Please remove that CSD A7 tag. It's clear notablity has been established.[[User:TheAnnoymousUser|TheAnnoymousUser]] ([[User talk:TheAnnoymousUser|talk]]) 20:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
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 his or her question and start the conversation.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present.
Indented line
Adf.ly
Please remove that CSD A7 tag. It's clear notablity has been established.TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback please!
Hi!
I've been working on a draft of an article on my user page about an Australian comedy podcast called TOFOP. I've been told in a deletion review that if I can improve it enough, that I can submit the draft for review, so that it can be moved back to its original page.
This is my first time editing a page though, so any feedback or help anyone would be willing to give me to improve the page (link below) would be much appreciated! The moment, I'm not sure if it's good enough to put up.
The first result for a "bremsstrahlung" search, in google, is the wiki article for it. a search for ' "free-free absorption" wiki' doesn't give the wikipedia result in any of the first 5 pages, however. Is there anything about the structure of the wiki pages that could help fix this? All Clues Key (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete copyright violations outright or is it possible to rewrite and put citation in?
Hi, I continue to find multiple copyright violations in Jimi Hendrix's wiki. I've deleted 7, I think it, in the last day or so. I've found several more. Is it possible to rewrite the text and put in a citation to save the information as it seems to say here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cclean - or should I continue to delete outright? I'm asking because there're going to be lots of gaps in this article if I keep finding more and delete outright. I would appreciate any guidance on this. Thanks :) Charlie Inks (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, Charlie; nice to know someone is taking care of such things. I seldom work a performer biography, but they indeed tend to be infested with copyviols. My custom is to cite and summarize the pasted material in a sentence, as I did a few months ago with The Walt Disney Family Museum. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Charlie is back! I can see by your contributions that you have certainly been busy today, haha.
When you spot a copyright violation, the first thing to do is REMOVE it. Sometimes what I do is copy the section and the source into an external text editor and THEN decide if it can be reworked. Sometimes the content that was the subject of copyvio is just not relevant enough to the article to be put back in. But if it is, there are a few more questions to answer. First of all, if the content is only mentioned by a single source (which can be determined by a Google search), then there should probably only be a tiny mention of it in the article (unless it is something highly significant like a lengthy NY Times article). If you find multiple sources that mention the idea, then this makes it a little easier to solve the copyvio. In such a case, it is possible to take small bits of information from MULTIPLE sources and synthesize them into paragraph form. This keeps the content from too closely reflecting any one source. A big note on solving copyvios is that paraphrasing can still be considered plagiarism. See that link on how to solve this problem. Good job! hajatvrc @ 19:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jim! It's good to get some additional thoughts on this, and I really appreciate you giving me that link. I'm wrapping up some other work just now, but I will definitely be checking this out before I proceed with the next set of copyviols. Look - I kinda think it's important b/c copyviol is stealing, as far as I'm concerned - just my humble opinion :) Anyways, thank you for the guidance! :) Charlie Inks (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hajatvrc! :D It's great to be in touch with you again! Yes, I'm back! (I'm adjusting my purple cape now :D Alright enough silliness. This is wikipedia! Would you be terribly offended if I honour you by calling you One of the Last Deep Purple Thinkers? :D You are Totally Up There for me, my friend. I mean this entirely and with great humility, as a compliment (I haven't had time/energy to see what/if happened to the end of our last exchange yet - please excuse me for that, but yes, it does continue to occupy my thoughts.... It's lovely when that happens!). This is very helpful advice you're giving me here, and I particularly appreciate the detail. The copyviols I'm finding yes, typically, can be sourced to other places - I'm dipping into my 3rd Hendrix bio as I'm writing this! (Jimi's wiki is colonizing my brain - heeeeeelp!) With great humility, I have to tell you, I'm always very conscious - because I'm not a musicologist - that other editors (who probably are) have spent hours, days, weeks and MONTHS on Jimi's article. The copyviols are especially heartbreaking to me b/c of this. Could so many people? or one or two editors? not know copyright law? I don't know what to make of it, but once again, dear Mr. Hajatvrc, I'm grateful to you for taking the time to help me understand how best to consider or deal with something on here. Will definitely be keeping your advice on this in mind, along w/ Jim's, when I get to this later in the week. A big virtual hug to you (is that allowed?) for Making Me Think last time I was here, yeah?! :D Have a fabulous afternoon, Charlie Inks (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again!
Hi, I was just wondering how on earth twinkle works WITHOUT flash. If not too much trouble, please explain on my talk page. I know how to use it, but not how it works.TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To hosts: I have replied here as requested. hajatvrc @ 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pronunciation ?
I may be missing the obvious, but is there a way to hear the pronunciation of a word I am studying?68.5.202.136 (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you're talking about the title of an article on Wikipedia, there is - in some cases. If someone has uploaded it, you'll see a little speaker next to a word - click it and you'll hear what it sounds like when said by an actual person. However, a better option is usually installing some sort of Text-to-Speech program on your computer - on my Mac, it's already installed by default, but you may need to do a bit of googling for how to do it on a PC. Let me know if you need more clarification, or if I just misinterpreted your question! Theopolisme TALK 15:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a further note: sometimes the speaker icon is not clickable. This means that it just denotes the English IPA pronunciation of the word, which follows it. Learning to read IPA is a good skill, not just on Wikipedia, but in life! hajatvrc @ 16:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is a wait-time of one week for resubmitted article realistic?
Is a wait-time of one week for a resubmitted article realistic?
Seniorexpat (talk) 07:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Seniorexpat, welcome to the Teahouse! Between the work of the previous reviewer and yourself, it looks like a good start to me. I've accepted your article and moved it to the main space of Wikipedia. Congratulations! Do you have an idea for your next article? heather walls (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and yes, a week is not unusual, there are usually hundreds of articles waiting to be reviewed. heather walls (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Seniorexpat! I have made a few minor grammatical and formatting tweaks to the article and added a note (which will not show up on the actual article) of a part that still needs a citation. You can view exactly what I did here. hajatvrc @ 08:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your acceptance and prompt assistance! I have added the desired verification of a "New Update" with a new link to a free copy.
New question: What will it take to remove the "This is a stub" moniker? Seniorexpat (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acutally, User:Sionk has already removed the stub template. hajatvrc @ 14:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Review question
Thank you for the invitation.
MHS
Is this where I would put my questions? I have been practicing on the entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murray_High_School_(Kentucky)&pe=1& which was marked as needing some references. I have done that and a bit more. It is still not great, but how do I get those markings removed?
I am also working on an article on someone that should have one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Constantine_W._Curris. It has been declined twice as I am learning slowly. How does a reviewer get chosen for an article? Do reviewers choose what they will work on? Are they assigned? In a backlog are the reviews done in the order the articles were received? Does further editing delay the review? user:Pyramid43
Hi Pyramid43! I just love it when a new user comes in with a whole slew of questions that show they are truly interested in Wikipedia!
Murray High School (Kentucky) seems to be pretty good for a new article. I am not yet willing to remove the citations template because you still have two sections, Notable Alumni and Historical Timeline, which do not contain any references. This is not something to be upset about. Countless articles, even older ones, have that banner at the top. Your article will not be deleted, as it does contain many citations and the subject is certainly notable. The citations banner is just a way of letting other editors know that they can help the article by adding a few more references.
Articles for creation can be an extremely stressful place for a new editor because there is so much to read an understand about it. ANY registered user can review an AfC. There is no assignment process, just volunteers. Of course, if an editor approves an article that other editors later think is not ready to be an article, the other editors will probably move the article back to AfC. When a large backlog exists, potential articles do not have to be reviewed in order. An editor may choose an article that is in their own comfort zone, or go right to articles that they think are either the most promising or need the most work. Further editing after submitting an article is encouraged and does not delay anything.
With regards to Constantine W. Curris, you will notice that the last editor who declined it said that the article does not establish notability. This does not mean that the subject himself is not notable, it just means you should probably look for mentions of the subject in widely viewed media publications, etc. and use those as citations. Notability is the number one reason why new articles are declined. As of right now, I do agree that none of your references are from highly-visible media. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Notability, and you will see what I mean. hajatvrc @ 07:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the extensive answers. Pyramid43 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked a couple of these things and WRT Murray HS I think I should just find a similar one so that I can see what kind of references are suited for those things. On the Curris thing I am more confused. It is now up for review again and given what you said: Should I "take it down" until the issues are resolved? How do I do that or would you do it for me? Is there a limit to how many times you can submit something? (Even if there is not a limit, I don't want it declined a third time.) I have looked at the Wikipedia:Notability and based on criterion 6 it seems the notability requirement is met. Could we discuss this via email?
Thank you again for your time.Pyramid43 (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I have looked at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). And yes, criterion 6 specifically mentions the subject's title. Again, the subject himself is notable. The reason the article did not pass last time is because it did not meet Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, which applies to ALL articles. But, I do see that there is an article by the NY Times that gives a bio of the subject. This is enough to meet the rule. I am officially accepting the article, which will be in the article namespace in a few minutes! If you have any further questions, you may email me. hajatvrc @ 17:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't know how to properly label my citation in the references section. It is #19 on the list of references. Can you help? Thanks.
LinaWright (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lina. There is a way to add a proper reference manually, but frankly it is painful, and I don't remember how to do it. There's a much better way, using the RefToolbar. You used to have to add something using Javascript, but it is now much easier. (I know there was some discussion about making it automatic, so you might already have it.) To check to see if you have it already, or add it if you do not, go to your preferences:
Preferences → Editing → Look for ""Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more"
and make sure it is checked.
