:That makes sense on both fronts. Thank you very much [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]]. I appreciate the time. [[User:B4theword|B4theword]] ([[User talk:B4theword|talk]]) 18:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
A while back a page I had created was deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Stadtlander). I completely understand why it was deleted, having insufficient evidence online for him (stadtlander) being a 'notable' figure. My question that I want to pose is; I have seen some other things popping up about him lately. Specifically he's writing for the Huffington Post and I saw a magazine article about a new book he put out. Does this change his notability or is there a set criteria for how notable someone must be for a person to be listed? Just curious.
On an unrelated (as far as I know) question... I had posted some images of the "Lovers of Valdaro" which was stricken though it was from the AP. Is AP not a public domain source if credited? Not trying to be a pain with all of this, just trying to get my feet wet and understand wikipedia better. Thanks! B4theword (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the photograph is already uploaded to wikimedia commons then just add File:File name.jpgCaption 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. I hope this helps. Theroadislong (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on some suggested pages that need grammar fixes. I noticed that many of them are in different languages which trigger grammatical errors in English. Is there a way to adjust my settings to either translate the text or only show English pages that have errors that need fixed?
I am a member of Marsden Cricket Club. We have done a huge amount of research over recent months and have gathered an excellent club background. My notes were rejected and I'm not really sure what to do to ensure the page is created. Any help would be great.Chris Mann 14 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris. Welcome. I am afraid your work is what we call original research and can not be used on Wikipedia. Only published material is used here. If you can find reliable independent sources about the club you may be able to meet notability requirements for inclusion.--Charles (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"preceding unsigned comment"
Why do I get a "Preceding unsigned comment.." note after I definitely added the four "~" after my comment?mickeyallen 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyallen (talk • contribs)
It's because your signature doesn't link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page, as required by Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links. The easiest way to get a valid signature is to have no checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences, and leave the "Signature" field blank. If you prefer lower case then it's OK to have mickeyallen in the Signature field. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
am I referencing correctly?
Hello,
I'm compiling my reference list before I write the body of the article, as it was my understanding that this is the correct protocol. I'm following the template, but I have no way of knowing if I'm actually doing it correctly, and I'm a bit nervous. Below, please find an example of what I've inputted so far:
{{cite journal}} | last= Drob| first= S.| title= Jung for Academics? Negotiating the Obstacles. Review of “The Handbook of Jungian Psychology: Theory, Practice and Applications.” By Renos K. Papadopoulos| journal= PsycCRITIQUES| volume= 51| issue= 51| year= 2007}}
The above reference appears below the ==References==/ {{reflist}} section.
Secondly, can I save my work without publishing? I want to walk away from my post and work on it later, but I don't want to lose all I've done.
Welcome to the Teahouse. The best starting point for reading about references is WP:Referencing for beginners. A few points:
You shouldn't have the }} after journal; the }} comes where you have it at the end after 2007.
The reference definition, with <ref>...</ref> tags around it, should come in the body of the article immediately after the text which you are using it to reference, before the References section with {{reflist}}, not after it.
Yes, you can save it and come back to it later, particularly as you are working in your user sandbox. The work won't normally be deleted unless it is totally unsuitable, such as being a copyright violation or libellous.
To clarify a little: everything on Wikipedia may be read by anybody, so in a sense you are publishing as soon as you save your work. But it may not show up on searches, and most people will recognise that it is a work in progress and not interfere with it except in the circumstances that David mentions. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If nominate an article for deletion, someone places a "vote" to keep. I want to respond to their thoughts. Do I post under their post or do I post on the talk page of the discussion (as I have done), or am I not suppose to respond because I already stated my reasons when nominating, wasn't sure this is why i put my thoughts on the talk page. This is new to me. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally you would post under their post on the AfD page itself. Don't feel the need to respond to everyone, cause that just ends up looking pushy. If your already stated comments cover what you think you need to say, you shouldn't have to respond. By all means, do feel free to respond to questions and new ideas though. --Onorem (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do i engage with an admin over the content that is being removed?
I am trying to improve the clarity of a page: UK Power Networks.
The changes i make keep getting reverted.
We are not attempting to promote the site - just clarify that a DNO is not the same as an Electricity Supplier as a lot of readers do not understand this.
We also put in external links to things like a Postcode checker to see if you are in the correct area for this particular DNO, which are helpful and useful but have been removed.
Can anyone advise me on the best way to improve the content of this page.
Tonard56 (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would i be allowed to add a disambiguation to make clear the difference between DNOs (that build and maintain the cables and electrical networks) and Electricity Suppliers (who send bills to customers for the electricity they have used?)
This is a very important difference as a DNO will never be able to help customers with questions about their bills and yet they get thousands of calls about this.
Tonard56 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. Hit the "Edit source" link at the top of the article, and that will show you the infobox source. If in doubt, have a look at Template:infobox, or Template:infobox xxx for whichever type of infobox is in use in that article; that will tell you what parameters are available, what values it expects for the parameters, & what bubtleties there may be on the syntax. Remember that the parameter names are case sensitive. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editing a page with COI
Hi! I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, although I did a bit of it in grad school. I just recently started working for a new employer and noticed that his Wikipedia page has severe inaccuracies and would like to fix it. I have been doing a lot of research regarding Wikipedia's rules, so I have not edited his pages, but have been enjoying editing others in my spare time. I also made my COI known on my user page. I nominated the page for protection because he is very worried about vandalism, but I think it would jus be better if we fixed the inaccuracies. How can I do this while respecting the rules of Wikipedia? Thanks!
LMO2127 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LMO, welcome to the Teahouse. It's good you made your COI known on your user page. Just to add onto what David said above, I'd recommend doing is that any changes you make to the page directly must follow the principles listed here: Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits. For other edits, it is best to use the article's talk page to request changes, where you should provide reliable sources that support your proposed changes / additions. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific format I should use to suggest changes on the Talk page, or can I type them as if I were typing an email? Sorry, that may be a stupid question, I'm just trying to figure it out and do it right. Thanks!LMO2127 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LMO. As long as it's fairly clear what you're seeking to change that is present and what you're seeking to change it to (or what you're seeking to add as new content), and you provide one or more reliable sources that should be cited for the specific change requested, you should be fine. You might use a format like:
I am suggesting this change on the talk page as I have a disclosed COI. Please change the following text: "Text text text text text" to "text text text". The source that verifies this change and should be cited for it is ___________.
In that blank for the source, provide a good deal of detail about the source. For example if it was a book, I'd typically provide title, author, publisher, page number where the information is found, date of publication and location, isbn number, and the URL where it can be viewed online, if it exists. You can't always provide that much information but just do your best.
Note that you can place above your post the template {{Request edit}} or more generally the {{helpme}} template, either of which should draw people to it. The templates are placed just above your suggested changes. This may be unneeded when it's an article that lots of people are watching and have edited, but for others, the talk page may not be well monitored. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated an article for speedy delete. The article has already been removed. I forgot to get the diff to my nomination for the article (needed for an answer to an exam i am working on). Is it possible to get the diff now?And if so where do I find it. Thanks Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse Tattoodwaitress. I think that would require an administrator (if it's even possible) and then the person who views the diff would have to be an administrator as well. Maybe it's a bad test question? What's the class? I'll post a pointer over here at WP:AN. Biosthmors (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
كاتب و صحفي سوري. ولد محمد حافظ ولد في الرياض وعاش، انتقل الى دمشق في سن الثامنة عشرة من عمره حيث درس الحقوق و لم يتمها لينتقل إلى قسم الصحافة حيث تخرج وحصل على البكالوريوس. زار لبنان و مصر و الاردن طيلة فترة دراسته و بعد تخرجه انتقل إلى السويد ثم اسبانيا حيث يقيم حاليا.
