Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, 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

New Template

Please help me improve Template:Royal Jains -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Auto confirmation

How long does it take to get the auto-confirmed status in wikipedia 10:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neharungta012 (talk • contribs)

WP:AUTOCONFIRMED: four days, ten edits. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank You so muchNeharungta012 (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

edits lost

I made edits to our Art Vinyl page on 15th Sept and it was showing on the page but today the edits have disappeared. When I look under history it seems to be there but i can't see how to get it back. can anyone help please?Art vinyl (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Art vinyl, and welcome to the Teahouse. You edits to Best Art Vinyl were reverted by DVdm. It's not immediately obvious why, but perhaps DVdm could explain? Incidentally, while you may well have referred to the article as "our page" just casually, that does raise an important issue. Wikipedia articles aren't owned by anyone, and if you have a connect with the subject of an article then you potentially have a conflict of interest, which you should disclose. Note that editing of articles about subjects with which you have a connection is discouraged. You also need to address the concerns that have been raised about your user name on your talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i.m.o. this was a clear case of WP:COI. I should however have mentioned that in the edit summary, and a little warning at User talk:Art vinyl would have been appropriate. My apologies for that. - DVdm (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I just notice that user Art vinyl restored the content. The concern remains, and the cited source does not look reliable to me, so I will remove it again ([1]), and give a proper warning on the user talk page for general advertising and promotion ([2]). - DVdm (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DVdm. I'm not all that concerned about the COI with this particular edit, since it just updated some basic details about award winners, which were already in the article for previous years. However, what does concern me is that the source URL just redirects to the Art Vinyl homepage, so there is a verification problem. Art vinyl, if you get reverted, then you need to take the issue to the article talk page and discuss it there rather than simply reinstating the edit. Please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if I have caused concern I'm new to this I just reinstated the edits as I didn't realise what had happened. Would it be better if I changed the source URL to one of the many internet articles announcing the top 10? As you say the edits that have been removed are just updated info already there from previous years so I hope if we can resolve the source URL issue these can be reinstated? thanks Art vinyl (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The most advisable approach to take, Art vinyl, is to post your suggested additions to the article, including a working link to a source or sources, at Talk:Best Art Vinyl. Other editors will then be able to assess the material and add it to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I have done the edits and changed the source URL to an online article removing the previous one I am in the process of changing the user name too. thanks for the advice hope that is now ok. Art vinyl (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Art vinyl, I think you may have misread my previous comment. My suggestion was to post your proposed addition on the article's talk page, not to edit the article itself again. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did misunderstand sorry but can you tell me if the changes I made were acceptable as I see they have been taken down again? I can't work out the Talk page to be honest - so my proposed edits are - to update the information for the top 10 for 2014 with a source link to Design news site.I'm trying my best not to contravene any rulesSimonkinsler (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You are being reverted because you need to discuss the edits on the talk page. To do that, just go to Talk:Best Art Vinyl and click "New section" at the top of the page. Give the section a title such as "Suggested edits", and describe what you wanted added to the article. Your suggestion will get more attention if you place the {{request edit}} template in the section. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

how do i make a window

if i want to make a wikipedia page how can i make it Samisepic (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Samisepic, and welcome to the Teahouse. As it happens, there is a guide to writing your first article at Wikipedia:Your first article. If you read that, you'll also see a link to the Wikipedia:Article wizard, which you might find helpful if you want to go ahead and create an article. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

First article on wikipedia

What is the first article on wikipedia? P.S This has to be THE first article on wikipedia. LPSglitterangelz (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, LPSglitterangelz. The records of activity in the very early hours of Wikipedia, when it was still an entirely experimental project with a handful of participants, are sketchy. So the answer to your question is not 100% certain. However, Wikipedia began on January 15, 2001. The oldest known "article", as documented by its edit history, (which was more like what we now call a disambiguation page), goes back to January 16, 2001. That article is UuU. Sorry it isn't more interesting. For more information, see History of Wikipedia. For details regarding that first known edit, see Wikipedia:UuU. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We have evidence that United States and Wikipedia were created even earlier, but the edit histories of those early hours cannot be recovered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete a "template"

Hy, Dear Wikipedians,

How can I delete a baseless or contentless template. Plz tell me the way to delete a template. Ilyaskhorasani (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)--

I haven't dealt with template deletion myself, but per the discussion further down the page, you should find the answer at Templates for deletion. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 05:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability

i was told by kylietastic that for my sorority to have an article on wikipedia, we have to have had some sort of publicity or mention in some sort of media to be reputable. we have been around for 18 years in the san francisco bay area and are located at three state run universities in the California State system. we aren't short term and we won't disappear tomorrow, so how else will i show our notability?? Naiele3 (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what KylieTastic (I'm not sure who that is, as there is no user named kylietastic registered on Wikipedia) (edit: found them, the capitalization threw me off) told you is correct. It does not matter to Wikipedia how long your sorority has been around, or how many colleges it's at, unless people unconnected with your sorority (like a newspaper) have published information about the sorority. That's just the way things work here.

If you haven't already, you might want to read Wikipedia's notability policy and how Wikipedia defines a reliable source. You should also be aware that people directly connected with an organization are discouraged from writing or editing the Wikipedia article about that organization (our conflict of interest policy). Instead of working on the article yourselves, you or other members of your sorority could request the article be created, and/or ask for specific additions or corrections to the article on its talk page once an article exists.

Don't despair! Your sorority may well meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. College newspapers typically cover sorority activities, and mainstream newspapers may cover charity events sororities and fraternities engage in. Have a look; who knows what you'll find? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hello @Naiele3:, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The concept of "notability" causes a lot of confusion; you are not alone. Basically, it is the term used within Wikipedia to describe whether a given topic is sufficiently notable, or "worthy of notice", to warrant having its own article. Granted your sorority has been around for some time - but has it had enough impact on the wider community to generate coverage in the media (or books written about it, or other reliable, independent sources)? It is not a matter of what the organization says about itself; it is a matter of what other people say about it. To clarify the concept, I recommend reading the "General notability guideline" carefully a couple of times.

However, even if the sorority does not satisfy the criteria for its own article, it might still be a section within the universities' articles. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Discount coupon for Wikipedia T-shirt

Hi, first of all Sorry for putting this question as its not related to editing but to Wikipedia. From where can I get any discount coupons for buying T-shirts from Wikimedia stores ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks for the invite. Cool tee. 2602:306:8BB8:C10:D935:1031:5A29:EBF5 (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this... Is this spam? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit suggests that 2602:306:8BB8:C10:D935:1031:5A29:EBF5 is DoctorWhoLover11 from above (who is currently blocked). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Aha! Good catch, Cordless Larry. The phrasing reminded me of the comments one sometimes sees on blogs, something like "Excellent post, I very enjoyed." with a mention of and/or link to some category of commercial product, which was why I asked. And I saw that DoctorWhoLover11 had been blocked, when I went to their user page intending to leave a warning about their edits to Aniruddha0505's question below, but thanks for pointing it out anyway. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peppy Paneer! I don't know about discounts or coupons for items sold in the Wikipedia store, but there are "merchandise giveaways" for Wikipedians that are seen by others to be deserving of recognition for their hard work. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• @CabbagePotato: Ok, got it. I am here from last two months only and my contributions lies in fighting vandalism only. And I can't wait so I will order now. Thank you for the information.

PS - @GrammarFascist: & @Cordless Larry: Thank you for dealing with DoctorWhoLover11

Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Official?

How do you become an Official Teahouse Host? Thanks! DoctorWhoLover11 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi DoctorWhoLover11, once you feel you have enough experience and knowledge of the Wikipedia ways you volunteer. The 'qualifications' are just to be experienced editor, who is helpful to new people and is familiar with the Teahouse project. So as you only have been editing one day and have 51 edits I would not rush into it, and you don't have to be a listed host to help by answering questions. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll keep that in mind! --DoctorWhoLover11 (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Don't vandalise and get blocked would also be a reasonable requirement! KylieTastic (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia mentions in the news

I believe I once saw an article of times when WP has been mentioned in news articles, but can't find it. Can someone point me to it? Thanks! --BrianCUA (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Briancua: Welcome! Interesting question. Perhaps somewhere like Academic studies about Wikipedia would be a good launching point for your research? --Jayron32 18:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@BrianCUA and Jayron32: see Category:Wikipedia in the media, Category:Wikipedia In the news articles, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media. DES ^(talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, guys! --BrianCUA (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Briancua, another way to keep up with news coverage of Wikipedia is to subscribe to The Signpost, Wikipedia's weekly newsletter. It has a section called "News and notes" discussing such things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Discount coupon for Wikipedia T-shirt

Hi, first of all Sorry for putting this question as its not related to editing but to Wikipedia. From where can I get any discount coupons for buying T-shirts from Wikimedia stores ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks for the invite. Cool tee. 2602:306:8BB8:C10:D935:1031:5A29:EBF5 (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this... Is this spam? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit suggests that 2602:306:8BB8:C10:D935:1031:5A29:EBF5 is DoctorWhoLover11 from above (who is currently blocked). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Aha! Good catch, Cordless Larry. The phrasing reminded me of the comments one sometimes sees on blogs, something like "Excellent post, I very enjoyed." with a mention of and/or link to some category of commercial product, which was why I asked. And I saw that DoctorWhoLover11 had been blocked, when I went to their user page intending to leave a warning about their edits to Aniruddha0505's question below, but thanks for pointing it out anyway. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peppy Paneer! I don't know about discounts or coupons for items sold in the Wikipedia store, but there are "merchandise giveaways" for Wikipedians that are seen by others to be deserving of recognition for their hard work. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I would like Wikipedia to show us how to correctly add references as I see many incorrect ones from people who are not aware of what is required or how to do it.Ieagroup (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ieagroup, and welcome to the Teahouse. There is a useful guide to referencing at Help:Referencing for beginners. Does that help? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is the "us" you are referring to? John from Idegon (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

