From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Help improving an article[edit]

Hi everyone.

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

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

I'd appreciate any advice.

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

Hello Varblues69, in doing a quick read-through, I find nothing that appears to be non-neutral; however, I'm not exceptionally familiar with the norms for articles on people working in medicine. JamesBWatson was the last editor to make a major change, so I'll leave a note with him to see if he agrees. If you intend on adding information to the page, do note that you cannot add any material that appears to be promotional. You might like to have a conversation with CorporateM about how to add information to an article neutrally, despite the fact that you are being paid. Ryan Vesey 00:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


I edited this page:

There were several problems:

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

A more experienced editor, with mysterious motives decided to revert my version:

He argued that not everyone listed was given citations.

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

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

Why this is absurd:

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

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

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

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

I just noticed by looking at the history of this article the same user Sitush has done the same thing before: he has reverted a much more decent list to an absurd useless one:

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

Further the same user has edited another related list:

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

Hello Jutsis. Welcome to the Teahouse. Please do not presume that a difference of opinion over content is vandalism. It is a failure to assume good faith and assuming good faith is important to this community.
Wikipedia is not a directory of people in general and only people with their own Wikipedia article should be listed as notable. The burden of adding reliable sources lies with the person adding material. It is not reasonable to expect others to do it. If you have further queries about editing that page you should raise them on the talk page for that article.Charles (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

wiki ambassadors for classes[edit]

Hello, My campus does not have a wiki ambassador. I am wondering if there were a way to have someone join us virtually? Or how does one go about recruiting for one? MarlaJaksch (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarlaJaksch: Hi Marla, thanks for your question. There is a list of Online Ambassadors here, if you don't have a Wikipedia editor who can help you on your campus. Also, it might be helpful to reference this page for educators on getting started with the Wikipedia Education Program. Let me know if you have any other questions! I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

adding biographical information to an existing article[edit]

I have written a biography for a deceased colleague and would like to ad it to the short existing story.Andytrusty (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we speaking of User:Andytrusty/sandbox? I've placed a template on it which will allow you to submit it for review. Before you do that please add references for the facts you assert in the draft. We require references from significant coverage about him, and independent of him, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Reading WP:REFB and WP:CITE will help you a great deal Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Andytrusty and welcome to the Teahouse. You should probably look at some other biographies of artists and see how they are written. For example you can look at Will Barnet, Edwin Austin Abbey or Esteban Vicente. There are many more to draw inspiration from here. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Resubmit article[edit]

Hi there,

I receievd a message from an editor saying that my edits could not be merged with my old piece. SHould I just resubmit the whole thing ?

Cmchatton (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page I am not at all sure what you are asking. May I suggest that your first port of call is the editor who said this to you, and see what they say? Nothing ion WIkipedia is urgent, so, if they are the busy one on your talk page, you may wait for them to reply. Fiddle Faddle 19:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back to The Teahouse, Cmchatton. This is apparently about this Teahouse topic. Grand'mere Eugene suggested a history merge, or what I assume was a history merge, of Youngme Moon and User:Cmchatton. I don't see why Cmchatton couldn't just copy and paste edits to the user page into the mainspace article. Incidentally, it has been submitted, which is surprising. Someone moved it "to get it out of limbo" according to the edit summary, when it wasn't really ready. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem with infobox[edit]

I have added more details about Rosi Sextons accomplishments in music and in mathematics, at The original version concentrated entirely on martial arts and so gave an unbalanced view. I hope to add some pictures once I've checked copyright.

I have a problem with the Infobox though. It's labelled {{Infobox martial artist

My attempts to add fields for her degrees do not seem to have worked, I have hunted through the online help to find a list of the sort of infobox specifications that are available, but without success.

My own,, is labelled {{Infobox scientist

But with a person who has reached a high level in disparate fields, no single type of infobox is likely to suffice

Can someone help please?

David Colquhoun (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello David, you can always use the more general {{Infobox person}}. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My first contribution was tagged for fast deletion, but it's my fault[edit]

I wrote an article about an important band from Spain, but the page was poorly written and bad implemented from my part and Wikipedia does not consider that band notable; when they were pioneers of an entire music style in a larga country such as Spain.

I want to learn more and become a good wikipedian!

I hope you are willing to help me in the future.

Many contributions are coming!

Thanks. Inmanuel Jünger 15:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhorer (talkcontribs)

Thanks so much for the responses.

I greatly appreciate the research and it has helped me tremendously. I will try to put in a reference for all the facts I show there.

2602:306:3793:9660:948C:BFF9:9D84:1CD (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Abhorer and welcome to The Teahouse. If the band really did pioneer an entire music style as you say, there must be a reliable source that says so. If you follow the advice given on your talk page, it may still be possible to resubmit the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Abhorer, Vchimpanzee: Technically, pioneering a music style is a legitimate claim of importance, and thus this article isn't eligible for speedy deletion, source or no. However, to convince people of the band's notability (Wikipedia shorthand for being discussed by some form of credible source), a source has to be found and added. Otherwise, the article might still get deleted at Articles for Deletion, a seven-day debate over whether any given article is notable. (In this case the article has already been deleted, though I personally don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion) --Jakob (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

  1. ^ Empty citation (help) 
  2. ^ Popper, Karl (1965). Conjectures and Refutations. pp. 4–5. 

wrong picture and definition of AEROTRIM[edit]


Provided you have references that show the new information, simply edit the article, making the corrections you seek, and adding the references. If the matter is contentious please build consensus on the article talk page first.
As a matter of common courtesy, please do not type in all capitals. It is hard to read and is a breach of netiquette. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language references[edit]

Is there a policy restricting foreign language references from being used in articles? I ask because I would like to expand articles on Quakerism in Sweden and Germany, and obviously the sources available for that are mostly available in Swedish and German. --FSB95 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello FSB95 and welcome to the Teahouse. It is quite ok to use foreign language references in an article. It is always best if you add two more parts, a |trans_title= | and a |language= |, to the ref where you make an English translation of the title and a note that the text is in Swedish or German. You can check out a draft I'm working on to see how this is done. Best w.carter-Talk 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Uploading pictures[edit]

In the 3 articles I have made, which are Dusicyon avus, Dusicyon cultridens and Fuegian dog, I have wanted to add pictures. I know I have to draw the pictures myself and upload them, but when I do, they get deleted as they are considered "childish" and "unencyclopedic". Anyway, I have done the best I can to draw the pictures. What must I do? The pictures are childish because I am a child. Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to draw the pictures yourself. You just need to find a picture online that will allow the picture to be used for other things.Mirror Freak 12:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Scottishwildcat12. I'm not sure where you are hearing that they were deleted for being "childish." The image that you uploaded for use in the first article you note was deleted because it was a copyright violation. If you could link to the names of some specific images, perhaps we can help you... --Jayron32 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Jayron32, I believe Scottishwildcat12 is referring to these images. Scottishwildcat12, while commendable that you took the time to draw these images, I don't think that we can use them in the article, what these articles need is taxonomic sketches done by professionals who have seen specimens. Because these animals are extinct (so taking a free photo is impossible), we can probably claim fair use on a copyrighted image from a book or website. This is a little tricky to get right. Scottishwildcat12, could you point us towards a book or (even better) a website with sketches of what professional biologists think these animals looked like when they were alive? --LukeSurl t c 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding Photos[edit]