Once it is checked, go to the article to edit, and click edit as usual. Now look just above the edit window, where you see several icons, including the one to sign your posts. Add the extreme right you should see the word "cite". Click on it, and you should see a box on the next line called "templates" That has four options. In your case, you want "Web" That will give you a template to fill in. It is that easy. You might want to practice in your sandbox. Make sure you have a reference section in your sandbox (ask me if you don't know what that means). It will be slightly awkward at first, but once you get the hand of it, references will be easy.
This is the first time I've ever written out these directions, so I'd like some feedback from you. Did they work? Did I miss any steps? Can you help me make them clearer, because I may want to save this for the future, questions about references are common.
Hello. Once again I've fouled up what should be a simple task.LOL When moving out my new article from this page User:Tlqk56/sandbox to The Secret River (Rawlings book), I transferred the talk page, too. Now when I go to my sandbox talk page it goes to the article talk page instead. I tried reading but don't see how to fix this. (It's not the first time I've done that, I'm afraid.) What am I doing wrong and how do I fix it? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! It happens to the best of us. Here is how you fix it:
Go to the talk page and it'll redirect you. Underneath the article title (the secret river blah) you'll see "Redirected from User:blahblah".
Click on the link to your talk page you'll see in that sentence
It'll take you to the redirected talk page. Click edit, and delete the redirect.
Click save and you're good to go and back to normal :) SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sarah. I'm saving these directions, as I expect I'll do that again. My DH used to write training programs for the Navy. He'd ask me to try them out first, because I was really good at messing up things that seemed simple to him. :) Well, we all have our own talents, right? Tlqk56 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to re-submit my article for creation?
I would like to resubmit my article after correcting some errors. How do I resubmit it?
Hi Ggarver, welcome to the Teahouse! I think your first step might be to revert the edit you made where you erased the submission box that was already on the article. You leave that there until the article is approved (even though it might be a bit distracting). There is a link to click in that box to resubmit your article. Do you need any help with that? heather walls (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heather,
Thanks for the info. I could use some help getting my article approved =] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggarver (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think first we should deal with the fact that there are now two copies. The original and a new one in Wikipedia space that you just created. I am pretty sure we need to get rid of the new one and keep working on the old one. heather walls (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ggarver, I moved any changes from the new page you created back to the original Articles for Creation submission. If you are ready to try again, use the click here to resubmit. heather walls (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
multiple copyright violations: five and counting
Hi, I haven't had a chance to get to them all, but I've just found yet another copyright violation on Jimi Hendrix's wiki. Here's the link to what was copied: copyright violated and here's the text cut and pasted in the wiki - "As a record producer, he also broke new ground in using the recording studio as an extension of his musical ideas."
Just making sure somebody knows why I'm deleting this stuff - but I will note it also in the edits.
Thanks :D Charlie Inks (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Charlie! Another tip - also drop by with Template:Cclean on the talk page for Hendrix - you can see, by visiting that template page, that you can even link to the online material that was the source of the copy vio. It's more important to document it there, and as you said - in your edit summaries - than anywhere else. Awesome work :) SarahStierch (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also! There is a WikiProject (a group of Wikipedians who edit about common interests) for people who are diligent at cleaning up copyvios: Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Join in if you're interested! SarahStierch (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sarah! Will definitely document it there - and find the other ones I found in my bookmarks and document there also. Cheers :D --Charlie Inks (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Moonriddengirl is also our resident expert on copyvio. You could leave a note on her talk page if you like and she can help make sure all of it gets cleaned up. RyanVeseyReview me! 22:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ryan! Thanks for this! If you are on the payroll, don't you need a raise? If you're not, shouldn't you be? :D Gotta track down my bookmarks yeah? Cheers and thanks for this. Good to hear from you, Charlie Inks (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Teahouse, fyi, I've deleted Six copyright violations today on Jimi Hendrix's wiki. As Sarah suggested, I also put a note on the talk page for other editors or people who stop by to make changes w/out an account. I've also left a note on Moonriddengirl's talk page. To help anyone checking this stuff - if that happens - I've noted the page number, the title and the ISBN number in the edits where I made the deletions. Thanks for reading :) Charlie Inks (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pings
How do I answer/decode pings and figure out who's trying to contact me?
Thanks :D Charlie Inks (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
image
where do this I place this "|human=username" for an image that need to be moved to wikicommons? (Libby995 (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Libby, welcome to the Teahouse. That parameter is used if you are tagging an image with the template {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. It indicates that the suggested move has been checked by a human user i.e. you as meeting the criteria to move to Commons rather than being a bot. So for you the usage would be {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons|human=Libby995}}. NtheP (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-submitting an article
Hey Everyone,
My submission iniitally got declined, but I went ahead and re-edited it pretty thoroughly. Was wondering if anybody could go ahead and take a look at let me know if I did what I should be doing! Maybe even review it if you're feeling generous! ;)
Hi Golomb! Looks like you've revamped the article for sure. One good tip I learned about Wikipedia writing when it comes to bios - keep it boring. If the person is as notable as they should be to be included in Wikipedia, their story will tell itself on their bio page without having to promote them! On that note, none of the resources you used have links to the sources. It's really important to make sure that all of your references have links to their online sources - the article will most likely get rejected just for that reason. Especially content about his personal life - content that can be questionable will get removed without proper citations. I'd also consider rewriting the section about his professional work - right now it reads like a timeline, which is something that Wikipedia and other encyclopedias frown upon. I'd just condense it into a few nice, easy to read paragraphs. I'd also remove the lists of sports figures he works with. Just mention a few of the most notable one's in one paragraph. It'll probably be considered to advertisey just based on those lists (i.e. "Steiner holds exclusive memorabilia partnerships with sports figures such as Peyton Manning, Tiki Barber, Rex Ryan, and over 15 others." If you don't do it, someone else (like me) will eventually do it if the article moves into the user space. I hope this helps. Good luck and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to edit my personal Bio that was written a long time ago?
I have an account on Wikipedia, and we are trying to update a bio and information that is incorrect. I was not the one who originally wrote the one that is currently posted.Brandiwynae (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brandiwynae! Thanks for dropping by the Teahouse. It's actually best that you (the subject) don't edit your own article. It's actually a policy that we have here at Wikipedia. What I'd advise you do, is visit the talk page of the article about the subject (you, I suppose!) and just state what is wrong and provide adequate reliable sources (i.e. from magazines, newspapers, news sources - not your website or press releases) that people can use to update it. You can always ping us here at the Teahouse when you do that and we'll take a look. I would strongly advise you avoid updating it yourself, as you might get into a pickle of trouble. I hope this helps, and welcome! SarahStierch (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Golombjesse! It seems like your submission was declined because it read like an advertisement. In all Wikipedia articles, you have to include reliable sources that are independent from the subject. You must also take note of Wikipedia's policy on being neutral. Wikipedia articles should explain both sides and not be biased. Hope this helps! -- Luke(Talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highlighting an advert
Hello,
I came across this page, Walk Thru the Bible, and it seems more of an advert than an encyclopedic entry. I vaguely remember seeing things marked as 'advertisements in need of cleanup or editing' (or something like that). Is it appropriate for this page to be marked thus and how could I do it?
Thanks KiwiTim (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KiwiTim! The template you are looking for is {{advert}}, which you can add to the article with the month of tagging, like this: {{advert|date=July 2012}}. However, by looking at the page history ("history" tab to the right) i found that a series of recent edits had turned the article into a spammy advertisement. I have reverted them and left a note to Kara.mcLaughlin who performed the edits. :) benzband (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a company page
Hi there,
We are hoping to create a Wikipedia page for our large global company. We obviously want to get this right and adhere to all Wikipedia guidelines. Please could you detail the process, including any stipulations that are to be met.
Hello Wallis! First and foremost, writing about your own company or something that you are linked to is considered a conflict of interest, even if that wasn't your intention. If your company is notable enough, another editor not connected to the organization will come along and create it. Next, you can read Wikipedia's general notability guideline and company notability guidelines. Basically, if a company has received significant coverage by secondary sources, then it can have its own article. Hope this helps! -- Luke(Talk) 14:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am new user here (have done some small edits here and there over the years though). I am looking for advice on how I should format my first article. The article is going to be very extensive and would take me a few months to complete. It has thousands of uses, both for me, viewers and other users. Other users may link my article as a referance,to confirm if a particular music release exists. If is is listed in the aricle then it means that I have personally tracked it down (how could I track it down if it didnt exist?). Anyways here is a link to said article, and my question will follow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Simdude1990/My_Album_Collection
Should I link each Band/Artist to a new subpage? Or have them all as drop down lists? Or does anyone have a better Idea? Simdude1990 (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Simdude, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not sure that what you are attempting to create is really suitable for Wikipedia. This page, as a list of albums you own, is not really appropriate for your userspace. Wikipedia already contains a large amount of information on notable bands and albums, so I would suggest working to expand this coverage by writing about bands and albums that you enjoy. There are other websites that allow you to record the albums you own, like discogs.org. Moswentotalky 10:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Simdude. I second Moswento, and am quite certain this is not appropriate as an article and also not appropriate to be held even in your userspace; that even if not deleted immediately, it will be taken to miscellany for deletion eventually if kept in your userspace and deleted, so please don't use your valuable time compiling this here. That being said, there may be alternative places for you to keep this, off of Wikipedia. You could I think, for example, create this at Wikia, and though I don't know a great deal about creating content there, I believe you can still fairly easily link the albums you include to their articles here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Referenceing a magazine article
I have noticed an error in an article and I would like to fix it. Obviously, I need to back up my change with proof. The only proof I have is a photo our company shot as well as one image in a 1986 magazine. I have emailed the magazine as well as the parent publishing company to see if they have this online that I can link to, but have received no response. How do I go about using this as a reference without violating copyright laws? Can I post it to our website and link to that?
