Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

Help Wikipedia

How do I "save" a Wikipedia page on my computer like I can (super easily) do on my phone with the app?

I usually look up things on Wikipedia using the app on my android phone. I struggle with racing thoughts and ideas so I love being able to look something up quickly and then with two taps use the "save page" function if need be to refer to it later. The problem is that I am finding it basically impossible to figure out how to use my account seamlessly across my phone and computer now in this way. I created an account and can sign in on the Wikipedia page on my computer (and app) but I don't know how to access the pages I've saved using the app, nor can I figure out how to similarly save new pages on the website. The closest feature I could find is the watchlist option but I don't want that since I'm not trying to keep track of edits and I don't want to download the page or necessarily make it into a book. Thank you very much in advance for your help. I have tried to find this info on my own since I'm sure you all get tons of questions each day but unfortunately I could not. I do hope the solution isn't too obvious :\ Katekore (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The word END

Why is there no page for the word END? I am a politically conscious man and find this appalling. The world is full of troubles and for people to have a clear sense of the meaning of this word is vital. Will someone who can help me to do this? Thank you very much. Perhaps, please there can be advise along these topics.

Giving pages natural links as such, I write utilities and it leads to utility.

A page related to specific techniques that are generally unknown to wikipidia editors?

Simply a young man trying his best to give the world impartial views of the reality in which we all must live in.

JerryMuzsik (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JerryMuzsik. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Please go to Wiktionary. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 07:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi JerryMuzsik welcome to the Teahouse, we appreciated your concern about the subject. But Wikipedia doesn't predict the future. In Wikipedia content with reliable, published sources are accepted. Otherwise it's considered as original research. So I don't think it would be a good choice to create an article about a view or judgment with no reliable sources exist.--Chamith (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand, End is a definitive thing. It has many elements of philosphy, ethics, day to day life, it is a word of many meanings, I will try to create a page, if it is deleted, so be it. I will research first, find references, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryMuzsik (talk • contribs) 07:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JerryMuzsik. I had no idea what END means, other than the common word "end" which is so unambiguous that it does not deserve an encyclopedia article. I did a Google search, thinking that it was a highly significant acronym, and came up dry. So, what the heck are you talking about? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate what is said, but to me, idealistically, this website is a source, not simply an encyclopedia of impartial views, as I said, of reality, and it is best to define things which our future brethren can possibly hold onto to rightly formulate a future that is not as terrifying as it appears and doing simple little things such as making a page that describes the word END in many contexts will do something for them and help them to grow as peoples of conscience. I apologize for the running sentence. thank you. END. a final part of something, especially a period of time, an activity, or a story. Beautiful use of words, no?

status quo, reversions, and biased editors

Hi. I'm rather confused about wikipedia policies relating to who can revert and whose responsibility it is to gain consensus. Policies like "consensus" say that the status quo reigns in the case of a dispute. This seems to suggest that anyone has an absolute veto over any change until consensus is established for that change. That's certainly the way some editors have been acting. On the other hand, information about the three revert rule seems to imply the opposite. Doing the counting, if someone makes a change and someone else reverts it and this continues back and forth, its the objector who will reach three reverts first, suggesting that the change should remain until consensus is established against it. So which is it?

Another concern I have is that, reading "revert only when necessary", a change should not be reverted merely because it is unnecessary, but only if it actually makes the article worse. However, I have had edits reverted multiple times with the weakest, vaguest claim of "irrelevance" and the editor ordering me to gain consensus for the change. Moreover I have reason to think this editor is strongly biased on the topic, from looking at his comments on other talk pages. When I tentatively said that I found it hard to see how an unbiased person could object to this edit, he aggressively told me that "making accusations won't help your case" (though that didn't stop him making accusations against me). I have taken the issue to the talk page, presented an argument for the change, and asked for the argument against it. All I have received from him and another editor are vague, short assertions that they "still don't see the relevance", without addressing any of my points. How should I proceed? Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Colonial Overlord. Thank you for expressing your frustration. Can you please state who is the user? I will message him and ask why he reverted your edits. Secondly, the 3RR (3 revert rule) is considered an edit war, and if anybody does that you can report him or send him a {{Warning}} template. You will only revert edits if you see vandalism or any other unconstructive edits, before leaving a notice at their talk page to stop with this kind of demeanour as it is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Editors who have made accusations are unacceptable behaviour in this website (I know, I have been a victim) and talking sense into him would not work unless you ask other veteran editors to leave a message on his talk page. However, the user will still be reluctant, so the best way to resolve it is to stay away from the user or just wait till days later before making the edit again. I will now see your contributions and explain if this is a worth. Cheers, DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have seen that you removed content from Loss of supply, resulting in this dispute. I guess now, it started because you removed the content without any explanation in your edit summary, which baffles other editors and do not benefit anybody, including yourself. Therefore, Colonial Overlord, I will dig deeper into the situation and update more about it later. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, the content removal from Loss of supply wasn't the root of the problem. I have posted a message on the talk page of the ongoing dispute, and I will see if any other changes are needed, Colonial Overlord. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The page in question was Premiers of the Australian States. Regarding loss of supply, I thought edit summaries were not required for vandalism, and what I removed certainly looked like vandalism.Colonial Overlord (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that, Colonial Overlord. I have left a message on the talk page of that article. Please tell me about it. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 07:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

How to tag pic correctly!

Hi there, could you please direct me ho I can tag my own Pic on Wikipedia correctly? Please advise! Thank you. Guillaume Birindwa (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, Guillaume Birindwa. It depends on what image you have uploaded. Please clarify and we will help you license the tags properly. Cheers, DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have seen that you have uploaded an image of yourself. Since it is an own work, please use {{Information}}. If you are still unclear, please see File:I Jethrobot.jpg. Remember to put a license. If it is self-taken, this will be okay. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess you will have to make a better name for it still Guillaume Birindwa. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dew, thank you very much! I make some changes as you advise. I hope it will solve the problem:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume Birindwa (talk • contribs) 06:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Format for referencing theatrical Playbill

Hi,

I am working on an article about a theater set designer. Many of the references that I have found are of show Playbills that the artist worked on. How do I make a correct Playbill reference? I can't figure out if it is Book, News or Journal. It would also be great if someone could explain how to properly fill out the reference since the Playbill has little information other than the theater, date and all of the people involved. Thanks in advance!

Borister (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Borister. Are these playbills published, in some book about them? If not (if they are just in your collection, for example) they would probably not count as reliable sources: the crucial thing is, can a random reader in principle get hold of the resource? Needing to request it from a public library would be OK, but needing to ask somebody who happens to own a private collection would not. If these playbills are published then they can be used as sources, but they will be Primary sources, which can be used in only limited ways. The bulk of the article must be based on reliable published secondary sources, unconnected with the subject, which discuss the subject at length. Please see referencing for beginners for more information.

--ColinFine (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Borister. I am taking a friendly guess that our esteemed colleague ColinFine resides in the UK, and therefore may not realize that Playbill is a monthly US theater magazine published in New York for 130 years and distributed at live theaters in major cities across the country. Circulation is over four million copies. I am sure that the New York public libarary and many others maintain archives. The publication also has an online database. Accordingly, I would use the "News story" template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Do you by any chance have a link for that template? I tried using "Template:News story" but failed to get any hits that made sense. Best, w.carter-Talk 23:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for naming it wrong, W.carter. The template I had in mind is Template:Cite news. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Cullen328. It indeed did not occur to me that Borister might be talking about a magazine, because "show Playbills that the artist worked on" did not seem to me make sense under that interpretation; and if "the Playbill has little information other than the theater, date and all of the people involved" as Borister says, it does not sound like a substantial reference such as one would expect to use a magazine for. But I bow to your local knowledge. --ColinFine (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The magazine is customized with a cast and crew list for each show where it is distributed free, at pretty much every major "legitimate theater" in the US, ColinFine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

[left]. Hi. I edit heavily in the musical theatre area, with about 100,000 edits on theatre-related subjects. You do not need to use the cite templates at all. Indeed, I think it is preferable *not* to use them. Their only function is to act as a sort of checklist. For an article at Playbill.com, you can just give the bibliographic details within the ref tags like this: <ref>Smith, John. [url "Title"], ''Playbill'', date, accessed December 14, 2014</ref> For "Who Was Who" sections in Playbill, where there is no author name, you can do it like this: <ref>[url "Designer's Name"], ''Playbill'' for ''The King and I'' at the [[St. James Theatre]], Date of performance, accessed December 14, 2014</ref> -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above but I just wanted to add that while it may not be necessary to use the cite templates in this case in general I think it is a very good idea to use them. For one thing it standardizes the reference which cuts down on pointless debates and looks clearer to readers. For another, cite templates correspond to meta-data standards so that automated tools can process and leverage the reference information in various ways. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

I am a newbie to editing Wikipedia and i believe i may have inadvertently edited a list of musicians and included a performing artist/group. The person who leads this musical group is a friend who will be playing at a birthday for myself. I looked at a list of musicians and was surprised to find that my friend was not included. I was given a 30 day editing pass.