What would be a good infobox to add on Ikshvaku dynasty? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Capankajsmilyo / Pankaj Jain. There does not seem to be an infobox designed for fictional dynasties (or even one for non-fictional dynasties). Don't worry about that, though; infoboxes are not required on articles, so it's okay to just not have one. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

UfD

How to nominate userboxes in breach of policy for deletion? Many thanks! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Fortuna It might depend. I can envision certain egregious types that could be subject to speedy deletion, but that would be the exception to the rule that that they are nominated through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. However, you might discuss is first with the user before nominating. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

They are templates so WP:TFD.--ukexpat (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both. Discussion already attempted and refused, so no problems with that. Q- how do you know what the UB is called or where it is? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The matter that non-intuitively they're taken to MfD rather than TfD is I believe an outgrowth of the 2006ish massive "userbox controversy". If you want to read stale but (imo) fascinating Wikipedia history, you might take a look. I remember there were multiple desysoppings, users left permanently in protest; many metaphorical trees were killed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit where can I see that? Thanks for help. Your u/name from Simple Minds? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It was sprawling. See User:R. fiend/The userbox controversy, Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Userbox debates and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived. This is sort of related and part of the tail end of it. My name is after the incredibly versatile common Italian ethnic (Brooklyn-based mostly AFAIK) expression (some people, having only learned it and other everyday area expressions ["not for nuthin' but"] by watching mobster films/The Sopranos, etc.), do not realize it was used in them because of common usage; it remains in common use here in Brooklyn).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My first article

I have created my first page as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._CN_Ramchand

It is showing some bare url and orphan errors. However i have cited all the necessary references according to my understanding. Can anyone please guide me towards making it error free..thanksAniruddha0505 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bare URL" means that the references consist entirely of, for example, www.ramchand.com/about — on Wikipedia it is preferred that references include an author name if possible, title, date if given, publisher, and access date if there is a URL given. So for our hypothetical example the reference might look like <ref>Ramchand, B. “Biography of C.N. Ramchand”. ''Ramchand.com''. Retrieved 22 September 2015</ref>. (Note that around Ramchand.com are actually two single quotation marks ', not one double quotation mark ”; this will yield italics, like so: Ramchand.com.)

"Orphan" means that no other articles link to the orphan article. It's a common issue with newly-created articles, but easily fixed if the subject is notable.

It looks, however, as though the article you created had additional, more serious problems: an overly promotional tone, and copyright violation — text from other sources copied directly but not put into quotation marks. On Wikipedia, it's important to rephrase what your sources say in your own words. Because of these two issues, the article was deleted. Please also be aware that Wikipedia policy requires people close to the subject of an article to declare their conflict of interest. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

[image The Blue Marble.jpg removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorWhoLover11 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

DoctorWhoLover11, please do not edit other users' comments either here at the Teahouse, or on Talk pages. If you want to add a comment, do it in your own separate section. I have reverted the edits you made to Aniruddha0505's question.

Please also do not add images to discussions at the Teahouse. If an image is relevant to a discussion here, just link to it. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 20:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit source

What is the difference between 'edit source' and 'edit'? NewMutants (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Stonecutter The title is italic?--NewMutants (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Edit source" appears if you're using VisualEditor, to distinguish between the VE editing interface and the standard code one. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have unchecked the visual editor, 'edit source' is gone.--NewMutants (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason why an italic title is chosen for The Stonecutter is explained in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Italics_and_other_formatting. Technically, it is achieved by an editor slipping the hidden template {{italic title}} into the page's code.

This template is one of the relatively few cases where the source code editor ("edit source") is necessary for altering the formatting of the page. The "Visual Editor" (which you access by clicking "edit") is very good, and is pretty much WYSIWYG which is a great feature. However there will always be some aspects of Wikipedia that can only be accessed by the source code editor.

You can be an A+ Wikipedia editor without ever worrying about the source code editor. It's probably worth pointing out that the Visual Editor (also known as "VE") is relatively new, and some folk who have been here for a long time (like me) have got used to the source editor and occasionally forget the Visual Editor exists.. You may get advice which assumes that you use the source code editor - so if your using VE and you ask a question and get an answer which includes a lot of weird symbols, just politely note that you use VE and you'll get a more appropriate answer.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

LukeSurl, The Stonecutter is stated as a Chinese folk-tale, but the categories added are Japanese.NewMutants (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, NewMutants. WP:SOFIXIT! --ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia page history

My final question is when was wrestling commentator Michael Cole's Wikipedia page created and secondly was Michael Cole's Wikipedia page actually created on that date or are there past revision pages that are not shown to the casual Wikipedia user?Truckmanbeginner (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Truckmanbeginner. You seem to be asking the same questions, about revision deletion and the article history of Michael Cole, as Freshmangrandcaravan/Freshmantruck. I refer you to the answers previously given, and suggest that you stick to using one Wikipedia user account. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that but can you please repost everything you just said about the Michael Cole question underneath my new question and the only reason why i wanted to ask this question again is because i wanted to see if i made any edits on the previous Michael Cole question or has it been the same ever since?Truckmanbeginner (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Just click the link I provided, and you'll see the original discussion. You didn't make any comments subsequent to your original question. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

revision deletion and oversight

Hello again Wikipedia Teahouse can you please provide me some specific examples on how oversight and revision deletion works?Truckmanbeginner (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Truckmanbeginner. I will try to answer both of your related questions. Oversight and Revision Deletion are similar, but Oversight is more stringent. Both remove highly objectionable or illegal content from view by ordinary readers or editors, even from the history of the article. Revision Deletion can be carried out by any administrator, and the removed content can be viewed only by administrators. It is for what I would call moderate but significant infractions: cut and paste copyright violations, garden variety but vile personal attacks and excessive "dirty talk". Oversight is carried out by a more select, pre-qualified group of editors who must be administrators. A hypothetical example subject to Oversight would be a user page on Wikipedia that calls for an editor to be killed in the middle of the night, including their home address, a photo of the intended victim, a pornographic photo of their partner, and details of their home security system. Not even ordinary administrators can see oversighted content once it is removed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

oversight and revision deletion

Hello Wikipedia Teahouse my question is do administrators have the authority to use both oversight and revision deletion or can a Wikipedia user with lots of experience in the Wikipedia field do the same method?Truckmanbeginner (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the answer immediately above, and please refrain from posting two highly related questions, one after the other, before a volunteer has had the chance to answer. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Should have saved as template

Hi there,

this should be a fairly easy one for any experienced editor.

I just made my first substantive contribution, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015–16_Rugby_Pro_D2_season however I should have saved it as a template rather than as a regular page (I think). So I guess that this entry needs deleting and re-saving? How would I go about that?

Thanks in advance. Caveywavey46 (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Caveywavey46. If you take a look at WP:G7, you'll see that one of the possible criteria for speedy deletion is "Author requests deletion". So, in this case, just add the template {{Db-author}} to the article and it will be deleted. Don't forget to make a copy of the content first though! You could start the template before requesting deletion of the article, in fact. When starting the template, do so at Template:2015–16 Rugby Pro D2 season or similar. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Caveywavey46. For future reference, in a situation like this all you needed to do was move the page to the new title in the template namespace. This is especially important if there are other contributors to the page, as moving preserves the page's edit history and is required for copyright attribution. Here it was basically no copyright harm no foul because you were the sole contributor to the prior page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. That was the obvious solution, and the one that I first thought of, but for some reason (early morning brain failure), something told me that it wasn't possible to move something from article to template space. Apologies. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: No need! A good faith post attempting to help. We all collaborate and can't each know it all. Unfortunately the technology is lacking to let me share the amazing coffee (not tea) that is brewing while I write this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Group HugCaveywavey46 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you're done a good job with the template, Caveywavey46. Tables aren't easy, so well done getting to grips with one. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I was a web developer back when that was the coolest thing in the world to be. To be honest I just hacked it all out of another table so it could be full of cruft.Caveywavey46 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

War

Defector331 is making disruptive edits. NewMutants (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Defector331 has been blocked by Bongwarrior. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My edit keeps being removed

I posted this on the talk page of the article, but I'm adding it here too because I hope that it gets solved quicker. I don't know why people keep removing my edit to the page? It's a fact that Scott Wilson was on Face Off as a guest judge and I would like to know why people are removing that information from the page? The filmography section is supposed to be for these kinds of things, so please explain what I'm doing wrong? It would be really helpful if my edit wasn't removed without also telling me why. Thank you to whoever answers this Gamermadness (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gamermadness. Neither of the edits you linked to shows involvement by "Gamermadness". Were you editing logged out? Once you set up an account, you should edit only when logged in. If the facts are as you state (I have no way of knowing), then you should cite a reliable source that says so. It is perfectly acceptable for other editors to remove uncited assertions on sight, even if they are "a fact". We are building an encyclopedia with standards here, which means that every significant assertion should be referenced. This remains true even if many gaming articles are lacking good references. We should be about upgrading the encyclopedia, not adding to its shortcomings. Please read Referencing for beginners for the basics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The first edit linked above reverted (amongst other things) this by Gamermadness and the second one this, so I don't think Gamermadness was editing logged out. I agree, though: citing sources is important here, even if the article as it stands is rather poorly referenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gamermadness, Cullen328, and Cordless Larry:. the IMDB supports the statement that appeared on the TV show Face off although a better source would be wanted to keep this in the article. However, given Wilson's long career and his many roles, perhaps wew should not try to include every appearance of his in the article? This is something to be discussed on Talk:Scott Wilson (actor), I would think. DES ^(talk) 13:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Racially-motivated editing?

