 00:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tractatus11: You stated the reviewer "admits to speaking 'passable' English" with 'passable' in quotation marks. Where are you quoting that from? Or did you make up a false quote after seeing the userbox at User:Cutest Penguin saying "This user can contribute with a near-native level of English"? If you falsify quotes to diminish reviewers then it really doesn't help your case. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fiddle Faddle I went through the upload image wizard process, and I believe it said if an image was already used in a magazine it was public, and okay to use on wikipedia. Tractatus11 (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Primehunter, those 'kind' of quotes are not direct quotes, but merely for emphathization. Tractatus11 (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Do not use quotation marks for that purpose when you allegedly refer to what others have said. If you post this conversation elsewhere then please include a link to the actual conversation so readers can see for themselves what was said. This page will be archived elsewhere in some time but you can click "Permanent link" under "Tools" in the left pane to get a link which will continue to show the conversation as it looked when you clicked that link. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Cullen, I have indeed established notability. Her death is not the only notable thing about her, and I find that statement completely rude and uncalled for.Tractatus11 (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed you have not. I have analysed your references in a comment on the draft and can see that you are some of the way there, but you have by no means verified to our standards that the lady is notable. You have work to do. You need to find sufficient references to establish her notability to the satisfaction of the community. At present my view is that, were the draft moved to the main namespace, it would be subject to one of the deletion mechanisms and would be likely to fail top be retained. Since you will not wish this to happen there is more work to be done, and done by you, Tractatus11, because you are the author who wishes the draft to be accepted and retained.
Your diversion into some sort of imagined anti-female bias (below) is laughable and is an indication that you have no intention of ameliorating your tone and behaviour. Fiddle Faddle 01:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
So how many wikipedia editors are women? I'll bet "cute penguin" is even a man. There's some real misogyny going on here. It's gross. Yes, and I would gladly post this entire conversation (including my 'oh so uncivil' comments) if I were to write about it elsewhere.Tractatus11 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I have written quite a few Wikipedia biographies of women artists, and writing biographies of photographers is one of my joys. I see no trace of misogyny here, and not a hint of evidence that this person's gender is a factor in the comments of any experienced editor here. Please give us a link to your future writings about Wikipedia, Tractatus11, as I will enjoy reading them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You are the only one who has made reference to gender. If you think the gender of Emma Bee Bernstein has affected the review or discussion then that's pure speculation and I find it very unlikely. If you are female and think this has affected the treatment of you then you have not stated your gender and we don't know it. I don't know the gender of Cutest Penguin and don't care but. For what it's worth, the code {{gender:Cutest Penguin|male|female|not specified}} produces not specified. It currently says "not specified", meaning that the user has not specified the gender at Special:Preferences. Most users don't specify their gender. That's perfectly OK. Unspecified is the default setting and not something you actively have to choose among three options. Studies show there is a majority of men among Wikipedia editors. That may tilt some volunteer work towards traditionally male interests like sports, wars, computer games, but I see no reason anyone reviewing an art article would decline it because the subject is female. A huge number of submitted articles about all sorts of topics are declined and authors often get upset. Improving the article and resubmitting is more constructive than complaining. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, no trace of misogyny here....hilarious.Tractatus11 (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) Tractatus11 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I would never say anything like that to you, Tractatus11, but it is like water off a duck's back to me. On your way out the door, why don't you read Leni Sinclair, a biography I wrote of a notable woman photographer. You might consider it a model if you decide to return to Wikipedia editing once you have calmed down. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Move protection[edit]

What does the move protection protect against? Zafiraman (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: Move protection prevents editors from moving a page to a new title. Once move protected, a page can only be moved by an administrator. Check out WP:MOVP for more details. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you my friend Zafiraman (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Dividing an entry into 2 parts[edit]

I'd like to work on this entry:

It needs a lot of work, but the first major change would be separating the information on significant women employees of NPS (which I think is problematic all by itself) from the list of NPS sites that address themes in women's history (there too there is already confusion about *sites* and places listed on the National Register but not open to the public, but that's another story). These should be created as two separate entries, but I've never made a change of this magnitude to someone else's entry and could just use some advice/input. Do I just pull the first half out and create it as a new entry, something like "NPS/Notable Women?"

