Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎How does one prevent a list from being unduly reverted?: if the field is football-sized then it's generally called a stadium
Line 20: Line 20:
::Hi <b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>! Thanks for the info. I will take a look at the options you presented and hope you won't mind if I a ask a few more questions in the future. Cheers! [[User:Vegas.Pete|Vegas.Pete]] ([[User talk:Vegas.Pete|talk]]) 10:51, 12 January 2015 (EST)
::Hi <b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>! Thanks for the info. I will take a look at the options you presented and hope you won't mind if I a ask a few more questions in the future. Cheers! [[User:Vegas.Pete|Vegas.Pete]] ([[User talk:Vegas.Pete|talk]]) 10:51, 12 January 2015 (EST)
:::Hello again <b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>. I see you reverted my list of indoor arenas stating that none of the seven I added were not arenas despite the Merriam-Webster reference? I look forward to your reply. Thank you! [[User:Vegas.Pete|Vegas.Pete]] ([[User talk:Vegas.Pete|talk]]) 12:20, 12 January 2015 (EST)
:::Hello again <b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>. I see you reverted my list of indoor arenas stating that none of the seven I added were not arenas despite the Merriam-Webster reference? I look forward to your reply. Thank you! [[User:Vegas.Pete|Vegas.Pete]] ([[User talk:Vegas.Pete|talk]]) 12:20, 12 January 2015 (EST)

::::You cited a Merriam-Webster entry which is about arenas but makes no attempt to distingusih them from stadiums. There is no agreed definition on the precise distinction between [[arena]] and [[stadium]] but if the field is football-sized (as in [[American football]] or [[association football]] but not the smaller [[Arena football]]) then it's generally called a stadium and wouldn't belong on [[List of indoor arenas by capacity]]. The "largest arenas" may sound a bit like asking for the tallest men who aren't giants, but I think it's roughly about the most seats around fields (or other performance areas) significantly below football size. For an international encyclopedia we cannot go by whether the locals call it an arena, stadium or something else. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


==How to create a article about my company on Wikipedia?==
==How to create a article about my company on Wikipedia?==

Revision as of 16:38, 12 January 2015

How does one prevent a list from being unduly reverted?

A group of anonymous users typically from the Philippines as shown by their ip addresses are out to insist that the list of the world's largest arenas ends at the Philippine Arena. Using the Merriam-Webster definition of arena, I truly believe the list should include those that I posted. Several links and websites were provided to back up the entries I provided and were retained so for a certain group to undo my revisions makes them appear to have an agenda.Vegas.Pete (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vegas.Pete, welcome to the Teahouse! In this case, I have to agree with the IPs. There's already a list covering stadiums - List of stadiums by capacity. In general, you should use the article's talk page if someone reverts a change you made. Please see WP:BRD for more info. --NeilN talk to me 15:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NeilN! Thanks for the info. I will take a look at the options you presented and hope you won't mind if I a ask a few more questions in the future. Cheers! Vegas.Pete (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2015 (EST)
Hello again NeilN. I see you reverted my list of indoor arenas stating that none of the seven I added were not arenas despite the Merriam-Webster reference? I look forward to your reply. Thank you! Vegas.Pete (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2015 (EST)
You cited a Merriam-Webster entry which is about arenas but makes no attempt to distingusih them from stadiums. There is no agreed definition on the precise distinction between arena and stadium but if the field is football-sized (as in American football or association football but not the smaller Arena football) then it's generally called a stadium and wouldn't belong on List of indoor arenas by capacity. The "largest arenas" may sound a bit like asking for the tallest men who aren't giants, but I think it's roughly about the most seats around fields (or other performance areas) significantly below football size. For an international encyclopedia we cannot go by whether the locals call it an arena, stadium or something else. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to create a article about my company on Wikipedia?

Hi, I would like to create a page for my company with the company background information etc. How do I go about doing this? Please help, thanks Kotwica 15 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kotwica 15, welcome to the Teahouse! Short answer: You don't, per our conflict of interest guidelines. If your company should have an article on Wikipedia someone else will eventually write it. If you absolutely must create one, and your company meets our notability guidelines (independent sources have in-depth coverage of it) then you can use our articles for creation process to create a draft and get feedback from neutral editors. --NeilN talk to me 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering information

Trying to write about a slang term and staying objective. Haven't been able to find a lot of references and questioning the term. For lack of a better word hearsay keeps clipping my article. For instance my Grandmother made it with a,b,c but sure other Grandmothers may have made it with a,b,c and d. The best source found was Goggle Books but then finding author and publisher originals didn't turn up scanned documents or data. Is this Wikipedia worthy? Does anyone know of better sources? If your feeling researchy the term is "Texas butter".Spmicknerd (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has suggested that my article sounded promotional

and deleted it post-haste. After inquiry, she said that it was not a question of notability, but of the writing style. I thought I had kept the writing neutral but apparently she didn't read it that way. She suggested that I come here and/or use the AfC. The thing is, I want to know what it is that I am doing wrong before trying to submit it again. How can I have it read by someone for feedback without actually submitting it, so I know that I am within the guidelines? Thanks, Thomas Cesanth (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cesanth, welcome to the Teahouse! AfC is exactly what you want. Creating a draft there will get you feedback from other editors and it won't be deleted because of the writing style. You'll be asked to fix various issues and when the draft is good to go, it'll be moved to article space. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

precis of literature

My father has asked me if I would post an article about the Holy Grail literature. In particular he says there is no information about the content of these books on Wikipedia and he has written a precis of them. I said I didn't think literature (or a precis of any literatire) would be allowed on Wikipedia. Was I correct?