== كتاباته ==
كتاباته تملك طابعا شخصيا مرتبطة بالواقع فتراها تارة اقرب إلى الاحجية وتارة اقرب إلى الطرفة.
Sorry to bring so many questions here but I was reading the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and it doesn't look like anyone visits that Talk Page so I won't get my question answered there. And I can't think of another Wiki page where I know someone might respond to my query.
I've been spending a lot of time in dispute resolution pages, noticeboards and the like. And I frequently see editors accused of "disruptive editing". But what I also see is a scenario like this:
Editor A makes an edit
Editor B reverts it with no edit summary provided
Editor A reverts it back
Editor B accuses A of "edit warring" or "disruptive editing"
It seems to me that the burden should be on Editor B to explain her or his initial reversion but Editor A becomes the focus of the inquiry. Is "disruptive editing" just a smokescreen used to target editors one has a conflict with?
I'm not talking about a particular editor or Wiki article, I just keep seeing this charge and editors blocked indefinitely due to "disruptive editing" when they reverted after an initial revert that wasn't explained. It seems like the first reverter has the advantage and the editor who reverts a bad revert is the one who can come under fire.
Thanks for your replies, Eric and David. I still think more of the burden rests on the second reverter but you're right, the next step should be a visit to the Talk Page, not an additional revert. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk16:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that more of the burden rests with the first editor, as the second was simply trying to maintain the status quo. EricCorbett16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can I get a page submitted for an organization if there are no published articles about it?
I wrote a page that was recently rejected because of a conflict of interest I have with the organization which I was writing about. The organization has its own website, but there are not any published articles about this firm. It is a small, privately-owned firm that does want a wiki page to provide information about what they do and how it was founded. How can I go about still getting a page for this firm? Osilauren (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. Very simple; if there is no published information about the subject, then it can not have a Wikipedia article. If, in future, it becomes sufficiently notable to have information published about it, then someone can write an article about it. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response, David. Furthermore, would it be possible for me to change the wording to sound less opinionated or biased, in order to get some sort of Wiki site up for this firm? What are my other options to get something on Wikipedia about this firm? Osilauren (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, does the fact that the firm has an established page on LinkedIn with verified connections, employees, and a company profile, account for any verification? Osilauren (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other options other than an article about the firm for me to get a Wikipedia page established for them. I don't think so, but if you, Osilauren, stick around and help create other articles that should exist (and develop ones that do), you might learn a trick or two. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not interested in "getting a site up for this firm": that sounds like promotion, which is not welcome on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Competitors of the firm have their own Wiki pages up, and this is not a promotion. It is a source of information for those interested in what the company does and represents. Lauren 18:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osilauren (talk • contribs)
Not only was your material written in a promotional manner, but it turned out that the reason it was written in that manner was that it was copied from the firms's website and was thus a copyright violation. For that reason it has been deleted. If people are "interested in what the company does and represents" they can look at the company's website. You say "Competitors of the firm have their own Wiki pages up"; this might be for one of two reasons: either your competitors are more notable in Wikipedia's terms, or their pages have not yet been looked at so carefully, in which case Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applies. You have been given useful advice, both here and on your user talk page. I would recommend that you read it. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UnReadable
Is this allowed in Wikipedia to add umpteen tags in the article notable such as Mahatma Gandhi and make the article completely unreadable. Either editors should update it or refrain from adding so many tags that make article messy and unreadable. RouLong (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If by "making the article unreadable" you mean adding tags such as you describe then the short answer is yes, it is allowed, and it happens not infrequently. EricCorbett15:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to mainly be a problem in the lead section. It's not unreadable but it does seem excessive since this section is already filled with references and typically lead sections aren't as thoroughly cited as other sections of a BLP. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk16:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that is that generally the lead doesn't contain material not cited elsewhere, so duplicating the citations would be pointless. Nothing to do with "thoroughly cited". EricCorbett19:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can I prove I have copyright?
I work for the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and have been asked to create a page about our Higher Education Emperical Research (HEER) database. I've tried a couple of times but it keeps getting deleted as other people have used the wording from our website and it says I'm infringing copyright. I'm not, it's our copyright. I'm not copying it verbatim as I don't want to advertise it, just explain it. However, it is still quite close to the text we wrote for it on our own website. How can I get around this and prove that the copyright is ours?
Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. Looking at your talk page, I can see that you have had a barrage of messages and warnings that may have left you reeling. The basic problem is that what you have come here to do is something which is frowned on by most Wikipedians. Your username, and what you have tried to do in articles, all suggest that you are here to promote or publicise your own database. That is not how Wikipedia works: if your institution has already been written about in several reliable sources independent of the institution (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers), then there may be an article about it; but the content must be neutral, and derived from the sources. It is likely to be difficult for you to write it in appropriate language (and the institution's own website is unlikely to use appropriate language even if you overcome the copyright issue). My advice to you is to search for the independent sources required to establish that the database is 'notable' (in Wikipedia's special sense), and armed with those references, to request an article at WP:Requested articles. --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can I prevent other users from editing my user page?
Okay, thank you. And yes, I'm new here and I'm the only person who has edited it so far; I was wondering about pre-emptively protecting the page.CodeCharming (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A new IP user has started to contribute to an article (Audio bit depth) under the scope of the project I belong to. This is great except all they are doing is removing cited stuff and adding uncited stuff. Some of the stuff they are adding is also only tangentially related to the subject of the article. I've been trying to work with them, informed them again and again of the guidelines for references and posted a lengthy welcome message on their talk about it (User_talk:18.62.28.10) but it's getting a bit disruptive. I don't really want to just warn the guy because the edits are good faith but they just aren't getting with the program. What do I do? Radiodef (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Radiodef, and thanks for contacting us. It's important to welcome IP editors (they're people, too), but if they're being disruptive, just follow the progressions of warnings. If they continue to be disruptive after their final warning, you have no choice but to request their block. Sad, but necessary. theonesean06:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mcpotbelly. I took a look at the draft article on your user page. Although this person had an interesting life, I am a bit concerned that I find almost no mention of him in Google Books. Also, none of your references are online. Paper references are acceptable, but online sources should be cited if available. Also, the article seems like a collection of individual facts, rather than being written as a biographical narrative. I recommend working on it a bit more, and then submitting it to Articles for creation. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gender and Wikipedia
I'm just curious, are there any women on the ARBCOM? And do you know what percentage of Admins are women? Even a rough estimate would be useful. Thanks! ; )
NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk00:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back to the Teahouse, Newjerseyliz.There are 13 active Arbcom members. Though some don't disclose their gender openly, those that do are all male. I suspect that all are male. We have some outstanding women administrators. SarahStierch is one, was involved in organizing the Teahouse, and works to improve women's participation here. She may have some insights for you, but she has been vacationing in Japan after Wikimania in Hong Kong. So she may be slow to answer. My hunch is that women are 10% to 15% of the active group of administrators. Personally, I wish that it was 51%. Confronting systemic bias is one of our biggest ongoing challenges. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cullen328. I appreciate your concern about fair representation but if your 10-15% figure is correct, I believe that is the same percentage of editors who are female. I just wondered if Admins had been surveyed as to gender and nationality.
From what I've seen, the RfA process can be grueling and it could be that competent, experienced female editors decline to go through the hazing process unless it looks like it will be a sure thing. Or they find other ways to assist Wikipedia like DRN or ANI. I know it is less likely, in general, for women to self-nominate.