Mrmedit (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @Mrmedit: Welcome to the teahouse. First of all I agree with you about the content. That article is odd, the list of women who were senior park service people at the top seems completely incongruous with what the article is actually supposed to be about. It seems to me what you are proposing to do is the inverse of a wp:merge For merges there is a merge proposal template. I looked at the merge page and found this: Wikipedia:Content forking which I think is what you want to do. I don't see a specific template for forking but I didn't look very hard. I would suggest you check out that article though, there may be good info there, especially this part seem relevant: What I would do is to place a new section on the talk page of the Women's history article: Talk:Women's_History_Sites_(U.S._National_Park_Service) Proposing to create a new article and then after a few days just be bold and do it if no one objects. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the most relevant information can be found at Wikipedia:Splitting. Deor (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Deor: thanks very much, yes that's even better. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this, both for confirming my sense of the material, and for direction to the article on splitting.Mrmedit (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Spamming by Anonymous user[edit]


In the article, someone it adding an external link which is inappropriate for the article. I reverted the edit, but that person undid my revision. It happened twice. So i contacted him in talk page, since it is just an IP address, i am not sure whether he sees my message or not.

How to deal with such people?

Thank you Ashok (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ashok. You did the right thing, except that once the IP started edit warring (by re-adding the link you removed) you should not have continued the war. I have given a fuller warning on the IP's talk page. If they continue, then you could take it to dispute resolution; but I agree that their editing is disruptive, and I would suggest posting to WP:ANI if it continues. --ColinFine (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I just like to know how to report someone to dispute resolution. Do I need to add any code or something? Ashok (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey Ashok I'm guessing you already know about dispute resolution noticeboard. Before reporting a dispute to dispute resolution noticeboard you have to discuss the relevant matter on article's talk page. If the argument keep getting more complicated then you can report it--Chamith (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Ashok (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you allowed to leave some short entries of copyrighted material with citations in talk pages for others to view and discuss how the material should be paraphrased for the main article?[edit]

Are you allowed to leave some short entries of copyrighted material with citations in talk pages for others to view and discuss how the material should be paraphrased for the main article?

Bboyjkang2 (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a tough question, Bboyjkang2. How "short" is short? If it is only a sentence or two, then that passage can be quoted in the article, with quotation marks and a citation. There is no copyright issue. If the passage is so long that it would be a copyright violation in the article, then it is a violation on the talk page. You can link to a lengthy passage on a copyright compliant website, for discussion purposes, instead of copying it here. You can also loosely paraphrase and summarize yourself, as that is one of the most important editing skills here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that I’m going to post a link to an unlisted Google Doc.
Another option could be Pastebin.
I might put a tiny sample of the copyrighted material, or a few sentences on the talk page so that people know what to expect from the Google Docs link.
Are talk pages even crawled by search engines?
I don’t think that I’ve ever seen a talk page appear in a search engine. Bboyjkang2 (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Talk pages do show up.Bboyjkang2 (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I might use something like the Reddit text editor to put right leading right angle brackets (close angle brackets) at the beginning of each line to additionally skew the copyrighted sample.Bboyjkang2 (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Bboyjkang2. If you post the large quantities of copyrighted material on another website without permission, then that is a copyright violation. Wikipedia does not allow external linking to known copyright violations. Please be cautious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Side note: Talk pages may not be spidered by Google, but I have seen my sandbox appear on the Google search engine. I was not happy with that. So I no longer leave things in my sandbox that could be misconstrued as an article.
  Bfpage |leave a message  23:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