Hi AVS and welcome to the Teahouse. References in articles don't have to be online to be used on wikipedia so you can reference the magazine by it's name, issue, page etc and use the link to the company website as a backup. There is a specific template {{Cite journal}} you can use for this. NtheP (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! There is no requirement that a source be online in order to be used to reference an edit. You can use the {{cite journal}} template when using a print magazine or scholarly journal. You can read more about it here, or if you have any questions about how to use it, feel free to return to the Teahouse and someone will be able to help! --McDoobAU93 21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Word 'Saan'
Hi,
Can I use the word 'Saan' (English) for a woman's name in my poetry.
Hi Pvk36! As someone with a real passion for poetry, I would say you can do whatever in the world you want to do with your own poetry.
Do you have any questions that are related to using Wikipedia? hajatvrc @ 20:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best way to start working in sandbox?
Hello. I do a lot of work where I take a stub, work on it in my sandbox, and usually turn it into a start or C article. By the time I've done that, there's sometimes nothing left of the original wording. (I leave infoboxes, external links, etc if they are there.) Is it more correct to take the original, paste it in my sandbox with attribution, and work on it, or better to just start fresh -- or does it matter? Sometimes I can work section by section, but other projects are too big for me to handle that way. (BTW, about noon NY time you can see one of my articles at DYK?: John R. Tunis). :) Thanks for the help. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tlqk! I would just work directly on the article. But if you are intent on going through your sandbox, it's best to attribute per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ;) benzband (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, i didn't get the bit about John R Tunis: do you mean you have submitted it for DYK? benzband (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tlqk, a long time ago I asked a similar question. Here is the question and response. RyanVeseyReview me! 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for the replies. To clarify, my DYK has been approved and is on the front page now. As for working on the page itself, that's OK if I'm just adding some info here or there or only working on one section. But some articles deserve a lot more work, for example I ended up expanding John R. Tunis 11 times it's original size. I'm not sure I could do that in the article space, it took me a month, and I do lots of moving and tweaking and editing to try and get it right. If I did that in the mainspace the article would be a mess all that time, which doesn't seem desirable. But this is still new to me.
Ryan, the link you gave me was helpful. I will have to read and consider it some more.I don't remember seeing the under construction template before. May I ask, what did you end up doing? (The articles I work on rarely have anyone else editing them, if they do I leave them there.) Thanks again. Anyone else want to give an opinion? Tlqk56 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tough issue; there's negatives on both sides. On the draft side, if you start with a copy and then rework it in your namespace and the article you copied it from is not edited at all when you are ready to transfer, it is possible to do a history merge. But if there have been any subsequent edits, then a history merge is not possible because it would shuffle together the edits by time and date, so you will have to instead overwrite the existing content with your content in a single edit and lose all the page history associated with your new content. There's no copyright issue there because all of the content is yours. However, if the draft has had any non-trival edits by people other than you, it creates a copyright violation to transfer the content to the existing article without a history merge. There are messy fixes for this I won't get into but it good to be aware of the issue so that you don't invite people to make changes to such a draft. On the other hand, it's difficult to use an under construction tag on a live article for a month, and you won't feel nearly as free to make messy changes, leave notes to yourself, other things that don't belong in the mainspace, and leave them in place until you can fix it at your leisure; much more confining. I don't know that there's any middle ground between the two.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do I remove a name from a list of birthdays that is incorrect?
This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1941_births has the incorrect birth date for my father, Keith Short. I have logged in and tried to edit it but only see a list of 'computer language', no names. I would like to remove his name from this list. Can you help? Chloecshort (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chloe and welcome to the Teahouse! The simple answer to your question is that all you need to do is go to the article, click edit, and scroll all the way to the bottom. You should see two pieces of code that look like this: Category: 1941 births and {{Persondata |NAME ...etc. All you have to do is change the "1941" you see in both places to the correct year. However, I want to caution you just a little bit. We have a conflict of interest policy, so any edits you make to the article about your father need to be neutral and sourced. I know I linked you to a bunch of really wordy policies and guidelines; if you have trouble with them (most of us have!) please do ask here and we can give you a better explanation. I hope this helps! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 14:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article deletion by another user without discussion
Hi. I just had my first article published tonight and soon afterwards another user promptly deleted it. The article was for a recurring guest character on a television show (and that particular character has had an enormous impact in the show's story lines for the last 3 years). The person who deleted it did so by commenting only that the character did not deserve an article since it was not a main (i.e. regular) character on the show.
While it is true that the character, Helena G. Wells, is not a main character - she is the more significant to the show than one of the main characters who is listed, and has shaped the overall show through her character's main storyline since Season 2. As such I think it is relevant to include an article on her - especially since much of the information that exists for her is so pertinent to any understanding of the show itself.
My question are - when something like this occurs, what is the best method for resolution? Is it normal to allow deletion of an entire article without discussion first? Is it normal to not allow articles for television characters based on whether or not they are main characters? Also if a person can do a redirect so that an article is completely bypassed then is that the same thing as a deletion? Does it follow the same rules? If the redirect is just randomly done is it okay to take that redirect off? Electprogeny (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Electprogeny. Starting with your last question first, this is not at all the same as deletion in a true sense, though it certainly meets a more vernacular interpretation of the word. But using "deletion" in relation to what occurred here (a redirection that you reverted) would be confusing for many people: Deletion on Wikipedia usually means actual deletion of the page with its history so that it becomes a red link, and would have to be recreated or undeleted by an administrator in order to be seen by the public. Redirection does no such thing, can be reverted and the entire page can be accessed from the page history. I note that in one of your edit summaries you mentioned that this does not meet any speedy deletion criterion. That is true, but really irrelevant, as that only refers to actual deletion.
Turning from terminology to substance, here a user boldly redirected the page, and you boldly undid that action, and the user then did not repeat the action but tagged the article with issues, and you both started discussing it. That is the way things are supposed to work; it is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in action.
Anyway, the salient issue as I see it and as the other user has also referred to, is whether there exist sufficient, independent, reliablesecondary sources which cover the topic in some depth. Whether you feel this character is important to the series or not is heartfelt but does not appeal to an objective standard that speaks to its encyclopedic nature or meeting our inclusion criteria. I think you can tighten up and condense the material you've written, and include it in the sub-article List of Warehouse 13 characters. On the other hand, if the sources I am looking for (not the primary sources you've already included) exist and can be added in place of those, then maybe a stand-alone article is warranted but the current text does not demonstrate this. Please see also Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction and Wikipedia:Summary style. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fughettaboutit! Thanks so much for that answer. So I've added 12 secondary citations this morning, and can add quite a lot more if I'm actually going to be required to create a repository of references. :p Something that is bothering me about what is happening is that the person who has zeroed in on this article is not doing so because of any of the actual reasons like sources, writing style, or any of that - s/he is doing it PURELY because of a dislike for this particular character to have an independent article at all. I pointed out that all the objections s/he raised were, in fact, TRUE of every single other Warehouse 13 article - and NONE of the main character articles cite ANY external references AT ALL. In fact the main Wiki article for Warehouse 13 only cites a single external reference - and mine, at the time of these shenanigans, cited TWO! That said, I definitely know that this doesn't prove the Helena article should be retained, it only proves two things - that NONE of the Warehouse 13 articles should be retained if those issues are not remedied respectively per article, and also that the person who has zeroed in to target this is actually doing this for retaliation because I added the character to the List of Cast and Characters in the main Warehouse 13 article as well as the supporting List of Warehouse 13 Characters article. I know that improving the article I have authored is my goal - and I am diligently taking all the negative criticism and attempting to make positive improvements with them. But aside from that, irrespective of the accuracy of the objections raised - when someone does literally come after your article purely out of spite for an edit (an action the person admitted to on the talk page for my article) how is that not harassment? If I focus on improving the article is anything ever done about the person doing the harassing? Also, some quick questions - when I see an article that has the list of characters, for Warehouse 13 for instance, how would I reference one of the entries in the list using the brackets type link so I don't have to actually make a reference citation? How do I know whether or not a raised objection, let's say lack of secondary sources, is satisfied well-enough to remove the objection after I add secondary sources to back up the primary ones? If an article contains unique content and is well-referenced with the notability standards in mind, what causes that article from ending up redirected, merged, or deleted?Electprogeny (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the person who has zeroed in on this article is not doing so because of any of the actual reasons like sources, writing style, or any of that - s/he is doing it PURELY because of a dislike for this particular character to have an independent article at all." As I have already explained to you, some 2.5 hours before you posted here,[1] what attracted me to the article was when you added H.G. Wells to Warehouse 13 as a major character, when she is not, and never has been.[2] Please, please, please stop making baseless allegations. Assume good faith and don't attack other editors just because they've reverted your edits. Personal attacks are not permitted. You have been on the offensive since you started. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the one and only response I will give to you here - and the VERY LAST response to quibble over what you did or did not say that clearly show why I have no choice but to arrive at that conclusion. I respond to you only so there is absolute record that I am asking you to leave me alone - and the reason for it. I came here to write an article and grow it with the help of the community. I did not come here to be harassed or stalked. The drama with you has been constant since the article went live last night and all of the good faith and good will I had was spent as an effort in futility trying to get you to work with me toward article improvement. Instead you have focused on following me around even to a newbie area to engage me on an item where YOUR NAME WAS NEVER MENTIONED. I am here because as a newbie editor I am asking for clarification on the rules, am asking for advice on how to handle situations, and am here at the invitation of a very generous helper person who invited me here after you redirected my article without discussion where you dismissed my attempt to talk it over with you. Since that time you have done nothing but attack the article for its existence using spurious arguments and circular reasoning to justify your objection rather than offering even the slightest bit of advice or personal effort toward improvement. I have REPEATEDLY asked you to STOP with the bickering and you CONTINUE to keep it going. Please stop addressing me for non-article-specific related matters. I will not respond to anything you say unless it is about the article improvement itself until such time as your interactions with me are less caustic. You never reverted my article. You simply redirected it - which, at the time, I thought was a deletion because I did not know how to tell the difference. When I asked for assistance from a helper I was advised to try to engage you in conversation. That fell flat on its face with your abject dismissal of my efforts. From your original action to redirect based on the statement of "not a main character" to your repeated comments that non-principle character do not deserve an article to your entire INITIATING post on the Warehouse 13 talk page about this where you point blank go into the reasons for why "we" just can't allow anyone to come in and write an article about non-principle characters - your MOTIVE for coming after the Helena G. Wells article has been clear. I do NOT dispute ANY of the wiki-objections raised - I am, in fact, addressing them one by one as quickly as I can. But there is NO QUESTION as to motive at this point. It was never about article improvement and was always about trying to get the article removed. When all of those shenanigans started I did as advised and created a discussion area on the article itself to invite you and others to comment - which you then promptly ignored to throw a new discussion full of unsubstantiated allegation onto a totally DIFFERENT article and then you proceeded to continue having the "discussion" on both pages - and now you're here taking issue with a newbie request for explanations and advice where your name was never mentioned! For the third or fourth time now - I need you to stop. I need you to leave me alone, please. I do not like how weird this has become or how stalker-harasser it feels at this point. If you don't have something constructive to offer about the article improvement, I will not be responding to any further communication from you. And THIS area of wikipedia is not appropriate for a bickering fest. My apologies to all who were subjected to this. Electprogeny (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see my article on wikipedia
Hello, I wrote an article on Frédéric Malle yesterday. I cannot see it yet. Is it because it's going to be reviewed before getting published? How long will it take?
