Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, 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.

Ask a question

I've written my article, but what next?

Hello there -- I wrote an article, added references, periodically have updated it (and edited other stuff on Wiki, so I know how that works) but I don't know the next step. How do I submit it for approval? And so importantly (because I'm sorry to ask this; I feel very ignorant): how do I change the title of the page to the actual title of the article? It presently has my user name (Mhsprecher) which doesn't help the actual article much.Thank you very much for your patience with me during this process.Mhsprecher (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Updating article

How do I stop the censoreship of recently discovered new knowledge ,100 percent verifiable,on a article that needs updating?And why would a article be censored if the information is 1000 percent verifiable,true and factual?paitalona p.s. why do u HAVE to use those 4 thingy's??17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)paita17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

Hey, Paitalona, welcome to the Teahouse. First off, it's not censorship. People are removing the material because it is unsourced, and material that is unsourced may be challenged and removed at any time. The burden of proof lies with the editor who adds or restores the material. This means that, since the material has been challenged, it must be directly supported by in-line citations to reliable sources before you can add it back into the article. If the material is verifiable, as you say it is, then citing these sources will be no big deal, so do it. And just so you know, the four tildes get replaced with your signature when you make a post on a talk page; this helps others understand who made a post, and when they made it. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jetset Magazine Article for Creation

I have submitted an article for creation about "Jetset Magazine" currently a much lesser known magazine from Colombia entitled "Jet-Set Magazine" has a page, and yet is far less credible. I have attempted to submit Jetset Magazine because it is one of my favorite exclusive publications, however despite having references from Forbes and other sources, the page was declined. Can somebody assist me with this articles approval.

70.184.104.106 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like Wikipedians decided over at Articles for Deletion that your article does not have enough Secondary, reliable sources. Since I cannot view deleted pages (only administrators can do that), I can only give advice. Try to find independent sources that talk about the subject of the article. This could be The New York Times, CNN, BBC, or other news organizations. I hope this helps. -- Luke (Talk) 16:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I spamming?

I receive the following message: "Welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession. This is often a sign of people spamming Wikipedia. ..." It is true I'm adding external links in rapid succession, because I'm trying to add links from articles about Dutch parlamentarians to their personal websites. I think that kind of link could be useful. If it is considered a spam, I of course stop adding them. But if they aren't considered spam, is it possible to somehow switch of the message, which appears every time I'm trying to add a link? Kuuvalo (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kuuvalo. The links are directed towards the official website of the subject, so you should be in the clear. -Cntras (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kuuvalo, and welcome to the Teahouse! What's happening here is that you're triggering the edit filter, which is an automated system that detects certain kinds of edits. It's a relatively naive system; I believe it runs mainly on regexes and the like. So, it can't determine the quality of the external link on its own; it will show that for any external link, no matter how germane. However, in this particular case, it only filters edits from unconfirmed accounts; once you hit autoconfirmed, which happens once your account is 4 days old and has 10 edits under its belt, you'll stop triggering the filter and getting the message. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

For future reference, see WP:PROMO. -Cntras (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers! Kuuvalo (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How to find a lost wiki book

I created a wiki book(apx 85 pp)and was using it regularly. When I wanted to use it I would click on Create a book and go through the laborious process to get to my book. Cumbersome as the process is it would always take me to my book. Now I can no longer find my book. All I get is the opportunity to start a new book. Can someone help me find my book and hopefully explain a less complex way to call it up? Thanks, Art 98.230.173.64 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I've not really used the Book feature of wikipedia that much, but I thought I'd help you out with what I do know. Books are saved in one of two places, your userspace if you've got an account and are autoconfirmed (been around a few days), or under the Book: namespace. Now, assuming you used an account to save the book, it should still be in your userspace. There's certainly not anything under The list of books. If it's been deleted, and you know it's name, I could possibly help you find it, but it wasn't saved, I'm not sure if I can. Worm^TT(talk) 13:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Bilingual / multilingual users

Is there a forum (or whatever) for discussing problems particular to multilingual issues?

My immediate problem is not understanding the relationship between user(names) on different wikipedias. I'm "Imaginatorium" in English and 想像館 in Jaoanese, but when I write on ja.wikipedia my 'settings' page says:

Username: Imaginatorium ... Existing signature: 想像館（会話）

And says that the "User page" for 想像館 doesn't exist. I can create a different user page in Japanese of course, but I'm not clear how the 'signature' user can be different from the 'username' user...?

Is there a standard way to handle this?

Imaginatorium (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia has its own username which is the original account name (yours looks like Imaginatorium) and the user page will have to be created individually for each language of Wikipedia your are editing in. Presumably you have set your signature on ja.wikipedia to be 想像館（会話） but the wikilinks for each of those should be to ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Imaginatorium User_talk:Imaginatorium (so [[User:Imaginatorium|想像館]]（[[User_talk:Imaginatorium|会話]]）). Hope that helps. Also you will want to add the special other languages wikilinks to each page to point to the user page on the other wikipedias - en:User:Imaginatorium and jp:User:Imaginatorium respectively. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 14:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I believe if you wanted the ja.wikipedia signature links to point to the en.wikipedia user pages, it would be:

[[:en:User:Imaginatorium|想像館]]（[[:en:User_talk:Imaginatorium|会話]]）

Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 15:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I add the Reflinks tool (Toolserver) to my Toolbox menu?

Hello, I find this Reflinks very difficult to understand but I am determined to try.

As a start, would someone please tell me how to add the Reflinks tool to mt Toolbox menu?

Much appreciated.

sofiabrampton user:Sofiabrampton ````

Moved from the talk page. heather walls (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sofia. Go to Special:MyPage/skin.js. Copy and paste the following code:

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=20&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

Save the page. Now clear your cache. It should now be accessible If you have any problems, please tell us.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user

What's the relationship between this and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user? ··gracefool☺ 02:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi gracefool! Welcome to the Teahouse. We actually don't have a relationship, per se, with the Adopt-a-user program. The Teahouse is based around a many-to-many support system, unlike the Adopt-a-User program which focuses on a one-to-one support system. You can learn about our methodology on our research space on Meta here. I hope that helps, and if you'd like to learn more, feel free to let us know. Sarah (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding to Sarah's very good answer, I would say that though there is no direct relationship, that both projects are efforts to assist and support relatively new editors. In that sense, they are related. However, Wikipedia is an an enormous project, and John Muir observed that everything in the universe is linked to everything else. And he never heard of the Internet or wikilinks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added cross-pollinating links to Teahouse at Adopt-a-user. ··gracefool☺ 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you :) And you might see some cross-over, I have had many a Teahouse guest ask about the adopt-a-user program! Would you be a good person to perhaps put new editor's in touch with about it? Sarah (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to the project, so I don't really know how effective it is. People wanting to be adopted can contact one of the adopters, I don't know that I can do much else apart from adopt a few people myself. So feel free to send one my way :) ··gracefool☺ 07:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd possibly suggest I'd be the person to get in touch about it (personally adopted the most people, my version adoption program has spawned another half dozen or so etc). However, Adopt-A-User's currently fairly defunct there's only one or two editors who are actively adopting - I am planning to reboot it this year, I'm just lacking the impetus to actually do it. At the moment, the Teahouse model is working very well for new users and I believe it's a better place to focus our resources. Worm^TT(talk) 07:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My article needs to be "wikified(?)"

I am active in codependents anonymous and I noticed about six months ago that the article on the group was terrible. It hardly talked about the group at all. So I composed a new article and posted it and it is still there. But I don't know how to do things the wiki way (it took me half an hour to find this place to ask this question!).

Now there are notices on the article requesting revision to wikipedia standards. I do not intend to do other work on wikipedia in the near future so i would rather not spend several days to learn how to bring the article up to wikipedia standards. I think all the needed content is there in MLA style, I believe, but that does not meet your standards, I understand.

Is there someone who can help get this article into shape?

Thank you for your attention. I too work as a volunteer keeping our organization running and would like to focus on that work.

Sincerely,

John Rose174.60.152.81 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi John! I am actually a coordinator of WikiProject Wikify. I will be more than happy to Wikify your article, but note that it may take me a few days and I may change much of the content of your article. If you have issues after I make changes. You are welcome to add them to the talk page and I will take a look. Thanks for your contribution! Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your additions to the article were too promotional and violated our policy that articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. I had to restore the original content of the article. I suggest that in the future, you focus on making smaller changes and request your edits on the talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, how could you go back to an article that does not address the subject of the article? And the reference to the "38 item scale" is just plain wrong as is the reference to a definition of codependency. This organization is careful to maintain a distance from professional tools such as definitions and assessment scales, so to restore that information is simply misleading to any readers. I state in my version that CoDA does not define codependency and I cite documentation to that effect. I fail to see your reason for accusing what I offer as biased. Everything comes from their literature except for personal observations clearly identified. Like 12 step groups generally, (except AA because of its size) there is simply very little independent documentation on CoDA. I know, I searched the web extensively and have the only book ever written on it, some 20 years ago. I came across a wikipedia principle that provides for personal experience when other sources are unavailable. Your action is contrary to the wikipedia goal of accurate information on the face of it. Have you read both articles? John Rose174.60.152.81 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK has arrived!

My very first DYK, Incident at Hawk's Hill, is now on the front page, thanks to Fuhghettaboutit, (and Ryan for passing it) and everybody here at the Teahouse! I'm so excited -- it's just a tad like giving birth, LOL. Thanks to all of you for answering my sometimes dumb questions. You're the best!!! Tlqk56 (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 00:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a pleasure, Congrats.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Contacting the author of an article

Beginner's question: where,on the page, does the authors' user name appear?

Thanks

tweissberg 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweissberg (talk • contribs)

Hello Twissberg, at the top of the page you can see a button that says view history. There, you will see all of the authors. The earliest revision will generally be the article creator except for some of the oldest articles on the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hey, Tweissberg, welcome back! That's actually a more interesting question than you might think. As Ryan says, the "easy" answer is to click on the "View history" tab at top of any page; it will provide to you a list of all the changes made to the page, along with the username for each edit.

But to the question within your question, there's not always a straightforward answer to "who is the author of a page?". Some pages are written mostly by a single user, so they could be said to be the author. Others are written by a whole bunch of people, or created by one and hugely expanded by another; in either of these cases, I'm not sure I would call any one person the "author".

