Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tigraan, 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

Correct way of using Talk.

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia, we are using it as part of a university assignment.

I am working in a small group and we are trying to work out the correct way to use Talk. We have has a few test goes however are not sure if we are doing it correctly.

Sending a new message:

I am going to the recipients Talk page and creating a new section. I am then adding our message.

Replying to a message received:

I am going to my talk page then I am adding a new section with the same subject as the message received. But adding RE: before it. (Should I go in to the message using edit and add my reply here)

I am then going to the senders talk page and creating a new section and adding:

Hello, Teahouse. You have new messages at Username's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for any help!

Matthew Dunne (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help when my content with sources is being removed

Hi, I have started contributing recently. It really started when I was doing some research on the star biographer Mohan Deep as I am writing a paper on him for my doctrate. I noticed that there was a lot of one sides info - in Madhubala page - and corrected it with sources. Yet, I saw today that someone removed the material though I'd provided sources and links.

I also plan to do such additions in two other articles - Meena Kumari and Rekha. More important, I am writing an article (with sources and references) on Mohan Deep. But what do I do if someone who, for whatever reasons, removes my content?

I have already written the draft but have yet to submit the article. I understand the requirements for being neutral, sources and references. Would like help.

Thanks. F.Balsara (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! It's a good question about a common problem where editors disagree about what is appropriate for an article. I see from the other editor's edit history comments that they believed you were adding content to promote Mohan Deep and his book. To be honest I can understand their concerns. You added several links to Deep's website and several thousand words about Deep's biography of Madhubala. If Deep published a biography about Madhubala then I expect it will be a good source for the Madhubala article, but the subject of the article is Madhubala, not Deep's book. I hope you can see the difference.

On the positive side, if the publication has been widely reviewed it will add to Mohan Deep's notability and be a great addition to your draft article about him. Good luck with your new article! Sionk (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How to check on a submitted subject?

About 3 weeks ago, I submitted a very specifically formatted article on a recording artist (just as Wiki requested),but I have no way to follow up to inquire about it's posting. It's very important, as the artist will be releasing a new CD and a wiki page is often referenced by all the media and music buyers as well. Can you direct me?

MikeHey Listen To This Music (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking your question at the Teahouse.

I can see your article in your sandbox but there is no indication you clicked the link in the top box where it says 'request its creation'.

Please look at WP:MUSIC and be sure to indicate in the article that the subject of the article is important. Citations WP:CITE supporting this are needed. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

IS A PICTURE NEEDED TO SUPPORT A TEXT DESCRIPTION?

I'm new here and a total novice, so please bear with me. Last weekend I laboriously keyed in an exceptionally complicated (and thoroughly researched) architectural feature which runs to just over 1000w. It opens with a reference to a 15th century Italian painting, giving the picture's title, artist and the briefest of descriptions. If you want to check me out go to CHURCH REORDERING.

Alongside the painting reference, another Editor has put 'citation needed'. Does this mean that he/she is saying readers will only believe my description of the picture if I upload it to appear alongside the text?CORREZE (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally, a {{citation needed}} template is saying is that you need a reliable source to support the rest of your text -- it's difficult to use information from a picture.

I must say though, that editor asked why that information was relevant -- if I am looking at the correct diff, you may wish to clarify that. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 20:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

'That editor' here. I added the {{clarify}} tag to the newly added paragraph (about a painting of a saint at his desk) because I couldn't understand it's relevance to the Church reordering article. But generally (as another editor has pointed out) it will help greatly if you can add some inline citations to the article to support the various statements and claims. By all means join in the discussion on the article's Talk page. It's potentially a very useful article! Sionk (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, please don't take it personally, Sionk :) It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 23:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No probs. I should have put a 'winky grin' after my first 3 words ;) Sionk (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

New user looking for help with compiling a new page.

Hi. I'm a new user to Wikipedia and have a group assignment for one of my university modules which encompasses creating a new entry about a scholar of our choosing. I was wondering if there were any set rules with regards to making a start on a new entry (i.e. should information be added in chronological order according to the scholar's career, or can each group member upload as and when new information is discovered/researched?)

Apologies for this simplistic question, I am looking to contribute to this article in the most credible way possible.

Thanks in advance

Bellsniff123 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're concerned about formatting issues, the manual of style may help you. Articles do have a structure, and if I remember correctly, chronological order is a good structure.

To create an article, you may want to use the article wizard. This will help you make sure your article meets certain Wikipedia guidelines, such as those for notability.

It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 20:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, James. I suggest you try a time-saving shortcut. Choose the scholar whose biography you want to create. Then:

• 1) Wander over to WikiProject Biography/Science and academia.
• 2) Look at the table of articles by quality and importance and click on any number in the rows to the right of FA (featured article) or GA (good article).
• 3) Scan through the list of featured and good articles, then scan a few of them and pick one to emulate. On that article's page, click the 'Edit' tab at the top. Bingo, there's all the code that made the article.
• 4) Right-click on "Sandbox" in the far upper right of your screen and choose "Open in new window". (Works even better if you have dual monitors.)
• 5) Copy all the wikicode and text from the article you chose to your sandbox (choose the red 'Create this page' if there isn't an existing sandbox). Save it. I recommend you also save it on your local hard drive by pasting it into Notepad, too. Nothing worse than losing a lot of work because of a simple error.

Now you have a structure from which to work. Click the 'Show preview' button at the bottom of your sandbox page. Type over the information in the featured or good article with information on your selected scholar. You will learn by doing. Putting the name inside the three single quotes makes the name in the lead paragraph bold. Those double equals signs make a heading with a horizontal rule under it. One of the existing headings doesn't fit? Delete it or type over it with a more suitable heading. Don't have a photograph for the infobox? Just delete the existing photo name but leave the empty "image =" and such so that missing elements can be added later, perhaps years later.

When I do this, I like to delete all the existing text. Also delete the categories and such at the bottom of your draft article unless they clearly relate to your chosen scholar. That prevents accidently leaving some unrelated cruft in your final version.