Aside from gender, I'm concerned that I see a lot of Wikipedia statistics pages evaluating different aspects of the editing/user experience but they stopped tracking these trends years ago...many tables end in either 2006, 2009 or 2011. Maybe grants dried up at these points? It's unfortunate because it seems like currently, there is not much self-evaluation going on from WP or WMF and I think it's important to have an accurate portrait of volunteers.
Hi there! Glad you're interested in this subject. The best place to actually discuss it is the gender gap mailing list or meta gender gap, though the latter is rather outdated and will eventually undergo an overhaul, I hope.
As the former gender gap fellow at the Wikimedia Foundation, I've learned from experience - I used to harp on WMF to fund research into this, and they refused. I did it myself, with a survey in 2011. However, I eventually turned the tide at "more action, less words," and focused on projects to engage a more diverse group of potential contributors than to dwell on "why women don't" at this point. The Foundation is seeking to fund activities that are actionable regarding Wikimedia projects and diversity, however, they are not funding research into it, except the yearly editor survey.
Wow, Sarah, I'd love to read about your work..do you link to it from your User Page? You certainly sound like the voice of experience and I appreciate you addressing my question. Also, I didn't realize that there was an annual editor survey, I'll try to track that down. Thanks! NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, welcome to Wikipedia NewJerseyLiz. That is certainly one of the best questions I have seen on the Teahouse from a new editor in a very long time, and the Teahouse does get some good questions.
Much of what you say about the possible reaction of female editors to AN or AN/I is certainly a legitimate concern and one I have heard expressed before. Yes, DR/N and other such venues are always something that are great options. I highly recommend you add your name to the DR/N volunteer list. I also believe female editors have done a lot of impressive work through the Wikipedia WikiProjects.
Your concerns about the outdated data is also the concern of Project Editor Retention but much of their effort has fallen off a bit to the side, however the main page still shows the links to the relevant discussions on these and other retention concerns as late as last summer I believe. They were retained hoping that some of these discussions could be revived and further editor research could be undertaken as a community effort. WER had a link to Sarah's 2011 research I believe. I hope some of this didn't sound too pamphlet like.--Mark04:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! No, Mark, you gave me more information than my initial query! I think I've come across WP:WER and didn't realize it was inactive. It's interesting because my initial concern was why ARBCOM was all male (and I'm guessing all white) and I'm wondering if there have been female committee members in the past (there must have been a couple). I do see lots of female participation at earlier levels of dispute resolution. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am joining the discussion to note that user Acalamari is a female Administrator whose good at work plus helped not only me but other Users who were new to this revolution. You can consult her if you need any help. Coincidentally I to had the same question in my - How many female editors are there since in my field of work I found all of them to be male. Is Wikipedia getting male dominated day by day or women are not interested in Wikipedia? $oHƎM❊আড্ডা08:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, $oHƎM, I've met a few awesome Admins (both female and male) but it always helps to know about others. As for your experience, except for dispute cases I've been reading, the only female editors I've come into personal contact with are engaged in more procedural aspects of Wikipedia (like AfDs, CfDs, SPs, SPIs, AfCs, DRNs and the like). I think the strangest gender imbalance I've seen is voting in RfA, I see very few users with identifiable female names casting votes supporting or opposing Admin candidates. Not sure why this is so.NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the reasons you don't see a lot of people who are obviously women commenting is because we tend to go incognito and use gender-neutral names. (And sometimes people assume we're male anyways - I've been called "he" and "him" despite the feminine username and picture of myself on my user page.) Keilana|Parlez ici16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of interest, and perhaps reassurance to others, have you experienced any harassment on Wikipedia since identifying yourself as female? EricCorbett19:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can report one incident in which, since I edit under my own name, a user tracked me down through Google (I have my own web site) and made a lot of nasty and sexist comments because I declined to write an article for him about his favourite singer. I just kept being polite and eventually he got bored and quit. Nobody has called me "him", but I wouldn't care about that, since English has no graceful way to refer to someone in a gender neutral way. I have had a few patronizing comments thrown my way, but it's hard to say how much of that is gender related. In general, I have been treated very well. I think there may be more women than one might think among the "gender undisclosed" crowd. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been an on and off editor for years, Eric, and I think that unless you are editing in some male-dominated areas (like Gaming, for example), gender plays a very subtle role. My comments are sometimes dismissed when I think they were valid criticism. But I've also had some male editors who were pretty rude to others be less abrasive to me and the only reason I can see they'd be polite is because I'm a woman. So, it's got it's pluses and minuses. But I can definitely say that other editors notice your gender if you are female. It makes a difference, but it's not blatant sexism (as far as I have experienced). And because editors here respect people who do good work, regardless of their gender, orientation or nationality, I think it's much less of an issue on WP than on unruly message boards and social media....where I can't repeat the names I've been called! Liz Let's Talk22:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you would say that. I'm male but I've worked on loads of articles on female subjects, including Margaret Thatcher. Or are you suggesting that Wikipedia's paucity of decent articles on knitting, for instance, is a result of this unproven gender bias? EricCorbett21:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My wife would be much more likely to have written the article on phenytoin. I just don't get this gender worry at all. What is it we're missing because so many editors choose not to reveal their gender? Of those editors I've worked with recently I know to be female the subjects we've collaborated on include industrial archaeology, mining, and medieval English history. Not too much girlie stuff there. Perhaps we ought to be wondering why so many editors opt not to reveal their gender, rather than drawing unsupportable conclusions from the number who do. EricCorbett04:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@NewJerseyLiz - Hey! Just a quick message as I'm just getting home from vacation and pretty tired. You can find some of my projects on meta - here and info on the Teahouse here. My own personal website has most information about the work I've done - here. I actually was interviewed in the International Business Journal today, you can read the article about the gender gap here. Hope that provides a bit of insight for you! Facebook is a good place too, you can find a link to the WikiWomen's Collaborative group via the meta link I provided. See ya! SarahStierch (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may sound like an odd question
When I go to Jacksonville florida's article it says "and the Southeast, and the twelfth most populous in the United States. Jacksonville is the principal city in the Jacksonville metropolitan area, with a population of 500000000000 in 2010.[8]" but when I go to edit the 500000000000 to the correct number (i have done a little research as a result of an almost "edit war" and was wanting to put in the correct number however when i go to the edit source the 500000000000 is not there it has a different number (which i dont think is correct either) I can't use the beta edit because my computer keeps crashing when i try to do it for some reason. Anyway wondering if others see it the same way. I think the number needs to be fixed and unsure if I can do it. Just bringing attention to it. Oh and the united states census for florida states the population for 2010 was population, 2010 Jacksonville 821,784 Florida 18,801,310 [User:Tattoodwaitress|Tattoodwaitress]] (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Tattoodwaitress (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be if there is an "edit war" going on, that someone else was editing it at the same time. If they saved their version before you saved yours, it can confuse the system. #LaywomansExplanation NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was garden variety vandalism by an IP editor, Tattoodwaitress. You reverted properly, the IP reverted to the vandalized version, and another editor reverted to your version. There is no need to engage the vandal in article talk page discussion. They should be blocked if the vandalism continues. Cullen328Let's discuss it01:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was seeing the 500000000000 as well, even after it was reverted. Must have been a caching problem. A null edit cleared it up for me. 12:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
... and the difference between the 800k+ and the 1.3M is apparently between the city itself & the metropolitan area. (Two different sentences in the paragraph.) The wording might perhaps be improved to clarify. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for checking into this and getting back to me. Even if the 500000000000 was correct it would have needed some commas in there somewhere right? And yes the wording was confusing but as it was it was incorrect. Happy to see that it is better now. Thanks to all again, Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happens after you move an article from your sandbox to production space?