Moreover, we have a policy here where nobody "owns" an article; and the copyright of the text is automatically and irrevocably released for anyone to use and edit, so it could also be said that there is no "author" per se.

Anyway, I hope that answers your question; don't mind my ramblings! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, I hope you don't mind but I think it is important to say that it is "automatically and irrevocably released for anyone to use" if attribution is provided under the terms of our licenses. All material remains copyrighted, with the history providing the list of authors who owns the copyright, it's just that the copyright is a free copyright license.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, don't mind at all. I considered mentioning the attribution/share-alike clause, but figured, "Eh, TMI". You're 100% right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right that it is delving into complexity but the problem of infringing reuse off Wikipedia is huge. I've personally sent at least 20 compliance notices and I wasn't even looking for it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. I am looking for anyone with any interest in Apert Syndrome. Since the "Apert Syndrome" page is the page I made a correction on, I wanted to get in touch with the page's writers, to connect and see what their experience with or interest in the syndrome stems from. TMI: no such thing....

tweissberg 22:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweissberg (talk • contribs)

editing references

How do you edit the references? I have a typo to fix in Deborah Anapol wiki. I wrote 1885 instead of 1995.Melanie Grimes 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melapatella (talk • contribs)

Hello Melapatella, and welcome! That's actually very easy. You can edit it just as you edit text normally. Edit the section where the reference was added and make your change within the reference you used. For example, if your reference says:

<ref>{{cite web| title=My Dog Has Fleas| author=My Veterinarian| date=June 19, 1885}}</ref>

and you want to fix it, just edit it to where it reads:

<ref>{{cite web| title=My Dog Has Fleas| author=My Veterinarian| date=June 19, 1995}}</ref>

Let us know if you have any problems! --McDoobAU93 16:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

When I click to edit the REFERENCES section, Only this shows up, not the text I want to edit. The words REFLIST. Melanie Grimes 16:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melanie! The references section just uses a template to list the references. You need to edit the reference in the body of the article. The easiest way to do this is to click edit at the top of the page to edit the entire thing. Then click ctrl+f on your keyboard to use your browser's find capability. Typing <ref will help find all of the refs on the page. Specifically type it without the ending arrow so it will find named references as well. You could type My Dog Has Fleas and it would bring you directly to that one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Melanie. When you are reading an article and see a references section near the bottom populated by a series of numbered citations, you might think that if you edit the page, you will see those citations typed in that section and be able to edit them. However, normally what you will see is code similar to this:

     ==References==

   {{Reflist}} or <references/>

The text of citations is actually in the body of the article, directly next to statements or paragraphs the citations support, using <ref>(citation)</ref> tags, which display as footnotes (e.g.^[1][2]) when you are reading an article. The template code shown above in the references section colates and displays all of the citations within the article in a numbered list in which the numbers correspond to the footnote numbers in the text. By clicking on the ^ symbol next to a citation display, you can easily find exactly where in the body of the article the citation text appears in order to edit it. For more, please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

frustration

I have submitted an article twice and been rejected twice.

I don't know if the reviewers want more references or different types of references. And I'm afraid that maybe there just aren't any.

I'm frustrated.

Is there actually some guideline for these reviewers or are they just out to rain on my parade?

Yipper (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: reply on user's talk page.ʝunglejill 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Adequate References

I recently had an article rejected, which was referenced mostly by book reviews. If I am able to write another article in the future and reference it with things like news paper articles, press releases and 3rd party blogs/YouTube videos, would that be more acceptable?

I am ambitious in creating a new a fully referenced article. I am currently working on one that is majorly comprised of news sourced references.

Thanks! WriterChad203 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Writer Chad203. Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm kind of new here, myself, but I write mostly about kids books and authors, so I thought maybe I could help. You are on the right track with your article, as Kirkus is a VERY good source for establishing notability, and commonsense media is OK. The basic rule for a book is it has to have won a major award or be featured in multiple, non-trivial sources, not related to the book itself or publisher, author, etc. So you need to find a couple more references. The things is, you usually can't use blogs or YouTube or such for notability. You need to find a few more major newspapers or magazines that talk about the book. I know that can be hard, as a lot of them don't review books any more. But keep looking. Have you tried Publisher's Weekly? If you want to read more about book notability type WP:NB in the search bar and it will take you to a page that will tell you more than you probably wanted to know. :) Good luck, and in the mean time, look around for some other articles you can add to. Kids books need all the help they can get on WP! Tlqk56 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's some really great and really helpful information. I appreciate it a lot! WriterChad203 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

verification of facts

Hello ! I am new to the back end of Wikipedia but have enjoyed it as a reader for many years. I am wondering how facts editors put down are verified. If I write something inaccurate and a reader comes upon it, he or she will be mislead until the facts are corrected....How long would that take? What is that process?

Thank you

tweissberg 14:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi tweissberg! You see, the reader may indeed be misled, but if the information is not verified, it will be removed pretty soon by somebody else. Some people may not believe it anyway if it looks dubious, but the number of cases where there is truly untrue content left there for more than a month, or even a few days, is very low. Our volunteers weed out false statements and/or request sources using . Seen that before? It's almost a trademark now. Rcsprinter (lecture) 15:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you !

tweissberg 15:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweissberg (talk • contribs)

Hey tweissberg! That is probably the most important concern for Wikipedia. I don't know how quickly incorrect information is removed on average, but for articles that receive thousands of daily views, errors can be damaging even if they only appear for a few minutes! Wikipedia has a stricter policy for biographies of living persons because of this. Hopefully, as culture progresses, people will learn to question and verify everything they read, and as the encyclopedia progresses, it will become more verifiable. That is just a balance we have to maintain between allowing anyone to edit and wishing for accurate content. ʝunglejill 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank You JungleJill...I am going to try sending messages to the users that have responded to my question...tweissberg 18:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweissberg (talk • contribs)

Report possible abuse

I was looking at the article Wop May, about the pilot, and discovered that a link in the information box was to a commercial travel site, with no bearing at all on Wop May. I deleted it (edit) and searched the page history for the author. It appears when this author added his/her edit: 31.53.165.89. That person does not have a talk page. Is this something that should be reported, and if so, to whom?BThomascall (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, BThomascall, and weclome to the Teahouse! the response here depends on how recent the addition was. If it had been pretty recent (as in a few hours ago, or like a day at most), then you could give the IP user a spam warning on their talk page. An easy way to do this is by putting {{subst:uw-spam1}} on the talk page. In this case, you'd have to create the talk page to do it, but that's no big deal. If the user had already had a talk page, and it already had previous recent warnings on it, you could give a more serious warning by putting a bigger number on that template (so, if they already have 1 warning, you'd write uw-spam2, and so on). If they've already received a level 4 warning (which has the text "this is your last warning") in it, then the next step would be to report it to the AIV board, which is where admins can see what needs to be handled.

All that said, the edit was not recent, it was almost two months ago. So, there's no other action to be taken, as we can't be sure that 31.53.165.89 is still being used by the same person (due to a thing called a dynamic IP address). So, you did the right thing; good call! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work, Writ Keeper. Also, when I find a spamming/ vandalizing IP, I check their contributions and see if they've damaged any other articles. You can access the user's contribution when you are on their talk/user page, by clicking on the link "User contributions" in the menu on the left, under the Wikipedia logo. ʝunglejill 14:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks both of you, for the answers. BThomascall (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable Jargon?

In the Japanese Spitz article, I at one point refer to the breed "blowing its coat," meaning a major coat shedding that occurs once a year, in contrast with more modest shedding that can occur more broadly. Is that an acceptable bit of jargon, or should it be switched to shedding instead? I feel like shedding would be unclear, but I'm not sure how many people know about the term blowing one's coat. It may be unfamiliar to people without heavy-shedding dogs. Reinana kyuu (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reinana kyuu, and thanks so much for your question. I've never actually heard the term before, so I wasn't sure what was best. Having done a little research, I think it should be fine, as long as you link the phrase through. Now, what I've done is set up an {{anchor}} on the page regarding dog coats Coat (dog)#blowing the coat. If you were to "pipe" the link through (so it looks like [[Coat (dog)#blowing the coat|blowing its coat]], anyone unsure about the meaning can go there. Of course, if you have time, I'm sure the Coat (dog) article and the Moulting articles could do with a little work! Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can also try to add a footnote explaining the meaning of the term (see Wikipedia:Footnote for a how-to), or just explain it briefly in () parenthesis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Reinana kyuu. Your question is certainly appropriate. Obscure jargon should be avoided, unless there's a Wikipedia article that explains the jargon. In that case, including the jargon may contribute to the reader's proficiency with the topic, and so I concur with the above suggestion. But in other cases, removing jargon can certainly be appropriate. :) ʝunglejill 12:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Image Alignment

I really should know this, but is there anyway of getting the lead DYK images to appear to the right of the relevant orange notification on my DYK page?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gilderien! I have taken a look and adjusted it with this edit. All you need to to is place [[File:Example.jpg|right]] (note that for centering you can use [[File:Example.jpg|center]]). Alternately, you can use [[File:Example.jpg|thumb]] to produce a thumbnail on the right, or [[File:Example.jpg|frame]] to produce a frame on the right. benzband (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyway of centering it vertically with respect to the boxes?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Family members (2)

Moved to Template talk:User shared IP address private#Family members

 – -- Trevj (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrote an article by cancalled by reviewer

I have written an article. This is regarding the Articles for creation/Vithiya- The Finance Club of DoMS NIT Trichy. I have read the notability guidelines and then wrote it will someone please kindly help me to figure things out. Anshumandutta (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vithiya- The Finance Club of DoMS NIT Trichy. As the original reviewer notes, notability is a problem here. The subject seems to be a university club, departmental level. We rarely have articles on university departments, many dispute their notability, and a club within one is really pushing it. It may be notable, but the sources do not support this; the article uses one source, reliable, but it simply mentions the club existence. This does not provide enough independent coverage. I suggest you ask the reviewer to comment here more, if you have more questions, and you may also want to link this discussion from Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard (create a thread there, and ask people to comment here, by linking this discussion from there). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing 1st paragraph of exisiting article

I wish to edit the 1st paragraph of an existing article to include a link to a new article I have created but cannot "see" the edit button for this 1st paragraph. The article I wish to edit is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_House_Children%27s_Book_Award

The article I wish to link to is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federation_of_Children%27s_Book_Groups

How do I edit that first paragraph? (I can see the edit buttons lower down the page and have edited fine via them, but can't find a way to reach that very first paragraph...)

