Wikipedia talk:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Questions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Greetings: This page is for discussing the Teahouse, please direct questions about Wikipedia to the Teahouse Q&A forum. Thank you.
the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
News This Wikipedia:Teahouse has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

You can also talk in real time chat at #wikipedia-en-help connect, and participate in discussions at the host lounge.

Request an account process needs help[edit]

Hello everyone, I'm Callanecc, an administrator on account creation interface. Recently, our project has had an increased backlog in getting accounts for new users. Our numbers are currently over 250 people waiting for accounts on the English Wikipedia. If you could even spare a moment to do a few requests a day to help us clear this backlog, that would go a long way to encouraging new editors to participate with an account. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply! Ideal users are:

We have a very friendly team to help you get started, we also have a private IRC channel where you can ask questions or get help with difficult account requests. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. For the ACC team, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talkcontribs) 19:32, December 4, 2013‎

Visual editor[edit]

I just realised that many of the answers we have given (certainly that I have given) have assumed that the guest is using the source editor. Explaining these things with the visual editor - I don't have the first idea how I copy an infobox from one article to another, or fix a list so that there are no gaps to upset screen-readers.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough19:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC).


Can this user be reprimanded re his threatening and patronizing language please— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I need help for protect my article which is proposed for deletion:Alexandra Mas[edit]

Dear Sir (Mrs) wikipedians, I ask you for your help about my article which is being proposed for deletion by Biruitorul. First,Mr.Biruitorul was impolited because he don't left any message on may talk page. Second, his affirmations are ironic.His reason is that this painter has no notability.Anyone looking at the article looks like it is not true. The article is not 100% finalized.I am still working on it. It is about art.Alexandra Mas is a pluridisciplinar artist at age 36 with over 22 art show in entire world:France,Japan,England,Bucharest,Beograd.She create a new curent on art:Le Magnifisme.Se developed a new concept of art a la port in fashion.For me ,she is a prodigious person. She capted the atention of the known art critic Jean Deulceus,professor at LIISA ((Institut supérieur des Arts appliqués),France. Also,Alexandra Mas is the niece of the known artist Mircea Milcovitch. The article has 32 of references about Alexandra's art shows, about albums where she appear... Anyway,I feel a great desapoiment that in wikipedia can happen something like this. Anyone who read the article will se the beauty of creation of Alexandra Mas. Why so hurry to delete an article about art? I'm awaiting your (honestly of course)support. Please enter at this link if you want to help. I accept any point of view wich is honest.

Thank you very much! Leedskalnin (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Dear Tom, I tell you Alexandra Mas this aspect and she want to send to permission about text quoted from her site but she don't know how to compose the mail.I want to say the article been deleted how to show to permission wha texts are copyrigted? Leedskalnin (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with COIs (want to make sure I have the proper info)[edit]

This is one of our most common questions. A while back I gave a new user some bad info when I said they couldn't edit at all if they have a COI and someone corrected me. (Thanks for that) So I just wanted to post my current understanding of what people with a COI can and can't do to make sure I have it right when talking to others. So if you have a COI on topic X you CAN Create a stub article for X. But you can't directly edit X after creating the stub. From that point on you have to suggest changes on the Talk page of X. Also, you have to identify on your user page and on the talk page of X that you have the COI. Is that correct? Is there anything really important I'm missing from that? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. People with a COI are not prohibited from doing anything. They are merely strongly discouraged from editing articles about the topic where they have a COI. That comes pretty close to a prohibition, but is not quite there.
The other commonly held exception is that submitting a WP:AFC draft is not considered to be "editing an article about the topic where they have a COI", because it will be reviewed before it gets approved as an article (if it does). This leads to the slightly odd situation where COI editors are permitted (and maybe encouraged) to edit an AfC draft before it is approved, but strongly discouraged from editing that same page after it is approved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. thanks! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that there are limits on the types of edits that a COI editor can make. Examples are given at WP:COIADVICE, but basically any edit considered to be an obvious minor edit, i.e., something almost certain not to be challenged by another editor, is probably OK; On the other hand, COI editors should avoid making any content-related edits or anything which has the potential to be challenged. The COI editor should discuss such edits and can request that they be made, but should not make the edit themselves per WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Marchjuly thanks for that as well. I bookmarked the COIADVISE article and will consult before advising people here in the future. That's why I thought it was worth asking the question, it's IMO fairly subtle. BTW, if I were the God of Wikipedia I would change that. I think it's better to just keep things simple and I would say COI means you don't edit, period. But I'll just have to add that to the long list of things that would be so much better if I ruled the universe. Then again if that race of metal munching moon mice works out ruling the universe may still pan out so here's hoping... Anyway, until that time I'll keep that article in mind, thanks for the info. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There are circumstances when a person perceived as having a COI is permitted to edit an article directly concerning themselves, and the most important of these is that they should be allowed to remove unsourced untruths about themselves, per WP:BLP. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64:That is true. WP:BLPEDIT, WP:COISELF and WP:COIADVICE allow for editors to "remove content that unambiguously violates the biography of living persons policy" from a Wikipedia article written about them. Even so, what may seem "unambiguous" to one person, may not be so unambiguous to another. So, it seems to have to be something really serious, i.e., something which would seriously harm the subject of the article if not immediately removed. In such cases, it's best to follow up by emailing WP:OTRS, posting on WP:BLPN or possibly both so that the offending material can also be removed from the edit history if needed. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"Seriously harm" is not the severity required for BLP to come into play! It does not have to be something at that level. BLP kicks in way before that.
Secondly, if material could "seriously harm" a living subject, you certainly shouldn't be posting to a public noticeboard to get it removed from the edit history! You should be going directly to WP:RFO and using the email address given there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right Demiurge1000. Perhaps "contentious" would have been a better choice of wording on my part, but "serious" and "BLPN" were used in WP:COISELF: An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons. If my interpretation of that statement was in error, then my bad. Not trying to intentionally misinform.My switch from "ask" to "post(ing)" was careless since I assumed "asking a question" implied "posting". Anyway, thanks for the correction. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC); edited by Marchjuly (talk) 10:05 am, 21 November 2014 (UTC+9) [Note: I didn't realize a reply was posted before I edited the above post. So, I have struck out the text that was removed and underlined the text that was added per WP:REDACT - Marchjuly (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)]
No problem, glad to have helped. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Re-adding the live chat link?[edit]