Hello and welcome to the teahouse Bereniceder. The only thing you have written is on your userpage which you find by clicking your username at the top of the page. To create an article you will need to use the article creation wizard or write the article in your sandbox, which is also linked at the top of the page, then copy/paste it into a newly created page for the article. With the article creation wizard your work will be reviewed by more experienced editors and advice given before it is moved to the main encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using capitals in the names of educational degrees?
Hi kind tea house host, I'm editing University of Colorado School of Medicine. Can I just check about capitals in the names of degree programs. For example, in "the university offers a child health associate or child health physician assistant (CHAPA) degree" are there capitals? Thanking you very much, Myrtle.
Myrtlegroggins (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Myrtle. I'd say that there should not be any capitals as the words are not proper nouns even aggregated as a job title. There is a whole section on the use of capitals in the manual of style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. NtheP (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ta muchly, N. I checked MOS but still wasn't absolutely clear. Always good to drop in at the tea house, all good things, Myrtle.
Hi, I've seen the cool pie chart summarizing my edits, but I can't seem to find it again. Any ideas? ThanksKhballin (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Khballin. All you need to do is go to your contributions (linked at the of of every page under "my contributions"), scroll to the bottom of the page, and then click on "edit count". Hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello Khballin. You will likely find the one you are looking for at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters. There are several with graphic outputs, if you poke around a bit you might find what you saw the last time. Does that help? --Jayron32 23:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! My account on Wikipedia is only about 1 week old and I'm not sure if I made enough edits to be Auto Confirmed for upload etc. but how do I know when I am Auto Confirmed?? And how do I know if my article has been successfully placed on the wikipedia website?? Robertlp202 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert! Welcome to the Teahouse! First, I'd like to tell you that your account is autoconfirmed. That happened after you made your second edit. Second, you created the article at The Big Fix (2012 film) so yes, it is live. You may be interested in looking at File:Sebastian Lake talk page.png. I created the image to help explain some things to another user, but you may find it useful as well. RyanVeseyReview me! 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a delete OR merge flag?
Hello. I dislike the idea of marking someone's "baby" for deletion, but I run into 'articles' about minor characters in kids books that shouldn't exist. (The articles, not the books. LOL) Some of the info MIGHT be useful in the major article, though I question whether a short kids book needs a character list. But some people seem to love them. ANYWAY... I don't know which is better for the article, so I'm wondering if there's a tag for wishy-washy people like me that flags an article that either needs to be deleted or merged? Susan Kushner is an example. Why fix it up when it shouldn't exist anyway? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tlqk! Great question, and yeah, I agree. First, take a gander at this from the notability guidelines about books - it states that characters shouldn't have their own articles unless they really really are notable (i.e. Frankenstein, Ebenezer Scrooge or even Ramona Quimby (which can use improvement)). Instead of deleting the article, let's propose that it gets merged into the Ramona_(novel_series) article. How does that sound? SarahStierch (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and here are the directions on creating a merge proposal. After a week of so we can look at the votes (if any) and close it - either merging the content into the article and redirecting the merged article into the Ramona novel article, or we have to leave it where it's at if the community opposes the merge. We also should inform anyone involved in contributing to that article and Ramona books about the proposed merge. It's probably good for you to do the merge proposal yourself, and I'm happy to place my vote when needed :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Sarah. Ask a question - go to the dentist - come home and find an answer; I love Teahouse! Anyway, does it matter that I wrote most of Ramona_(novel_series), (but not the character list)? Would that look bad for some reason if I proposed combining the two? Personally I think they should all be merged, even Ramona Quimby. But certainly the others. They even made an article for her cat! Would you suggest leaving the Ramona character article separate or not? I will bite the bullet and make the proposal, for the sake of improving the main article(s). Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Hope the dentist wasn't too painful. Reminds me I need to make an appointment, myself. Don't feel bad or selfish - totally request a merge. And if the cat needs to be merged, go for it. Be bold :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me if I butt in here. I think one important thing to remember is that people seem to place an inordinate amount of value on the concept of a "stand alone article". It is ultimately a minor organization issue and not a major problem when deciding whether some piece of information needs its own page, or if it needs to go on an already existing page. The key to remember, without getting hung up on the alphabet soup of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, is to look to see how much well-referenced information there is on a subject, based on neutral, reliable, third-party sources. If there is enough source material to write a decent, stand-alone article, then do that. If there isn't much source material, like say, a small amount, but not enough to hang an entire article on, then add it to an existing article. If all I can write from the independent sources is a paragraph or two, it isn't worth starting a new article. With book characters, the key is how much writing is there about that character written from the point of view of critical analysis (i.e. people, not the author, analyzing and reviewing and writing about the character, not just using it in stories). Characters like Dracula and Hamlet and even Luke Skywalker and Homer Simpson have themselves been the subject of some considerable scholarship and analysis. On the flipside, characters like Greedo and Rabbi Hyman Krustovsky probably aren't themselves the subject of a lot of critical writing, so what needs to be said about them at Wikipedia can be said in a sentence or two at a "List of ... characters" article. --Jayron32 23:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32, Thanks for jumping in. Your explanation is well stated. In this case, no material has been written about these characters outside of the novels themselves. Thank you for making the point of the guidelines so clear. I know I sometimes have to remind myself that WP is an encyclopedia, not just a repository of every interesting bit of info I can find or think up. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
article creation and article edit
Hello, I have two questions:
1) I created an article "catastrophizing" and it is still in article creation mode. How do I know when someone has accepted it or deleted it? It's not appearing on wikipedia yet, so how long will it take?
2) I significantly edited an article "Dans Le Noir" because it had multiple issues and was blatantly advertising. I think the issues that it had are all corrected, but there is still a flag at the top of the post saying, "multiple issues" should I delete that? What is the procedure for that? Do I do that or does someone else do that?
I want to keep on contributing to Wikipedia, but I want to see first how these two contributions are accepted/deleted/ before I put a bunch of effort. Just to get an idea of how things work, you know what I mean?
Thanks!
oh yeah, what is the shortcut for the tildes on a mac keyboard? ShalonSims (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!! First, great job on your first article. Keep this between you and me but it's approved now ;) So if you search for your article you'll find it!! Sometimes it takes a while, especially if the subjects are more complex or the articles are longer. Just be patient, usually. And the more articles you make you'll eventually not have to have your articles reviewed. Woo! I'm going to take a look at the Dans Le Noir article and I'll let you know if we can remove that template. Usually you just have to do it yourself once you feel you've done the job :) I have no clue what the short cut is for tildes on a mac. Perhaps someone can help us both with that :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! I removed the template from the Dans Le Noir - great work!! That place sounds bizarre. SarahStierch (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah, thanks for your help! I was afraid it would be a lot more difficult than this. I'm not sure--when I want to reply to your reply, do I just do what I'm doing right now--edit the talk? Does it (the machine) let you know that you have a message from me? How do I make it look like a reply, with indents like yours? Is that the : ? ShalonSims (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to Upload Images?