Zoetoft (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The side of the page edit buttons are for section editing. Click on "Edit" at the top of the page to edit the entire article. Alternatively, if you want to edit just the first section, click on one of the side edit links and then change the end of the URL to section=0 You can also add the section edit link to the first section by going to your preferences → Gadgets → Appearance, and then tick the box for "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

AH! Got it! I see the edit tab at the top rather than an edit link at the side... knew it would be something obvious. Thanks so much for quick response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoetoft (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to use 4 tildes at end of my reply... Zoetoft (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, before they made a major change to the interface some time back the button at the top said "edit this page"; we got a lot of these questions since that change, showing the old button was much easier to see.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How long for an article to be linkable?

I'm creating some articles on various places of geographical and/or historical significance in my region. One recent article seems to be live, but when creating internal links to it within another article, it says the page does not exist. Am I missing something or does it take some time for the article to appear as live within the system? wasrtsWasrts (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be immediately linkable. Which article are you referring to in particular? -Cntras (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Wasrts! If the links don't work, there's probably an error in their title. If you supply the link, we can point out the exact problem. ʝunglejill 13:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The article is Chrome Island Chrome Island. I notice that the title doesn't capitalize "Island" - perhaps that's an issue? But this is one of my first articles and I haven't figured out how to change that. ==wasrts== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasrts (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a problem, yes; wikilinks are case-sensitive. So, Chrome island will return a result, but Chrome Island will not. I take it that "Chrome Island" is what the title should be? If that's true, then you can move the page to the correct title. The way you would do this is by going to Chrome island and hovering your mouse over the down-pointing triangle tab in the upper-right corner. A menu with an option called "Move" should appear; click it. It'll bring you to a new page called "Move Chrome island". Here, you can change the title of the article to whatever you want by typing it into the "to new title:" field; in this case, change "Chrome island" to "Chrome Island". (Be sure not to touch the "(Article)" part!) Once you've done this, you should fill out a short summary of why you're changing the title in the box below it (probably something like "fixing capitalization".) Finally, hit the "Move page" button, and you're done! Once you move the page, both Chrome island and Chrome Island will become functional links to the same article. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I made that change. I'll track down the articles that should link it and try again. It's no fun being The Noob. ==wasrts== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasrts (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A helpful link for that is the "What links here" feature, which is in the toolbox to the left of the window. Special:WhatLinksHere/Chrome_Island and Special:WhatLinksHere/Chrome_island will tell you what's linking to them already. Good luck!

PS: Yeah, being a noob sucks, but it gets better! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And to correctly sign, that should be Wasrts (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleting an article I created.

Hey there. I wanted to inquire of different methods for deleting self created articles. Mahwishmir (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mahwishmir. You can delete your own article by blanking the content and adding {{db-author}} -Cntras (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mahwishmir, welcome to the Teahouse! You are talking about Mahwish Bokhari yes? Can you use db-author when others have contributed to an article, Cntras? heather walls (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whether other users have made significant contributions to the article. That seems to be the case, so the answer would probably be no. Mahwishmir cannot use db-author. -Cntras (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Citing oneself as a source

I was a Primary Source Resource for an article on Robert Garrow - I was involved in the car searches that took place in his capture. How do I site myself as a person that was involved in the local searches? In the Robert Garrow page, I attempted to site myself as a Primary Source. I received errors. Thank You name redacted Castev2929 Castev2929 (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, and welcome to the Teahouse. In answering your question, please note that we have no way to verify that you are indeed who you say you are in connection to this article. Tohis is not meant to accuse you of lying; on the contrary, it goes to our policy of verifiability, which is knowing that information posted here can be checked by others. Giving the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you are indeed connected, there also lies the problem of conflict of interest, which means the same thing here as it does in real life ... being too close to the subject to write about it in a neutral manner. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to leave them here and either I or another Host will respond. --McDoobAU93 03:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Castev2929, and thank you for your efforts to do the right thing. We have stringent standards here about biographies of living people. Any negative material pertaining to legal issues has to be cited to reliable, independent sources. If you were involved in these searches yourself, then surely you are not independent. You can comment on talk pages, but I recommend that you avoid direct editing of any page pertaining to areas of your direct involvement. Feel free to ask more questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What just happened?

I added some basic information about the specifiacations of this helicopter and then these errors came up did i do something or what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-76 Shashenka (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shashenka, this is a tough issue and I can't figure it out easier, I suggest undoing your edit and adding each thing one at a time to figure out what caused it. On another note, you could leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. The second will have more watchers. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to look at who are the author(s) of Template:Aircraft specs and ask them for help. PS. And of course, check if the documentation page of the template or its talk won't have an answer to your question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If he does add them piece by piece, I should be able to figure out if there is something wrong in {{Aircraft specs}} it may be possible that {{Aircraft specifications}} is a better template. I will discuss it at the wikiproject later, if one should be deprecated. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, tables have some weird issues. I always use the preview button whenever I touch them. I undid your edit, I'm on my way to bed, but if I can figure it out quickly I'll fix it. :) ʝunglejill 22:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Found the issue - multiple conflicting entries were given for "range". You only have to fill the stats in for one unit of measure, and it's automatically converted to the other units of measurement. The previous range listed is 411 nmi, which translates to 761 km, and you wanted to enter 748 km. Other than that, your other additions are in place - I left the original range and you can decide which range is more accurate - just make sure no conflicting data is entered. ʝunglejill 23:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unflagging/tagging

So I think I have made successful corrections to "Bpeace." When will the banner up top reflect this? Did I make appropriate fixes? Help is greatly appreciated!!!Kkl12489 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you believe you've responded to the concerns made by the editors who posted the tags on Bpeace, be bold and remove the obsolete tags yourself. However, don't be surprised if another editor may not fully agree with your reasoning and decide to add it back. At that point, you should go to the talk page and discuss what you believe has improved or respond to what they think hasn't improved. --McDoobAU93 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks McDoob for pointing out the be bold aspect! Kkll2489, I attempted to de-orphan that article (meaning you have to link it to other Wikipedia articles) and was able to add a few links, I also double checked your work and removed the tags. Great job :) Sarah (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

→ De-orphan means you have to link to it from other Wikipedia articles. benzband (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Gah, that's what I meant :) thanks ben. Sarah (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thought so, just didn't want to be rude by modifying someone else's post. benzband (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are fantastic!!! Thank you so much for your speedy help and very clear responses! Kkl12489 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Kathryn

I'm on my way out

This isn't a question, so, if you have a mind to delete it, I'm not going to object. Just letting all of the helpful people here know that it looks very much like I'm going to end up getting banned someday. My one dispute with another editor so far has required a lot of careful reading and thinking in order to evaluate comprehensively, and so far maybe one person has done that. Those in positions of power have done what has been universally done with me on the internet: jumped on one tiny phrase in a long discourse and treated it as if it were the entire discourse. Because of this unjust treatment I've been forced to take the risk of perpetuating a dispute, and, given the tone of responses I've received from people in power, of course the ruling is automatically going to go against me. So I just wanted to say thank you again for all of you who have been helpful to me and sorry that your efforts are ultimately wasted. I'll still stay on Wikipedia until I am forced to leave and continue to uphold my own standards of editing and learn more about how to be a better editor, and I'm going to put my eventual ban totally out of my mind. Guyovski (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski. I do not know the specifics of your problem but it is not easy to get banned from Wikipedia unless there is sustained disruption. Try working on different pages. There are plenty of things an editor can do.--Charles (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Great point Charles about working else where. Some of the best advice I was ever given by an experienced editor was "step back, and edit something you know nothing about." It helped me calm down about getting all riled up about subjects that are close to my heart. My escape is to write content about places I'd like to visit. What's yours? Sarah (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guyovski. I see no indication that you are about to be banned. Perhaps you are making too much out of a relatively minor dispute? I suggest that you concentrate on being a productive contributor to the encyclopedia, and my guess is that the other stuff will take care of itself.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guyovski. I took a few minutes to read a few of the interactions between you and Joseph, so perhaps I can offer a bit more specific advice. To quote the philosopher John Wilkins: there are no bad positions, only bad arguments. You made an unpersuasive argument about the slug used to describe a Holocaust denier; not too surprising as you've only been doing this a few days and the person you were discussing this has been at it for several years. And that's where the matter should probably have been dropped.

The more important issue was how you read Joseph's comment "....I'd question your objectivity and neutrality and – along with it – the level of bias present in your edits...." In this context, bias and neutrality have specific, well-deliniated meanings. You weren't aware of how those words are used here (as you've only been here a few days) and so you read them as an accusation of dishonesty. That's not an interpretation any experienced editor would have made.

So I'm going to give you a slightly different bit of advice: I think you should stop editing for a while and lurk instead. When I first started out here I read the usual policy statements, but it was reading old cases in wp:ani that allowed me to understand how those policies were applied to real disputes. From there you might want to branch out to the wp:third board, not to participate but to see better and worse ways of handling conflict.

After having gotten a better handle on the jargon and how it is applied I think you'll be well on the road to becoming a valuable and effective editor. I hope you stick with it.

Garamond Lethe(talk) 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It actually seems that Guyovsky's assessment was quite accurate. ʝunglejill 13:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I think "accurate" is the kindest description that comes to mind. Garamond Lethe(talk) 17:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you add an extra line for tables?

For example for vehicles fording depth or for planes and helicopters gross weight just examples but how do you add another line for those things to a table? Shashenka (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Shashenka! I think the simplest guide to tables is this page, and the information there is usually enough. Then there's this page, which really goes into detail about every kind of table. Another option if you're working on an existing table, is to try to imitate the format that's used for the previous rows, and use the "preview" button to check if you did what you wanted. I've noticed that tables have some weird issues sometimes, so if you need more information, you can give a link to the page that needs the addition, and I'll answer specifically. You could also try to create a new table, just as an example to understand how they work. When you edit a page, there's a button above the text window that adds a table - after you click it, a dialog box asks you to choose the number of rows and columns, then it adds the formatting for you, and you fill in the text. This wouldn't help with modifying an existing table, but it will make it easier to understand how they are formatted. Hope this helps, and please don't hesitate to ask for further information. Good luck!

btw, I changed "specifications" to "tables" in your question's title, so other users with a similar problem can find it easily ʝunglejill 20:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Shashenka (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How to check on the progress of a new article.