Hello Teahouse, I just came across several edits by IP user 2001:8003:620F:1B00:5861:E7E5:6517:7A22 who seems to be systematically removing category tags identifying notable African-American people as African-American. (What's the wiki code for linking to an IP user's contributions, btw?) Of course I can revert their edits, and have already begun doing so, but what procedure should I follow to get them stopped from just making more such edits as fast as I can revert the old ones? This is my first time encountering what seems to be a vandal after more than a few minues' amusement. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't looked at all of their edits, but taking this one as an example, the categorisation that the IP was removing was unsourced. Given that WP:CATEGRS states "As to the inclusion of people in an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability related category, please remember that inclusion must be based on reliable sources", it's not necessarily a bad call to remove the categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to its contributions. Maproom (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, the edit you linked to was just changing the phrasing from "Euro-American" to "White American" and not what I'm talking about (or relevant to WP:CATEGRS in the way you brought it up). In fact I didn't revert that edit; I'm double-checking every edit they made in case there's something constructive or at least not problematic. Are you seriously suggesting that it's perfectly okay for someone to go through removing people like Phyllis Wheatley (the first published African-American female poet) or Walter Francis White (former president of the NAACP) from the category that identifies them as African-Americans? These are not obscure people of uncertain ethnicity.

Maproom, thanks; I was looking for how to do it myself, but I think i can work it out from your answer: [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:620F:1B00:5861:E7E5:6517:7A22|IP user contributions]] should yield IP user contributions. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but they also removed some categories, which is what I was referring to rather than the change of wording from "Euro-American" to "White American". Sorry for the confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: You did actually revert it. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know about you, but I find an example to follow much more helpful that formally correct instructions. Maproom (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that all of the IP's edits are justifiable, but they are not necessarily vandalism. Consider the case of Walter Francis White. Writing about himself, he said, "I am a Negro. My skin is white, my eyes are blue, my hair is blond. The traits of my race are nowhere visible upon me." Only five of his 32 great-great-great grandparents were of African origin, and the rest were white. So his ancestry was less than 16% African. He self identified as "colored" or "Negro" according to the terminology common during his lifetime. But it is not entirely unreasonable for an editor to question whether he should be categorized as "African American", which is terminology that was uncommon if not unknown during his lifetime. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I agree that, if it had been their only edit, Walter Francis White might be argued as a marginal case (though there's not actually a question as to whether he had any recent African ancestry; he was descended from former slaves). However, the IP user in question deleted such categories from over two dozen biography articles, including Melissa Harris-Perry, Solange and Tina Knowles (Beyoncé's sister and mother), Charles Mingus, and Sandman Sims, all well-known Black celebrities about whose African ancestry there is no serious question. Taken as a whole, I would argue that 2001:8003:620f:1b00:5861:e7e5:6517:7a22's edits did constitute vandalism.

Cordless Larry, you're right that I did wind up reverting that whole edit (and I had mis-remembered it as being only the change from Euro-American to White American). I had gone back and forth about leaving the text change, and thought I had decided to leave it alone. I was several edits along by the time I replied here, but I should have double-checked. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, GrammarFascist. We all make mistakes (see mine above). I can see how these edits might be perceived as problematic, especially when the subjects involved are prominent African-Americans, but I wouldn't assume that the edits are racially motivated without more evidence of that. Ideally, what would happen is the addition of sources so that the inclusion of the articles in those categories is compliant with WP:CATEGRS. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

When literally every single edit the user made was removing categories identifying the subjects of articles as African-American (or inappropriately modifying the text of the relevant category page), Cordless Larry, I can't see how even assuming good faith would allow ignoring the obvious conclusion that there was a racial motivation (note that I didn't say racist) to those edits. Also, at least some of the articles in question did already have sources cited for the subjects being Black and/or of African ancestry. But sure, I'll go back through them and add sourcing as needed for the rest. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood, GrammarFascist. Confusingly, this edit actually involved the addition of such a category, so I'm struggling to understand the IP's overall motivations. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I think that the common denominator when the categories are removed is that the person is of mixed racial ancestry. Charles Mingus, for example, was of Chinese, African, white and Native American ancestry. Melissa Harris-Perry frequently mentions having a white parent. The Knowles ancestry is mixed. Sam Cooke, on the other hand, was Black. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, for historical reasons nearly all African-Americans are of mixed ancestry to some degree. Having other ancestry as well doesn't erase their African ancestry. If what the IP user wanted to do was indicate that the people whose articles they edited were of mixed ancestry, they went about it the wrong way. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 17:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the mixed ancestry of most African Americans. I am in complete agreement that the IP went about it the wrong way, but I do not agree that it rises to the level of vandalism, which is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. "Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." This is different. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How do I stop someone deleting content before I can read it ?

This is about Wikipedia Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus . I am trying to read a really interesting article translated from the German Wikipedia Trolley Bus page (which I think might be from this page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberleitungsbus ). But every time I try someone with the name of Anmccaff keeps deleting it as soon as I know it is there. I don't think there is anything wrong with this article (though I haven't been able to see it for long enough to be sure) and there are full citations on the German web site I think and no-one has taken it down from there. What can I do about this ? Is this person allowed to keep doing this ? I un-deleted it so I could see the article but as soon as I tried to read it, it was deleted again. I tried, when I undeleted it, asking if this person could leave it until I had read it, but to no effect. I thought edits were supposed to be for incorrect information, not simply because someone doesn't want the content to be added. Thanks for any suggestions as to how to approach this. I don't want an unpleasant argument with this person, but just want to be able to read the content before they delete it again. Also I would have thought that lots of other people would like to read it too. Anmccaff may be a traditional Trolley enthusiast, and there is lots to be said for traditional trolleys like the San Francisco cable cars. But there are also so many disadvantages to installing a de novo new Trolley system in this modern world where driverless electric buses are now possible and it would make for a more balanced page if the information from the German website were allowed to remain. We are trying to oppose an attempt by our local Council to install a new Trolley system at immense expense and disruption, including land take from our small park, a system which no-one but the Council seems to want and this article may have lots of useful information for us based on the German experience of Trolleys. Other councils here are installing trams or, now, electric buses, London is building new tube lines; ours alone wants juggernaut Trolleys (where most of the passengers will have to stand). Thanks Janet Janwww (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Janwww: and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the situation it appears you're not trying to read content, you're trying to edit war so that your preferred version of the article stays publicly readable. Instead, without adding the text back, start a discussion at Talk:Trolleybus and arrive at a consensus on how to proceed forward. --Jayron32 20:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Janwww, I don't really understand your comment that you want the chance to read the material you're adding. If you're adding it, then you presumably already know what it says? Oh, I see - you're trying to restore an edit made by another user. In any case, the relevant course of action here is set out at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. An editor was bold, adding lots of new material to the article. Another user reverted this, so now is the time to discuss proposed additions to the article on its talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if all you want to do is read that version of the article, you can do so via the article history by clicking on the time/date of the revision you want to see. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Janwww, the San Francisco cable car system is not a trolleybus system. It operates with metal wheels on rails rather than rubber tires on a roadway. The cars are unpowered and there are no overhead electrical wires. The cars are propelled by a moving cable under the street, which is accessed through an open slot in the pavement. The power source is stationary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jayron32, Yes there seems to be an edit war between the person who posted this and someone else. I hadn't realised that people do this ! It seems so wrong for someone to keep deleting a valid post and stopping others seeing it. Thanks for your information as to how to approach this, though it isn't really appropriate for me to take this up as it wasn't my post, I just want to read it. Janet

Hi Cordless Larry, thanks so much for these suggestions and I will certainly do what you suggested to read the article. Best wishes Janet

Janwww, you shouldn't think that you have no place in the discussion just because you weren't the person who added the information to the article. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus, so if you have an opinion about whether the information you describe should be in the article, then you should participate in the discussion on the talk page. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, Sorry I know the San Francisco cable car runs on rails, so it was a bad example but an example of a

traditional mode of transport that I think (most) people like. I think I am partly shocked that someone would want to stop others reading what looks to be a good posting. Best wishes Janet

If you wish to read a previous version of an article, click the History tab, which will provide a list of every version of the article. Click the Date portion of that list and the page as it was at that time will display. You will be able to view and review that version or any other version for as long as you wish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, thanks for adding this Janet Janwww (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist, Sorry I thought I had already replied to you. Thanks for advising me. At least I now know how to view the deleted posting - hopefully the original poster will resolve this but if not I will try so that others can see it too. Best wishes Janet Janwww (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to note that Janwww has been blocked for sockpuppetry at Trolleybus. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing tests

Hi, Article is Fernando Clavijo. 9 Edits done by IP address - 24.252.237.223 Since no significant contribution done by the editor, so should edit of the following type be reverted with edit summary as - "test edits"? Thought of discussing. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peppy Paneer. It seems that the IP editor reverted their own additions, so I don't think there's much to do here. If you compare the versions before and after their edits, there is no difference in the content of the article, so there's not really a test to revert. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Peppy Paneer though there's nothing to revert (but a slight change in spacing), since the intermediate edits seemed to be tests, and they were self-reverted, you might place on the IP's talk page {{subst:Uw-selfrevert|Fernando Clavijo}}--~~~~ Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there is not any difference in the content of the article. In the history, it just looked like lot of edits. That's why I put it here. Anyways Thank you @Cordless Larry: yes "there's not really a test to revert".