Should I remove the musical group from the list? I am not even sure how to do that: I believe that the entity has a right on its own merit... website, international, recognition/awards, all documented well on the entities website? I do have a conflict of interest in that i am interested in this entity and wish it well...? Can anyone advise me exactly how to proceed... no harm was intended, nor do i believe that the entity aforementioned does not belong on the country specific list of musical performing artists and entities (groups.. for example duos, trios, quartets...etc,etc,Ileshanti (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Ileshanti Welcome to the teahouse. I think you are referring to the band: Sarah Elgeti Quintet(?) If that is the case they were removed by editor Fuhghettaboutit. You can see the edit history for List of Danish musicians by looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Danish_musicians&action=history (note you can also see that by going to the article and clicking on the "View History" tab). His edit summary said: "Undid revision 637577356 by Ileshanti No article and a quick search of books and news does not clearly indicate this topic would warrant an article WP:CSC" So what he's saying is that the band "Sarah Elgeti Quintet" doesn't meet the standards for wikipedia:notability in English Wikipedia yet and so it's not appropriate to add it to that list yet. If you disagree you can raise the issue on the talk page for that article: Talk:List_of_Danish_musicians However, since you are a friend of someone in the band you have a conflict of interest anyway and my advise would be to just accept Fuhghettaboutit's judgement on this. FYI: things like a web site and awards aren't enough on their own to merit a musical artist's having a Wikipedia page. That article I linked to earlier has more info on notability in general and this article: Wikipedia:Notability_(music) has specifics about notability for music and musicians. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you deal with articles on people where it is evident the subject or someone close to them has taken control of the page, steered it far from accepted form and resist any changes?

Hi there, one of my personal bug-bears is when articles are clearly used as vanity pages by barely notable people and threaten the integrity of wikipedia. I began noticing this with minor music artists (singers, producers etc) and it seems endemic amongst them to use wikipedia as a pseudo-independent extension of their own website/social media page/CV. I began reading into policies such as COI, advert, self-promotion, tone etc and set about, as a truly independent editor, to bring the article back to acceptable standards. Quickly enough, my edits were reverted. Although I often discussed in detail the reasoning behind my edits and invited discussion on the talk page, these were ignored. The editor would act as though they were genuinely interested in wikipedia and would come out with statements such as 'I think this version's better' without justifying it or addressing the issues raised. Tags were also removed. The editors in such instances were always transparent as they were only interested in one subject, and all their edits related to that single page (and associated pages, e.g. if the artist featured on a song, they'd edit themselves into the song's page). Because this always started an edit war with a stubborn and determined editor, I always had to back away eventually. Initially I took it to the COI noticeboard but they weren't interested. Sometimes I tried reaching out to other editors and the few times some would get involved, there would be a brief abatement, but as soon as people took their eye off the ball, the subject would come back and commandeer control of the article. This has not just happened once, it has happened a number of times. I think I could give you 10 examples, and there have been others I haven't even got involved with. I basically feel like I'm banging my head up against a brick wall. I'm pretty sure I'm in the right as I'm following all the guidelines and they are breaking them all, yet I am constantly the one who has to relent and as a result, wikipedia is suffering because some of its golden rules are being broken with disdain by people who are using it for their personal gain. Sometimes it is really obvious e.g. the editor's name is a company on whose website it says they are the PR company for said person, and they haven't declared it and are refusing to co-operate with other editors. Other times the link is more subtle. Other times it's just assumed in good faith because of the behaviour and actions of the editor. This issue causes me a lot of stress as an editor and I often feel I am unsupported even though I am trying to maintain the integrity of the service in the face of such clear and severe violations.....so my question is what can I do to request assistance in these instances? who are the best people to bring in to mediate/oversee/pass judgement on such articles? and is this an issue that is taken seriously? thanksRayman60 (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My first comment is that your post is long. See too long, didn't read. However, I see that you are frustrated. I don't know why your use of the conflict of interest noticeboard didn't work; maybe that board doesn't have enough watches. If the subject of an article is not notable, or is barely notable and the article is too promotional, you can nominate the article for deletion via articles for deletion. You can propose in the AFD nomination that a complete rewrite would be an alternative to deletion. If the problem is that the article is needed, but is non-neutral and promotional, and your edits are reverted, you can, first, discuss on the talk page. If that fails, read dispute resolution and follow any of the dispute resolution mechanisms, such as third opinion, a Request for Comments, or moderated dispute resolution. If there is edit-warring, you can report it at the edit-warring noticeboard, but be careful not to edit-war yourself. You can report conduct issues, such as personal attacks, at WP:ANI, although that is unpleasant, and you need to be sure that your own hands are clean. ~~

In summary, choose whether to nominate the article for deletion, or to use dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I wasn't aware of third opinion. I think dispute resolution failed on a technical reason for me in the past. Request for comments seems like the best initial step for me for many of these situations. Will give that a try in the first instance and then take it from there. CheersRayman60 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The objective of all the dispute resolution mechanisms is to involve additional editors. If you mean that moderated dispute resolution failed, it has various preconditions, and it can fail if disruptive editors fail to participate in good faith. In that case, administrators are often willing to block the disruptive editors who fail to participate. If you really think that the article is not appropriate in its current shape for retention, you can AFD it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Rayman60: also, if the username is blatantly promotional, you can report it on the usernames board. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sections not appearing when I save page

I've just made several big edits on the Loropeni page to remove material copied from other websites, and I am now trying to add some references of my own. I'm trying to put the reflist under "Notes," and I'm trying to add an "Additional References" section. However, when I hit "save page" those edits don't appear on the main article page. I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong, can anybody help? Thank you! Ninafundisha (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ninafundisha. The final reference tag in the body of the article was lacking a final slash, which is an essential part of the syntax. An unfortunate side effect of this coding error is that it suppresses display of what follows. I added a single "/" in the right place and that solved the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Undo; no thanks

I am wondering about some negative messages like red minus signs and being suspected of being a 'false positive' for example,

1) Why do my posts invite "undo" but not thanks like everyone else? 2) A bot is asking whether my edits are "false positives" ??? and invites passersby to undo mine along with alleged vandals. 3) What are the negative numbers in red by some posts and positives in green on others?

Are the algorithms a little grumpy or is it just me? Ayeletshacar (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ayeletshacar, the thanks part of the software allows you to thank other editors for their edits. As you don't need to thank yourself for your own edits, it's disabled in respect of yourself. It was introduced as part of WP:Wikilove, I don't know how much use it gets as personally I don't like or use it. The undo option is always there because the ability to undo any edit, including your own, needs to be there.

I can't see that any of your edits have been bot reverted and I think you are misreading the message. On Rajarata another editor did vandalise the article and a bot reverted that edit restoring the article to the version after your edit. And that is what the edit summary says Reverting possible vandalism by Trolollololoolol69 to version by Ayeletshacar The false positive relates to the bot's identification of the reverted edit as vandalism not your edit(s).