Is there any way to check on the progress of a wiki submission? It looks like approval can be a slow process, but since it is my first article, I am a little excited, and want to follow it as it moves up the queue (from its starting point at 814th in line... !) BThomascall (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi BThomascall! Welcome to the Teahouse. I just took a look at your article and it's great! I approved it. Well done :) Looking forward to see it expand and your contributions continue! Sarah (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

p.s. there is often a lengthy backlog of articles that need to be reviewed. So, for the future, just be patient! But, you can always ping specific folks for their input and review, including those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology - you might even want to become a member there :) Sarah (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No reference for quote

Hello, There is a quote in an article I've been WikiGnoming that seems to have no reference whatsoever on the internet. It is also a Latin quote with no translation mentioned. Another user believes that it should remain in its current state, until someone fixes it. I think that it should be removed, rather than potentially display false information. What would be the best approach? Silvrous (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Silvrous! Could you provide a link to the article in question so I can investigate this in depth? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your help. I am referring to the Iași article, Etymology and Names section. It's the quote by Ovid. Silvrous (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit solved the problem. In the future you can add a {{citation needed}} template. If you doubt its reliability and it may be controversial make your intentions known on the talk page that you intend to remove it in a few days. If you do not doubt its reliability, my personal opinion is that it is better to include the information with the citation needed tag than to remove the material. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Is this about Iași? In that case I have sourced the Ovid quote (which still could use a translation with a source for the translation). To answer your original question though, all quotations must be cited through an inline citation to a reliable source per the verifiability policy. However, unlike if this was material in a biography of a living person, for example, the material would not need to be removed immediately. A {{fact}} tag could be added and would have been called for in this case rather than simple removal. Then, if no action was taken after waiting an appropriate time, removal should then take place. That is my advice on best practice, but note that per WP:BURDEN, once you remove uncited controversial or challenged material, the burden is on those wishing to retain the material to source it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. benzband (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

which tree species are recently discovered??

pleeeease help me. its for my science project. WHICH TREE SPECIES ARE DISCOVERED RECENTLY?? Asheequa (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Asheequa! I'm afraid that the Teahouse is for assisting editors with Wikipedia, not for factual questions such as this. I would suggest asking at the Science Reference desk or WikiProject Plants. Cheers, benzband (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Need Help Editing New Article Please!

Hello,

I've been trying to upload this article a few times but have been unsuccessful. Can you edit this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Good_Neighboring_Campaign so that it can be approved. I've been receiving comments about how the article is not in a formal, neutral tone and uses peacock terms. So, any assistant is gladly accepted! Thank you!

Joshualee38 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joshua! I'm really sorry your article was declined - that's disappointing, I understand. One thing that you could do to help its chances is to find an outside source that talks about the Good Neighboring Campaign. Has it been mentioned in newspapers or magazines? If you want help with formatting the references correctly, or anything else with your new article, please feel free to ask here - we're happy to help! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Unsung Heroes (Band)

The_Unsung_Heroes_(Band) could someone review this article and help save from deletion, feel free to remove Parts and edit to help improve chance of article being kept Hollyroouk (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hollyroouk, and welcome to the Teahouse! You could also seek help at the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron or any of the WikiProjects related to the subject of the article (you can look at the article's talk page to see if there are already any project banners). benzband (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Unsung Heroes (band) was repeatedly speedy deleted (see log) and was therefore creation protected as a result. Hollyroouk is therefore clearly a sockpuppet of User201212, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of User201212 Valenciano (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Film title has taken up one topic - but don't want to be rude! how to edit?

Hi there,

I wish to write about a subject that interests me - Gandha - it is the ancient practice of using fragranced products as part of hindu ritual. I have lots of information about it as a yoga scholar.

The problem is that there is a new (great!) Indian film called Gandha - and they have taken up all the space for Gandha - should i edit - or create a new page with the same name?

Thanks, SineadJaneMacC (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If there are multiple subjects with the same title, you can differentiate by adding a bracketed identifier. In this case, you could you create an article titled 'Gandha (ritual)' or 'Gandha (practice)' etc. -Cntras (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jane! I have moved the article about the film to Gandha (film), so that Gandha is now a disambiguation page. As Cntras just said, you can create an article called Gandha (ritual) and then link to it from the Gandha disambiguation page. benzband (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Will give that a go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneMacC (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding coordinates to a page

How do you add coordinates to a page? For example, University of California, Davis has the coordinates (latitude, longitude, etc.) included in its infobox and when clicked it mentions something about geohacks. I would like to know how to use a program like this to add coordinates to a given page. Thank you.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi TylerDurden8823, you can go to WP:GEO and take a look at the drop box labelled 'Quick Geographical coordinates how to'. -Cntras (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cntras that worked. Much appreciated! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

Why is it called "the Bureaucracy?" That word has some pretty strong negative connotations. Is it a matter of reclaiming the word so that the way it is generally used changes? Guyovski (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski! I am puzzled by your question as i can't figure out what you mean by "it". If you mean Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Otherwise, i'd be glad to help if only you could reformulate your question. Cheers, benzband (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: look up bureaucracy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. benzband (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The word Bureaucracy is from the french bureau meaning office + -cracy meaning ruled by. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I wasn't very clear. I thought I had seen a part of Wikipedia identified as "the Bureaucracy" but now I can't find the reference. I am pretty sure, however, that there is a senior Wikipedia position title called "Bureaucrat." All I'm asking about is why use that word when it has such negative connotations? Guyovski (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you Wikipedia:Bureaucrats? These are users who have been trusted with a special set of permissions to execute a number of specific tasks within the community. In the real world, a Bureaucrat is

"a member of a bureaucracy and can comprise the administration of any organization of any size"

and a Bureaucracy is

"an organization of non-elected officials of a government or organization who implements the rules, laws, and functions of their institution"

. benzband (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See also meta:Bureaucrat. benzband (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a rather large number of titles associated with various Wikipedia functions. The Highest Lever is Founder. The lowest level is a Global Blocked User who is in addition blocked from account creation, editing their own talk page, or e-mailing other users.

One of those titles is "Bureaucrat", but it should be noted that the very first thing on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats page is "For the "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" policy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

A list of Wikipedia titles involving special access is at Wikipedia:User access levels.

A partial list of Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) titles involving special access is at Wikimedia Special Global Permissions. There are titles not listed there, such as Developers.

There are titles such as "arbcom member" (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee) and "medcom member" (Wikipedia:Mediation Committee) that involve careful selection, others (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) with less formal selection, and others (Third Opinion, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or Wikiquette Assistance) where pretty much anyone is welcome to volunteer to help out.

In addition, there are informal titles listed at Wikipedia:Service awards.

A user can have multiple titles, for example, I am an Autoconfirmed user, a Reviewer, a Rollbacker, a Volunteer Clerk/Mediator at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (Not to be confused with Medcom Mediator or Wikimedia clerk), an Editor / Grognard Mirabilaire], and technically I am a MediaWiki_hacker, but I only make changes on a local corporate Wiki, not a Wikimedia Wiki. --Guy Macon (talk)

not a stub

I just expanded an article. How do I get rid of the stub tag? Ranpayne (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are confident that the article clearly exceeds the limitations described in WP:STUB, then be bold and remove the stub tag yourself. Hit the "edit" button and erase it. Thanks for expanding what used to be a stub. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

HA! That was easy. Thanks.Ranpayne (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Link spam on page Indonesia

How to report link spamming on pages Indonesia on Wikipedia (in history there are many link spammer)? Thanks. Dede2008 (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dede! WikiProject Spam is a group of Wikipedians dedicated to removing spam links from Wikipedia. You can go to their project page and click the big red button, file your report following the instructions given in the edit notice, then click Save page. Cheers, benzband (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

giving a cookie

I'm really embarrassed that I can't find the answer to this question for myself, but I can't. I had occasion to give a cookie and didn't format it properly, and the person who received it doesn't know how to format {{cookie}} either. Is there a manual for formatting cookies? 67.71.2.203 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The proper way to give someone a cookie is by adding {{subst:cookie}} to their talk page. You can view the manual/documentation by going to the template. If you create an account there is script that allows you to give barnstars and cookies easier, it is called Twinkle. If you have any more questions leave me a message on my talk page or reply here.

Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   22:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proving a book was never published in Britain?

Hi, everyone. While researching an American book that won a Welsh award I keep finding references to the fact that it was "never published in Britain", which I think is fascinating. However, how could I verify that it's still true as of 2012? Here in the US I could get a reference librarian to help me, but is there a source for British publishing? Any idea how I could find it if there is? Thanks for any suggestions you might have. Tlqk56 (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In theory, for any book that has been published in Britain copies should have been lodged at the various copyright libraries. You should therefore find references to the book in the COPAC library catalogue at http://copac.ac.uk. However, you couldn't use the lack of a reference in COPAC as a source. You'd need to use a secondary source that explicitly states that the book was never published in Britain. However, I'm puzzled as to how the book could have won a Welsh award if it was never published in Britain as Wales is part of Britain. Or do you mean that the book was never published in England? Dahliarose (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Dahliarose. The award in question, Tir na n-Og Award only requires that the book be published in English. A String in the Harp was a US book set in Wales. I guess I can't use my fascinating fact, as I can find it in several sources, but none of them are modern enough to prove it hasn't been published in the UK since they came out. Thanks anyway. Tlqk56 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that your sources should be strong enough to say that it had never been published in Britain at the time the award was given. That should be good enough. After all, someone could publish it in Britain tomorrow, and we are writing encyclopedia articles that should endure over time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is fascinating! Let me know if you come up with something, I think Cullen328 is correct. Knowing that it wasn't published in the United Kingdom at the time of the award is hugely interesting. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

According to one book, though it was published in 1976 in the US and received the Welsh award for 1977, by 1995 it still hadn't "found a British publisher". That really surprised me, too. Think it's worth putting in that way? Tlqk56 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor feedback

This question is for some of the guests as well as the hosts since the feature was created while I was away from the encyclopedia and is marketed to new users. There is a feature on Wikipedia, I forget what it is called, which allows new users to make remarks about their experience. I would like to figure out where I need to go to review those remarks and respond to those remarks. This would be particularly helpful in helping some editors who are having a bad experience. Is anyone familiar with this? Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Special:FeedbackDashboard. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan. My name is Riley and I am one of the top feedback responders. When replying to feedback make sure to check the users contributions to see if they have made unhelpful edits or other things (and talk page if you are on the welcoming committee.) If you would like a list of templates that you could use, go to User:Riley Huntley/Feedback! If you have any questions or are struggling with a certain users feedback, give me a shout or message one of the other responders.

Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   18:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Riley, may i suggest your using {{tlsu}}s for the list of templates on your /Feedback page? Just thought it might provide useful links for visitors who don't know what each of those templates are. benzband (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion! Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ryan! It's also one of the tools we use to find new editors to invite to the Teahouse :) You can learn about that in the invite guide. Sarah (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your responses, you're all great! Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

me again--on contacting administrators

Sorry I keep popping up in here, but I'm worried about a potential edit war over this [1]. In case one starts how can I get the administrators involved? Guyovski (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If an edit war was too occur, you could report it to an administrator at the edit war noticeboard. If you have anymore questions, dont be afraid to ask! Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   02:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I investigated a bit and found a very useful article on dispute resolution. It was highly informative even if my Swiss cheese memory didn't retain most of it. But there might be another, unrelated issue. There appears to be a disagreement between me and a longstanding, highly experienced editor whose talk page suggests that he's been involved in some very nasty exchanges in years past, and has been disciplined for them. Am I permitted to take that into account in deciding when to seek dispute resolution? Guyovski (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guyovski. When an edit war occurs between two editors, by definition both are at fault. My suggestion to you is simply do not fall into the trap of edit warring. Try your best to steer clear of conflict with editors known for "very nasty exchanges" and remember that nastiness can sometimes be contagious. I have 17,000 edits and have never had to go through formal dispute resolution, because I stay away from fights. Those who misbehave eventually get blocked or banned. Avoid those folks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not really tailored for the particular issue here (because the post you removed are quotes that are not attributed through inline citations, and thus patently properly removed pursuant to verifiability policy and here, WP:BLP) but more in the way of general advice. The best way I know to avoid edit wars is to slavishly follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and to remember while you're following it that the article will still be there tomorrow, so if the other person's edit remains for a few days while the cycle is ripening, Wikipedia won't implode. If there is no response to a polite talk page post about the brewing issue, then you revert while specifically leaving an edit summary that speaks of the un-responded-to, talk page discussion. If reverted again, keep seeking to engage, and if there is no response, you can ask for a third opinion, start a request for comment or otherwise act without warring. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's something to consider though: blogs can be used as sources when they only mention claims about their author, and there's no doubt that the material is authentic. I had a quick look and posted my opinion on the talk page. ʝunglejill 07:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Jill is absolutely right. I deleted everything out of ignorance and because my judgment was clouded by paranoia about a potential edit war. None has occurred, but I lack the skill level needed to review the old version, check the bare link that was embedded in the article for reliability, and restore some of the missing content. I'm going to figure out how I can make hidden notes for myself on my talk page or user page and make a note to go back to that article once I have a better idea of what I'm doing. (I assume that I can just use <hide>material</hide> but, if not, I'll figure it out.) Thanks to everyone for their help. Guyovski (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Referencing one book that I read in another?

I'm afraid I just can't find how to do this, though I'm sure I've seen it go by. I need to use a quote from an out-of-print book that I can't get my hands on. The quote is in a second book I can read online. How do I write that ref? Thank you! Tlqk56 (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tlqk! Have you tried searching on [books.google.com Google Books] for the out-of-print book? Sometimes they have citation information for books regardless of whether or not they're in print. Then you can just cite it with the citation templates per usual; if you need help with that then please do ask! If you can't find it on Google Books, then you could theoretically cite the second book and put in a note (the parameter is |note=) to state where the quote was originally from. Hope this helps! Happy editing, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! In addition to the above, you might want to consider asking for some help at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Someone there might have access to teh book you want. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, Bilby. Thanks. If I have to, is it like this:<ref>All the usual stuff about the book I can't find|note=All the usual stuff about the book I saw on Google including url</ref>? Does that require a separate section labelled notes? Tlqk56 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the style I normally use, it would be something like <ref>Gordon, Peter quoted in Smith, John (2008) "The Usefulness of References", Something Press, London, p266</ref>. You will need to refer to it having been quoted in the second work, as sometimes the quote is not quite accurate, but from your question I figure you already know that. :) (I've encountered this in some academic publications where authors rely on secondary sources for quotes, but the secondary source got it wrong). It is much easier if you use Harvard inline, but we don't tend to do that here. :) I'm not sure that there is a hard rule here, due to WP's habit of allowing multiple citation styles. - Bilby (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Having a hard time adding a reflist in Ukrainian Wikipedia...yes, that's right!

Oh Teahouse! You are our only hope! I am at an edit-a-thon helping a new editor work on an article and we are trying to add a citation to Ukrainian wikipedia. The article is w:uk:Біочіп (biochip). You can see we're having a problem, it's basically adding a reference list. Anyone who can help..we'd appreciate it. We're both having a hard time :) (Sometimes even if you can't speak the language you can figure it out...but we can't). We wanted to add a footnote but we had to resort to just a reference list. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Sarah (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I found the documentation for the reflist template in Ukrainian. It's here. From what I can tell with bad translation software, it seems that it's pretty much the same as en.wiki. Does that help? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keilana! Huh, we actually tried to use the similar {{reflist}} and it didn't work. Looks like we just might have to wait for someone to clean it up for us who speaks Ukranian. thanks :) Sarah (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

two totally unrelated questions

Is there an ibidum function in Wikipedia where you can input a code in order to have a reflist entry refer to a previously cited reference again?

Also, what is the proper template when a page doesn't really need Wikification but could use some cleanup in terms of its English (mostly because the author and editors aren't as proficient in English as they might be in other languages)? And does using that template automatically notify a project team?

Guyovski (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Sure, you can name a reference. See here wp:Citing sources#Repeated citations. 2) There is such a template - see Wikipedia:Template messages for a list of all template messages. The one you're looking for is probably under Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. ʝunglejill 18:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding a template doesn't automatically notify other editors, but it will list the page under the appropriate category. For example, if you put the {{copy edit}} template, we won't get notified at the wp:Guild of copy editors, but the page will be listed so that a bored copy editor can find it there. ʝunglejill 18:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought of something else - if the page is important, there are some Wikipedia groups that take requests. The Guild of copy editors is one such group, although we currently have a backlog. :) In other cases, if you want other editors to get involved, you can look for groups who are interested in the article's subject. I recently wanted more help with an article about an ongoing protest, so I put a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. A few days later someone came around and made a few improvements to the page. ʝunglejill 18:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jill, and thanks. The repeated citations paragraph confused me until I realized that the reference's name is inside the angle brackets containing "ref." (I don't know how to type that into an edit window without activating the reference function.) But now I understand it and it's simple enough for me to remember. As for the templates, the one I wanted was "copy edit" (again I don't want to type in the whole thing in case I accidentally put a copy edit template on this page :D ). But if I do put a copy edit template on an article, does that automatically alert the copy editing project or do I still have to go somewhere else and manually get them involved? Guyovski (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I was able to help - please don't be shy to ask for more clarification. Here's a tip - if you don't want the template to be rendered, put this tag: <nowiki></nowiki> around it. That's what I did so I could show you the tag. :D This will work for any other wiki markup. To answer your question - once you put the {{copy edit}} template on the page, it will get listed somewhere, but no particular editor will be alerted. If you want to request a copyedit, put it on the Guild of copy editors requests page. You can also request a copyedit for articles that don't have any glaring problems, if you want to make them really good. But of course, if you are able to improve the article yourself, go ahead! Again, don't hesitate to ask further questions. ʝunglejill 21:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If the article you want copyedited is a short one, and you don't feel confident copyediting it yourself, put the link here and I'll do it. ʝunglejill 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll put the link on your talk page. Thanks. Guyovski (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ways to learn Wikipedia rules and procedures

I have very spotty memory retention. Out of a 300-page book, I remember only two or three phrases that jump out at me. This made high school and college very difficult in the early 1980s. But I'd still like to be able to review the various Wikipedia rules and procedures and become familiar with them. So far I'm doing it on a case by case basis: as I need to know something, I either dig for it or ask someone. Is there a more efficient way? Guyovski (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski! I'm very glad that you are interested in learning the rules and procedures. The first thing that I can tell you is that a lot of the learning will come from experience. In order to remember important policies, guidelines, and essays you should create a list on your userpage. If you like, you could hide the list, or make it a scrolling list if you don't want to have the entire list showing on your page. (I could help you with that) A good example of an editor who has utilized a portion of his userpage for helpful links is User:BarrelProof. Look at the bottom half of his page. You may even want to use some of those links on yours. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On another note, I do run an adoption program and would be more than happy to take you on and help show you the ropes. You can take a look at it at User:Ryan Vesey/Adopt. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. I finally decided to put myself up for adoption. I had a look at your adoption page and it looks like you recommend traditional study methods and administer tests. Both high school and two years of college were hell for me because they used that precise approach. So, not intending to hurt your feelings, but I don't believe that we'd be a good fit. Another editor told me he used to adopt newcomers until one adoption went all to hell, dozens of editors wasted many hours of time, and the adoptee ended up being permanently banned anyway, so he doesn't want to risk adopting anyone again. But I've used the template and hopefully somebody will come along who's interested. All the best. Guyovski (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Guyovski! I found some articles that summarize the rules in a simplified way: Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset is an official policy. Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia are essays. Maybe one of those works for you. For me, the most difficult part is remembering the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I use Ctrl-F to search through that article, but it still slows me down sometimes. I think Ryan Vesey's suggestion is great: keep a list of useful pages on your userpage. I have such a list on mine, but it's very short. Other than that, it depends what kind of learner you are. Are you an intuitive learner? If you spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia's best articles, at some point you might have an intuitive grasp of how to contribute. You could concentrate on reading articles in your field of interest. Also, here's a tip that took me a bit of time to figure out: to search Wikipedia project pages, place wp: before your search query. Good luck! ʝunglejill 14:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Took you a bit of time? It took me 1 year 3 months and 24 days. Thanks Junglejill! Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Guyovski. You already have great answers to your questions, and I'm going to follow down some of those links Junglejill mentioned. But I guess I do something a little different, so I'll throw it out, too. I was overwhelmed with info at first and I hated the time I wasted trying to find something I'd read before. So I keep a set of files on my laptop, just for WP. (I use Onenote, but any word processing program that let's you organize files would work.) I keep the program open pretty much whenever I'm on WP. (It's set up just like a three-ring notebook from school days.) I save info for my articles in it, but I also have one just for WP, with tabs like WP editing, MOS style, etc. WP editing is divided into sections like: Categories, Layout, Images, Templates. These sections have subpages, so I can go directly to any bit of info I need. If I find something I can't use right away but want to save, I just copy it in my notebook and Onenote save the link automatically. It has saved me a lot of time, and I'd probably cry if I somehow lost it. LOL You'll find a system that works for you, I'm sure. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski! For a list of Wikipedia's policies (not guidelines), see the exotically named Wikipedia:List of policies. benzband (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for putting so much effort into being helpful. :) I had a look at User:BarrelProof and believe from experience that lists of long documents don't help me much because I still have to search through the documents. The suggestion is appreciated, but I've tried that kind of thing before and it didn't work for me. Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset does look like it could be extremely useful even if it doesn't cover every possibility a la Roman Law. I've bookmarked it in my Firefox so I can pull it up whenever needed. Taking notes would also probably help with memory retention (although I don't use Windows and therefore don't have access to OneNote). Other than that I'll be researching stuff as it comes up and hoping to remember how to do things--and the appropriate things to do--with enough repetition. Again, everybody's input is very much appreciated. Guyovski (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you got some help. I do find taking notes, even on the computer, helps me remember. Believe me, you are ALWAYS welcome to come back here and ask a question -- and no question will be considered too dumb. (I know, I've asked some real doozies myself.) Tlqk56 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