if i type two times user:PrimeHunter,primehunter will get two notifications ,won't he? second question is that ,extra large page cannot be properly included in my edit box!Jojolpa (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume you only get one notification if the same edit links your userpage twice like User:Jojolpa, User:Jojolpa. Please clarify your second question. Do you mean your browser or editing device cannot edit pages with too many kilobytes of source text? PrimeHunter (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:,what if i write so many user:PrimeHunter in different sections of the same will you be notified. And yep,my browser doesn't allow me to include all text of extra large page.Jojolpa (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As expected I only got one notification about the above edit which linked me twice. I don't know what would happen if there were mentions in different sections. See Wikipedia:Article size#If you have problems editing a long article. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jojolpa and welcome to the Teahouse! The notification you are talking about is WP:echo. If you include a link to another person's userpage, and sign your post, the other person will receive a notification. For you second question, I am assuming you are talking about the size limit of the edit summary. It is around 250. See Help:Edit_summary#The_250_character_limit for a more detailed explanation. Cheers,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 16:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

adding images and userboxes[edit]

I was wondering how to add images and\or userboxes to my userpage.I looked them up but got even more cofused. if someone could give a short step-by-step explanation that would be nice. Quiet Wanderer (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

HELLO Quiet Wanderer, welcome to teahouse.If you type [[image:Flag of Nepal.jpg|thumb]], this will create
Flag of Nepal.jpg
This image has already been uploaded in wiki.You can add image (those have already been uploaded) in similar way.Jojolpa (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Quiet Wanderer. Working on your own user page is a good way to learn how to handle images anywhere on Wikipedia. Feel free to experiment. Every userbox has a piece of code that generates it. Every image available on Wikimedia Commons has a file name associated with it. If you copy and paste the userbox code to your page, it will generate and display the userbox. Similarly, if you add the image file name, properly formatted, it will display the image. A good way to learn is to study the wikicode on another editor's user page, to learn how the userboxes and images are formatted. I have both on my user page. Take a look at the code I have written, and feel free to copy and modify any of it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@Quiet Wanderer:Hey, there are tons of userboxes on Wikipedia. Because they were created by editors just like you. As there are many userboxes they are categorized into subsections. All you have to do is visit userbox gallery, find userboxes that describes you and then paste the template code to your userpage. To add a self-portrait (taken by you) to your userpage first you have to upload it to Wikimedia commons under own-work copyright license. Then write the name of image you uploaded on your userpage just like Jojolpa mentioned.Hope this helps--Chamith (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thank you all. I try it today. again thanks for the tips Quiet Wanderer (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


Best way of handling a case when someone's review of a discussion is the opposite of what happened on that discussion? e.g. saying "there was only one argument" when there were about 5 other arguments. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would bring the discussion back to the talk page, but it would be helpful to see the discussion. What is the article?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing that it's Rafah massacre, which is in active arbitration on Talk:Rafah massacre. That's the place to make the comments. I'm not sure that you're getting the person's point, but this discussion is new to me, so I could be missing something. It might be helpful if you were clear on the contention (how you would summarize it, you consider the comic book source to be a reliable source, what sources you think are reliable, other).--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Guideline regarding "distance"[edit]

Hello, I was looking to see if there were any guidelines regarding showing the distance between two cities (source, template), etc. and I'm not seeing anything. Do you know if I can just use Google maps? Or, something else? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Carole, so nice to see you again. When I recently wrote this I wondered the same. I looked through loads of answers at the reference desk and they all pointed to this: Great-circle distance, which gave me a headache, so I used Google maps and no-one objected. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, good to see you again, too. Your response made me laugh - I have so been there myself at times. Sounds like google maps is a good approach. I wouldn't normally worry, but its for an article that I want to have listed as a Good article, so I was just trying to dot-my-Is-and cross-my-Ts. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have misspelled a word in my title[edit]

Hello all,

I have just created an article for the director/screenwriter of the highly-acclaimed film Whiplash (as he will likely be up for one or two Oscars). His name is Damien Chazelle but, like a moron, I missed my own typo in the title and called him Damian Chazelle - not Damien. I am so sorry, could somebody fix this for me. It is not immediately very easy to see how one corrects a typo in a title.