I just joined Wikipedia two days ago and as per the requirements I was not qualified to upload a photo to the English Wikipedia. I have been editing a biography which contains an old picture and which requires an update. I tried uploading the file to Wikimedia Commons but upon pasting the code I obtained from Wikimedia Commons in the Infobox. I couldn't see the image on preview. Can someone help me with this? Rajeshlangley (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Which image are you trying to place into which infobox on which article? Generally when placing images into an infobox, you just enter the filename and not any square brackets or other coding that is necessary to place an image in a regular picture box. --LukeSurl t c 11:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Rajeshlangley: Hi Rajeshlangley. Is this about Swini Khara and the photo you posted at the Commons from that you asked to be undeleted? If so, and looking at your comment on your talk page there, I think you may possibly have a confusion about public posting of a photograph, versus the public domain. The public posting of an image does not place it into the public domain. The photographs I see of her at that website have no copyright information, and in that absence we assume they are non-free copyrighted. In order to determine otherwise, we need an affirmative notice (or release) that is verifiably from the copyright owner, of the free copyright license or public domain status. The image currently in the article may be a few years out of date, but it is a free image. We generally can't use images of living persons at all unless they are free images. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Why can't I add photos?[edit]

When I first registered to Wikipedia I could add photos, but then all of a sudden I couldn't. They told me that I need permission to add photos, and I can only do that when I'm an auto-confirmed user. But I've been 4 days registered to wiki and have done a lot more than 10 edits, but I still can't add photos. Can someone help me? Thanks in advance. Amazingfeeling (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Amazingfeeling, your account was only created on 26 August so it's not four days old yet, that period will expire tomorrow so you'll just have to be patient for another day. Nthep (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If the photos you want to add are freely-licensed (or you own them and wish to release them under a free license), you can add them to Wikimedia commons straight away. A benefit of this is that your photos can then be used on any Wikipedia, not just the English-language one. --LukeSurl t c 09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it allowed that editors of another page decide on merging it with a page I've been working on[edit]

It happened that supporters of a competitors page voted on merging their page with the one I worked on and just merged it which means that the page is redirected to their page which gives a one-sided view of the topic. Is that good practice / allowed? What can I do? I want to offer a balanced view where all sides are represented. ElDelRey1 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There should be no "competitors" on Wikipedia. We are all working collaboratively on this project, and that means that no-one owns a page, even if they have done most of the editing of it. We also try not to have duplication of content - it is a bad idea to have multiple articles on the same topic expressing different points-of-view. In this situation, I would suggest writing on the talk page of the article in question a detailed outline, including references, of what you feel is missing from the article as it currently stands. Hopefully other editors will join in the discussion and you can work together to improve the article. If you're feeling bold, you can make the edits you feel the article needs immediately, then begin a said talk page discussion if your edits are challenged. --LukeSurl t c 09:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Issue for images uploaded.[edit]

How can I gain the license for each photos upload in Wiki which I have taken from the online sources and the person responsible for the photos is unknown. Rameshaviboy (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Rameshaviboy: Welcome to the Teahouse! Copyright law can get complicated, but to put it as short as I can: if you can't find the copyright owner to contact them, you really can't. Only the copyright owner of a work can choose the license that their work is released under. Not knowing the original author of a work is not enough to justify using the image at-will.
Now, there are other factors that might be involved. For example, works in the United States are typically released into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author. I won't be getting into the specifics of these cases, but if you have any more questions or want to comment what photo you're trying to have freely licensed, we'll be happy to help. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Rameshaviboy: Expanding on SuperHamster's useful answer above, for specific images you can also ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 08:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Citing the same reference twice.[edit]

I know how to use the < ref > < /ref > function but how do I cite the same source a second time in the same article? AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I can help, I think, @AmandaWhyte99:. In the first ref tag the FIRST time you want to use the reference, do this: <ref name = XXXX> and replace XXXX with some name that you will use to identify the source. Then the SECOND time you want to use the reference, use just this one tag (not both tags, but just this one): <ref name = XXXX/> and don't forget the slash. That will recall the reference from the first time, when you gave it a name. You can then use the reference twice, or as many times as you need. You can find more help at Help:Referencing for beginners, and page down to the section titled "Same reference used more than once" I hope this was helpful! --Jayron32 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, AmandaWhyte99. You get two answers! That's a great question, and here's a simplified answer. You give the reference a name, and fully cite it just once. So instead of the original ref tag, you use a slightly longer tag in this format: <ref name=example>. You can substitute any memory hint for "example", like the author surname or a key word in the book title. This isn't seen by readers. When you cite the reference a second or subsequent time, you use a single tag: <ref name=example/>. Please note the slash at the end. The reference will appear once, with letters "a,b,c,d . . ." keyed to each usage. Please refer to WP:REFNAME for complete details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Yay, it worked.

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

How to request protection of an article ?[edit]

The Pakistan (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, @The Pakistan:, and welcome to The Teahouse. Protection is only undertaken for very serious problems which cannot be stopped by other means. You should probably familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's protection policy first. The page is rather long, but you can peruse it at Wikipedia:Protection policy. In shortest possible terms, it defines when protection is appropriate, which ultimately boils down to when we cannot stop disruption of an article using other means. We will try to do literally anything else first, because protection flies in the face of Wikipedia's #1 core value: that we are an open community where anyone is allowed to contribute in good faith. However, if you must request protection of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It can be a bit hard for new users to navigate that page; I am an administrator, as are several other people who spend time answering questions at The Teahouse. If you let us know what article is giving you trouble, we can also look into it. Or you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It's up to you. Good luck, and happy editing! --Jayron32 00:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Link rot template[edit]

I see this template quite a lot but it doesn't make much sense; it says an article may be threatened by link rot because it contains bare urls for citations, but link rot happens to any link, whether it's a bare url or a properly constructed citation. I may be in the wrong place to make this comment; if so someone please tell me where to go (!) Jodosma (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is probably on the template in a link. The idea is that, with more info than a bare link, when the link dies as it will, diligent editors can probably find it in an archive. Thus tools such as WP:REFLINKS are useful to "cure" linkrot. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Think of it this way: A dead URL is useless, if that's all the information we have. However, even the full title of a newspaper or magazine article is very useful in finding a copy of the article at another location. Add the name of the publication, the author and the date, and it becomes increasingly easy to verify by different techniques. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the template should say that bare urls make it difficult to fix problems caused by link rot. Jodosma (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It leads you directly to Wikipedia:Link rot. The link is in plain sight. Fiddle Faddle 09:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Creation of a biography[edit]

Hi: I am new to Wiki. I want to write a biography of my father. Most of the information came from his own autobiography that has never been published, Chinese Wiki and other published source. I have many questions:

1) Does it make it official given my relationship to the subject? 2) I have been writing in the sandbox. When I am ready, do I just hit the button for review? 3) I looked at other articles and I see an introduction, then a table of content. Where do I find the table of content box and how do I add headings to the paragraphs.

Thanks very much for your help.

