Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 248

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 245 Archive 246 Archive 247 Archive 248 Archive 249 Archive 250 → Archive 255

Confusion about adding an updated image to existing article

A few weeks ago, Eddie Kramer, the subject of an article I had recently revised and updated, supplied me with a more current photo of himself, to replace the older photo then being displayed with the article. I uploaded the photo. I was subsequently asked to supply proof that permission was granted to use the photo. I supplied that information. Today I visited the article and discovered that the newer photo had been deleted. When I attempted to upload it again, the forms I was asked to complete indicated that an image cannot be uploaded if its purpose is simply to illustrate what the subject looks like. Is this a new policy? Especially since I simply updated an old image, why can I not get the new image uploaded. Your help is eagerly sought. Byron Laursen (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Byron Laursen: Hi Byron. We require verifiable evidence of a copyright release. You uploaded the image with the permission text "Evidence: Will be provided on request." The page was thus deleted under section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, under which "If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader. Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org." You were notified over a week before the deletion on your talk page, at this post. More and better information about about meeting the standard is set forth in the notice at your talk page than in the summary from the criterion I quoted above. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there...

... a place to find pages that need editing? I have used Suggestbot, that is great. I went to a vandalism patrol place but I got confused and didn't understand it. And of course I have done on the spot editing where if I see a typo or think something needs more info then I do that. I love the feeling I get when I've made a page better in the smallest way or big ways. Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Heya again @DangerousJXD:. Try Wikipedia:Community portal. If you page down a bit, you can see a section titled "Help out". It lists various types of problems articles have, and gives suggestions for what needs done. For example, if you like to copyedit, you can grab some articles in the "Fix spelling and grammar" group. Does that help? --Jayron32 02:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I went there but nothing there intrests me. Great suggestion though. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello DangerousJXD and welcome back to the Teahouse. I don't know if you got a satisfactory answer or not but I can share my experience in finding new pages to help edit, and believe me, there are plenty of them. First of all, you can search for 'stubs', articles that are very short and need to be expanded with content and references. What kind of articles are you most comfortable with editing? Are there topics that interest you? We probably can find stubs related to your preferred topic. In addition, I have found one of the most needed areas that need editing is working with 'new page patroling'. This is where you see newly created articles by first time editors. You don't have to formally review a new article to edit it, you can help out the page creator with some helpful editing. If you would like the details on locating stubs and the new pages 'feed' (the place where new pages appear) then let me know.
Regards and Happy Editing!
bpage (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bpage, my user page has stuff I like. Tell me more about stubs. Are there any stubs about things on my user page? --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Most likely, yes, DangerousJXD. To find them, you could visit a WikiProject, where editors collaborate on specific areas. I will leave a list of WikiProjects you may be interested in on your talk page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello DangerousJXD, I certainly like your enthusiasm about wanting to edit. Here are some lists of stubs that reflect the interests that you have on your user page:
Stubs you might like to work on:
Playstation stubs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Xbox_stubs
Australian stubs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australia_stubs
Hip Hop stubs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hip_hop_stubs
I provided you with urls instead of Wikipedia link addresses/titles because I thought it would be faster.
Happy Editing, bpage (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Total Confusion

Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia and was looking forward to being a good contributor. I've tried to learn all I can about the rules, and how-to's. I started out slow and made two separate (one sentence) additions to an existing page. Because my contributions were repeatedly deleted I simply put them back in. The messages to me indicated that my additions were not agreed with, and I was falsely accused of not being neutral. I can't figure out for the life of me what to click on so I can respond to these messages and work things out. Now a contributor has blocked me and accused me of edit wars. I'm shocked that my small contributions aren't considered as valid as someone else's. Where do I go from here?DeanieF (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes one can have a baptism of fire. Now, I am not going to look at your contributions, nor at the conflict. I don't care about who is correct, which may seem bizarre to you. I'm just going to suggest a survival guide.
  1. When you have had an edit reverted, instead of just redoing it (the route to problems), discuss it on the article's talk page with the editor who reverted it. You need to read WP:BRD.
  2. Recognise that Wikipedia is weird, and is based on consensus. Mostly consensus is a good thing. sometimes not so much. Even then it is our guiding principle. So influencing consensus is an excellent concept.
  3. Consensus comes in two forms, nemine contradicet, and formed by discussion. Either is good.
  4. There are loads of rules. Tread lightly until you know them. Even old hands don't know it all. The rules manage, mostly, to minimise conflict
  5. Although blocking is not intended to be punitive it often feels as if it is. You got blocked, you say? Ok, that;s not the end of the world.
  6. Your contributions are as valid as mine, or as his, or as hers, provided they are within the rules. Read WP:NPOV. Anso understand that anything we add to an article needs a reference if it is a fact we are adding.
  7. WP:TRUTH will surprise you
  8. User:Timtrent/A good article may help you.
The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Hello, DeanieF. Please don't lose heart - Wikipedia can be a difficult place to get adjusted to. What you have been doing - I'm sure without realising it - is edit warring. When Jgstokes reverted your first three edits to Joseph Smith, they said in the edit summary "(Undoing edits that were ill explained and not needed. As has been repeatedly emphasized, Smith is recognized as the founder of many religions, not just the LDS Church. Please discuss on talk page before reverting again." It sounds from your question as if you did not know where the talk page is: pick "Talk" at the top of the page. It is not that your edits aren't considered as valid: it's that Wikipedia works by consensus. Under what we call the bold, revert, discuss procedure, you are welcome to make any edit that you think is an improvement; but if somebody else disagrees with you, they may revert your change. The next stage if either of you wishes to continue the matter is to open a discussion on the talk page, to try and reach agreement on the wording. If you are unable to achieve agreement, then there are procedures for WP:dispute resolution. But simply applying your change again without discussing the matter is indeed regarded as edit warring.
You have not been blocked: the warning from Richwales is that if you don't stop edit warring, you risk being blocked. Your best bet is to follow the advice he gave to read the consensus about how to present LDS matters on Wikipedia, and then join in the discussion on Talk:Joseph Smith. --ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I can't see that you have been blocked from the logs available to me as an ordinary editor. You have been told it may happen if you plough the furrow you have ploughed hitherto. That is all. I see the article you have been having difficulty with is a religious one. I suggest religion is best left alone until you are experienced here. It doesn't matter how right you are, religion is always controversial. Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You are not blockedS Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • User:DeanieF, you seem to have stumbled onto one of the more controversial articles on Wikipedia, and I apologize for the experience you have had so far. It seems like almost every sentence in that article has been discussed or debated at some point, and much of the wording is the result of many pages of discussion. That doesn't mean that you can't edit it...you can...it does mean though that it's going to be harder to edit. On Wikipedia each article has a discussion page behind it (we call it a "Talk page") where contributors can discuss various edits they want to make. The talk page for the Joseph Smith article is at Talk:Joseph Smith, and you can go there to start a discussion about the edits you'd like to make. It might help to read through some of the previous discussions as well. When you're on the talk page, there should be a button or tab at the top that says something like "new section" that you can click to make a new section at the bottom of the talk page. I hope this helps. If you need any advice feel free to contact me on my "user talk page" (just click the "talk" after my name). ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please also note that the Talk:Joseph Smith page has archives — separate sub-pages with older stuff going back (in this case) to 2002! There is a search feature for the archives (see the box near the top of the talk page, on the right). And to confirm what others have said — you are not currently blocked from editing, and assuming you make a serious, good-faith effort to play by the rules and respect Wikipedia's policies regarding discussion and dispute resolution, I assume you won't be blocked. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Article Entry Deleted

I added an entry to an existing page as recently as this morning and within an hour it apparently was deleted. In looking at the history of the page, the last modification was performed by a XLinkBot which is not an actual individual but a Wikipedia robot. My question is why was my entry deleted when I was trying to improve the page with additional content?Wthowerto (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wthowerto and welcome to the Teahouse. The bot didn't like your edit because it contained links to blogspot.com sites, which are proscribed under Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest that you re add your text without the links.  Philg88 ♦talk 19:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Phily88, thank you for your response. I will try your suggestion!Wthowerto (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Replying

When I reply to someone I put : but there is no space between my reply and the message I am replying to. See my "Bot I have a question." question to see what I mean. The person who replied to me has a space between his/her and my posts. Mine doesn't. How do I do that? -DangerousJXD (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD
The "dots" indents
the text
like this.

For a space between you have to leave

an extra space between the lines like here. Best, w.carter-Talk 23:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I did that but it was not working but now I see it is. Wierd. Probably cause I pressed enter after. Thanks for confirming that. -DangerousJXD (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello DangerousJXD and welcome to the Tea House
For space between post click the advance tab above, and then you will see Arrow, click it you will get line space.
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 02:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I make a cool looking signature

Everyone seems to have a very cool signature. I sure would like one. It replaces the 4 tildes, right? Joan McHale (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joan McHale and welcome to the Teahouse. For customizing your signature you will find information here, there is also this page: Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial where you can also find examples of signatures. And no, it does not "replace" the four tildes, the four tildes will automatically create it. Nice, huh? Best, w.carter-Talk 23:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I need something easy and fun to do, I got beat up by a Bot today over one edit. Waaa Joan McHale (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been bitten by bots more times than I can count. You have the option to cancel some bot notifications on your talk page. The instructions for opting out of bot 'messages' is contained in the message itself. Bots can be pretty insensitive at times. bpage (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello Joan McHale and welcome to the Tea House
You can find some good examples of signatures here
you can customize them
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 03:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox.

