Wikipedia:Teahouse

GreenMeansGo, 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

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

Click here to ask a question »

newbie question

I like how nice and organized some userpages look.. I think it would be a good chance for me to learn some things about wiki markup to build one for myself. Any help on where to get started? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52, I'm a new wikipedian too. For me, I think userboxes is a good start. It's easy to use and can add some info about you, hope it'll help! Anyway, I'm still new. Any advice from experienced Wikipedian? --Vaktug (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Share a favorite free image! What is a favorite image (or two!) that you have found on Commons?

Hi everyone! I have been participating in a project on Wikimedia Commons, helping to categorize over 15,000 images of artwork donated by the Walters Art Museum. What is Wikimedia Commons? Well, it's a website, like Wikipedia, but full of free images that you can do whatever you want with! Most of the images that you find in Wikipedia articles are linked to Commons, as editors can upload images they take and use them in Wikipedia.

I love browsing Commons and also inserting images into Wikipedia articles that need them. What is a favorite image (or two!) that you have found on Commons? (Safe for work & all ages, of course.) All you have to do is visit Commons and type something in the search box and perhaps you'll stumble across something you like! Share a link to an image here! (And garner some Commons experience :) )

How can you share a link to Commons without using an external link (with all that http mumbo jumbo)? Just type [[:commons:insertfilenamehere]] and you can link us to the image without posting the image or linking to an external link!

For me? I have an entire collection of images I find magical on Commons, enjoy, and I can't wait to see your favorites! Sarah (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

spider eeeeewwwwww Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't judge a jumping spider by its cover. They are quite wee and lovely! ;-) Sarah (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

kill it kill it kill it I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself. It's a great picture!  ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok ok, well if you hate the spider so much, what type of animal do YOU like? Share a pic! Sarah (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Peacock, Bunnies or ‎Doom Bar... What fantastic photos! Seriously though, one's I haven't taken? I love the panoramas - something like this night time picture gives me chills. You'll have to click on it a few times to actually get it real size and appreciate the glory. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Russell Terrier, of course, although it might not count, since I uploaded it. I'm also a terrible photographer ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I came across these two recently. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for photos for a project I'm doing and found this and this. ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I found World time forgot: the 13th-century world map up for sale is not the only neglected treasure of Hereford Cathedral and this pretty cool. I just like to browse articles to find interesting pictures. -- Luke (Talk) 01:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Been here so fond memories of a beautiful place. LOLcats make me laugh; this one is a favorite. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This earth shattering event has started. (refresh)

I am trying to turn this into a cute user box.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I resubmitted an article for review the other day, I cant figure out what happen...

...it was 'moved' back & forth then finally deleted? Can you help me as to why? I have been working & trying very hard to learn the details of creating an article here on Wikipedia. So confused now.

here is a section from my watchlist: 1 April 2012 (Deletion log); 20:32 . . Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tyler Ward ‎(G8: Talk page of deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Tyler Ward. (TW)) (Deletion log); 20:32 . . Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Tyler Ward ‎(G8: redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page (TW)) (Deletion log); 20:32 . . Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Tyler Ward ‎(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup (CSDH)) (Deletion log); 19:46 . . The Earwig (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Tyler Ward ‎(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup) (Move log); 19:45 . . The Earwig (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Tyler Ward to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tyler Ward ‎(fix title) (Deletion log); 19:45 . . The Earwig (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tyler Ward ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move) (Move log); 19:24 . . Nathan2055 (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:Tyler Ward to Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Tyler Ward ‎(Moving to AfC space for review) (Move log); 09:59 . . AFanPageForTylerWard (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tyler Ward to Wikipedia talk:Tyler Ward ‎ (Move log); 09:59 . . AFanPageForTylerWard (talk | contribs) moved page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Tyler Ward to Wikipedia:Tyler Ward ‎ Dee03z (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Dee03z, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! It looks like "AFanPageForTylerWard" prematurely tried to turn your submission into a real article and, in hte process, accidentally moved it to the "Wikipedia:" namespace (which is where Wikipedia policies/guidelines/etc. go) instead of the main article space (which is where real articles go). Pages in the Wikipedia namespace have titles that start with "Wikipedia:", whereas real articles don't have any prefix. (As an aside, this is a *very* common mistake to make, especially with AfC submissions.) Next, Nathan2055 probably moved the page back to the AfC area, where it was supposed to be. The problem with all this is that it leaves a whole mess of redirects pointing every which way, since whenever a non-admin moves a page, a redirect is left at the place the page was moved from, pointing to where it was moved. The deletions are probably The Earwig and Malik Shabazz trying to get rid of the redirects; somewhere along the way, the draft of the article got caught up in the mix and deleted, as well. I can't see the deleted pages myself, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the draft was deleted in that last entry, where Malik Shabazz deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tyler Ward, since that's the correct location for an AfC submission, amongst a few other things. If I were you, I'd leave a message on Malik's talk page, asking if he could find the draft somewhere in that tangle and userfy it for you, so that you can resubmit it (after working on it some more, if you so desire.) If you didn't understand that explanation, I'd be happy to explain in more (and hopefully easier to understand) detail either here or on my own talk page. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No..I totally understood it. Thanks for the explanation. :) I will do what you suggested and ask Malik's talk page for just that. I am just gald that it was not deleted for content reasons. Thanks again Dee03z (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Football kits on Wikipedia