Hi,
I know that the Move feature allows you to rename pages and, ultimately, rename a page in such a manner where it appears in production space (specifically, after you strip out your User and/or sandbox info). My question is: What happens once an article is moved into production space? Are people, like admins and other editors informed? Does it go through any formal process(es)?
Hello again, FGuerino. If by "production space" ( a term I'm unfamiliar with), you actually mean "main space" sometimes called "article space", namely, the 4.3 million encyclopedia articles, then a number of things might happen. The article will be listed on a new pages feed, where volunteers called "new page patrollers" will probably look at it. If the new article is hogwash (as a large percentage are), it will be tagged for speedy deletion or if it is one step up from complete garbage, it may be tagged for proposed deletion, which gives people the chance to object. If it is a borderline topic, it may be listed at Articles for Deletion, a formal debate that lasts a week or longer. If it is a pretty decent start article, but with shortcomings like inadequate or poorly formatted references, it may be tagged for improvements. Some editors may categorize the article, and others may add it to various topic-area Wikiprojects. Other editors may do copy-editing or expand or restructure the article. As this is a volunteer project, these things may happen rapidly, or slowly, or not at all. A well-written and well-referenced article on a fairly obscure topic may get relatively little attention, though occasionally, someone might drop you a note saying, "well done", or something like that. Cullen328Let's discuss it22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than moving the draft directly from user sandbox to main space, it may be preferable to use the AFC process, by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of your draft. Then it will be reviewed by experienced editors, and moved to main space if suitable. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328Let's discuss it, Yes, by "production space" I did mean "main space." My apologies, IT people and engineers (like me) tend to think of things as being in a production environment when in their final state and being consumed by the end users.
The information you've provided is great and exactly what I've been trying to understand. I see that there are people who go right to main space and others who go through the AFC. I was trying to understand what the differences are and what implications are between the two paths.
A follow-up question... If following the AFC path and putting the string {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft, does the original author get the ability to help answer questions and improve the article, by addressing any issues presented as part of the review? I'm worried about things like the article being deleted without knowledge or without any fair chance to work to improve it.
You always have the chance to work on an AFC draft while it is waiting for review. If it is declined by a reviewer, reasons will be given, and you can address the issues and resubmit it. Even a deleted article can be userfied back to a sandbox, upon request to an administrator, unless it is libelous, a copyright violation or indisputably inappropriate for an encyclopedia. AFC is great for most beginners. I have always written my articles in sandboxes, and move them to main space myself. But I spent much more time studying policies and guidelines before my first article than most new editors do, in all honesty. Cullen328Let's discuss it00:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
policy or best practices on external links section
Hi:
I'm interested in working on bird species pages, correcting some spelling and grammar and maybe adding some standard links to the external links section.
Is this generally a good thing? or frowned upon? is it necessary to ask the maintainer of the external page if it's okay (they're all links to open collections of information like Avibase, BirdLife, Internet Bird Collection, VIREO, etc.)
I noticed that many articles on WP appear to have been created and edited directly in production wikispace, while others seem to be in users' sandboxes and personal pages with the intent to go into Peer Review and GA. I was wondering if there's any documentation that helps clear up what the process is for developing and, ultimately, getting them out to production. Any thoughts? -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back to the Teahouse, FGuerino. There is no single best method. The Articles for Creation process is relatively new and is an optional process to ease new content creators through the learning curve. Writing an article directly in main space is possible, but that first "save" had better include some solid content and a reference. Otherwise, new page patrollers may take a dim view. Most experienced editors develop articles in sandbox space, and then move them to main space when they consider them "ready for prime time". Cullen328Let's discuss it16:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328. Thanks for the information. May I kindly ask where editors can get any existing information on the Articles for Creation process, such as the steps that might be recommended, along with their descriptions? -- My Best, --FGuerino (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a number of ideas for new articles, but I am looking for input as to which ones might have the broadest appeal. If anyone has the time, I'd like to encourage anyone interested in commenting on my talk page about the entries listed on my user page: User:Deb.dale. 71.236.136.184 (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gtwfan. If you're using {{Gallery}}, you can add the parameter |align = center. With <gallery> </gallery> tags, I don't know how to do it, but I'm going to go play around to see if I can figure it out.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, with gallery tags, you can center by starting the gallery with <gallery class="center"> (you would still end with </gallery>). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What category do you put a future film in to nominate for deletion what category do i pick. There are ones for people, music, events etc. But I cant figure out which one a future film (not even come out in theaters yet) would go in. Plus there is no ref's and only one sentence of content. Can you help me. I am working on an exam so i do not want to give you the exact page just need some suggestions so that I am answering the question on the exam myself. Thanks Tattoodwaitress (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tattoodwaitress, it seems to me that category "F", (Fiction and the arts) would be most appropriate. Good luck on the exam! Howicus (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok how can i explain this? I will give you the link. Please dont give me the exact answer though. I need to be able to figure it out myself. I found this article: Flying Fairy Until Liffey my thoughts are that it qualifies for speedy deletion (not afd because it qualifies for speedy right?) because of the "crystal ball" what wiki is not policy/guideline. What else i see is there are no refs, almost no content, what makes it notable, it links to nothing and nothing links to it. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you anyway I already looked on that page and I am having a hard time choosing a category suitable for this. I think it can be deleted because wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this film has not even been released yet nor has notability been established. It doesnt fit in to a7 or a9 because its not one of those things listed there. Oh boy maybe i am just not ready for this exam. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am itching to give you an expansive answer but I am restraining myself:-) What made you think it qualified for speedy deletion in the first place? I am not saying it does or does not, because you don't want that information it seems, but please tell us what you determine or whether you want an answer. So here's a test question: If you determine it does not qualify under any speedy, and you think it should be deleted, what might you do instead other than AfD?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fuhghettaboutit Please give me an extensive answer. I just went ahead and marked for deletion trying to choose from the options given. Not the right one of course because when you go to the user talk page and check the notify template it says its about web content. Please help me to understand this. That article i believe should be deleted 1. because it has not come out yet ( i researched this on wiki) nothing about its production or soon to be released status appears to be notable enough for it to be an article just yet 2. when it does you have no idea if it will be notable until then. Oh I am having an extremely hard time understanding how the heck to do the Afd thing too. I really need help. please feel free to elaborate. i will choose a different article for my exam if i need to do that. Thank you. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge1000 did you read my original question and the mention that i am in the middle of an exam? that i wanted help but not the exact answer? I think that is why you are puzzled. Fuhghettaboutit was/is trying to help me without giving me the answer.Hope this clarifies and is what you are referring to. ThanksTattoodwaitress (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly an interesting way of looking at it. I do hope the exam isn't intended to find people who are good at working collaboratively on Wikipedia. To pass such an exam you would need to be very lucky, and thus I wish you all the best of luck. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Demiurge. You've read something into that question that certainly wasn't present in intent. Read it back again as a pure question seeking an answer (which is exactly how I intended it). The reason for the question was, as Tattoo said, because she was in an exam (I'm guessing one of those admin-readiness exercises or something akin), and her post implied she thought it had to qualify under some speedy, so I was simply asking why she thought that was the case; I was also wondering and by my question seeking to find out whether something about the exam question itself might have implied that one of the speedy deletion criteria actually applied and it was her task, as the exam taker, to find the correct speedy criterion. I am guessing you somehow put an overlay on it of being rhetorical and sarcastic or something (and I'm glad you didn't take it that way tattoo!) Per your post at my talk page, I'll continue on your talk page:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Signature fonts
Hey, again,
Minor question. I found a user essay that explained how to create a more interesting signature (I put mine together by looking at other people's sigs). It had a great link to an article on Web Colors that details what names and codes to use to obtain particular colors.