John Grubb82.11.127.210 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, welcome to the Teahouse! Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia and that would include any analysis your father has done. We do have Holy_Grail#Beginnings_in_literature which is woefully undersourced. You could add material to that if you have proper sources or expand it into its own article. --NeilN talk to me 15:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet points in an infobox

In the article Egyptian Revolution of 1919, the first bullet point at result parameter of the infobox in the lead section is shown as an asterisk as if the it is written with? <nowiki> somehow. How should this problem be solved? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Average Wikipedian: After a bit of experimentation, I managed to fix it by adding <nowiki>...</nowiki> before the first bullet. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 13:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the {{bulleted list}} template.--ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one edit the introductory paragraph?

Moving a page

Hello - I see that the top paragraph, the summary of the page is not accessible to edit in the way the rest of a page is. How can I edit that?Noughtnotout (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways - first, use the Edit tab at the top of the page to open the entire article (including the lead) for editing). Second, go to Special:Preferences, open the Gadgets tab, and check the box under Appearance marked "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" - this will change your settings so that the lead has an edit link next to it. Yunshui  10:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - and how does one edit the actual page title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noughtnotout (talkcontribs) 12:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page title is the "location" of the page on Wikipedia. To edit it, you'll have to "move" the page to a different location. (That's on a drop down link at the top of the page) Remember, the title is case sensitive. Finally, if it's an established article, you may want to consider suggesting the move at Requested Moves WormTT(talk) 15:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

editing semi protected

hello - I was editing a page which then became semi-protected. How do I become eligible to edit those pages?Noughtnotout (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noughtnotout, welcome to the Teahouse. You can edit semi-protected pages when your account becomes autoconfirmed (at least ten edits and four days). Special:Log/Noughtnotout shows it happens 36 minutes from now. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Welcome to the Teahouse, Noughtnotout. In order to edit a semi-protected page, your account must have been open for at least four days, with at least ten edits. Your account looks pretty close. This is our modicum of protection against quickie "vandalism only" accounts. When editing using a Tor network, the requirements will be somewhat tougher. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that's great. thanks for the reply. Any pointers in avoiding changes being reverted consistently? Even when I leave previous material intact my balancing viewpoints are just taken out. Tried the discussion page. I feel the editing is being done deliberately one sidedly but not sure if there is some arbitration process for it.
Which article is this about, Noughtnotout? Make sure anything you're trying to argue has a good reliable source to back it up - trying to add content without it is going to be frustrating because any 'balancing' of an article should depend both on good sourcing and giving the opinion due weight as it's addressed in the literature. If you're not sure about the reliability of a source, maybe you could ask on the Reliable sources noticeboard for assistance. (Or here at the Teahouse: the source which seems to be under discussion is here.) The subject area you're editing in is a contentious one, and maybe you could edit elsewhere if you find yourself unable to get anything to stick. I know that's frustrating, but the area in which you're editing has stricter oversight than others, so it could be a little dangerous to ignore the talk-page discussion and the consensus of other editors. Tread carefully with this. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 06:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing Louise. I think my edits bring balance to the article without removing the other side yet they are quickly removed. Meanwhile a totally one sided angle as referenced above stays. I have sent that other editor a message asking for clarification. Should I be putting that on the talkpage of the article as well? I have initiated the sajda not worship section on the talkpage.Noughtnotout (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia runs on consensus, so you need to continue to discuss this with other editors, and possibly consider asking for a third opinion if it can't be reached. Balance doesn't come from representation of every opinion; it comes from accurately reflecting what the literature on the subject says. Discuss things with the other editors, and make sure you have good sources to back your arguments up, but if it's just your opinion, then there's going to be a problem. If you think the article is unbalanced, try to put together a coherent, well-sourced argument. Take a look at what makes a good source and try to analyse whether your position can be supported by literature before you wade in, as there could be a problem if you get into an edit war to insert your opinion, particularly on an article with discretionary sanctions involved. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 08:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how to change my username

i want to change my user name for some urgent reasons ,so please tell me the process of changing username (Manish asb (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please visit Wikipedia:Changing username for more information on having your account renamed. Since you do only have a few edits to your name at the moment, your easiest option may be to simply ditch this account and edit from a new account with a more desirable username. If this is not an option for you however, you can request a rename at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple; be sure to check if your desired username is taken or not at Special:ListUsers. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

markup for "footnotes: page numbers"

Unsuccessful using help page for references and page numbers. Below is the model on help page, followed by my effort to imitate. First reference worked in both cases, but not my second reference. What am I doing wrong?

help page: first reference:[1]: 8 ;

    second reference to another page:[1]: 18 

my effort to imitate: first reference:[2]: 4–5 ;

    second reference to another page:Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).: 62–3  

Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TBR-qed welcome to the Teahouse. You are getting that error because you made a slight mistake when invoking the named footnote. When invoking the footnote you used <ref name=''Pop 65''/> instead of <ref name="Pop 65" />. The quote marks must be the standard straight keyboard marks (") not (''). Final result should look like this,--Chamith (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First reference:[2]: 4–5 ;
Second reference to another page: [2]: 62–3 
Thanks. I corrected that error and still get error messages. Could the problem be that I put a new section heading between first and second reference? This leads me to a new generic question: I am trying to replace an existing lede section with a new lede and second section. I started by opening "edit" for existing lede. Would that automatically result in a new lede and section 2, with existing section 2 becoming section 3 (and all references in both appearing in existing reference section)? Or do I need to open "edit" for existing section 2 AND reference section in order to replace existing references? My thanks continue.TBR-qed (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Username Creation Question

Sorry, pretty new to Wikipedia so this might be a dumb question, I'm not even sure if this is the right place for this or not. I would like to create an account on Wikipedia, but someone has already taken the username that I really want. I checked on it, and this person has never made any edits to Wikipedia, and hasn't even been on Wikipedia since 2009. The person has also deleted their user and talk page, probably because they decided they wanted to retire from editing. Is it possible to delete this person's account and/or send them an email asking if they still want their account since they never even use it anymore/ or have ever used it in the past? Here's the user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katniss_Everdeen

Thanks, and I would be very grateful if you could help me. Also if this is the wrong place can you please direct me to the right place? 97.88.5.67 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@97.88.5.67: Welcome to the Teahouse. Since the account never edited (or did anything but create an account), it's possible for you to take over ("usurp") it. Just create an account with any name and then request a usurpation of the User:Katniss_Everdeen at this page. --Jakob (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The user and talk page have never existed. Such pages are not created automatically when an account is registered. The user has never made any edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! 97.88.5.67 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

translations link trouble

i tried to link

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_Pop_Festival and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kralingen_Music_Festival

(these re descriptions of the same festival in english and dutch) mut somehow it doesn't allow me to do so,

Can anybody help?