why was my edit a vandalism?

I added myanmar wikipedia link my:သေဆုံးခြင်း in quotes on Death , and it was reverted by OrenBochman. I tested on my sandbox, but I found no problem. Am I wrong or is he wrong?

Nyaminthar (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

He's wrong in this case, and I've restored the edit. I suspect that Oren doesn't have the right things installed on his computer to render the myanmar alphabet, so to him it will have looked like you were just adding a link of boxes.--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thank you so much Jac16888.

Nyaminthar (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I get an article reviewed?

Hi Heather

Many thanks for the invite I am about to put up an article on wiki, I have all the references and spent a long time doing it. I think its ready but want it reviewed. How do I do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryofMod (talk • contribs) 05:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mary. I have completely reworked your "homemade" citations to turn them into inline citations and made many other formatting changes. For future reference, please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. As you can probably see, all of the citations you tried to link through urls at newsstore.fairfax.com are nonworking. You do not always need to supply a URL (citations do not have to be to online sources), but I cannot convert the citations into pure news citations, because what you are actually trying to cite are newspaper articles you accessed through that site, but you did not supply the names of the stories or other attribution information so I can't go to the website, find the article and convert because I don't know which articles were accessed through the broken search urls. So if you can retrace your steps and tell us, for example, that the 6th citation was to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled X, date X, at Page X, by author X, we can fix those citations (maybe even find alternative, stable URLs to supply). By the way, are you familiar with the National Library of Australia's Trove website? You can find tons of material there for Australian (and other) topics.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How to add an artists album artwork to a page?

I need to add 2 different pictures for 2 different albums for a band. How do I do that? The pictures are not mine, but can be use to describe the albums. NxOhMissFriedxD9 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi MissFried! You can upload these images as Fair Use (#Images section). To do this, go to the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard then start the upload form:

• Step 1: choose the file from your computer;
• Step 2: provide a name and description for your file;
• Step 3: select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use", specify the article in which it shall be used; then select the rationale "This is the official cover art of a work" and fill in the drop-down form with the appropriate information.

Hope this helps, benzband (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Any way to accelerate the Articles for Creation Review Process?

Hi, I created a new article through the sandbox option but once I clicked submit, it seems to have gone into this black hole called Articles for Creation for a review. AfC seems to be severely backlogged so is there any way to get my article out of there and into article space? The article presently resides here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/M.S._Rajan I know it can be done through the move dropdown but I don't know if it's allowed plus I don't want to break anything in the process... Thanks

Sesamevoila (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sesamevoila! You're right that Articles for Creation is unfortunately backlogged. I took a really quick look at your article and thought it was fine, so I accepted your submission. Congratulations! Just so you know, you're always welcome to create articles straight away, without going through Articles for Creation. If you have a question about a draft or anything, please feel free to ask. Happy editing! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

referencing sources

Helloo and thanks in advance for any help.

I have 2 main questions at this point, if you wouldn't mind helping me:

(1) I can't find the sequencing for a newspaper reference. Is this correct?: e.g. Steel, Judy (May 21, 1982). "The big shakers at the corp". Globe & Mail, P. 10.

I am used to APA format where every period and comma and space matters.

Somewhere I say that the publication name needs to go first and started to change everything but then stopped to ask you.

(2) I have some newspaper references that I have marked with [2] They also can be found as an http so I have used ... with those right after the ref so that readers can just click into the article and read it on the spot. Is this correct?

Sofiabrampton Sofiabrampton (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sofiabrampton. I would suggest always using the templates described on Wikipedia:Citation_templates. It has some templates for different types of citations (including URLs). These go inside the <ref></ref> pair and automatically provide formatting per Wikipedia standards. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 02:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sofiabrampton!

(1) There are a number of citation templates available for properly formatting references ({{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, etc). In the case you mention, one would cite as {{cite news|last=Steel|first=Judy|date=May 21, 1982|title=The big shakers at the corp|newspaper=[[Globe & Mail]]|page=10}}, which produces:

Steel, Judy (May 21, 1982). "The big shakers at the corp". Globe & Mail. p. 10.

(2) For inline citations, you can surround the citation in <ref> </ref> tags. This will produce a superscript note ^{[1] [2]} which once clicked will take the reader down the page and highlight the corresponding reference. You can also surround the citation templates mentioned above in ref tags. benzband (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How to go from sandbox to article

I wrote my first article, probably really a stub. I put it in my sandbox, worked out all the bugs, and hit 'save.' So far, so good.

But it isn't an article yet, right? It seems to just be my sandbox. The title of the page seems to be "User:BThomascall/sandbox" instead of what I am writing about, the Wopmay orogen.

So my question is probably "How do I create a title that will actually appear?"

BThomascall (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey BThomascall. The article looks great! What you need to do is move the file to the correct title. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for information on how to move it. In order to activate the "move" function, you need to be "autoconfirmed". Getting "autoconfirmed" is easy: it happens instantly when your account is 4 days old, and you have made 10 edits to Wikipedia. Looking at your contributions to Wikipedia, your account is over 4 days old, but you haven't yet made 10 edits. Just make a few edits to a few more articles, or perhaps play around with your userpage, and the "move" function should automagically appear for you, allowing you to move your article to the correct title. If you have any more questions, or need any more help, feel free to ask! --Jayron32 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a great answer. I am starting some edits now. And thanks for looking over the article and providing feedback. I really appreciate it. I'd like to ask another question: I'm mentioning a dollar amount in an edit. My wording is misleading, but I don't know how to fix it. I am trying to convey that the US government's contribution to a building project is going to be $400 million, but that the overall project is expected to stimulate the local (German) economy by a much larger amount, about one billion dollars. However, since many countries have a dollar currency, I tried to say that this reflects the value in USD, but then it comes across as though the US is contributing the entire amount. If you have any suggestions... Here is the actual phrasing as it now stands: "A new hospital would have several advantages over renovating the existing hospital and is expected to stimulate the state's building industry, with estimates of putting up to one billion US dollars into the local economy. In 2008, the proposal received approval for a $400 million project; the proposal is contingent upon congressional support for the funding." Thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BThomascall (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What about something like "The U.S. is donating an amount of US$400 million, while other countries are donating additional amounts to bring the total investment up to US$1 billion" or something like that. Something that makes a clear distinction between the denomination of the currency and the source of the donations? --Jayron32 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I can now move the article, but it seems like it will take my sandbox with it? The instructions say that the old page, my user sandbox, will redirect to the new page. That's not quite what I'm looking for... BThomascall (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Once you've moved it you can blank the sandbox, which will remove the #REDIRECT [[ ]] code. benzband (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a great support site! Thank you everyone! I have submitted the article, and it is 814th in line for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BThomascall (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One more question, please. Is there any way to check on the progress of a wiki submission? It looks like approval can be a slow process, but since it is my first article, I am a little excited, and want to follow it as it moves up the queue (from its starting point at 814th in line... !) BThomascall (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency in infobox fields running over onto two lines

In regard to infoboxes (tennis biographies in particular), I was just wondering why it was that half the time fields such as 'Australian Open', 'Highest Ranking', 'Current Ranking' etc run over onto two lines and sometimes they don't, regardless of how much info is filled in under these fields...? What can be done to make sure infoboxes look more like these: Magnus Larsson, Florian Mayer rather than these: Alejandro Falla, Onny Parun? Thanks. Asmazif (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2012 (GMT)

Hello, Asmazif, Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately I don't really understand infoboxes that well myself. I played around with the ones you linked to a bit and couldn't figure out the problem. I did, however, find a Wikiproject here: WikiProject Sports. If you go there and ask your question on the talk page somebody might be able to help you. Sorry I couldn't do more, I'm just a beginner here myself. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. But you can use the <br /> tag to force a line break, if that helps. Maybe there's a wiki markup equivalent, but I've certainly seen this used in such situations and it's even documented at {{Infobox company}}. -- Trevj (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Trevj - it's the field names themselves which sometimes run over, not the text entered to the right of each field (which is inevitable), so <br /> only works for making a new line when entering data. I'll look at the links you both sent though, thanks. I'm thinking it's a flaw with the actual design on the infobox, however, and it should possibly be proposed to englarge the length of the template, ala the golf infobox, which is noticeably bigger - compare Vijay Amritraj to Tiger Woods. Asmazif (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2012 (GMT)

