Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Guest profiles »

Host profiles »

Question forum »

File:WP teahouse logo.png by Heatherawalls CC BY-SA 3.0

Experienced and want
to help at the Teahouse?
Become a host...

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

Ask a question

I am trying to resubmit my article for review

But I can't figure out how. Sarah declined it ... I added six more independent, verifiable sources. How do I resubmit, Sarah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Timothy_S._Johnston&oldid=508083117Sfguy3333 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Estimated time to Enter Wiki/What Happens if Deleted

Hi, I was wondering, having sent my first article from my user page to the rest of the site, how long the average time is to enter the guide -It says a few days, but i wasn't sure whether this is normally 48hrs, 72hrs etc - i could only find an alphabetical list of all entries waiting to be tagged delete/don't - so i can't see where my entry is in the order In a related sub question, if it is deleted will it revert back to my user page, it would seem very unlikely, but i wouldn't want to lose it all

Apologies for a mixed in list of questions - entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Haileybury_Model_United_Nations Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bear. Welcome to The Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The place your article went when you submitted it is called Articles for Creation, or AfC for short. If it is declined, you will get a review and a notice and it will stay in AfC so you can address the problems the review noted and resubmit it when you are done. AfC is very backlogged right now and it could be as long as a week or more til they get to your article. Sorry. No-one wants to wait around for news, be it good or bad. I did note one problem as I read through it, though, and maybe you could address that while you wait for the formal review. Your article lacks secondary sources. All of the citations are from either the organization or organizations connected to it. What you need are things like newspaper articles that speak of your Mock United Nations to establish what Wikipedia calls notability. Please use the time til they review it to find and add some secondary sources. BTW, I prettyed up your external link section. Open the article in edit mode to see how that is done. It is surprisingly simple. Happy editing. We are glad you are here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes

HI guys, do you know how to get userboxes on a user page, thanks. NCrompersCrompo 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncbwfc (talk • contribs)

Hello Ncbwfc, you can find detailed instructions at the page Wikipedia:Userboxes. Basically, you just need to use the template for the userbox you want. Templates look like {{TEMPLATE}} with the word TEMPLATE replaced by the specific template. For example, the code {{User:Dipankan001/Parrot lover}} produces this:

This user is a parrot lover; they think they are the best birds.

.

Does that help answer your question? --Jayron32 18:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Jayron i suggest you replace {{clr}} with a simple <br />, because it's bashing the layout. Cheers ~ benzband (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, though it would have been faster had you done it instead of waiting for me to. --Jayron32 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Crompers. Welcome to the Teahouse. To add a userbox to your page, just right-click on your username at the top of every page and open it in a new tab or window and click 'Edit' like you did to start your page. Right-click TEMPLATE:WP:UBS and open another tab or window to see all the userboxes.

Please start with Languages. Since you are from London, I'm guessing that you are a native speaker of English. Edit your userpage to add {{Babel|en}} near the top of the page and then click the Preview button. You should see a userbox on your page. Go ahead and save it after you put an edit summary, something like "Added userbox". Babel userboxes include a transclusion that automagically adds your username to a list of native speakers of English. Do you also speak German pretty well? Edit the babel userbox to {{Babel|en|de-2}} and go through the same drill; preview, add edit summary and save. Browse through the other userboxes and add those that you like. Many include transclusions, especially userboxes for WikiProjects; when you add the userbox for a project, you are likely to be listed as a member of the project.

There are lots of ways to organize your userboxes on your userpage. I'll let you read about it if you decide to use a bunch of them. Did you see an unusual userbox on another editor's userpage that you like? Just click the 'Edit' button on that user's page and do a copy-and-paste of the code to your userpage. There are lots of other ways to fix up your userpage. I suggest working through Pluma's page of FUN STUFF. Hope all this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 18:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

About creating New article

Good evening friends, I have a question, yesterday I create a article about the company nucleus software but they deleted the page by saying that it is for advertising purpose that is wrong, so what i have to do now?? Anshulmahoba (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry to hear about your article. A good place to start working on your article, again, is in your sandbox. You can find it here (it's a red link, you have to create the page, and you use that space over and over again throughout your course as a Wikipedian). The sandbox is often the best place to draft new articles. Then, when you are confident you are ready to share it on Wikipedia you click a submit button on the top of the page (on a template you'll see stating it's your infobox) and then experienced editors will review your article, let you know if there are any problems, and what you need to change those problems before it becomes a "real" Wikipedia page. I hope this helps! Good luck, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! (Also, I always encourage people to also improve other articles on Wikipedia - we need that desperately!). SarahStierch (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

making a wikipage for rheola can someone else check it out

hi, have been making a wikipedia entrie for the town/district of rheola. can someone/people check it over and tell me what i needs doing to it to bright i up to wikipedia standard. i fully admit that i a) already have knowledge of rheola so am probably putting info that is not referencable b)am a newbie and find wikipedia editing/creating/its help very dificult to learn. thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Broadwayduke/sandbox Broadwayduke (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Broadwayduke. I've looked over your page and made some edits. It's in good shape and is ready to be posted, in my opinion! However, I think the section on the Easter Monday Charity Carnival needs to be verified and have some coverage, even if only local coverage. I should also note that because you are writing an article about a locality, there's no need to worry about it getting deleted or anything like that. There is considerable consensus that legally-recognized, populated areas are considered notable and only require verification of their existence for inclusion. But I think it's great you want to (and have) put in substantial material into this article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

how may I delete my unused username?

Hi I created a new username then decided I didn't like it, so created another. How may I tidy up by deleting the unused username?

87.74.72.101 (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! Quick note - remember to always log in when you're editing. But, on to your question... While usernames cannot be deleted, your best bet is to simply redirect your old username's user page and talk page to your new one, and then only edit from your new account. That way, others will still know that that username was originally yours, and your old edits will be properly attributed, but no one will mistake that for you, if you know what I mean. Thanks for dropping by! Theopolisme _{:) 07:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)}

Thanks, Theo

I can certainly do that, but the whole process seems to give rise to several other considerations.
Apologies for TL response, please read!

Firstly, in case you wondered, may I explain that I haven't logged in again because it would be self-outing !

The unused user-name (though polite) was the product of frustration at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin which sedately renders a new page each time one fails to guess at a name which is still available.

I suppose there may be a considerable build-up of such orphan names, making the puzzle of guessing a novel one even more frustrating as time goes on.

There is possibly a better way, by listing already-bagged names similar to one's guess, but one does not discover how to do that until later. I tried at the time, I really did, but even now I've again lost the page showing how to do it.

The excuse for not permitting deletion does not seem truly to pertain for such a name that is never used.
Second to this, I was a little concerned that I would attract the approbation of some admin for having multiple personalities (I am capable of holding more than one view on a subject, even before breakfast).

Where would I go to suggest improvements to the registration process? Apart from the passing vexation of name-selection, there might be scope for letting people know what they're about to let themselves in for, before they've embarked! (Mark-up, for one thing, unless & until the wysiwyg team gets going to implementation; also an understanding of WP civics.)

Trawling around, might it not be better to nominate the alter-ego for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion  ?

Or does he (the Dr. Jekyll side) have to do something even more heinous before being considered?

Then again, the whole circus was engendered by my having had my password hacked on an earlier identity, from which I am still locked out. Without indulging paranoia, it's hard to tell if that was just coincidence, or because of edits in a contentious area. Perhaps I should address that first, though again I'm not sure how to proceed.

87.74.72.101 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How should I concretely understand that the article on Bacigalupo needs better formatting?

Hi, everybody. I'm thankful to Sara for suggesting that I visit the Teahouse in order to get help. I certainly accept the criticism of reviewers. With regard to the article on Bacigalupo,I'm not sure what I should change. I know I enjoy an informal tone - but I think I changed it to formal, as appropriate for a Wikipedia entry.Is it formal enough now? Concise enough? I broke up long paragraphs, adding suitable headings. Is that part of the expected formatting? I showed that the filmmaker Bacigalupo is notable. He is a noted experimental filmmaker. (The Turin film festival fairly recently had a retrospective of his work, and the Turin museum of modern art (the GAM) had a simultaneous exhibition showing documents related to his work. Major museums have copies of his films, and the new york filmmakers' coop distributes them or some of them. Jonas Mekas liked one of Bacigalupo's films a lot...) I also showed that his work as an Ezra Pound scholar is highly esteemed by other scholars. Has this problem been handled adequately? I omitted almost all online references, depending on serious printed sources. I think, however, that websites of important museums are serious sources, and so are city government websites naming the recipients of a prize awarded by the city. I backed up the websites of museums etc. with printed Italian newspaper articles that also appeared online (the way n.y.times articles also appear online). The printed sources form the bulk of sources. Are they adequate? Which are not, I ask myself. I simply mention all of this because I feel a bit helpless. What did I overlook? In what way did I depart from the paradigm that I should have respected? What would be necessary to have a properly formatted text? A small hint, tied to a concrete example (of where & how I 'erred') would be appreciated. Sorry, I make too many words, I know. Are my articles also way too long? O yes, I hope I'm not asking for too much help. I checked and read many Wikipedia pages on "how to write" an article. Learning, and glad to learn. Thank you for reading this. I shall appreciate whatever help you may give. JoanX.Chen (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joan. I made a bunch of formatting fixes. Notably I started on the external links - this shows I hope how an external link is formatted [<url> <label>]. There are many other minor formatting issues, for example we avoid "smart quotes" and bolding, and there were some capitalization issues. I have fixed what I can see, and in my opinion they should not be a barrier to the article going live. It may be useful to review WP:ITALIC which covers the use of italic text, which is something likely to be relevant to your writing. Rich Farmbrough, 03:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

How to know what the parent categories are for any given page

Hi

This question is not directly related to editing Wikipaedia - but i could find no other place to pose a wiki question.

I am in the process of creating an extensive enclycopaedic database for my young kids. I plan on making many small flash cards - all categorized logically.

To get the ball rolling, i need to want to mimic the organizational structure of an encyclopaedia. Since I'm a fan of WikiPaedia, i want to use it's content structure. (though i won't obviously cover the entire content :-) - just a general portion).

I plan on using this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Overviews) as a guide for planning my categories. From this, i gather that the general format is

Portal -> Category -> Article e.g. Portal[Geography] -> Category[Cities] -> Article[New York]

My question: When i browse to any given article, how can i tell what the "parent" category/sub-category is?

e.g. For the "Carpentry" article for instance; how do i tie "Carpentery" to the parent "portal" classification ?