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

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

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

Where? --Gryllida (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
On here but it's answered now. -DangerousJXD (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I reference details of the South Australian government's Women's Information Service?

We want to put in an article on this valuable service but are unable to find published references. The majority of the information comes from annual reports, internal reviews and similar documents - the majority of which were written for internal government use and were not widely disseminated. There are also very few digital references on the web which provide details of the women, many of whom were and are volunteers, who staff the service.

Your advice and suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks Drkershaw (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Drkershaw and welcome to the Tearoom. You are certainly able to use annual reports and published internal reviews because they really are published references. I was told once, 'if you are holding it in your hand and reading it, then it can be used as a reference' (using common sense, of course). Even comics can be used as refernces because they can be cited! Many good sources of information are not widely disseminated. As a matter of fact, your access to these references gives you an advantage that other editors probably don't have. Would you like some help finding other references for your topic? I noticed that you called Wikipedia a 'valuable service'. You may want to read up on what some of the goals and purposes of Wikipedia are said to be. We aim to create an online encyclopedia by providing good articles with good references - and that is what it looks like you are trying to do. Happy editing and if this does not answer your question adequately, please come back to the Tearoom and we will get this figured out with possibly a more experienced Tearoom host. Regards and happy editing! bpage (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Drkershaw. The advice from Bfpage is not entirely correct. You can use those sources if they are published, but any article needs to be based primarily on sources which are independent of the subject, which those are not. In fact, to establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and therefore may have an article at all, you need to find substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Such sources do not have to be available online - as long as the reference gives enough information that a reader can in principle obtain them, for example through a public library. But if independent sources do not exist, then there is nothing to base an article on, and such an article is not allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
So sorry, Drkershaw, and thank you ColinFine,Teahouse host for correcting the information I presented. I assumed, that you were referring to references that you had access to, not references published by a company or organization you work for. Using your own references about yourself, and/or using references published by someone you work for is pretty much a big no-no. You could say that using information that you had a hand in creating might 'skew' the point of view of an article and make it not seem objective. It's like the rule about someone writing an article about their own 'discovery' or their own research - not good. I want to profusely apologize for passing the wrong 'answer' due to my misunderstanding of your question. bpage (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, bpage, for correcting you again (particularly after your gracious thanks on my talk page), but you're still not quite getting it. This isn't about whether Drkershaw is connected with the WIS or not (if they are, then there are additional restrictions they should observe because of their conflict of interest). My point is about whether the sources used are independent of the WIS or not. Sources which are not independent (which would include their annual report) may be used only to support uncontroversial factual data (such as their location, annual turnover, and number of employees). Any material that is either evaluative or potentially controversial (reports of their goals or their achievements, for example, or any criticism of their activities) must be sourced from organs independent of the service - such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. And in order to meet the criteria of notability required for any article, the article must cite some such independent reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am new and want to create good article in wikipedia

Hello,

I am new in wikipedia and want to create a good article in wikipedia can anyone please send me the basic format of article which will help me to create it. Also how i can upload picture on my articles. Looking forward for your response and help. Thank you all :)Mohdibu33 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

People have found User:Timtrent/A good article useful. Pictures should be the last thing you need to handle. After a certain number of edits and days your account allows you to upload pictures. They must be ones you are entitled to upload. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse Mohdibu33
The best way to start an article, is to read Wikipedia:Your first article, then find and read articles on similar subjects, and then follow the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, which looking at your sandbox, you have already tried, but without understanding what an article should include.
If you are hoping to create an article about 3i Coaching Classes, I suspect you will be disappointed, as it does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, the draft in your sandbox is also a clear copyright violation, and should be deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all for your kind reply. This is what i want to understand what exactly i need to follow to create an article on wikipedia.

Arjayay 3icoachingclasses.com this is my own website and i want to create an article on it so that people know about our classes and what we teach and what is our aim to educate poor children at very low fee 13:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.92.47.195 (talk)

I reverted an edit, but since the editor appears to directly represent the company