The red and green numbers show how that edit decreased or increased the size of an article. It's nothing to do with quality; for example your edit to Linda Darnell decreased the size of the article by 505 bytes (characters) but by removing a copyright violation you increased the quality of the article. Nthep (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Ayeletshacar and welcome to the Teahouse. The reason that you only get the "undo" at your posts is that you can not thank yourself for a post. Everyone else get to see a "thank" at your post. I'm not too sure what you mean by question 2), please clarify, but ALL post can be altered so all posts get the "undo". The red numbers have nothing to do with the quality of the post, it simply means that so many bytes have been removed from the text, the green numbers are to indicate how many bytes of text have been added. Again nothing to do with the quality. If you add anything incorrect to a text, you still get green numbers since text was added, and if someone removes that bad text (which is a good thing) they get red numbers. Preferably, the Wikipedia would like a lot of good edits added, making many large, good, green numbers. Hope this explains things for you. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you w.carter! I see how the undo:thank and the green and red + and - works now and am relieved I'm not doing something wrong. You asked for clarification on the second part of the question regarding the bot asking (assuming a question because of the question mark) if I had been a false positive. As you point out, I know that my contribution was not reverted, but was wondering why it was questioned as a false positive (a statistical term that I don't understand in this context). Here is the entry: "(cur | prev) 19:45, 8 December 2014‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,286 bytes) (+2,127)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by Trolollololoolol69 to version by Ayeletshacar. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (2056574) (Bot)) (undo)" What does that mean? Thank you again for your helpAyeletshacar (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks also NtheP! Just found the 2nd response explaining the size changes in the articles. Still learning how to navigate here. Ayeletshacar (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ayeletshacar I just wanted to say a bit about "false positive". There are many "bots" on Wikipedia. They automate various tasks. One thing that bots do is to automatically look at edits. For example, if someone inserts some nonsense text into an article the bot can detect it and in some cases revert it automatically. This is where the question of "false positives" come in. A "false positive" for X means the metric you were using to indicate X was present was triggered but when you looked in detail X wasn't really there. So in this case a "false positive" means that a bot flagged an edit as vandalism when it really wasn't. So in the case you site above it sounds to me like User:Cluebot is a bot that flagged an edit as vandalism and that notice is provided in case Cluebot was wrong and the edit wasn't vandalism. Those kinds of warnings and messages are very common. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding with the bot, MadScientistX11! Ayeletshacar (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the excellent answers above, Ayeletshacar, no bot is 100% perfect. A bot designed to detect vandalism will occasionally revert good content that looks a bit like vandalism. A passage about a writer who works in a highly innovative style might resemble vandalism to a bot, for example. Clicking the "false positive" button reverts the bots error but even more importantly, sends a report to the bot operator. These cumulative reports enable the bot operators to improve the performance of their bots. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As Nthep said, "False positive?" in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajarata&action=history refers to the revert of somebody elses edit and not to the version by you which the bot happened to revert back to and mentioned in another part of the edit summary. See more at positive test and false positives and false negatives. The meaning of positive/negative may be good to know before you hear the result of a medical test. I wonder how many patients got an unnecessary shock when they were told a test was negative, or a nasty surprise later on when they learned what positive means. And then there are cases like pregnancy where a positive test may be good or bad depending on circumstances. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Page dedicated to breakthroughs in the field of academics

Wikipedia defines the first Encyclopédie as, "a comprehensive scope of topics, discussed in depth and organized in an accessible, systematic method". if my understanding is correct i believe that the first encyclopedias were constructed of the different works of philosophers in France who met together and discussed topics. Wikipedia explains their encyclopedia as one written by mankind- why not let it be the case! what if there was an article in which members could post article of their own and of others and collaborate with other members to create a page of sciences, philosophies, and academics? Bad or Inappropriate work and/or incorrect work could be removed or edited by other viewers and writers. It would create a modern day version of the renaissance salons.R.Szenia (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, R.Szenia. Here at Wikipedia, we have accepted notability guidelines, and as a matter of policy, do not publish original research. We are summarizers of knowledge, not innovators. That does not mean your idea lacks merit. MediaWiki, the software package that supports Wikipedia, is freely available for use by anyone. You could create a website, called "Wikisalon" for the sake of discussion, and implement your idea that way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

How to work with an uncooperative editor

Greetings. For the first time, since I've begun editing, I've encountered an editor whom I feel is not working collaboratively. Specifically, the editor is inserting language that I feel is very not NPOV and is replacing the current source listed with one that I feel is less neutral for the topic of the article. What is the proper steps to take with such an editor? How might those steps differ when dealing with an IP address compared to dealing with a registered user? For reference the article in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2014_December_10&action=history . Thank you for your help. Rustandbone (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

In general, I would advise you to try to discuss on the article talk page, and, if that does not work, read dispute resolution and use one of the various dispute resolution procedures. Unfortunately, what I see is multiple IP addresses from different blocks that are engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries. My advice under the circumstances would be to request semi-protection of the page at requests for page protection due to the attacks from the unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Requested semi-protection of page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Robert McClenon. Rustandbone (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to deal with editors who had totally different ideas than mine and were insistent. Even though I provided references for my editions, he kept saying the information was wrong. He said he had a postdoc in astrophysics and he was editing based on his "knowledge". Tetra quark (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

How to merge two ID in one?

I have two ID in wikipedia. One is around 3 years earlier, were using at English wikipedia. Desiring to work on bn.wikipedia, I opened another one. Now, I would like to merge both ID in desired. Please, Let me know how to proceed. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Sufidisciple - welcome to the Teahouse. Each Wikipedia is separate: you can't merge accounts between two different language wikipedias, unfortunately. You can have a global log-in (that is, use the same name across different projects), but not one merged, global account. LS1979 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

LS1979, Thanks replying. But both of my ID are global then, how to proceed? --- Sufidisciple (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

They are global, but you cannot merge them. LS1979 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are concerned about people being able to see your global contributions, there is an option for that. If someone looks at your Contributions page, they have a link to see your contributions across the various Wikipedia projects in the list at the bottom of that page. However, as of now, there is no option to combine your accounts globally. Never say never - the WMF might be able to do it in the future - but for the moment, it's not possible. LS1979 (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Sufidisciple and welcome to the Teahouse! It would appear by viewing Template:SULinfo that those accounts are already attached to your global account and CentralAuth seems to confirm that. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The account User:Sufidisciple is from September 2013 and not consistent with the stated "One is around 3 years earlier". We can give more accurate answers if you clarify what the other ID is. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sufidisciple, I will clarify things. Like Lstanley1979 mentioned, they are global, but merging cannot be done. For example, my account name is Nahnah4. It is the same if I click on other Wikipedias, or other WikiProjects. Your ID may be created in Wikipedia, but it can be used in any other websites by the Wikimedia Foundation, and hence the usage of it in foreign-languaged Wikipedias is also acceptable. You can try it out, and I guess you can log in with that ID when logged out (never tried before, I'm unsure about it). Thanks! DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming people to the Teahouse

How do we welcome people to the Teahouse? DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 09:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Like this: Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse....." then answer the question to the best of your ability. It isn't always done (I forget a lot) but is the recommended manner to begin your answers here.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Nahnah4:. And welcome to the Teahouse!...And I have just shown you how to welcome people to the teahouse! Lor^Chat 09:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lor and Mark Miller: I meant how to send a message on their talk page ._. (and why did you teahouse talkbacked me twice)? DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 09:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The script might've malfunctioned. My internet is bit laggy sometimes :\. Otherwise. Just type a message yourself in the normal manner. Lor^Chat 09:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lor: Oops sorry, that was done by HostBot. Sorry. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 10:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: With the clarification above of what you mean, while the bot does some welcoming, you are welcome to as well. The one it uses is {{Teahouse invitation}}. See also {{THInvite2}} and {{Teahouse thank you}}. For a list of non-Teahouse-specific welcome messages (some of which do link link to the Teahouse), see Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. I personally am partial to {{welcomeg}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 281 of the Teahouse has formatting problems

Whilst looking to see if anyone had responded to my post, I see it's all the way over in Archive 281 now (it was barely halfway down the main page earlier today), and along with over half of the questions on the archive, has gotten swept into a "misuse of this forum" box, presumably by accident. I have no idea how to fix this apparent formatting error, but I'm sure someone here does. :)

Aside from that formatting issue, my question has already been archived without receiving a response. Non-response is the reason I came to the Teahouse in the first place. :) I wrote my question, received a request for more info, and then spent a long time providing that info. Then - *poof* - it got archived. I know we're not supposed to repost the same question again and we're not supposed to edit the archives, so...what *am* I supposed to do? :) Thanks for your help. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! I reviewed the whole entire archive page and found that a user attempted to collapse a discussion which was unrelated to editing Wikipedia. The user Keithbob inserted {{collapsetop}} and {{collapsebottom}} into the question (see Special:Diff/637037057/637036213), it seems that a user has shifted the template into a different area of the page. I have fixed the issue. Towards the archiving part, content is archived to prevent a page having too much content, this is to ensure viewing/browsing of this page is easy for all of us. Volunteers/hosts are determined to answer questions on this page, however there are times where questions may not be answered for reasons such as needing more information, it is unclear and etc. I have seen that you've added information to your question and it was responded! However, I've seen that the question wasn't resolved. You may ask LS1979 or await another host to assist you, from reading the question; all content on Wikipedia must be written in a neutral point-of-view and be backed up by reliable sources, any content that are biased or unsourced content maybe challenged or removed. ///EuroCarGT 05:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and glad someone knew how to fix the formatting mistake! However, I still am unsure what I'm supposed to do. I asked a question, provided the requested info (took a long time, too), got no immediate response, so now I am just out of luck? Is that it? I don't get an answer? This is a little irritating, no offense. I'm trying to make Wikipedia better in good faith, fix up or eliminate some of the overly-fannish material that has no place here, but I'm not a veteran editor and I need advice on doing so. :( Shinyang-i (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops, looks like you added to your response just as I was typing out my own response. The issue is not as simple as unsourced info, notability in the normal sense, or NPOV. There are many reasons tons of articles can be written about something by "reliable sources" other than genuine notability. So, it's complicated and that's why I need help. And there are really some inappropriate articles that shouldn't exist, but I don't know the process for getting them axed. But to return to your response, it's not possible for anyone to respond to my inquiry, is there? Its presence on an archive page prevents that, right? Shinyang-i (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Shinyang-i. I regret that a technical problem caused your question to be prematurely archived. Please feel to copy/paste it as a fresh question, if my answer is not fully responsive. In general, we define a notable topic as one which has received significant coverage in more than one independent, reliable source. That is our accepted yardstick though we do have a variety of subject specific notability guidelines. I think most editors have a certain type of article that irritates them. I, for example, will never spend time improving articles about Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards. I have zero interest, but that scene is notable. It is often best for each editor to work on articles they care about and consider worthy. That's satisfying.