Dxchow (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dxchow and welcome to the Teahouse. From reading your Sandbox article, while I have no doubt that you believe your father to be be worthy of a Wikipedia article, there are some criteria that will need to be satisfied before he can be considered. First off, you need to provide some references from independent, third party sources that support your assertions. This guide will explain more. You also have an obvious conflict of interest given your relationship with the proposed article's topic so you should read about that too. Good luck!  Philg88 talk 20:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi from me too, Dxchow. I had a look at your draft in User:Dxchow/sandbox and did a bit of preliminary research. From what I've seen, he would certainly quality for an article. But you need to back up your assertions with references. I've added a couple to get you started, but there are a lot more sources out there for you to use. See [1], [2], and [3]. I've also formatted it for you so you can see how it's done. You might also want to get some advice from the members of WikiProject China, particularly for the English transliteration of his name and his publications. The Table of Contents box will appear automatically once the article has a minimum of four sections. To add a new section heading put == on each side of the heading title, e.g. ==Biography==. When you're ready, just hit the button for review. It may take a while for it to be reviewed. It might not pass right away, but you'll get some helpful suggestions, and I'm sure you'll eventually get there. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Acceptable references for film and music articles[edit]

Are IMDb and Discogs acceptable sources for film and album articles? Iirc, both of these sites are moderated by experts but also accept user contributions. Also, neither of these sites have references, so in the cases that those sites are the most detailed sources for a potential article, I can't find a primary source or a more reputable secondary source to confirm that the information is correct. ozhu (talk·contribs) 16:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozhu and welcome to the teahouse! IMDb is not considered a reliable resource because its contents are user submitted and Discogs is also not deemed a reliable source. You should have a read of the rest of that second page for information on other sources for musical topics, and this page for film topics. :) Sam Walton (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Those links are ridiculously helpful. ozhu (talk·contribs) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Truth and Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*? Green Mountain 12:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Green Mountain: Welcome to the Teahouse. Most content in articles is supported by references to other websites or offline documents such as books. By clicking on the blue number in brackets and superscript next to any given statement, you'll be shown the reference that is the source for the statement. Hope that helps. --Jakob (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If you see "facts" that aren't referenced in the above way, but you think they should be, add the code {{cn}} to add in Wikipedia's famous [citation needed] tag. --LukeSurl t c 16:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
There was a study done that showed that wiki is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica that is disputed, but overall I would say its largely believable. Think about it: these articles are constantly combed over by experienced people who fact check and correct. They are essentially (overall) peer reviewed on a regular basis. Tribute911 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but feel harassed[edit]

I've recently had a few content based arguments with an editor and all of a sudden my page is filled with harassment and intimidation. Fascist behavior. What is the recommended way to prevent this project from becoming a hub for such conduct where editors of opposing political views don't collude to imprison their opposition? As of now, I feel like someone marked me as a target. Not a good experience. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, MarciulionisHOF. I read through the discussion on your Talk page, and the Arbitration Committee discussion it refers to here, and honestly I think this is case of communication mix-up. I am sorry that you feel harassed, but I doubt that was the original editor's intent. They sent you the standard notice that is sent to all editors working on those pages, to let you know how sensitive they are and that more care may be required than normal - the notice is exactly as the Arbitration Committee decided, and it comes from the template at template:Ds/alert. It was not intended to imply that you (or any other editor) had done anything wrong, nor to impose any one view. What to do about it; I can't think of anything better to suggest than adopting the Committee's recommendation: "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary." --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Before this, said editor accused (and continues to) accuse me of foruming... whatever that means, I don't think he read the policy properly. Adding that he posted it as a prerequisite to starting an investigation. Having another friend pop out of nowhere with links to where editors get side-blinded and banned... your suggestion might be fine if I was naive. Seeing that I no longer am (with the link to editors being banned) -- my concern on how the project handles cases of political assassination is pertinent. Has this been handled by the project in the past? Is there a guideline to find editors who participate in witch-hunting on political opponents and removing them from making editing into a fascist-rule ("don't say it!, don't even think it!") style experience? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To re-iterate, this is all standard procedure and looking at the discussion nobody concerned has anything to apologize for. The wording regarding WP:AE and "investigations" was somewhat problematic, so let me explain. Unsurprisingly, this topic is extremely sensitive and this presents difficulties when working on an international collaborative project. Wikipedia has found it beneficial to set up special rules and guidelines regarding this topic to try and help everyone. Because these rules are different from normal articles, it is proper to alert every editor who shows interest in this topic about the special circumstances, irrespective of any perspective on the topic. This is the reason you were alerted in the first place. The alert and linked information is there to try and prevent the confrontations and edit-battling that these articles are prone to. --LukeSurl t c 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Dude, as much as I want to yell at you I wont. Obviously, you didn't read the notice carefully. The editor also said that it is policy for users who edit in that category to be sensitive. And don't call Wikipedia Fascist. You clearly just wanted to make a big issue out of nothing.Mirror Freak 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a wonderful idea. However, fascist behavior can occur even within progressive societies. Even on all-mighty Wikipedia, there can be groups who play games and manipulate the system. It is a good question to ask: how the project handles cases of political assassination. Has this been handled by the project in the past? Is there a guideline to find editors who participate in witch-hunting on political opponents? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) - fix horrible typo MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I wonder, would you mind very much taking a pause and reading the initial dialogue on your talk page again. Here is what I get out of it:
  1. Standard warning arrives as it does for everyone who edits in that highly sensitive area. It says "This is a sensitive area, tread lightly" pretty much, but it tells you what will happen if you wear hobnail boots.
  2. You ask, reasonably, "What does this mean?" in your own words, of course. And who would not ask?
  3. You get a pleasant reply. Seriously, do look at it again. It is sufficient information for most folk, really.
At this point you seem to misunderstand. It's fine that you do, but just go back and look again at these three dialogue items. This is seriously not a big deal. There are no fascists, no-one is silencing anyone, those for one side or the other get to edit the articles in this area, but Wikipedia wars are averted. Please just look again, with an open mind, and without feeling upset. No-one meant to upset you, no-one has singled you out for anything. If I edit in that area I'll get a notice too. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh my god! Thank you!Mirror Freak 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am on the record here for saying that letting editors set the stage for an investigation on someone they are in disagreement with is a bad idea. I've explained what world this modus operandi comes from. It would be smarter to seek solutions based in other, less corrupt systems. Only time will tell if such behavior is innocuous or advanced chess play. "When I asked Fischer why he had not played a certain move in our game, he replied: 'Well, you laughed when I wrote it down'." (Tal) 23:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarciulionisHOF (talkcontribs)
You seem to want to make a point. Unfortunately, while making whatever point you are making, you seem also to be unable to listen. There is no problem here save one of your own invention. People have tried in many different ways to explain this to you, but you still seem unable to take the information on board.
No-one is in dispute with you. There are no sanctions heading your way.
Let me repeat that
No-one is in dispute with you. There are no sanctions heading your way.
You have simply allowed a situation that was entirely simple to become embroiled in some convoluted logic of your own. Go back and actually read the words that were written, not the ones that seem to be dancing in front of your eyes. You do not have to admit you were wrong in public, but you do need to do so in private.
"Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" Fiddle Faddle 08:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
To try and clarify the "investigations" thing, as well as informing editors of the special rules regarding them, the presence of that template means that editors cannot claim ignorance of the rules if they violate them. This does not mean you were singled out as this notification is intended to be given to everyone who edits in this topic, and (as has been said repeatedly above) it does not mean anyone is in dispute with you, nor does it mean any sanctions are heading your way. If you come across someone editing in this topic who has not yet received this notification you are positively encouraged to post a copy of the notification on their talk page. The code to do so is {{subst:alert|a-i}}. --LukeSurl t c 08:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
At least three disputes exist on record prior to the posting of the "welcome template". Here's an infuriating example. Repeated clarifications that the action "is a required step" are intentional, otherwise it would not have been written twice. Let's not act as if no one ever tried to chess-play the system and get political opposition into trouble, I've seen two examples already (a "sock" and some disturbing clan mentality). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks as if you can't help it, then. You need to help it. I have now expended the sum total of time I am intending to spend on this and will leave you to your paranoia. We tried, we all tried. You failed. Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent:, I appreciate your good efforts and will try to keep good faith. That said, can we at least agree that there was at least one dispute (see link in my previous post) before the template was posted on my page? Perhaps there is room to make a clarification on this template on situations where it is uncivil to post it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I will concede that you believe that there was sufficient dispute that you feel aggrieved that the template was applied, and thus that your perception is your reality over the cause of the application. Equally I believe the other guy, too (I neither recall nor care who placed t). I will share with you my belief that this template is capable of being misunderstood, and I can see, certainly, that it has been mis-received at least once, in your own case. There is thus scope for rewording. A diligent attempt to engage editors on that template's talk page with quiet, calm suggestions ought to bear fruit. The thing is, I don't feel strongly enough for or against it to contribute to such a discussion. The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. Everything else is just background noise to show that other people are present and have opinions on us that they wish to share. It is time to step away form the template, to put it behind you as an amusing incident that is best forgotten. I have only posted this reply because you asked. Enough time has been expended on this by everyone. We could have accepted 20 drafts at WP:AFC while discussing this. Now, further questions or not from you, from me they will go unanswered, but with my good wishes for you to put this behind you. I only contributed because I saw you were hurting yourself and hoped I could help you to stop. Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