Hi! I'm extremely confused at the process for uploading an image to an article. I'm working on my first article, and I have no idea how to successfully upload an image to my article. The image is a picture of a movie poster I took from the production company I work for. I am helping them make a Wikipedia page for their new film but I cannot figure out how to get an image working. I've checked out some of the endless articles on Wikipedia about image uploading but they are extremely confusing. Can you please help? Robertlp202 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Robertlp202, welcome to the Teahouse. I can sympathize with your problem, as I'm pretty new here myself and really had problem with this at first. Then I came here and asked the same question, and DocTree gave me these great diredtions, which I'm taking the liberty of passing on to you. But first I have to say you will need to deal with the issue of copyright before you can post anything, and there may be a conflict of interest if you are writing about your compnay. But someone here who knows more than I can help with those issues. Here's how to post an image:
Adding photos is pretty easy.
Search http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page to see if someone already uploaded a suitable image or images. (If you would like a thumb you would type [[File:Hornbook Mexican.png|thumb|Caption]] In addition, you can link to an image by adding a colon right before the word file like this. [[:File:Hornbook Mexican.png]] which produces File:Hornbook Mexican.png.)
Find the picture you want/need on the web
Right-click and choose 'Save as...' and give it a logical name, then save to your Pictures folder
Go to the Wikipedia article you're working on and look in the 'Toolbox' on the left, then click on 'Upload file' Right in the middle, click on "Click here to Start the Upload Form"
Fill in Steps 1 and 2 (The first blank under Step 2 will become the name of your picture) In Step 3, click on the button that applies.
When you've written enough and filled in all the blanks, the "Upload file" button will appear clearly (rather than fuzzy and faded).
Click it. The file will upload and WP will give you the file name to use.
Copy it down. (If you are putting it in an Infobox, don't use the File:Xxxname, just the name. Otherwise, put in something that looks like this:[[File:Example.png|thumb|alt=Example alt text|Example caption]] You should be able to see it when you Preview.
Then save the page and you're done.
Come back here if you need more help!
Good luck and happy editing. Tlqk56 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Tlqk56! I really appreciate it. I've checked out the uploading method you mentioned and that's pretty much what I did in order to get an image on the page. But I'm afraid I will have the picture taken down, since the image i took a picture of is not entirely my own work. The image is the poster of a new movie and the Director is letting me make a Wikipedia page for him. I'm not sure how to work this one out with Commons. It always warns me that if I dont provide any proof of license, that the image will be taken down...
Another thing Tlqk56, I did not quite understand what you mean adding a colon right before the word file... is this some way of putting your image from your pictures file to wikipedia without uploading it to Commons??
Thanks Again! Robertlp202 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hi Robert, the colon before File enables you to link to an image page rather than display the image. It's part of the Wikimedia software syntax. NtheP (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TAU! In what capacity? What do you mean are they any good? Thanks for stopping by..looking forward to a bit of clarification on your new question :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they are valid reverts, sorry for the number of q's I askTheAnnoymousUser (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not apologize for how many questions you ask. It's awesome :) If people don't ask questions - we go out of business here at the Teahouse ;) Is there a specific article you are referring to? SarahStierch (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering when to and when not to warn. BTW:No-one is getting paid here, much better off editing articles.TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Annoymous :) You're doing great! You're doing the right thing in assuming good faith wherever good faith is assumable. Using Twinkle, you have a wide array of warnings to choose from, so pick one that best matches the offending edit (test, vandalism, etc) and let the automation roll. If you'd don't believe an edit warrants a warning, then don't issue one: it's up to your own discretion benzband (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources
Hi, I am writing an article for which I have found numerous secondary sources, namely articles, online. Although the original source for the articles were reliable, none of them currently exist on their publisher of origin websites. Rather, they all exist on third-party websites and such are subject to change. Are these to be considered reliable secondary sources since they can be no longer found on their original publisher websites?Planktonium (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Planktonium, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your question is kind of difficult because I really don't know what kind of websites these are. If they're simply repositories for these kinds of articles, then I'm pretty sure they'd be reliable. If you can't find the original articles because they're stuck behind a paywall (like in a journal such as JSTOR), someone with access to a database like that can help you. I have access to a pretty comprehensive group of databases through my local community college, so you could either email me or leave me a message with their titles and I could try to track the originals down. I hope this helps, and happy editing! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 16:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kellanal, I just came back to editing a couple of weeks ago and have been adding references (and lurking in the teahouse) and more detail to articles about one of my favorite authors Raymond Chandler. In one of the suggestions on a Wiki help page for literary references they mentioned Project Muse as a good source. I went there and saw many, many articles about Chandler's work but they all seemed to be from non-free journals so I ignored them. I just wanted to double check and make sure I understood your last comment. It sounds like if I found a journal article that I thought might add significantly to one or more Chandler articles I could possibly get the article from someone here? Is that correct and if so would the best way to get it be to leave another request here at the Teahouse? I don't have a specific article in mind right now, I didn't look at the abstracts in much detail once I saw the actual articles weren't free but if there is a good chance I could get them I'll take another more detailed look. thanks. Mdebellis (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mdebellis! :) That's exactly what you can do. You could either ask a user who you know has access to a specific journal, ask here in the teahouse, or ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. There's a really good chance that someone will have access to what you need, and then can just email it to you. I hope this helps! Keilana|Parlez ici 18:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not sure what to do about this Yu-Gi-Oh! Sky Island article (and did not know where it was appropriate to bring it up). The only "reference" it provides is for the Zexal titled anime, dated from 2010. Already, there is a Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal article and the contents of "Sky Island" seem to have come from the "Zexal" one. I have searched in English and Japanese (as I can use it to an intermediate level) and have found nothing other than the "Sky Island" article itself that indicates it titled as "Sky Island" or even as another series. I left a note on its talk page but wanted some input on the matter from some other people (the article was just created and not a lot of people have seen it). I am trying to AGF but it seems like nonsense. Thanks. LlamaDude78 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LlamaDude78! You certainly called it: this article violates a wide range of Wikipedia's policies, including, but not limited to, WP:Notability, WP:No original research, and WP:Verifiability. There is simply no evidence to be found that a series of this name even exists. It may very well exist, but one of the golden rules here at Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not truth. This is the perfect time for you to learn about the Articles for deletion process. Articles for deletion is the place where users can go to argue that an article does not belong on Wikipedia. An overview of the process can be found at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. You probably do not have to read all of that page because you already know why the article needs to be deleted. A concise step-by-step guide for how to actually nominate an article for deletion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. This can be a difficult process for a newcomer to understand, which is why you are welcome to post here exactly what you want to say in the nomination so that I and other editors can help you word it before you post at Article for deletion. To get a hold of me the quickest, you can leave a note on my talk page. As soon as you do this I will receive an email saying I have messages on my talk page, which I will see immediately (unless I get a call from the President between now and then, in which case I may be delayed a few minutes). hajatvrc @ 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, never mind. The article has already been deleted by an admin as a "blatant hoax". Have a good day! hajatvrc @ 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my question anyways so I will know for future reference. :) LlamaDude78 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Entry in Limbo?
Hi,
I created a page and submitted it, followed instructions on revising it, submitted it a couple of times more. Finally, the history said it was being cleaned (no rejection, just that)... and then nothing more happened. The last person to work on it, I now see, is suddenly "retired."
I don't know if I need to do more myself, just wait, or what.
Scootsalong, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. We're talking here about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aaron Barlow? The current status of this article is that it's been reviewed and declined for the time being and needs more work on it before it will be accepted. There have been three reviews of this article and all appear to have declined the submission be on the same basis that it needs more reliable sources and references quoting. You do have a number of references there but a lot of them don't appear to be necessaily from reliable sources or are only referencing straightforward articles of fact, for example, that he has written several books. I think what the reviewers are pushing for is more "academic" reviews of his work to support the claim to notabiity. Good references are like the one you have for the Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 2008, Vol. 20 Issue 4, p256-258 as long as this talks about Barlow and his work in detail and is not just a passing mention. NtheP (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After the third one, it was reviewed again, by Bmusician, and nothing seems to have come of that other than 'cleaning the submission.' I made changes of the sort you are referring to after Oobunnies rejected it. That's why I am a little confused.
Scootsalong (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scootsalong! Welcome to the Teahouse. Bmusician didn't review the article, he just cleaned up the declined tag a bit. You can see these things for yourself by clicking "History" and then the date of the version you want to see. So at this point your article actually is in limbo, waiting for you to add more sources and resubmit it. One thing that will help is if you add the ISBN numbers to any of the books he wrote that were actually paper published. There is a bit of a bias on Wikipedia towards paper publications IMHO. Good luck. I looked into this because Bmusician was my mentor and he has recently retired. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteering
Hi
I have been told that volunteer photo editors are used by Wikipedia? I have over ten years working with photoshop/ gimp etc and also teach image editing and restoration. If possible I would like to offer these skills to Wikipedia.