Hello! The live chat link was taken out some time ago, apparently since it was messing up the formatting. Is there anyone who'd have the technical knowledge to replace it? I personally find it much easier to help in real time. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Community job openings at Wikimedia[edit]

Hello all! There are a few job openings on our Community teams, and I thought someone here might be interested. Feel free to share if you know someone who might be interested! JSuzuki (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@JSuzuki (WMF): Hi Jenn. I noticed these positions on WMF website:
Are these the positions you are referring to? Should we put interested folks in touch with you? I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: Hi! Yes, those are the positions! If you or anyone you know is interested, they can reach out to with questions or apply directly on the careers page :)

External image[edit]

Hello there! I just noticed that the Sophie Hunter page has an external image which is outdated. The photo from IMDB was from 2011 but there's a newly uploaded photo that is more suitable, taken just this month. This one or this one I hope you can help in changing it (or removing it altogether as I don't think it's necessary to the page at all). Thank you very much! (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings welcome to the teahouse. Actually, where you posted this is really more like the Teahouse kitchen where the staff gets together to talk about how to run the teahouse. This is the teahouse talk page, it's meant for the teahouse host editors to talk about how we answer questions; not for editors to ask questions. I'm going to take the liberty of moving your question to the actual teahouse in case other hosts can answer it. Look for it here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#External_image:_Question_Moved_from_Teahouse_Talk_to_Teahouse hosts tend to look at the actual teahouse lot more than the teahouse talk page. In the future please post questions about editing to the actual teahouse page. However, I think I can answer it as well: what you are experiencing is unfortunately a common problem with Wikipedia. Often the pictures we have for celebrities aren't the best or most recent. The reason for that is that Wikipedia has to be much more rigorous about sticking to the letter of copyright laws, Other sites have user agreements that users have to sign and those agreements shift the responsibility from the site to each individual user. Wikipedia can't do that due to the anonymous crowd sourcing way we edit content. In order for us to use an image we must have the explicit rights to it and we almost certainly won't have the right to a random picture on IMDB. You can search here: Any picture in the commons is something that can be used in Wikipedia. If you find a better picture there let us know. Here are some articles with more info on copyrights and images: Wikipedia:Basic_copyright_issues Wikipedia:Image_use_policy --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi MadScientistX11, thank you for trying to help the unregistered editor here, however this is not really correct. First, Wikipedia contributions are covered under an agreement, it's the one that starts with 'By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to...' - and similar arrangements for uploading images both here and on Commons. So there is no lack of a user agreement and thus that is not an issue at all.
Secondly, Wikipedia most certainly does not demand "the explicit rights to" an image in order to use it.
The main difference between Wikipedia and other sites, in this respect, is instead the third pillar. It's worth reading up on that for a clearer idea of Wikipedia's priorities and where most of Wikipedia's policies and practices in this area come from. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)