But we do have many bad, non-compliant articles that need to be pruned away. Many are promotional pieces about claimed up-and-coming musicians, artists, executives, athletes, entrepreneurs, and so on. Plus promotional business profiles, miracle cures, perpetual motion machine, and stunning breakthroughs in visionary science. Lots of garbage to be bagged up and wheeled to the curb. The process is described at WP:Deletion policy. Basically, we have three processes, speedy deletion, proposed deletion and Articles for Deletion debates. The first process is for overt copyright violations, deranged ravings, vicious personal attacks, "chimpanzee typing", and the like. The second process is for coherent attempts that pretty much everyone would agree do not make the grade. The third, Articles for Deletion, is for borderline cases, with an open one week debate. Many of those debates are fascinating and can help editors develop a deeper understanding of notability, consensus, community norms and how to engage in effective debates here. The shortcut is WP:AFDT, where you can read, and participate in today's debates. I encourage all editors to check it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Shinyang-i: - I'm sorry I didn't get back to your question; I had some real life issues to get sorted out and I didn't know what to suggest. I have no experience of that particular area; I've done a lot of new-page patrolling and cleaned up some promotional articles as well as marking others for deletion. There are indeed a lot of articles that don't fit the criterion, but you as much as anyone else here have the power to judge where something is notable and where it is not.

With the help of AFD, do you think you could manage to clean up/prune those articles on your own? You are authorised to go in and work on them, like anyone else is, so you're invited to fix things you think are broken. LS1979 (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability of educational institutions

Hello Teahouse! The more I edit Wikipedia, the more I understand why the guidelines have been written by the community in the way they are. There is one specific approach, though, that it's not clear to me: some sort of "benevolence" towards educational institutions.

The first signal of this (alleged) benevolence is that educational organizations are excluded from speedy deletion criteria A7. Why? I have read this related discussion but it doesn't exactly explain why the exception was born, who supported it and which rationales were provided to motivate it.

The second signal of this (alleged) benevolence is that I've observed more than one editor citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (which is not a guideline as the very clear WP:NSCHOOL is) in "keep" rationales of AfD discussions as if a statistics of what has happened in the past to the articles about other schools could tell something about the notability of the specific educational organization discussed in the AfD thread.

The aspect that I find more troubling is that the (alleged) benevolence is applied both to public organizations and to private profit-making organizations that have decided to invest in the educational field. The consequence of this approach is that, for example, an article about a private organization opened three months ago and completely lacking the notability required by WP:ORG can see a "notability" maintenance template removed just because the organization is a high school and that usually articles about high schools are kept. I have observed this behavior and rationale and, to me, it doesn't make sense at all.

As you can see, I'm quite confused about the whole handling of articles about educational organizations. Could you please tell me if my perception is wrong or if schools are actually treated in a different way? ► LowLevel ^(talk) 01:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi LowLevel, welcome to the Teahouse. You're not wrong, high schools and equivalent seem to have a special "get out of jail" free card when it comes to notability. There are long, long, long discussions about it here (check the archives). Jimmy Wales also had a hand in this, early in the history of Wikipedia. See this --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LowLevel73. What you describe is a working consensus, rather than policy or guideline. In general, in the past, articles about verifiably accredited, degree awarding educational institutions have been kept. A search that verifies that minimum standard almost always uncovers sufficient sourcing. The working consensus is also based on a general agreement about the important role that high schools and colleges play in their local communities and in shaping the lives of their notable alumni. This working consensus can be thought of as part of an informal "grand bargain" that results in the deletion or redirection of most articles about primary schools, except for a handful of historic or architectural significance. This unofficial but widely accepted precedent allows more rapid sorting of such articles, rather than engaging in hundreds of long, drawn-out debates each week, reinventing the wheel each time.

However, any editor is free to attempt to make a convincing argument that a given accredited, degree awarding school is so small, obscure and ignored that its article should be deleted. Past history shows that this is a tough sell, but consensus can change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, thanks for the confirmation and for the links to the archived discussions. I have already started to read them and I hope to get enough information to form a personal opinion about this topic. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸, thanks for the clear explanation. I understand the motivations that support a "by default" preservation of articles about educational institutions; this approach saves community resources and it makes sense from a productivity point of view. What I understand less is the logic "since these articles are usually kept, then there is no point in adding a notability maintenance template to an article about an educational organization".

Actually, I'm not even sure that the "usually" is based on actual recent data. Here follows a (quick and rough) statistics of the outcomes of all the educational-related AfD discussions occurred in 2014 about articles that included in their title the word "school" or "college" or "university":

Outcome	Count
Redirect	131
Keep	93
Delete	69
Merge	26
Speedy keep	14
No consensus	12
Speedy delete	6
Delete and redirect	3
Withdrawn	3
Snow keep	2

On a total of 359 discussions, all the kinds of "keep" outcomes amount to 109 (30%) discussions. All the non-keep outcomes amount to 250 (70%). In my opinion, these numbers tell us that articles about educational organizations that show no sign of notability need to be discussed just like any other kind of article, because the "keep" outcome is not so common as the community is led to believe reading old statistics (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). An additional observation is that a part of that 30% of "keep" outcomes has not been reached because the discussed organization was notable as per WP:ORG but simply because it was an high school. My question to you is: is it possible that we are witnessing a catch-22 phenomenon, in which the "default keep" approach just reinforces an habit that is not actually supported by recent data/evidence? ► LowLevel ^(talk) 16:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@LowLevel73: Did you also analyse the data down by e.g. primary, secondary, tertiary, diploma mill categories? The high level of redirects and deletes might account for different kinds of schools, not all of which are actually accredited institutions. LS1979 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Lstanley1979 makes an excellent point. The common result regarding primary schools and middle schools is to redirect them to a school district article or "Education in X" section of a city article. Deletion of articles about unaccredited "colleges" and training institutes that do not award degrees is also common. There is no presumption of notability just because the word "college" appears in the title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

LS1979, Cullen³²⁸: I fully agree that dividing the outcomes by school category is necessary to get a correct and clear scenario of what actually happens in AfD discussions and I can do that if there is enough interest by other editors to study the whole phenomenon and obtaining updated statistics. It will require time, so I would like to understand if an interest about acquiring this data actually exists, before starting the analysis. Also, I would like to ask you all in which section of Wikipedia you suggest this study to be published and discussed. ► LowLevel ^(talk) 17:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested in that study, LowLevel73, and suggest Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes as a good place to share it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen³²⁸! After acquiring all the information that I need (I would like to read the most important archived discussions about this topic) and organizing my thoughts, I'll start acquiring AfD data to produce the statistics to publish at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. Cheers! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 23:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@LowLevel73: While I'm thinking about this: also bear in mind that there might also be uncontroversial speedy deletion of promotional articles going on as well. Those might be covered by the above table, but given how many speedy deletions are performed every day on blatant spam articles, those might also affect the numbers. Good luck with your project. LS1979 (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Can someone review my article?

Hi: I just finished a biography and submitted the article for review. It is my first article. I wonder if I can find an experienced contributor to review the article. It appears that I can continue to edit the article while I am waiting for the review?

Thanks Dxchow (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dxchow. And welcome to the teahouse! If you want to have your article reviewed. Can you give me a link to it? You can create wikilinks by typing [[(the name of the page you want to link to)]]. And again, welcome to the Teahouse! Lor^Chat 00:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dxchow: Sorry, I forgot all about this one! All now fixed up and moved to main article space. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Philip: I did not know you were a reviewer! Thanks so much for all your help. You have really helped me to make progress every time I felt a little stuck. At some point may be you can teach me how to upload a picture. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxchow (talk • contribs) 00:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I need help understanding a message I received

The following message was emailed to me.