WillemienH (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hello WillemienH and welcome to the Teahouse. When clicking on the "Languages" by the little cog wheel and "Add links" I noticed that two other languages (Spanish and Portuguese) where also linked but at two different "Q"-numbers at the Wikidata, so one of the numbers had to be cleared before they all could be added to the same data page. This is now done. When you try to edit a link-page on Wikidata and something is wrong, a small pink box appears with a Q-number, click on that and you will find out if there are other Q-numbers (yes, I call them that since I don't know the proper name for them) connected to the page you want to link. Go to all the pages on the different Wikis and find out if it's a good idea to collect them all or if some page/page group should be left where it is. Best, w.carter-Talk 15:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I discuss "Random in category" issues?

I've been using the "Random draft in this category" button at Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age/4_weeks_ago, but my experience has been that it may not be random. Looking at the source, I went to Template:AfC pending submissions by age (category header) and then to Template:Clickable button 2. Can someone explain how the "Random draft in this category" button works? and is there a talk page to discuss it? Thanks.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 10:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It works by using the information provided in Special:RandomInCategory. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it also applies to categories but WP:TFAQ#random has some technical information about Special:Random. mw:Extension:Random In Category is not installed here but says: "The core version gives much more biased results than this extension". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

geocoordinates aren't showing up

While referencing an archived link in Monte Ahuja College of Business, I noticed

{{coord missing|Ohio}}

at the bottom of the page. I got the coordinates from Google Maps and replaced the "coord missing" template use with

{{Coord|41.5022|-81.6794|display=Monte Ahuja College of Business}}

But nothing's showing up there. Did I put them in wrong, or is that how it's supposed to work? If so, what good are the coordinates?

If you answer or comment, please {{Ping}} me. Thnidu (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu:, easily solved, you've got the syntax slightly wrong. The |display= needs to be |display=title or |display=inline for the co-ordinates to show. |name= will support the name of the college. I've changed the article to {{Coord|41.5022|-81.6794|display=title|name=Monte Ahuja College of Business}} Nthep (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thnidu: you can also display the coordinates both inline and in the title by typing |display=inline,title. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 13:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep and G S Palmer: Thanks, both o' yez! Clearly, I mistook a constant ("title") for a variable in the documentation.

how much is too much?

Hello, everyone, I need some advice on what to put into a movie plot. I tried to re-edit the plot for "Snakes On A Plane" but it was rejected because it had too much unnecessary information. How will I know if it is too long or insignificant?Jaredliew (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jaredliew. I recommend an essay called How to write a plot summary, for help in finding the proper balance. As a general principle, it important that other encyclopedic information about the film (or other fictional work) be developed and expanded, along with the plot summary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor matching

Hello! I was wondering if there's any Wikiproject or page that connects editors who need a hand with editors who are looking for something to do. In essence, I'm looking for editors that can help me use all the references at Talk:Dishwashing_liquid#Help_me_use_these_references.21. Thank you, Bananasoldier (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to the specified Wikipedia page

When I write Whiskey Trail, it automatically goes to a page called "American Whiskey Trail". But the page I want it to go to is a page called "Whiskey Trail", but it's in Italian (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_Trail?setlang=it). What do I write so it can go to that page?

JaguarXJ8 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JaguarXJ8, what you are looking for is called an Interlanguage link. For your page that is it:Whisky Trail or Whisky Trail if you don't want the language code to show. (Look in the editing window) Best, w.carter-Talk 22:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify w.carter's reply, you make it appear with an initial colon: [[:it:Whisky Trail]]. But it is unusual to include a Wikilink to a foreign-language article, because the reader may not be able to read Italian. At the very least, you should mark it to tell the reader that it is in Italian. (Normally when linking to a foreign-language article I would use the template {{ill}}, but that won't work here, because it is designed to link to the foreign article only if there isn't an English one). --ColinFine (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine:Well in this case the {{ill}} may work since the English page is spelled "Whiskey Trail" and the Italian is spelled "Whisky Trail", without the "e". (Tricky this is!) w.carter-Talk 01:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article created for self-promotion; sources offline

I've reviewed and edited a number of articles created by someone to promote themselves via WP. The main one was Eric Diesel. So far, so good. But there's an article one of his many socks created, Louis Lesser, that I'm having trouble with.

With an article like Eric Diesel or Pearlasia Gamboa, the sources were all relatively modern. This was a good thing, as there were major issues with source clustering, weird Tumblr sources and sources not actually saying what the articles did. But the Lesser sources are old and, where available, are paywalled. So we have a situation where an article has been created by someone with a record of self promotion about someone that he had formed a business partnership with. Although reliable sources have been cited, there's no easy way to verify them, and they were added by someone who's repeatedly not accurately cited before. Any ideas what I should do? Bromley86 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Louis Lesser has died at a very advanced age, there are no major concerns about promotionalism, and the visible snippets of paywalled articles make it clear that he was notable. I agree that there are strange, excessive aspects to this article. The only thing to do, if you are serious about improving the article, is to obtain some of the sources, search for other sources online, and begin a careful pruning of the article, keeping the truly important points. Mentioning every bowling alley he developed seems excessive to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cullen; I was afraid that was the situation. I suppose the solution is to assume the sources are solid (an unsafe assumption, but I've looked for the sources and they're not reproduced except on the paywalled archive site) and prune. Bromley86 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bromley86: Hey Bromley86. You can request access to paywalled articles at WP:RX (Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request). Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source for dishwashing liquid?

