Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:47, 16 June 2014

Shortcuts

つがる, 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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226

approved article not coming up in google search

So my article got approved recently, but it isn't coming up on google when I search for it. Is it because there are not enough references or maybe the article is too new? Thanks in advance! The article --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qianhai Qianhaisghzq (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Image

How could I upload images on my article? It seems i can not upload images because of permission issues.Cybals (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Cybals. Image permissions are a very complex area on Wikimedia projects. If you describe the details of the image you want to upload, then we can give an answer tailored to your specific situation. Let me describe the easiest ways: If you take a photo yourself of a landscape, a common object, a historic building or the like, then there will be no problem uploading your photo to Wikimedia Commons if you agree to the terms of a Creative Commons license. This does not apply to photos you take of things that are already copyrighted, such as recent published works or recent works of art. If you find an image that was first published in the U.S. before 1923, copyright has expired, and you can upload that in a similar way. Any image already on Wikimedia Commons can be used freely, and there are tens of millions of them. But a large majority of images you find online or in recently published books are copyrighted and can't be used here, with very narrow exceptions described in our policy on use of non-free images. This is a brief, simplified summary of a complex area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

new uploaded page has title error and duplicate pix

Yesterday evening, I uploaded the article I was working on during a local wikipedia meetup as the host library closed. In the rush, I put (new article) at the end of the title. I noticed it today, but don't know how to remove it, and (flustered) don't even remember how to add the new article template to the top of the page. Also, I took a relevant picture for the article using an old book available at the event. My cable not working yesterday, I managed to upload it today. Unfortunately, it seems to display twice on infobox I put in the article (Christ Church (Easton, Maryland) (new article) yet I see only one link call. The good news is that it only shows once when I added it to another page (List of the original 30 Anglican parishes in Maryland), but then because of the title screwup, the article link doesn't work. Clearly, I'm not going to use it as a template for another article I wanted to create yesterday (for the historic All Saints Church in Frederick). At least I managed to take a couple of photos relevant for that article and uploaded and used them in the Frederick, Maryland article today without undue stress. Any help you can offer about the Easton church article problems would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jweaver28. I've changed the name and fixed the image problem. To change the article name, it is necessary to use the move tab next to the history tab. When you click it, you are presented with a simple form. There is a line which begins with "To new title:", next to which are two boxes, the second of which should have the current article name. Click and correct that name to whatever you want it to say. Then in the box below it, add a reason for changing the name. If the article has an associated talkpage, there will be another line below the reason box which says "Move associated talk page". More often than not we move talkpages when renaming the article although there might be a few occasions when you might need the talkpage to stay. Below that tickbox is another line which says "Watch source page and target page" which is entirely optional but most of us tend to watch any articles we edit because you can be alerted if the article is edited. Finally click the button which says "Move page".

As for the image problem, the infobox/template doesn't need the file code to be laid out as you would normally. Have a look at my edit and note how the name doesn't need the "File:" bit and the caption has a separate place further down the infobox parameters. Hope that helps. Green Giant (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can i delete my uploads

How can i delete my upload like i uploaded an image i want to delete that how can i do this Alham Hussain (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alham Hussain. You cannot delete an image yourself, but you can request an administrator delete it. You can make such a request by placing a {{Db-self}} template on the image page. After you do that, administrator will delete the image soon under the WP:G7 criteria. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can i creat and edit a page

i am new in wikipedia and i want to create a page so i want a little help for creating and editing the page how can i make tables some lines headlines and some other like this like titles so i need help for it to create a pageAlham Hussain (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alham Hussain. Please read Your first article, and the Primer for newcomers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHEATSHEET is good too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, Demiurge1000. Thanks for mentioning that one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a subpage or draft in sandbox - I need advice please

Hello,

I would like to add another article to my wiki account. What is the best way to do this if I have already created an account? Do I first create a subpage or should I just go to my user sandbox and just add Template:Userspace draft/Article name in the above space? I searched and the article name is not in use but I want to make sure that I have the article name indicated within my draft.