This isn't cheating. You learn wikicode but you learn while doing; more efficient and less painful than reading lots of tutorial pages and starting from scratch. Your article will probably be more polished than one created using the article wizard. From now on, whenever you see something you like in a Wikipedia article, click that edit tab and see how an experienced editor created it. Copy it to your sandbox and experiment with how you can use it in your own article(s). Hope this helps. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sionk: The easiest way to understand the picture's relevance to my piece, I would suggest (and I'm not being sarchastic) is to take a look at the painting: just go to the LondonNational Gallery's website and put 'St Jerome in his Study' in the search box. This 15th century painting clearly shows a figure seated at a desk which is not contemporaneous with the stone-built church in which it has been placed. Ergo: St Jerome (or one of his followers) was 'onto' the idea of church reordering 700 years ago.CORREZE (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Take That article- Semi protection needed

Hi, Being a Take That fan as well as a Wikipedian, i have noticed that the Take That page seems to get a huge amount of vandalism. Would it be sensible to semi-protect it? if so, where is the appropriate place to appeal for this protection? Thanks, Jonie148 (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Read through WP:PROTECT to make sure it meets the criteria first. Then you can place the request at WP:RPP — nerdfighter^(academy) 16:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Jonie148 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help! — nerdfighter^(academy) 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the prompt response, this has helped to clear a lot of things up for me. . . Didn't want to be adding things incorrectly(this is all new to me).

Thanks again

Bellsniff123 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Page

I realise Main Page links straight to, well, the main page. So would that cause a potential problem for readers wanting to find out about a hypothetical song called "Main Page"? Adding a hat note would seem weird. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't we just call it Main Page (song) ? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, that would be a case where a disambiguating title was required.--ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then wouldn't a hat note be required? Where would that be placed? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 22:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2013 January 10#Hypothetical situation for earlier speculation. I wrote: "It would be decided by consensus at the time. We cannot say what the result would be but I guess it would require a very notable topic to get support for a hatnote. By the way, there is a guy called William Main Page." PrimeHunter (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Havard Referencing

Hi all,

I am new here, using Wikipedia for a University assignment, and have a question regarding citation.

I would like to use the Harvard referencing style in my article, however am not 100% sure of how to do so using the Wikipedia markup.

Below is a copy of what I am using so far, however am not quite sure if (a) I should be doing it completely differently, or if (b) I am pretty much on track and maybe missing something.

<ref name="Work, Learning, and Social Interaction"> {{cite web|last=Haythornthwaite |first=Caroline | title =Work, Learning, and Social Interaction | url =http://haythorn.wordpress.com/research/ |accessdate=23 February 2013}} </ref>

Any guidance is appreciated, Nickjhanson (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you are on the right track. This is one of the many citation styles. You might want to note though that Wordpress is generally not a reliable source. (If you use it outside of this example.) you might also wish too add the publisher's name using the field |publisher= . The publisher in this example would be Wordpress. Good luck and happy editing! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks for you help and quick response.

Nickjhanson (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome and best of luck for your assignment. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Wikipedia has a specific template for Harvard referencing; the details and instructions for using it can be found here. You can use this in articles, however, please only use it in new articles - if you're working on a page that already exists, it's appropriate to use whatever citation style is already present there. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. Yeah, I appreciate the style used in an article should be consistent. This is a new article I am working on and would like to use the Harvard style referencing, so many thanks for the link. 150.237.110.155 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the comment about Wordpress. Although some Wordpress sites are just blogs, the software has also become popular with some serious content providers. If the Wordpress site is password protected so that the "postings" are kept separate from the static content pages, I see no reason why a web site should be called unreliable just because Wordpress is hosting it. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it's self published. It's not a traditional newspaper/magazine where there's an editor, there's no real impetus other than self pride or something like that to make sure that what is published is correct. That being said, there's no rule which prevent wordpress sites from being reputable sources, but there are guidelines which suggest that they should be carefully considered before being used as a source, kind of for the same reason that it's not really appropriate to link to another Wikipedia article as a primary source. Banaticus (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Nickjhanson! Did you know that you need not type the harvard referencing in yourself or use a template? That's right. The editing window has a number of tools located at the top. The last one is "Cite". When you select that the template choices are shown as "cite web", "cite news", "cite book" and "cite journal". Choose the appropriate one for the reference you are using and it will display a number of empty spaces to fill out with all the information from the source, Author, publisher, title, year, ISBN etc.. After you fill everything out, just hit "insert" and there you go. I just discovered this myself this past year and it makes referencing so much easier! Try it. It should make working on Wikipedia a great joy. it did for me.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Um - actually the standard templates provided by the Cite menu don't support Harvard (which uses parenthetical citations); they're based on the Chicago Manual of Style and APA. You could use it for creating templates in the references section of a Harvard-cited page, but you'd still have to manually remove the <ref> tags. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I confuse this alot actually. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Dear editors: I'd like an opinion from someone experienced with copyright issues. Here's a page Lonesome Pine Fiddlers created in 2008 which gives as its source [1]. On that web site, the group's biography is no longer there, and instead there's a note: Source: The Encyclopedia of Popular Music by Colin Larkin. Licensed from Muze. (The Encyclopedia is not freely on line so I couldn't check it.) I found the same text as this article on several web sites, but I wasn't sure if they were copied from the Wikipedia article. Then I found this site: [2] which gives the same oldies.com source and has large passages of identical material. Is this proof enough? Should I nominate the page for deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Anne. No. Copyright issues are not an AFD reasoning unless you can demonstrate that the entire article is a copyright issue. This particular situation seems to clearly not be a copyright issue as the last link you gave clearly states:"Source: Wikipedia | The above article is available under the GNU FDL. | Edit this article".--Amadscientist (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I guess I didn't look carefully enough. I guess the only way to know for sure is to check th eencyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

how to edit incorrect image captions

In several places I have found incorrect captions for images, but there is no way of editing them nor doing the uploader seem to have to provide verificatable sources for there captions. so question : how can a person edit image caption text????

triphala108Triphala108 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This question really requires a little more detail. Could you please provide a link to the articles and images in question? For the most part images do not actually require sources for captions, although captions do indeed still fall under the same policies of all other prose they do not require an inline citation or sources to verify. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)--Amadscientist (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How detailed should story plot summaries be?