want to know more how to write article and how to upload images[edit]

want to know more how to write article and how to upload images(Sachinrpatil (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sachinrpatil, welcome to the Tea House. Have you read Wikipedia:Your first article? It has a useful introduction to what you need to know before starting an article. It is best to wait until an article is created and accepted before trying to add images to it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Taxobox template format problem[edit]

I added a Taxobox template to the article Heliozoa, and as far as I can tell I have followed the example on the template's help page, but there is a weird formatting problem with some bare html visible when the page is loaded. I'm not sure if others can see it too. Anyone knows how to fix this? Thanks a lot! Kbseah (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Kbseah, I have no idea why this worked, but when I added "color = pink" (copied from Protist), it seems to have fixed the problem. Color is not normally required, because it is determined by the kingdom (as specified in Template:Taxobox), but this one does not appear to fit into any of the listed colors - so perhaps that is how it got confused. I imagine you could change that color however you like. Anyway, I hope this helps... --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gronk Oz, that seems to work! Kbseah (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hidden Categories[edit]

I'm totally frustrated. My article (Callawassie Island) was accepted but needs improvements on references. Our writers are really trying but we just don't know what additional references are needed and i, as the typist, am at a loss.

So, here's the story. I 'copied' and 'pasted ' the article into Works and, upon printing it out, discovered additioal listings in the 'copy'/'paste' print-out that I just am not able to access on The Wikipedia 'Edit' page for the article. The items are listed under the heading: Hidden Categories. It appears that the six items listed would let us know what needs to be done, except I just can't seem to be able to access these 'Hidden Categories'. I've tried doing a search, but no luck. I don t even know if I am on the right track.

The items listed on the print out, but not on Wikipedia's page are: All articles with dead external links . . . I did find one and I'm working on it Articles with dead external links from August 2014 . . . Same thing? Wikipedia Articles needing copy edit from August 2014 All articles needing copy edit Articles needing additional references from August 2014 All articles needing additional references

How do we find out what needs additional references, etc.

Please . . . basic language. I am not computer language or Wiki language savvy!

Thanks a bunchj146.135.44.193 (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to The Teahouse. I don't think those hidden categories mean anything. The fact is the article belongs to the categories but you already know about the problems.
There are entire sections without references. If you put the information there, you must know where you got it. And each reference should meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. A magazine, newspaper or book or even a web site, that has editorial control, a reputation for getting facts correct.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New Article[edit]

I simply want to create and/or upload a new article about a club of which I am a member (sports club with long history). Where do I begin (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Tea House
The best way to create or submit your article is here
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 02:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Random link to article needing editing.[edit]

At one time I came upon a page that could automatically link me to an article that needed editing, I am curious what that page was? AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Amandawhyte99 to Teahouse! Was it GettingStarted the page you were looking for? ///EuroCarGT 21:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) @AmandaWhyte99: Hey Amanda. Please copy this code: ?gettingStartedReturn=true Now, navigate to any random article → place your cursor in your browser's address bar after the existing url → paste the copied code → hit enter. Voilà.

By the way, the Wikipedia:Community portal (which is a permanent link under the "interaction" menu on the left hand side of the interface) provides a big list of articles in need of work under certain categories, and you can have that list of open tasks always available by transcluding it into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. You can also sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That gave me lots of options. I may not be a wordsmith but am decent at research and love to provide references.

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

British TV sources[edit]

I've got a little argument that needs some resolution if someone can help me. I don't know if anybody here knows about the initiative by users like AldezD who curb episode guides for game shows and say WP:NOTSTATS. they keep the transmissions section but revert any unsourceable episode related info. There are a few people that do the same work as this editor.

There is an unregistered editor who follows AldezD with the IP starting with 81 or 86, who does delete alot of the episode guides on British game shows, but for some strange reason, chooses to keep the Episode Guide for a program called "Through the Keyhole". The sources he uses is British Comedy Guide, which other major editors on the British Side have told me in the past that is an unreliable site as it is fan edited. I've offered to change the listings for ones from the ITV press office or TV listings sites which many editors, including AldezD himself have approved of. But 81/86 continually shuts me down telling me they are unreliable, which tey aren't. I've suggested that we delete the episode guide as it is WP:NOTSTATS and is incomplete anyhow. I am awaiting his response.

I am just a bit aggravated at these times when so many people tell me one thing and then one person is a tad pigheaded and refusews to compromise. This is even when he is a proponent of WP:NOTSTATS and deletes a lot of episode grids himself. what makes Through the Keyhole so special? could someone help me with this matter and find the best possible solution? Thanks. (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally speaking you should try to discuss the content with the editors on the article talk page. If an editor is using a fan generated site to source facts, that is indeed unacceptable, however if the consenus of editors there is to keep an unreliable source you would have to report the situation to a noticeboard. Perhaps Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or request assistance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If all else fails and you feel strongly that our standards are not being kept up, you could request mediation from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, where a volunteer will help with the content dispute. Thanks and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I set up the questions on the article's talk page yesterday and now am awaiting some response. We will see what happens. How long should I wait before doing something? I asked people's opinions on acceptable sources, listing what I was told throughout the years. I also asked about this new wave of people like AldezD who are a proponent of WP:NOTSTATS AND WP:OVERKILL asking why this particular programmes episode guide was allowed to stay, while the same editor was deleting other episode guides. Would someone be able to explain to me what falls under WP:NOTSTATS AND WP:OVERKILL? my assumption was that it entails programmes like game shows and certain other programmes. however, as soon as I had written my questions on the Through the Keyhole talk page, I noticed that the editor that I was having a problem with started deleting many episode guides, not just from game shows, but from travel series, entertainment series and other programmes. ( I'm just really confused as to when to actively add in an episode guide and when not to and also worried what I need to do when I need to source and this person stops me. I do have to admit that I am starting to get a bit disenchanted with Wikipedia as everything that previous editors have taught me is at odds with these new editors. Can anyone help? (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)samusek2

Can someone edit an article title for me? I can not myself[edit]

I can't figure out how to edit the title of an article, probably because I just created this account for that purpose. The article in question is 'EastLink' the canadian cable company. The proper company name is 'Eastlink' with the lower case l. I have already changed this throughout the article but can't change the articles title.