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/85181/New_device_could_cut_costs_on_household_products_pharmaceuticals.html

Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bananasoldier, I can't say if that url is a reliable source, it sounds a bit iffy like an ad. Why don't you use this source instead. It covers the same subject and I'd trust the University of Washington over any random soap-site. It also have an author an all. I found it by simply Google the names of the top three researchers ("Joshua Cardiel" "Ya Zhao" "Alice Dohnalkova") in one search. If their discovery was notable, it was bound to come up someplace else and I got lots of hits. When you find a source that you are not 100% sure of, skip giving yourself a headache and find another one instead. Also, when you post urls like that, it is best to put them inside brackets + a word like I did. It will not disrupt the rest of the text then. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, @W.carter:! Bananasoldier (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK reviewing

I have nominated Mouna Ragam for DYK, even though User:Thamizhan1994 nominated it for GA, which it passed. The DYK page is here. Is there anything incomplete in it, or any error to be fixed? When will anyone formally review it? Kailash29792 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images on my main page

Hi! I am wondering how to get the images on the top-right of your username †2†ťəäçħ†4†ӛṿəř 18:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite clear what you mean by "top right of your username", but if you are trying to include images in your signature, you cannot. WP:SIGIMAGE states "Images of any kind must not be used in signatures" and then gives a list of reasons. If this is not what you meant, please explain what you mean. - Arjayay (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On re-reading your question, I wonder if you are referring to the "Topicons" that users can add to their User-page (Dragons, Gnomes, Elves etc) , I don't know of a specific list of these, but they can be found with a search for WP:Topicon as here - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Are you referring to images on the top-right corner of your user page? If so, then a template such as Template:Topicon should work. --Jakob (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 2teach4ever and welcome to the Teahouse. Having read the above I can only add that for signatures, the Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial is a good place to learn and if you want a small animal or something like it from the Wikipedia fauna, the place to start is Wikipedia:WikiFauna. and last but not least there is of course The Supreme Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout. Best, w.carter-Talk 18:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone and thanks for answering! @W.carter: On your main user page there is an image of a sloth and trout on yours. How do you get them? †2†ťəäçħ†4†ӛṿəř 19:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the links I mentioned above: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout and Wikipedia:WikiSloth, before you put anything on your page it is good to read what the image means and/or symbolizes. They are not just 'cute animals'. w.carter-Talk 19:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Yes, I understand that they are not just "cute" animals. I just have one more question, do the animals mean the personality of the user (me)? †2†ťəäçħ†4†ӛṿəř 19:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiFauna describes the meaning of such animals. The sloth, for instance, symbolizes someone who "makes contributions based solely on hedonistic intellectual enjoyment". The trout actually isn't WikiFauna, but rather the template {{Troutme}}, which indicates that someone is willing to be slapped with a wet trout (a gentle reprimand for someone who makes a silly mistake). --Jakob (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As said above (thanks!) they do not describe you or your personality in any deeper meaning, just what kind of editor you are on the Wikipedia and how you choose to edit articles here. w.carter-Talk 19:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses everyone! †2†ťəäçħ†4†ӛṿəř 19:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rejection for article about Parviz Kambin. Please review and tell me how I can correct this article.

I've submitted and article for review for Dr.Parviz Kambin. The article continues to be rejected. The reason given for the rejection is "lack of notability" of the subject. I have included links to various external and internal articles that credit Dr. Kambin with everything stated in the article. He is even noted in an article on Wikipedia,which I provided a link to in my submission. Dr. Kambin is an internationally recognized Pioneer in the field of spinal surgery. He hold patents in both the US and Europe. His work is documented in numerous medical books and journals. He is mention in over 40 articles in the medical library at the University of Pennsylvania. Most of his work is documented in medical books that are very expensive and on websites that are behind pay walls. I don't have a solution to this problem. How have other editors worked around this issue? This man is worthy of having his life's work included on Wikipedia. Jds319 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jds319. I recommend that you read and study our notability guideline for academics and edit your draft with compliance with that guideline in mind. In addition, study our Manual of style. We refer to article subjects by surname after first mention, so eliminate the numerous occurrences of "Dr". You may benefit from reading some Good articles about physicians and professors, to see how other editors have handled such issues. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jds319. Notability has a specific meaning on Wikipedia: his own publications do not contribute to it, though if somebody else has written substantially about them (not just cited them), that would. The Mutter Museum reference certainly helps to establish notability; but it is very short, so it is not enough on its own. The Stryker award might help, but you haven't given any bibliographic information so I haven't found it: if it contains an essay about his life and work then it will certainly contribute to notability, but if it is merely a brief citation it won't.
Looking at the text, In the first paragraph after the two citations I've mentioned, there is not a single fact which is referenced to a published source. Not one. That means that there is not one sentence in that paragraph (after the first one) which currently belongs in the encyclopaedia.
Continuing to the second paragraph, there are several references, but every one is to a primary source, and so do nothing to establish notability. And so on.
In order to make the article acceptable, you need to follow what Fiddle Faddle said in a comment in July "Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS. A link to an online version is preferred because the ordinary reader will wish to read them with ease, but this is a preference, not a compulsion." That is, every substantive fact. His date and place of birth, and his education, may be cited from primary or non-independent sources (but must still be cited), but for the bulk of the article, every fact needs to be cited to a reliable published independent source; i.e. to books and articles written about him. Not his own books and papers. (Substantive books or articles about his techniques might ground an article about the techniques rather than about him). Their being behind paywalls is not necessarily a problem, provided they are independent writing about him or his work, not material by him - see WP:PAYWALL.
Links to appropriate articles in Wikipedia - wikilinks - are encouraged, but Wikipedia may not be cited as a source, because it is inherently unreliable. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Annual WikiCup

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and still learning how everything works. I've noticed that there is a competition called the WikiCup, and I would love to join. However, I am confused by what I do in the competition; the main page doesn't tell me clearly. I am also confused by the points system. Can anyone help me? Thank you!