This article, Janice Lourie, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon.

I don't understand what closing the request means.

I produced the subpage to organize info. It is not an article ,but was a part of an AFC in progress, just a part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvermont (talk • contribs) 23:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 'closing the request' means that it will be deleted. Non-articles can go through AfC too. However, I do not know who you are, as your signature is not in here. Thanks, DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 08:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Janvermont: Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse! Don't worry, the message does not mean that the Janice Lourie article is going to be deleted. It has been moved to the main article space and it looks like Swpb is dealing with it.  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it ok to copy and paste Wikipedia articles into one another?

Just wondering. Can I copy the same paragraphs and put them into a different article (also, copying the refs etc, as long as it fits there? Also, what about image captions? Is it "unethical" to use the same image caption for the same image in different articles?

I know that the answer to this question is in some wikipedia help page, but all those pages are too long and I don't intend to read them. PM ME URANUS (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi PM ME URANUS. You can do so as long as you're crediting them in your edit summary.  SAMI  ^talk 22:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding your second question, you can use the same caption for the same image in different articles provided it deems apt. You can use edit summary to link the source (article) from where you copied.  SAMI  ^talk 22:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It is not OK. E-e-bayer lover (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope I am being helpful.... The answer is at WP:CWW --- you do yourself a disservice if you refuse to read the help pages.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for. Thank you PM ME URANUS (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@PM ME URANUS: Please note the subsection of the page cited immediately above that is known by the shortcut WP:PATT. In short, Samee is correct that you must credit the original page in your edit summary, but the method is specific. The edit summary must contain a link to the page that is copied from. A good edit summary you might emulate is: This edit includes content from [[article name]]; see that article's history for attribution. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

All articles in Wikipedia have a CC BY-SA license. It means that you can copypaste from one article to another some sentences, if it improves the following article. I think it is okay. --Ochilov (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When can I delete uncited sentence?

Hello, its Mbcap again and I wanted to ask about a sentence in an article that is not cited. If I put the 'citation needed' tag in the article and also tell people about it in the talk page, how long can I wait before I can delete the uncited sentence if no one responds in the talk page. I hope this makes sense, if not please let me know. Mbcap (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mbcap, some of this was answered in your previous question on the same subject a bit further down this page, but I would say that it depends on the article. I have seen 'citation needed' sitting in the same place for years (there are always dates on them). If I have put such a template somewhere and posted on the talk page I usually let it stay there one or two months before doing anything, just to be very sure (if it's not a biography of a living person). Sometimes you have to be patient, there is no deadline on the Wikipedia. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mbcap: It is good practice to wait, as suggested above, if there are not good reasons to delete the content immediately. Some of those are if the unsourced or poorly sourced content appears to be contentious material, and is about a living person (or in some cases, a recently deceased person). This is true whether the contentious material is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Of course, copyright violations should be removed immediately (and never tagged with needing a citation). As I said, a judicious waiting period is good practice, but the policy in question, the subsection of verifiability known by the shortcut WP:BURDEN, does allow removal immediately, and places the burden on anyone seeking to return the content to cite a reliable source when they do so, using an inline citation, that verifies the returned material. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

About subarticles

Hi. Not long ago I created the page World Cultural Council 28th Award Ceremony. The page was deleted because it was not a notable content by itself. I understood my lesson, and I want to do this right. I have been pondering on a solution, and I'd like advice to make sure it is appropriate and accepted before I try to recreate the page again.

The article was created because the documentation of each of the ceremonies could be added to the article World Cultural Council, and then that page may become too large, or too hard to read. Later on, I found there is a resource called subarticles, which I think would be sufficient for recreating the page without violating the Notability restriction. I did a small example on one existing page World Cultural Council 31st Award Ceremony.

Does this sound acceptable so that I can recreate World Cultural Council 28th Award Ceremony?

Thanks in advance.

Healing Mandala (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The logic is good but I'm not sure it rolls out in practice. The rule of thumb for article size is 10,000 words and the World Cultural Council article is not, IMHO, too large and doesn't need a subpage. You may want to read: WP:AVOIDSPLIT for more info. Thanks for helping at WP!! Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Healing Mandala welcome to the teahouse. In addition to the good info that Keithbob gave above I wanted to clarify one thing that I think you might be a bit confused about: wikipedia:notability has nothing to do with the size of the article. Notability means that a topic has or has not received enough attention in good wikipedia:sources to merit an article. So regarding the award ceremony the first question isn't how big the overview article is the question is are there enough mentions of that specific awards ceremony to merit discussion? If the answer to that first question is yes then the second issue of whether to create a new article or add to an existing one comes up. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

How to clarify a foreign term as a title.

On the English-language page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoleto#Frazioni The section Frazioni is unclear to those unfamiliar with the term since it is culturally and linguistically Italian. There is a page that describes what this means and that's basically suburbs or small satellite villages surrounding an Italian city. How could I make this easier on the reader? Should I explain that in that section, or make the title a link to the article that explains it?Cantbeatpie (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That section is an unsourced abomination IMHO. Any help you can give it would be welcomed. What exactly is the purpose of that section in the article? Is this a list of suburbs? One thing you could do is write something like: Various suburbs of the city of Spoleto (called Frazione include: .......... that would be my suggestion, assuming that long list is accurate. Are there any sources for that info? Ping me on my talk page if you need more help. Caio! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I am guessing the original author had a familiarity with the Italian language or Italian culture not typical or most English-speaking Wikipedia readers. In order to preserve the information, I am going to go with your suggestion. I think it's a good compromise. Perhaps I could tag the list as needing sources too. Thanks for your help!

Cantbeatpie (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories in mobile version

Hello. How can I find what categories a page belongs to while browsing on my phone? I can only see them in desktop view. Thank you. Transmittorsubstans (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Transmittorsubstans. I do most of my editing on an Android smart phone. I bring up the desktop site on my phone, and can view and edit the full article content including categories with no major problems. There is an option to switch to desktop on the bottom of every mobile page view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the screen full on my phone... E-e-bayer lover (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I had a similar question, even though I know the work around. I can understand the wide tables of the Template:Navbox are not very pleasant on a mobile phone. But the mobile view does show a "read in another language", why hide the related pages in the same category? Jo Pol (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

How long can an article be? and can an English version be shorter than original Spanish?

(I tried to send this earlier today, but I am not sure that it went out) > I need advice. I have been working on an event which was important in > Spanish history but remains little-known elsewhere: the rebellion of the > Moors against Christian rule in the > kingdom of Granada in 1559-62, which ended in their expulsion and marked > the last stage of the Reconquista. > These events are known mainly through the work of a contemporary author, > Marmol de Carvajal - Wikipedia has a short and unsatisfactory article about > him, in English and Spanish. > However, a very thorough doctoral thesis has recently been published by the > University of Granada, and I am in touch with its author, Dr Castillo > Fernandez, suggesting to him that he should put it on Wikipedia. I have now > received from him not one but three articles, one on Marmol and one on each > of his main works, that on the rebellion and another on Africa - also a > historically important document. Each of these draft articles runs to 4-5 > typed pages. > I see that Dr. Castillo has carefully followed Wikipedia presentation. > I offered to prepare an English translation, perhaps also a French one. But > I think that very few non-Spaniards will want this much detail. > My inclination is to suggest that he submit his Spanish texts to Wikipedia > ES, as it stands - they are well-written, make many interesting points, and > are very clear about there sources (his own thesis is in fact much the most > important). > I could prepare a much shorter English version, perhaps putting all three > texts into one, and concentrating on those features which are most likely > to interest non-Spaniards. > It would then be sensible to indicate in a preliminary note that those who > want to know more can find it in the Spanish edition. > Would this procedure be acceptable? > I have an account and have made other contributions, but relatively small > ones. 91.179.213.49 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings 91.179.213.49 welcome to the teahouse. If I'm understanding you, you have a PhD dissertation that you want to help get published on Wikipedia. If that is what you are asking then I'm afraid the answer is that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to publish that. A PhD dissertation is considered wp:original research Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is meant for things that have already been published in good wp:references If you or the author want to use the information from the thesis to improve the existing article you can do that. For example, the thesis itself probably has facts which are referenced in refereed journals and conferences. Such papers are excellent sources. You can use that info to add to or modify existing articles on the historical topic. Hope that makes sense, please reply back if you need more explanation or if you think I misunderstood your question. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

One last thing. I realized I didn't answer the question in the title of your question. There is really no required length for a Wikipedia article and absolutely articles in different languages can in fact almost certainly will often have different lengths. The length for any article is like everything else on Wikipedia determined by consensus by the editors working on the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Another thing to add -- the English article doesn't necessarily need to be shorter than the Spanish article. Some English-speaking readers may well be very interested in this event. If you have the energy, I'd encourage you to prepare an English article along the same lines as the Spanish article. One consideration to keep in mind, however, is that readers from different backgrounds may need different information to understand the article well. From WP:TRANSLATE, "For example, a typical reader of English needs no explanation of The Wizard of Oz, but has no idea who Zwarte Piet might be. By contrast, for a typical reader of Dutch, it might be the other way around." Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure for donated copyrighted materials (like Castillo's article(s)) to Wikipedia. This procedure is mandatory if you are incorporating Castillo's work into Wikipedia, including through translation. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't find the article in search

Hi,

I have created my first wiki post on a website called Slenky.