As well, will this effect the links to the page?

Riley Halpin (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I can do this either! For now, I've moved it to Eastlink (telecoms company). Really it needs to be at Eastlink (company) because the various other Eastlink companies in different fields are not at that title. Maybe an admin needs to do this.
Anyway, it shouldn't affect the links to the page significantly, because anyone going to the old links will mostly be redirected. A bot may still be cleaning up double redirects for a few hours. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It can be done, but it rarely is, because normally a lowercase name is a stylisation, or brand, or marketing strategy. In the case of Eastlink, it looks like it's name is Eastlink, but it stylizes itself as eastlink. Maybe simply add "(stylized as eastlink)" in the opening intro. Sionk (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Riley Halpin: Hi there, I've moved the article to Eastlink (company) per Wikipedia's policy of conciseness with the appropriate redirect. If another company comes along in the future then the name can be further disambiguated by adding the "telecom" back in. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 07:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Updating a Wikipedia Page[edit]


I have been trying to update outdated information on an organizational wiki page with accurate, present, and backed up information but have had several problems. After updating the content the first time, all of my additions had been deleted within the hour. After going through and updating the Wikipedia page a second time, I was surprised to see that not only was the information I had updated deleted, but multiple parts of the original submission were missing as well.

How will I be able to edit a Wikipedia page without it being deleted moments later?

Thank you,

Jimmy66.207.216.146 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't just copy paste from a website. You have to put it in your own words and use inline citations. WP:REFB TranquilHope (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello ip. I think you are probably the user Jfotopoulos as well. If not that is fine as well. I have looked over your edits. Not only did you copy and paste something directly from a website. You also added information that was considering promotional. Wikipedia is not here to promote organizations. This is why multiply parts of the original submission were missing as well. I suggest that you take the edit summaries that came with your revert to heart. Also you were asked to discuss your editing on the talk page of the article. So I suggest you go there, and discuss what you want to add there. But beware that the information that you want to add needs to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Also if you are working for this organization you have a conflict of interest. So if that is the case please read WP:COI NathanWubs (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@NathanWubs: please explain to the new editor how he can view "the edit summary that came with your revert". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
When you go to the article, you will see several tabs at the top. One of them if clicked goes to the talk page. And another is called view history. If you click on view history, you will see all the edits that are made to the article, including edit summaries. In the edit summaries there can be the reason why something was re-edited or reverted. Now about the whole conflict of interest. Wikipedia tries to be as neutral as possible. But if you have a conflict of interest then there is just a high possibility that you will not be able to see a subject as neutral. That is why the policy is that a conflict of interest editor should not directly edit those pages that they have a conflict of interest in. However, what you can do is indeed go to the talk page of the article and discuss the changes there. So that other editors can implement them if it is properly sources. NathanWubs (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal involvement[edit]

Someone put up an article about me some while ago but it has never been updated. I looked at it yesterday and was frustrated by the amount of out of date material and so I updated it myself but it was then removed by your watchdog. How can I update this page? (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Nobody reverted your edits, but someone did revert edits by Maestro1952. So, your last revision is the current version. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid no one can edit or add something about himself/herself, as this article is about you, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello IP - I assume you are talking about our article Paul Spicer (musician)?
The edits made by User:Maestro1952 were reverted by The Original Bob with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Maestro1952 (talk): Please find relevant citations when adding information to articles.". However, I note he did not go back far enough in the history, so did not revert the changes you made as These changes have three problems:-
  1. You have a clear conflict of interest in editing any article about yourself, which is why you should not do it - please read and follow our guidelines on conflict of interest - suggesting any changes you want made on the talk page and citing reliable references (see below)
  2. As explained in the edit summary, your changes were totally unreferenced - before you started yesterday, there were 6 references for a "readable prose size" of 374 words. You doubled the length of the article to 756 words, but added no references whatsoever. All information on Wikipedia should be verifiable in reliable, independent sources
  3. Your additions were generally fairly neutral, but they did include a "plug" for a book you are writing.
Unless sources are added for the additions you made as an IP, the article will have to be reverted back to the version before you started yesterday. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Long bibliography[edit]

In a draft I have created (see, there is a very long bibliography of works. The submission was rejected due to this (the other issues have been resolved). Should I simply split the list off into another "List of..." page?Bknysak (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bknysak and welcome to The Teahouse. User:Libby norman referred you here and when I told her you had not gotten any answers, she said she would help, and she will post what she finds out on her talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
List of ornithology journals is a suggested solution.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding including references,external links and pictures to the articles we write[edit]

I want to know how can we include references,external links and pictures to the article that we write...Gaurav shetty (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gaurav shetty and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all I'm a bit concerned that you write "we", an account at the Wikipedia should only have one user. The best way for you to get started would be to Play The Wikipedia Adventure, you find a link to it a bit further up on this page. It is a tutorial about how to edit properly. You can also find useful information at the Help:Referencing for beginners. Start with these and you'll be well on your way. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank u for your help sir.....I just used 'we' in a general sense referring to beginners here.I am managing my account myself.Regards,Gaurav shetty (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page headers[edit]

Hey guys, I've seen that people have these notices on their talk page that say things such as this user, 1, What's the template for those? Thanks, Mirror Freak 12:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No answers?Mirror Freak 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, MirrorFreak, and welcome back to the Teahouse. There are lots of components in that user page. The easiest way to link to a user page, by the way is [[User:TheQ Editor]], which renders like this: User:TheQ Editor. If you go to that page and click the Edit tab, is shows the code for it. So the first notice, about being "watched by friendly talk page stalkers", comes from the template {{Wikipedia:TPS/banner|75}}. You can look at how any page was constructed in the same way, using the Edit tab, and if something there is not clear it might be best to ask the user concerned how they worked their magic. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@MirrorFreak: It's called an Edit notice and defines a header which is then transcluded to the page. You can find out all about how to create one here. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 07:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I thought you meant something else, my bad. But you might want an edit notice too -:)  Philg88 talk 07:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The term Pally?[edit]