Thank you,


Louise Mensch (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. One moves the page to a new title. Not intuitive, I fear. Fiddle Faddle 18:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed! I appreciate it. Now I am trying to see how to make my references nest under the references line. My cunning plan of copying formatting that seems to work elsewhere has not worked thus far.

thanks so much for changing the title for me that was really embarrassing :)

Louise Mensch (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

how do i paste picture?[edit]

please help me i can't seem to paste a picture please give me some steps

3 cupcake1075 :3 11:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cupcake1075 (talkcontribs)
Hey Cupcake1075, If you are trying to paste a picture from another website to Wikipedia it's not possible. First you have to upload that picture to Wikipedia through file upload wizard. And there are certain copyright policies and image policies applies to Wikipedia. You better read image use policies before uploading your pictures. User Yunshui wrote an essay in order to help beginners. You can read it here--Chamith (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse @Cupcake1075: IMO one of the hardest things for new editors to get right away is how different images are on Wikipedia than on most other sites such as Facebook. For legal reasons Wikipedia has to be much more conservative about how we allow images to be used and the legalities about copyright for images can be complicated. However, the good news is that there are a LOT of images that have already been through the coypright approval process. Those images are stored in the Wikipedia commons: It's a companion database to the actual encyclopedia. You can search it just like you can search the encyclopedia and any image you find there can be used in Wikipedia. There will be links on the image that you can click on to give you the code snippet you need to insert that image into an article or other Wikipedia file. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cupcake1075! I am relatively new here as well and the Wikimedia site does have quite a few images you can use. There is quite a bit to search and if you have an image to upload, as long as it adheres to the policy listed, you should be ok. I just uploaded am image I took from vacation and it was very quick and I used it for my guest introduction. Hope this helps! Andrew Thiessen (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

PubMed reference template generator makes reference at the bottom repeat – DOI generator does not – recommendations? PubMed ID recommended over DOI?[edit]

I just finished watching the “Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine” introduction video, and it mentions PubMed as a good choice.

If I were to use a paper, and it has a PubMed ID, should I use that to generate a template over using a DOI generator?

Also, I have a problem with reference template generators.

The following tool allows you to input a PubMed ID:

I found that if I referenced a PubMed source again, the reference number would increment, and at the bottom, the source would appear multiple times.

This doesn’t happen with the following DOI generator tool:

Am I doing something wrong with the PubMed generator?

Does anyone have tool recommendations for generating a PubMed template that doesn’t have these problems?


Bboyjkang2 (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bboyjkang2: Hi Bboyjkang2. I really don't know as to your first question, except to say that any citation that provides good attribution to the source that allows readers to verify it is good, and the exact methodology of providing that suitable citation may be a toss up where there is more than one way. As for the latter, if you tick the box in the PubMed generator for ClickedCheckbox.jpg Add ref tag, it will provide the markup for a named reference, e.g., it will generate citation template like:
<ref name="pmid25310821">{{cite journal| etc.}}</ref>.
The next time you want to use that citation, you only need type the first part – the named part – but with a forward slash before the end:
<ref name="pmid25310821" />.
This will allow you to use that citation multiple times and only have it appear once in the references section.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with writing a new entry[edit]

I am new to Wikipedia and would love some help editing my "talk" page for a new entry. Any experienced wikipedia contributor want to help?



JonathanTrevorCrane (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JonathanTrevorCrane. I have written some biographies of notable photographers, and a bunch of other biographies of artists, so I know what's expected here for acceptable biographies. I also did a little copy editing of your draft. First of all, your draft should not be on your talk page. Instead, it should be in your sandbox, or a draft space page that you can create, or as an Articles for creation page. We have lots of choices for drafts, but your talk page is not a good choice. Your talk page is for conversations with other editors, not for drafting new articles. That's just a minor formatting issue, and I made similar mistakes as a new editor. No worries there.
As for your draft article itself, I always say that it is far better to have 3 to 5 properly formatted references to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, than it is to have 20 to 25 poorly formatted references to self-published sources, passing mentions, blog posts and social media links. Any experienced reviewer will be intensely suspicious of bare URLs. Please emphasize truly independent coverage of the work of this photographer, format the references properly per Referencing for beginners, and copy edit your own work, keeping the Neutral point of view in mind for every paragraph, sentence, phrase and word of your prose. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much Cullen for your review of my first entry. I am new to this and would really appreciate any help you can give me in regards to the reference section. After reading wikipedia's terms and conditions it seems that its vitally important to have plenty of references. The references I listed are mainly from very reputable magazines and websites. How should format them? Can you help me organize them and make them solid? Also I read that the sandbox is deleted after 12 hours, so that concerned me - where should I post this where it won't be deleted.