Hi Stephen! That would be great! Wikipedia always needs people with good photoshop skills. You'll need to create an account, as accounts will be needed to upload images, but to find things that need doing the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab is always after skilled volunteers. - Bilby (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Stephen, thanks for any help you can give! I'd like to point you out to com:commons:Graphics Lab as well. Your assistance would be useful for both projects. RyanVeseyReview me! 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I should have used a preview. RyanVeseyReview me! 18:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, so taking your advice I created an account. However I'm finding navigating my way round very difficult. For instance, where do I go to find images needing some digital TLC? Then after downloading then retouching how is the retouched image placed back on its correct wiki page, it it automatic? I did manage to somewhat confirm the authenticity of a photograph of Edison, Ford and Firestone that a request had been submitted for. However to be honest I'm not sure if I clicked on the right links to submit said appraisal. --Ceepin1826 (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About EMMA java code coverage tool
Please let me know wht is the Full Form of EMMA 115.115.82.134 (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! I think you were looking for the Reference Desk; this forum is for questions about how to edit wikipedia. That said, I had a quick look at the documentation and my guess would be this is another in a long tradition of naming software after your significant other (e.g., Anjuta and debian). Hope that helps! GaramondLethe 07:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Not entirely inexperienced, but this appears to be a pretty friendly place to ask what might otherwise be considered an obvious question. I was looking at WP:N for the guidelines on products & services, yet that only really appears to cover where information on notable products should be included (ie, on the parent company's article). There doesn't really appear to be a measure of what exactly constitutes a notable product. Just WP:GNG? Or is notability entirely contingent on WP:INHERITED from the notability (or lack-thereof) of the parent/production company?
The product in question is StackSoap, and they've received press coverage from Wired/The Atlantic/Gizmodo, so there's certainly some reliable sources here. IShadowed(talk) 06:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IShadowed, welcome to the Teahouse. Good question! IMHO, I think it has to do with GNG if one is interested in creating an article entirely about a product. If an object hasn't garnered GNG then it can be included in the parent company article. I hope this helps guide you a bit :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhh my entire question here revolves around the ambiguity of WP:PRODUCT. But thanks (to both of you)! IShadowed(talk) 13:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey IShadowed! I personally think that a product needs to meet the GNG to be notable enough for its own article (e.g. that's how I would comment on an AfD). If it's got some inherited notability, then it should be in the parent article. I hope that helps! (Sorry WP:PRODUCT is ambiguous. It reads a bit confusing to me, and I've been here 5 years!) Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 14:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, and sorry for pointing you somewhere you're already familiar with. According to my observations, ambiguous guidelines suggest a lack of consensus in drawing them up. I agree with Keilana that GNG is the way to go. -- Trevj (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when I submit a page for review?
Hi All, I had submitted a page for review a couple of days back. Now I see below the page its written 'There are currently 461 submissions waiting for review at this page.'. Does that mean my page is 461st in the list? Is the number based on the order of submission?Kirukp (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kirukp! Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for submitting an article for review and inclusion in Wikipedia! The 461 is just how many there are awaiting review in general - it does not mean yours is at the bottom. Sometimes it takes days and weeks to review, it just depends on how many volunteers there are reviewing articles. (Often the AfC backlog is over 700, so it could be worse!). Please be patient - we'll get to it soon =) SarahStierch (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That will do :)Kirukp (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of this date/time there are 302 articles in the queue and yours is approximately no. 100. David_FLXD(Talk)Review me 03:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started from scratch
Hi All - I read the article on Slate about the lack of female editors on Wikipedia and it got me interested in editing. I found my way to the teahouse but I don't see any instruction about how to get started if you are brand new to this. Can someone point me in the right direction? thanks!128.118.152.231 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for dropping by the Teahouse! You could start by looking at the Wikipedia:Job center which gives some advice, but it might be a bit too advanced. What are some of the things you are interested in? Maybe we can hook you up with a wikiproject? On another note, have you considered creating an account? There are plenty of reason to create one all labeled here. In any case, thanks so much for being willing to volunteer your time and knowledge to the encyclopedia. RyanVeseyReview me! 19:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to see other women wanting to join the project. One thing you can do is create an account, which is easy and helps other volunteers to communicate with you. You can start the process by clicking the "log in/create account" link in the upper right hand corner. Feel free to ask here if you have more questions - we can definitely hook you up with things you can work on! Happy editing and good luck. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! I second what Keilana said, welcome! I'm happy that the Slate article brought you to us :) We can't wait to have you contributing. What types of things interest you? Some folks like copyediting, some enjoy writing articles, etc. One thing I enjoy is reading articles about subjects I like, and finding red links in those articles that need Wikipedia articles. I look forward to your contributions! SarahStierch (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I second many of the suggestions above. A very good place to start is with taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. It will provide you the basics of editing and introduce you to some of our guidelines and policies. As for what you might do, the community portal provides quite a few suggestions of areas to which people can contribute. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for the advice for getting started and warm welcome! I am a librarian so my interest in wikipedia is varied, but of course I'd be interested in supporting articles with citations ;) Oh, and just some feedback-maybe consider a "path to citizenship" for rookies like myself...but glad to have the support of the Teahouse too. Gruenelf (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to see that you created an account! In regards to adding references you can click one of these two buttons to help reference articles.
Help in that area can really be useful, we currently have over 200,000 unreferenced articles (sad, I know). I can help you put those buttons on your user page if you don't want to lose them. In regards to a "path to citizenship", you might be interested in reading Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers or Wikipedia:The Missing Manual (see Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual for a free online copy). Another option is the Tutorial. If you have any more questions, or would like something cleared up, be sure to ask. RyanVeseyReview me! 23:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warm greetings, Green Elf. You identify yourself as among the WikiElves, a noble and needed Wikispecies. As a librarian, you may find the WikiProject GLAM of interest. GLAM is an acronym for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. I found adoptee programs helpful. Ryan has one at his Adoption Headquarters. I worked through a less thorough program at Pluma's Adoption page when I started out. Working through lessons, exercises and tests teaches a lot about Wikipedia quickly and in an organized way. You don't have to be an adoptee to learn from them. Pluma's page of FUN STUFF will help you turn your name blue. Have fun, DocTree (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there people that can assist me for a fee?
I want to create a page, but likely will only ever do this once. Is there freelance assistance available to get it done right and efficiently if I provide all of the information?Ccard12 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ccard! Welcome to Wikipedia. There's no reason for you to pay a fee because are people who will do it for free assuming your subject is notable. Can I ask what you are wanting to write an article on? RyanVeseyReview me! 14:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ccard 12 and welcome to the Teahouse! I definitely agree with Ryan, and I think there's lots of people here who are willing to help... for free! Lord Roem (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked that a page be created am now to the point where I need to create it myself. It is an article on a notable golf course architect. I have the information to get started, but want the page to be done correctly by a professional. I'm afraid I will do this person an injustice by messing the page up if I attempt it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccard12 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a good thing to worry about. A good idea might be to try to write a draft of the article yourself in your sandbox, which can be found here. If you write your draft there, it won't come up on anyone's searches, so you won't have to worry about somebody stumbling across it before it's ready. Once you think you're done, you can try submitting it to Articles for creation (or just ask us to take a look at it), and you'll get some feedback on what can be improved. Once the article is ready, it can be moved out of the sandbox and become a real article! Thanks, Writ Keeper⚇♔ 15:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try creating the page at User:Ccard12/ARTICLE NAME. You can create that there and I can move it or you can use the article wizard. (You can skip right to this link and use the create a new article draft button. Then other editors and I can help you work on the formatting. RyanVeseyReview me! 15:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the thing though, I want it done right. That page says its live after I create it. Some articles have photos, links etc, I have no clue how to do any of this. How do I find a freelance professional to assist me with the things you are recommending? If it doesn't work like that, thats fine, I will take the time to learn all of this if its my only option. It just seems more straightforward to hire a professional to get the best results efficiently.Ccard12 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it just doesn't work like that. The issue of paid editing is actually a very contentious one on Wikipedia; some people are adamantly opposed to any sort of payment for editing, from any source, some are tolerant of it as long as it produces good material, and many others have many other opinions. It's a very divisive issue, and it's one that nobody has a real answer for. Suffice to say, at this point in time, trying to hire people to edit Wikipedia articles is probably a bad idea. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 15:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Ccard12. The reason the editors above are being so coy about this is the difficulty with paid editing on wikipedia. It's a very contentious subject, because many editors believe it goes against our goal of striving towards a neutral point of view. As such there are very few editors who would claim to be a "professional" editor as they are quickly ostracised by the hard working volunteers of the community. The best thing to do is have a go, yourself - and then come back here, and tell any of these excellent editors that you have done so. Even providing a list of sources at the sandbox page might get them started! Otherwise, you can use the WP:Requested articles process, which is very backlogged, or if you search google hard enough, you may be able to find editors who are willing to work for cash. I wouldn't recommend it though, an article which has been paid for would be no better than one created by one of the editors on wikipedia who's trying to prove that free is the best way! I hope that helps answers some questions. WormTT(talk) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting information. To be honest, all of that aside, I thought Wikipedia would have a list of trusted editors who would be willing to assist people like me who want to contribute articles on people in an efficient manner which would produce the best possible page. This article is going to take longer and be worse than if I had the proper assistance. I'm all for neutrality and don't see how getting help would violate that. Thanks anyways for your timeCcard12 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hey Ccard12, I know it may seem really counterintuitive, but there aren't any editors here who are paid for their formatting skills or anything like that. If by "professional" you also mean "someone who's very capable", you could ask any of the editors who have posted above to help you and they would do a fine job. In terms of compensation, on Wikipedia we like to give Barnstars and other awards to show our appreciation. If you get help from someone, thank them with a shiny barnstar! You can do this by going to their user talk page and clicking the heart-shaped icon in the upper right hand corner, near the search box. Happy editing! Keilana|Parlez ici 15:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are all trusted editors. We are saying that the easiest way for you to do this is using one of the links we have provided. Then we can assist you in preparing it for the mainspace. Note that we can add tags to your article to make sure it is not indexed by google prior to moving it to the article space. RyanVeseyReview me! 15:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't say we are all trusted editors, but you can see the records of most editors by going to their user pages. For example, clicking on Ryan above, you can see he's an excellent editor at wikification (making articles look right on the encyclopedia). Or if you look at my userpage, you can see a list of articles I've worked on up to a "good" level. We have "service level" awards to let you know how long editors have been around, and all sorts of other ways to see which helper is most appropriate for you. More than that, we have volunteers willing to help you out in live help on IRC, help desks all over the place to make things easier for you. What we don't have is paid staff, because the ramifications, be it in neutrality or the loss of our hard working volunteers - it's not the model that's used here. WormTT(talk) 15:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion Worm, I was referring to the editors commenting here. RyanVeseyReview me! 16:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry to add to the volume of posts, but just briefly - I've had a look into the freelancer market, and one of the big problems you face is, as you say, there isn't a list of trusted professionals. As a result, I'd say that over three quarters of the people currently accepting freelance work on the main websites are producing poor results - even if their articles stay on Wikipedia for long enough to get paid, many of the articles are unlikely to stay long term. And many don't even make it that long. Like all such things there are exceptions, but mostly the freelance contractors have fairly limited experience on Wikipedia, so they don't do better work than what most volunteers do. And the better volunteers, from what I've seen, do better work than what the freelance professionals provide. If there was such a list it would be safer, but at the moment the professional market is very much buyer-beware.