And @Fuhghettaboutit:,yes I was looking for something like this - {{subst:Uw-selfrevert|xyz}} which could be placed on edior's talk page. I come to these cases very often while Recent changes patrolling. Thank you.

PS - Could a Dummy edit be made in these cases to specify the concern of self reverted test edits, which will show in history of the page ? Just another vague thought :P... Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"In the history, it just looked like lot of edits". Yes, but reverting won't remove them from the edit history - it'll just add another edit to that history. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: haha :) ... very true...I get it. By the way the whole point of mine for Dummy edit was to make it look in the page history that all the below edits were Test Edits. Anyways, enjoy Brownie...Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My article was rejected despite the reviewer's comment that it "seems" notable(?)

My Draft:Chet Bowers article was rejected by a reviewer who left a comment saying it "actually seems notable" but then said I need better sources. Yet, my sources included a Best selling author and physicist, educators and researchers within the genre--all third party resources as required by Wikipedia. The reviewer specifically mentioned that I should include sources from news media, but a lack of mainstream media attention should not be the sole criteria in deciding notability, should it?C S Chaffee (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

For my tuppeny worth, C S Chaffee - the references are good, but it is not clear to me that the article is based on them. It reads to me more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article. Take the first section after the lead: this starts and ends with sourced appreciations of Bowers, which is fine, though disproporitionate; but the meat of the paragraph is unsourced. That is what needs to be cited to an independent published source, and if it cannot be, then it should not be in the article.

And similarly throughout: you have consistently quoted and cited evaluations of Bowers, which do indeed belong in the article, though not at nearly so great length as you have them. But what should be the core of the article is his ideas, and preferably something about his life as well, and that is all, or mostly unsourced.

I also wonder if the literature is as uniformly approving as it appears, or whether there is also criticism of him which ought also to appear in an encyclopaedic article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:ColinFine, thank you for your response. So what you seem to be suggesting is that no unsourced text that describes or defines the subject should be included in an article. Which seems however to be almost universally ignored throughout Wikipedia. I have no problem with that if that is indeed the operating rule. I can simply list a number of references that comment on the subject of the article. But that doesn't solve the issue of a random reviewer deciding that they don't view my resources as worthy unless I include a news media account.C S Chaffee (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, C S Chaffee. Let's take a look at the citations currently in the draft. Three of the ten are to works by Bowers, the subject. Perfectly appropriate, but these do not help establish notability. A couple seem to be from works by activists with point-s-of-view likely to be strongly favorable to Bowers. Again, perfectly appropriate to include, but it makes it harder to judge what weight their discussion of him should have. None of the sources are online, which of course they don't need to be. But it does make it a bit harder to see how extensive the discussion of Bowers is. A good press or media source could help review various points of view on Bowers and his work, and make it easier to put him in context, and to moire clearly establish his notability. Such a source is not required, but it would surely be helpful.

By the way, a couple of minor points of formatting. Please list ISBNs with just "ISBN" not "ISBN-10" or "ISBN-13". This will activate an automatic link to our Book Sources page where the reader can search for copies in libraries and online book sources. Please put book titles in italics. Please give book titles in full, not cut off with an ellipsis. Please put article titles in "quotes". Thank you. I hope this response is of some value. DES ^(talk) 18:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DES, for your attention and certainly your time looking over my Draft article. I will gladly make the changes you suggest regarding the ISBN, etc. However, I am still somewhat discouraged by the subjective nature of the various comments I am getting regarding sources and text. I know that this is to be expected within any human venture, no matter how well meaning, but nothing you mentioned seems to warrant a rejection of the article. Even the original reviewer that rejected it commented that the subject "seemed" notable, then went on to take issue with references and sources that others, like yourself, qualify as acceptable, fine, or appropriate. I will add more references and try to make the text more objective, then resubmit, but nothing I have heard so far keeps me from feeling like I am chasing a carrot that someone else has tied to the end of a stick.C S Chaffee (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a second half of that sentence that you keep quoting: "but it still needs better sources such as news and magazine sources (third-party sources in general)".

You can consider it your job to provide those " news and magazine sources (third-party sources in general)" which will replace the "seems" impression with rock solid evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's my job to provide news and magazine sources? That was the point of my original question. The sources I provided have been described as fine, adequate, or appropriate by others. Your response to my asking for help on my user Talk page was inappropriate and unhelpful-- suggesting my Draft was a pile of garbage--just as your comment here has been. There is nothing that I have encountered in Wikipedia tutorials or guidelines that suggest that news and magazine sources must be included in order to establish notability.C S Chaffee (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The test is that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Notability doesn't require news or magazine sources, though they are certainly forms of independent coverage. Other third-party sources would be acceptable though, including books, scholarly journal articles, etc. Judging by DES's review of your sources, the main issue here is independence from the subject rather than the format of the sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

C S Chaffee, since you are the one proposing the draft for inclusion it is your responsibility (with as much help as you can find) to provide sufficient sources to clearly establish notability. I said above that various sources were "appropriate" and I stand by that. What i didn't say was that the overall collection of sources was sufficient to establish notability. As per WP:BURDEN the editor adding or proposing to add content is always responsible for providing any needed sources, although others may and generally do help with this. It is true that "notability" as Wikipedia uses the term is a soemwhat subjective concept. It can't really help but be so. The general notability guideline says in part: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Just homw much coverage is needed to be "significant" and how much is "more than a trivial mention" in any one source are judgement calls. So is the question of what constitutes a "reliable source". There is no practical way to spell these out by rigid, objective criteria.

You also need to be aware of the history of the draft namespace and the Articles for Creation process. At one point all articles were created directly in the main article space. This led to many possibly valid topics being deleted quickly, before their creators could finish providing proper writing and sources. It also led to articles which had been given "time to mature" remaining in an improperly unfinished sate for long periods, even for years. To help deal with these issues, AfC was created, to allow new users a place to start articles without fear of routine quick deletion where they could keep improving articles until they were sufficiently developed and supported by sources to be moved to the main article space (mainspace). Later the Draft space was created and is now used for all new AfC drafts. Because of this history, AfC reviewers are supposed to be a bit overstrict. That is, an article which might or might not be deleted at a deletion discussion had it been created directly in mainspace should not be passed, only a draft which is pretty much certain not to be so deleted should be approved. The idea is to minimize the change of an article being approved by an AfC reviewer one day, and nominated for deletion and deleted on the next, which frustrates all involved. In this particular case I'm not sure if I would have made the same decision as the reviewer, but it is surely easier to search for and add some news sources -- in this case I would be astonished if they were not available -- than to argue whether they are strictly required. They would surely help the article, required or not. DES ^(talk) 18:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

C S Chaffee, I made some edits to add additional sources to the draft. If you carry out the suggestions above, in addition to these, it might eb ready to go. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Posting an article

What if I repost the article while disclosing conflict of interest. This is for the CEO of a local pizza chain. Rotelli Corporate (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarnel rotellicorp (talk • contribs)

Hi, Yarnel Rotellicorp. You are discouraged from working on articles where you have a conflict of interest, but not forbidden. If you understand our policies on reliable sources, on neutral point of view and on original research, you may have a chance of success. I strongly recommend that when you think it is ready, you submit your draft for review by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top.

In the meantime, some suggestions about how to go about it:

1. Assemble your sources. Ignore anything published by the the CEO or the company, or anybody associated with them. Ignore any wikis, blogs, or social media. Ignore anything that is based on an interview with the CEO or a press release from the company. Ignore anything that has less than three or four sentences about him. See if you have anything left.
2. If you have, he is notable, and you can try writing an article about him.
3. Forget absolutely everything you know about him, and write an article strictly from the sources you have (in your own words: you must not infringe their copyright). If you know something about him but you cannot find a source, don't put it in. Be especially careful of putting in any kind of judgment, evaluation, comparison, or conclusion, unless one of the sources explicitly makes that judgment, evaluation, comparison or conclusion. Cite the source of every single claim you write.
4. Make sure you don't put in any marketing speak (eg "solutions", "innovation", "leverage") - again, unless you cite an independent source which uses the words.
5. If there are gaps in factual information (such as dates and places), you may fill them in from non-independent publshed sources, such as the company's website - still cited.