The use of the term Pally for Palestinians, this term seems to be a derogatory term for Palestinians,if not outright racist but is being used on wikipedia. I wanted to know the rules on wikipedia and if they allow for derogatory/racist terms because I know in my country they are illegal.GGranddad (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello GGrandad, welcome (back?) to the Teahouse. Using a derogatory or racist term about another editor or a group of people would almost certainly be in breach of either Wikipedia:No personal attacks or Wikipedia:Civility. Additionally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies may be relevant. Wikipedia does not really manage things according to interpretations of laws that may happen to be in force in various countries where editors reside, but racist behaviour by editors is usually very strongly discouraged.
There is also a possibility that an editor may use a term without being aware that it is regarded as derogatory. If this is the case, even if it seems far-fetched, the first step would be to make them aware, as politely as possible, how the term is regarded by yourself and others. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
GGranddad, there are 451 pages on the English Wikipedia that contain the string "pally". I haven't looked at all of them, but they mostly seem to be referring to the actor Adam Pally, or a south Indian word for "church" or "temple". I didn't see any instances in the first hundred or so hits where the word was used to refer to anyting Palestinian. If you can point us to specific instances where it is used this way, we can do something about them. Rojomoke (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia[edit]

What font does Wikipedia use for headings? Dark Liberty (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On my PC, your title "New to Wikipedia" displayed in Georgia font. Lower-level subheadings are in Arial bold. However, WP may format things differently on different devices. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Fonts are mostly generated based on what is supported by the browser(and device) or in others cases what the user specifies. For example I mostly like things in plain Arial font. So most page will show up in Arial despite a lot of websites wanting to have a different font. NathanWubs (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Georgia Normal or Bold? Dark Liberty (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Creating a new submission about a book.[edit]

My new submission was rejected due to: See WP:Notability (books).

How do I prove that colleges use the book I was submitting as a "Subject of Instruction"?

How many colleges have to use it for the article to be accepted?

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AmandaWhyte99. According to the notability guideline for books, we need evidence from independent, reliable sources showing that the book is used in courses at "multiple" institutions. Obviously, that is more than one, and in my opinion, would be more than two. But another problem with your draft is that our articles must be written from the neutral point of view. Promotional language in your draft such as "spirited challenge to a culture obsessed with romance and intimacy but dangerously ignorant of the full range and richness of human love" and "like a fresh wind, Sam Keen sweeps away tired self-help nostrums" and "a stunningly new map of love in all its forms" must be trimmed away ruthlessly and replaced with scrupulously neutral, encyclopedic language. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Although an independent reliable source saying those things might be acceptable inside quotes, as long as it wasn't too much of the article saying such things.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Did my question get automatically submitted when I entered the four tildes?[edit]

Did my question get automatically submitted when I entered the four tildes?

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @AmandaWhyte99: - nope! Typing in the four tildes doesn't automatically save the page and submit your question. The four tildes are simply a "placeholder" that is replaced with your signature only when you save the page yourself, which is done when you click the "Save page" button at the bottom of the page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It was weird, as soon as I entered the four tildes, the box disapeared. I guess my computer just dumped it.

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Does my wikipedia flow well when reading? I updated it to my best ability. It's been a long journey in creating an accurate and well written piece for the world to see. Thanks, Dino Wells (David R. Wells Jr. (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. I have to may not exactly understand what your user page is for. It is not supposed to be used to promote yourself or your acting career or be written as if it were an encyclopedia article. It is for showing your interests here at Wikipedia and the talk page for collaborating with editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@David R. Wells Jr.: For future reference, it's also frowned upon to edit your own article. One great way to assist with the page is to edit the talk page, suggesting corrections, additions, etc. to the article and allow someone else to do the edits. Otherwise, it's considered a conflict of interest. Right or wrong, people will naturally assume that you will edit a page about yourself to promote yourself, highlight achievements, and eliminate negative information. Welcome to wikipedia, happy editing! :-) Bali88 (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

reference format[edit]

Is it better to cite book author page number ect. or a url in google books?Naytz (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Naytz:, and welcome! You do both. If you would like, there are citation templates to help you. When adding a reference, use the "cite" menu in your edit window, and select "cite book" as the template to work from. Enter as much information as you can, including author, page number, publisher, etc. THEN, in the URL field, you can add a link to the google book version. More information is always better. If you want more help with citation templates and using them, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --Jayron32 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello there !

I just updated a wiki page and I was wondering how the process works ? and if my edits were submitted correctly ?

Thank you

Cmchatton (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cmchatton: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If your intent was to edit Youngme Moon, then no, you submitted edits instead to your own userpage. In order to preserve the edit history (see Special:Contributions/Cmchatton), you may need help from another, more experienced editor to merge the page last edited 24 Oct 2013 with your recent efforts. Perhaps one of our hosts can help? --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I know someone who might help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone left a note in my user talk page about a possible history-merge. Which are the 2 pages to be history-merged? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Youngme Moon and User:Cmchatton.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I asked User:Anthony Appleyard to do the merge.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Linking to a person[edit]

How do you link to an article about a person for whom there are multiple entry for people with the same name? JA2230 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi JA2230, thanks for your question. Subjects that share the same name are typically disambiguated to include something in parentheses to distinguish them. For instance, the singer is James Brown (musician), and the actor is James Brown (actor). In the rare case you want to link to page that lists all people with the name James Brown, there is usually a disambiguation page, in this case James Brown (disambiguation). Hopefully that answers your question, but if not, can I ask what article are you trying to link to? I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, JA2230. I, JethroBT is right, but missed out something. If you write [[James Brown (musician)]], it will link to the right article, but it will appear as James Brown (musician), which is probably not what you want in your article. You can get round that by using the "pipe" character '|', and putting what you want to appear in the article after it, so [[James Brown (musician)|James Brown]] links to the same place, but appears as James Brown. Further, this particular need is so common, that there is a short cut, called the 'pipe trick': If you just put a pipe character '|' at the end, it will leave out the bit in brackets, so [[James Brown (musician)|]] also appears as James Brown, but still links to the specific article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think everything is pretty clear above, but just to avoid a possible confusion: James Brown may not be the ideal example, because the article on the musician is actually already at the undisambiguated title (because it's the primary topic). That is, the article on the musician is at the plain title James Brown (and James Brown (musician) is a redirect to it). So, if you wanted to link to the actor, whose page is actually at the parenthetically disambiguated title: James Brown (actor), and you didn't want that link to appear like that, you'd type [[James Brown (actor)|James Brown]].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

When can I blank my own talk page?[edit]

I was blocked a few days ago, and the block has expired. However, the info about the block (and my failed appeal) is still on my Talk page. Am I allowed to blank my Talk page and remove the info about the block, given that the block has expired? Or am I required to keep it on my Talk page permanently or for a certain period of time? Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course! Go right ahead and get rid of it.Mirror Freak 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hi Mitsguy2001 and welcome to the Teahouse. I've checked and your block has expired so you can blank the page according to this guideline.  Philg88 talk 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @Mitsguy2001: Hi Mitsguy2001. Please see the section of the Wikipedia:User pages guideline known by the shortcut WP:REMOVED. In short, you may not remove "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices." Since you advise your block is no longer active, it does not fall within the prohibition. However, this issue has led to contention many times in the past – other users reverting such removals, so I think it would be prudent to invoke this guideline language specifically in your edit summary. For example: "removing as my block is no longer active, as I am permitted to do under [[WP:REMOVED]]". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello hosts, I tried my first edit yesterday and it didn't go so well. I was sent a message saying that one of my words was a 'peacock' word. Could someone please explain to me what that means. I would like some help as how to edit articles. Thanks so much and I am so grateful to any hosts that help me. :)Flora786 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flora786 and welcome to the Teahouse. All will be revealed when you read this guideline.  Philg88 talk 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi and thank you for the warm welcome :) Unfortunately the guideline you told me to check didn't answer my question. :( Flora786 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Flora786. In your edit you wrote "5 great science laboratories" and "A lovely coffee shop and cafeteria". The words "great" and "lovely" are the words in your edit described as "peacock" words. Words like these may seem harmless, but may not be used in an encyclopedia where the text should be totally neutral. Someone else might not think that the cafeteria is lovely. :) Peacock words are often marking your own (or someone else's) personal opinion and must be avoided. If the laboratories are thought of as great and renowned by many people and this is written in a paper or on a website, you could write "5 noted science laboratories". Even the word "helpful" in "with helpful interactive smart boards" is a "peacock". You might find them helpful, but others might not. I know that it is sometimes hard to resist using such descriptions, but try to look at things from an objective point of view when you edit, that is the way to avoid "peacocks". Best, w.carter-Talk 19:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying W.carter. I've already replied to Flora786's further message at my talk page. Cheers,  Philg88 talk 19:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jorma Kaukonen[edit]