Hello editors! I was reading an article In the Name of the Brother which has a moment by moment description of a television show episode. Is this appropriate? Does Wikipedia have any guidelines for this sort of thing? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, welcome back to the Teahouse! I have seen TV show descriptions run the gamut...one one hand we have The Big Bang Theory, which uses a couple of paragraphs and seems reasonable to me. On the other hand, we have The West Wing, which has an individual article on each episode. Personally, I think your particular article goes a little overkill; even Two Cathedrals (a WW episode) is relatively short and sweet. We have a guideline of sorts here; Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminate collection of information. An effective article should summarize what happens, not retell it. Hope this helps. Go Phightins! 02:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Wikipedia guideline. See WP:TVPLOT. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And the main guideline can be forund at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is currently a discussion at the Village Pump concerning plot summeries at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Do "plot summaries" get a pass from WP:Verifiability core policy?.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The WP:TVPLOT says 250 - 500 words. In the Name of the Brother is up to 1500 or so at this point. Should something be done? When does a detailed retelling become a copyright violation? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...when it copies contents from another source. Length is not a copyright issue. It is a manual of style issue. Please feel free to be bold and edit the section! I support the bold edit. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I just mentioned the copyright issue because WP:TVPLOT talks about "derivative works". I do watch that show, so I probably could sensibly shorten it, if I take time off from the Bluegrass Topics and List of fiddlers pages that I've been working on. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Trying to address concerns about neutral tone and references for article

Hello. I am trying to help my father make an article he submitted be more fit for wikipedia. It has been rejected a couple of times for not being neutral enough and not having enough reliable sources.

My father was referred to the Teahouse so I am writing here to follow up on this endeavor.

Any assistance or more concrete input would be very much appreciated! Thank you Rebecca

Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joan_Susannah_Sadler_(nee_Wilkinson) Rebecca Creative (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca. I can a couple of problems with the article as it stands. The first thing that jumps out at me is that the first citation isn't a citation, it looks like original research. We don't accept original research. All citations must be to independent, reliable and verifiable sources. The second issue I can see is that much of the article doesn't have citations. This, again, makes the large majority of the article look like original research. It's entirely acceptable to use the same source for multiple citations if that's your intent and ideally the entire article should be covered by citations. As it stands, most of the paragraphs don't have any evidence to back them up so they come across as original research and not as properly sourced material. It doesn't look that far off but in its current state I can see why it was rejected. Have you talked to user Stausifr about why he or she has rejected it? They can probably give you the most precise advice. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Subjects notability questionable?

My article has just been rejected. It says it does not adequately evidence the subject's notability. But I have given over 5 cited sources from magazines, newspapers, and websites.

The reason I am trying to get this article on Wikipedia, is because we have a distribution agreement Spotify Inc and iHeartRadio.

They encouraged us to create an article for our group, because that is where All Music Inc. pulls there information from. Spotify and iHeartRadio do not directly take the information from us. So basically, if we dont have material on Wikipedia, we cant have material on the distributions sites we need them on.

I dont know how else to gain notability at this point. We have played at the largest venues in the Midwest, with National Touring acts. If you have any advice, I would appreciate it. This has been a real pain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Silver_Heart_Club

174.124.5.136 (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello 174.124, and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, what editors are looking for is a number of third-party reliable sources that have mentioned the group and its recordings. Record reviews would be a good example, as well.

That said, if you are connected to the group, technically you shouldn't be working on an article about them because of your conflict of interest in it. It is possible to edit such an article, but it requires such a high level of care and detail to prove that the edits are neutral and not meant to promote the group.

I hope this gives you something of an idea into what we're looking for, but feel free to expand on this discussion with additional questions and comments.

--McDoobAU93 01:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the comments of the editor who declined your request. I've copied it below:

Comment: As of this post, this article is a copy and paste from http://www.thesilverheartclub.com/about.html, although per the OTRS tag here it appears that permission has been granted for the use of information from this site on Wikipedia. However, the submission still requires more reliable sources to verify information and to qualify the notability of the topic. The sources from VolumeOne magazine (one is lengthy, one is very short) and the Tribune Press Reporter (appears to be a very short article) are a great start, but the topic appears to have borderline notability at this time. Is the Tribune Press Reporter paywalled, or is this the entire article? Northamerica1000(talk) 00:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you need more sources and you need to rewrite the article so that the information can be verified. That means that it needs to look like a typical Wikipedia entry, not something copied from a website. Mono 01:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A small note about conflict of interest. Just being close to the subject or even the subject itself does not mean one stand in COI. The main issue is: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". Bringing this here instead of just going out on your own is a good step to show a lack of COI.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

On the same theme, you say that "if we dont have material on Wikipedia, we cant have material on the distributions sites we need them on." Unfortunately, this means that you are dependent on people who may be requiring you to misuse Wikipedia, since promotion is specifically not allowed. I appreciate that it is not you requiring this, and you are caught in the middle; but Wikipedia is not going to change one of its fundamental policies to satisfy another organisation that wants to use it for purposes it was never intended for. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Do I add data to an existing subject or create a new one? and How?

I have been looking for the word/phrase 'Camelephantelopelicanary' and i have assembled a few paragraphs and links to web items, but the word/phrase does not exist in Wikipedia.

I feel it should be part of the 'Litery Nonsense' as that is what it is, and goes back to at least the turn of the 19th century.

Being new to wikipedia it seems so complcated to edit, and nothing like using Word. Is there a means for data to be submitted so that expert editors can include the data? That would be better than me making a mess of an existing subject?

Hope someone can help?