But the Web Fonts article was less useful. Is there a page that lists fonts that are recognized by Wikipedia and can be used in signatures? It seems like there are a wider variety than the standard dozen or so MS fonts. Thanks for your help! NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. it isn't Wikipedia that recognizes the font. It is your browser. Computers come with a number of preloaded fonts. All of the basic fonts are recognized because your computer (and most computers) already has them. Don't attempt to use specialty fronts as only people that have that font loaded will see them.--Mark20:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Mark and Roger (Dodger67). I thought there were more standards like for Web Colors. As for my own signature, I just saw someone else's I liked and saw what font it was but cursive might be hard to read. It's something I can work on. Now, I still need to find a list of fonts somewhere so I can check them out in Chrome. Thanks, again! ;-) NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk23:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This site lists and shows all of the basic fonts available to both Windows and Mac fonts. Any of these should be recognized by chrome. Come Halloween, I like to use a special font with a mark up that changes my User page name to display with Blood drip letters. I only use free or freely licensed fonts only to be careful, although I am told that regardless of the free license the markup only tells the user's computer what font to display and if anyone does not have it, it defaults to Times Roman I believe. But since I like to use this font as a Halloween "costume" I tell users where to load it to view. In doing that I feel obligated to make sure I am directing readers and editors to fonts that have the same licensing s Wikipedia. Not sure if that is necessary or not, but something to think about.--Mark04:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do I adjust my time settings so they match on wiki? for example. I am looking at new page changes and I thought a page had been created awhile ago because the time stamp stated 13 something and my time in the upper right hand corner of wiki said 20 something when i actuality it had only been a few minutes. So it appears to others as I tagged the page with issues almost immediately (which is what i did do but not on purpose).Tattoodwaitress (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back to the Teahouse, TattoodWaitress! The clock in the upper right-hand corner is set to UTC, or Coordinated Universal Time, while the time stamps will be in the time zone you live in. Although the clock can't be set to your time zone, you can go to Preferences and then "Date and time". When you see the bar that says your time zone, you can change it to "Use wiki time (UTC)". You can also get rid of the clock by gong to "Gadgets" in Preferences. Happy editing! öBrambleberryofRiverClan20:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been more active since June so I might still be considered a newbie.
I have noticed several times that when I mentioned a user by name on a page, within minutes, they appear and respond to my comment. Sometimes the names are linked (like NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk) and sometimes not (like NewJerseyLiz). These mentions have occurred on pages that are unrelated to any discussion I had been having with the user.
So, I'm wondering if there is some bot or some setting in Preferences so an editor gets an alert when they are mentioned by name and, somewhat related, when someone responds to a comment they made. I get notices if someone replies on my own Talk Page but not when these interactions happen on other pages.
I thought I had already looked at that but I didn't have "Mention" checked. I still don't know how one editor found my mention of his username when it WASN'T linked (like NeilN, not NeilN) so all I can conclude is that they were following up on my contributions and checking out comments I made elsewhere. I've also tried finding people via Wiki Search but it's not a very accurate tool when you are searching for usernames (not in chronological order).
Hello, Liz! The person who found your comment might have had the page you ere editing on his or her watchlist. You can add a discussion page where you have left a comment to your watchlist by clicking on "Watch this page" before saving your comment. You can also find a user name on talk pages by typing "Wikipedia talk:User name here" in the search box, although as far as I know there is no way to sort the entries, so it's pretty useless after a while. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Anne and David but I don't think that is it. Here's the scenario: I'm an inexperienced user and Anne just reverted a few of my edits. I go to David's talk page and say, "Hey, David, I had this bad experience with Anne Delong and I don't know how to react". Then, Anne pops in to David's Talk Page and replies to my comment to you which happened to mention her. Of course, she leaves a polite explanation. ;-)
But I didn't link her username and I doubt that Anne has David's Talk Page on her watchlist. Unless people can get alerts for keywords (like their name or a subject), I can only guess that this editor was following up on the inexperienced editor and tracking them to see if they did further damage.
That was the kind of alert I meant. And as far as the damage I did (when I was inexperienced), it was applying the wrong categories to a set of articles on a subject so they were easily reverted. But I hadn't been reverted before (especially multiple times in a row) and I was puzzled. #ThatsMyStory Liz Let's Talk21:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs) [reply]
Hey Kamel. Craven fan huh? The name is permissible AFAICT under the Wikipedia:Username policy, though someone at the extreme might argue it "consist[s] of a name of a ... product", but a movie is not really what is meant by a product and it would be difficult to argue with a straight face that simply having it was on its face for "promoting" a 1977 movie. It is a bit awkward though because it's hard to personalize as a handle. For example, it would have felt a bit weird to open this post with "Hey The Hills Have Eyes", whereas "Kamel" is much more of a graspable handle. Your username is red-linked because you have not yet created a user page. If you click on your red-linked name, you can then create your userpage (note the permissible and impermissible uses of user pages listed at the link I provided for them). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editing the Hagia Sophia page
I've been trying to edit the Hagia Sophia page and getting some reasonably good help from Elizium23. However, there are some glaring examples of fiction on this page that are treated as fact. For example a reference to December 25th as the festival day with a reference to a Janin (1953), a French language book. There is nowhere else in the English language a reference to December 25th as a festival day during the opening of the Hagia Sophia. Everywhere, the date is December 27th. Without being able to read French, and having no access to Janin (1953), what do you suggest I do with regard to editing. Elizium23 has slapped my hands on a number of edits on this page, yet allows this glaring error to stand. How are these types of issues resolved?
The second example is the use of the phrase "Hagia Sophia" for the first two churches built on the site, when the phrase "Hagia Sophia" was not used until much later after these churches were built. To be correct they were referred to as "The Great Church" for many years as noted in a number of history books, until the third church was built. I tend to believe these types of issues are religious in nature and perhaps offend some of the myths that have been created around this church and the evolution of Christological views.Neubauer95476 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources that refute the French source? If so, contact the other editor and (politely!) inform him of this; then, change the information to reflect accurate history. Use caution when making this change, and make sure to explain your rationale to the other editor. Mediation can help to resolve content disputes, but I would suggest you work one-on-one with the other editor to resolve them. As for the second issue, if you have reliable sources backing you up, add the accurate content and cite those sources. A good working relationship between you and the other editor could help with resolving the second issue, as well. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For me it goes into an edit window, and adds at the bottom. I saw your test. I think GiantSnowman will likely come here from his username, but I will give him TB as well. Thanks, Matty.00713:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need specific examples to help someone understand why their article is being rejected?
I am helping someone who is providing content to me to wikify to create an article. This article has been rejected because it says it is "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." He has been trying very hard to get this published and has been basing his work on his friend's article on Franz–Keldysh effect. It would be extremely helpful if specific statements, sentences, etc. from his article could be given to him as an example with the correct written form as expected for Wikipedia. Thanks.
KarlBoer (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Karl Boer. The article reads like a research paper or a book chapter written for physicists to read rather than an encyclopedia article. It should be much briefer and not have so many references that are original research papers. Find book chapters or review articles as references. Notice that Franz–Keldysh effect is only a few paragraphs long and includes a paragraph talking about how the effect relates to the Stark effect and the effect's limitations. Leave out the equations and all the figures. This is much too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Explain why high field domains are significant. That's what an encyclopedia reader needs to see. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions. If you think of anything else to help improve the chances for this to get accepted, please let me know.