Jorma Kaukonen has a wiki page which I am trying to link to a page I am setting up every time I do and save and go back to preview it the system tells me that Jorma Kauk"a"nen has no pg even though I am typing in Jorma Kauk"o"nen who has a wiki page Can you help pl Kilkenny2999 (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to link to another wikipage you have to add brackets like this [[]]. Once you do that you type whatever wikipage your trying to link to, in this case Jorma Kaukone. So it will look like this, Jorma Kaukonen Mirror Freak 16:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello Kilkenny2999, and welcome to the Teahouse. The error might have something to do with the auto correction in the editing area. Sometimes the software alters the spelling in unfamiliar words as you type. This happens so quickly one does not always notice it. I saw that you at least had been successful in one place with the "o"-spelling. Check, and correct if necessary, just before you do the preview or save. Things like this happens to me all the time when I'm typing Swedish names so it's my best guess. Or, it could just be that you forgot to alter the spelling on the left side (the link side) of the "|" inside the brackets. Btw, don't put the commas inside the brackets, this might also complicate things. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kilkenny2999: One more thing: Skip all the "_"'s. You don't need them when linking inside the Wikipedia. The links should be written [[John Lee Hooker]] not [[John_Lee_Hooker|John Lee Hooker]]. w.carter-Talk 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thanks folks

Kilkenny2999 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

creating my own page[edit]

hello sir, how can i make my own wiki page, Do i must be a celebrity to do so? Sahil paudel (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability Breedentials (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
And, Sahil paudel, also see autobiography to understand why, even if you do meet the criteria of notability, you should not create a page about yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My edits looked good in preview but ended up in the middle of someone else's text when I published.[edit]

I have searched this site for where to post questions about issues with the website itself instead of issues about the content. My search was not successful so I posted here. If you know where to ask techinical questions about why post submission would enter content in the wrong part of an article please let me know. Thanks Breedentials (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Breedentials, welcome to the Teahouse. Did this happen while you were editing Lead poisoning? Could you point me to the particular edits or edits where content was put into the wrong part of the article? I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi I JethroBT, yes it was during my edits to Lead poisoning however there was an additional time this happened in the past which I don't exactly remember. This was the edit. Thanks, Breedentials (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Breedentials: Yeah, it looks like something odd is going on there. This edit looks fine, but in your next edit to the article, the "By March 26, 2014..." paragraph was added multiple times for some reason, and some content was removed for no apparent reason. It sounds like this isn't a case where you copied the paragraph and, without realizing it, pasted it in a few spots. I think good place to report this is on Bugzilla that address any technical issues on Wikipedia. You will need to register an account to report a bug; let me know if you need any help with the process. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

How to make my page look better[edit]

So I've learned how to put userboxes, but how am I going to put them where I want them to be ? Right now they are just spread everywhere on my user page. Denizyildirim (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you want them on the left side of your page or on the right. I can set them up for you.Mirror Freak 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneMirror Freak 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks a lot ! :) But if you could tell me how to do it myself, that would be great. Denizyildirim (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Denizyildirim and welcome to the Teahouse. There are so many ways to design your user page. All of them use the same kind of "code" as the articles in the Wikipedia. The WP:MOS is the place to start if you are looking for ways of improve a page. This is where you find links to all kind of "how to" pages. And while fixing up your own page, you might also improve your knowledge about editing articles. :) Another way is to look at the pages of other users (click on the "edit" tab) and simply copy codes from them to experiment with in your sandbox. Just be sure not to alter anything at the user page while copying! Happy learning! w.carter-Talk 18:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


How do you create a special signature with pictures, etc, and how do you create a rainbow effect? I would like my signature to be as current but have it transition from dark red to another shade of red, perhaps closer to purple. Dark Liberty (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Tea house,
For customizing your signature you will find information here, It helped me alot when I customized my signature.

Aftab Banoori (Talk) 03:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dark Liberty, in addition to the answer above there is also this page: Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial where you can also find examples of signatures. Please note that pictures in signatures is a no-no "as they annoy editors or increase server load". Best, w.carter-Talk 09:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How long do I have to wait?[edit]

I was blocked yesterday for 24 hours for "edit warring" on the Wikipedia page for Katy Perry. My block has now expired, so, at least in theory, I am allowed to edit again. However, I do not want to risk being blocked again, or worse. On the Talk page for Katy Perry, I posted my disagreement with the interpretation of one of her songs. To be fair, I do not feel that an interpretation of one song or one album even belongs on Katy Perry's page, but I was blocked for deleting the interpretation. Nobody has responded to my comments on the Talk page. How long do I have to wait with no responses before I am allowed to edit the page to either remove the song interpretation (or add another, more accurate interpretation) without fear of being blocked again?

Also, it seems that Wikipedia's rule is that secondary sources take precedence over primary sources. That makes no sense to me, to be honest. If I want to post Katy Perry's own interpretation of the song in question, which she wrote, am I allowed to do so, as long as I make it clear that I a referring to the writer's own interpretation? Or is that going to get me blocked.

Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not currently blocked. were actually blocked for edit warring and not for deleting the interpretation alone. You just did it 4 times which crosses the 3 Revert Rule. Remove that again and you will be blocked again, and it will escalate the term of the block from 48 hours to a longer block. The article is has featured status and that means that it has the general consensus that the article is superior to the average article and has a large number of editors watching ti to make sure editing is by consensus. If you have no consensus for your changes and have been is time to gain a consensus on the talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
So, in other words, I am permanently banned from deleting a factually incorrect comment. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You personally probably should not remove it again. But that doesn't mean it can't be removed. Go to the talk page, discuss it, and see if others agree with you. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, that is not right @Mitsguy2001:. What you should not do is fight back and forth with other editors in article text. This is called an editwar and is unhealthy to Wikipedia. Instead, what you should do, if you want the change made, is to go to the article talk page, start a discussion, and present your sources of information and try to make your case, so you can reach a consensus with others. That's how you enact change when others disagree. The process you are using is the problem. When there is a disagreement, we talk it over with others, and present evidence to support our case. We don't just ram through a change over and over again and hope that it sticks. --Jayron32 02:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you at least agree with me that (regardless of whether the interpretation is right or wrong) the interpretation of a single song or album should not be included on the Wikipedia page for an artist, especially when the posted interpretation contradicts what the artist herself said about the song? Is there an official policy on this matter to back me up? If so, then can I delete the interpretation without fear of being blocked, given that I would be doing it to confirm to Wikipedia policy? Or is there no such policy? Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I will tell you what I believe. I believe your question has been asked and answered and the rest belongs on the talk page to persuade editors there...not here. All content that is not a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines is a matter of consensus. As far as I can see there is nothing to support any unilateral action by any editor on this article. To do so requires that it is a BLP, copyright or other policy concern. Thanks and happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Per Mark Miller, I'm not really making any statements about the specific content under contention here: Such a discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. If you have links to sources where the artist discusses their interpretation, put those on the article talk page and make your case there. My only concern is over behavior here; which needs to be constructive... --Jayron32 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not looked at the content. But that does not matter at the moment in the first place. What I do want to tell you is this. Please read some of the wikipedia starting policies. One of the things you should read is WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is not about the truth we are just here to report reliable sources. If all of the reliable sources in the world would suddenly say the world is flat, then wikipedia would say the world is flat no matter how wrong that might be. What you can do is find reliable sources, and once again go to the talk page. How long you should wait. If you were reverted for an infinity amount of time. Especially after you have been blocked for edit warring. NathanWubs (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to disagree slightly with NathanWubs: Wikipedia does care about truth, but it cares about verifiable truth. It isn't that Wikipedia doesn't want the truth, it's just that we don't accept the truth just on someone's word. The words "verifiable" and "verifiability" mean "able to be shown to be true" from the latin word Veritas, or "Truth". The meaning of the oft-repeated phrase "Verifiability not Truth" at Wikipedia doesn't mean "Truth makes no difference" It means "It isn't what is true that matters, it's what you can prove to be true that matters". Because that's what verifiable means: proven to be true. At Wikipedia the standard for proof is that it is written about by reliable, third-party sources. So, if you say what you are writing is the truth, that may or may not be so. What Wikipedia needs is to know where you got your information from before we can assess if it is true or not. --Jayron32 14:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, @Mitsguy2001:, I agree with you on this issue. It looks like you guys have come to a consensus, but just thought I'd tell ya. For something like this where the article states a fact as literal truth: the songs are about teenage love, and the writer of the songs herself says something that contradicts that, we need to consider whether our reliably sourced statement is worth having on wikipedia. I mean, just because it's deemed a reliable source doesn't mean it's true. For whatever reason, many wikipedians want to hide behind the policy and say that they have no duty to truth, they have a duty to verifiability. I just think it's silly. It may be following the letter of the rule, but it's ignoring the spirit of it, which is to have an accurate encyclopedia. I'm not saying we should skip the verifiability phase and just post what we believe to be the truth, sources be damned, but on top of verifiability, we should also consider which sourced information is the most reliable and true. In this case, where Perry herself said something that contradicted what the magazine said, I would err on the side of truth in this case and then attribute the statement. It would be different if it was a self-serving statement, but it's not. She knows what she wrote the songs about. The way I would handle it is to say "W magazine said her songs are about teenagers in love, but Perry said..." Secondary sources aren't always preferable to primary ones. It just depends on what it is and how you use it. Bali88 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Like I said, we came up with a reasonable compromise. I agree with you about the letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. I have a feeling that Wikipedia is going to have a lot of letter of the law vs spirit of the law type arguments.
As for primary vs secondary sources: I think sometimes a judgment call is needed. In the case of "Teenage Dream", since Perry was discussing a then-new song that she wrote that had never caused any controversy, she had no incentive to lie about it, so I trust that anything she said was true. On the other hand, if she was discussing a controversial song years later, which she maybe regretted, then it would make sense to put the truth into question. I think that judgment calls need to be made, but unfortunately, it seems that Wikipedia has no place for judgment calls such as this one.
Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous to say that reading the lyrics of a very popular song, which basically everyone has heard, to be "original research". But the other 2 editors involved just kept throwing that phrase at me.
Also, I still have a problem with the fact that I basically have a de facto lifetime ban on editing that part of Katy Perry's page. The other 2 editors have said they will report me if I edit it again, and the administration has said that if they report me, I will get blocked again, for longer this time. It seems that the administration sided with the other 2 editors since they are more experienced. Plus, I picture the kind of people who would be Wikipedia admins to unfortunately be more "letter of the law" type people rather than "spirit of the law" type people. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, First of all, a couple editors cant tell you that you aren't allowed to edit on something. As long as you can provide references for your edits, you can add anything. But the ref's have to be valid though. Mirror Freak 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


What is the best way to leaern about using AWB? I've noticed that is used on so many of the articles I edit. I am a new page reviewer and think this tool could be especially helpful in what I do. bpage (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The best way to learn about AWB would be to just it or go here for the user manual. TranquilHope (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
bpage for AWB you have to request permission. To do this go to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Also you must have 500 mainspace edits. That means you must have over 500 edits to articles but as you have over 600 you should get permission. Hope this helps. NickGibson3900 Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions 07:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

One big edit, or many small ones?[edit]

I have a whole slew of tweaks for an article. Most of them are minor, stylistic matters, but a few involve changes in the order of paragraphs. What way of introducing them would be most considerate of my fellow editors? All together in one swoop, or one by one in separate edits? Kotabatubara (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kotabatubara and welcome to the Teahouse.
You probably need to aim for the middle-ground. We do not need a separate edit for every single minor change. Conversely, if you make all your changes as one edit, and an editor disagrees with any part of those changes, they cannot just revert the part of your edit that they disagree with, so are likely to revert the entire change. It is often better to edit on a section by section basis, and carry out any routine edits; spelling, grammar etc. first.
You have not said which page you wish to alter, but it is always worth checking the talk page, to be sure that your changes have not been discussed previously, and the edit history to be sure that similar changes have not been reverted in the past. - Arjayay (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks for your question. There may not be an either/or answer. I have seen the stylistic edits done either way. Paragraphs may be better done one at a time. Whatever you wind up doing it is most helpful if you use edit summaries to explain what you are doing. Another suggestion is that you set up your own WP:SANDBOX and do all your tinkering there. When you are done you can ask other editors for their input on how your work looks. You can ask editors you know, or place a notice asking for input on the talk page for the article or the Wikiproject that oversees the article. All of this is just one editors opinions and others will have other ideas to share with you. MarnetteD|Talk 16:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, an editor can revert just the part he/she disagrees with. It's just harder because that means simply clicking on "undo" in the history won't work. Though there are tools I'm not familiar with where it would also not work.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kotabatubara
I am glad to share the same experience as you.
I think i also must aim for larger edits instead of minor ones. I'd be happy if we could work on this together. :) Many thanks...Flora xxx
Flora786 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Artical Review?[edit]

Somebody on Wikepedia Reviewed an Artical that I Have as a Draft on my own Account But I Cant Find The Review it? Where is it? (Zucat)

The only draft you have on your account is Draft:List of films broadcast by Cartoon Network. TranquilHope (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question from Theboyaa[edit]

CAN I MAKE A. FAKE BIG BROTHER WIKI PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyaa (talkcontribs) 20:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No. That is you can, but you may not. Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)