So I reverted an edit using Stiki regarding the Madame Alexander page due to its promotional nature, but as you can see from the revision history the editor is claiming that as they are official representatives of the company their edits should stand. They left a similar message on my talk page. I'm just not sure how to proceed and any help would be appreciated. Asdklf; (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Asdklf;. You might find the information at WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest to be helpful. In my opinion, the other editor does seem to have a conflict of interest and also does seems to be trying to claim a degree of ownership over the page. The best thing to do is keep assuming good faith and try to politely make them aware of Wikipedia's policy on COI editing, ownership of articles and even perhaps "What Wikipedia is not?. Most of the time COI editors are just unfamiliar with what they can or cannot do. The "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide" does a good job of explaining this so perhaps posting a link on the other editor's talk page will help clear things up. However, if they continue to edit the page in complete disregard of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then you can ask for help at WP:COIN. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello Asdklf;. I agree completely with your edits, reverted the other editor, and left a message on their talk page. Well done! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@Asdklf;: I was going to add a bland {{Welcome-coi}} template to the other editor's talk page, but Cullen328's message is shorter and much more to the point. The "ball" is now in the COI editor's court, so all we can do now is watch and wait to see how they respond. Hopefully, they'll look at the links posted on their page and decide to edit according to Wikipedia's rules. If they don't,Cullen328 or another an administrator will likely take stronger action.- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I am not an administrator, but just an "old hand". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. [[File:|25px|link=]] - Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem at all, Marchjuly. I take your comment as a compliment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both very much! I appreciate the assistance! Asdklf; (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion please

On my user page I have a bunch of stuff I like. Would it look better to you if I put links for stuff like Marvel or PlayStation. Wierd question I know. -DangerousJXD (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD, your user page should reflect you, your preferences and skills. How you choose to do that is entirely up to you. Make it your own. Like if you want to "promote" your interests to other curious readers, link them. If you are "just making conversation", links are not necessary. It's always fun/nice to read a very personal user page. Take your time, this does not have to be done all at once. Look at other user pages and borrow ideas or codes from them (everyone else does that^^). Best, w.carter-Talk 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
But remember, DangerousJXD, that this is an encyclopaedia, not a web host or social networking site. There is a certain degree of latitude allowed on User pages, but really it should be about you as a Wikipedia editor. If there is too much material on it which is unrelated to Wikipedia, somebody may come along and ask you to trim it, or else it could get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How to change a page title

I just created an article but accidentally forgot to capitalize the second word. It's the name of a company, so I think it's pretty important. How do I fix that? SLPalmer55 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SLPalmer55, welcome to the Teahouse! To fix an article's title, you move the article. Full instructions are at the link, but the short version is to go to the upper right of the article, find the "More" menu, and click "Move". If you need any more help, reply below. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Anon126! SLPalmer55 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Logging on disables browser access to Wikipedia for 10 minutes

What might be the problem here, and how can it be fixed? I can edit WP without a problem when not logged on. However, when I log on and then try to edit an article or even just look at my Talk page the system locks and the browser (IE10) stops working for Wikipedia. I close the browser and try again, but for about 10 minutes I can't access Wikipedia at all. Then all of a sudden I can. Any thoughts? Thanks. 86.23.125.136 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

IE is excellent for downloading a better browser. Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, 86! Do you have any user scripts that you use in your account? It could be that those scripts are failing in IE (which, as Timtrent alluded, has many problems unique to itself when it comes to running scripts and the like), and they're failing in a way that causes the browser to freeze. You could try disabling Javascript in IE (Google suggests this as a way to do it) and then logging in, and see if that works. If it does, then it's probably one of your userscripts doing it; you could then try deleting the contents of your common.js page (or wherever your scripts are), and re-adding them, one by one, until you find the one that's causing the error. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi folks, thanks for the ideas. I don't run any scripts (not yet attained that level of sophistication :)). Also, I mainly use a company laptop and so I only have limited access to IE settings. Everything works ok on my own PC (IE8). 86.23.125.136 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure what it would be then, particularly if it works on IE8; older versions of IE are usually much worse than newer versions. You might still want to try disabling Javascript if your company policy allows it; there are some gadgets and things that are loaded by default, even if you haven't added any on your own. I suppose they could cause problems in theory, though I doubt they're the issue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist, Flow, and Beta