I am currently having an issue changing the kits on Wikipedia. I can't seem to find the correct templates for my team and am not sure how to create a customised kit. Can anyone help me find a larger set of templates or show me how to create the kits manually? Thank Kermeen12 (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kermeen12. It is doubtful if football kits are notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Do you have reliable secondary sources describing these kits?--Charles (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Kermeen12, I prsume you're talking about the kit colours in an existing article on a team? if so then the template you need to look at is {{Football kit}}. It's not one I've ever used but the images you need to refer to are held (and to which new images should be included) at commons:Category:Football kit templates. For each element of the kit e.g. left sleeve, right sleeve you specify an image which represents that part of the kit. I suggest that you practice in your sandbox but if you have any problems I'm sure there are edtiors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football who can help you out. NtheP (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Posting Pictures

I like to create articles but I can never figure to how to put pictures in them.I have read over the instructions but they make on sense. Can some one explain it to me? I am a Horse lover 22I am a Horse lover 22 (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi I am a horse lover 22. Start with double square brackets [[ then the file name of the image such as File:Horse.jpg. Next add |thumb then |caption. Close with ]]. The image will be on the right. If you want it on the left include |left. This will look like [[File:Horse.jpg|thumb|left|My lovely horse]].--Charles (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I am a Horse lover 22 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I stop Twinkle from automatically adding any article/userpage I edit it with it?

Hi everyone. Is there a way I can stop Twinkle from automatically adding any article or userpage (or whatever!) I edit with it to my watchlist? It's driving me...innsaaaaneeee!!! Thanks in advance. Sarah (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep - Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences is your friend here. NtheP (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks Nthep! Sarah (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting your page approved as credible and reliable

I have been working on a page called Dazzle Vision. I have been having a user named Jeraphine Gryphon help me, but hasn't yet approved my page as acceptable by Wikipedia standards. I improved on my sources and gathered more not too long ago and made the commend on the article's talk page, but it has been ignored and no further comment on the page has not been made. I know, however, the user has been on and been edting other pages, becuase I had Jeraphine help me correct a mistake that I made on Evanescence's page. Could some on please help me? KaseyVincent (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Kasey, welcome to the Teahouse, I've looked at the article and the comments on the talk page and I have to agree with Jeraphine Gryphon, the problem is that the sources aren't very reliable and, as you admit, aren't totally independent of the band themselves as there are a lot of press releases and the like. I can only repeat what was said; you need to find independent references from reliable sources. Have any of their albums or their appearance at Sakura-con covered by any of the mainstream American music media? It's that type of source you need to satisfy the notability requirements. NtheP (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. There aren't many sources from the American media so I am sorry that I have to rely on more Japanese based sources. I will continue to do some more research and ask for help from the band. They would have more information about these things. Their only appearance in the American music industry was at Sakura-Con. They did however tour with Evanescence, an American band, earlier this year but their isn't much press on it. I did quote the band's official tour website but it was apparently not a good source. Thanks for the input. KaseyVincent (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Japanese sources are wrong but they do need to be independent of the band and they should be preferably more than blogs. NtheP (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Kasey, here are a few other links I don't think I saw cited in your article, just click these numbers to see them: [1][2][3]. I also added links to the Japanese and Italian version of the Wikipedia article (you can see them on the menu on the left side of your screen), perhaps there is something there (Google Translate can help!). Looks like a good article so far, though. Sarah (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those thinks, I'll read through the articles and place them to their appropriate place. Other than that, do you find any other problems with the page itself? I just want to make my article the best that It can be for the good of Wikipedia. KaseyVincent (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I hope they help. I did put your footnotes in numerical order (in the lead). That's a good tip, especially for anyone writing on Wikipedia or off :) I also like to make sure there is no space between the citation and the period at the end of a sentence. These are fairly small things though, but makes the article look nice. I hope you don't mind me being bold and fixing those things myself! I also did some small grammar edits. It looks good though and I like the quote, it looks quite cool there. And wow..Maiko can really wail! (I used to actually run a website called screamo.org back in the late 90's/early 2000's). What article do you think you'll work on next? Sarah (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you. I'm not the best at grammar but I do try. I noticed that too, it really does make the article look nicer and more professional. feel free to edit the page more if a problem comes up, thats the whole goal of Wikipedia. The quote really stuck out to me, so I decided to add that in. Not too many bands today have a concept of what they want to purvey to their audience and so it was something that made them unique. That is really cool. She does a great job at what she does and thats why I like Dazzle Vision. It's the contradictions that really draw you in. Not too many females really have that type of vocal range. Thank you for your help so much. My next article will probably be on another band called High and Mighty Color, which already has a Wikipedia Page, so I'll improve upon it. KaseyVincent (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How to get a smaller version of an image