Kaob1 (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaob1 welcome to the Teahouse. Wikicup is a competition which you can win by showing your skills in editing. Like other competitions Wikicup has a scoring system and some rules. Team of judges (Experienced Wikipedia editors) will announce the winner(s). You can score points by uploading good pictures, bringing articles, topics, portals and lists to Featured/Good article state. Improving Did you know?, In the news sections and doing Good article & peer reviews are some other ways of getting point. Give below is the scoring system. (snipped from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring)--Chamith (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2015 points
Featured article Good article Featured list Featured picture Featured portal Featured topic Good topic Did you know? In the news Good article & peer reviews
200 30 45 20 45 10 per article 3 per article 5 or 10 10 4

Banning for AfD nominations

Is it appropriate to propose a topic ban for a user based on failed AfD nominations? if for example they had 13 nominations in the last month that all ended in keep, 5 of which were speedy keep and 33 nominations total, none of which resulted in delete? and if their AfDstats were around 60%?  B E C K Y S A Y L E 06:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a ban on AFD may work then. 13/13 is really bad. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Becky Sayles: If that is true, I agree with Bladesmulti, and starting a proposal at WP:AN would be the place to do it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: I've followed up here. Can you tell me if this looks right?  B E C K Y S A Y L E 23:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sending a message to a specific user

I want to send a message to a user, but don't know how to send it to a specific person. How do I send the message?

JaguarXJ8 (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @JaguarXJ8: Every editor has their own talk page at which you can leave messages. Yours, for example, is located at User_talk:JaguarXJ8; other users have and will continue to leave you messages there. Mine is at User_talk:SuperHamster, so that's where you'd leave a message if you wanted to get in touch with me. Remember to leave new messages at the bottom of the page (the Teahouse being the one exception, where new questions go at the top).
You can always access an editor's talk page by going to their userpage, and then clicking the "Talk" tab at the very top. Signatures and article histories also have links to users' talk pages. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JaguarXJ8: (e/c) Hi JaguarXJ8. Every user has a talk page. If you look next to your post above, your talk page is linked. Most people's signatures (though not all) have such a link. A person's talk page will also be found in the page history of anything they've edited. You can also navigate to anyone's talk page by just typing into the search field "user talk:NameOfTheUser". Once you leave a message for a user on his or her talk page, they will get that prominent orange notification at the top of the page, lust like the one you got when people posted to your talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JaguarXJ8 welcome to the Teahouse. If you need to communicate privately and both of you have "email this user" activated (you can look on the left side of the person's user page), you can also email. Your email address will not be revealed when you do this the first time. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning Error

Hello. I added a character colspan summary for the artical entitled ""Aladdin (Disney franchise)"" to better explain the series characters, as I was editing I noticed that the the text links for the character actors were not lining up correctly with the film titles. They appear to NOT be in the center of the rows just like any other colspans. its been like this for 2 weeks now and I don't know how to fix this. Is this normal?. If I can fix it, how can I do so? (Zucat)

@Zucat:, table formatting isn't the easiest thing on Wikipedia. I've fixed it by adding a style command to the table making all the text centre-aligned. Nthep (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I'm learning Wiki for the first time. I'll be working on this draft much more before posting officially and will be mindful of your feedbackDeschain0192837465 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding photos

Creating my first page. Completed the adventure tutorial, but need a push toward finding the photo gallery so I can add photos to my first article.Deschain0192837465 (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deschain0192837465: Hi Deschain. I'm afraid it's not terribly likely that any images (or a photo gallery) will be possible for the topic of the draft article you started. This is because it's probable that all relevant images are non-free copyrighted. While we do allow display of fair use images for some purposes, this would not be possible for a non-free image of a living person like Joseph Freed (there are some rare exceptions but I see none that would be applicable here).

Meanwhile, the fair use images that are already on display for the series he's been involved with would not meet our strict fair use criteria for display in an article on him. Usually an image is fair use only in an article directly about the topic it is most closely attached to. Thus, for example, the fair use logo for Jim Henson Creature Shop Challenge which Freed co-created and is executive producer of would only be fair use in the article on the show itself. Please note that a fair use image may never be displayed in a draft, but only once the topic is in the article mainspace. You could try searching for a compatibly freely-licensed image though. I wrote a post a while back about ways to search for one. Please see here.

On another issue, your draft is written in a somewhat promotional manner; some parts appear not to be written from the neutral point of view that articles need to maintain. It has some glowing language as if to convince the reader of the virtue of what's being discussed. That needs to be reformed. On the flip side, I commend you for citing multiple reliable sources; something new users rarely do. In that regard, it would be great if you formatted those citations for transparent attribution, instead of citing raw URLs. I'm going to go format one as an example for you. See also WP:CITEHOW.

One more thing. Much of the article is concerned with the projects he's been involved with, and is not really about him. While in a long and mature article on him I would expect to see some detail about his shows, even there I probably would not expect to see quite so much, but certainly I would expect much more about him directly, rather than the projects he's been involved with. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I'm learning Wiki for the first time. I'll be working on this draft much more before posting officially and will be mindful of your feedbackDeschain0192837465 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to move from draft space when creating an article for the first time?

i already did more than 10 edits on my article and im registered for more than 4 days how can i move my article from draft space to publish it normally?

please helpMarketfeed (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marketfeed
Unfortunately, Draft:Annajah.ma is not ready for article space, you have no references from Independant Reliable Sources to show that the subject is notable - specifically that it meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (web).
Furthermore, the existing content is very promotional, and not written from a neutral point of view. Given that your only contributions to Wikipedia are to that article, I suspect you may be connected to Annajah.ma so have a conflict of interest, in which case you should read and follow our guidelines for such editors here. - Arjayay (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory content

I noticed there is contradictory content on the page about Takashi Uemura. How do I flag this?49.197.18.164 (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you just want to flag the contradiction, you may use this template: {{Contradiction-inline}} (just place this code in the text of the article, after the contradictory statement). Of course, you are free to fix the problem yourself. Feel free to edit the article and reword it, so that it's not in contradiction. Good thing is also to explain your edit at article's talk page (Talk:Takashi Uemura (academic)). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made a minor formatting issue that I cannot diagnose!