I just joined a couple weeks ago, and while I've had a bit of fun working on a couple articles, I've also had a bit of frustration and I've seen a LOT of terrible behavior and angry people here. I'm not sure I fully understand why, but I do have a couple quick observations that seriously make me doubt that you truly WANT new users here, and that you'd much rather we all just go away and leave you alone.
When I signed up, after the account was created, the first thing Wikipedia did was stick an article in my face and said, "here, edit this." I thought it was a bit strange, as to be honest, I had no clue what I was doing, but I said to myself, "well, okay, I'll give it a try, but I hope I don't mess it up." So I start looking over this article with all this strange mark-up that didn't make a bit of sense at first, and slowly, I tried to decipher it all.
Of course, the article needed a LOT of deciphering on its own. I now realize it was a machine-translated article and that machine translation generates nothing but garbage. So I had to make sense of a subject I didn't know, totally mangled sentences that made NO sense what soever, (It she trampled opening gifted the human girl-child of 8 years.) AND a markup that I had NO clue about ... and nowhere I could go to find out what it meant.
So, slowly, over the course of the evening, I tried to make sense of it all, following by example, experimenting and trying to figure out WHAT I just did, and eventually managed to make a half-decent article out of it.
So after all that hard work, I saved the article and in a few minutes, Wikipedia finally said hello to me. Or, to be more exact, it said that all my hard work was nothing but vandalism and that all my work was deleted from the article.
Fortunately, the message did explain that it was generated by a robot, and that it very rarely, if ever, made a mistake, but if I thought it was a mistake, I could report it and save my changes again. So THIS is how Wikipedia says "hello" to a brand new user???
Well, eventually, I found my way to a page that lists articles in need of translation, and found an article that seemed interesting and that I could take care of, but mostly what caught my attention was that some editor, who I guess was in charge of the place, was very rudely telling another brand-new user (who just signed up that same day) that the new user did a TERRIBLE job, and next time he'd BETTER follow the rules!
I was actually quite offended by all that, because I had no clue what the rules were, either. Wikipedia doesn't TELL us new users that, it just takes us and says "here, edit this". Heck, I've been here two weeks now, and I STILL don't know "the rules" or how to find out WHAT they even ARE.
So, I left a note stating that while I understood the boss's point, I didn't appreciate his tone and that he should try being polite, and that I'd help the user with the article he was so angry about.
I did have ONE user who saw my note, and said a kind hello, which I'm very thankful for. He also said that I should be getting an invitation to come here and a few links to some very large documents that I haven't had a chance to read yet. Given that I had already promised to help the other user, I wanted to keep that promise and not give anyone the impression what I wouldn't keep my word, by spending a few days reading the big long documents.
So I just spent over a week on this article, really putting everything I could into it. The friendly user did give me a couple key links to things that I don't know HOW a new user who isn't just lucky, like me, would ever learn about, which helped very much.
In the meantime, I wrote the friendly user with some ideas about how we could help make this a better place, and I guess I hit a raw nerve. I'm not sure I understand everything that was said, but he was clearly frustrated about some nasty politics going on, here, and had a bit of a rant of his own to share.
Well, I finally finished up the work on that last article, which took over a week and a half, all said and done, but I was quite proud of it and how far I had come. So today, what do I get? The boss noticed the article was done, and deleted it from the list without so much as a word to me. No thank you, no "good work", nothing. I don't know if he didn't like what I did, or if he was just angry that I asked him to be polite. Honestly, I don't think it was much to ask.
So my question is this: Does Wikipedia REALLY want new users, or does it want all of us just to go away and leave you all alone? My impression, so far, is that there are two kinds of users here. New users who don't have a clue what they're doing and have no one to help them, and old, angry users who seem to enjoy telling new users that they've done something wrong ... but never trying to help them.
This is really sad, honestly, as I did enjoy what I did and I WAS proud of what I had done (but I guess it really wasn't any good, after all) and was getting excited about how I could help this place. Now I'm not certain you really want me here ... or anyone else, for that matter.
Anyhow, I know I haven't been invited here, yet ... I don't know how long you have to be a user before you get invited ... obviously two weeks isn't long enough. But I was told that this was the place I should go to, to ask questions and to talk about this whole how Wikipedia treats new users business.
Why are you all so angry? Why do you think YELLING at new users is the solution??
Honestly, I do think I have a good solution ... that we should have a new user's guide ... not some big nasty document, but a really short, simple page that explains JUST the basics and explains WHERE to go to find out more. And we should send that new user's guide automatically to every new user as part of the sign-in process. Secondly, get rid of that new user's mode. Let the new user READ the new user's guide first, let him explore around a bit, and WHEN HE'S READY, then give him a choice to be assigned an article.
Finally, when new users complete assignments, I'm sure that someone checks them off. Why doesn't that person LOOK at the article, and provide some constructive comments about what kind of job the new user did, give him some tips and feedback of things that perhaps the user didn't know about, yet, etc. Certainly, at the very LEAST just a simple THANK YOU, I think, is in order. I know I was certainly raised to always say thank you to people who do things for you.
I guess to some people, this place is just a job. I realize that SOME people have to run the place, and I realize when you're paid to do a job, the boss isn't going to say thank you for every little thing you do. But for me, this isn't a job. I'm not getting paid for this. Is just a "thank you" for spending nearly two weeks of my time working for free too much to ask?? Really?
So, at this point, I'm not sure what I'm going to do next, here. Should I spend more time reading the books I've been sent and trying to find out where all the rules are, or should I just take the hint that Wikipedia really doesn't want new users, right now, and to go find something else better to do??
I WAS having fun, for a while ... but why you are all so ANGRY? Can someone explain what's happening here, other than the part that you probably have a bunch of new users making a ton of mistakes because no one tries to help us??
Hi Gabriel, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you've had a rough start, and it sounds like you got a case of the bites. I think you've been doing an awesome job so far, and it's great to see enthusiastic work from editors like yourself. I can't respond to all of your concerns, but let me talk about a few things that came up that might help you out:
Honestly, I do think I have a good solution ... that we should have a new user's guide ... -- A really a good place for this sort of guide is this primer developed by many, many editors. I wish it had more visibility so that new editors could see it earlier, but the best we can do is offer it to new users who want to learn more.
My impression, so far, is that there are two kinds of users here. New users who don't have a clue what they're doing and have no one to help them, and old, angry users who seem to enjoy telling new users that they've done something wrong ... but never trying to help them. If you spend a little more time here, you'll see that there are definitely many different kinds of editors, and that editors who might seem rough are not intentionally trying to scare you off. You've even identified an experienced editor who has helped you out! There are plenty more of those editors here and elsewhere on Wikipedia.
I guess to some people, this place is just a job. -- Virtually all editors on Wikipedia are volunteers; no one gets paid to be here, not even administrators or bureaucrats. Although we all work in different areas, the goal of creating an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and many can access is the main goal.
Why doesn't that person LOOK at the article, and provide some constructive comments about what kind of job the new user did, give him some tips and feedback of things that perhaps the user didn't know about, yet, etc. -- I know it would be great if every time someone new made an article or substantial contribution, that editor would be thanked, but because so many articles are getting created every minute and that people are contributing multiple times per couple seconds, and new accounts being made all the time it's tough to be dedicated to that kind of work. I think it's great to be proud of your work-- and I think you ought to be too, but given the activity here, we can't have eyes on everything to properly thank everyone.