Jason_Phox Jason Phox (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Jason. Interesting question for an interesting project you are undertaking. Let me see if I can help you.

Articles on wikipedia are organized in a number of ways. One way is through simple category designations you can find at the bottom of most articles. For instance, under the page for New York City there are a number of categories including Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States, Category:Former capitals of the United States, and Category:Port settlements in the United_States. Another way they are categorized is through something called templates. You can see these at the bottom of the NYC page, too (e.g. this template for New York State). A third way is through parent portals as you mentioned above. These are often located at the bottom of the page as well-- the NYC page has them under the "See Also" section, and are also located at the bottom.

So, whatever designation you choose to organize your notecards with, I would check the the bottom of the page. Some articles don't have portals, unfortunately, so you might not be able to categorize everything this way. Taking carpentry for example, at the bottom the page, one of the categories it is under is Category:Woodworking. I hope this is helpful for your project-- best of luck! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason, you might be interested in the Category:Main topic classifications and working downward from there. Be aware that the category system (even looking solely at "content categories") has a number of anomalies: firstly it is not a tree, it has cross-linkages and loops, secondly members of a subcategory are not necessarily members of the parent category, although considerable effort has been expended to make this the case. The main reason for this latter anomaly is that content categories seem to be of two types - "is a" - for example "Stations on the London Underground" and "Relates to" for example Category:London Underground. Thus if Category:Paris is made a subcategory of Category:Cities in France (which it is currently) Adalard of Paris becomes an indirect member of Category:Cities in France, despite not being a city. Rich Farmbrough, 04:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

Préludes (Debussy) -- Merging all the small articles into 1, or 2 big articles.

Hi, I would like to improve the article on Debussy's Préludes, as I've found some sourced information.

However, now there's a "father" article with the listing of pieces and some general information, and then there are all the "child" articles for every piece (however, most are empty). Most of the child articles are redundant and say mostly the same (i.e. an identical lead section plus a sentence about the individual piece).

I would like to merge the contents into one or two big articles (maybe one for Bk.1 and another for Bk.2, or one for both). Then, it would be easier to improve the general content and reach the GA class.

However, that's going to require many redirects and major reestructuring, so I need to post somewhere my intentions so as nobody kills me X-D.

PS. I don't know if I should post that question here, but in many places you simply get no feedback.

Thanks!Fauban 11:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fauban, and welcome to the Teahouse! I love Debussy's Preludes, they're some of my favorite pieces to play. :) I do think that combining the information would make it easier to get the "father" article to GA/FA status, but eventually, sub-articles may be warranted. That's often what happens - you find too much information for the big article and have to expand elsewhere. So, it's probably a good start for you to work all of the information into the parent article and move on to the individual preludes later. Good luck - and I hope this helps! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidencing (further enquiries)

Hi There, I'm writing an article on a Film School in London, my first one, and (perhaps for the first time) realised that 'articles on the Film School' are not enough. In terms of evidencing they have to exist electronically (somewhere). Is that entirely correct? So that paper is not good enough? thanks in advance 86.144.10.33 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! The sources don't have to be online but they have to be verifiable - so, I have to be able to find those sources myself and read them if I want to in order to verify the facts about the film school. I hope that helps :) Feel free to come by and share your sources with us if you need some input! SarahStierch (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Particularly when citing offline sources, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include. Sionk (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Load a picture

Hey,

This may be a strange question, but I have recently written an article on the Susquehanna Warrior Trail, and I am not sure how to load pictures onto it. How do you load pictures onto Wikipedia articles?

Thanks,

King jakob c (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jakob! You must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image. If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. You could also read Wikipedia's image use policy.

If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear (replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image). See our picture tutorial for more information. Hope this helps! benzband (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! King jakob c (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How to find status of new article

Seven days ago I submitted a new, non-controversial article, an author mini-biography with a listing of works. It has still not appeared. Is there any way of finding the status or what went wrong?Cloudrush (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cloudrush! Welcome to the Teahouse :) Are you talking about User:Cloudrush/sandbox? If so, you have to click the button in the "this is a user sandbox" box at the top of the page that states "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." HOWEVER, a lot of work still has to be done on it before it will be approved. I hate sending people to policies, but, there is a pretty lengthy explanation on how an author, like your subject, can be included in Wikipedia. Hendricks has to fit into one of the following:

1. She has to be super uber famous (i.e. Stephen King famous) or cited by peers and scholars who study her work.
2. She has to have created a new concept or genre and be well known for it
3. Her work has been made into a feature film (not a tiny little independent film that has had little to no attention, mind you!)
4. Her work has been reviewed by numerous media outlets (i.e. New York Times for example)
5. She's won major critical reception for her work

Now, does she fall into any of those? Now, the biggest concern I do have so far is that there are no citations for her article. Ok, there is one, but it is a non-reliable source - it's from a press release and those aren't considered reliable because they are written by the subject or an organization representing the subject and press releases can make up anything about the subject. Here are some examples of potential reliable sources that you can use [1][2][3], etc. My fear, is that without more sources like that, her article could be nominated for deletion or repeatedly declined at Articles for Creation, because she's not famous enough right now. So, if you can improve upon the content - and fully cite any personal information about her (it'll just be deleted without reliable sources) then you can submit the article for review. I hope this helps - and don't let it get you down, there are so many contemporary authors that need articles written about them! Also, we do have a WikiProject for folks who like to write about authors, you can find it here: WP:Writers SarahStierch (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you so much for your complete response. You make Wiki what it is!Cloudrush (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Publishing information box alongside an article

I have just published my first article about a laser manufacturer (JK Lasers). I have noticed that another laser manufacturer has a side bar with details such as turnover, key staff, its website and logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofin-Sinar). How do I add this to my article? Louise online (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Louise! Welcome to Wikipedia and congratulations on your first article. When I was first figuring things out, I figured out the best thing I could do to add content to my Wikipedia articles - just copy and paste! :) So, go to the article that you shared, for Rofin-Sinar, and click the "Edit" button at the top of the page. Then, at the top of the edit box (where the wikitext is) you'll see this:

 {{Infobox company
 | name             = Rofin Sinar Technologies Inc.
 | logo             = [[Image:Rofin Logo.svg|200px]]
 | type             = [http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=RSTI&selected=RSTI Public - NASDAQ:RSTI]
 | [[ISIN]]         = US7750431022
 | foundation       = 1975
 | location      = [[Plymouth, Michigan]], [[United States]]
 | area_served      = Worldwide
 | key_people       = Günther Braun (CEO), Ingrid Mittelstädt (CFO)
 | industry         = Industrial Lasers
 | revenue        = {{Increase}} US$ 597,763 million (2011)
 | net_income        = {{Increase}} US$ 60 million (2011)
 | num_employees    = 2,108 (2011)
 | homepage         = [http://www.rofin.com rofin.com]
 |footnotes        =<ref name="form 10-k">{{cite web |url=http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312511032930/d10k.htm |title=Form 10-K |author=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |authorlink=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |year=2011 |publisher=United States of America |location=Washington, D.C. |at=Part II, Item 6 |accessdate=April 24, 2012}}</ref>
}}

Copy and paste that into your own article, at the top of your article. Then, just replace the information and delete anything that doesn't belong. Feel free to let us know when you've given it a go and we can review it. Congratulations! What do you want to edit next? :) SarahStierch (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how to get a page updated when there's a potential conflict of interest

I'm a complete newbie at this and have been asked by the organisation I work for to update our wikiepedia entry as recent changes in legislation make the current content out-of-date. I've recreated the article in my sandbox and have asked two previous editors of the article for help but I've not had a response. Can I just go ahead and update the existing page? AngelaHamilton (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome AngelaHamilton to the teahouse. It is great that you are seeking advice at the outset and that you are trying to work with other involved editors. They may be away on holiday so maybe give it a bit longer. Otherwise I do not see why you should not make the changes if you declare your interest on the article talkpage. It will also help if you can find more third party sources for the content. I hope it goes well.--Charles (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charles, thanks for getting back so quickly. I'll take your advice and wait a bit and see if I get anything back from the other editors. I'll also try and find more third party sources for the content. Best wishes AngelaHamilton (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Mars Lasar Wiki Page

Hi,

I am talking on behalf of Mars Lasar. He told me that he is trying to edit his Wikipedia page for a while and he doesn't quite understand why his edits were taken out.

Please let me know what guidelines he will need to follow for his page to be fixed.

Thank you!

Manny 98.248.8.34 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Manny! Thanks for stopping by. We actually frown upon people editing their own articles. Wikipedia has a pretty strict conflict of interest policy - it helps us maintain neutrality and avoid looking like a promotional website, for example. So, if Mars has some problems, it's best that he drops by the talk page of his article and just leave some comments there. That way, folks who watch that article can investigate his concerns and make improvements as needed. I hope that helps :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Article rejected because page is blank

Hi. I recently tried to post an article and after a waiting period learned that it was rejected because it was a blank page. I retrieved the page and found that it contained the article title plus so material that I assume was formatting language. I had originally created the article as an MS Word document, then copied and pasted it in. Someone more knowledgeable than I am about computers suggested that MS Word formatting may have caused a problem, and that I might succeed if I saved the article as a plain text file. Someone else said I would have to type the article in. Please advise.