Thanks

Colin Morgan23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinMorg (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If i understand your question correctly, the best way to do this would be to start a discussion on the talkpage of Literary nonsense found here. Use the "New section" button at the top right of the page and create a header title and write the proposal in a neutral manner with your references and sources. be sure and give some detail as to why you believe this to be notable enough for inclusion.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking a search to a part of an article I just wrote

Hello! I am new here so I am sorry if this question has already been asked. My first edit was adding a section to KevJumba's page entitled: Hang Loose (it's his movie). There is no other article on that movie. When users search for "hang loose" in the search bar, it redirects them to the "Shaka Sign" page. How can I make a link or disambiguation link to direct users to the Hang Loose film article I typed on KevJumba's page? Thanks! 10v350n9 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello 10v350n9. I am Amadscientist, a volutnteer here at the Teahouse. To make a direct link to that specific part of the article you would use the pound sign or # along with the title of the article and then the section being directed to like this: [[KevJumba#Hang Loose]] which directs to that section and not the top of the article. KevJumba#Hang Loose.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, one other small trick is to name that link in any manner you wish by adding the | character after the section and then placing any wording you wish like this: [[KevJumba#Hang Loose|Hang Loose movie]], which then becomes: Hang Loose movie--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

10v350n9 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

can I write on stories that I was told?

I was woundering if it is okay to fill gabs about different subjects and if I could write short stories I was told. There is no written record on those things I want to write. Only I was told by people who lived the events. And some information are not released by the countries, is it ok to write on these subjects? Smalllulu (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can find third party (outside) sources that mention these stories then I'm afraid not. This is because that counts as original research. — nerdfighter^(academy) 23:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How Do I Suggest An Award?

I would like to to suggest some barnstars and awards. Where would I be able to do that? Missionedit (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome! I think the best place to go for that would be Wikipedia talk:WikiLove. Happy editing! ^King Jakob _C2 22:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of ways to do this. You can use the discussion at the page indicated above as well as on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. Also, if your barnstar suggestions are more individualised or specific, you can make these suggestions at the relevant Wikipedia WikiProjects. For example. If you want to suggest an award for for images you can use the talkpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. Happy editing!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

videos

how come when i try to watch video on wikipedia it only lets me watch half of it then freezes?Sincerely zeroro(edits) 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It could be your general browser, I'm not sure if Wikipedia can help as they usually do work for me. Perhaps a browser problem. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

shows user name

When I look for my entry on Wikipedia it shows the following User:Jeankinney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeankinney

Did I do something wrong? 50.40.222.148 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jean, and welcome! As a Junior Wrangler here at the Teahouse, I've added a userspace draft template to the top of your draft article. When you're happy that the draft has references to independent reliable sources that discuss the winery in detail, you can click the "Submit the page!" link so that the draft will be sent for review to see if it's ready to become a Wikipedia article. You may find Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners useful in improving the citation format in the draft. Good luck! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How to use the same reference more than once?

Hi. I know that after I add <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|publisher=|accessdate=}}</ref>, that produces the initial reference. How can I use that same reference twice without having to retype everything. Thanks. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 15:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, JHUbal27! Hang on here, there's going to be a bit of code. You have to write one reference with a name assigned to it like this: <ref name = "something">Example</ref>, and then to refer to the reference with <ref name = "something"/>.

So, to show you how this works here's how a reader should see it:

Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia. It has millions of articles.

Hi King Jacob! I would like to give you a friendly reminder to please sign your comments. Thanks for the answer! I guess I'll test it. <ref name=Google>http://www.google.com</ref> Can I still use the cite web template or not? I'm still a little confused. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 18:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way is probably to go to prefererences/gadgets and select ProveIt. It is an easy visual citation adder. Thanks! — nerdfighter^(academy) 19:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just name the ref <ref name = "something">Example</ref> ... for the second or third entry just add </ref name = "something">.Moxy (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Other Accounts through SUL

Hi. I recently had my username changed on the English Wikipedia. However my old username was attached to a lot of other accounts in other sites (of WMF). Even though they are mostly inactive and are not contributing, I would like to either delete/move the old pages on all the sites to my new username (They are mostly only my userpage and/or talk page). Is there any easy way to do this? Or do I need to go to each site and delete them all individually? Rajanala Samyak (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rajanala and welcome to the Teahouse! I would ask whatever bureaucrat changed your username here, but if I had to guess, I would guess that a bureaucrat would have to do it individually on each site . I don't know for sure; perhaps a steward or someone from WMF could help? Good question! Go Phightins! 13:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Go Phightins!, for answering. When renaming the account, as the bot managed to check all the wikis for other accounts by the name, can't all the previous accounts on all wikis be transferred to the new name? This SUL has simplified things to a great extent, and this feature must be added, to avoid unnecessary complications like creating the old account again by mistake 117.219.69.163 (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Rating of pages

Dear editors: Pages that I have created directly and not through Afc have never been rated for quality. These are Peterborough Canoe Company and Pineridge Bluegrass Folklore Society. How do I submit them to receive a rating? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne. The easiest way to do this is to add the appropriate WikiProject banner (or banners) to the talk page of the article. Members of WikiProjects usually patrol their article lists to check for unrated articles and rate them on the talk page banner. I've added them for you for both articles. In these cases :WikiProject Canada is probably the most appropriate. In the first one, I also checked the parameter for their sub-project on Ontario and for the second, their sub-project on Canadian Music. You can also post directly to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board and let the members know about your new articles. Hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again!—Anne Delong (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help! :) If your articles tend to focus on Canadian subjects, Template:WikiProject Canada lists all the possibilities. The ones you're most likely to need can be added to the article talk page with the following code:

• {{WikiProject Canada|on=yes}} for WikiProject Canada + Ontario
• {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes}} for WikiProject Canada + Canadian Music

If you have written a biography, you can also add:

• {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}} if the person is still alive, otherwise living=no.

The first thing I do after creating a new article is to add at least one project banner to the talk page, as it helps integrate it into Wikipedia and helps the various projects keep track of articles within their scope. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please help me finnish my first article

It's a Notable person and an actor me and my sister are big fan off. I've been trying to read and do it myself but It would be some much quicker to have someone take a look at it now.

Also the actor has like 34.000 followers on Twitter and is Top 5000 on IMDb most viewed in the world, I don't know if I need to put that somewhere to push for his notability.