I've been editing the latest scores into this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Southern_Football_League#First_round and it's been going quite well. Still getting used to using the edit page but I'm doing alright so far! For some reason, one of the fixtures has a formatting issue and I'm not quite sure what's happened. It's very obvious to see when you look at it, all help appreciated! What did I do wrong? Dinotramp (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a little while but I found it, you'd missed a closing } on a template in the middle of the collapsible template, fixed! :) Sam Walton (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

adding content to a page about films/movies

I would like to suggest an addition to

List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees

The section "List of films" give the names of movies that have all (or most) of the "Big Five" Oscars -- Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and either Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Original Screenplay.

The film "Kramer vs. Kramer" is not listed, and it should be listed because it has four of the five "Big Five Oscars." The exception is that it didn't win for Best Actress. Meryl Streep did win an Oscar for that film, but it was for Best Supporting Actress.

I don't know how to contact the watcher(s) of that page, but if you could pass this along to him/her/them, I would appreciate it. Thank you!

Recycler1973 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Recycler1973: The place to raise your question is on the article talk page - Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees - a look at that page tells me that Kramer vs Kramer has been discussed there before. It looks like the criteria for entry on the list is having been nominated for all of the Big Five and K vs K wasn't nominated for Best Actress. Nthep (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello, Recycler1973. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anybody may edit. In general, if you have information which will improve an article in the encyclopaedia you are encouraged to edit the article to add it; or if you are not confident in doing so, every article has a talk page where you may make suggestions for improving it. (You do not need to get your contribution authorised by a "watcher": the worst that can happen is that somebody may disagree that it is appropriate, and remove it again. Then if you disagree with them you can have a discussion on the talk page, and reach consensus).
However, in this case I would advise against it, for two reasons. The first is that the page clearly says "This is a list of films that have been nominated for the so-called Big Five Academy Award categories". You're wanting to broaden this from all to most of the categories. This might be reasonable - but you should certainly get agreement on the talk page before changing the definition of the page in this way.
The other problem (which is nothing to do with your suggestion) is that I do not believe that this is an appropriate article for Wikipedia at all, because it is entirely a synthesis from published sources, which is not allowed. I have not (yet) nominated it for deletion, but I have asked on the talk page why people think that the page is valid. --ColinFine (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep: "The place to raise your question is on the article talk page - Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees"

I cannot find the specific URL for that article's talk page. What is it, and/or how do I find it?

@Nthep: "...a look at that page tells me that Kramer vs Kramer has been discussed there before. It looks like the criteria for entry on the list is having been nominated for all of the Big Five and K vs K wasn't nominated for Best Actress."

@ColinFine: "...the page clearly says 'This is a list of films that have been nominated for the so-called Big Five Academy Award categories'. You're wanting to broaden this from ALL to MOST of the categories."

I am not trying to broaden it from ALL to MOST... because that has already been done. I believe that the chart found in the "List of films" section of that page lists all films that were nominated for multiple Big Five awards. Only three films have won all five: "It Happened One Night", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and "The Silence of the Lambs." However, four films are listed that won four of the Big Five: "Gone with the Wind", "Mrs. Miniver", "Annie Hall", and "American Beauty." I maintain that "Kramer vs. Kramer" should be listed with these other four, because it won four of the Big Five. It did not win an Oscar for Best Actress... I don't know if any role from that film was nominated for that category.

The reason I am hesitant to simply make the edit -- which I have done on dozens of other pages over the years -- is that I don't know who won for Best Actress that year. I imagine the watcher(s) of this page are more knowledgeable of the Oscars than I am, and so I wanted to bring this to their attention.

If this is the wrong forum or method for notifying others on Wikipedia, please accept my apology. I'd consider myself to be an intermediate Wikipedia user and editor, but I think both of you are experts. If needed, we can take this conversation to electronic mail; I can be reached at smargon -- at -- udel -- dot -- edu. Thanks again!

Recycler1973 (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Recycler1973. In that case the talk page is definitely the place. You'll find it at Talk:List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees, or you can pick "Talk" (I think it might appear as "Discussion" on some skins) from the article itself. Discussing on Wikipedia is strongly preferable to doing so in email.
Your point about whether you are broadening it from some to all is exactly why I think this page should be deleted. If there is not a reliable source out there which not only defines what "Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees" means, and reliable sources which say whether this or that film meets the criterion, then the entire page is original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
By the way, 52nd Academy Awards says the Best Actress for 1979 was Sally Field, for Norma Rae. --ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Thank you. You have my permission to delete this discussion. Recycler1973 (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language style

What language style we use in wiki? Do we use consistency of US/UK words or Is there any rule for certain type of article?Faizal Ahamed SMI (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Faizal Ahamed SMI. That is an excellent question. For purposes of simplification, I will accept that there are two main variants of English, those used in the UK and in the US. There are actually quite a few variations. Indian English is perhaps the most important other variation.
Here on Wikipedia, we use UK English in articles like London and Liverpool, and US English in articles like New York and Los Angeles. In other words, we use the "local" variation for articles directly related to that locale, whether history, geography, biography, and so on.
For topics without an inherent connection with a regional English variation, we use whatever variety was used by the editor who began writing the article. It is considered disruptive to argue about such things, since any literate English speaker can read and comprehend any variety of English. Please read WP:ENGVAR for a more detailed explanation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you mr.Cullen328.Faizal Ahamed SMI (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, Faizal Ahamed SMI. Within a given, established article, we maintain consistency. If you are expanding an existing article that uses the the spelling "colour", do not change it to "color". Personally, I prefer the second spelling, but my personal preferences do not matter when editing an established article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notice and references and knowledge problems