Thanks,

Byron 24.23.187.173 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Byron! Welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at your submission and saw that, yes, it was blank - sadly, I'm afraid I can't really help you too much without seeing the file in question. Copy-and-pasting an article might not be the best way to go, however - while it's fine to start the article by copy/pasting, it's recommended you then convert it to WikiCode, Wikipedia's own "special language." But if the problem is some sort of compatibility issue with your computer, I can't really help you there... your friend's guess is as good as mine. :) Sorry to not have been able to offer a more substancial answer. Theopolisme :) 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 24! (As I look around for Jack Bauer. j/k) I realize I should probably address you as Byron, but I wanted to make that little joke to help hammer home a point. You should register and get a username! With a username comes your very own sandbox, which is a place you can work on articles until you feel they are ready to submit. If you had a sandbox, you would have seen the article was blank before you submitted it. Sandbox is also a great place to practice using wiki markup, so you can see what all of those obscure codes do. It is only a guess, but if you remove the line of code that you mentioned, ya think it might work? I hope so. I am betting that if you resave it in plain text, that too should work. Just a little note, though. When we write a letter or report or something like that, we usually indent 5 spaces to indicate a new paragraph. Well if you do that in wikimarkup, the program will try to put a box around your text. Just hit enter to insert a line for a paragraph break. Good luck. Come back if you need any more help! Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with MS Word documents is that the formatting can get really big, really fast -- the hidden code that creates the formatting is bloated. Wikipedia tries to create slim documents, so that people can easily read the articles, even on small things like non-smart phones. Also, the only way to read a Word document is to either 1) have Word, 2) convert the document to a different format, or 3) crack the document. Because Wikipedia tries to be open and available to everyone, the first isn't a good option, the second would require a lot of work by the server and the third option doesn't work because Microsoft might sue. So, Wikipedia uses special wiki formatting which is also a lot faster than MS Word once you get used to it. Also, looking at the name of the article you created, it seems like it's likely to be an article about a friend or about you. Just remember that Wikipedia articles about living people must be verifiable and about a notable person. Good luck! :) Banaticus (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

confilcts among contributors

I am new to this. I have added some information to an article along with a supporting reference. Then someone deleted it. Now I have put it back. Is this how it works? How are such things resolved? Bmarlowe1 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Bmarlowe1! We actually have a behavioral standard on Wikipedia known as Bold, Revert, Discuss. Basically this means that if you believe something belongs in an article, you can Be Bold and add it. If another editor believes that the content does not belong, they may revert your edit. It is then necessary to discuss the change you want to make with the other editor, usually on the article's talk page. We also have a rule known as three-revert rule, which means that three reversions of the same edit without any consensus being determined constitutes an edit war and is prohibited. The other editor should have provided an edit summary with their edit to explain why they were reverting your edit, but they did not. I would post a message on the talk page of the article explaining what you want to add and then notifying the other editor on their own talk page that you have left a message for them at the article talk page. Thank you for asking this question, as many editors who do not understand the code of conduct just go right into an edit war and end up disrupting Wikipedia. hajatvrc @ 20:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

Why is the fact that Paul Ryan (per The Economist) took home his dead son so that his other kids could play with him, not noted in the article. Is this another Paula Bush, Mike Dougles event for Wikipedia? 70.20.18.224 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi 70. This is not the kind of question we deal with here. We help with the nuts and bolts of editing. You need to raise this initially at the talk page of the article. If you are still not satisfiedthe next step could be a request for comment.--Charles (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Another thing you could do, if this is a factual question like I think it is, is ask at the Reference Desk. The Reference Desk is where volunteers research and answer questions like this - I find that it's pretty helpful. Feel free to ask here if you have any questions about using Wikipedia! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi 70! I agree with Charles above, an RfC is a great way to get input on controversial additions/deletions of article content. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How to make reference links "clickable"

I've been working on an article and I was using the same source several times so I condensed the source but now the actual link has disappeared and I can't make it "clickable". Any suggestions? MissJulie 79 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Miss Julie. If I am understanding your question, I think I fixed it. You were missing "url="

Did my edit accomplish what you wanted?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No the reference links at the bottom are still not clickable. Where do you add the "url="?MissJulie 79 (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You also need to physically make a link clickable. Either use a citation template inside the reference tag which will auto-link for you, or put things in brackets like you would to make a link anywhere else: [[this would normally be a link]] Banaticus (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I forgot to save my fixes. I tried again.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Article no longer a stub

I've been working on the page for the Raymond Chandler novel The Little Sister following the novels template. I think the article is ready to be elevated to higher than stub status. I would also like some feedback as to how to improve it further. I've looked on various pages for help and the novels project but I'm still a bit confused about the right next step, thanks. Mdebellis (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The next step would be to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment#Requesting an assessment and request an assessment by following the guidelines. If, after a little while, there is no strikethrough, feel free to post a request for reassessment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Brambleberry ^{☾of RC☽} 20:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Mdebellis (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is my article ready for posting?

My article on the New Rochelle Walk of Fame has been in the sandbox for some time and I would like to know if it is ready for posting. If not what do I still need to do. Thanks, Rod Kennedy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duwamps/sandbox

69.86.58.234 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Duwamps (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rodney, and welcome to the Teahouse! You've clearly put some effort into creating this article, which is a very good thing. However, you will need to put more effort into it to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards for a new article. Please have a look at this page about starting a new article. Specifically, I encourage you to work on a couple of things:

1) Keep your language in the article neutral and non-promotional. If the article reads like an ad, it is likely to get tagged and deleted.

2) Do some research into finding reliable sources that discuss the New Rochelle Walk of Fame. You can use these as references in the new article. You will need to demonstrate why this entity is notable in order to keep it from being deleted.

If you have any questions, please post them here. We are happy to help. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest - How to proceed?

Hi All -

I am new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to get my bearings. I have a few questions regarding an article that I requested to have created - TransCard,LLC. I am currently an employee at this company, so I do not feel I am the best fit for creating the article due to the conflict of interest guidelines. I created the request under the Companies/Business section (this name may not be exactly correct - again, I am still learning). I want to make sure that I am on the right track. TransCard, LLC, is a company that is similar to Green Dot Corporation. I know of articles and sources, but again, I am a current employee. I would love to hear from someone experienced to let me know if I am heading in the right direction.

Thanks! - Lcarter82 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lcarter82, and welcome to Wikipedia! All editors are welcome here. I take it from your question that you asked for an article to be created. If that's the case, another helpful editor will review your submission and offer suggestions on its improvement. If you're concerned about your conflict of interest, I think that as long as you disclose it openly on your user page and use independant reliable sources for the article, there shouldn't be a problem. Again, welcome to Wikipedia and Happy Editing! -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Email notice every time page on watchlist is changed?

Hello Those Who Know Things

In my preferences I've checked "E-mail me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" but I'm not getting an email for each change. I've checked my spam box, the notices aren't going there.

So, how do I get notified every time there's a change?

thanks! Nonesuch75 19:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonesuch75 (talk • contribs)

Hello Nonesuch75. The emails can take a while to come through or so I find with Wikimedia Commons although I do not use the service here. Most of us keep our watchlist open in a separate window and refresh it fairly frequently.--Charles (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that has been turned off in Wikipedia. You can put gobs of pages on your watch list and if those were really popular pages, then the Wikimedia Foundation would be sending gobs of emails to you every day. To avoid server overload, that option has been turned off (I believe). Otherwise, you simply have to "watch" the pages for changes (that's why it's called a "watchlist"). If it's a really popular page, then someone will virtually always be watching it and if it's not a really popular page, then it won't get changed very often (usually). I hope this helps. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How to find the owner of a wiki page?

I want to report the owner of an article about a suspected typo. I updated the same in that article talk page but no response yet. So wondering if any other ways to notify the owner. Kirukp (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Kirukp and welcome to the Teahouse! There are no individual "owners" of the pages on Wikipedia, and in fact we encourage people to fix what typos they see in articles. If the article reads, for example, "Quene Elizabeth", feel free to fix it with the edit tab at the top of the screen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Crisco 1492, Thank you for the reply. Just saw someone responded to my talk. Checking on it. Kirukp (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess you refer to Talk:Gangs of Wasseypur - Part 1#Suspect a typo! I don't know why you think July 25 is a typo. The statement has an inline reference to a source [4] which says July 25. The article link to the source didn't work but I fixed that by removing a slash.[5] Other sources I have found also say July 25. You are allowed to make corrections to articles but only if you have a verifiable reliable source and don't contradict an inline reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Kirukp (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidencing required for Article

Hi There

New to Wiki, based in London, and would very much like to extend a stub on a London Based Film school. I.e. I would like to construct an article on the film school. The question is, will the film school's website be a permissible source of information. Let's say 'as regards their curriculum'?

thanks in advance SamCardioNGO (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sam. Welcome to the teahouse. The website will be an acceptable source for what the school does, although excessive trivial detail should be avoided. You will however need to show "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" to establish the notability of the organisation.--Charles (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charles, thanks for the reply (apologies if this added comment is in the wrong place). re your reply - that's likely part 2 of my question. So what should I be looking for? Listings in text books on colleges in the UK, articles about the Film School in Photography and Film Magazines? SamCardioNGO (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes magazine and newspaper aticles, especially national papers, are ideal. I was helping someone with another college yesterday as it happens and all I could online apart from the college's website was a mention in a publication by Imperial College. That does at least verify that the place exists.--Charles (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sam, yes generally an organization's own site is considered a reliable source for these sorts of non-contentious information. Of course any claims such as "the only combined set design and property buying course in the UK" or even more "the best directing course", would need to be considered more carefully. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

High Rich, yes, most of the information is non contentious. Course structure, nuts and bolts. I guess where they put on their website Nic Roeg says 'xyz' one would not be able to use that quote unless the statement was made in an article outside the film school (e.g. interview through BBC etc)? thanks again SamCardioNGO (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

altering and deleting current wording

In making edits and adding to current articles, is it also possible to delete or change current wording, and if so, how is that done? Thank you! 67.83.54.25 (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi 67, welcome to the treehouse. Everything is editable, you just have to click on the "edit" tab either at the top of the page or at the section header. Here's a practice bit for you:

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog while the kookaburra sits in the old gum tree.

Try it! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes 67, if you think you can improve the grammar or readability of the existing text you are very welcome to do so. You just need to keep it faithful to the sources cited for it and avoid synthesis where information from different sources is conflated to give a further meaning. There is a Guild of copy editors which specialises in that type of work if you are interested.--Charles (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Customizing Infoboxes

Hi there! I'm working on an article about the Guyanese artist and archaeologist, George Simon, here and I'm arguing with myself about infoboxes! Basically, I can't decide whether to use Infobox person or Infobox artist, as, in an ideal world I'd like to be able to include information about Simon's ethnicity and both his occupations (which is allowed by Infobox person but not Infobox artist) as well as information about the artistic movement of which he is the founder (which is allowed by Infobox artist but not Infobox person!). I've had this debate with previous articles as well, so I thought it was worth asking: is there a way of customizing infoboxes so that you can put in additional fields, or is it just a question of best-fit compromise? (I realise it's not exactly a big issue - all the info is in the body of the article - but I kinda like icing AND cake!!!) Thank you! Loriski (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Your desire to have just the right information is good, and I would like to help you solve your problem. Unfortunately, both infoboxes are highly protected, because a small change to them, whether accidental or deliberate, will cause problems across many articles. However, you can try and convince the editors that control the templates to add fields by bringing it up on the template's talk page. I'd suggest going to the Template:Infobox artist and request an ethnicity or race field on the talk page. Hope it goes well :) Karafs (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Karafs! I'll run with Infobox person for now, then, and make the suggestions you recommend at the Infobox artist talkpage and wait to see what happens! :) Loriski (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Submission declined due to a lack of 'reliable sources'... how to proceed?