If you follow these suggestions, you have a good chance of getting an article accepted. --ColinFine (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

How to change a large number of redirects at once

I'd like to redirect 39 redirects from Doug#Characters to the main article List of Doug characters. How would I go about this quickly? Banak (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Banak. I guess you mean that you want to change redirects like Patti Mayonnaise to target List of Doug characters instead of Doug. Just do it manually one at a time. If you don't know how to edit a redirect then see Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article. If you have AutoWikiBrowser and experience using it then you can maybe do it a little faster but installing and learning it will take much longer. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks To All Editors To Helping Me in My First Article

Dear All, First of all, I would like to thank you all to guide and helped me in to improve my first article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shriram_Automall_India_Ltd. in a good way. I'll do my best to improve it further with all your support. Also, I would like to know what is the best way to make it improve further and what else can be added in this article? Thanks once again.Rwadhaawa (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Rwadhaawa, I moved the article to Shriram Automall India, as we don't generally include "Ltd", "Inc" or other such corporate designators in article titles (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)). If this article is to stay as a standalone article, more information on how the bidding process works would be good, if it can be cited to a reliable source. So would information on how the public has reacted to the company, if that can be sourced. The proposed merge might be a good idea, in which case such additional info might or might fit into the merged article. DES ^(talk) 12:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Flowing text around a table to the left of a paragraph

Hello Teahouse, I've just been editing Waterbury, Connecticut, and noticed that the text butts right up against the "Mayor | Town Clerk | City Sheriff | City Clerk" table in the Government section, with no buffer space like Wikipedia normally has around images and tables. Is there a way to fix this, or should I just move the table to the right, above the "Aldermen" table? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 08:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi GrammarFascist. I have added the same margin as the table to the right.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter! I see now how simple that was; I find tables daunting and had just presumed it would be more complicated than it was. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My signature

Can you pls tell me why is my signature displayed like this <span style="font-size:1.0em; font-family:Cyrillic,serif;"><font colour = silver > Aryan </font> hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan</span> (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Suspect you haven't ticked the box in the signature section at Special:Preferences which says, "Treat the above as wiki-markup". Yunshui ^雲_水 07:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks {yo| Yunshui}} -<span style="font-size:1.0em; font-family:Cyrillic,serif;"><font colour = silver > Aryan </font> hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan</span> (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Guess it's not that - but I've just notices that you're using the HTML codes for your punctuation signs - replace them with the actual keyboard characters in the wiki-code and you should find it works: i.e. type <span style="font-size:1.0em; font-family:Cyrillic,serif;"><font colour = silver > Aryan </font> hindustan (talk) ,Aryan from Hindustan</span>. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the main problem. The rest of the code depends on what you are trying to do. I cannot guess it but assuming you don't want to write two variations of the username, here is maybe a start: [[User:Aryan hindustan|<span style="font-size:1.0em; font-family:Cyrillic,serif;"><span style="color:silver;">Aryan</span> from Hindustan</span>]] ([[User talk:Aryan hindustan|talk]]). It produces: Aryan from Hindustan (talk). Silver on white background will be hard to read for many users. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance and color. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Yunshui: , how my new signature is -- Aryan from Hindustan (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, you'll need to change it, then - at that size it's disallowed under the signature guidelines. Needs to be smaller, please. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please put it back down to normal size, like this User:Aryan from Hindustan. I know the desire to have a unique sig; I spent several hours playing around with mine to change my talk link, and intend to change the color someday, but at that size it's disruptive. For me viewing on a mobile device, it takes up nearly half the page. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Questions

How to use the single reference more than once? Article talk pages have notice at the top: This is a part of Wikiproject food and drink, This is a part of Wikiproject Japan. How are they added? NewMutants (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi NewMutants, and welcome to the Teahouse. You can use a reference multiple times by giving it a name. There are instructions in this guide to referencing. Here's an example: on the first instance, use <ref name="Example">Details of reference...</ref>; on subsequent uses, just use <ref name="Example"/> to cite the same reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the WikiProject details, each WikiProject has a template for placement on article talk pages. These follow the format {{WikiProject Food and drink}}. You can usually find more details of this on the project's page, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink, and there is often an abbreviated version of the template text, such as {{WPFOOD}}. Just add that text to the article talk page and the template will appear. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Article submission declined, due to insertion of " Marathi " in parts.

Hi ! ,Saumiguel (talk) here.I am creating an article for my Grandfather, Late Mr. Michael Mathew Colaco- a recipient of " Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice " award. I created the info box in English and entered some of the main contents viz. person's intro; marriage; death; external links in English. As for the Biography, I entered the content in " Marathi " ( Indian language ), because my grandfather wrote his Biography in his own words, in his local language. I wanted to keep his personal touch, here- I didn't want to translate that in English, as it would lose the flavor- because of my inexperience in translation. I understand, that it is precisely because of this ( Marathi insertion ) that the article was not approved. How do I go about this ? If the English Wikipedia requires English translation, about my grandfather's Biography, I'll do that to the best of my ability. But, I also wanted my grandfather's original text , side by side on the same page.So that, native English speakers as well as people from India could read the information on the same page.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saumiguel/sandbox ] I hope I have put my question in clear words.Saumiguel (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Saumiguel. If you want to write an encyclopedia article mostly in the Marathi language, then Marathi Wikipedia is the place to do that. This is the English Wikipedia, and all acceptable articles here are written in English. Occasionally, we will include a brief passage from another language in an article, but that passage must also be translated accurately into English. Another problem is that you say the the Marathi text was written by your grandfather. Accordingly, that text is a copyright violation because we have no evidence that your grandfather consented to its use in Wikipedia in any language. If your grandfather was notable, then you must write your draft article in English, in your own words, summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about him. You can't just translate or paraphrase his words, because Wikipedia does not publish autobiographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Cordless Larry: Thanks for your reply.

I agree with Wikipedia guidelines- that article should be written in English and if passage from other language is used - it's accurate translation must be given.

As for the copyright violations of my grandfathers consent: If Grandfather was alive, he would certainly give me his consent. Regarding this, I have my grandfather's family' consent. If I were violating his rights, he( grandfather ) wouldn't have given his Biography to all the family members, to freely use it.

Cullen328

— said : " If your grandfather was notable, then you must write your draft article in English, in your own words, summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about him. "

About " Notability " and " verifiability " I read the guidelines. But, I don't seem to understand it in this case.

The verifiable sources are the people of my town,and the Religious priests and Nuns and Bishop with whom he worked. But could that be counted ?

Next, I have the certificate of Papal Blessings with my grandfathers name written on it. Further, I have the certificate of honor given by Pope paul VI viz. " Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice. "

Could this be counted as reliable source ?

Then , there are websites created by my town folks, where they have acknowledged My grandfather, among the "icons of the town"- for their notable deeds.

Further, there is an article published by East Indian Community, which is to my grandfather's credit : http://www.east-indians.com/beiaeibassein.html

This is all I have , to begin with. Please suggest me any verifiable source , you'll need in particular reference to this case.

Could this be counted for reliability ? Saumiguel (talk)Saumiguel 04:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Saumiguel. Just to highlight that, as Cullen328 has mentioned, as well as dealing with the language issue, you need to demonstrate that the subject of the article is notable. Put succinctly, articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Also note that Facebook is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles as pretty much everything on there is user generated. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Saumiguel. Your assumption that your grandfather would consent to his writing being added to an online encyclopedia he never heard of is very kind on your part but of no value here on Wikipedia. We can only pay attention to what is verifiable in writing. If his heirs want his writings to be freely shared, then they can release them, in writing, under an acceptable Creative Commons license. Otherwise, we can only quote a few sentences of his writings, citing a published source. If they are unpublished, we cannot use them at all. Unpublished autobiographical writings do not establish notability, and the vast majority of autobiographical writing is not suitable for an encyclopedia.

The memories of the priests and nuns and bishops are of no value on Wikipedia, unless they have been published in a reliable source. If unpublished, we call them original research and we do not allow that kind of material on Wikipedia. Readers have no way to verify the accuracy of such unpublished memories.

The Papal certificates are primary sources and can be mentioned on Wikipedia only if reliable published secondary sources have discussed them.

As for websites, most are not acceptable for use as references on Wikipedia, but a few are. We are looking for websites with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. In general, these are websites built on the model of professional journalism, comparable to the best of 20th century newspapers and magazines.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes what has been published previously by reliable sources about various topics. Only if your grandfather has already received significant coverage in such sources should Wikipedia have an article about him. Please be aware that there are many other websites that would be happy to have an article about your grandfather. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

How to Deal With a Notability Warning Tag

The article I am currently editting has had a Warning Tag added thus: {{notability|date=September 2015}}

I believe I have now added sufficient information to establish notability. What is the procedure for having the tag removed? (I suspect that removing it myself isn't the correct course of action!) PS: I asked this question earlier, and didn't see it appear. I don't know whether that was due to a network outage, or a delay in approval. Apologies for any duplication. Arfisk (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Arfisk:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for asking the question. In theory, any editor (including you) can remove the notability tag once they "are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues" (quote from Template:Notability#Removing_this_tag). However, if you are the author then it is better to ask for a second opinion because it is so difficult to be objective about one's own work. In this case, I assume the article is Jamais Cascio, and I am not sure that there is enough yet. The award and coverage by Foreign Policy Magazine is a good start, but that is about the only independent coverage. His bio on Worldchanging is hardly independent, since he founded that company. Links to the papers he wrote don't contribute to notability: that is a matter of what other reputable sources say about him, not what he has to say himself. Similarly, belonging to various organizations is not the same as other people writing about him. You're on the right path, but personally I don't think you're quite there yet. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for the feedback @Gronk Oz:. Yes, that is the page I'm editting (it's been around since 2005, but I suppose it's a case of improving editting standards catching up with a stationary target). I think I'll need at least one other article from a notable source about the man himself? Arfisk (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arfisk:, I would feel more comfortable with that (for whatever my personal opinion is worth). --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

article

article about how to become an ideal personAKASH S KUMAR 11 (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