JonathanTrevorCrane (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

JonathanTrevorCrane, YOUR sandbox page, visible on the menu at the top of any page you are on logged in, will be kept forever unless it is disruptive, libelous, racist, or a copyright violation, or clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. The common, public sandbox page is for quick experiments and goofing around. No serious editor uses the public sandbox, which gets cleaned up often.
Plenty of references? Let me restate concisely: Far better a handful of rock-solid independent, reliable sources than a couple of dozen mediocre links to blogs, social media sites, YouTube videos, or websites controlled by the topic. The work to improve the sourcing is primarily yours, though maybe some other volunteer may pitch in. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings @JonathanTrevorCrane: I took a quick look at your page and I wanted to add a couple of things to the good info that @Cullen328: gave you. To start I think you may not have Wiki jargon down yet. The Talk page for any article is a page that is meant to have discussion relevant to that article. For users your User talk page is a general discussion place for you to get and leave messages for other editors. I noticed as of now your talk page: User_talk:JonathanTrevorCrane is set up as an article about yourself. The appropriate place for that info is your User page not your talk page. The other thing is it's not really necessary to have references for your User page as you do now. Most user pages are much more informal and really should be. They aren't supposed to look like Wikipedia articles and shouldn't be confused as such. Finally, if what you are trying to do is eventually create an actual wikipedia article about yourself unfortunately you aren't allowed to do that. That is what Wikipedia considers a wp:conflict of interest --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


What exactly does hatting mean? In what circumstances can it be used?

Some of my comments on Talk page disappeared, and the word hatting was mentioned in the context.

Thanks, Tennispompom (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tennispompom: Welcome to the Teahouse. "Hatting" refers to the act of putting {{hat}} (which stands for Hidden Archive Top) around a discussion or portion of one. This is typically done when a discussion becomes unproductive or off-topic. Hope that helps. --Jakob (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It should also be noted that I am the user that undid the hatting, as I felt it was inappropriate in that instance. Though hatting can be done in good nature; like hatting a single user's comment going off on a tangent about 'how Wikipedia is failing and this is why' which attracted a ton of discussion, but not related to the content at hand. Tutelary (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jakec: Thanks, I'll look it up - don't want it happening again!
Apparently I put my comment in the wrong place and messed up a sequence of responses, failed to indent bullets properly, etc. etc. It's been un-hatted now. Tennispompom (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You can often find the meaning of Wikipedia jargon by entering it in the search box after wp:. In this case there is a redirect from wp:hatting to Template:Hidden archive top. wp:hat would also have worked - via a hatnote at Wikipedia:Hatnote! PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree 100% with PrimeHunter's advice above. The #1 tool available to the new Wikipedia editor who wishes to be productive here, is to type "WP:something" in the search box, with "something" being a Google-style keyword or two about your editing challenge. The "WP:" prefix takes you to the behind-the-scenes Wikipedia pages about policies, guidelines and respected essays about editing. The keyword helps zero in on the most useful page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Jakec:, @PrimeHunter:, @Tutelary: and @Cullen328:. I've been trying to use - can I also link to it like this WP:CHEAT? (Just tested, seems I can!) I may need something with more explanatory text, somewhere that explains concepts. It's been 15 years since I last programmed anything and even that was in low level languages. I can learn, but need an intro to concepts. Copying format/style from other users has caused problems - I'd like to see them try and survive in an unfamiliar environment like MacroAssembler. Ideas?
Secondly - is there a handy page where I can quickly learn about types of links, shortcuts, x-references, redirections, e.g. to a page, to a subheading, to a user, e.g. what's the difference between "WP:" and "H:" shortcuts, e.g. can I use a link / label on the Talk page to x-refer to something I've already answered?
I clicked on the "Help" dropdown in Edit menu but this could take me on a marathon. Tennispompom (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tennispompom:You could always start at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and WP: are shortcuts to pages starting with "Wikipedia:" and H: shortcuts are for pages starting with "Help:". WP-pages are mostly guidelines and H-pages are more hands on advice. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tennispompom: Hi Tennispompom. For pages that might help with getting your feet wet in a structured manner, first I recommend tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. After going through it, you might check out Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, which has a summary of many different areas, with lots of links to the help pages for each. Agreeing with much of the advice above, when you reach any area where you want a specific page, typing Wikipedia: (or WP:) or Help: and then appending whatever word would most intuitively describe the thing probably is a link to the guideline/help/how-to page for that thing. You want a page specifically about linking? WP:Link, WP:Links, WP:Linking, Help:Link, Help:Links and Help:Linking all go to (two different but targeted) explanatory pages. Templates? WP:Templates (etc.), redirects? WP:Redirects (etc.)