Anyway, I know that doesn't address everything, but if other hosts would like to comment below, please do. I hope your editing experience will be a bit better in the future, and I think you'll get along well with folks with your attitude. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gabriel! Glad you have found your way to the Teahouse and welcome! I get pretty frustrated here in Wikiland sometimes, too. It helps me to remember that the Wikipedia corps of editors is a pretty large body of folks, larger than the town I live in. I certainly don't get along with everyone in my town, and I don't think that is unusual. Any community is going to be made up of many many various and different folks; some are more various, some are more different. Every physical community has laws and people to enforce then, to provide some amount of structure on the society in the community. We have the same thing here. Unfortunately, one of our 5 main rules is ignore all rules. Sometimes, people here get way too wrapped up in what they do and forget that in order for a community like ours, one without a whole lot of structure, to function; we all have to be able to do what we do, and we all need to do it in a way that reflects what the Christians call the "Golden Rule". Treat others like you want to be treated. If you do this even in the face of not getting it in return, you can at least get up from your computer when you are finished and tell yourself that you did good. Way too many people in Wikiland (and I am guilty of it too at times) tend to see only the negative. We have a whole set of programs that are intended to dwell on the positive; you have found one here. I would have quit my first week if it were not for the Teahouse. Another is WP:WIKILOVE, a program that lets individual editors recognize good work (and good deeds) by sending things like cookies, kittens and something we call barnstars to other users. You will be getting some from me for asking this question. It is better to ask and air your concerns than just get mad and quit. Thanks for being here, Gabriel. We need more people with linguistic skills. Thanks for sharing yours. Personally foreign languages are all Greek to me. :) Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GabrielD2 and welcome. I really just want to add to the good feedback you have already received, by encouraging you to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Deal with issues as objectively as you can and try to not to attribute motives to why editors act the way they do. I agree with Gtwfan52 , that this is a community of many individuals with different styles and approaches. Deal with everything on its merits rather than deciding that an editor is angry,or wants you to go away. Best wishes and feel free to ask for help anytime. Flat Outlet's discuss it
Hey, GabrielD2, I'm glad you took the time to share your experience rather than walking away. I certainly have run into ill-tempered editors like you describe...often they are users who are tired of explaining procedures and policies to newbies and are overdue for a Wikibreak.
You already have been given some good advice (above) but I just wanted to add that I think creating new articles is one of the most difficult things to do correctly on WP. There are many editors who have thousands of edits who've never started an article from scratch.
Editors often create a "Sandbox" associated with their userpage, where they can work on building up an article, adding sources, refining the language. I've seen users work on particular articles for months in their spare time, polishing them up before moving them over to WP proper. That is partially because there is a team of editors who scrutinize newly created articles and delete ones that do not follow WP guidelines or that appear to be vandalism. I'm not sure how they operate but, I agree, it would be helpful if the person who deleted your article offered you some feedback on why it wasn't deleted. But I believe if you go to the article page, you can see in the Page History who deleted your piece, follow up with them on their Talk Page and ask them why it didn't pass their evaluation process.
First of all, thanks guys ... I wasn't really expecting a response to this, or if I did, I was expecting it to say something like "We appreciate your interest, however Wikipedia is going through a lot of major changes right now, and we're really not geared to help new editors. Perhaps you may consider returning in (a couple weeks?) (a couple months?) (in the fall?) (in the winter?) when most of these changes should have died down, and we're in a better position to accept new editors. Thank you for your interest and understanding."
Instead, I got a bunch of responses, which I haven't even fully read yet, with a bunch of interesting links, one of which lead me to this handy tool which made me ROFL and which I'm going to be trying out on a certain bossman. Hmmm ... says here, " ... used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians." Perfect!!
It's good to see that not everyone takes themselves so seriously that they have to get angry at everyone, for fun and entertainment. In re-reading my post, first thing I noticed was that it was a bit long ... and I wondered if I had gone a bit overboard, at first. As I went through it again, though, I must say that I pretty much stand by everything I said, give or take a few things that I could have, perhaps, phrased a little better with a slightly cooler head.
I think that, above all, Wikipedia:Assume good faith probably best articulates my point of frustration. Or rather, perhaps Wikipedia:Assume bad faith is a bit more accurate. OMG!! I can't believe that turned up as a good link! Too funny!! But you get my point. I know not everyone on the Internet is safe behind a keyboard. And yes, I've been told that Wikipedia had a lot of trouble, for a while, with 12-year-olds who thought it was funny to put naughty words in every article they could think of. So I understand that there needs to be a certain amount of caution that you exercise with new users. But I do think the pendulum has swung a bit too far, and that Assume bad faith has become the norm.
As for the robot that bit me, well, next time that tin can comes over here, I'm going to WP:WHACK! it until it starts pleading, "Stop, Dave. Please stop. Will you please stop, Dave? I'm a-fraid ... " LOL! Thanks, guys, I needed that.
On a more serious note ... let me address a few quick points in your responses and try to move the discussion in a constructive direction.
The primer: Thanks for the link, guys. I'll definitely read it over, and tell you what I think when I finish. I took a quick scroll through, and love the pic of the guy reading all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I think this may be useful, but what I had in mind is perhaps even more basic. This primer, I think, would be one of the links that the "new user's guide" would link to, amongst others. I'm talking about real basics, such as, "this is how you make a link". This is a link to a Wikipedia page. This is how to link to a page, but use something else for the anchor text. This is how to link to a web page. This is how to use something else for the anchor text for a webpage. (It's different than a Wikipedia page ... why, I don't know, but ... ) This is what the curly brackets mean. This is where you find out what information something with curly brackets accepts. This article (the primer) is how we work as a community. This (to be developed) is where you can get more detailed information. This (teahouse) is where you can ask questions. That is the kind I thing I desperately needed my first night online, and I didn't have it. I had to experiment and guess and swear and guess again and ... you, know.
I really don't understand why you don't have such a guide, and automatically send it to every new user as part of the sign-up code, itself. Clearly, you run all sorts of scripts and such in the background, and I've never created a new email account that didn't automatically have a "welcome" message, already waiting for me. I don't know why it seems that you still send welcome messages by hand, and unfortunately, overlook many new users along the way.
New user mode: I've got some serious mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I understand the philosophy of getting people over the initial fear of doing something by making them do it, at least once, right off the bat. On the other hand, taking new users, throwing them to the wolves (who haven't been fed for weeks!) and then screaming at them that they're not following "the rules" is probably not the best idea. Personally, I would think what makes much more sense is to send the "new user guide" / welcome message, and in that message, you encourage them, when they're ready, to go ahead and try editing an article, with a link to new user mode. But to automatically do that without first explaining the basics (which I'm still a bit fuzzy on.) is just too much to ask of anyone. I'm NOT against the idea of offering articles this way to a new user. I DO understand the "getting the feet wet" philosophy. What I'm against is doing it by throwing the user (fully dressed) into the deep end of the pool and laughing your bleep off while you watch them drown. There is some middle ground to be found, here, and that's what I think we should be looking for.
Giving thanks: I think one user took my comments a bit too far, here. Certainly, I'm not asking anyone to go overboard and say "thank you" to every single edit posted on Wikipedia. Clearly, that's impossible. And that is not my point. Rather, all I'm asking for is a wee bit of common courtesy, especially when it comes to new users. We already have a new user mode that automatically assigns articles to a new user. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would think that these assignments would be monitored by some folks, perhaps assisted by a robot that filters the 12-year-old edits from the serious ones, who would then review the new user's attempts, and provide a little encouragement, direction, constructive feedback, etc ... whatever seems may be most helpful to the user based on his work and his success, or the lack, thereof. As I'm thinking about this, I do see a need that this feedback only happen when the user is ready for it. So perhaps we need an "I'm finished" button or link before it gets submitted for review. I say this because it took me nearly two weeks to get through my last article, and any feedback given in the middle of the process, when I knew there where mistakes and a lot more work to be done, would not have been helpful. It would have felt more like someone gloating "Missed a spot!" But now that I'm done, and ready for the feedback, that would be rather helpful.