The article is for Johan Matton Johan Matton Thanks

Sebastian Changingfilm (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What is exactly the article you want to finish? — nerdfighter^(academy) 02:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! — nerdfighter^(academy) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you start the page on your sandbox and that you should also read Wikipedia:My First Article. Good luck, changingfilm. i'm sorry that i couldn't be anymore help to you, but be brave, because your not the first one to have this problem, you and won't be the last. Sincerely zeroro(edits) 05:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Getting back into user page

How to I get back into my user page after logging out? I'm creating a new page. Ripeditor (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! What do you mean by get back into your user page. You can edit it while logged out if you want, but it's best to stay logged in. If you mean how do you log in again once you've logged out, just click log in in the upper right corner. If that didn't answer your question, please pose it again...I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Go Phightins! 23:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ripeditor, I see you have edited User:Ripeditor/Baltimore Presstman Cardinals both before and after posting here. Is that the page you want to get back to? When you are logged in you can click "Contributions" at the top right of any page to see pages you have edited. You can also use your watchlist to monitor pages of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Once you are logged otu just use the search function to return to your own user page (as being logged out no longer displays your page link at the top. Just remeber to type User:Ripeditor and then hit the little magnifying glass icon and it takes you straight there.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all very much, you answered my question. Ripeditor (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I report violations/abuse?

I've come across some apparent abuse where the editors seem to be referencing themselves (or some other person they really favor?) across several articles. I don't have the time/know-how/authority to clean this stuff up the way it should, but I'd like to alert people who would be able to address the issue. How do I 'flag' or alert someone to apparent abuse?

Higgyrun3 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Try an appropriate noticeboard for the situation. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Although I agree with TBradley, you should really leave a note on the editor in question's talk page first highlighting your concerns. — nerdfighter^(academy) 21:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Images copyright tags went missing when I view them anonymously (not logged in)

Hi TeaHouse =], my name is Nicholas and I guess I might need some help from you guys again.

I've recently (this week) uploaded two images to Wikimedia Commons. To make things easier, let's just call one Image A and another one Image B. Image A is an image of a person which is the founder of an organisation and is used in my submitted AFC page, while Image B is an image of a Logo of an organisation and is used in an article. Both were tagged with copyright tags 'cc-by-3.0' which appeared in a box when saved. NOTE: Image A(person) is actually the founder of the organisation which uses the logo which is also Image B.

Here's what happened, after I logged out of Wikipedia and check back into both my submitted AFC page and the article and clicked both of the images, I realised that both Image A&B copyright tags (boxes) are gone.

Image A have a box with red lining and a 'no entry' sign stating that, 'This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file will be deleted seven days after this template was added:(20 February 2013)...' And also another box which is orange in color with an orange 'C' stating that, 'The uploader did not provide sufficient information (a valid and suitable tag) on this media' s copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the file could be deleted seven days after the upload (20 February 2013)..'

Image B in other hand only have one box which is the orange box with an orange C just like Image A also the same date.

The date about deleting the images freaked me out and I dint know what to do. And also I would like to know if both of my Images are suitable to use the 'cc-by3.0' tags.

Below are my images link and information: Image A : The owner of Image A attached his photo and e-mailed to me when I told him I needed his photo for creating him an article when I reached out to him from the org official website. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Liam_Hackett.jpg Image B : I downloaded Image B from the organisation's official website, the organisation stated in the website that 'feel free to download our images'. But since I've told the founder of the organisation about updating the article, I think its fine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ditch_The_Label_Logo.png

Any guidance or help will be very much appreciated. If clarifications about my question is needed feel free ask, I'll try and clarify them =]. Nicholance (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nicholas :) Welcome! The issue is most likely that you don't own the copyright to either image. In this case, you'll need to have the creator of the images follow the instructions here to release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Hope this helps :) gwickwire^talk_editing 00:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, Nicholas. Copyright issues can be complicated. The suitability of Mr. Hackett's portrait will almost certainly be questioned since you do not own the copyright. That he emailed the image to you isn't adequate unless he specified that he both owns the copyright and specifically releases the image under a suitable license. The copyright may be held by the photographer, not Mr. Hackett. That would be the usual case in the USA but I'm not familiar with UK copyright law. The Ditch the Label website specifically states: "Material on this website, including text and images, is protected by copyright. It may not be copied, reproduced, republished, downloaded, posted, broadcast or transmitted in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Prior written consent of the copyright holder must be obtained for any other use of material." and "No part of this site may be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose."

All isn't lost. Wikipedia (and Commons) provide specific guidelines for obtaining permission to use an image and release it under a suitable license. There's even sample text. Permission should come from the copyright holder and be sent to "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". You can resend your request to Mr. Hackett specifically asking for permission and release. Add a {{OTRS pending}} template to the image page to preserve it while awaiting permission. If the portrait is deleted, it or another with a suitable license can be added later.

The organization logo does not appear to be a problem. The updated image page states, "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain." Some jurisdictions may limit its use because of Trademark laws. It appears that another editor recreated the image using vector graphics and text. That image is identical in appearance to what you downloaded but was made independently.

Hope this helps. Take care, DocTree(ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you DocTree & gwickwire. I've sent an e-mail to Mr Liam Hackett requesting for copyright permission and I've also added the OTRS Pending tag to the image(s). One more question now that I am just waiting for e-mail confirmation and then after that when I've received the confirmation I'll send it to 'permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org' ? Is that the e-mail address ? or is it permissions-commons AT wikimedia.org ? If its not an e-mail address how do I forward the confirmation e-mail to the OTRS team? =] Appreciate your help. Nicholance (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia - reliable or not?