The difference between Wikipedia: vs. Help: versus others is a matter of what namespace the page is in. All encyclopedia articles do not have the namespace descriptor and are in what we call the "mainspace" (sometimes "article mainspace" or "article space"). All other pages tell you what namespace classification they are in by a specific prefix word before a colon. Please note that "WP:" is just a shortening of "Wikipedia:" (an alias that always works); I wouldn't shorten others, like h: for help:, which is not a true alias.

Regarding "can I use a link / label on the Talk page to x-refer to something I've already answered?", I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're asking, but any thread that has a section header can be linked from anywhere like this: Full name of page, followed by a hash tag (#), followed by the section header name (case sensitive). Thus, a link to this thread would be placed by: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Hatting]]. Any such link can be piped to display something different than the link name by placing a pipe ("|") after the initial markup followed by what you want the link to display as. For example, by typing [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Hatting|Fedora]] you can make a link to this thread that displays as just Fedora.

There are some more esoteric things to know, like that even without a section header you can link in the same way if the template {{anchor}} has been placed, and that a link on the page you are linking to does not require the page's name (thus on this page, as opposed to elsewhere, you don't actually need [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Hatting]] to link to this thread, but could just use [[#Hatting]]). One other thing to note is that this page is archived periodically, which means that a link to this thread, in a few days, will be defunct as it will be at something like Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 262#Hatting, but that future link will probably work for a very long time. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all indeed, I've tried out WP: search - works great! Style manual end sections are what I was looking for. User:Fuhghettaboutit set me an exercise - to set up a link to this TeaHouse question before it gets archived - much appreciated. I'll be referring to it for a long time to come. Tennispompom (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How can I be a host?[edit]

How can I be a Teahouse host on Wikipedia, I know Wikipedia a lot. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 01:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Allen, welcome to the Teahouse. You can join host lounge by clicking "Experienced editor? Become a host..." right on top of this page. Then it will ask you three questions. If the answer for all three questions is "Yes" then all you have to do is sign. Please make sure you are familiar with Teahouse methods. Cheers--Chamith (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm a native speaker of English and used it as my first language means I'm joining the host right now and I'm worth good at it, however I need to talk to Jethro first before I can join them. I'm still a teahouse guest and experienced about Wikipedia. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 09:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, AllenHAcNguyen. I have read your comment, and also read your user and talk pages. Thank you for editing English Wikipedia, and there are many ways that you can help out here, but I do not think that you are ready to be a Teahouse host, because of issues with your English language skills. Hosts should have a good understanding or our policies, guidelines and social norms, plus a commitment and ability to communicate these clearly, and in a friendly way. Please wait a few months, while working on your skills. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328:, thank you for your response. To usually why I don't think I'm a host at this time, because I was using English as my first and native language on Wikipedia where I used it here on the English Wikipedia (however I don't look like I'm trouble speaking English), but apparently I use the Russian Wikipedia where do I professional at Russian. --Allen (talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me) 14:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of small piece I added[edit]


Under SYMMETRY, a short explanatory section has twice been removed. It is valid, particularly as it is counter-intuitive. It had two "classy" references.