The good thing, though, is that Wikiepdia works by developing articles as a community. It isn't like traditional publishing, where you are expected to know everything and get it right in the final draft. Here there is no final draft, and there are always people to help build on what you can offer, and there are always people who are very happy to help. Thus we're looking for somewhere to start with new articles, rather than expecting everything to be right on the first try. - Bilby (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone look at the article I've done then and tell me what I'm to do? I don't know how to add links, images or any other information for that matter and have what I would assume is the bare minimum. If I can't pay you I assume this would be permissible? Its in my sandbox. Can you access this?Ccard12 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing about enwp is that thre are no scams and no need to ever pay money!TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is to block all paid editors :)TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QD tagging
Tell me more about it on enwp and is my recent one OKTheAnnoymousUser (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Annonymous, I've never heard of QD tagging so I'll be interested to read the replies. Maybe you could point out where your 'recent one' is? Sionk (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you not have heard of quick delete taggingTheAnnoymousUser (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheAnnoymousUser and welcome to the English Wikipedia! Things are a little different than simple, and one of the differences is in terminology. The rules for "quick deletion" are found at criteria for speedy deletion, (they're known as CSDs here). Your recent one was fine, it was deleted, though there are better templates to use. Instead of using "g1", which doesn't make sense unless you know the criteria, I would have used {{db-nonsense}}, which does include non-english coherent text. WormTT(talk) 12:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used g1 cause its shorter, also can you make a list of these tags.TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're all listed in depth at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates. I know it's shorter, but if you use the longer template it adds relevance and understanding, which is helpful for both the article's author, the admin who deletes it and anyone else reading it. WormTT(talk) 14:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes use the shortened code form (usually because I can't remember what the long form is, or because I'm forced to by the db-multiple template), but it really is better to use the long form when you can. The more information we can give to the author the better, and sometimes the templates themselves are more specific (such as using db-corp instead of db-a7 for non-notable companies). Remember, it's not a race. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔ 14:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may butt in to correct Worm, {{db-nonsense}} does not include coherent non-English text - see the full specification at WP:CSD#G1. It is intended only for things like "6*1@8#xQ4###!" or "Yaaayyyyy LOL!!!!", and should be used with great care because a new contributor told his work is nonsense may well feel insulted. In fact, not being in English is not itself a reason for speedy deletion - sometimes (though not often) a non-English page can usefully be translated, and there is a place at Wikipedia:pages needing translation where they can be listed to see whether anyone can do that. Guidance on what to do when faced with a non-English page can be found at WP:New page patrol#Dealing with foreign language new pages. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there guidance on promoting Wikipedia in schools?
Hi. I have the great opportunity to share about Wikipedia to about 60 12-year students in about 6 weeks time. They will be mostly interested in how to use it as a resource, but I will be able to dispose of myths and hopefully promote Wikipedia. All help/guidance welcome. Thanks, Mozzy66 (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mozzy, I am Referent in the Educational Program of WMDE. Feel free to ask questions, on my user talk page or via mail. Kind regards Ziko (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mozzy, and welcome to the Teahouse! One thing you can do is to sign up with the Education Program, which provides a set of experienced Wikipedians as mentors for your students. For example, I am one of the online ambassadors, who strictly help online. You may also be assigned a Campus Ambassador, to help you in person. Take a look through those pages and let me know if you have any questions! I hope this works for you. If it doesn't, we can help you find another solution - maybe describing your project in more detail? Happy editing! Keilana|Parlez ici 16:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. I was unclear in what I asked for: these are 12 years olds, so I think the Uni oriented Education Program is not so relevant. I am not looking to get them editing yet (though I will show them it is not so scary) but to encourage a positive outlook to Wikipedia, e.g. to its reliability. Is there any material reaching out to such a young group. Thanks, Mozzy66 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Helo Mozzy, as far as I know there are no real materials (maybe the Anglo Saxons have produced something?). In Germany, we stopped promoting our services to schools and only go to schools if it is a useful occasion e.g. because of media attention. We gave up the hope that pupils could become editors (only in extremely rare cases). Telling pupils that WP is reliable is not a peticular goal, as pupils already naively copy from WP. Media awareness is the key word that is also popular among teachers. A thorough understanding of copyright and free knowledge (the latter is the goal of WMDE) is important. You can get the pupils' attention if you first shock them with what can be the consequences of neglegant behavior on the internet with regard to copyright related issues. On the other hand, it is not the task of the Wikimedians to teach pupils what they actually should learn from their teachers... so it's up to you what you find important, and how you want to invest your time. Kind regards Ziko (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mozzy. It seems unhelpful to introduce pupils to Wikipedia without introducing them to its most important facet - that anyone can edit! Of course, you should also make them aware of the pitfalls of this, such as potential issues with copyright (see also WP:close paraphrasing), and, for this age group, giving away too much personal information.
In terms of using Wikipedia purely as a resource, "anyone can edit" also means that hoaxes or incorrect information are more likely than in printed works, and the important idea to get across to pupils is that they should use Wikipedia as a starting point, not a place to copy and paste from. So, they should look at what sources Wikipedia cites for the information it gives, and try to find and check some of those sources themselves.
Wikipedia:School and university projects has had a number of school editing projects where the pupils were in the approximate age group you mention. The average 12 year old would find it difficult to participate constructively on Wikipedia - but equally, the average 12 year old would find it difficult to become a proficient competitor at javelin throwing, but many schools still give them a taste of that sport. From experience, school projects with pupils of this age tend to produce very few problems because the volume of material outputted by the students tends to be very low. (By contrast, the university level projects produce very many problems, because the volume of material tends to be very high.) Whether you encourage them to edit or not, you should point them to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
changing a picture from last year from some one else on a wiki personality.
am I allowed to change someone elses' picture put up last year on a wiki personality? and put up a new picture? I don't know all the rulesDiddlysmom (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Diddlysmom, I'm a little confused about your "Wiki personality" term. Can you clarify? Thanks. -- Luke(Talk) 02:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diddlysmom, hello, if by wiki personality you meam a wikipedia article about a person, then the answer is yes. Images and there use in articles are as editable as the text of the article. If you have an image that you feel is of better quality, more appropriate and above all is free then change it. But if your edit is reverted becasue someone else prefers thre previous version please don't get into an edit war over it but discuss on the article talk page why you think the image you selected is better. NtheP (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ignorance is not bliss
Pardon my ignorance but I just asked a question and I don't see it anywhere, nor know how to get at any response. I didn't put my email in so I presume I'm supposed to monitor a page or receive an IM. ? Thanks.
97.120.146.108 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here, the above is your only post under that IP number. Why not just ask the question again? It is not advisable to include an email address. I think most people just monitor this page. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 97.120.146.108|97.120.146.108. Welcome to the Teahouse, the perfect place for those of us who have questions! I just wanted to let you -- and Bus stop -- know that, usually when someone answers your question here, they will then go to your TALK page and leave you a Teahouse message that says they answered your question. If you click on that, it will "magically" bring you back to see your question and the answer. (Well, it feels like lovely magic to me.) The only problem might be that you don't seem to have registered your own unique name, so the message might go astray. So, you can just check back every so often for the answer.