Article Submission

Hi, Thanks to everyone who has been involved in helping me with this. Can you edit this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rising_Sun_Lodge_29) to meet the miminmum requirements of a submitted article? I'd just like to get it approved. I added a lot of info that came from archives of our lodge but not able to be substantuated. It's perfectly OK to just obliterate anything that is unnecessary since I can't "verify" alot of it. Cnhudson (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Cnhudson. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm pretty new here myself, but I looked at your article and I think you have a basic problem with establishing notability. You have a lot of sources, but the ones that come from the lodge itself don't count. Notability requires you to show that non-lodge related newspapers, books or magazines have written about it. It seems that unless a lodge is in an historical building, there generally won't be the right kind of references to get an article made. But you can try to find those references. On the other hand, if someone has been helping you, maybe they can give you some more ideas. Sorry I can't be more help, I've never worked on an article about an organization. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice about a content dispute

Hey. After the brilliant move of choosing a current political event as my first commitment, I've involved myself in a content dispute in 2011 Egyptian revolution. I'm not making any of the edits - I just have an opinion. I tried to discuss it on the talk page - other than stating positions, no meaningful discussion took place. Put it up for RFC, then figured response might take a long time. The issue became an edit war, and I became concerned that this was hindering progress of the article, so I put this up at dispute resolution. I didn't realize that if the RFC remained open, the discussion at dispute resolution would be closed. Obviously, I would've closed the RFC beforehand if I'd known. Now I'm even more motivated to get this resolved, because lots of material about current events is being added to an already huge article. I really think this material should go in a new article, see on the talk page/dispute resolution discussion if you're interested. So I have a few questions:
1) Does anyone know how long RFCs take? The admin who closed the dispute said 30 days. That really wouldn't be helpful. I also wonder if it would even matter, since editors don't seem that interested in discussion.
2) Am I totally overreacting about this? Should I give up and let the other editors do as they please? I'm in the minority opinion, but I feel that a third opinion could change that, for content reasons but also because the article really needs to be split off.
3) I think it wasn't really cool of the admin to close the discussion and refer me to the RFC, when I stated clearly why I put this on the noticeboard despite the RFC. He could've bothered to let me know that I have to choose between the two. Should I say anything, or am I off the mark?
4) If anyone has an opinion about the issue, or suggestions for handling it, I'd love to hear. If you tell me I'm wrong and convince me to leave this alone, I might even thank you (kidding I guess.) ʝunglejill 20:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My thought is that it makes little sense to get into disputes about the naming of articles pertaining to rapidly changing events. In time, these things will settle out, and redirects can always be created for alternate names. Clearly, the events in Egypt of the past couple of years require a single overview article, with perhaps an increasing number of other articles describing narrower aspects of the revolution. I speak as an editor who rarely spends much time working on articles about current events, so please take my comments with a grain of salt.

I believe that English Wikipedia articles should be titled with the name most commonly used in reliable English language sources to describe the topic, rather than translations of Arabic (in this case) names less often used in English.

It can be tough to navigate debates about contentious current political topics. You have chosen to work in this area, so my advice is to tread lightly and work toward consensus whenever possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Cullen328, thanks for the reply, but I think you misunderstood the issue. ʝunglejill 00:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain the issue more clearly. I can't get to the discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, since it has been closed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm always getting into these kinds of debates myself, and in the minority. It's good to frequently look at WP:Dispute to see what the most appropriate remedy is for any situation. And to let each remedy run its course on the same issue. If the main issue is naming, the above advice is good. When is a "revolution over"? First there's the rising up and throwing out of the bums. But when do new elections, constitution making, power grabs, etc just become part of the ongoing history?? Just one of those things you all have to consense upon. The main thing is to be patient and learn from your mistakes. The system usually works if you work it, even for a minority of one. It just takes a lot of time and patience. CarolMooreDC 04:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read Wikipedia:Recentism. --Greenmaven (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Greenmaven, thanks for the link. Cullen328, the article's name is a side issue. The main problem as I see it, is that the article is at 190,000 bytes and has material about new developments added every day. The result is an unreadable, difficult to edit article, that mixes current events with events that concluded a year ago; if you only want to read about current developments, Wikipedia has no readable content. Carol, thanks for the encouragement. I've decided that because I am unable to fix the situation by myself, and because no one else is interested, I'll leave this alone and let the edit war about what date should appear in the infobox continue. Thanks for the replies. ʝunglejill 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

next steps for Notability/Noticeboard?

Hi Teahouse! The Deborah Berke, Architect has been idle for several weeks; there is a comment from User talk:Waggers that says the "article you've written needs a fair bit of work, and you need to be very careful about conflicts of interest and advertising - but as far as notability is concerned I think you've done a great job at establishing that Deborah Berke has it." I am not sure if this comment means the article has passed the notability test, and I wonder if someone can elaborate regarding what kind of work the article needs? And what are the next steps? I wish to avoid a COI and am trying to follow all of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. I posted this question on the Noticeboard and on the User talk:Waggersuser page but so far have only seen this response: "oooooo im scared" (I'm not sure why or what that is about!) — Thank you Meredith at DBA (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Meredith. You are dealing with several challenging issues. It is very difficult for a new editor to write an article about their employer, (Deborah Berke & Partners Architects in this case), and if you were just starting, I would advise against it. But now you are in the midst of it. The best advice I can give is to defer to the opinions of more experienced, disinterested editors, and several have been working on the article. When a single editor such as Waggers expresses an opinion, that is just one person's opinion. That being said, Waggers is a very experienced editor and that usually carries some weight. No one has yet challenged the notability of the firm, and others who participate in that noticeboard have moved on to fresher topics, so you should just move on as well rather than expecting some definitive opinion from the powers that be. That often doesn't happen.

You should be aware that a person's own writings do not establish notability, but only what reliable, independent sources write about that person. I believe that it is best, when listing sources to show notability, to select a smaller number of the indisputably high quality sources that clearly devote significant coverage to the topic, rather than a very long list of everything but the kitchen sink, which few editors will have the time or patience to study thoroughly.

The "oooooo im scared" comment was added by an anonymous IP editor and should be disregarded as graffitti or mild vandalism. If it was my talk page, I would remove it. Let Waggers handle it.

As for improving the article, just do your best to make the article better. I think that it needs more sources that discuss the firm itself in depth, as opposed to those briefly mentioning its various projects and awards. It would be good to establish why this particular firm is particularly notable, as opposed to similar firms of similar size and age. Many (but not all) editors believe Wikipedia should cover distinctive and unique businesses, rather than every business that has won the routine awards given out by trade associations in every field. So, in the case of awards, I would highlight those considered most prestigious among architects. I hope these thoughts prove useful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim User:Cullen328, thank you so much for taking the time to comment on my question regarding how to go from the Notability/Noticeboard to writing a biographical article about a living person. Your points are terrific and helpful, but the article in question is a biography of a living person, not about a firm. The article is here: User:Meredith at DBA/sandbox and also on the Deborah Berke, Architect. Thank you again for your time and interest. Meredith at DBA (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Meredith, most of what I wrote about the article about a firm also applies to an article about the individual who is principal of the firm. You still have a COI, since both firm and individual will be seen as your employer. You still have to meet notability thresholds, and it is still important to select the highest quality reliable, independent sources for your article, and to write, always, with the neutral point of view in mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

how long for a nomination deletion to be resolved?

Hello there! How long does it take for a deletion nomination to be resolved either way? I have an article that has been proposd/nominated for about a month now, and i'm wondering how to please speed up the process? Thanks! Noeline1984 (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A deletion nomination usually carries on until a clear consensus regarding the fate of the article is clear. The deletion discussion regarding your article does not seem to have reached a clear consensus yet. The only way to speed this up would be to have more editors to become involved in the discussion. Cheers, Hallows ^{Aktiengesellschaft} (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

They are closed one week (seven days) after nomination. If consensus is not clear by then, it is relisted for another week. After another 7 days it will be assessed again and either closed or relisted. This process may continue for a number of months. However, most discussions are closed in the first week. Rcsprinter (message) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Noeline, I would like to point out that you can improve the article while deletion is being debated. You can add more references, including those brought forward by other editors during the debate. It is not at all uncommon for an article to be significantly improved during this process - so much so that editors who started out recommending "delete" change their minds and switch to "keep". If there is no consensus, the article will be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are at WP:RELIST. At (or approaching) the end of the current round of 7 days, such discussions may be closed or relisted again. -- Trevj (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Isobel Waller-Bridge

Hello there. I recently created an article for an emerging composer, Isobel Waller-Bridge but it has been quickly nominated for deletion. One comment was that she has not worked much, but only done short films, when there is evidence on the internet that she has worked in theatre, film (as an arranger) and radio, and has had commissions from orchestras and ensembles. I created the page because i think she is an interesting artist. What's more, i feel guilty now that i've created this page about her and now there are these deletion nominations and proposals which she has nothing to do with! I read that the deletion proposals would be resolved within a week, but it has been at least one month now? I think the person/article is valid, particularly as there are a lot of people out there who have achieved much less and are present on wikipedia! I am grateful for 'Trevj' who has sourced more information about this artist, and i will happily keep updating the page when its appropriate. Any advice is welcome. Many thanks Noeline1984 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Noeline! The biggest issue with any new article is that there is adequate evidence that the subject of the article has been written about extensively in reliable, independent sources. That is, in Wikipedia, "notability" of a person is not measured by what a person has done, but what people have written about a person. If people have not written about Isobel's life and work, then the information that you might put into a Wikipedia article cannot be properly verified, an as such, there really shouldn't be an article at Wikipedia about her. If such sources do exist, then you need to make such source material clear. You may find Wikipedia:Notability to be a good place to get more information about this concept. Good luck, and if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask! --Jayron32 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you also read the policy at WP:DELAFD (linked to from the deletion notice currently in place at the top of the article)? -- Trevj (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

When is an author "notable"

I submitted an article on an author that was rejected because she was not deemed notable, despite that fact that her book won multiple awards, was an account of a Titanic survivor and was published 45 years after she died, all of which seem to me to indicate some level of notability. Other authors with articles on Wikipedia seem to be "notable" just because they're authors. cf Paul Cleave, e.g.

Who decides these things?