A problem I had was inserting refs, which were wrongly entered by me.

I don't see how to add a reference to the numbered list at the end.

I'd also like to know why my contribution was removed.

I had previously been a member, and that seemed to end spontaneously, so I renewed my membership with a new identity. Malc9141 (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Malc, welcome to the Teahouse. Try reading through Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and let us know if it helps. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings @Malc9141: I took a quick look at the change you made to symmetry. I think a problem was that the text you added was not very clear, at least to me and I have a pretty good understanding of the basic ideas of mathematical symmetry. It interrupted the flow of the article. Essentially my judgement (and I'm guessing the judgement of @Chiswick Chap: the person who reverted your edit) was that the article was much clearer before the edit you made. All these things are of course judgement calls. When this happens if someone reverts your edit if you disagree with their reason you can start a dialogue with them on the talk page of the article. For Symmetry the talk page is here: Talk:Symmetry In this case my opinion is that Chiswick Chap was correct to revert your edit. Don't feel bad though, we all have to learn and learning by doing is one of the best methods. Cheers. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Malc9141, another factor is that you added this material to the lead section. The purpose of the lead is to summarize material in the body of the article, so if you want to add new material you should start by adding it to the body. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello to Chiswick Chap, MadScientistXII, RockMagnetist,

First, I agree about the introduction perhaps not being the best place for a qualifying idea such as I put.

I also agree from a purely mathematical view, my comment doesn't fit.

But I think it is very very important, nonetheless. If Wikipedia is to be accessible, it should not be arcane. I wonder if Chiswick Chap feels the Article should be Purely Quantitative.

The reason I say my point is important is twofold. In common articles about, say, the Higgs boson, we read about "symmetry being broken". In fact this refers to phase change and is utterly counter-intuitive to a lay reader. The scientific use of "symmetry" needs explaining, not dressing up. Second, I suggest that two major mathematicians, one a CERN scientist, writing about this, are qualified to make the point which I have taken up.

How say you?

Malc9141 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Malc9141Malc9141 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Malc9141: Sorry we didn't get back to you right away on the follow up question. On the specific question about symmetry, this isn't the place to discuss that and I don't really have enough deep knowledge to comment. But oh hell it's so interesting I'm going to comment anyway ;-) My understanding is that when they say "symmetry is broken" it doesn't mean that the mathematical concept of symmetry is "broken" in any sense but rather it's a shorthand way of saying that random fluctuations or some other external process has intervened to disrupt whatever was maintaining symmetry in the system under discussion. IMO how much you need to explain those details is really dependent on the article and the section in the article. For something like symmetry my preference would usually be to assume that if you don't at least know some math to begin with you aren't really going to get the idea of symmetry anyway and better not to throw in a lot of explanatory text that will put off most of the potential readers of the article. But I can understand having the other point of view. I've often argued the other way on other articles, that they have too much jargon and need to say things more clearly for a lay reader. It really all depends. Sorry, know that's not very helpful. In any case the place to have the discussion you initiated up above is on the Talk page of the symmetry article: Talk:Symmetry These kinds of discussions are exactly the kind that are supposed to go on there, questions about what is or is not appropriate in the article, does a reference really support the text it is next to, how much technical depth vs. high level overview explanation, all those kinds of discussions about each article go on the talk page of the article. The idea is to achieve a consensus on the talk page when there is a disagreement between editors and then use that consensus to guide further editing. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MadScientist. I have asked Chiswick Chap about the removal. I think my simple addition is still worthwhile though I'd be happy for an expert to make the point for me. Even your friendly reply to me suggests the apparent paradox (that I tried to clarify) remains.