Hi guys. I am writing an article in my sandbox for later use I keep receiving a copyright notice when copyright is only about 3%. Can any one help me get rid of it? Also the article has quite a long history but has little online available references and restrictions on written ones due there value. But this history is listed on other wikipedia pages can I use this as a reference. Also should I list multiple references to one event to increase the notability of the article or stick to one prominent one. Please check out my sandbox to give me pointers. Also do I have to have a high level of knowledge in a field to edit it on wikipedia? Thank you RDs123 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RDs123. I will try to answer all your questions.
  1. Copyright material is not allowed anywhere in Wikipedia, even in a sandbox. Please don't copy anything from elsewhere into your sandbox - you can put a link to the external material temporarily, but if you're going to put text in you need to rewrite it in your own words.
  2. Sources do not need to be online, but need to be published from reliable publishers: in principle a reader needs to be able to go and check every source, but if they could get it through a major public library, for example, that would be acceptable.
  3. Wikipedia may not be used as a reference, because it is inherently unreliable (anybody may edit it). However, good Wikipedia articles should have references, and you can of course use those references. (If you go to an existing article for references, and find them lacking, it would be great if you would add some!)
  4. There's no universal answer to whether to include multiple references for the same information; but I would say that quality beats quantity. If you have found one or two good references for a piece of information, there's no need to add any more; conversely, if you've a dozen references but they're all weak (eg dubious sources, or just mentioned in passing), consider omitting the information.
  5. No, you don't need a high level of knowledge in a field to edit it on Wikipedia; but it usually helps!
If you've any further questions, please come back and ask. --ColinFine (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But its taking words and saying thats copyright when nobody own copyright to these words. Can admin see my sandbox? RDs123 (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though of course the creative content at the the site that corenseachbot tagged as this being a possible copyright violation of is copyrighted (your note above seems to imply you think it's not), I agree that you have not violated any copyright by the extremely minor matching text, and have removed the bot's notice as a false-positive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Okay, I see what happened here. You did violate copyright, in the past version that was deleted. It was just not this version. But, when you reposted with this different content, you copied over the copyvio template, and so the duplicator report was not for the same content as the original page the bot had tagged. Anyway, you cannot retain non-free copyright and license its use here. That's why it is a copyright violation even if you own it. You would have the release the copyright to the world under a suitable free copyright license or into the public domain in order for it to be posted here. Information about the mechanics of doing so are set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). You can simply change the notice at the external site to note the release, e.g., replace "© Copyright 2014" with:

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

However, some of that content is unsuitably promotional for use here, and regardless of whether the copyright issue is resolved, the text requires citations to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the society. If such sources don't exist, Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic. Please see our notability standards. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not an admin, but I'll try to help. As far as I understand, you are trying to write an article about "UCD Economics Society", but you have a problem with copyrights. You say that you are writing the article in you sandbox "for later use", but that is not true. You published the article twice in the wp:main space. Once under your former username, and once under your current username. It was speedily deleted both times (log). A version of the article is also located in your sandbox (User:RDs123/sandbox). One of the reason cited for deletion is the copyright violation. Most of the (deleted) article was copied verbatim from here. That is not allowed (see: WP:COPYPASTE). I see that here] you try to explain us that the "content in question is owned by you". That does not change the situation. The content is released here and tagged with "© Copyright 2014. Economics Society. All Rights Reserved". That means that reusing of the content is not allowed. Wikipedia only accepts so called "free content", so your content ("all rights reserved") may not be used in Wikipedia straight away, even though you are the copyright holder. Learn here how to donate (your own) copyrighted material to Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about conflict of interest

Hi all!

I am interested in writing an article about the person I wrote my thesis on. I'm not concerned about notability, because she has been written about by other people and is generally considered important in her profession. I am a bit concerned about conflict of interest, since I don't want the article to be seen as promoting my academic work. (Which is, and probably deserves to remain, obscure.) If I cite the sources that I used in my thesis rather than citing the thesis itself, am I pretty well covered? Should I also disclose the (potential) conflict of interest, and if so, where would be the best place for that disclosure?

Thanks!

MetaClaudia (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MetaClaudia, and thanks for asking. The answer, I think, is yes all round. It is not a conflict of interest to write about something you are an expert on, as long as the result is based on published work that covers all views of the subject. (I would warn you that experts sometimes find Wikipedia a frustrating pace to work, because people may disagree with you who you do not consider to have your level of understanding of the subject, and it could even happen that a consensus goes against you on some point. But if you go into it with an understanding of what you are getting into, we'd be pleased to benefit from your expertise). It's not clear to me if your thesis has been published or not. If not, you shouldn't cite it, (which means you should also not quote any arguments or conclusions from it). But if it has been published in a reliable journal or a book from a reputable publisher, you can cite it, and even cite arguments and conclusions from it, as long as you don't privilege it over other published views of the matter. But either way, you should cite other sources, which will presumably mostly be sources you used in your thesis. I suggest you do disclose your potential conflict of interest on your User page, and possibly also on the talk page of the article you write. --ColinFine (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much! MetaClaudia (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As is so often the case, the people who are actually concerned about having a conflict of interest and not violating our standards, like you, don't have a real conflict at all:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Articles / Sports

Hello Wikipedia Editors;

I have attempted to prepare information to be posted within the sports section of wikipedia but I am unsure as to weather or not it will receive any attention so I wanted to ask if someone would be so kind as to help me have the entry for Randy Beverly Jr completed/published;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports#American_football

I think there are enough notable sources for Beverly Jr. The issue is that Beverly Jr is being confused with Beverly, who is an historic entry already.