Tell me what they are and everything to know about the 3 please. Human to human too, don't give me an article to read please. Thank you again Teahouse! --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the watchlist is basically a way to keep track of changes to pages. You add a page to your watchlist by clicking on the little star next to "view history". And you can access the watchlist by clicking on the link to it in the upper right of every page while you're logged in, which should take you here. It will show you changes to pages on your watchlist, with unvisited pages in green.
If you mean the Beta editor, also called Visual editor, it's a project intended to make a "what you see is what you get" editor for Wikipedia, with the intent of making it easier for new users to edit. The first release was a bit...buggy. Explaining everything about its features and how to use it would take far, far more time than I have :).
I'm afraid I don't know much about flow...some kinda new thing to replace talk pages? Someone else can probably explain more about that. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know "everything there is to know" about these three but the basics are:
  • Watchlist is something you create yourself. Most pages has a small white star in the upper right corner. If you want to know when something happens on that page, you click on it and it turns blue and the name of the page appears on your watchlist. To remove a page from your watchlist, just click on the star again. Try it on a couple of pages and you'll see.
  • Flow, is the new "look" for the Wikipedia. It's the new style and functions for the site. It is being tested and tweaked now. I have no idea when it will be up and running.
  • Beta, are some new features/tools/"gadgets" for the Wikipedia that are being tested. You can try them out by checking the boxes for different things at your Preferences.
I'm sure I have missed some info, but I suspect that some other editor will add to this answer in that case. w.carter-Talk 23:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
DangerousJXD - Just to add a little to W.carter's usual excellent reply, once you have added some pages to your Watchlist, you can see them all by clicking on "Watchlist" at the top of any Wikipedia page. Pages with a green dot beside them have been changed since last time you visited them. IMhO, it is one of the most useful things here. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back, DangerousJXD. I'll explain each of them for you, but I hope it's okay that I give you links for more information.
  1. A watchlist is a private list of pages (articles, talk pages, or anything, really) that you want to monitor for changes. To watch a page, click the star on the right side of the "Edit" and "View history" links. Click again to unwatch. Changes to your watched pages will show up in Special:Watchlist (type that into the search box or just click the "Watchlist" link in the top-right). By default, only the most recent change to each page you're watching is shown, but you can change that in your preferences.
  2. Flow is an experimental replacement for talk pages. (Right now it is being tested on a per-page basis, so you can't enable or disable it yourself.) It uses a more traditional comment thread system, with automatic notifications for replies and the ability to lock threads.
  3. Beta features are new things you can try out. Two of the more popular ones are the new search engine (CirrusSearch) and VisualEditor (which lets you edit articles without using the code).

Hope this helps! Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All this for little old me? Seriously thanks a ton! I don't think I have ever been somewhere so friendly in my life. :D --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Should I fill one in for stuff like the teahouse and talkpages? I don't for that but I do always for editing articles. Another one, when did the teahouse start? --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do. It is always helpful for other user who want to know what's going on. The edit summery can sometimes be used for extra comments. This Teahouse page was started on 15 feb 2012, 06:54. There might have bee an earlier version of it. Some Wiki-historian will have to fill you in on that. You can follow the history of every page by clicking on the "View history" tag and then on to "External tools: Revision history statistics" a bit further down that page. w.carter-Talk 23:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Every edit? Okey dokes then. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Every edit, although I have found that the world keeps going even if I forget sometimes. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz:: → Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary → perfect recall:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the blank edit prompt info, a useful toolSovalValtos (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hear, hear, @Fuhghettaboutit:: great hint, and a really nice link to it. Thanks. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

They say it's best to ask.

What is The Signpost? --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Wikipedia's in-house newspaper. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. --Jayron32 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@DangerousJXD: If you need to find details on a Wikipedia topic quickly you can often get what you want by using the prefix WP: in the search box. For example, if you search wp:Signpost (note the search is not case sensitive) and hit return, you will be taken directly to the link provided by Jayron32 above. This is also a useful way to jump around the encyclopedia as many subjects have these "shortcuts". To get here, for example, enter wp:Tea and you will see Teahouse/Questions as the second result in the search drop-down. Click the entry and you will be magically transported to this page. Hope this is useful. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 06:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I have seen a few Userpages that look really cool! Complete with different colors, well maintained tables, userboxes and a few other things. I have been here since two years, but still haven't figured out how to edit my page to an interesting one! Where can I find the information? Thanks. King Cobra (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, King Cobra. I recommend you look at the User page design center. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! King Cobra (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

how add Anthem or song or audio in infobox??

I want to add university anthem in infobox in that pageTharaka077 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tharaka077. Welcome. Infoboxes are intended to have a few key facts about an article, not to be the article. If there is a reliable source for the anthem it would be better to put it in the main body of the article.
At present that article does not seem to have any sources at all. That needs to be fixed.Charles (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We like to create article about our open source software

We like to create article about our open source software , its opensource-socialnetwork.org we want to know that how to achieve goal, its about open source social networking software. 39.32.42.53 (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for asking. Please don't write an article about your software: it is not forbidden, but because of your conflict of interest you are strongly discouraged from writing the article.
Your best course is:
  1. Look for solid references in reliable sources independent of your and your organisation. If major newspapers or magazines have published articles about the software (not just listings, mentions, or your own press releases), or websites with a reputation for reliable editing and checking facts have done so, then it will be possible for Wikipedia to have an article on the software. If these sources I have mentioned do not currently exist, then at present, Wikipedia must not have an article on it, as it will be impossible to write an article of any quality.
  2. If you have found these sources, then request an article at requested articles, listing the sources, and somebody unconnected with the software may choose to pick up the suggestion and create the article.
Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

delete my account, if I have no edits, can I then delete my account?