To what article do you refer, AKASH S KUMAR 11? And please don't add the same question or comment three times. DES ^(talk) 00:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a guidebook or instruction manual. Even without WP:NOTHOWTO, the diversity of religions and philosophies in the world demonstrates that humanity cannot agree on how to be an ideal person. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Although complete, detailed agreement is not possible, Ian.thomson, the Golden Rule enjoys remarkably broad support among cultures, religions and ethical teachers worldwide. That is a good basis for agreement among diverse people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Notable people inclusion

In article about a city or town, in the "Notable people" or "Famous residents" section should state representatives be included? Technically they have a wiki page, but since they are local representatives they are clearly going to be from the city itself or the surrounding area. Should they be included in the section? Thanks. WolverineOfTheCascades (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WolverineOfTheCascades. The answer is maybe. If there is referenced content in the representative's bio stating he was born in, currently resides in or resided for a significant time in the community in question, then you include him. If you can add references showing any of the above to his entry in the notable list, that works too. If his only connection is representing them in the legislature, then no you don't include him. Thanks for stopping by. John from Idegon (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I Believe I'm Wiki-worthy and Know I can't submit for Myself

I've searched for the best place to ask and there may be a better one but I feel safest with "friendly" at this point. I've seen other artists I've shown with have their own page, have had a tremendous about of publicity with "Free Katie", credits in Hollywood, and a solid run as a visual artist with mentions in LA Times, Huffington Post, New York Times, etc. I would really like to have a page but know I can't write my own. I tried to figure out the best way to submit my name for inclusion but even there I feared I was doing it wrong. I have some links, info, and even hard copies of stories written about me but could really use a pro to help me with a no conflict of interest article and where I best fit. My process, work, and notoriety bridge the gap between visual fine art and entertainment.

In this instance, I think a stranger would be best even though I have plenty of friends and fans that are skilled in wikipedia norms. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this you? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes that is my web page. I'm not even sure I'm responding correctly. Please let me know if this isn't correct.SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I was also known as Sheila McLaughlin and credited as Co-Producer on the first season of Project Greenlight. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. Can you provide links for those references in papers etc? I would do it myself but it's 20:00 and the wine is getting cold. Your work looks great, though being 'Good Art' is insufficient for an article; if this were the 1880s, Van Gogh wouldn't have his own article! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, SheilaCameronArtist. It's great that you understand why you or someone connected to you shouldn't write the article about you. Helping out notable people and organizations that don't yet have Wikipedia articles is actually one of my hobbies around here, but I'm a little backed up at the moment. It would probably be 3–5 days before I would be able to start on your article. Alternately, you can formally request an article about yourself, but that would probably take even longer. Are there any print sources you have access to that you feel strongly should be used as references for your article that are not available online? —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Sheila, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for asking, rather than going ahead and trying to create an article: as I think you've discovered, autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.

One point I'd like to make, that might sound picky, but I think is important to understand what is going on here: nobody in the universe "has their own page" on Wikipedia: Wikipedia has articles about people, but those people do not own the articles, and have no control over their contents (they can, of course, make suggestions). If we end up with an article about you, you will not be able to get things put in or removed from the article, except by consensus in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, one of which is "No promotion of any kind".

If you have indeed got stories written about you - written independently of you, not from an interview or a press release - then you are in a strong position for enrolling somebody to write an article about you. It doesn't matter whether they are on line or not (though of course they're easier to work with if they are online) as long as they have been published in reliable places. This is a big deal, because a Wikipedia article should be based nearly 100% on what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject.

The recommended method of requesting an article is to post your request - with references to sources independent of you - at WP:Requested articles. However, there is a long backlog there. Another possibility might be to post the request at WikiProject Women artists, as you are more likely to find somebody interested among those who watch that page. --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Completely understand ColinFine (talk). Thank you for the distinction and the time to respond. Please know, I completely understand even if my language says otherwise. I have the utmost respect for wikipedia and what it does. I'm not even sure I'm responding or asking correctly! I have had many outside outlets write about and interview me with no press release. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to add the links as requested. I don't think I'm doing it correctly. Apologies. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

SheilaCameronArtist, you can just paste the URLs here, one per line, and that should work. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to create an article but I'm struggling to find any reliable sources independent of you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have had articles written about me, mostly in 2005 but there aren't links. I have also done television and radio interviews interviews in the US, UK, Germany. NPR was a good one. Not sure how to credit all of that. I'm having a hard time with this format of communication. Apologies again. Thanks. SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, again, interviews are not preferred as sources for Wikipedia articles (they are considered too close to the subject, like press releases) so i wouldn't worry about those. If you have had profiles about you in print or broadcast media that were separate from interviews — that is, the source might have done an interview, but also did an article or segment about you separate from the interview — that would be very useful for a Wikipedia article about you. Also, it would be better if you didn't include an extra line break at the ends of your comments here; doing so is making your signature break onto new lines and making it a little harder to follow who is talking where. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can give us the bibliographic information about those articles (publication, title, date, author) then it's quite likely that somebody can track them down, SheilaCameronArtist. But as I said, interviews with you, while they can be cited for uncontroversial factual information, do not contribute to notability in the Wikipedia sense. --ColinFine (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Katie may be a relevant consideration as well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure what articles or citations would be most helpful but you've given me a place to start. I have very lamely tried to post links. I will dig up the authors, dates. As far as Free Katie goes, Iggy Pop mentioned it in an interview with Terry Gross, it has been in novels where characters wear Free Katie t-shirts and I was mentioned in the Tom Cruise Biography by Andrew Morton, Would those dates and authors be helpful?

Also I was in this group show that was mentioned in many press outlets but I have no idea if that would be considered promotion? LA times had it pick of the week etc. Here is a quote from Rafael Reyes entry who was also in that show with me "He has since shown in Los Angeles [9] at Coagula Curatorial with John Fleck (actor) and John Roecker as part of successful "Two Johns and a Whore" group show.[10]" SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"To hell and back: The tale of an artist" by Brett Bentley June 13, 2013 The Union - a Northern CA Newspaper. There is a live link but I'm having trouble posting it.

Cover of 2012 Style Magazine, Northern California magazine with artist bio inside.

Sharing schadenfreude, from Katie Holmes to The Star Wars Kid By Alana Semuels Pittsburgh Post-Gazette August 5, 2005 12:00 AM

Artist, blogger and mom finds voice, opportunity to share it in Nevada Count By Tom Kellar The Union March 25, 2012

Art in LA: Recommendations for May 2015 for my show Women Written by Anise Stevens

THE Wallbreakers

 / JULY 16, 2012  BY JAMES

Sheila Cameron: Watching The Paint Dry

'Free Winona' to 'Talentless,' Celebs Let T-Shirts Do the Talking By BUCK WOLF ABC News Go Aug. 23, 2005 SheilaCameronArtist (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

Hi, I placed a "neutrality" tag on The Viral Fever and wanted to post the reason for the same on its talk page. But the talk page of the article The Viral Fever is redirecting to the talk page of Gulshan Lal Tandon. I doubt if should use speedy "Redirects G8". I have come across this for the first time. So, thought of discussing first. Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job finding this! It looks like it was a mistake by the person who created the page, so I've turned it into a normal talk page and added a relevant WikiProject tag. In future you could do this yourself by clicking the link in the "Redirected from..." subheading when redirected from a page, that will take you to it without redirecting you and you can edit it as required. Sam Walton (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Yes, its correct now. And Thank you for telling the way to correct it in the future. Cheers Peppy Paneer (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Codes

Do codes work on wikipedia? Just asking

(￣ε￣) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassbuster111 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bassbuster111. Can you please explain what you are referring to by "codes"? There are many different types of things on Wikipedia and off that that word could refer to. By the way, on discussion pages like this one (but never in articles) please sign your posts—just as you'll see me doing through a signature at the end of this post to you. This is done automatically by the software when you place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post and then save. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

By codes, Im referring to codes such as " on YouTube",Codes that include { or [ on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassbuster111 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, does this help? I'm still not quite sure what you're asking, Bassbuster111. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry, Bassbuster111: I'm afraid I'm still quite unsure what you're asking Bassbuster. I don't understand the connection you're drawing between codes that might be used on a site like YouTube and those on Wikipedia. We have wiki markup that is used in the editing interface to do a host of different things, and brackets and curly braces are common "codes" of that language. There's also a whole behind the scenes community of programmers who create various features in various computer programming languages like JavaScript, PHP, Lua ands Python, and MySQL for the database I think. (I am talking way over my head of course. I am the merest dabbler at best.) I believe YouTube is written in Python and bots here are programmed in it AFAIK. So since according to a search I just tried, python does use curly braces ("to define a dictionary"), to that extent, maybe they both use the same "codes". Other than that thinnest of connections I'm lost.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Task force and Workgroup?

Greetings, I have been doing article assessments on a wikiproject, with quite a few Biography articles. Today, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces#Task_forces_in_action I see that it mentions 8 different wikiprojects, some with Task forces, some with Workgroups.

For example WikiProject Biography (14 workgroups). When I look at Template:WikiProject Biography, it shows a mix of related WP as well as only 5 work groups.