Hi, I have created an article about a man who had incredible local importance to a small suburb of Southampton and who's lasting legacy has seen his small retail outlet turn into a large successful store. The man in question is now deceased, I have found one book relating to this man (which I have cited), plus quoted from a couple of newspaper articles that I have found (which are also cited).

The rest of the content I have found through talking to some of the longer serving members of staff within the store (who remember Mr Peter Green) and therefore I am unable to provide a 'reliable citation'.

I have compared my level of citation to that of another local retail store (Bradbeers) and feel that I am not offering any less than they already have - the question is, what do I need to do to proceed - I'm a little lost?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Adrian AdrianMG (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, there are a number of ways to proceed, and I will presently take a look at the article in question and see if I can help more specifically. Firstly, of course, by finding more and better sources - and if you can't there are people who may be able to help. Secondly by considering whether the best place for the information is in an article on the person, or in an article on the shop, or even an article on Retail development in Southampton.

The second point you raise is about what we call "oral citation" and while there are a number of projects to push this forward, such citations are generally not sufficient for Wikipedia. Possibly if the material can be published in other media (for example, local newspaper columns), it may become citable. While this is an obstacle, "reliable sources" is a touchstone for Wikipedia for a number of reasons, that I expect are self evident. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply Rich, all suggestions are appreciated! The reason that I wrote the article about the man, rather than the business, is that without his input and ambition the business could never have survived in the first place - he was quite a visionary and a very famous and popular man in the local community. The problem that I have found is that there appears to have been very little printed about him and I considered that the 'advertorials' that I have found, would be inappropriate to cite from, as they may effectively represent marketing for the business? AdrianMG (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As someone who works at Articles for Creation quite a bit, I'd have to agree that your article needs more evidence that Green has been widely talked about. Your article largely relies on a few pages in one book. The Reading newspaper article is about the shop, not the person. If you find another source or two, try and edit out some of the chattiness from your article too. AfC usually accepts articles that stand a good chance of surviving in Wikipedia's main article space, but the length of your article, combined with the lack of sources, would set alarm bells ringing for me. I hope you don't get dispirited. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

i have created an article but it has been deleted, how i can creat ?

i have created an article of my poems which was reflecting live of village children. my all poems are dedicated to those village children amd to motivate them, tell me how can make my wiki page???

sushilk600 09:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushil600 (talk • contribs)

• Hi Sushil, and welcome to Wikipedia. The poem you posted was not an article and has such been deleted from main space. If you wish, you can post the poem on your user page (here) where it is allowed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Title change

Hi, I really appreciate having this forum to ask questions as I have really been struggling to get answers on how to change article title. I have followed the instruction given to me by helpdesk and other people but now no one is responding to advise if the change is possible. Article 'Burton's Foods' should read 'Burton's Biscuit Company' as the company rebranded in 2011 as stated in the article itself. Please can you assist. thank you Mrs biskit (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC) In addition, how can we add a logo/photo to an article? Thank you Mrs biskit (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mrs. biskit. I have moved that for you. It is now under Burton's Biscuits. For the logo, etc, you want to add an infobox. Sorry, I cannot help you with that at the moment, but perhaps some nice soul with a little more time available could. Gtwfan52 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Gtwfan52 was talking about Infoboxes. Also, don't forget, you need references for the things you say in an article. For instance, the product line -- where's that information from? Banaticus (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to all for your help. I will look into your suggestions. Thanks Mrs biskit (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52, I just noticed the article title should be Burton's Biscuit Company and not just Burton's Biscuits, as per the article content. Please can this amended again. Thank you Mrs biskit (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Notifications

Any idea how I can turn notifications on? Vibhabamba (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "notifications"?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Place to ask for help on an article?

I'm working on improving the Mars 3 article, as I think it could use some substantial editing. Where would I be able to ask for people to help collaborate? Is their a space wikiproject/space-robotics wikiproject I could ask? Thanks, 3er40 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes there is, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight which I think will the one to help you out. NtheP (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

reliable source

What are the criteria of reliable source?? N maram (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey! We've got a whole page about reliable sources here for you, which goes into detail about different ways to distinguish what sources are reliable. Self-published sources, for example, are usually not considered reliable. Some sources may be questionable because they are not edited very carefully (or at all), and may be known to grossly exaggerate details or even make them up; newspapers that engage in tabloid journalism may do this, for example.

It's important to consider not just the source itself, but also who wrote/created it, and where it was published. It is safe to say that a YouTube video your neighbour made, for example, is probably not a reliable source, regardless of the topic (though if he had recorded footage of an important event, he could upload it to Wikipedia for the article). In another example, a book may appear to be reliable at first, until you find out that it was published using a vanity press, and the author, who claims to be an expert in their field, doesn't even have the slightest bit of education in it.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 16:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you N maram (talk)

No problem. If you've got any other questions, don't hesitate to ask, hm?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Five Pillars?

Why do they call the six policy articles, the five pillars? Did they used be five? Was one added at some point, and if so, which one and why? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Yaniv256! I assume, by "six policy articles" you mean the first six links listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. The Five Pillars are a summary of the most basic principles on Wikipedia. They themselves are not the polices, but summaries of all of them. There are more than six policies on Wikipedia, in fact there are scores of them listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. hajatvrc @ 04:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was really helpful. I was on wp:own and made the mistake of thinking that the infobox to the right is the five pillars. That little mistake would have been very embarrassing in any place other than the teahouse! Major positive feedback here! →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Yaniv256, I just wanted to make an important point regarding Wikipedia rules and pillars and policies and all that. One of the main pillars is to ignore all rules which is not to say that it's OK to be a complete pain; but it is a reminder that Wikipedia does not exist to be a set of rules, but rather to be a source of information. Rules are important, and we should follow them, except when we shouldn't. --Jayron32 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Article question

Hello,

I am writing an article about a topic that doesn't exist yet. For example - If a person is trying to get into the Guinness Book of World Records and the contest is still going on - can I still write about it? Saying something like "On August 14, 2012, John Doe attempted to break the world record for holding his breath. The longest time is 4 minutes 20 seconds, currently held by Jane Doe."

Then eventually edit to say that John Doe didn't gain the world record but plans on attempting it again on October 14, 2012?

--Ash 00:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ash, possibly but... probably not. A threshold for a topic's inclusion as a stand-alone Wikipedia article is that it be a notable subject. "Notable/Notability" does not have precisely its vernacular meaning here. Generally, it means that the topic has been the subject of substantive treatment in multiple secondary sources that are considered reliable. For example, the topic has been written about in some detail in published books, magazine stories, newspaper articles and so on. Another policy, verifiability goes hand in hand. While notability is about reliable sources covering the topic, verifiability is about reliable sources covering the information content in the article, such that information should be able to be verified by looking at reliable sources that the article cites. So, if this attempt at a world record has been written about extensively, it may be a proper target for an article. But the very nature of a not-yet-successful attempt at setting a world record, is that it is not likely to yet have that coverage. That's why I said possible but probably not at the start. I hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Ash. In all likelyhood the answer is probably no, but if the subject of the article is already notable then an article about the subject is possible without the future event part which comes under WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. If the articles subject is entirely about a future event then almost certinaly no. Major future events have been deleted because they don't meet WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It all depends on how much press the attempt is getting, how much people are talking about it. As Fughettaboutit and Sun Creator mentioned, it's all about how notable it is. For instance, if your high school wants to set the new world record for the longest "Subway" sandwich ever (if it was as long as the football field, 100 yards, it would definitely be a new world record), then you'd want to get nearby newspapers to talk about it, inviting people out, you'd want the local news stations to cover it, etc. If the world record was completed one night by 5 people and nobody else ever saw it or talked about it, then no, even completing the world record wouldn't be enough. Get your school and community involved, get enough people there and enough people talking about it in different (verifiable) places that the event becomes notable. Good luck! :) Banaticus (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What to do about a completely inappropriate edit on an article talk page?

A few weeks ago, I came across an edit that removed all the redirects from the DAB page Article and inserted a new article that the editor wanted to put into Wikipedia. It took several reverts and finally a block before the editor finally quit doing it. Today, I find on Talk:Article a piece of soapboxing about how the Indian government is messed up because they didn't put a bigger effort into the recently ended Olympics.

1. Can I revert the above talk page entry and message the editor about AfC?
2. Can a template be placed on the edit screen of both the talk and the article at Article warning editors that "this ain't da place for your new article"? Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks for stopping by at the Teahouse. I've gone ahead and reverted the Olympic soapboxing, as promotion of any kind, be it for a business, idea, point of view, whatever, is not what Wikipedia is for. I've also left the user a user warning message; anyone can use these to warn other editors that they are breaking / have broken the rules, and contain various standard messages for things like vandalism, promotion, adding spam links, and engaging in an edit war. Thanks for pointing this out!  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52! Just as a couple of quick comments, given that Dalahäst took care of it so quickly. :) In this case there would be absolutely no problem with removing the comment, but my general rule is to err on the side of caution. There are a number of reasons why you might have to remove a talk page message, but it is one of those things where you need to be very confident that there won't be an issue. When I do remove something, I try and say why by pointing to the issue in the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines that explains why I made the call I did. And generally it has to either be completely off topic (as this one was) and not related to the encyclopedia, (again, as in this case), or a clear attack on a user or the subject.

With the article's talk page if this is an ongoing problem you can add Template:Not a forum or Template:Off topic warning, but I tend to wait until there's an ongoing problem before I add them, as they always feel a tad confrontational. There isn't anything that can be added to the article itself, though, as the only tags which can be placed there are related to content rather than behaviour. - Bilby (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the help, but in the case of preventing this in the future (and if you look at the history, you will see that this page being mistaken for AfC is an ongoing problem), I have seen pages where when you click the edit button, there is a boxed bold message that appears at the top of the edit box with a warning particular to that page. I am sorry but I cannot recall an example at the moment. That is what I am looking for. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Pages can be protected, which is possibly what you're thinking of, but in general pages aren't protected unless there's an ongoing concern that protection will be needed. In general, it's considered better (and easier) to block an individual than to block an article. Regarding things on talk pages, I tend to not delete them, but to instead put them inside a collapsed table, like this: (by the way, this reply continues after the following table) Banaticus (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This text has been censored.
This is the text that is now auto-collapsed. You can't see it unless you go looking for it.