Thank you for your invitation to join the teahouse a couple of weeks back. Fortunately, I haven't needed any help since then as I've generally been able to work out how to do things for myself. However, there is one thing that I just can't figure out: how do I get a smaller version of a picture (that's already on Wiki) on my user page? I have a couple, but they're way too big to make any improvement to my page, they just seem to clutter it up. How do I get their smaller versions (as in articles) on my page rather than its full resolution? Also, one of my pics (File:Captain Haddock.png) seems to have copyright issues. Am I okay to have it on my page or should I delete it to be on the safe side?

Neither of these issues are pressing concerns for me so please feel free to move it to the bottom of your priorities list! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Thundering Typhoons. Nice to see you here and nice to have a new Wikipedian from the next county to mine. Hampshire needs you! You can set the size of images by putting |thumb|200px| for example after the file name. I think you can leave Haddock there for now. If the image gets deleted a robot will remove it from your page. That's an awesome collection of userboxes.--Charles (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for a quick reply! I'll try your advice after lunch. Although I partly think that all those userboxes look unprofessional, I also see no point in just mentioning a couple of personal interests/ beliefs so have decided to go the whole hog (still a work in progress). Why both of us are on Wikipedia on such a beautiful day is beyond me... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I should have said that you will need to add |left| or |centre| to place the image. They go to the right by default and would end up below your userboxes.--Charles (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Learning templates

I want to experiment with templates. Can I define a template in my sandbox, or do I have to put it in the Template: namespace? Blevintron (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

n/m, I figured it out.

For the other newbies, you can use any page as a template. For example, if you write {{User:Blevintron/Some/Template}} then the page User:Blevintron/Some/Template will be expanded into your article. Blevintron (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you were pretty quick with that one. Anyways, welcome to the Teahouse!

Yes, anytime you want to use the contents of a page in another page you can use the curly brackets ({{}}) to do it; we call this process transclusion. As you figured out the default is to assume the "Template" namespace, but you can use any namespace, even the article namespace! To do that just use the namespace in front of the page, as you pointed out. For the article namespace use a colon (:). There are many tricks with templates to be used (and I personally have a love/hate relationship with them) feel free to ask about anything here, I (or someone more knowledgeable) will certainly answer. Chico Venancio (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes

Second question of the day (I believe I shall ask a third however, about the sandbox, but later.) I understand the idea of Userboxes, and how to upload them, but how do I create my own? Do you need to find a picture? Or can you just type it in and it will find one for you? If I wanted to create one about Bassett Hounds, could I use a picture of MY pet Bassett Hounds? Wilfbibby (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Wilfbibby, I may better suggest you visit this site [[4]] Regards,--Monareal (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wilfbibby, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to create your own userbox, I suggest reading Template:Userbox. It has a list of available parameters to help you create your own userbox. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 14:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And yes, you can use a picture of your own hound (as long as you take the picture yourself so it is free). :) Also, if you find that creating your own new userbox from scratch is too hard, you can take the code from one of these already made userboxes about dogs and switch the wording/images. We'd be happy to help you further if you need it. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Undoing vandalism & Wikipedia article first sentences

I made a change recently & then someone perversely changed two or three words in a meaningless way which I guess they thought might be hard to detect. Anyway I will flip it back, but should I tell like some editor who oversees that area? The article is on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) important for international business. What the article lacked was a lead sentence giving a nice clear general definition First Sentence Content. I am so used to writing articles in Wikipedia for areas that are part of some project. Like articles on Burma.