So now I'm confused and wondering if another more experienced editor could point me to an article that explains the difference, or are they the same? Before asking here, I did search several archives of previous questions without any luck. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JoeHebda. Given the fact that WP:Work group redirects to the link about task forces, I think that you can consider the two terms to be synonyms and proceed accordingly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk page

Hi, Is User talk:MuanMuneer ok to have ? Thanks Peppy Paneer (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, Peppy Paneer and I have tagged it for deletion as a test page. DES ^(talk) 15:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Got it. Thank you Peppy Paneer (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@DESiegel: WP:G2 states G2 criterion doesn't apply to userpages. Don't get me wrong, I entirely agree with you that it's a test page. However, I think we should simply blank/redirect the page per WP:USERTALKBLOG. -- Chamith (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ChamithN, How were you able to blank a User page without leaving a Page History? Checkingfax (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax, because although ChamithN was entirely correct and I shouldn't have tagged that for G2, an admin deleted it before I saw this message, so the page history is only visible to admins. Not that it contains anything of significant interest in this case. DES ^(talk) 22:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks

Great Thanks.

Hello, Editors,

It was really good to hear from you, and I would like to say, that your advises have been very helpful.

Following to suggestion of Wikipedian Cordless Larry to keep discussions, started in Teahouse, in the same place, not on the personal User page, I’m sending to Teahouse the message, which I previously sent to the talk page of the Wikipedian DESiegel, who friendly welcomed me to Wikipedia and helped to correct in the right way my plan to write about Ancient Corinth. In this message I explained to DESiegel (DES) what happened, when I sent my gratitude, which intended to him, on Teahouse. Here it is possible to read this message:

Hello, DESiegel,

I do not know how it happened, but I wrote UTC, instead of your initials DES! It’s been a day without even smallest break from the hustle and bustle, and I'm sure it was not the only one my blunder during that day, and I'm sure you know how it is, when you found yourself in the middle of ten urgent matters and they all are "first on the list". So, I think, you will understand me. Of course, my gratitude was addressed to you, as your warm welcome and clear explanation was a really good thing; and when (right now) I “went” to the Teahouse and noticed my silly mistake, I just said: “Oh, God.”

I'll be always glad to hear from you and to read your words of approval or criticism on my future article (s), as I know, that it always will be unbiased, friendly and intelligent conclusion.

Best Regards, Chris.

P.S. Should I sent this message to Teahouse to correct my blunder? Here I'm displaying my previous message again, but now written by the right way:

I thank all, who responded to my letter Reliable Sources. To DES I would like to say special Thanks for detailed, clear explanation of how to proceed on the article Ancient Corinth. Yes, I can add some details to existing article, using citations from Elisavet Spathari's book, and also upload several photos, which I made on the archaeological site. Regarding the advice, kindly given me by DES, to write the article about Elisavet Spathari, I have to admit, that I thought about it myself, but I (as well) could not find even a short article, written about her. Of course, her books are the complete proof, that she is an expert in this field, but there is no information about the author even in her book 'Corinth-Mycenae', which I bought in Corinth. Anyway, for the start, I'd like to look at the new articles, proposed by other editors for discussion, to see how these articles looks like in its “unpolished” form, but the new problem suddenly occurred: I simply can’t to find the tool to display them. Can someone tell me how to find a list of the most recent articles for editing?

Regards, Chris.Chris Oxford (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Chris. I did see your previous msg, but it didn't seem to require a response. There is no good single place to see a list of new articles in need of editing. Special:NewPages shows newly created pages, including articles, but it is large and somewhat daunting. Various Wiki projects maintain lists of articles, but do not particularly single out new articles, that I know of. The Community portal includes lists of articles tagged as having various issues and in need of work. Fuller lists of these can be found by starting at Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month. That currently list 165 different categories, each with many sub-categories or articles. I hope that these various places to look will satisfy your needs. DES ^(talk) 13:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a tip about using discussion pages, Chris Oxford: there's no need to start a new section such as this one each time you post. Instead, it's best to locate the previous discussion you started, and respond there. That keeps all of the discussion on a single topic together. To do this, just scroll down until you find your original post, and then hit "edit" next to the section heading. Replies generally go at the bottom of a section. The only time you won't be able to do this is if the discussion is old and has been archived, but otherwise there's no need to start a new section to post a follow-up. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: If you do add to a previous discussion as above, it may be seen by previous participants but you will assure this if you "ping" them when adding material there (just as I've pinged you in this post to draw your attention). For example {{ping|UserName|UserName|UserName}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot automatically creates lists of new articles by topic (and by maintenance issue). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

AlexNewArtBot is now blocked and the tasks are undertaken by InceptionBot. Nthep (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Is "Gun show loophole" the best title for an article about the gun show loophole?

I've posted this at NPOVN as well [4]. The few comments we have received (on the article's talk page [5]) have been been in favor of keeping the title, but another editor that insists on tagging the article (POV issue) seems to dismiss their impartial views. They also keep insisting that the article should be called "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" instead, which doesn't make sense to me. We are also in the middle of a GA status review, and the timing of this "issue" seems a little bit too coincidental. I sure could use some tea. Darknipples (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Darknipples. A tentative suggestion. Though it could lead to drama in the short term, to avoid more drama in the long term you could start a formal requested move discussion, seeking to put the question to bed with consensus. Okay, so there's already been such a discussion, recently, as well as a request for comment on the same issue. I think, then, part of the problem lies in continuing to bite on the issue when people attempt to flog that dead horse, already settled by consensus. If they're just repeating past discussion, don't rehash it with them and get drawn down the rabbit hole. You might say something to that exact effect: "This has already been discussed at great length, including at a requested move, a request for comment, as well as at __(discussion link)__ and __(discussion link)__. Consensus has been that the current title is proper. Continuously raising the same issue again is not helpful and will not change the consensus already in place – unless you have something truly new to bring to the discussion." etc. You might even refer them to WP:STICK. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: Also, you might add {{Round in circles}} coupled with a FAQ subpage shown through ({{FAQ}}) to the top of the talk page, gathering together and linking all the previous discussions and results and any appropriate summary. Please see Talk:Sega Genesis for an example where the page title was specifically an issue and addressed in this manner.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If the term has widespread usage, which apparently it does, then titling the article by the term would not be in violation of WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all so much for the tea. I sincerely appreciate it. Darknipples (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Short article names. Darknipples, create a REDIRECT# with the longer name to the shorter article name and put this: {{R from longer name}} on the 3rd line of the Redirect. Checkingfax (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Assistance in review/ Publishing

Hi Tea house,

Thanks for the review and valuable comments on my article. I have added support references, after viewing the help pages. please help by reviewing- is this enough for resubmissionSriram.19 (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sriram.19. I'm afraid not, mostly because you have not yet understood how referencing works in Wikipedia. Every single fact in the article should be individually cited to a reference - you place the citation immediately after the sentence, between <ref> and </ref>, and the Wiki software will handle numbering them and listing them together in the references section.

As to the actual references you have included,judging from the URLs, some of them may well be suitable for establishing notability, but some are certainly not: Wikipedia hardly ever accepts references from blogs, and citations to the subject's own website or other writings are not independent, so can only be used in very limited ways. I have not looked at the sources you cited, so I may be wrong about some of them being acceptable: it requires that the sources contain substantial material about the subject, written by somebody unconnected with them, so if they are all just mentions in passing, or are derived from press releases from Ananthoo they will not help for notability. It is much easier to evaluate references if you provide proper bibliographic information in the citation (title, author, date etc) rather than just a URL. The article referencing for beginners will help with this, as well as with the primary problem I mentioned above.

The other problem is that much of the text reads like a magazine article, not like an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia requires that the text be neutral in tone, and almost 100% based on what people unconnected with the subject have written about them. Just to take a few examples from the first few paragraphs: "crusader" is an emotive word (and, incidentally, one that some find offensive because of its historical associations) - "campaigner" or "advocate" would be better - but the claim should not be there at all unless a source with no connection to Ananthoo has so described him. "He prefers" is not encyclopaedic in tone. "Back in 2006" is too chatty for an encyclopaedia - just say "In 2006". "Realized organic farming to be the safest way" is making a factual claim in Wikipedia's voice - this is completely unacceptable. It is fine to say that he "came to believe that organic farming was the safest approach" - provided there is a cited reliable source to back up that he did indeed come to believe that - but the article must not say, or even imply, that his realisation is the objective truth. Similarly, the section "Power of Organic Farming" is utterly unacceptable. It might be appropriate to have a section listing some of the advantages that he argues organic farming has, cited to reliable published sources - but only if some independent sources have written about his arguments. (As long as independent sources are cited to establish that his thoughts on the subject are notable, then this is a case where the article could cite his own writings for the details of those thoughts).

(By the way, it would help if you would include a link to your draft in your question: User:Sriram.19/sandbox).

Please don't be put off by my criticisms. It's not easy writing a Wikipedia article from scratch, and you're going about it the right way, learning a little, trying to improve it, and asking for feedback. --ColinFine (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

How do i place an image in a new page?