I don't know why your original question didn't show up. Why don't you try it again and see if it works this time? But keep trying -- the Teahouse is a great place to get help. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Tlqk56 for pointing that out, as I didn't know that a message is also left on one's Talk page. I thought I'd leave a link to a page describing establishing an account. Here is that link. There may be other pages providing related information, but this is the first one I located. Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop; NP, the Talkback Template is one of the things that made the Teahouse so helpful for me when I first arrived. You can read about it and other helpful stuff about hosting here. And no, you don't have to be a registered host to answer questions. I'm not, I just try to help out now and then, as the Teahouse has been great for me. It's just designed to be a little easier and friendlier than some of the other WP spaces, and that page fills you in. See you around. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal fighting
Seriously, I have to keep on clicking refresh and revrting manually. In simple wiki I could revert and 1/10th of the time. And now some guy on my talk page says I need some "rollback" stuff to use Huggle again. I only came here because I heard there was more vandalism here.TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello TheAnnoymousUser! I use Huggle quite often, and yes, you need the rollback feature. This is because Huggle is extremely powerful and we only want trusted users to be able to use it. To request the rollback feature, you can go here. But as you have so few edits on the regular English Wikipedia, you will probably be asked to enable the Twinkle feature in your preferences as use that to fight vandalism for a while before you will be granted the rollback right and be allowed to use Huggle. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 15:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi TheAnnoymousUser! Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for your question! We always appreciate help with reverting vandalism. You can do that by clicking 'undo' on an edit that very clearly meant harm. Make sure it really is vandalism, like a bunch of random characters or very obvious ill-intended inclusions. I'd be glad to help with some examples if you would like. As to your question about "rollback", that is a special tool given to some users who can demonstrate they're experienced in fighting vandalism. The rollback tool speeds up the process for undoing an edit, but must be given by an administrator. If you want to apply for rollback, check the permissions page here for more details. If you have any further questions, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. All the best, Lord Roem (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see on your talk page that you say "Twinkle is useless". Are you sure you have read the documentation for Twinkle? It is actually quite powerful and many vandal-fighters that use it never even see the need to apply for the rollback feature. The major difference between Twinkle and true rollbacking is that rollbacking gives you the ability to use Huggle, STiki, etc. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will use Twinkle, but repetedly pressing refresh is hard :(TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that on many PCs you can refresh by hitting the f5 button and on macs, by pressing ⌘ Cmd+R. Some people find this much faster than clicking on any refresh key in a browser. Also, you can place a clock in the Wikipedia interface that when clicked on, purges the page, by going to your preferences → Gadgets tab → Appearance section → check the box for "Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC (which also provides a link to purge the current page)."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More help required please - this time with dealing with bizarre allegations
Topic closed, Ornaith has been blocked under a checkuser block
I've had some excellent advice here before, and am hoping I can take advantage of this service yet again please. As I mentioned in a previous request here, I sort of got sucked into the vortex of editing articles, not because I was interested in their subject much, but because I though the coverage was wrong. Well I'm still in it.
Now though it has taken another bizarre twist. An editor who, in my opinion, has been rather forceful, and rather dismissive of Wikipedia protocol and policies in his desperation to enforce his will, has now resorted to making outrageous allegations about me in an article talk page to try to defend his behaviour. He has produced a crop of links back to disputes that he had way back in October 2011 (I didn't even join until early April 2012), and seems to be suggesting that I am either impersonating or actually am one of his earlier adversaries (he now refers to me as "Ornaith aka xxx [someone else]". He has been admonished by another contributor, but there are others involved who seem to sympathise with his actions. My question is this: is there anything that I could do, or should do, to get this sort of thing stopped. It is getting to me a tad, and I'm beginning to wonder if being involved in Wikipedia is really a good idea after all this upsetting intimidation. Ornaith (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ornaith. Firstly, don't take it personally, there are all sorts editing on Wikipedia, working with them without getting into dispute is more of an art than a science. Secondly try to separate the content issue from the dispute. For if the content issue consensus can be demonstrated, then that will be the outcome, and the meta-disputes (should) become irrelevant. As suggested on the talk page an RFC may well help if the issue seems thorny, and the disputants few. RichFarmbrough, 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
On the other hand, the rest of the conversation is extremely long and there are countless sources and diffs that I would have to read in order to make suggestions without further information from you. I can better help you if you concisely try to describe to me exactly what you think is wrong with the article, as I can not tell by skimming the conversation. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 21:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Hajatvrc, I just followed your link about "Sockpuppet investigations" (ah! "SPI", that was to be another question) - it talks about "the abuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts". That sounds ominous. Is that honestly a possible consequence of Martinvl's wild allegations? I don't see anything about my account there though, presumably if I am to be accused of, or charged with, something I will be invited to participate in a "hearing", of some sort?
Anyway, that'll wait, it wasn't the article dispute as such that I was asking about, or what mischief Martinvl might be dreaming up, it was what I should do about the allegations he is making on the article talk page, whilst we are (or were) trying to agree an acceptable wording. Any ideas would be very welcome. Ornaith (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI is open, and has been for some days. RichFarmbrough, 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I see that Ornaith was never notified about this. Would have been helpful. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 21:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ornaith, definitely go here and defend yourself. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 21:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich and @Hajatvrc, thanks for your concern and advice. Sorry, in my fury yesterday, I forgot to say so then. I went straight to the link, and told them what I thought. Ornaith (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ornaith was reblocked by a different admin almost immediately after NtheP posted this. Beyond that, the status is.... unclear. NtheP, if you feel it's appropriate I'll remove my comments and we'll let things get sorted out elsewhere. [n.b. now logged in and appending correct signature.] GaramondLethe 20:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thunk just collapsing thread and closing it is easiest. NtheP (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PDFs in footnotes
Hello, I just wanted to check that it was ok - in terms of acceptable Wikipedia style - to put a PDF attachment (in this case, a relevant article (a scan of an obituary) for which no full online version exists) - when editing a footnote to an existing article? I've not done an exhaustive search of other pieces, but I have seen the odd example, so assume this is in order. Grateful if someone could confirm, nonetheless.
Whilst I'm here, my registered username always shows up in red (I have made a few occasional minor edits over the last 3 years or so). I think this means that my registration has never fully taken effect(?) Is there any simple way for me to make it 'official'?
Many thanks in advance for any help and best regards
Hiugheerg (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hiugheerg, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is OK to link to a PDF in a reference (footnote) in the kind of situation you describe as long as the PDF is hosted in a way that does not violate copyright. In the case of an obituary, if the PDF is hosted on the website of the newspaper that published the obituary, you are fine. If the obituary was published before 1923 in the United States, then copyright has expired and it is in the public domain and you are fine no matter where the PDF is hosted. However, if someone scanned a copyrighted obituary without permission of the copyright holder, and then made that PDF available online, then Wikipedia policy is that we don't link to any website known to violate copyright. It is not necessary to limit your references to sources available online, though online sources are preferred when you have many to choose from. Paper sources are acceptable, but just provide a complete citation with full details of the original source.
Your registered username is completely official. Your username in your signature now shows up as a red link only because you have not yet created a userpage. This is optional. If you want a blue link instead, simply click the red link, and write something about yourself - either brief or lengthy - and then save it. Now, your username will show up as a blue link, because there is something for people to read about you if they want to know more about you. A red link can be seen as an invitation to create a new page - often a new article is needed, or in this case, a userpage. I hope that this information is helpful to you, and invite you to edit here more often. Cullen328Let's discuss it 15:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jim for such a prompt, accessible and full response. On the clarification you provided on the footnote issue, the PDF would have been a private scan from a newspaper published in the UK in 1996. Although it's possible that I may be able to gain permission (there is a close family connection to the subject matter), the opening sentences at least are available on a web page hosted by Highbeam Research (who I see are mentioned on your own usertalk page!) so I will link to that, at least for the time being. And yes, I'm happy to put together a brief userpage for myself also (it would be nice to have a blue link after all). Kind regards, Steve.
Hiugheerg (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Luke - useful to know, and also to be reminded of the volume of guidance that's available on Wikipedia. Hiugheerg (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people deleting my work?
People have been deleting my articles and I'm getting pissed off. The first time I understood it because there were no references. Recently, I made an article for Winnebago Scout Reservation and someone deleted it without telling me. I worked hard on that article. Any suggestions or ways to stop people from angering me? Heymister14 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)heymister14[reply]
Welcome to the Tea House. Looking at your contributions, you don't appear to have edited an article with that name, but you did edit Winnebago Scout Reservation (New Jersey), which is still there.--ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If people delete your work it might be that your writing thing that our not good.If you think that the person who deleted your work is wrong just ask him why he deleted it on his talk page Receptie123 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People may be deleting your work for a variety of reasons. The information you included may not be relevant for an encyclopedia. See WP:UNDUE for more info. You may also have inserted your own opinion perhaps. Or your writing was too sloppy. It's also possible they oppose the topic you were writing about. If you feel there wasn't any reason to remove it, or the latter reason, you should ask the user who removed it, and take it from there. --Activism1234 22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jesse, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! We're glad you're here. There's a fairly significant backlog, of over 400 articles, at Articles for Creation right now. Usually, submissions wait 1-3 weeks before being reviewed. I hope this helps, and if you need anything else, please do ask here. We love questions! Happy editing, Keilana|Parlez ici 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jesse! Keilana already responded, but I'm just going to say that while you are waiting, you can edit other articles, add to your userspace, design a template, or write another article! And always come back to the Teahouse if you have another question. Brambleberry of RiverClanMew ♠ Tail 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Roem (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