This makes it clear that the text has been censored and if it becomes a back and forth cross-sniping thing with each person censoring the other person and days or weeks go by between replies because people are busy in their lives, then when it finally escalates and goes to arbitration or something, it's a seriously annoying pain to go back through all the other edits that have happened and to see what was really said and who really did what and when everything really happened, etc. It's a heck of a lot easier if the offending text is still there, but somehow rendered invisible. Another option for offending talk page text is to put it into an HTML comment so that it's only seen when editing that section (another way to "hide" things without actually hiding them, so that the record of what happened and how and when it happened is really clear to someone coming by to review it well after things happened). Banaticus (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Gtwfan52 is referring to an editnotice, a feature which allows a message to be displayed at the top of a page when editing it. These are made by creating a subpage called "Editnotice", which will then appear on the parent page's edit page. All users can place edit notices on their own user (and user talk) pages, e.g. I could make User:Dalahäst/Editnotice if I wanted one for my userpage, and Gtwfan52 could just as easily have User:Gtwfan52/Editnotice. For other pages, these can only be put in place by admins. We do have the {{Talk header}} template, which has various redirects that are easy to remember like {{Talk page}}. Anyone can place this on a talk page, and it usually gets placed at some point or another on the more frequently-edited talk pages. It contains a message at the top that it is for discussing improvements to articles, ostensibly to prevent people from thinking that it is there to voice their opinion of it (which they can now do through Article Feedback, hey).  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you edit the lead section?

Hey. I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia; I've only edited a few articles before, but I was wondering how you edit the lead section of a Wikipedia article. I mean, there's no edit button there, like there is for all of the other sections in a Wikipedia article. Thanks!

71.181.157.156 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for dropping by the Teahouse! You can edit the entire page by clicking the edit button that occurs at the top of the article (next to the search bar and view history tab). If you create an account, you can turn on an edit link for the lead section by going to My preferences→Gadgets→Appearance Section→Click "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" then click save at the bottom. You can find some more reasons to create an account here. Ryan Vesey 22:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Assistance

I have an arbitration request I need assistance submitting. I need an editor that can assist me in edting the arbitration request submission page.

New Media 21:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media (talk • contribs)

Hey, New Media! I noticed that another editor on your talk page recommended that you try Wikipedia:Third opinion before going to the Arbitration Committee. Have you tried this? The Arbitration Committee is usually the last resort after you have exhausted all other options. It will be much easier for a new editor to use Third Opinion than the Arbitration process. hajatvrc @ 22:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. It is my understanding that Third Opinion only applies when it involves two editors. It is my understanding if more editors are involved in the content dispute, as is the case for the article in question, then Third Opinion should not be used to settle a content dispute. Based on this, arbitration is my next stop to get this content dispute resolved. New Media 02:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media (talk • contribs)

Hi New Media! Arbitration wouldn't be the next stop just yet. :) Before going that far you have a few options, and if I understand things correctly, Arbitration may not be suitable for the problem you have. Arbitration is focused on people's behaviour rather than article content, so in this case, the question of whether or not the article should exist would be outside of the Arbitration Committee's scope. If it does go to Arbitration now, the commitee will, I'm afraid, turn it down.

If I'm correct in assuming that the problem is with the deletion of Geocode, in this case you could potentially take it to WP:Deletion review, but you won't get the outcome you are looking for without expanding the article and adding some independent references. (They will look at the decision, rather than the merits of the article, and the decision was the correct one based on the discussion). So what I would normally recommend is that the article is transferred as it was before it was turned into a redirect into your userspace, where you can develop it and add independent references. Then, once it is ready, you can have someone have a look, and you can either take it to Deletion Review then (as you would have a better case once you have references) or see if the administrator who closed the discussion thinks that it is enough of an improvement to directly transfer into Wikipedia. The tricky part will be referencing, but there is nothing stopping you from developing the article in your own space. - Bilby (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing about Wikipedia. It's all about notability. It's a tertiary overview of outside secondary sources which discuss primary sources/content. In other words, Wikipedia is a synopsis of what other people have said when talking about something. Let's say that a fire breaks out. News crews film the fire and the fire gets mentioned in the newspapers. Someone could then start an article on the fire, using information from the newspapers and the TV. If you were involved in the fire personally, like if your house burned down, unless one of the news people mentioned your house burning down, you couldn't talk about it. Wikipedia is all about Notability. So, what you'd want to do is to find other things that talk about geocodes and geocoding. That'll be pretty easy, since lots of books talk about that -- there's even a Boy Scout merit badge on geocaching. Then cite the books. It looks like you're already doing that, which is great! Keep up the good work. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The matter I indent to petition to the Arbitration Committee for resolution is the restoration of the Geocode article due to notability. I have been unable to overcome the objections of editors on two separate mediation actions to have the Geocode article reestablished due to the issue of notability. But the issue of notability is a two prong issue. One is what is notable, and the other is if a government publication can be used as a reliable secondary source. These are policy matters that are not well defined and in order to overcome the objections of the editors, a policy decision must be provided.

Issue 1 – Notability

The Geocode article has been replaced by redirection to the Geocoding article. The rationale used by editors and reviewers is that the Geocode article was recommended for deletion due to lack of notability. It was therefore redirected to the geocoding page due to lack of references cited to support the material presented in the Geocode article. In my request for un-deletion of the Geocode article, I provide links to references for the material presented to provide notability.

The references I provided are: U.S. government publications, registrations at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for the Geocode trademark, and the recognition and publication of the Geocode algorithm as an essential claim for an international standard promogulated by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE).

One editor, Sussexonian (talk), in the initial discussion regarding deletion and the reviewer, The Bushranger One ping only, who redirect the Geocode article to the Geocoding article, stated that lack of notability was the only reason why the page should not be reestablished.

According to the Wikipedia article on Notability in the English Wikipedia, the policy states: “In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has ‘gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time’ [1] as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.”

The issue of notability therefore rests on being able to provide “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic” that can be used to provide notability of the Geocode article. According to the Wikipedia guideline regarding reliable sources, this guideline is the key determining factor used by an editor and reviewer to establish notability. Therefore, the matter and definition of “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic” as it is applied to government publications is the central issue to be resolved to support, or not support, the issue of notability.

The Wikipedia article on secondary sources states: “In scholarship, a secondary source [1] [2] is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.”

The U.S. government publications I submitted to support reliable secondary sources are a Registered Federal Copyright created and issued by the Library of Congress, an agency of the U.S. Government. The other documents are a Registered Federal Trademark and a U.S. Patent Registration created and issued by the Department of Commerce, also an agency of the U.S. Government. Finally, the registration of the Geocode trademark at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) should also be regarded as a reliable source.

However, according to the Wikipedia articles regarding primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, all articles are silent as to if a government publication is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source. As a result, the issue of notability and the reliance on the use of government publications as a source has not been specified by Wikipedia. Additionally, there is also the issue as to which type of source a government publication is? Is it a primary, secondary, or tertiary source?

Issue 2 – Government publications as a source.

In most cases the use of a government publication is generally used as a primary source of information. This is the case with most government documents providing basic research.

However, government documents that provide for the publication of registration of intellectual property are never the primary source of the original intellectual property material to establish the intellectual property right. The primary intellectual property source material regarding intellectual property rights are provided by the initiator of the request for registration of the intellectual property. Publication of the registration, in the form of a registration document by a governmental entity, for a copyright, patent, or trademark, is a secondary source of the topic that is independent of the original source material provided by the initiator of the registration.

Therefore, governmental publication of the registration of the intellectual property should be accepted as a reliable secondary source for the original intellectual property being registered. The U.S. Federal Government registration also provides for wide circulation of the secondary intellectual property source material. Publication by the U.S. Federal Government in the Federal Register provides for significant coverage of the registered intellectual property to the largest potential groups that are affected by the registration of intellectual property. Also, publication by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of the registration of a trademark also provides global circulation of the secondary intellectual property material and should be accepted as a reliable secondary source that is independent of the original source material.

A registration document by a government agency or an equivalent government agency, like a standard group or an industry body, should also be allowed as a reliable secondary source that is independent of the original source material to support notability of a subject. Failure to recognize government documents as a reliable secondary source that is independent of the original source material is in direct contravention to legal conventions governing intellectual property rights afforded under common law. Rejection of this legal premise regarding notability weakens the very foundation of all intellectual property rights, to include the intellectual property rights of Wikipedia, and the laws supporting intellectual property rights globally.

So you see, the policy of using government publications for notability is what has to be determined by the arbitration committee. Once the issue of use of government publications as secondary sources is decided, then a decision can be made as to the notability of the article. (talk) New Media 09:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, though, that the Arbitration Committee does not rule on purely content disputes; they're strictly user-conduct only. Nor do they make policy by fiat. See Wikipedia:Arbitration#Scope of arbitration for more information on this. They cannot help you get this article restored, no matter how worthy or unworthy it may be, and they can't help you get the definition of notability or reliable sources changed. The correct place to try to get your article restored is deletion review, as the other hosts have said. There are also content-dispute resolution avenues other than 3O that you can try if you really want, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard. The final stop on the content-dispute resolution ladder is called the Mediation Committee, but even then, you shouldn't go there without trying the other options like deletion review first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper I thank you for your recommendations. I have already submitted this to Deletion Review providing the reliable secondary source I listed above to make the article notable. Deletion review rejected my request. I then submitted it to the Mediation Committee. The Mediation Committee also rejected my request. The reason cited was, “Notability is a matter of Wikipedia policy, and decisions about whether a subject is notable enough for inclusion in any way cannot be made in Mediation Proceedings.”

Based on these results, I am left with the final level of dispute resolution - the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee has acted on “policy level” decisions before. I am looking for an editor who can help me post my request to get a policy decision on if a government publication or similar entity can be used as a reliable secondary source to provide notability.