I see that I cannot delete my account because my edits have to be associated to an account. In my case, all my edits are undone all the time and after a week of editing and many hours invested, there is not a single line of my edits anywhere. So, the question is - in that case, if I have no edits, can I then delete my account? Zarpboer (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Zarpboer. You now have 344 edits listed. If you no longer wish to edit Wikipedia, just stop editing. You can say that you are retired on your user page if you want. We hope you will change your mind and return some day. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Zarpboer, I've looked at your edit history and it seems like you're edit-warring with users on one of these articles. I have no doubt you mean well, but when editors get in a situation like this, the best solution is to discuss on the talk page, something that you have indeed started. Give users some time to respond, as they have different schedules and off-wiki priorities that will appear from time to time. Most importantly, remember there is no deadline. You do have a fair amount of sourcing, but it seems like consensus does not agree with them. I do see your frustration, but I think discussing and building consensus should be the focus of your efforts for the time being. --McDoobAU93 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
McDoobAU93, thank you :) - I do mean well, the thing is that I have discussed my changes in the talk page, all of this week, but the troubles that I am having are with editors that know very little, or nothing about the subject matter and they do not want to check the research or citations either. All that they simply do ALL of the time, is to revert my additions and changes to an old, (pre me) version. The only explanations that I do get is that my edits are heavily my point of view, nothing factual, nothing specific and they do not want to invest the time and effort to improve the article, which has been dsiplaying, citations equired, message since 2010. One of the present citations are even fake - and so is much of the content... Much of it is fiction, rumour and based on a novel (fiction) - To make matters even more interesting, there are many agendas, points of view etc. and these all interfere with the facts :) -- thank you in advance McDoobAU93 for any additional advice? Zarpboer (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

how long is the wait after resubmission?

On 16 June 2014 ONEL5969 told me to work on my article about Tadeusz Jezierski and then resubmit that article. I resubmitted that article over 60 days ago and still have no response. Is that normal? Have I done something wrong?King.parker3 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi King.parker3 and welcome to the Teahouse. No, you haven't done anything wrong. At the moment there is a significant backlog in the review queue, which means that your article is still waiting. The review will happen at some point and you never know, some kind editor here may decide to do the review for you more quickly. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The draft was re-submitted 9 days ago, not 60. Nine days isn't long at all to wait for a review at the moment. Sionk (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, King.parker3. You have done nothing wrong: as the message at the top of Draft:Tadeusz A. Jezierski says, "there are 2761 submissions waiting for review". However, in my opinion the draft will fail review. I have only looked at about a quarter of the references, but I have yet to find one which contains "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Of the six references for the first section, five do not mention Jezierski at all, and the sixth merely confirms that he is on the staff of the institute. Most of the rest of them appear to be references to works by him. Not one of these contributes to establishing notability. To establish notability (in the special Wikipedia sense of the word), the article needs either to cite substantial writing about him in reliable sources independent of him and his institution; or establish one or more of the criteria for notability of academics. I think it is quite like that Jezierski does meet one of these latter criteria: but if so, the article must spell out what it is that makes him notable and fit for a Wikipedia article. Referencing a few of his own papers might be appropriate if they support text about notable work he has done, or a particular position he has taken on some matter (though independent sources are to be preferred). But as it stands, in my opinion, there is far too much detail about the particular projects he has done for an encyclopaedia article, and far too many references that would be appropriate in a scientific paper but are irrelevant in an encyclopaedia article about him. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing an article

Hi there!

I would like to make changes to the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rutka. Can I make direct changes to the article even though I am a paid editor.

In particular, I would like to remove the "This article relies on references to primary sources" box. I think the simplest way to remove this box is by removing references 3,4,5 and 6. However, I don't want to get flagged for conflict of interest.

Any suggestions? Thanks for your help! Varblues69 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Varblues69, welcome back to the Teahouse! The answer is yes, but tread carefully. Being paid or having a conflict of interest does not forbid anyone from editing an article, but if you don't discuss changes on the talk page first, you risk having them undone or being blocked from editing. The exceptions are basic copyediting (fixing spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) and correcting obvious errors. (What counts as "obvious" may not itself be obvious, so, when in doubt, discuss first.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it!

Varblues69 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Same Page Title in different languages

Hi ! I added a page on our international association in english Wikipedia. I would like that the name of the association (in english) redirect to the english page when it is typed in from other Wikipedia language. What is the best way to do this ?

many thanks in advance, Levi LeviAmStutz (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Levi, and welcome. I'm afraid the software doesn't allow us to make automatic redirects from one language version to another. Perhaps I can explain why it'd be a bad idea. Imagine you're reading the English Wikipedia, and you search for a title (for example, FIFA), expecting to read an English article on the subject. All of a sudden, you're redirected to a completely different Wikipedia, one written in a language you don't know (say, French). Don't you think you might find that confusing? And you might not even know how to get back to the English version! We don't want to trap our readers like that. If your association has articles in other languages, you can redirect the English title to them, but you can't redirect it here.
While you're here, I would also encourage you to read our conflict-of-interest policy, as it sounds like you may be a member of the organization about which you're writing.
-- Powers T 11:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks, two interesting concerns.