I read on Wiki that subpages were not recommended. So, should I start the new article in my sandbox, then have some editors review and then submit my draft for review? Please advise on the steps on how to start another article draft within a current wiki account. Thanks in advance AdBCWi14 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AdBCWi14, welcome to the TeaHouse. One way would be to click this link User:AdBCWi14/sandbox2 and create your second sandbox there. Then your third sandbox at User:AdBCWi14/sandbox3 and so on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AdBCWi14. You may create a new user subpage called User:AdBCWi1/Name of article, and many articles are created in this way. But the recommended method is to create Draft:Name of article. I believe that the Article wizard will do this for you. --ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from a previous FAC

During the first FAC of Gemini (2002 Tamil film), User:ColonelHenry gave some comments which have been addressed, although the article was not promoted. Now it is at its second FAC, but Henry is blocked, even though his concerns are still addressed. Can his "Support" tag from the first FAC still count? 19:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hunnid Stax draft

could someone give my draft "Hunnid Stax" a look? I would really appriciate if it could be done today... get back to me once you look over it. Thank You!Camcamhamham (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Camcamhamham. The main technical problem with your article is that the references are not formatted properly. See Referencing for beginners for information about proper referencing. But the fundamental problem is that it seems unlikely that this song complies with WP:NSONG, as discussed in detail in the section below. If the song is not yet notable, then its title should be a redirect to the album, assuming the album is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a response?

how do i know that wikipedia has read an article i create? will it just publish? will i get a message? and, also, how long will it take them to respond? Camcamhamham (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Camcamhamham and welcome to the Teahouse. Once you have created a suitable article, you need to submit your article here so that it can be reviewed. At the moment, Draft:Stigmata (if this is the article you mean) has no references and will be rejected I'm afraid as a non-notable topic. Wikipedia already has an article titled Stigmata so you will need also need to change the title - adding "(song)" after the name should be sufficient. I recommend that you read this introduction to article creation and this guide to referencing before submitting. Good luck! Philg88 ^♦talk 16:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer, but i have a question. What makes the article non-notable? It is by a notable musician (Ab-Soul) and is on a new notable hip-hop album. Camcamhamham (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NSONG#Recordings states "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."
So the notability of the artist and/or the album are not the criteria - "notability is not inherited" - it needs to be notable in its own right.

The questions NSONG asks are:-
1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
If not, then it probably does not deserve its own article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

about inline external links

I was asked to remove inline external links - I had three of these I think - the comment was

Comment: Please remove ALL the inline external links - some may be usable as references, so they could be formatted as such. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a little unsure whether or not the inline external links are links to web sites or not - I have references in the footnote style and links to web sites - I presume this is Ok

JerzyQQ JerzyQQ (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JerzyQQ: Hi JerzyQQ. What is being referred to is the places in the article where instead of having a footnote to a citation like,^[1] you have instead a link to an external cite directly in the text, like: NYT. The first of these appears in the second paragraph linking "City Catapult" directly to its website. Such external links directly in the text might be proper for conversion to footnoted references to verify the information, which is what Roger was talking about, e.g., you might convert:

[https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/ City Catapult] to

<ref>{{cite web|url=https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/ |title=|publisher=...|date=... etc.}}</ref>

so that it becomes a footnoted citation, but you should only do this if it's correct that it verifies the content. To be clear, when you say "and is currently active with the Technology Strategy Board’s City Catapult", you wouldn't provide a citation to City Catapult just generally there, but only if the website page, were it cited there in a footnote, would corroborate the statement that "CASA is currently active with City Catapult". If it doesn't verify that content, just remove the link and don't convert to a citation (and then maybe cite some other reliable source that does). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User box

Hey Teahouse, I was wondering. Is this an acceptable userbox? I don't want to start any arguments so I wanted to ask you guys.