But the page doesn't come up when I search for it on wikipedia. It's finished but is there something that I'm supposed to do so that it is officially published?

How or when will the page go live?

Thanks Annikaallen (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Annikaallen. I don't know if this is a troll message, but can you give me the link? You said "Slenky" as a website but it was redirected to List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch, so I am not sure what you are talking about. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 09:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

From your contributions, you only ask this question here and the Help desk. You have never edited an article with that name. I suspect this is a troll question, and you should stop with this unacceptable demeanour. It may be deleted, but your user page is deleted because of "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", I guess your website was deleted with the same reason. Please check, but you have not received a message on a speedy deletion, so I guess this is a hoax information, Annikaallen. Please use the Teahouse or Help Desk if you really have problems and not posing about hoax information that is misleading, or you will be blocked from editing. Thanks, DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 09:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Annikallen, I've some bad news for you. You did create a draft article on your user page - User:Annikaallen - but it has been deleted as promotional and an advertistment. Having had a look at the deleted text I can understand why it was deleted and it was a combination of the lack of references in the article, the way is was written could be a lot more neutral in tone (example - the section on Working with brands says "Slenky is an incredible brand" - unless you can refernece that, it isn't) and that you had placed it on your user page which made it look lile you were using Wikipedia for advertising. That's the bad news, the good news is that a quick google search suggests that there are probably enough independent, reliable sources available to establish the notability of the website. So if you start again from scratch in your sandbox and include references there might be enough to go on.

What I am not sure about is if you are involved with the company. If you are then you need to read the policy on conflict of interest and avoid creating an article about an organisation you are involved in. Nthep (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Annikaallen, for the previous message. I'm sorry as I could not view deleted pages and I thought it was a troll. I'm sorry. Anyway, the guy at the help desk had the same reaction as me, and I am sorry. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 10:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Your page could have been deleted...E-e-bayer lover (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Real Projective Line Page

Hello. I was a little confused about why ∞+∞ is not defined but ∞*∞ = ∞. This doesn’t make sense. I believe both should be left undefined (for now) and i think 0*∞ , ∞/∞ , and 0/0 should be defined as C where C is a constant. Idk if this constant could be infinity but I certainly think these should be defined. if a/0 = ∞*b then that implies a/b = ∞*0. A similar proof could be done with the others. Am i allowed to change the page or add a note because this is more of an idea but idk if this is 100% correct (maybe a note to the right of the equation?)

From, Michael Orwin

75.129.112.17 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Michael, I hate to pass you off to another locale, but you might get better responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics which is where all the math experts hang out around here. Maybe someone there can help... --Jayron32 04:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ok. Hopefully someone responds tomorrow or Saturday morning. Don't know how quick wikipedia is. Never used wikipedia beforeJetstream5500 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, every article in Wikipedia has an associated Talk page (pick the 'Talk' tab at the top) and that's the best place to start a discussion about the article. If nobody responds there, then this is one of the places to try, but the talk page is your first port of call. The answer to your question is emphaticaly, Yes, you are allowed to change the page: the worst that can happen (as long as you are not being obviously disruptive) is that omebody disagrees and reverts your change: then you can have a discussion with them on the talk page to try and reach consensus. But here, it doesn't sound like correcting an obvious error, but a difference in approach, so I would recommend the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a very informative answer.Jetstream5500 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Is there a policy on patrolling recent changes or reverting vandalism? If so, can you link it here? Thanks. Hailey Girges (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hailey Girges: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and Wikipedia:Vandalism have the basics.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is some helpful information about vandalism.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I delete?

If I come across a statement that is not referenced, and I am not able to find one either, can I delete it? Mbcap (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

In general, if the article talk page is active, I would ask on the article talk page. If the talk page is not active, it is all right to delete unsourced information, especially if the article is a biography of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You could be bold and delete the content if you have taken the time to check verifiability and found no reliable source. The burden of evidence rests on those that add or return content and is satisfied with providing a reliable source formatted as an inline citation next to the content. In many ways Robert is right, but also not entirely correct (which should not be taken as an insult as McClenon is an extremely well versed editor on all of our guidelines and policies) as we do allow bold editing and we try not to require discussion first. Now, if you see in the history that the content has been deleted and returned several times and still has no reference, I would add a note to the talk page, letting editors know what you are doing and why. Even if the article has no activity on the talk page or has had no edits made in the last few years, a bold edit may alert someone on their watch page who might still object. Discussion after an objection is important but if no headway is made....a bold edit kick starts the BRD process.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller, For what it's worth I'm more in agreement with Robert McClenon before I delete something I almost always leave a comment on the talk page first. Also, while I of course agree it's perfectly in line with policies to just be bold and delete I always try to do otherwise if I can. So if it's not documented but seems correct find a reference. If it seems wrong try to fix it. As a last (but still perfectly acceptable at times) resort just delete it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. While I cannot state that you are wrong for doing what you feel is best for your editing, it is not our policy to require discussion first. Editing even controversial articles does not require permission from other editors as to what content to add or remove. If a deletion is reverted that is an objection and a discussion can begin at that time.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I also follow the simple, informal guideline stated concisely by Robert McClenon.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about few things?

I have a few questions and hope someone can help. 1. Can people see my Sandbox? 2. Can people see my email address? (If yes then can I hide it) 3. Can people see what contributions I have made? (If yes how do I see other people's contributions?)

Thanks Mbcap (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

1) Yes, all pages are visible to everybody (except deleted pages, you can request deletion with {{db-u1}}). Your sandbox contains {{User sandbox}} which tells external search engines like Google to to not index it, but the page is not private. 2) No, your email address is private. Editors can only mail you via Special:EmailUser/Mbcap without seeing your email address, but if you use the same feature to mail other editors then they will see your email address. 3) Yes, all contributions are visible to everybody, for example by clicking "User contributions" in the left pane of a user page or talk page. See more at Help:User contributions. In certain cases you can request that an edit is hidden. See more at Wikipedia:Revision deletion. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mbcap: an individual editor's contributions can be found via Special:Contributions: for instance, mine are at Special:Contributions/G S Palmer, and PrimeHunter's are at Special:Contributions/PrimeHunter. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your sandbox cannot be seen by anyone else, except yourself. I am not sure about the email address part. Also..others can see your contributions. Thanks, E-e-bayer lover (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional Citations for Verification

I’m writing to get some specific feedback back on two pages I recently uploaded to Wikipedia.

They are biographical in nature and for some reason doesn’t seem to adhere to the guidelines of Wikipedia even though I’ve provided several sources and citations and have written them both in an objective tone.

Is there any way to receive specific feedback as to what exactly is still needed to ensure both pages stay up? Here are links to both pages in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zainab_Balogun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eku_Edewor

To note: I modeled both pages after another one I uploaded last year and it has never been flagged; but the others have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Gibbons

Please advise!

Best Abigail 174.44.205.58 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are Hcsayen, the editor who started these three articles. Please remember to log in when editing. It seems that you specialize in writing biographies of ambitious, attractive young women building careers in entertainment. There is nothing at all wrong with that, and your articles have certain strengths. However, this is a field where many editors will have concerns about promotionalism, and whether or not these people are truly notable. I see that a fourth article of yours survived an Articles for Deletion debate about a year ago. My advice to you is to use the most solid independent, reliable sources, avoid use of blogs and social media sites, and keep use of self published material to an absolute minimum. Keep looking for new and better sources as your biography subjects' careers advance, and add them as references. Just because one article didn't get tagged and others did is of no real significance. Maybe no one noticed the first. As far as "ensuring" that your pages stay up, there are no 100% guarantees. The stronger your sources and the evidence of notability, the less likely that an article will be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, only one of them was tagged with {{BLP sources}} - the other one was created with it: [1] - presumably due to their copy-pasting to form the frame for the article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Create a new page

I Forgot how to create a new page within my accountJanvermont (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Janvermont: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. Let's say you want to create an article about Dr. Emilio Bombay, just to use an example of a user page I created but haven't felt confident enough to submit as an article. You see that the link is red, meaning there is no such article. What you can do is click on User:Janvermont/Dr. Emilio Bombay (though you would change the name to what you want to write about).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And there is another way: Draft:Dr. Emilio Bombay. Although the way I did it above includes lots of good advice in the space where you edit.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing a biography

Hi,

I have a question around editing a biography and adding information that has been previously published in a Newspaper or magazine blog and where available sources are outdated.