Thanks. John Burlinson. Jburlinson (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You've taken the wrong end of the stick, so to speak. Being a minister of WP:AFC myself, you just need more sources to verify the information. Mdann52 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello John. Sorry you've run into a patch of trouble. Just to expand a bit on what Mdann52 is trying to say: Wikipedia wishes that its articles contain only trustworthy information. As such, all information should be based on sources which are both reliable and independent. That ensures that we can trust the information in articles at Wikipedia. If, outside of Wikipedia, there doesn't exist extensive sources about the subject of an article, then there isn't any way to write a trustworthy article about that subject, so the article shouldn't be written. That is what is meant by "notable enough". The idea is that something is notable enough if enough people have noted (i.e. written about) it in reliable sources. It is expected that people who write new articles for Wikipedia are able to provide extensive, reliable, and independent sources: we need to ensure that there's enough good reliable writing out there in the world, so we can base the Wikipedia articles from that good, reliable writing. Without it, we can't write the article in the first place. There's more information at Wikipedia:Notability. If you are trying to establish that a new article is about a notable subject, you need to provide substantial sources which show it: books about it, magazine articles or journal articles about it, stuff like that. If no one has written about the subject, or if all of the writing is short, trivial, or only has a passing mention, or if all of the writting is self-published or dubious, then there can't be an article. Does that help explain what notable means? --Jayron32 20:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, Jburlinson. The notability criteria for auhtors is at WP:AUTHOR. The notability criteria for books is at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. The essense of both is that reliable independent third parties need to have written about them in detail. The references that Mdann52 refers to are the evidence that this writing has occurred. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As I was the person who turned down your article at AfC, I thought I'd better chip in! As others have said, if an author's work receives significant critical attention, in reliable publications such as newspapers, it usually means they are notable too. I suppose some people would consider that winning a couple of awards might be sufficient evidence. But because Spedden is a very unusual case, having died 45 years beforehand, I felt I needed more convincing before I accepted the article. Wikipedia is not an exact science, you see. It would certainly help your case if you can place more emphasis in your article about her book and cite a few reviews of the book if possible. I realise this is more difficult for events that happened in the 1990's, but wish you luck with the next review! Sionk (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks for your feedback. I think I'll try to re-do the article focusing on the book instead of the author. I've had an offer of help from Tlqk56, for which I'm very grateful. I'm very much in learning mode, so all guidance and correction is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jburlinson (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jburlinson, Welcome to the Teahouse. I write articles on children's books and authors, and I'd be glad to help you. I've run the book title through my "usual suspects" and found several good sources already, ones that should help out no question. Give me some more time and I'll contact you on your talk page with more information. Hope it helps. Following up, we can definitely get the book in. Major reviews and references and uses in Canada, US and England. I'm not so sure about the woman, I've never worked with establishing notability for an author before, the one's I write about are shoe-ins due to awards won. I'll read up. Any suggestions welcome. I will be out tomorrow, though. :( Tlqk56 (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. Maybe the book would make for a better article than the author, with some of the author information included as part of the book article. I'll wait for your guidance -- I'm such a total newbie I don't even think I qualify for full newbie status. Is there a category of "probationary newbie"? Thanks for your help.Jburlinson (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

anchor links on navboxes

I've read several guides but can't find any info regarding this. Is it true that you can't put anchor links on navboxes? Thanks in advance. Krystaleen (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry but I've no idea and haven't read every guide relevant to this. You could try it out in a sandbox to find out. -- Trevj (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear, by "can't" I mean "not supposed to". I added some change to this template but my changes got reverted because it had anchor links http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infamous&diff=497220630&oldid=497174657. I just want to make sure this is really not allowed because I've seen other templates using anchor links. Krystaleen (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Krystaleen! That did seem like an odd occurrence. They may have been removed because the navbox would have more than one link to the same page. I am inviting the user who removed them to weigh in here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I usually remove anchors, nonlinks, redlinks, and such because of WP:NAV. Navboxes should link to exactly one instance of one article and that instance should not be a redirect nor a section link. While it's an essay, it's pretty persuasive to me. --Izno (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think in this specific instance, the multiple links may be useful. The page says "avoid repeating links to the same article within a template". The term avoid usually has exceptions, and I think this may be one of them. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I honestly can't think of a case where you would want to anchor link. Especially given that in this specific instance, the two links would be a pair of spinoffs.... Consider this: If it's an anchor, is it really useful to attempt to send users to that page? What would that do to a template such as Template:Transformers? You get to the point where you're basically recreating the main page's table of contents... which is already automatically generated by any given article. That's just not worth the effort of maintenance and of making an inconsistent UI experience (the bolding of an article versus not-bolding of an anchor link). Again, I think the essay says all this much better, and provides further clarification. Don't get stuck on words like 'usually' when it's a point of UI consistency, if nothing else. :^) --Izno (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this, very informative to me :) I'll be following this discussion. You're supposed to bold a link to an article if an anchor link is present? I didn't know this. Krystaleen (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to bolding, what he means is that when you are viewing a page, the link to that page in the Navbox is automatically bolded rather than linked. The anchor links won't be bolded and will still appear as links. It could be confusing to some readers if they followed the anchor link and ended up on the same page. This is a very valid point, and it appears to be the reason that having anchor links in navboxes isn't desired; although, I still believe they would be appropriate in an instance where the entire page isn't linked in the navbox. Thank you Izno for clearing that up and for the very friendly and logical way you went about it :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Krystaleen. I suggest a different track. What is your objective? To help readers find information on the spin-offs? How about creating redirects for them? Redirects are common when a topic isn't notable enough for a separate article during an articles for deletion discussion. The information is merged into a main article and a redirect points to the section in that main article. To make the redirects, put the title like inFamous: Precinct Assault (2009) into the search box. The returned result will start You may create the page "InFamous: Precinct Assault (2009)", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Click on the red and you get a blank page with that title. To create the redirect, just insert #REDIRECT [[Infamous_(series)#InFamous: Precinct Assault (20090]] and save the page. An option to consider. Take care, DocTree (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey, ah I get it now. Kind of confused. As for redirects, I thought that's not allowed either? Krystaleen (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are allowed but not preferred, per WP:BRINT (which is guideline I think?). If you're redirecting to an article which is already in the template, then you're duplicating the link unnecessarily. If you're redirecting to a section of an article already in the template, see above. If you're redirecting to an article which is not already in the template, then the redirect should be replaced. --Izno (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

resubmit page after donating content

Hello, I submitted a page that had copyright infringement and the author of part of the infringement agreed to donate the content with the Creative Commons License. Now the rewritten article is in talk:Heart Pine and I don't know how to resubmit it or if I shouls have it approved somewhere else first, sorry totally new hereSpringmata (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A question could then arise as to whether or not the donated content may be an infringement itself. Therefore, it's probably safest and easiest to rewrite the content, as already suggested. I hope that makes sense. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I did rewrite it and added that note on the heart pine page, but no one has responded, should I just go ahead and edit heart pine with the new content I wrote? Thanks Springmata (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be simplest for Writ Keeper to review and comment on Talk:Heart pine/Temp. It looks as though you've followed the guidance, but the article should use inline citations (see WP:INCITE) and would also benefit from some additional references. I'm dropping a note on Writ Keeper's talk page. -- Trevj (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply at the article's talk page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined article on Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery

Dear Teahouse,

I would like to ask for some input on how to get my article on Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery accepted since it has been declined twice. I revised it so it would be very objective and give information and not sound like an advertisement. I ten added the reliable sources I could find in the web and the best I could get was 2 articles from a daily news paper (a national circulation newspaper) and a government website. It was still declined because of reliable sources. I was wondering if you could point me to the right direction. Thanks! Raynald Torres Pscs.1972 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Raynald! One issue was that your references didn't actually appear on the screen, I fixed that issue for you. I want to get one more piece of information from you and then I can assist you further. You have a lot of information on that page. Did all of that information come from one of the three references? If not, where did you get the information? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ryan,

Thanks for the review. The information was taken from members and present president. The organization, though it has existed for a long time, has just started building its website and all written information in the internet has only been brought about thru some member's websites and articles in newspapers who consulted members of the organization as resource persons for cosmetic surgery in the Philippines. The Philippine Medical Association, the official medical association of the Philippines accredited by the government has listed in their website which is a government website. Aside form these things written in the net, other information I wrote down in my article was a writing down of facts from the knowledge of members from their records which is not published yet in the internet. At hand, these are the only verifiable facts I have that are in the internet. Let me know if there are things I can do to make the article notable.Pscs.1972 (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Pscs. The article itself shouldn't be made notable - it's the Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery that needs to be notable. I understand the desire to create an article about your own project, but please note that writing about yourself or your organization is usually discouraged on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or a simplified guide here. You can still do it, but you must remain neutral and follow the other guidelines mentioned there. Your article currently doesn't appear anywhere - you can use your sandbox to create a draft. You can ask the administrator who deleted it to email you the content. If put it on your sandbox and show us, we might be able to tell you if it's notable enough for Wikipedia. But please consider that you probably won't be able to use information from the knowledge of members - it needs to be verifiable to be included, so that any person could check the information is true. Good luck! ʝunglejill 17:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new wiki/ the need for a wiki solutions/problems

I was wondering if there is any initiative among editors to create a wiki for page for educational problems and solutions. I'm wondering if anyone is already working on a wiki that provides problems and solutions to students- I know there is a wiki proofs and a wiki books, but I am wondering if there are any wiki resources that are devoted to problems with known solutions(also I doubt wiki proofs includes general proofs for chemistry problems[PV=nRT for example]). Is there wiki for proofs, problems and solutions? Is there any initiative to start one? TheKaramanukian (talk) 11 June 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKaramanukian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse, TheKaramanukian. I don't know of any specific wiki for "proofs, problems and solutions," but some wikipedia articles contain proofs and many contain links to proofs and calculators. For example the Ideal gas law example you use contains links (right at the bottom) to a very useful-looking calcuator and a page of alternative derivations as well as links to the orginial articles with the proofs. If you're looking for explicitly educational content, you may be better off starting at Wikiversity. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, TheKaramanukian. Perhaps Wikiversity] might be suitable. That wiki is somewhat neglected. Wikipedia is of higher importance to the foundation but the other wikis are available. Take care, DocTree (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Stuartyeates (talk) and DocTree (talk). I saw wikiversity for the first time today. Although wikiversity and wikibooks provide the conceptual material, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to provide practice resources. For example, what if practice problems and solutions were provided along with the conceptual material? Although this is usually beyond what wikis provide, I believe it could be very helpful. What do you think? I know that to provide resources for every subject would be an enormous undertaking. It would also be difficult to adjust the design of the wiki to accommodate resources. What if we were to provide released AP or SAT test prep material or similarly formatted practice material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKaramanukian (talk • contribs) 07:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)