Thanks,Schoolskater (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Schoolskater. Your userbox is not showing up for lack of one more "|" at the end. I'm not sure if you did this intentionally to be discrete, so I didn't fix it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox is at his link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schoolskater/Userboxes/NRA

Please check it out, Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Schoolskater: Hey Schoolskater, thanks for your question. I get why you might be reluctant to put it up; while it's true that folks have strong opinions about the National Rifle Association, as long as you are making a good-faith effort to edit within our guidelines, I doubt that your userbox will be problematic for anyone. There are some articles, for instance, related to gun control where editors have often taken a battleground approach to interacting with other editors, and honestly, it doesn't end well for them or the article content no matter what opinion one has on the matter. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An analogy might be useful. Imagine if you, Schoolskater, were working on the encyclopedia one day, and encountered another editor, perhaps had a minor disagreement with them over what content should go in an article. (Possibly even a political article.) Imagine you then went to have a look at their user page, and it had a userbox proclaiming them to be a proud member of the Communist Party USA, complete with the nice red logo from that party. Think to yourself if that would make it easier for you to work constructively with the other editor, or if it might lead you to be suspicious about their motives or their editing, and thus cause problems. It wouldn't necessarily cause problems - after all, you would now understand where they were coming from, even if that wouldn't be a set of views you might agree with yourself. Ideally, seeing such a userbox might have no more impact on how you interact with the other editor than if they had a userbox saying they enjoyed potato soup. But on the other hand, others might not be so open-minded in their views. That's why userboxes are perceived by some as potentially causing issues.

But no-one would ever get away with saying you shouldn't or couldn't have a userbox expressing your political views; and indeed there are some editors with "communist" or "socialist" userboxes, and "conservative" userboxes too, that have a history of working well with the community and the community working well with them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Schoolskater and welcome back to the Teahouse! I've taken the liberty of cleaning up and reorganizing your code in the userbox and I think it looks nice. You are who you are, and no-one should be judging your editing abilities based on stereotypes based on userboxes. I'd display that userbox proudly (if I could afford to be an NRA member ;])> — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Submit the article

Hi, I have my article ready in my sanbox but i dont know how to submit it for review?Shubham.opensource (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the TeaHouse. It is correctly submitted and is awaiting review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shubham. I have now reviewed your article Draft:Swarachakra, and I'm afraid that it does not provide the required references to establish why this article should be included in Wikipedia. I have left more details in the review comments. You might like to read this guide to referencing or Yushui's excellent guide before you resubmit the article for review. Best, Philg88 ^♦talk 15:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with inappropriate comments on an article's talk page?

I would appreciate some guidance on what to do with a comment on a talk page that is inappropriate. It is the only comment on the page. Would it be advisable to archive it? And if so, how would we go about it? Thanks.Historian (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the TeaHouse. If the comment is purely disruptive and has no relevance whatsoever to improving the encyclopedia, I would just blank it (even if it's the only thing on the page), with an appropriate polite edit summary. If someone else then insists on restoring it, or further discussing your reasons for blanking it, then you would need to discuss that with them. (And of course you should not edit war with them over it.)

Sometimes people consider comments inappropriate because they contain profanity or because they advance an unwelcome point of view; but if the comment has any relevance at all to improving the encyclopedia or part of it or how it works, such problems are not sufficient justification for removal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the suggestion above, but will also add that if the inappropriate comment includes personal information that should not have been posted to Wikipedia, you may request to have it suppressed. Not sure if this is the issue here, but mentioning it just in case. Keihatsu ^talk 22:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to Absalom Jones - the talk page message would indeed be fine to remove as vandalism. Sam Walton (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hi, I have removed the aforementioned comments from Talk:Absalom Jones per WP:Vandalism#Silly vandalism and WP:GRATUITOUS. Please revert if it was inappropriate for me to do so. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my page deleted with strong explanation