Well, I checked and there is a Wikiproject Economics that it should be included in. So maybe as a member of that project, I can learn about doing vandalism watch. Any feedback would be much appreciated. :) Fernquestjon (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, it's kinda just go for it. Vandalism happens so often to so many kinds of articles that notifications like that don't really happen all that much. Good job on catching it, though! Subtle stuff like this can be hard to detect and the most damaging; we don't want anyone going around thinking that companies go to other countries for higher taxes. :) Nice work! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were right to undo that if it wasn't helpful, and there really isn't anyone you need to tell. If the editor had made a whole bunch of bad edit, that might be different. In those cases, we have places to report vandals so they can be temporarily blocked from editing. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Will definitely check out Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Want to understand the mechanisms at work in Wikipedia that contribute to creating high quality content over time and maintain integrity of articles Fernquestjon (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

From:User Monareal through the Monareal news service

Well this question could block me but I prefer to ask and that through the monareal news service.

Hi there, I'm not an expert at beatifying user pages (look at my my user page!), however, I have never heard anyone getting blocked from designing their user pages. Good luck on the info box and I am hoping to see it as soon as you have made it. Hopefully, someone with more experience in userpages would be able to help you. Cheers! Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that. I am also thanking you of you best wishes for the infobox.Penyulap is doing the work on it. I still don't know when it will appear on the articles, but it will appear on Wikiproject spaceflight talk page on 2-6 april--Monareal (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem uploader

I'm dealing with ...(I'm trying to be nice)-- someone with a vast history of "issues", and I nominated one of his images for deletion. I had referred to a possible alternative image. While still in the nomination for deletion process, he replaced the file with the file I suggested -- and now there is at least one complaint that I nominated the file incorrectly. Anyway, this is more a venting of frustration, but my question is what if anything should I do now? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: not only is it a new image, it now has a new file-name and description. I feel better now, but am still puzzled by the process -- especially changing the file-name while still in the PUF process. Eric F.184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the scenario:

• A current artist creates a painting.
• An image of the painting is put up on a site (with unambiguous copyright declaration: All rights reserved. Copyright 2012 © Exotic India); from where it is sold, and is (presumed to be) privately owned.
• The uploader in question takes that image and uploads it to WP.
• The description on the uploaded file attributes the artist to a long-dead 16th century artist (not the artist that created the painting).
• The rational for fair use includes: This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. and per policy, ""faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain"

Was I wrong for challenging this? ~Eric F.184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC) In the interest of fairness, the painting was done in the style of 16th century Moghal painting, and is a reproduction.
~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eric F Thank you for coming here to bring this to peoples notice. I think it would be best to report this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents. A large number of admins and other editors will see that there is a problem and sort out both the problem upload and if the uploader has a vast history of issues that will be investigated and sanctions imposed if appropriate.--Charles (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

However, if this is a issue at Commons you might need to bring it up at their version of ANI. I see that you asked Worm for advice here, so I'll let him advise you further. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dazed and confused

See: Problem uploader (above) The discussion for the problem file is being redirected to the acceptable one (Redirected from File:Genghis and Borte dividing appanages.jpg). Now, the file in question (the one with the challenged copyright) has been flagged for transfer to Commons -- the file on Commons has been replaced by a (presumed) acceptable file. What happens if/when the WP file is transferred to Commons? Will questionable file replace the acceptable one? I still don't understand why the discussion for the questioned file links to the acceptable one, or ... maybe I've developed a temporary form of insanity (hopefully temporary!) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

[Tip: don't try to do this sort of thing at 4:55 AM] Eric F. 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)~goodnight

Test question

I am just testing, that is all. 122.248.194.183 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello - Just wanted to let you know it's ok to test! Thanks by the way for stopping by. We're glad to have you here. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! You can also test on the sandbox, if you want. Cheers, Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this drifting into independent research?

OK, so I've recently posted my first article on the wreck of the SS Kaliyuga.

But after I was finished, I realized that with the ancestry.com membership that I currently have that I could look up the death records for the sailors that had washed ashore. So I did, and I found the records for the two men that are mentioned by name in my article. I also found the record of the body that had washed up in Port Elgin, but the coroner had identified him. And there was a fourth body that isn't mentioned in any of the sources. And there may be more.

So my question is, does this count as independent research? If not, how can I add info if the references are behind a paywall?