So here it is... Recently I corrected some information related to an institute "Bahria College Islamabad". However, another user reverted the changes made and accused me of vandalism. I happen to be in close association with the institute and made the changes for that reason. Now that I am being accused, what should I be doing? I should just quit the goal of correcting information on Wikipedia. If such is the case that one cannot say the truth, why have such an encyclopedia? It's of no use actually. It's useless, it's worthless and it's misleading information. I'm not saying that drawbacks be mentioned, but atleast write the truth, don't exaggerate it please. That's all I have to say. Thanks, H.A.W.T. HAWT (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Sorry to disappoint, but no, Wikipedia can't be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles. However, you can use a reference of a Wikipedia article as a reference in you article (I've sometimes done that).^King Jakob _C2 17:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, H.A.W.T.! I looked at your edits and I may have seen the problem. It is generally a bad idea for someone to edit an article about a subject they have a close connection with. This can lead to what is called a conflict of interest, which is when you stray from a neutral point of view to promote or demote something. Your information should have a published source to prove it instead of just personal knowledge. Exceptions are common knowledge like "snow melts in summer" or "the sky is blue". I see how there are no references on the other page as well, and that is strongly disapproved of. Maybe you can find some published sources to back up your claims. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 18:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

k

HAWT (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel I should add that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability NOT truth. "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The reason for this is we can't validate who you are, your credentials or make a summary judgement about whether what you are saying is honest or accurate. Therefore we rely on verifiable and independent sources as BoRC has stated. On the other hand, what you were doing doesn't look like vandalism and it looks like the person labeling your edits as vandalism is failing to assume good faith. So I wouldn't worry about that accusation moving forward. Nobody is going to take it seriously. -Rushyo ^Talk 12:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That has been officialy changed to: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." So, actually that no longer is the threshhold. The difference is subtle, but there. The change simply means that verifiability is a matter of referencing now, not just a matter that the content can be verified. We now require sourcing or the information can be removed. Now, there are many that don't agree with this, but the discussion and the change was done to clarify that we now require information be sourced, not just verifiable.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

True, though I've always held myself to the 'new' definition anyway. Hence why I said "Therefore we rely on verifiable and independent sources as BoRC has stated". I don't generally advise people to work to the minimum standard on Wikipedia and this wasn't an exception. Thanks for bringing the update to my attention though! -Rushyo ^Talk 18:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

does contributes differ for diff languages

Dear Sir,

I have expanded pages in english as well as kannada. but my contributions in english doesnt appear in contributions of kannada and vice versa. can you please tell me why?

Thank you.

Srinidhi S U

Srinidhisu (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Srinidhi, and welcome to the Teahouse! That's just a quirk of the MediaWiki software, it's impossible to show edits on two different wikis through one contributions page on either wiki. Sorry about that! I'm pretty sure there's a special page on MetaWiki that can pull your account's contributions together, but I can't remember it (hopefully another host can help!). Hope this helps! gwickwire^talk_editing 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Global contributions? Yunshui 雲‍水 08:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank You very much. Srinidhisu (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Free images

Hi,

Is an image taken before 1923 (say, in 1914), is it automatically in the public domain?

Thanks,

^King Jakob _C2 15:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi KingJakob! Glad to see you back again. It depends on where the image was created; do you have any more details on the picture (namely, country of origin)? Note: if it was taken in the US, this is quite a useful site. Cheers, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, if the image does meet the public domain requirements with age, but the website hosting them says, and here I'm quoting...:

"All photographs, art and maps are the property of Andrew Hoke/Berwick Railfan (2009-2011) and can not be used in any way without permission."

...then what is the best course of action?^King Jakob _C2 23:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a link to the site? If these were published before 1923, they are essentially okay for use on the English Wikipedia. For your second question, if he does not hold the copyright, he legally has no claim over how we use them. US copyright law does not recognise scanning as giving a new copyright. Now, to be polite we could ask permission. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

ILLUSTRATIONS

I've just completed the keying-in of a very complex architectural article. It runs to about 1000w and includes 4 or 5 references to significant projects in Britain and Holland. My piece would be greatly enhanced if thumbnail images of some / all of these buildings were included. Is it up to me to a) source the images and b) 'insert' them alongside my text? Or do I send the Wikipedia team a note of these visual references and leave them to 'capture' them and add them to my text?CORREZE (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Correze! You are part of the Wikipedia team, as are the rest of us! To illustrate the article you could either search Wikipedia amd Wikimedia for suitable images that have already been contributed, or take photos and upload them yourself, or find images online that have been released for free use with a Creative Commons license (and upload them). Instructions for upload/insertion are WP:UPIMAGE and WP:PIC. Looks like an interesting article! Sionk (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If there are no availbale images to use, you may also request images be created at Wikipedia:Requested pictures. If there is anything within the immediate area of Sacramento, I am willing to create images. Let me know. I am a part of Project Architecture and Project photgraphy as well as Project Illustration.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

here is a google image search for "church reordering" with the right license from geograph.org [3]. you could upload those to commons. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If I edit my submitted Afc, will it be reviewed later?

Hi TeaHouse =], my name is Nicholas and I was just wondering if I edit my submitted article (Afc) will it be reviewed later everytime I edit it? cause I realized that few days ago (21st Feb) the 'AFC submission|||ts=20130221180259|u=Nicholance|ns=5' box on top of my Submitted Afc stated that 'There are currently 1700 smth submissions waiting for review at......' Today I realized I had some spelling mistakes and added additional source and then I realized it changed from 1700 something to 1888 submissions waiting for review. Even if that's the case, I'm just wondering if my submission will be as late today's submissions due to my changes to my Afc. Any guidance or help given will be very much appreciated =]

Here's my submitted Afc link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Liam_Hackett

Nicholance (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. The answer for your question is No, but since articles at AfC are highly backlogged, reviewers will give higher priority to articles which have been submitted earlier. There is no order for reviewing. Usually editors review them at random, giving higher priority to earlier articles. However, editing them will not cause the article to be reviwed later. Sincerely, Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay got it ! Thank you so much for your answer & reply Ushau97. Appreciate it ! Now all I hope for is my Afc to be accepted. Have a nice day & many thanks Nicholance (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Lal Singh Dil

My article on lal Singh Dil is on the watchlist for review. I had pasted lal Singh Dil's Photo in the Infobox but it does not show.Why? What can be wrong ? Tcghai (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for trying to create a new article. I have checked on your article and saw that no image appears on the infobox. That happened because no image have been uploaded in the name of Lal Singh Dil. I have done a search in Wikipedia and Commons and have found no images on the topic. So first thing you have to do is if you have a image of the subject, you have to upload it either to commons: or to Wikipedia. You need to be aware that not all images can be used at Wikipedia. It needs to be free. That means you can use only files which are allowed to be used on Wikipedia by copyright laws. Before you upload an image, make sure that the image falls in one of the four categories:

• Own work: You own all rights to the image, usually meaning that you created it entirely yourself.
• Freely licensed: You can prove that the copyright holder has released the image under an acceptable free license. Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable.
• Public domain: You can prove that the image is in the public domain, i.e. free of all copyrights.
• Fair use: You believe that the image meets the special conditions for non-free content, which exceptionally allow the use of unlicensed material, and you can provide an explicit non-free use rationale explaining why and how you intend to use it.