I initally created a page in another language telling minimal similar information as in english and suggesting to read the english page, but it was cancelled. Would it be correct to translate the page in different languages ?

Regarding conflict of interest, thanks for the advise, my goal is only to provide wikipedia with the information on definition of the organisation (there is really no personal interest behind) but of course i see very well the point. In such a situation, is it better to request an other independant person to write the article ? or should i mention that the initial article was written by a member of the organisation ? thanks again for your help, LeviAmStutz (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You could join the Wikipedia for each language and see if you can write the article in each one. Each language Wikipedia has its own policies.
It is generally better if an independent person writes the article. You could do it, but you would have to follow the advice given above about conflict of interest. The important thing is independent reliable sources and neutral point of view. People writing about their own company have trouble with the second one.
For advice on how to proceed if you don't write the article, the topic immediately below this one has advice (once this is archived that location may change).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

ryan giggs

Does anyone know how many apps and goals he has actually got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernandezabc (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse Hernandezabc. Are you asking for references relating to this athelete?bpage (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a question for the reference desk.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

over all look

Hi I am a new editor to Wikipedia. My first question is, when does the page go live? and second question, is there a way to hide at the top "USER: "my user id"".

I am also trying to set up an entertainers page so that it looks like other entertainers' pages and I am not an expert with dialogue boxes, etc. Many of the pages have a a box to the right with a picture, and other snapshot info like DOB, Years active, website links, etc. I have figured out how to get a picture, but thats it. Thanks!70.195.139.189 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, person with an IP starting with 70 and welcome to The Teahouse. The answer to your first two questions is the same. You are probably not eligible to do this, but you move the article. A registered user can move an article after four days and 10 edits.
The other question may be answered with clicking on one of these articles that has a box like you want to add. That is called an infobox and to see how it works you would click on "edit" or "view source" at the top of the page depending on the protection level.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The answer to your first question depends on what you mean by "live". All pages in Wikipedia can be seen by anybody (so they're live in that sense - and most can be edited by anybody). But normally only pages in the main space, that is, without a prefix such as "User:" or "Draft:" are treated as released articles - and once they're in main space, they may get deleted if they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. A page starting called "User:<your user name>" is not an article, and shouldn't be used for preparing an article: it is your user page, and it is for sharing any information you choose about you as a Wikipedia editor. But pages called "User:<your user name>/<name of an article> are called your sandboxes, and are a good place to prepare an article (because by convention people won't edit them unless you invite them to, or there is something seriously wrong with them such as a copyright violation). When your article is ready to be released, you move it, as Vchimpanzee says; but if you're inexperienced it's much better to ask for it to be reviewed, by editing it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

2Q4UD

(The D stands for Dawg.) Can you tell me exactly what a Teahouse host does? Is there such thing as asking too many questions here at the Teahouse? Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD:awg. Hosts are experienced editors who manage the Teahouse. This project has drifted a bit from its origins. It started as a way to provide new users with an alternate to the Wikipedia:Help desk which can be a bit daunting for new users. Answers to questions at the help desk tend to be terse, direct users to jargon-heavy policy pages, or get filled with alphabet soup of abbreviations and shortcut links. At the Teahouse, the idea was to create a more newbie-friendly help-desk experience. The original batch of hosts (I was one) did a lot of work in inviting new users, tracking data on user retention, and coming up with the "ethos" of the Teahouse, which is intentionally supposed to be different than the help desk. We invite anyone to answer questions, but the hosts are really supposed to be cognizant of a certain manner of answering a question: provide the complete answer in your response (rather than directing to another policy page to read), greet every user directly, notify them of your response, and speak in plain terms, intentionally avoiding insider jargon. Being a "host" is an informal thing, generally any experienced user can just make themselves a "host" and so long as they understand and apply the ethos of the Teahouse, that's cool. At some point, my name was taken off the host list (I have no idea why, I think if you don't answer a question for some length of time, a bot takes your name off the list, or something), but generally there's no formal process in becoming one, just learn the ways of the Teahouse, answer questions the right way, and that's all it takes. As far as your second question: of course not. All people new to an environment learn different ways. Some people like to read manuals. Some people like to tinker and figure it out. Some people learn best by asking lots of questions. We totally get that, and when you learn in your own style, we're here to help you with whatever you need. I hope that answers all of your questions (at least for this thread... of course feel free to ask more as they come up!) --Jayron32 02:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Marvelous answer! BTW the D in my name does not stand for dawg, (That's the XD emoticon.) the header did. If you would like to know more about my user name, head to my my user page. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

More Preferences

The preference that tells you when you enter a blank edit summary (I mensioned it in my prefrences question.) does not work for me! Why? I of course have the box ticked and I saved it and it said your preferences have been saved but then I tested it twice (By not entering a summary.) and nothing, no message. It just posted without a summary. I will test again for this edit. I am using a phone, (No computer. Yes I know.) I suspect that's the issue. --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is not yet supported for mobile editing, along with many other preferences. Pinging Maryana who will know whether it's on the roadmap for them anytime soon. :-) Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. Not a big deal but a little annoying. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Waddup.