Thanks in advance, MeanMachine1 93.32.151.39 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. As you can see, the WP:Requested articles service is heavily backlogged. The easiest way to solve this is for you to write the article yourself. It's not so hard at all. I see that you have reliable sources, which is good. You can write a short article (so called "stub") and let other editors improve it. See here how to write an article: WP:My first article. You can use the WP:WIZARD. You'll have to register an account first (it's free), because anonymous users cannot write new articles. You can ask us for any kind of help here at the Teahouse, or you can ask me at my talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of certain object in London

(This question moved here from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse by w.carter-Talk 09:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Happy New Year Wikipedians, i want to extend the list of Armenian Genocide memorials. According to [1] there is also a memorial in London not for from Hyde Park. It is located on the yard of Saint Sarkis Armenian church, exactly here [2]. Is there any photograph willing to help me with making a photo of it? If so, i kindly ask to make some overview and detailed photos (often at the back or side there is a plaque or inscription) of it and upload it to Commons. I need this detailed photos to add the transcriptions afterwards. Thanks advance, --Aschroet (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this query does not yield any result you might take a look at editors who have a "This user lives in London" userbox (they are listed here and here) and see if any of these have a userbox stating that they are interested in photography, and simply ask at their talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aschroet, Not a bit of London I often visit, but I have posted your request on the talkpage of this Sunday's London meetup. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a nice picture, it may be worth contacting the org to see if it can be released under CC-BY-SA-3.0. All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC).
Thank you. Hope that someone makes some good quality photo which would be best solution. --Aschroet (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to get a photo of this, either this weekend or next week. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thrydulf, much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 21:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English cross check

Hi. I'm in the midst of creating some articles. But my main concern will be the language. Being a non-native English speaker, I'm afraid of too much grammatical errors. Are there any person who can proofreading my articles before I click submit button? By the way, I've joined Wikipedia since 2013 and get very active with it. I found Teahouse welcome message is helpful. But I wonder why I didn't get one. I've seen some who got welcome message from Teahouse but end-up vandalising. Tafeax (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tafeax - welcome to the Teahouse (selamat petang/pagi). Welcome-templating isn't automatic (there may be bots out there, but if there are they don't always get there quick enough and I've left loads of templates manually); to the best of my knowledge it relies on someone who wants to give you a welcome message seeing you when you make your first few edits (or before someone leaves another message on your talk page). I usually leave one when I see a redlinked talk page; I usually patrol new pages, which means I don't often come across vandals but quite often see well-intentioned but ultimately unproductive editing (such as people who think we're a place to post a listing for their local sailing club or jazz cafe - they're not vandals, they just need to be told what Wikipedia is and is not). However, a welcome template on someone's page is IMO a useful way of welcoming the editor and equipping them with a toolkit so they become better editors. There will always be vandals, but hopefully some will progress beyond that initial flurry of disruption and settle down.
As far as style and grammar issues, my main editing before becoming more engaged over the past few months was browsing articles in particular areas and cleaning up poor English style and grammar. I am interested in eastern and central European politics and history (I wrote my Masters thesis on the Helsinki Final Act) and got started copy-editing the articles I was reading while I read up on topics. Last autumn, I graduated to the Guild of Copy-Editors when I thought I could tackle the job a bit more systematically. So there are people out there working on the task of smoothing out language which may not be perfect for a lot of reasons.
But please don't let it stop you contributing drafts. I think as long as you can write an intelligible article, then there will be someone to come along behind you, even just adding a copy-edit template to add it to the GOCE's lists. If you want assistance or a quick, friendly eye over your articles while they're still drafts or after they go live, leave me a note on my talk page. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you LouiseS1979 for your reply. Your experience on copy-editing has open my eyes. I can improve my English writing by doing so. Perhaps I've done it on Kuala Lumpur International Airport at last hour. Thanks again for your encouragement and willingness to help in future. Tafeax (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yeah sure. If u r getting doubts about grammar, you can get in contact with me. I'm working as a Language editor in Springer Journals.Faizal Ahamed SMI (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

How???????

No big deal!Only I don't know how to go to the game.When I pressed on tea house, I came here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.248.198.4 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome. Teahouse is not a game, it's a forum to ask questions. If you're looking for the Wikipedia Adventure game, it's here: WP:ADVENTURE. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the previous section I guess you did find WP:ADVENTURE. Did you click "Start the adventure" without anything happening? What is your browser and does it have JavaScript enabled? PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New article regarding NEW art genre

Hello Teahouse members, I am an artist and I believe I'm the first to try a new art form. I repaint or add new art to soda pop cans. Currently I have been adding superheroes to coke cans, I've now included energy drink cans and also added sports figures to the cans. Most people believe the can was made that way, as I incorporate my art with the original manufacturers art work. I use inks so as not to leave any type texture on the surface. I am certain I have started something totally new and feel it might be part pop-art's history. (Sorry about how that sounds) I am really interested in writing an article depicting my art as I am very certain I am the first. My art on cans is near picture perfect. I would love to show you my work and maybe you'll agree its one of a kind. I await your opinion. Thank you. Instagram : @_ins0mniart_ to see my can art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insomniart (talkcontribs) 20:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Insomniart. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote your art, however novel it may be. Once independent reliable sources (such as major newspapers or magazines) have written at length about you and your art, such an article could be acceptable, but not until then. Once it has been written about, an article can be written, in a neutral, non-promotional, tone, and entirely based on what reliable published sources have said about you and your work. Since you are likely to find it difficult to write in a suitable tone, you are discouraged from writing it: see our guidelines on conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create a page for my locksmith business. is this allowed

Is it a Good idea? Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:2702:18A0:88BB:EFA9:B7CD:84 (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! It´s very likely a bad idea, please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning for soapboxing

Hi all. Could someone help me out with this please? Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Mufaddal Saifuddin. Summichum (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC) This editor goes in and revises pretty much everything I do but gives me no explanaition at all. I can't see what his issue is but he is intent on preventing anything that goes against his point of view. Perhaps I am going wrong somewhere and would love to know what steps I should take. Noughtnotout (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)
  2. ^ a b c {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)