TomLuTon (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for dropping in. Does what you are doing count as original research? In my opinion no it isn't as long as the records you are refering to make the direct reference that they were part of the ship's crew. In that case all you are doing is repeating that information. It is original research if you find a matching name and date of death and you make the link that therefore he must be a member of the crew. How do you cite this information? That the records on on ancestry.com isn't a problem because the records aren't ancestry's - that is just the hosting service. Each record set on there will have the details of who owns the record set, for example English death indexes are the property of the General Register Office so you would need to cite the publisher as the GRO, London but mention that the records are reprinted by ancestry.com. If you are using the template {{cite web}} then this would be the element publisher |publisher=General Records Office, London (as re-printed by ancestry.com(subscription required)). By doing so you are telling the reader the original source of the record, where is can be found online and (or but) that it's a subscription website. And you can't do much more than that. Hope this helps, stop by again if it isn't. NtheP (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous Teahouse Question

What is it that many people posting to the Teahouse are saying "I hope you don't block me for asking this...". Blocks aren't used on people who ask questions, are they? Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 16:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is because many users are really threatened by the bullying response of the admins.--20th Tryer ⚡✀ 16:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are not used on people who ask questions, no; I'm not sure where that misconception is coming from, to be honest. It seems to be a new phenomenon. Nobody has been blocked for anything they've done here, to my knowledge. For future reference to anyone who reads this: you will never* be blocked solely for asking a question on the Teahouse! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

*:There are situations wherein you could get blocked, but only for egregiously inappropriate things, like pure, blatant vandalism or obvious, nasty personal atttacks or outing. Basically, the "asking a question" part of it will never get you blocked; it's only if the question contains otherwise blatantly inappropriate material.

This seems like a challenge of wit. I am pretty sure if I thought about it for a while I could come up with a question that would get me blocked :) Penyulap ☏ 23:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thankfully that was only one editor who might have thought that; we don't want people to think that asking questions will get them blocked as there is obviously no basis for that idea. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's good that it's only a single editor. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they can't ask a question. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh,But I think most users(like me) may think their questions are quite ridiculous for the teahouse.I think in most cases there is no point in critisising the admins. So I too tell

I am guest but I answered a question. Please don't block me for it.--Monareal (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was a guest and answered a question too. It's fine! Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 15:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

what do you call it?

where you can have, instead of a * on each line like this

• one
• two
• three

you can instead use a little triangle, and when you click on the triangle it shows the text that was collapsed and hidden before, same as many directory trees, but with normal text on a normal looking page such as this, but not the little box that says show, not the collapsible boxing, it's a little triangle which turns 90 degrees ? Oh, and yes, I probably am in the wrong place, but it's such a lovely tea house ! I cannot resist now I'm here Penyulap ☏ 11:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Penyulap, it's great to see you back on Wikipedia. I've got to say - I've been looking, and I can't find it. I thought that it might be a {{collapsible list}}, but that's just a list that's... collapsible. We do have something similar in Categories, but the little arrows File:Arr_r.png and File:Arr_d.png don't actually get used for any template. Do you have any examples of it being used? You may be lucky and have another bright Teahouse expert answer you, but I'm struggling! Worm^TT · (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't remember where I saw it,

I know it was behind the scenes.

As soon as I see it I will clone it.

I will also let everyone here know, so that they know, but that's only if I can find it again.

Those arrows are on the right track.

I think they might have been lighter in their colour.

Penyulap ☏ 23:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

►I found an example; Where code refers to 'thread-collapse-control' (style-rule description)

▼ but that's on Wikimedia, not sure if they use same coding (?)

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That is getting very close, I'll examine the code and see if it can be adapted whilst still looking for where I saw it in text. What I saw was the same as that, but line by line for text. Penyulap ☏ 00:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian mischief or vandalism?

Wikipedia has been good to me. I think it's time I did more than just read articles. So the weekend began with a foray into simple tasks like learning references, their format, and verifying the web source. It's the first time that I encountered a lengthy addition to an article without citing additional reference. It looks more like a personal commentary IMO. I reverted the article after some checks. So my question is, what is mere accidental commentary vs intentional vandalism? Or how do experienced Wikipedians tell? Do you base it on the commentator's history of mischief? Are there Wikipedians that purposely create mischief to bring attention to a flawed or unverified statement in an article? And how do you report it if it's vandalism?SyncSeth (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

SyncSeth, thanks for stopping by, that's a humdinger of a set of questions. The Five pillars of Wikipedia give principles that the whole enterprise is based on. The second says "...All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources ..." so theoretically anything that doesn't meet that pillar could be described as WP:vandalism (described as "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.") however there is the policy of assuming good faith so unless you are convinced that an uncited piece of text has been maliciously added then you should assume that it's a good faith attempt at addition that has been poorly executed.