Again, any assistance as to where I should go in the dispute resolution process is welcomed. However, if the final level is the Arbitration Committee, I need an editor who can assist me in submitting a request. New Media 14:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media (talk • contribs)

The Arbitration Committee is the final level of user-conduct dispute resolution; the Mediation Committee is the final level of content dispute resolution. They're on separate tracks. To my knowledge, ArbCom has never accepted a case and/or ruled on a content policy; if they did, I'm pretty sure that the rest of the community would jump on them like howler monkeys and tear them apart, since it's outside their scope. (There seems to be some ill-will towards ArbCom in the community at the moment.) Anyway, the point is that there is absolutely no value in submitting a case to ArbCom; I will eat my hat if they accept this case. It's a nice hat, too. At this point, if you've exhausted the dispute resolution steps (and you appear to have done so), perhaps it's time to just accept the outcome? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper - Again, I thank you for your comments. However, if a rejection by the Arbitration Committee is what I will get, then that’s ok. I need to get a decision by the highest Wikipedia body involved in dispute resolution. So, I need an editor that can help me submit a properly formatted request to the Arbitration Committee. --New Media 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* All right then, if you insist. But before you do, may I ask why you consider it so important that this go to arbitration? This seems like much ado about nothing; what are you specifically trying to accomplish by putting it before the Arbitration Committee? I don't want to sound dismissive or hostile or anything, I really don't, but Arbcom cases take up a lot of time and stir up a lot of drama, and it's really best to avoid them whenever possible, IMO. (By the way, I asked a Committee member, User:Newyorkbrad, to take a look at this; he quite rightly declined to comment specifically on an issue that might formally come before the committee, but he did leave a general note of agreement with what I've been saying.)

To place a request for arbitration, go to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration Page (that is, the "Requests for arbitration" section of the "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests" page) and follow the instructions in the red box. The way it works is that you'll edit the page multiple times; the first edit will create the generic template on the page, and you'll fill in the specific details in the second edit. If there are any other editors whom you consider to be part of the dispute, you should notify them, as well (there are instructions for this in the red box, too). I'll answer any questions you have about the purely technical process of posting this request (again, I am 100% convinced it will be declined out of hand, but no big deal, I guess, I don't mind spending time on it if it makes you feel better). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

New Media, I really think you are tilting at a windmill here. This is about the notability of Geocode not about whether government sources are primary, secondary or tertiary sources. The latter wasn't tested during the deletion debate as the article didn't have any citations in it, just unverified claims. I'm not doubting they are true but they need to be cited. The second point is does a copyright registration, a trademark registration and a US patent constitute notability?

You quoted the test of notability and the deletion discussion seems to say that there weren't any other sources helping Geocode to "gain(ed) sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Find some additional sources in the world at large and the notability issues goes away. It's not even as if the topic was deleted, just considered not to be notable enough at the moment to justify a separate article, and so merged. Root out other sources and the redirect can be undone and the article stand alone. NtheP (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How to credit other language Wikipedia

I copied an article in part from another Wikipedia, es.Wikipedia. I have seen articles in en.Wikipedia that have notes on the pages saying they have been translated from another Wikipedia. Is there a template for this? Thanks. Eau (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Eau, I think the template you're looking for is {{Translated page}}. NtheP (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried, but I got this hidden category at the bottom: "Pages with incorrect translated page tag." Can anyone check to see what I did wrong? Eau (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Which page is this? Ryan Vesey 21:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pseudomyrmex triplarinus. Eau (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Pseudomyrmex triplarinus hajatvrc @ 22:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Translated page}} is used on article talk pages, not in the articles themselves. Moving the template to the talk page solves the issue. NtheP (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, and I figured out what the insert version is. Thanks. Eau (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Is My Article Good Enough?

Hey there!

I have a class assignment to make a wikipedia page and my teacher thought my article may do better as an add-on rather than its own entry. He suggested I put my question in the teahouse.

Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ginagiac/sandbox

What do you think?

Thanks! Ginagiac (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ginagiac. Welcome to the tea house. Well you have made a page in your sandbox which is great. I am afraid it will not be accepted as an article in the main encyclopedia because a school band does not meet Wikipedia standards of Notability. There are plenty of existing articles you could work on improving though.--Charles (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you guys think if Ginagiac added some of that information to the article for their school? heather walls (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

SOME of that would be good in the school article, I think, but much of it would just be trivial. This is not an exact quote, but the guideline on school articles is achievement as champions at contests at a state or national level is notable. Regional or local events, no. Seconds or silvers, no. The different bands would be acceptable as a list without the details, I think. But all the detail on the bands, including the directors, would be too trivial for a school article. I do have to applaud both the student and the teacher for making an appropriate contribution to Wikipedia a class priority. Bravo!!! Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing about Wikipedia. It's all about notability. It's a tertiary overview of outside secondary sources which discuss primary sources/content. In other words, Wikipedia is a synopsis of what other people have said when talking about something. Let's say that a fire breaks out. News crews film the fire and the fire gets mentioned in the newspapers. Someone could then start an article on the fire, using information from the newspapers and the TV. If you were involved in the fire personally, like if your house burned down, unless one of the news people mentioned your house burning down, you couldn't talk about it. Wikipedia is all about Notability. So, what you'd want to do is to find newspaper articles, etc. that talk about your band. Perhaps there's a band historian who's responsible for keeping a band scrapbook of the times that the band gets mentioned in the news? If not, perhaps you could become the first. Keep up the good work. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Density of articles

As a reader I find that that many articles are very dense with unnecessary information that doesn't always flow well. What can a new editor do to alleviate the density? Vibhabamba (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are large amounts of material reproduced from primary source databases, otherwise known as cruft, this can be removed per WP:Primary which says this should be avoided. There may not be any secondary reliable sources for it. Obsessive types who like to add this sort of material may be upset but they have to be able to justify putting it there. Be bold and if it gets reverted discuss it.--Charles (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite the article or split it up into smaller articles. Good luck! :) Banaticus (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Searching by taxobox taxon

I keep running across Cyanobacteria articles that are not categorized as a Cyanobacterium. Is there a way to search by the character trait in a taxobox? Thanks, Eau (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Eau, welcome back! I'm not sure there's a super-easy way to do this, unfortunately; that's what the category is supposed to be for. Since it seems that the taxoboxen all link to the Cyanobacteria page, you could try the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left of the page; it'll have a lot of false positives, of course, but it will probably be reasonably comprehensive. Another option would be to do a basic search for the string "divisio Cyanobacteria"; that's how the search engine will see the line in the taxobox, so it might be a little more specific (although it'll miss things like pages using the Cyanobacterium redirect). Any other hosts have a better idea? There might be some kind of toolserver trick that I don't know about. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the problem is they are not in the right category, that makes category searches difficult. I did find some and made corrections using the searches you suggested. Thanks. Eau (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe of help is to use the search and exclude the category. So search "Cyanobacteria" -incategory:"Cyanobacteria" for example like this. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This was a useful search method that I have not used before, thank for taking the time to offer a suggestion. Eau (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding references to the Mars 3 article

I have a question about referencing and citations. On WP:Citing, it says to put footnotes in a separate "Notes" section. However, in many other articles (such as the evolution article), there isn't a notes section and they are all put into the references section.

Should references and citations/footnotes be put in a separate section, or together?

Thanks, Preb34 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Preb34, Proper Editing etiquette is to put footnotes in a separate section.Vibhabamba (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Preb, welcome to the Teahouse, there isn't one clear answer to this. A lot depends on how you add footnotes and also about the terminology. Words like notes, footnotes, references are quite often used to describe the same thing but at others refer to different specific elements of citing sources.

Looking at layout first, if like in the Evolution article the full citation is given in each citation then there is no need to separate out the various elements and this is more than fine.

== References ==

{{reflist}}

If however you use one of the Shortened footnotes templates where the footnotes are in-text cites that link to a shortened reference in a list and a separate full reference list then you do need two lists. I should declare now that I am a fan of the shortened footnotes system and use if where I can, especially if an article is going to have a long list of notes and/or sources. My normal format in this case is

== References ==

;Notes
{{reflist}}

;Sources
* Source 1
* Source 2

If I am using explanatory notes as well i.e. those little bits of information that aren't citations but expand on bits of the text I use

== References ==

;Explanatory Notes
{{reflist|group="nb"}}

;Notes
{{reflist}}

;Sources
* Source 1
* Source 2

As an example of this in use see Federation of Stoke-on-Trent. The use of the semicolon at the start of a line makes all the text in that line bold like a heading but means that line doesn't appear in the table of contents.

On language it's pretty much down to you whether you use notes/footnotes, sources/references but there is some guidance at WP:FNNR in the manual of style. NtheP (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your replies. For now, I'll just put the footnotes in a Reference section, since that seems to be the widely accepted norm. Preb34 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get Lamboo, Inc, and Lambinated Veneer Bamboo (LVB) approved on wikipedia

Hello,

I am trying to get Lamboo, Inc. and Laminated Veneer Bamboo (LVB) approved on Wikipedia, but am not having much luck and I am not sure what the problem is since all information provided is factual with references to back it up.

Any help would be much appreciated!!

Jscarto (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jscarto, this might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article

Since this is an encyclopedia certain types of articles are disallowed. These are:

• Pages about yourself/ your company/ your band or your friends
• Pages that advertise, personal essays or other articles you would not find in an encyclopedia.
  

HTH, Vibhabamba (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jscarto! Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you so much for wanting to contribute. Here are some issues with your article, please take them into consideration and please DO NOT take them personal!!!:

1. The references used are not reliable. Wikipedia articles need to use reliable sources and your article uses three sources: one from the company website and two from companies that work with Lamboo. After doing some research, I am having a very hard time finding reliable sources, which means that Lamboo might not be "notable" enough at this time.
2. Notability in Wikipedia basically means this: an organization has to have extensive coverage in reliable sources (i.e. newspapers, magazines - press releases do not count) to be considered notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It looks like, at this time, Lamboo does not merit that inclusion :( I'm sorry! But, perhaps in the near future it will.
3. I did notice in the article there are some uncited non-neutral things - such as "high performance" and claims of the percentages of energy that Lamboo uses to create it's products, etc. That content would have to be removed unless there is appropriate coverage from say, news outlets, that state and confirm it.