So to make it short, you have to upload an image first & if you have no image which can be used that means you have to create the article with no image. However, don't be discouraged. Be Bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

PREVIEW and EDIT commands

You advise editors to PREVIEW and SAVE texts they're keying in as they go along.

When the Wiki USER PAGE is displayed, how do I locate the PREVIEW and SAVE commands?

CORREZE (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you are at the edit window you will see these buttons at the bottom of the page.

Save page is used to save the page. Show preview button is used to preview the changes before they are saved. You are recommended to view the preview before saving. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 08:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You will only see those commands when you are editing a page (click the "edit" link). Banaticus (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsure if I should reference

I recently edited the Criticism of Second Life article, I went into detail about the age restrictions but I linked to the information instead of lining it wasn't a news article. if someone could look over it to tell me if I should change it to a reference it would be appreciated. --LewisHoward (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lewis. I'm unsure exactly what you're asking. I find your contributions to the article sufficiently neutral and consistent with the references you cited. Pretty good work. Please sign talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) to make it easier for us to find your comments. If you have more questions, ask away. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 20:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Doc and Lewis. Doc, I believe the editor was thinking that his use of bare urls was a link in the article and not a reference. Basicly, using the <ref></ref> tags around the url it becomes a reference with a "bare url address". This is no longer acceptable on Wikipedia, but the mistake is not horrible. It is still being done often by many inexperianced editors. Someone will eventually reformat those as proper inline citations. As long as the source is relaibly published, with editorial oversite or is the official website (citing information about the subject only), this is acceptable as a reliable source.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing Page

Hi

I am looking for a page for the company I work for. It appears to have been removed from Wikipedia.

The company is Money Expert Limited with the website address www.moneyexpert.com

The page was on the site at some point but I think it has either been removed or more likely redirected to Money Saving Expert which is a totally different company.

If anyone can point me in the right direction it would be appreciated as I am totally lost.

GazJonesUK (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I didnt add the original page by the way so I have no idea how to find it, I am new around Wikipedia so I have no clue where to start looking.

GazJonesUK (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The article was at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Expert ... it was (apparently) tagged as being written in a promotional tone, having insufficient independent reliable sources to clearly establish notability, and likely being authored by someone associated with the company or product, for over two years... and there was then a proposed deletion which was uncontested for 7 days and thus it was deleted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, on the basis I work there I don't want to write / edit a new page as it would be a a conflict of interest I suppose.

We only just spotted it had vanished and wondered where it had gone...

GazJonesUK (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As you say, it would be a conflict of interest for you to work on such a page. But if you can find the necessary substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the company, then it could have an article, and you could either request one at WP:Requested articles (but there is a backlog) or see if you could find somebody in an appropriate WikiProject, such as WT:WikiProject finance who would write the article. But if the company does not already have this coverage, I would advise you not to bother. --ColinFine (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleting images

Can one delete or update an image uploaded by him?Haephrati (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Haephrati. Whilst you can't technically do it yourself, you are allowed to request deletion of images you've uploaded. If you've uploaded the image to WikiMedia Commons, you can do so via the "Nominate for deletion" link in the Toolbox menu on the left of the image's Commons page. If it's on Wikipedia, you can add the tag {{db-g7}} to the top of the page. Neither of these guarantee deletion, but if there are no other overriding concerns, most administrators (on both projects) will delete images at the uploader's request. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No. The question is about deleting the image, not an article that contains it. Images are uploaded separately. See: [Uploading_images]. But can an uploaded image be removed?

Haephrati (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As Yunshui said, you are allowed to request deletion of images you uploaded here on Wikipedia. Any image uploaded locally (here on en.wikipedia.org) should be deleted if a) you request it and b) it isn't used in any articles. On http://commons.wikimedia.org however, if the image is in any way useful to anyone, you'll likely meet some opposition to having it deleted. I see no uploads in your logs, so you may want to check your log at the commons link above. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

On Commons, images can be "updated" as long as it is "updateable". Some images have been restricted against such editing, but in general most images do have a special button to uplaod a newer image. I do this often as I tend to aquire better software to improve qulity and in some cases have even replaced images with entirely new images. That is generally frowned on at Commons but there are some exceptions such as this one I recently did: File:Portrait of Julius Caesar (color).jpg (at commons).--Amadscientist (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a log of edits a user makes?

Hello, I wonder if there's a log someplace where I can see all the edits I've made on other pages. I'd like to be able to see the edits my students make, and know when they've reached the 10 edit milestone, allowing them to upload images. RobertK Prods (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Robert. The page you want is Special:Contributions; simply fill in your username or those of your students to see their edit history. You can also get to this page by going to any userpage (including yours) and selecting "User contributions" from the Toolbox menu on the left of the screen. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Yunshui for your concise and helpful reply. It was exactly what I was looking for!RobertK Prods (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are part of the Wikipedia Education Program, you can direct your students to post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed or perhaps your online or campus ambassador could leave a message for a friendly admin to solve that problem for you. Banaticus (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Long wait for a review

I have been waiting since 08-Feb-13 for someone to review this page--> Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Review Raja. Please let me know the estimated time or queue number if its going to take a while.Kirukp (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kirukp. The time that a review takes can vary since the queue can be longer or shorter. Right now, a review may take over a week.

Fortunately, I just reviewed it myself, and I declined it since an article for the subject already exists (Review Raja). However, you are welcome to improve the current article instead. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My goodness. I was sure before submitting this page wasn't there. Can you please tell me when did this come online?