What is the name of the the above this? I've heard header and submenu and template. What is the actual name of it? --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day @DangerousJXD: - the answer is "both". In the Wikipedia Manual of Style, it is referred to as a "Section heading" (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings). "Subsection headings" (also sometimes called "subheadings") and sub-sub-sub-headings are also used to break large articles into logical, easier-to-read, parts.
However, it also has a special function in the Teahouse or a Talk page, dividing one question and its discussion from another.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Now I know. Thanks Gronk Oz. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How to make my user page?

I've edited Wikipedia many a times but i don't know how t create my user page and don't understand use of sandbox aGastya 09:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 September 2014‎

Hi AgastyaC and welcome to the Teahouse. Looks like you now have a user page! Please come back if you have more questions.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello AgastyaC, if you want to know how to design your user page in your own style please look at Wikipedia:User page design center. The User:AgastyaC/sandbox is a place where you can experiment with texts you want to use in other places on the Wikipedia. I see that you are already using it to create some things for your user page. Maybe you should just copy paste that info to your user page. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Boxes for awards

Tried to understand boxes for awards and nominations etc. Is it worth doing for the article on Duggie Fields which seems all jumbled up and Amanda Eliasch too, Also other artists etc like Tracey Emin. Isn't it neater? What are the regulations on this? Thanks for helping me.Spikequeen (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Spikequeen, if you refer to the boxes in the upper right corner of an article, they are called "infoboxes" are always good to have in an article since they give the reader some basic facts about the article. Long or short, doesn't matter. There are lots of different infoboxes for different kinds of articles. You can find them all in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. If you are referring to the basic "boxes" just for awards or nominations, these are called tables and are also a good way of sorting things out. Tables can be made in many ways. You can start reading about how at Help:Table. And I do agree that Duggie Fields needs some fixing. Happy hunting! w.carter-Talk 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"Not listening to you"

Summary: How does one handle instances where two (or more) editors on the same part of the political spectrum apply "Not Listening... nananannaa!" mentality against others, and in doing so, ignore the most recent (clearly) factual data when presented on discussion?

Samples:

  • "I simply ignore most of what MarciulionisHOF says." [1]
  • "I share your policy and ignore the fellow" [2]
  • Material ignored: In June 2014, a unity government was sworn in by Fatah President, who also picked, among many others from Fatah, a Fatah Prime Minister.
  • Sources used to ignore: mostly from 2012 and earlier.
  • Editors ignored: I believe there was no consensus -- something in the area of 5* vs 3 is hardly unanimous and a sign-off to do what you want and change the article:
  • "If nobody objects to "Hamas-governed", I will change it. (Or anyone else can)." 16:32, 4 September 2014
  • "Read it again. "Governed" is wrong on a number of levels." 18:58, 4 September 2014
  • "as per talk page consensus" 19:04, 4 September 2014


* one of the 5 had a fringe idea but at least it is from 2014.

Thank you in advance on any advice regarding "I can't hear you" behavior. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarciulionisHOF and welcome to the Teahouse. This is really a place for new users to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia rather than to seek advice on how to handle problems with other editors. A better place would be dispute resolution or, if you feel particularly strongly about the issue, there is always ANI. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 10:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for advice, I moved it to one of your suggested locations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How to make use of sandbox multiple times

I just finished my first article and i "moved" it but when I go to use sandbox again to make a new article, the first one seems to lay dormant in it. How to I open a new one without saving over my original article?Gtseyfried (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gtseyfried and welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox is now back to normal and ready to be used again. It just had a redirect to the pervious article in it. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 16:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I link the same wiki page in different languages

there is one wiki that i created in english that already existed in swedish. I would like to link the two. How do I do that?Brendan.anson (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Brendan.anson and welcome to The Teahouse. I have done it for you. Click on "edit" to see what I did. Each language has its own two-letter abbbreviation, and you put that inside an internal link ([[sv:Marion Pritchard]]) followed by a colon.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Vchimpanzee, you no longer need to do that as it is handled by Wikidata and automated programs. I'm not sure why that hadn't happened in this case but I've fixed it up now. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 05:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I looked at Stockholm and there was no link to the Swedish version. But I was pretty sure I remembered what was supposed to be done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_248&oldid=1072192169"