I wish I had more uplifting news about your article, but, it looks like, at this time, Lamboo might have to wait a bit longer before it can have it's on Wikipedia page. What other subjects do you have interest in editing about? Thank you so much! SarahStierch (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Just list "laminated veneer bamboo" as one of the many, many, possible types of laminated veneer lumber. We probably don't need a separate article on "laminated veneer [insert every possible variety of wood here]", especially if a company is trying to trademark one or more of those types of laminated veneer lumber. Was Lamboo created before Plyboo and Actionboo? bamboo OSB is not that uncommon of a flooring material, especially in some parts of the world. Banaticus (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Count for New Editors

Hello, I was curious to see if other editors care about their edit count. As a new editor once I got past 10 edits I find myself going to my preferences page to view my edit count. Do folks care about their edit counts? Vibhabamba (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Vibhabamba! Yes, many people do care about their edit counts; frequently checking your edit count is the first sign of a disease called editcountitis. ;) In all seriousness, though, a lot of people do keep track of their edit counts, but I find that it's not all that important. It's just a number; it'll grow over time, and I just don't worry about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I created Daniyal alghazzawi article and each time someone requested a speedy deletion for the article claiming I am promoting him. I read the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29#Criteria and Daniyal met the two criteria: (5) because he was the chairman of a department in a well known university. King Abdulaziz University (8) because I was the Co-president of 13th International Congress on Human Computer Intercation (2012). He also was a program Committee and Reviewer at IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence (WCCI2012). and I added reliable sources to support my opinions

Could you please tell me what I did wrong?? N maram (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I've had a look at your article and can't see any evidence of 'speedy deletion' nomination. Are you saying your article was deleted and you created another one? You are correct to say that if an acadamic has been awarded a senior Chair position at a university, they may be considered a notable academic. However, because Alghazzawi is only an Associate Professor at the college, I have my doubts he is a senior academic. The claim he is 'chairperson' of a Department is not proven by the source you give. If he is a very important academic, it will be a good idea if you can find better proof if this. If anyone else nominates your article for deletion, you will have the opportunity to make your counter-argument. Sionk (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I've looked on your Talk page - it seems the article has been deleted (in its various forms) several times. In that case, you need to act quickly! Unless you make a very clear claim about why you think Daniyal alghazzawi is notable, it could be speedy deleted again. Sionk (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thanx for your response I changed the link that proof his position as chairperson. This is the link from the University itself is it enough?? N maram (talk)

Hi there. Regretfully I don't believe it passes general notability guidelines. All of the sources you included are not reliable secondary sources. I also had salted this from being created for a number of days, since you have created it twice after it has been speedily deleted. It was created under a different page, with a lower case A for his last name, bypassing the salting. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, I really do not believe at this time he passes our notability guidelines - sources that are related to him and his organization(s) don't meet those guidelines. I have nominated it for deletion, perhaps the community can make a better decision than I. It just might not be the right time for his article until he's more cited and notable. SarahStierch (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I provided more sources that proof his position as a Chairman of IS at King Abulaziz University. N maram (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Multi-account

I really don't know if this is the right place for this question, but I'm interested in making an account. However, I would wish to have (the same) account usable, not only for English, but also for several other Wikipedias (whose languages I know and could contribute to). Help, please. 178.223.213.132 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse! All the Wikipedia's and projects under the Wikimedia umbrella have something called Single Unified Login, which is exactly what you're looking for. It's really easy to use, all you need to do is setup a new username, then go to Special:MergeAccount and it'll do everything for you! Just make sure you don't choose a username which has already been used on other Wikipedias - you can use this tool to find out if the username is attached to a user on another wikipedia. Worm^TT(talk) 15:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not have to do anything to be a member of many other language Wikipedias, except select an obscure user name. When I am logged onto en.Wikipedia, and I click on an interlanguage Wikipedia, I am also logged in on that other Wikipedia. Eau (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, new users don't have to do anything if their username is not in use elsewhere. meta:Help:Unified login#How to unify your accounts says: "Currently, all new accounts are unified by default, and older accounts can be manually unified by their users. To do so, go to Special:MergeAccount on a wiki where you already have an account." I'm old here and had to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your help! I have made the changes you suggested Sarah, and am really hoping my references are more appropriate now. Also glad to learn more about the wikipedia community.Jengawiki (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Any new accounts created are automatically global and can be used on any other wikipedia. So the Single Unified Login or Merging of accounts is already being done for you when you create a new account. Note that this may not apply to old accounts. Vibhabamba (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Review too

Hi all! I have had two articles rejected a few times now and although I have tried to execute the feedback I've been given, more specific criticisms would be greatly appreciated (e.g. remove this sentence, reference needed here etc).

I don't want to clutter this discussion forum and turn it into a place just for article reviews, and I would love to practice some objective judgements without having the pressure of having to make editorial decisions without any proper experience, so if there is somewhere devoted to feedback or a place to find a mentor for this sort of guidance, please let me know? Thanks Jengawiki (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jengawiki, thank you for coming to the Teahouse! Sorry you are having a hard time getting your article accepted - it's a tough process sometimes but serves as point to keep Wikipedia healthy and happy with good notable content. :) First, there is a program for folks seeking one-on-one mentorship, called Adopt-a-user. So perhaps you'll be able to find some more indepth guidance there. Here is some feedback:

1. In the lead, remove the word "largest," without a citation from a major news media resource (or the like) this can't be stated. Just keep it stating that WD is a "UK provider of direct consumer warranties." All content on Wikipedia should be cited and neutral, and that statement is non-neutral and uncited! :)
2. In the infobox, remove the caption and just leave the image. Also, you don't need the advert (that's copyrighted and can't be on Wikipedia) so just keep the image of the book. I moved it down to the right side. I took the liberty of doing that for you, I hope you don't mind.
3. Here is the biggest issue: the majority of the sources are not reliable. In Wikipedia, we need reliable sources. These include newspapers, magazines, news programs, etc. The links you use are either press releases, the company or an organizations website, etc. These things are not reliable because they are made by Warranty Direct or organizations related to them. Basically, the entire article can be deleted and not accepted based on this merit alone. Content that is considered reliable are sources like this: [6][7][8], etc. And news outlets or resources (that aren't made by WD) that talk about the organizations history. Basically, if more content like this that actually discusses WD at great length do not exist, then perhaps the organization doesn't need an article right now.
4. Remove the external links in the "Warranty Direct Affilitated websites," section. That's too promotional. Just mention someplace in the article that WD has two affiliated websites and what the names are.
5. Here is a better example of an insurance company article Farmers Insurance Group, check out all of those reliable sources at the bottom! THat's awesome.

I hope this helps. SarahStierch (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You might also take a look at Where to get feedback on an article you've just created. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I sent a message before but I don't think it sent. Just wanted to say thank you both for your help and advice and I've tried to implement your feedback Sarah. Fingers crossed for attempt number 4! Jengawiki (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Review?

Hi guys! Thanks so much for the invitation here, I was so happy to get it! This really seems like a kind space and I was getting told slightly different things in the live chat so I'm not sure if my article is reliable. I would love for any feedback! Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Schaefer SO appreciated! Princetondt (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Princetondt, hi and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I see your article has been declined once for a lack of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and if I were to review it now I would decline it on the basis that the references didn't help to establish his Notability. It's not that the references aren't real but they are only telling us factual information, for example, details of his books. That's fine because it is information that needs to be verified but it doesn't tell us why he is "out of the ordinary", what is needed are references like reviews of his books that indicate why they are top of their class. There are quite a lot of subjective points that could do with referencing. Examples:

• Things like Forbes naming him in a top 50 list need referencing
• The Tao of Twitter being a #1 bestseller needs referencing
• Who "acclaims" his blog or its sense of humour?

I would also suggest that you tone down some of the cv like content in the article, for example, the other graduate level education paragraph as it makes the whole article read a bit like a promotional article not a neutral encylopedia article. NtheP (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Time of day Main page change.

Hello, What time of day does the home page change. I see today it has an artical on Carlos the Jackle and it is under this day in history but it states in the artical on him he was causght tomorrow, the 14th. Is this because the home page is updated GMT? I am in Boston on the East Coast. 24.60.44.188 (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi 24., and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia's clock runs on UTC time, which is similar to GMT except it does not have daylight savings time. As such, it is already the fourteenth in half the world (it's a little past 8 a.m. here, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you create a user account, you can have it save your time zone and then any dynamic times shown will be recalculated and displayed as appropriate for your time zone. For instance, when you click the "View history" link at the top of a page and look at page edits, those times/dates will be translated into whatever is appropriate for your time zone. The Main Page, though, is a static page and so will always show time based on whatever time it is in Greenwhich, England (ignoring daylight savings time). Hope this helps. :) Banaticus (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Inserting references

My article includes numbered, in-line citations. I entered edit mode to add a reference (reflist), then pressed Save Page. The result includes the citation numbers, as before, but the entities to which the numbers refer --- previously listed below the text --- have disappeared.

I am in despair. Pottle beanie (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! Thanks for asking a relatively easy question. It gives me an opportunity to look smart. Your problem was that you deleted (probably inadvertently) one of the "}"s from the end of your reflist tag. I re-inserted it, and now I think everything looks fine, format-wise. Please check it to make sure. Oh, and by the way, I have only made this mistake two or three thousand times... Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested close

Is there a proper procdure to ask the community to review an RM close? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 17:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Yaniv, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! There is a pace called move review, which is I think what you're looking for. However, you should keep in mind that it says:

"Do not request a move review simply because you disagree with the outcome of a requested move discussion. While the comments in the move discussion may be discussed in order to assess the rough consensus of a close, this is not a forum to re-argue a closed discussion."

I take it that you're talking about the closed request for pink slime? Just taking a quick glance at the thing, I don't see anything wrong with the closure; consensus there seems pretty clear. That doesn't mean that you can never put in another move request again, but another one so soon might be a bit...unseemly. Anyway, hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. No, the pink slime close was fine, the contested close is for global financial crisis. Please let me know if you see any fault with putting it up for review. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 18:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, sorry about the mixup. I still don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that close, although of course "no consensus" closures are always unsatisfying. It looks to me like each person who participated had their own preferred title (which isn't really surprising, given the subject and how it spans years); since people didn't come together and suggest a single, satisfying new title, no single new title gained consensus, and the default in such cases is to leave it like it is. See, the trick is that it's not enough to just get consensus that it needs to move; there also needs to be consensus on what to move it to. I think that what I'd do in this situation is, before anything else, I'd ask the closing admin, User:RegentsPark, about posting it at move review/requested moves and get his opinion on it. Then, I would post my case on the requested moves noticeboard, probably after some more discussion with other people who participated. I'm sure other hosts will have their own suggestions; anyone else have any advice? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quite helpful. I followed your advice and posted a message on User talk:RegentsPark#RM close review seeking his or her feedback. If you feel like stepping in to that debate, please feel welcome. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

First article, short, would like feedback

Hi to all the hosts at Teahouse!

I was referred here by friend-of-a-friend and veteran wiki user Voceditenore, in the hopes that I could get some much needed feedback from the experts, before my first article goes live later this week.