Thanks for your time, The Anonymouse.Kirukp (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparantly 03:25, 13 February 2013‎ as show here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Review_Raja&oldid=537891887 Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ariconte.Kirukp (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am following this discussion with interest. If Kirukp wrote and submitted his page first, and another user later created a similar page while the first page was waiting review, shouldn't Kirukp's page have priority here? It's not his or her fault that the queue was long.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Review Raja article was not created through the AfC process, it was written directly in mainspace, so there is no substance to any suggestions of "jumping the queue" - it was never in the queue. By far the majority of articles are created directly in mainspace or in user sandboxes, the AfC process handles only a small minority of new articles. I have started 27 articles myself - none through AfC and all of them still exist. BTW writing articles is not a competition. Roger (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that article writing should not be a competition. I was thinking more of the wasted effort here. Normally, if a user starts to create an article that already exists, Wikipedia's software will let them know. Couldn't articles under review be included in that notification? My previous comment was not meant to suggest "queue jumping". I am sure that the person who created Review Raja on Feb. 13 was genuinely unaware of the previously written article under review. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The guidance at WP:MERGE is relevant as one would merge the draft into the existing article, by keeping the best non-duplicated parts of each and combining them into a single coherent text.

I have noticed that many article writers who use AfC are under the impression that it is the only way articles are added to WP. Many of the AfC help page posts contain questions such as: "My article is just like this, that and the other similar articles in mainspace which you guys passed so why are you declining mine?" - thus implying that the poster thinks all articles go through AfC. Roger (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

People think this because the AfC page is very unclear in my opinion. It basically says "whether you are an unregistered or registered user, you can use the Article Wizard!" with a giant 48pt "Create an article now!" link. Instead it should say something like "AfC is primarily for unregistered users, if you are a registered user there is no need to use AfC, you can publish your article in a matter of minutes, see instructions here". What we have now is strongly guiding new users, even registered ones, through AfC. It's also not advertising a big advantage of having an account. Silas Ropac (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I started a thread on this over at AfC's talk page, if you are interested. Silas Ropac (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Anne Delong for bringing this up or I would never know about the use of 'mainspace'. I started this article back in July 2012, it was put in the long queue and got declined. When I found few more references I resubmitted this month. Again this time after the wait for review I came to know mine was a duplicate. I almost gave up the idea of writing an article again, mainly considering the time taken for a review.Kirukp (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The emphasis is on AfC because it's generally thought to be kinder to let a person "build" an article with some guidance than to let the user create it and see the article get deleted because it has no references or is a promotional article, etc.

new page template

I'm on travel (family medical) and created a new page because of a bad link on today's anglican/episcopal calendar of saints. The page is not completely finished, but I think good enough to go up as a stub. A couple of days ago, I also made a minor correction at the bottom of the page I believe wrongly linked. I thought I could put the new page up with a new article template on it, but forgot how to. I'd appreciate any help you could give. Thanks.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I figured out what you were trying to do. For the new page template, you needed to say "New page" not "New Page" (don't capitalize the "page"). You have a couple references, so I moved it to John Roberts (missionary). I then removed the note you placed on the other John Roberts page, and fixed the link here. Thanks for creating and working on a new page. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Update to archived question on George Kennan's memoirs

Note: The rules are against updating archives, so I'm resuming the discussion here. I'm repeating the information in the archives to maintain continuity. The article in question is on the New Deal, particularly the subarticle called "Charges of Communist."

I want to quote some passages from Kennan's memoirs for one or two articles. Does this violate any rules concerning primary sources? Thank you in advance. LesLein (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello LesLein, and thanks for the excellent question! If you would like to quote some passages, remember that you should cite where you got it from - you may want to read WP:CITE. Thanks again, Kevin12xd (contribs) 01:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

OR based on memoirs is seldom a good idea, especially if anything controversial is involved. Kennan was getting revenge against old enemies of his in the State Dept. It is much better to rely on the recent Pulitzer-prize biography of Kennan by John Gaddis.Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen, what is your evidence? You write that we are not to use OR, yet based on the above paragraph we have to accept your assertion on faith that Kennan's memoirs were poisoned by his animosity towards the State Department. (BTW, Kennan first expressed his deep disdain towards American politics and democracy back in 1935, so that couldn't have affected his memoirs as you state in the New Deal edit history.)

Kennan detested McCarthyism. Kennan gave a speech denouncing McCarthy when Tailgunner Joe's popularity was near its peak (see the John Lukacs book on Kennan). Kennan expressed doubt about Alger Hiss's guilt. In the Wiki article on McCarthy John Earl Haynes indicates that McCarthy's charges usually had at least a little merit. If Kennan can't be used, is there anything wrong with referencing Haynes' work? The current New Deal subarticle "Charges of Communism" is completely one-sided. If providing another perspective (indicating that communist influence in government was not overwhelming but not trivial) isn't permited, it should be deleted as POV. It's barely related to the New Deal to begin with and is probably covered better elsewhere.

Kennan's 1967 volume of his memoirs won the Pulitizer Prize. It is hard to believe that Kennan's attitude towards the State Department, objectivity, and reliability degenerated so much over five years. His memoirs are cited multiple times in Wikipedia. The New Deal has other OR in block quotes from Hoover and FDR. Hoover's memoirs reflect obvious bias against the New Deal. FDR's block quote are not candid, being very inconsistent with what he said multiple times in private. If Kennan's memoirs can't be used, why should the other OR be retained?

Because Wikipedia is a tertiary aggregator of secondary sources. Basically, anyone can say anything they want to about themselves. People who write a book about someone, though, tend to be perhaps a little less biased than the person themselves, sometimes. You know, take it with a grain of salt. You could perhaps say something like, "so and so said X"<ref>blah</ref> "while this other person said Y"<ref>blah</ref>. If material is one sided, present the other side. We don't want to present either side as the "truth" (unless there's overwhelming consensus that one version is generally accepted as the truth, see for instance the Flat Earth article). Good luck. :)