If i wanted to put an image of say an album art for a page about it, how do i do it? Stryperfan (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Stryperfan. A well written article about a notable album will include critical commentary about that album. In that case, our Policy on the use of non-free images #1 allows use of a low resolution version of the cover art. The image should be uploaded here on English Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) for use only in that one article about that album. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

How do i upload it? Stryperfan (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

There is an Upload file link on the left sidebar, under the heading 'Tools'. That will give you a mask to fill in.-- Elmidae (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

need help on getting my article verified

Resolved

could you please help me get my article verified please? i feel really lost when it comes to this wikipedia stuff. please help me. the article name "A1kellz" 65.75.108.87 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

IP's request for help was in regards to Draft:A1kellz. He contacted me on my talk page, and I answered him there. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The general principle is that all articles ought to have references to significant coverage of the topic in independent, reliable sources showing that the topic is notable. For recent biographies of living people, this is mandatory by policy, and no draft lacking references can be approved. The current draft lacks references, so must be declined. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

HELLO have you submitted your article as draft to article for creation project. sorry your article need to be substential enough too, or else wouldnt get verified.John roger1 (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

why my content: page/subpage was edited and deleted

Hi everybody can anyone please help me to fix the problem. Actually some Anonymous user has edited all of my pages/sub pages and deleted them. Can I know how to contact that person to find why he deleted the content. And will please anyone here tell me cant I add any topic to wikipedia or is there something missing from me. Help needed thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.216.234.206 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello 101.216.234.206 and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no edits other than this question made by your IP account. Did you forget to log in? Please log in and make a comment here so that we can see what account and subpages you are talking about. w.carter-Talk 11:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

But in answer to your last question, no you can't add any topic (or more accurately, if you add an inappropriate topic it will get deleted). Please see what Wikipedia is not and Your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 101.216.234.206 did you submit your article to article creation for project or rather laid down the article to be viewed and talked more on by other users. you must be a substential one with vital information, not that am in any way saying it was not. But just for correction purpose. John roger1 (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Where can I seek knowledgeable help about the current actual symbols for Kyrgyz and Kazakh currency?

In List of circulating currencies, the symbol for both the Kyrgyzstan som (Cyrillic: сом) and the Kazakhstan tenge (теңге) is given as лв, the same as the symbol for the Bulgarian lev. These seem highly unlikely, as neither л nor в appears in either of the K*stan currencies' names.

I have written this up on Talk:List of circulating currencies, and asked for comments there on the Wikiproject talk pages for Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Central Asia, but all three of those projects are dormant. Any ideas where I could ask and be more likely to get valid info? Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just asked at Talk: WikiProject Finance as well. --Thnidu (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely not an expert in currency symbology, but XE.com uses an image that resembles T̅ (a capital T with an overline) for the Kazakh tenge.

XE.com lists лв as the symbol for the Kyrgyz som, though, and every other site I looked at either gave лв or just referred to the som as KGS. It may be that, like there's no 'S' in dollar and no 'L' in pound, the som just has a symbol unrelated to the spelling of the word. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

GrammarFascist, FYI, the dollar sign $ was (i believe) once an 8 struck through, a symbol for "piece of eight", the old Spanish Peso or 8-real coin. The L in the pound symbol is from the Latin Libra (pound) -- this unit of money once represented a pound of silver. DES ^(talk) 17:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DES, that information might be off-topic here, but it's also fascinating. Thanks for teaching me something new! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, GrammarFascist. I see that we have that image, File:Tenge symbol.svg, and I'll substitute it for лв in that row of the table. --Thnidu (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My Google-fu is at your service, Thnidu. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 04:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Image in an awkward place

Hi Teahouse,

I was viewing this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay,_New_York and noticed that there is an image to the left of the table of contents in the lead section. This doesn't look right to me, but I don't know how to fix it—or is it OK how it is?

Thanks! Mechanic1c (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mechanic1c, and welcome to the Teahouse. I tried changing it, but didn't save any of my previews. The image could be put to the left of the lead section, but IMO that is even worse. It could be in the history section, but it is not at all relevant to that section. Honestly this short article has perhaps more images than it can comfortably hold. Discuss at Talk:Clay, New York, I suggest. DES ^(talk) 01:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DESiegel. The article has too many images for its length, and some are uninformative, like the highway image. The best of them could benefit from judicious cropping, since large expanses of grass and pavement offer little encyclopedic value. If I had an interest in this city, I would cut the number of images significantly and display them better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

When I was reading it, I did think that was a problem too, but I wasn't going to be the guy to judge which ones should get the ax, because I don't know what's important to that city. In fact, when I went to edit it, I was going to move the image to whatever the end of the lead section was, and I discovered that's already where it was placed, but it still looked strange—so I came here to see if you have any secret tricks that would change its position. I suppose not. Thanks for the input! Mechanic1c (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Mechanic1c. The best editors of place articles know nothing about the community. Then, all you write about are things that are verifiable like we are supposed to. As far as editing the excess imagery, if there is no relation between the images and the copy, then remove the image. We should only use images to illustrate something in the copy. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, W.carter moved most of the clutter-y images into a tidy four-image gallery. (IIRC image galleries are deprecated, but in this case it seems a decided improvement.) Way back in 2007, IP user 71.232.97.239 noted on the article's talk page that one of the images, of North Medical Center, did not belong as it is located in another municipality; as my research indicated this to be correct, I removed the North Medical Center image from the gallery and replaced it with the image of the local mall, reducing the image clutter further. I also did a general cleanup on the article, including moving the Notable people section to the bottom of the page (which is where I have seen such sections in other articles). I'm not sure the Portal bar should be under a See also section, however. Thoughts, @Mechanic1c, DESiegel, Cullen328, and John from Idegon:?

Pst! If you don't sign your post with the four ~~~~ the 'ping' to all those editors will not work. The mentioning and the signing has to be done during the same edit, or the system won't register it. I was in the neighborhood anyway and saw your post. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 19:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! Just when I thought I'd solved the problem of constantly fudging my indentation, too. Here we go: @Mechanic1c, DESiegel, Cullen328, and John from Idegon: —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

My thought is that it's fantastic. It was obviously overkill before. I was particularly concerned with the image stuck to the left of the table of contents, but that's no longer there. Mechanic1c (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Frost (film)

Hi there, I am very new to the wikipedia editing community and was taken aback by an article I was working on set for deletion. I assumed if I wasn't finished it was considered private but now I know it's not the case.

Anyway I'm not involved in the film other than being a passionate advocate for local film here in Arizona. I was hoping someone could help me out in the editing process for making a wikipedia article for a film. As I said I'm very new to the site and it's formatting tools; please someone help!

Bkrauser1

Bkrauser1 (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bkrauser1 and welcome to the Teahouse. What sort of help do you want? Do you want a co-editor to do thing that you can watch and learn from? Or do you want to be told how to do things? or some of each? Do you want more or less one-time help, or a continuing mentor relationship?

I see that you have started over at User:Bkrauser1/Jessica Frost (film) after Jessica Frost (film) was deleted. Your sandbox page needs work on the formatting, and i can show you how to do that if you want, but more importantly it needs reliable sources to support it, and more details, drawn from those sources. As an example, a film article I worked on is Mahler on the Couch. Note how references are used there, and formatting also if you like. I hope this helps. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh it is a good idea to link to pages when you mention them on a help or discussion page, as I did above. That makes it easier for others to find the pages you are referring to. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bkrauser1, and welcome to Wikipedia. It's great that you're passionate about local film. I had a look in Google to see what sources were available online about the upcoming film Jessica Frost, and unfortunately all I found are what Wikipedia calls primary sources — sources written by the subject of the article, such as the official website, or the casting call information for the film as archived at backstage.com.

If you can find local news coverage about the film in print, however, I would be happy to help you format citations for those sources correctly and make sure your use of quotations doesn't constitute copyright infringement. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 16:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

DES for this article a co-editor would be outstanding though I have been a long admirer of Wikipedia and have always been interested in being an active part of it. If you're offering a mentoring-type relationship it would be of great help. Let's just say I am of an older generation so the formatting and citation process is very confusing to me.

Bkrauser1 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Bkrauser1 I am willing to co-edit, and to mentor, within the limits of my availability (I have some off-wiki constraints over the next few weeks). As for being of "an older generation", I am 54 myself. Formatting cites isn't really all that tricky, although it does require some attention to details. But, as GrammarFascist said above, you will need to find additional independent sources that cover this film if possible. Without such sources it will be hard if not impossible to justify an article. I'll continue this on your user talk page in a while. DES ^(talk) 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Rugby table

Hi there,

I am planning on making a league table for the second tier french rugby union competition Pro D2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_Pro_D2.

It would be available for inclusion on other pages.

Where is a good place to start? Does it have to signed-off before roll-out? Where would I save it etc?Caveywavey46 (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Caveywavey46, I believe the best place to get specific advice is the talk page of the Rugby WikiProject. However, it may take a while as they are currently rather preoccupied with Rugby World Cup 2015. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to have the edit signed off, although you would need to discuss it if you got reverted. I would just be bold and add the table to the article if I were you. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Best way to have an edit reviewed?

Was hoping a volunteer could help review, vet and consult on edits requested to the Brown Brothers Harriman & Co article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brown_Brothers_Harriman_%26_Co.)

In the talk back section, there are two requests for edits made by Research4Insight, who is the CFA Vice President at BBH. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Research4Insight

Kareem "Daigoji Gai" Harper (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Daigoji Gai. I have responded to both talk page posts. I made the changes to the article suggested in the first, and did not make the changes asked for in the second, predominantly because no reliable source was provided that verified that suggested addition. If a talk page post like that one is not receiving attention, a person can be drawn there by posting the template {{Request edit}}. It's really geared for placement by the person who posts the talk page request and has a conflict of interest in editing directly, but I see no reason it could not be placed by a second person for such a languishing post. A {{help me}} request could also be made. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope i am doing this correctly. Fuhghettaboutit, want to sincerely thank you for reviewing and assisting. Greatly appreciated brother. Cheers and have a great weekend. Kareem "Daigoji Gai" Harper (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome and you too!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)