Some specific concerns:

• Is my language not objective enough, as I found no relevant negative information on the subject?
• Should I take the time to interlink every single artist name (it is a recording studio with a long list of known artists)?

Thanks for what you do here, and I hope to hear back soon! Warm regards, Ace6255 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI: the article is at User:Ace6255/sandbox Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ace! Thanks for writing an article and coming to the Teahouse. For a quick start, I would remove words like "boasts", just keep it plain and simple to defend your neutrality. You also need to reference your information, two of the sources in your notes can be used for that (not Smash's own website, and not Youtube). That long list of sponsorships can probably be reduced to a select half a dozen. Maybe make a few changes and hosts can comment again? heather walls (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The verb "boasts" is inherently promotional, and should be avoided.

There is too much peacockery; and too much about "globally renown" musicians and the like who have been their customers, or companies which are their sponsors. I have sold books to Tony Danza, Tony Bennett, Charlton Heston and William Rehnquist: that doesn't give me any of their renown, because notability is not contagious.

Mere mentions in publications don't satisfy our standards of substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Heather and Mike, thank you kindly for your suggestions. I have taken them to heart, and made changes to the article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Smash Studios. A new concern of mine is my trouble in submitting the article for review. I am receiving contradicting messages at the top and bottom of the page. I am sure you both see many situations like these, so any suggestions in how to simply submit the article for review would be very appreciated. Thanks again!Ace6255 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

need to delete one of the same articles

Hi, thank you for inviting me to join the forum. I was advised to delete one of the same articles submitted for creation. I don't know how to delete this. The article is "Summa Metaphysica". I only need one article (the one without #2). Please help me deleting one of the articles or walk me through the process. I couldn't where to remove it. I need to improve the article and add more references. Thank you for your help. DavidBirnbaum (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, David, welcome to the Teahouse! Only admins can actually perform the page deletion, but there is an easy way to notify them; just put {{db-g7}} at the top of your page. This will flag the page with a deletion request that refers to the G7 criterion of speedy deletion, which is for articles where the sole author requests deletion. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that these are articles about books you wrote, I've given you a notification on your talk page about the enormous problems you have here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Upload a new version of this file

Hello again, sorry to have taken so long to get back but work has been hectic! In fact it's been so long I could not find the answer to my question asked back in July. Ok, let's start again. I have edited a image (off the request page) and followed instructions to re-load it on its correct page. Trouble was after finding the image host page I couldn't see the link "Upload a new version of this file" (yes I even tried Ctrl+F to search for it). Can't help feeling I'm being more of a hindrance than a help at the moment. Perhaps I could be put in touch with an experienced wiki photo editor to help guide me along? Ceepin1826 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I clicked "What links here" at your user page User:Ceepin1826 to see where the posts with your signature had been archived. The previous answers are at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 33#Volunteering and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 July 31#Lost. Your account is not autoconfirmed yet so you cannot upload a new version of a file yet. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK in the real world I volunteer in a number of areas, I've been Criminal record checked twice (a UK requirement), interviewed, tested, reviewed, poked and prodded. But this all pales in comparison to the bureaucratic run around I've received because I just want to use my talents as a photo editor for Wikipedia. So here's my plan, I'll stay away for 48 hours then return for one last try to get my head around what should be a simple procedural exercise. Remember I just want to help by editing a few snaps not have Jimmy Wales job! --Ceepin1826 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As hinted by the name, "autoconfirmation" is automatic and does not involve a review. Special:Contributions/Ceepin1826 shows your account is old enough (at least 4 days) but you have only made 6 of the 10 required edits for autoconfirmation. Make 4 more edits anywhere at http://en.wikipedia.org and you will be autoconfirmed here and able to upload new versions of files. You are already autoconfirmed at http://commons.wikimedia.org which doesn't require edits. Lots of files used in Wikipedia are stored there. Which image have you edited? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RM backlog escape

The editors on 2007–2012 global financial crisis have an RM that is stuck in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog limbo for almost a week. The page is kind of a high profile one so some favoritism seems in order. Can you refer me to an admin who can close this in a timely manner? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 17:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv, thanks for stopping by, the place to raise requests like this is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. NtheP (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 17:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that putting up a notice on the admin board does not help. What I need is a name. An admin who is likly to respond to a message on his or her talk page and get the job done. Any ideas how I would go about finding the right admin to approach? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaniv, please remember that admins are volunteers too and do not work 24/7. You'll just have to be patient and eventually it will be resolved. It might be important to you but it's not urgent, so please just wait calmly. Making comments such as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard isn't going to win you many friends. NtheP (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It you want an individual admin to help you put {{Admin help}} on your user talk page and explain the problem in the text afterwards. Someone will respond and from my experience normally within the hour. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does my article keep getting declined?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/David_Wayman I have included independent references now yet the article has once again been declined. What's going on here??

The following artist page has far less references included and yet has been aproved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Stark

Poacher64 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Poacher64, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like your submission because your submission does not include enough reliable sources. All articles need to include reliable sources that are independent from the subject. An independent source is like a news article or a book, for example. You can also read Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the general notability guideline. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Poacher64, and thanks for starting to write for Wikipedia. Most experienced editors have heard the general type of reasoning many times that goes something like this: "Why are you criticizing the article I wrote when there is another article on Wikipedia that is just as bad if not worse!" We even have an essay on this line of thinking, called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Well, we all agree that there are other bad articles on Wikipedia. Every day, we work to improve them, or if they are hopeless, to delete them. Oliver Stark has been tagged for lacking references, and clearly has problems. It is far better to try to write excellent articles that comply with our policies and guidelines, than to try to defend a draft article with problems by pointing out the shortcomings in other similar articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue here with publishing articles about current artists - plenty of online journalism exists for both individuals in question, indeed I have cited such independent articles on mine. How can one get something like this past what I can't help but consider to be over-zealous moderation? Short of waiting for the individual to become deceased then referencing obituaries, very little in print media exists for such artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poacher64 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Poacher, the problem is that the sources you're using aren't considered either reliable, e.g. IMDB, or independent of Wayman. Just because someone is an actor doesn't make them necessarily notable in Wikipedia terms. The types of sources you need to cite are things like reviews of his performances. For example you say he appeared as Benedick in the RSC Fringe Festival - surely there are reviews of his performance in that role that can be used to say whether he is notable or not? Instead the reference you use is an alumni page from the drama school he attended which is not independent. You say there is plenty of online journalism about him, there may be but that's not what you are presenting, you are more showing press releases, cast lists not journalistic content. NtheP (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Poacher, we are certainly not biased against online journalism here: but we are pretty choosy about what we class as "journalism", and I'm afraid many of the sources you've tried to cite do not hold to traditional journalistic standards, and thus cannot be used, any more than some of the less reliable traditional print sources (gossip magazines and the like) could be used. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Private wikiMedia

Hiya Guys, Theorectically, if I set up (with outside help!!) a private wikimedia programme to handle basic admin tasks for my company would there any reason why this would be a non-starter?. If I were looking to recruit someone with Wikipedia experience is there any such portal/ service/list of wikipedians looking for work? Tommy Pinball (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Tommy Pinball, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question. What do you mean by "a private wikimedia programme" and "basic admin tasks"? If you're asking about paying editors to write an article about your company, then I should tell you that paid editing is a very divisive issue on Wikipedia, and many people are vehemently opposed to the practice, so I would recommend that you don't pursue it. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe he is asking about using the media wiki software to create a private wiki for his own company. Then he'd like someone to help explain the wikimarkup. If that is the case, you can always go to mw:Manual:Installation guide to learn about installing it. I don't know about wikipedians looking for work. I'm assuming they would have to have experience in both Wikipedia and in whatever administrative tasks your company is planning on using it for. If that is the case, I feel like you'd be better off creating a job link externally with requirements that the applicant be experienced in mediawiki. Then you could post links to that at the village pump here and at some of our sister projects (meta might be a good one). Ryan Vesey 17:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya Guys, thanks for replying; Writ_Keeper you cold, Ryan Vesey, getting warmer. "Theoretically" the wiki is up & running; my personal edits there number 338,643 - very very useful but resulting in neglect to other areas of the business. A couple of staff use it but they don't really "geddit" the way any wikipedian would. Ideally I would like to stick a note on my user page such as "Fancy earning a bit of cash editing a (non-public) wiki from home? - all above board HMRC read wikipedia too - send me a wiki email for full details." My own Wikipedia contributions have been and will continue to be for pleasure and I do not want to get blocked or banned from my hobby for the sake of my business - My email is not up yet and I wont put it up if this is not within the rules/spirit of the project (ie this message is not a subtle way to shoe in the "advert"). Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there would be anything inherently wrong with doing that - as far as policies go. Obviously, you wouldn't want to spam up the Wiki (your signature, for example) with links to apply or whatever - but something on your userpage doesn't sound wrong to me. What, if you don't mind me asking, is this MediaWiki install used for? Internal/corporate stuff? Theopolisme TALK 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiya Theopolisme, pretty wild yeah! Thanks for you reply. I don't mind you asking and I will try to answer. My answer would be "everything" which probably does translate as Internal/corporate stuff. As an instance we are a construction company and need an ISO14001 accredited Environmental management system inorder to get building work from Goverment Departments. Consequently we have a page ISO 14001 Environmental management systems - similar to (ISO 14000) on Wikipedia but it allows me to strip out stuff that is simply not relevant our company and add stuff that is...without the need for references! Basically ISO 14001 has four chapters and a couple of annexes. For chapter 1, I have a page that branches off called "1 Scope ISO 14001". An employee might get a letter (Pdf) referring to "ISO 14001: 2004, Clause 1" - in the old days they would ring me up saying "what does this mean?" These days they would simply cut & paste a redlinked ISO 14001: 2004, Clause 1 onto my talkpage which I subsquently redirect to "1 Scope ISO 14001" giving them the info they need. In an ideal world they would do a search for say 14001 and make their own redirect. Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If you set up your account preferences for e-mail, interested Wikipedians could send you e-mails about such an offer. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tommy, this is the sort of thing I do commercially. I think it might be clearer as a "MediaWiki" programme though, rather then "Wikimedia". One's the open-source technical platform that runs many, many wikis. The other is the charity behind the Wikipedia and other projects. My email link works, so please drop a line if you'd like to talk further. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bob

How many roads must a man walk down Before you call him a man? Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail Before she sleeps in the sand? Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly Before they're forever banned? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 05:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)