What is the best way to provide a citation or edit information so that it is correctly reflected? Can one link to a company website? Sophie31.221.118.196 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Sophie (31.221.118.196), welcome to the teahouse. There are some specific policies regarding biographies of living people. Here is an article you should probably look at: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons In the editor there are templates you can use to add references to newspapers and magazines. Click on the "Cite" link and then select the appropriate Template from the drop down menu right below it. There are some times when it is is possible to use a company web site as a reference. For example, for technical articles sites like IBM.com have a lot of information that are things like tech reports and white papers. But in general if you are writing an article about company Foo or about the CEO or other exec at company Foo using Foo.com to justify what you say is not a good idea. Wikipedia:references are supposed to be neutral and company web sites are often promotional. One more point: note that I said "use as a reference" above rather than "link to". Keep in mind that all links in an article can only go to other Wikipedia articles. If you want to link to (as opposed to use as a reference) a company web site that goes in the external links section of the article. There are very significant restrictions on what can go into external links. Again no promotional material and it needs to be something that adds significant value beyond (but directly relevant to) what's in the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is my proposed article notable?

Hello,

Utter Wiki newbie here; my company has developed a unique business model. It isn't a product we sell, its a new way of looking at business to the benefit of all stakeholders. We work within this model. I would like to create a Wiki page describing the model. There are some pages on Wiki that I can reference, but they are all very substantially different.

Appropriately notable?

Many thanks!

Paul 90.200.91.49 (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Paul: Welcome to Wikipedia - which is, however, not a place to present new ideas. An encyclopedia is a summary of what has been previously written in independent published sources about a topic. Unless your business model has been the subject of quite a few news reports, magazine articles, book chapters, etc., written by people not connected with your company, it would not be considered "notable". —Anne Delong (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(e.c) Hi Paul. Regardless of whether your company is notable you should not write an article on it as among other reasons, you have a flagrant conflict of interest in doing so. See also Wikipedia:Autobiography. You would almost surely write it with a positive bias and might not like what happens when people who are unbiased try to make is a balanced treatment and would have no control or special say over that. That having been said, from what little you said in your post it sounds like the business is not notable and an article would be deleted. The issue is not citing other Wikipedia (not "wiki") pages – we don't reference other Wikipedia pages as that would be circular and wikis are not reliable sources – we cite third party reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic being written about. These would be media like newspaper articles by reporters (not press releases), published books (not vanity-published) and so on, and not blogs, forums, Facebook, LinkedIn, companies' own websites, or random websites without a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It doesn't sound like these are likely to exist for your company because the words you chose implied to me that the company and/or the business model was new. It also sounds like you might like to include original research which is not allowed. If insufficient reliable and independent sources exist to evidence notability and provide verifiability of text to be included, Wikipedia should not have an article on a topic. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You may say "unique business model" and "a new way of looking at business to the benefit of all stakeholders" but that doesn't make it true for our purposes unless those independent reliable sources Fuhghettaboutit mentions agree with the statement and say the same thing or something similar. Others have to agree you really did something important.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft page deleted copyright

Trying to draft a page and it was immediately deleted because of copyright - can page be reinstated so i can change what might be seen as copyright violation? Can i get specific example?

Creating User:Leman2010/IB Career Related Programme

Leman2010 (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Leman2010 welcome to the Teahouse, Copyright violation is copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed. (content snipped from Wikipedia:Copyright violations). You should not copy-paste content from the Internet to Wikipedia. Doing so is a serious copyright violation. You have to write articles in your own word and content must be properly referenced. Article will not be restored if it has copyrighted content without compatibly license. Like I said you have to write article in your own words. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I totally understand and respect copyright but if you are describing contents of a course it can only be done using the 'official' wording from the website (I work for the organization and was trying to be as neutral as possible.)

Leman2010 (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

so best is to recreate, changeas much as i can. do it in my sandbox and submit. any problems it wont get deleted but just refused?

Leman2010 (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Using a website's "official" wording is not acceptable on Wikipedia; such content is almost invariably biased in favour of the subject and violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. For the same reason, we actively discourage editors from writing about their employers or organisations; the resultant conflict of interest means that articles created by such editors usually have to be substantially rewritten or deleted. Copyright law prohibits the inclusion of copyrighted text anywhere in Wikipedia; this includes sandboxes, so you absolutely cannot copy the content to your sandbox and try to make changes to it there. If you want to contribute an article about your company - and I reiterate that you are advised not to do so - you will need to write an original piece of text, from scratch, in your own words. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

cant load the image onto the page please help!

i have uploaded a picture for the page i edited but due to some reason it does show in the infobox. please guide me through this procedure so i can complete it Akshay Rohra (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Akshay Rohra welcome to the Teahouse, I saw that you've already fix the problem with this edit. But I do think it belongs in the infobox if it's a logo.--Chamith (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the warm welcome could you guide me hot to put the picture into the infobox so as to bring out a better version of the document Thanks for the reply! Akshay Rohra (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Steelex Precisions to comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions for companies. I have also moved the logo to the infobox, removed the persondata template and the cats that are applicable only to biographies. I also have doubts as to notability so I have tagged the article accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ADMINS! HELP!

I saw that at Template:Flagcountry, there seems to be an encoding failure or a layout error. However, only admins are allowed to edit the page. I need admins to fix the layout. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

They said the template is widely used so admins can edit only; but this is how it looks like now:

{{country data {{{1}}}|flag country/core|variant=|size=|name=}} DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Nahnah4: Looks fine to me - the page actually hasn't been touched since 2010. What you're looking at is the actual code of the template. This particular template doesn't have any default values, which is why you're not seeing how the template will actually appear when the parameters are filled out correctly. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Oh thanks, no wonder someone nominated for deletion. I see. DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 06:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unnamed

I guess what I need to know, with the information I have can it be published on Wikipedia? How?Ballroad (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ballroad welcome to the Teahouse, your question is really unclear. Can you explain what you need to know? On further note we only answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ballroad are you saying that you have a bunch of historical documents and you want to publish them on Wikipedia? If that is the question you are asking the answer is a very definite no. Wikipedia does not publish things like that. It's an encyclopedia. Think of the stuff that goes into a traditional encyclopedia; those are the kinds of articles that go into Wikipedia. If you do have historical documents you think would be useful for the world to know about I think a Wikipedia companion site called Wiksource might possibly be appropriate: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikisource can include historical documents. From the inclusion criteria at Wiksource: "These documents may range from constitutions and treaties to personal correspondence and diaries. This category may include material not historically available, such as historical telephone calls, judicial proceedings, and transcriptions of military operations" If I'm understanding you I think the things you want to publish may possibly fall into that category. I'm not sure though. Partly because I'm still not sure what you want to publish and also because I've never used Wikisource. I just looked at all the Wikipedia companion sites and it seemed to me the best fit if you have important historical documents to publish. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Ballroad. Your article has to meet the verification standards, and references must be stated clearly. If you read the Wiki policies, I guess you will know if your article deserves an article in Wikipedia. Cheers! DEW. Adrenaline (Nahnah4) 05:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ballroad. Don't forget to reply (should you choose to) to this rather than starting another section, as it makes it easier to follow the conversation. I had a look at that Desert article and I'm afraid I don't think the subject meets notability (especially as the actual article that you've suggested is for a road that isn't mentioned in it). I couldn't find the example you gave of a similar road that does have an article on it (Katella Rd Anaheim, Ca) - when referring to Wikipedia pages, it's good practice to take the name and surround it with double square brackets, like this [[Anaheim, California]] (which will display like this - Anaheim, California).