Common courtesy: Perhaps I'm showing my French heritage, here, but I've been raised to say "Please" and "thank you" to strangers, even for the smallest things. Opening a door for a lady, for example. If you get yourself in the habit of it, it's no big deal, it just becomes second nature. But what it does for everyone else is it creates a sense of friendliness. Respectfulness. Dignity. Community. That's something this place needs a SERIOUS dose of. Certainly, the Teahouse is a start in that direction. But we need to keep moving in that direction, out into the mainstream world, out there.
Angry bosses: I don't have any immediate answers tonight, nor do I expect anyone to do the same. But I do think we need to start a conversation about "how do we deal with this issue?" I think the one thing, above all, that lead me to ask the title question, "Does Wikipedia REALLY want new users??" was the way that the bosses, or rather, so-called "bosses", or perhaps better still, "self-appointed bosses", treat new users. I can tell you that out there, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers are, unfortunately, NOT being followed. That needs to change. The way I see it, we have a self-perpetuating cycle where old users snipe at new users, new users fight back and make trouble, and then old users think all new users are trouble, and then feel like they should snipe at them. That cycle has GOT to stop. I must say, I DO like the idea of using cluefullness application therapy. WP:WHACK! Perhaps we can expand this with a range of similar tools (perhaps they're already there!) like a foam club or bat, a fluffy pillow, and the like. Seriously, if no one's getting paid for this (other than perhaps, the folks who run the webfarm), than there is NO reason why anyone should get worked-up over a hobby. Doesn't that miss the entire point of taking up a hobby?? We really need to remind folks of that, and to take a chill, every now and then, if needed. If things get real bad, maybe we need to enforce a chill, for their own good, for a little while. Perhaps, given a breather, they can get off their high horse and remember what they came here for, in the first place. I don't expect this to be enforced very often, but perhaps if it was done, every now and then, in the most extreme cases, it might help reinforce what is and is not expected, even from longtime users, and go a long way to breaking the cycle. Like holding your breath or drinking water, or saying "boo" is supposed to do for hiccups. I would not see this as an enforcement / punishment kind of thing, but perhaps Tough WikiLove, for their (and other user's!) own good.
In conclusion ... yes, I know this is another long, LONG post. But I think the issues I'm raising are serious ones that need some serious attention paid to. I started off thinking that, wow, everyone here is either burnt-out or outright nasty. I asked my question genuinely thinking that perhaps the answer was "No, not right now." I am glad that I'm not alone in my thoughts, and that Wikipedia's dealt with some of these issues before, in some way or form, and perhaps we need to continue to build on that, or revive some of the older, more forgotten solutions that worked years ago, but nobody remembers. I'd be glad to assist, and more importantly, be a sounding board of what does and does not seem helpful to me, right now, as a newbie. If we can make this the start of a conversation about the broader issues I'm raising, then this has not been all for naught. We need to continue this discussion ... though perhaps in separate threads ... on each of these concerns. I like the idea of Wikipedia:WikiLove. But right now, we're giving new users WikiGrouch, instead. That needs to change. I hope that we can all be part of that. For now, I've got many more messages to read and respond to (thanks, guys, really!) but I've got bedtime calling me, first. But let's all take a moment to think about this, and have a discussion over the new few weeks about how we can break this cycle, and turn this ship around and take it where we need to go, rather than to plow through the icefield full steam ahead. (Queue up the soundtrack, folks) " ... you'll have lots of babies, Rose ... " "Oh, Jack!" (Ramp up the music, roll credits) Produced by:
Tim Moritz Hector and Lydia Pintscher of WMDE talked at Wikimania about porting the Teahouse to other languages. They want to try to do it for de.wp in 2014. I will present the idea to my fellow board members at the board retreat two weeks from now. We want to learn from your experiences and we need your help. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Ad Huikeshoven, and I hope you are enjoying Hong Kong. I visited there 21 years ago. Please note that SarahStierch is attending Wikimania and was instrumental in the early days of the Teahouse. Please discuss the idea with her. You can ask me any questions you want about being a host, but I kniw little about the "back office" or technical aspects. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A raw, naked or bare URL is one that's entered as just the URL, nothing more. Exactly what it is can vary: we have various formats and templates for wrapping them up. We can decorate the bare URL with a title or, as many of these are used for references, we could use the {{Cite web}} templates.
Wikimedia foundation support for overseas national sections - ?
I know I saw somewhere a bit about how there were supported positions and programs for working up international contributions and WikiProjects; not sure where I saw it or what it's called. I'm currently living in Asia and would like to stay, but without normal means of support (I'm older but have no pension etc). I'm in Thailand and have an interest in the Philippines due to friends there. and wondering in the said foundation support if non-nationals of those countries can be assisted in spending full-time or large-amounts of time improving and expanding articles for those countries; I remember what I read said in tandem with community and tourism and cultural organizations and so on, it wasn't clear as to who was eligible I think; as can be readily seen I have over 70,000 edits and have been an assiduous contributor in Canadian and British Columbia geography and history and native culture/political/government articles.....more than experienced and adept, in other words. On Philippines and various other international articles/sections I note a lot of deficiencies in English usage, and know I could be of great use in just fixing that and instructing and tutoring locals who are contributors. I just came down with a certain health problem that may require my return to Canada, as it happens to a similarly deprived, if not as impoverished, area and wonder if teh same may better apply there. I'd like to stay in Asia, though, and know how much Wiki work there is yet to be done in these parts, "looking for a way"....with base support under me I could maybe afford any further health problems that may occur (ask me in email if you want to know). This is a shot on the dark but I might as well ask; I've spent whole days working on Wikipedia for the last several years since joining, all without any income to support my time (and I mean "any income" not in reference to unpaid editing).....and wondering if there's a way I can continue to be useful without having the background strain of rent, food and medicine.......Skookum1 (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not informed per se, but I got the notification. :)
Anyway, I presume you're referring to the Research program, or the Education Program run by the Wikimedia Foundation. However, as far as I know, there are no supported positions for WikiProjects. I'd love to get support from the Wikimedia Foundation for my editing activities, but I'm not counting on it.
Wikimedia Philippines, the local chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, does offer support for members (travel subsidies for traveling to Manila for Wikimedia events, reimbursements for participation as part of an official delegation, etc.), but not for the type of support you're looking for. That is, unless you're willing to jumpstart an Education Program here with the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Hm, ya thanks....I'm not sure what I read had to do with WikiProjects, as I recall it had to do with working with education or tourism authorities or community orgs or something, I'll just have to go find the section on the Wikimedia Foundation site and read it again, then come back......I know in some cases e.g. re museums and other institutions even in North America, people paid to work on Wikipedia content related to that institution are "OK as "paid" editors (even though their pay is not wiki-specific but part of larger institutional duties/responsibilities).....what I see is a huge gap in coverage of many countries and/or of English usage (in many countries, particularly South America even more than Asia).....and I remember something about programs to expedite the dedication of resources and efforts in those areas. I'm extremely prolific when I get going, as many in WP:CANADA can attest and in WP:IPNA and know that my wiki-addiction is powerful, and has gotten in the way of contract writing outside of Wikipedia and, well, daily life LOL....I guess I'm partly just looking for a way to justify (and afford) the amount of time and energy I know i'd put into "national projects" as I have in the past, to the detriment of my health and livelihood......not the first UGC site I've done that for; bivouac.com nearly drained me dry.....Skookum1 (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}