It is not advanced maths to get the point that a random mixture is the same however you look at it (and is therefore maximally symmetric) and the more order you put into it, therefore, the more restricted the symmetry. This is what is so unexpected to the lay person. And expert mathematicians (whom I quoted) say as much. It explains the (arguably misleading) term Broken Symmetry (these experts prefer Changed, or Hidden, Symmetry). So I strongly take your second view. But I strongly dislike additions which vulgarise science. MalcMalc9141 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

How to fix non-working external links?[edit]

I'd like to replace two no-longer-working external links on the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe page with the current working URLs. On the edit page the links are currently in brackets and have an asterisk in front of each. Can I simply paste the correct URL over the bad URL, with the correct URLs still in the brackets and also leaving the asterisk in front of each? There are also a couple bad links in the "Notes" section, but when I click "edit" there, the current URLs aren't shown--all I see is "reflist." How are links in the "Notes" section corrected? Is there somebody I can notify to correct them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkybirdForever (talkcontribs) 02:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello SkybirdForever and welcome to the Teahouse. You are quite right, the external links have really gone sour. And yes, you can exchange the nonexistent urls with the correct ones. Just be sure to keep the single space between the link and the description of it, otherwise it will not perform correctly. As for your other concerns please post them in detail on the talk page of the article and someone working on the article may come along and help you with it. I will be keeping an eye on the page for you as well. References are a bit tricky, you can read about how they work here: Help:Referencing for beginners. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi W.carter, Hope this is the right way to respond to you! Thank you so much for your help! By the time I got back to the Ute Mountain Ute page somebody else had already fixed those two links. [I went to your user page yesterday to "check you out," and when I clicked on the "this" link I wound up on an American Indian page--and spent the rest of the day going from link to link to link... Yeah! Lots of references, but I found some really good stuff! ] But I fixed the same broken link on the Ute People page today, so I do for sure know how to do it now! I know there are other pages with the same non-working links, and as I find them I'll keep fixing them! I'm going to post on the UMU article talk page about the non-working links in the Notes section, but it doesn't look like there's been anybody around there for quite a while. Will somebody see it? (Really have no idea at all how all this works!) I'm trying really hard right now to not get addicted to this place, but I do have some other questions, so may I post them on your talk page when I have time--probably within the next couple weeks? Thanks again for your help! I'm a Little Olde Lady (Think: Age of Fortran!), and most of the stuff (coding) around here looks like Greek to me! SkybirdForever (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello SkybirdForever, I'm so glad I could be of help. I am going to leave you some notes on your talk page, and you are always welcome to ask questions at mine. And, I too remember Fortran. :) All the best, w.carter-Talk 21:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Contents box?[edit]

How do you make a Contents box in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKA Casey Rollins (talkcontribs) 16:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AKA Casey Rollins. I see you've now managed it, in Newsmax TV. Once there are four headings in an article, the table of contents is produced automatically. --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion help...[edit]

Can I as a new Wikipedian add speedy deletion tag to illegal articles? If yes, then how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snehanshu Phukon Assam (talkcontribs) 17:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Snehanshu Phukon Assam. Yes, you can add the speedy deletion tag to articles, if they meet the criteria. Please make sure you understand the criteria (and the difference between speedy deletion, Proposed deletion and Articles for deletion). The process, and the criteria, are described in Speedy deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

howcan i add photos to my article????????[edit]

Kool.amit65 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kool.amit65, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Uploading images, but see also Wikipedia:Notability (people). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

User Name[edit]

How can I change my user name? S.tollyfield (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@S.tollyfield: Hi, go to Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the process there. As long as the username you want isn't already in use it's a pretty straightforward process. Nthep (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

New question[edit]

hi there,do i really need an android powered mobile to create an account and do the editing?how could i contribute to wikipedia?please note that i don't own a computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Welcome to the Teahouse. I think there are other options besides Android for using Wikipedia, though I'm not personally familiar with mobile use. I believe only the official Wikipedia apps allow account creation and editing. Please refer to this page for mobile options. If you don't own a computer, you can try visiting a public library, where computer use is usually free. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)