The other thing to note it that it's often not a good idea to start articles on things that are related to you. There's conflict of interest issues, but even more than that is the risk of the article going in a direction that you don't want because, once created, you won't own it. I've recently edited an autobiography that someone uploaded to make themselves look good and, once all the non-notable puff was removed, the only notable facts remaining were that he'd spent time in jail and been fined a staggering amount for environmental damage that he's caused. That's of course an extreme for illustration purposes; I'm not suggesting that anything like that would happen to any article on Ball Road. Bromley86 (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ball Road Anaheim, Ca

I have the published sites Desert Magazine August 1950 Marion Beckler San Diego Historical society documents on the land he owned in Anaheim, Ca Public plot maps, Articles on his family by Orange County Historical society? Katella Rd Anaheim, Ca is published on Wikipedia The article I was referring to are NOT published on Wikipedia. They were published in Book form or MagazinesBallroad (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ballroad. The purpose of citing sources is to establish notability, reliability of sources, and verifiability of facts cited in an encyclopedic article. I think you are asking whether your sources meet the criteria for reliable sources. Books may certainly be referenced, even if they are not published online. Citation templates are available to provide the necessary information, and the template for books is what you will need. Magazines are often archived online, such as the August 1950 Desert Magazine. The requirement for notability is that the subject of the article is covered in multiple reliable secondary sources, so unless the documents on his Anaheim land and plot maps have been published in a secondary source, these items are considered primary sources for original research, not allowed on Wikipedia. The Orange County Historical society articles can also be referenced, provided they have been published by the society. The template for journal articles shows the information to be provided, and you may need to use the "quote" field to provide annotations for publications that are not readily available in a university or public library. Does this information answer your questions? Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You, Grand'mere Eugene; I'm not even close to being a writer, this is in fact the first time ever entered any discussion. This is in fact my Great,Great grandfather, I was trying to let my grand-kids know via the internet who their Great, Great, Great Grandfather was. I guess I'm completely over my head and apologize for my ignoranceBallroad (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a tool to help fix common spelling errors

I have not used tools before, so please bear with me if this is a dumb question. Lately I have been fixing some common spelling mistakes (e.g. "glamourous" instead of "glamorous"), and it's a rather slow process to do it manually. Is there a good tool which will:

• search for the mistake (glamourous) across all articles,
• show them to me in context so I can verify that it really is a mistake (e.g. I don't want to change a URL or something deliberately quoted that way), and
• replace it with the corrected version where I say to?

Gronk Oz (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't help you with the general question about tools, Gronk Oz, but I do urge caution. "Glamourous" is an accepted alternative spelling, so is not really a spelling error. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! If English variants are what you're looking for, there are several user scripts out there, however User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB seems to be a good user script on WP:ENGVAR. I think WP:AWB can do the job as well. ///EuroCarGT 02:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Gronk Oz, welcome to the teahouse. You may know this already but most browsers have some basic support for spell checking. Usually just highlighting in red words that aren't spelled properly. That should work with Wikipedia editing as well. You can find out more and about other spell checking tools (not much though, unfortunately) here: Wikipedia:Spellchecking#Implementation --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz and welcome back to the Teahouse. As Cullen328 says, these aren't spelling errors. British, American and Indian are all acceptable English variants for use on Wikipedia and changes shouldn't be made unless there is a very compelling reason.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, everybody. My intention was just to fix outright errors, not to change legitimate variants (it was late at night and I was looking for something that didn't require too much thinking). EuroCarGT - I will give that one a try. Cullen328 and Philg88 - I am puzzled about "glamourous" being an accepted alternative spelling - it's not in my English, American, or Australian dictionaries, so where else should I check for accepted alternative spelling? MadScientistX11 - I use Chrome as my browser, which does have a spell checker that I find useful sometimes. Unfortunately it only supports US English, so sometimes it is more of a distraction because of all the false hits. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, "glamorous" is the preferred spelling among English speakers worldwide, but the other spelling does occur rarely, more often in the UK than the US. Here is a discussion of the issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Gronk Oz On Chrome from the top level menus look at Chrome>Preferences That should bring up a page of settings. At the bottom of the page click on "Show Advanced Settings" Then scroll down to "Language". Click on the button that says "Language and input settings" That should bring up a new window that enables you to add languages from a drop down menu. On my computer there were a lot of languages in that list. I think the language(s) in that window control the spell checker. I'm not sure how it works if you can have more than one language or several; I just stick to US English but it might be worth a look for you. You might also try the Chrome web store: https://chrome.google.com/webstore They have lots of apps there. Perhaps there is a spell checker tool. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for deleted page

Could you please give me the information from the deleted page BN 1470? I know I did not make it on this account, but Galaxy-15, the account that created the page, was my old account from what I remember. I don't know/remember what is in the page so I just want to see it. I contacted the user who deleted the page, but the user had left Wikipedia. Put page information here:

Thanks. ApparatumLover (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@ApparatumLover: Thanks for your questions, and welcome back. For future reference, you can make requests at Requests for Undeletion when a page is speedily deleted and you want to use existing content to build an article. But being an admin, I can check this over myself. Having looked at BN 1470, there really isn't anything encyclopedic here. It's very short, there are no sources, and as the speedy deletion rationale noted, it is difficult to make sense of. If you are trying to make BN 1470 into an article, you'd be better off starting from scratch. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want the article un-deleted, I just want the article's content. I remember making an article that got deleted 1 day after creation. I think that BN 1470 was the article, but I can't find out unless I see the page content. So can you please paste all the article content below?

Thanks. ApparatumLover (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It was created in 2010 by User:Galaxy-15, which I believe was one of your prior accounts - so yes, it was an article that you created. Yunshui ^雲_水 16:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I know that the article was patent nonsense, but was it a bunch of random characters (like "nfvkml;kvnjivpw;omklnpwj") or did it have English words (like "BN 1470 is a wierd guy in ZookaZooka")? ApparatumLover (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

User to Auto Confirmed Account

Hey, I want to know that How My User Account Will Get Permanent, Because When Ever I Click on Upload File In The Left Column Of My Wiki Page, It show me Upload File Wizard And When Use to Click That Wizard To Upload File, It Irritates me By Showing The Text That"You Can't Upload Files Because You Account Hasn't Yet Confirmed And To Make It Confirmed Please Make 10 Edits And 4 Days Since Your Account Was Made " , And I've Dont 12 Edits and 4 Days Have Passed but My Account Hasn't Confirmed.

if Anybody Knows Solution For My Problem ,So Please Help Me Out . Please It's My Humble Request To All Of The Members, Please Help Me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimkhan994 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Saimkhan994. You are already an autoconfirmed user. Should you face any difficulty please let us know.  SAMI  ^talk 11:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The extended device for quotation in Wikipedia

Friends,

I'm writing some article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sterndmitri/sandbox), and some more experienced user helps me. This article contains a quotation. This quotation is a translation from Old Russian. I think it would be suitable to cite the original text in Old Russian there.

In Russian Wikipedia I've seen several times the further technical device: a quote is cited in a frame like mine one (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sterndmitri/sandbox), but it has some button "to show the original text (<language>)" which performs the corresponding fuction. An example of this function is Russian Wikipedia: about Ludwig II (the second quoting box). I haven't found some examples in English Wikipedia to copypaste the necessary piece of code in my article.

Copuldn't you please copypaste some analoguous English example which contains the necessary piece of code right here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterndmitri (talk • contribs)

@Sterndmitri:: I think you are looking for this Template:Quote_box under "Collapsing Text" Avono (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Avono, what the doctor ordered. Thank you! --Sterndmitri (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Basic questions about creating an article

Hi, I am trying to learn how to create an article on Wikipedia. I created a draft and saved it and logged out. Now I logged back in. How do I upload an image file?

Hi, and Welcome to teahouse. Please, put your signature in discussions, using four tildes (~~~~). To upload pictures please read this first. After reading, if you have any questions, you can ask me on my talkpage. Best regards, --Ochilov (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Attracting

How do I attract more people to my page? How do I make people wanna read my page

Which page are you talking about? Please sign your posts with four tildes "~". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your User page User:Confident468 and talk page User talk:Confident468 I don't think you understand the purpose of Wikipedia - we are an encyclopedia, not a social media site - we don't want people to be attracted to your user pages. - Arjayay (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

An uploaded image was rejected due to "possible copyright violation".

Hi, I uploaded an image of a "benistor", but it was rejected due to "possible copyright violation". The image comes from a published US Patent from the USPTO website. The patent in question has lapsed due to non payment of fees, so the image is clearly public domain. There is no trademark or copyright on the symbol.

How do I resolve the issue? Am I better of to recreate the image in my own hand writing or computer design software? Or can I convince the editor that the image I used is public domain?

Thank you, RayRayMartan — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayRayMartan (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RayRayMartan. If a U.S. patent drawing does not contain a copyright notice, then it is in the public domain. See this blog post by an intellectual property attorney for the specific legal citations. I would resubmit to Wikimedia Commons using that information in the rationale. Going forward, please post new questions at the top of the Teahouse page, and sign with four tildes "~". Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)