How do any of us tell what's vandalism and what isn't, the editors contributions are one pointer as might any messages on their talk page. There is obvious stuff that is easily recognised e.g. obscenities, nonsense but there are others that will require quite close assessment before you decide and even then it's not easy.

Are there deliberate mischief makers with the sole purpose of attracting attention? Probably but it depends what you call deliberate mischief. The easiest way to deal with flawed or unverified statements is to remove them from the article but where you think such action is contentious you should also be willing to discuss on article talk pages why you think the additions were flawed.

Are there deliberate vandals? Absolutely and there are many editors here who spend most of their time fighting vandalism and their are semi-automated tools like Twinkle or Huggle available to help editors who want to help in this area. Vandals who are persistant can be brought to administrator attention at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism where an admin will consider what action to take ranging from nothing, messages on talk pages through to banning which can be short, long or indefinite. Hope this helps as a starter for 10 NtheP (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I need to disagree with Nthep here; vandalism at Wikipedia is very narrowly defined, and it is best to not throw the term around lightly. It is entirely untrue that "anything that doesn't meet that pillar could be described as WP:vandalism". Good-faith additions to Wikipedia should never be labeled as vandalism. As long as someone is trying to improve Wikipedia, it is not vandalism; vandalism is only defined as a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia; if someone believes themselves to be improving Wikipedia, it isn't vandalism, even if they are failing spectacularly. There are many reasons why some change to Wikipedia may be unwelcome or unwanted, and only a small subset of those is vandalism. People who are trying to help Wikipedia, but doing it wrong, should be helped, not called vandals. --Jayron32 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect what you came across was just a poor writing style. I find everything added short of "Annie jenkins is gay, eheheheheheh" is useful. Vandals can precisely pinpoint bad writing. The reverse is also true. In the Tooth fairy article, I predicted that using the word 'fantasy' instead of 'folklore' would attract vandals, and in a cosmic display of being right, it was vandalized straight after in a manner that made even me wonder if I was a sockpuppet :) As a rule of thumb, if the article is being vandalized it is because it is crap. You may notice that in real-life places where there are lots of spray-painting vandals, they will completely leave alone a work of art that is painted on a wall to stop graffiti. It's become a common tool in real life to stop vandalism, using good quality works of art to prevent vandalism. The same is true on wikipedia, but I'm the only person I know of who has seen this effect. I have searched and even seen wikiprojects against vandalism, but there is no mention whatsoever in the numerous vandalism statistical studies of any study comparing quality to vandalism rate. It is quite obvious to me, especially with the tooth fairy article compared to the ISS article. Although, you'd have to dismiss a critic of my observation who vandalizes the ISS article, after I had pointed out the link a few times and said how the ISS article doesn't attract as much vandalism, someone who travels northwest from Austin Texas decided to vandalize the ISS now and then to try to prove me wrong, however, with the resources he has at his disposal, he gets completely hammered by the 'bots, he only got past them once, but to the bots credit I left it there for 1 week, and no human editors reverted it either. So if someone is adding things, assume first it's poor writing style. In fact, on one occasion where it looked like vandalism to other editors, a quick google for "Lela Star" "Peter North" overturned the accusation. It was just poor writing.

Vandals are a great resource that help pinpoint the weakest parts and writing style of an article in my experience.

When unreferenced statements in an article make sense and are not controversial, it's not vandalism, and nothing to worry about. You don't need to delete anything or take any action. You can google and see what you find, if it is wrong, take it out, if it's right but unreferenced just leave it in. If it's annoying you and you want to know but can't find it, tag it with citation needed or ask the person who put it there if you can find them. Penyulap ☏ 00:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Nthep thanks for taking time to answer each of my questions in detail. All your answers including a dissenting opinion by Jayron32 intrigued me and led me to research and brought me to articles like Vandalism to Warning Vandals and other topics like Sock puppetry. Penyulap's view confirms my suspicion though that a few use sockpuppets to deliberately create mischief as per my experience in part of an article I was forced to review. If it were not for that blatant addition, it wouldn't had caught my attention. However, using mischief/vandalism to bring attention to part of an article that needs help seems a very lazy way of contributing to the Wikipedia community. Still, it is vandalism. SyncSeth (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)