ISKCON Ipoh... this is my page .... and ithave been deleted and this is what stated --> This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC [14:49] <dhayalan> kindly plz help me....why deleted ...im new and this is about non profit organisation then hw coud there be any advertising or promotion... so plz state what i shouldnt include on the article Dhayalan94 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like your page was deleted because it had an unduly promotional tone. If you have a look here, it will explain why. Have you also messaged DGG to find out what was wrong? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dhayalan94. Our restriction against advertising and promotion applies to non-profit organizations as well as profit making ones, as such groups most certainly do advertise and promote themselves. As a long time volunteer for non-profits, I try to help promote them all the time, but not on Wikipedia. Please study the neutral point of view carefully, and comply with it going forward. This is expected of all Wikipedia editors. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok seems u are nt specifying any of the content whih sounds promotional. ok is it bcoz i hv included offical blog and also official facebook page. ok may i get back my article in HTML format so that i can edit.it was so hard to make such article and im very new so it took me hours to do..

plz reply as soon as possible Dhayalan94 (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok seems u are nt specifying any of the content whih sounds promotional. ok is it bcoz i hv included offical blog and also official facebook page. ok may i get back my article in HTML format so that i can edit.it was so hard to make such article and im very new so it took me hours to doDhayalan94 (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please understand that for the most part the volunteer hosts here at the Teahouse are just regular volunteer editors like you. You were advised in a previous comment to contact the administrator that actually deleted the article. As an administrator, he can look it up and see it. Us regular editors cannot. Additionally, I cannot help but notice that you are struggling with the use of the English language. Perhaps it may be better to try to contribute to an edition of Wikipedia in your native language? John from Idegon (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol are u sure uh? u talking about my english now.plz i know what im doing.

and plz dont humiliate people like this in public.plz have some common sense.and where did u noticed that my english is very weak.yeah imusing short words is it wrong?for sure gt typo error as im normal user.hope u understand. ya i have contacted the person who hv deleted my article. but thats ok.can i get back my article in HTML form.plz so that i can edit and correct my mistakes.tq Dhayalan94 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

anyway tq so much for ur kind suggestion...tq very much againDhayalan94 (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dhayalan94! I am sure John from Idegon did not mean to insult you about your language. It is just that since this is an encyclopedia, people here prefer that ordinary English written text is used even when posting here at the Teahouse. This is so that there will not be any misunderstanding. I understand exactly what you have written, but many others here are not used to the short "text talk" you are using and may think that you have a problem with English. If you don't use "text talk", "LOL", "l33t" or any other form of online lingo you will be taken more seriously. Best of luck to you, - W.carter (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok now i understand...im really sorry

ok i really need help now...plz help me... my page entitled ISKCON Ipoh have been deleted, so can i get back the article that i wrote in HTML format.It took me hours to write the article as im inexperienced and im very new to this.i would be glad if anyone could get me back the article so that i could edit. you can e-mail me the article. Tq so much Dhayalan94 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Skamecrazy123 and John from Idegon have both advised you to ask the editor who deleted the article DGG for that. --ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(actually I only nominated for deletion; Malik Shabazz deleted it. But here's the problem: the article consisted almost entirely of the sort of information that would go on a web site, and be of interest only to members of the congregation: a list of the order of service weekly assemblies, a list of the annual festivals, information, information about its catering service, its address, blog, Facebook , and email.(there was a paragraph explaining what sect it belonged to, and when it was founded--that part would be proper content, but almost all of it is about ISKON in general, not this particular branch. But none of it showed notability: the references consisted of listings in directories and its own website. We normally do not make articles on local congregations of any religion, because there is very little in the way of source that would concern the readers of an encyclopedia, and the articles necessarily consist only of the directory information that is not suitable.)only thing (the main exception is when its building is of major historical or architectural interest.) Unless you can find references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but press releases, or material derived from press releases, I don't really see much chance of making an article. In this context, "independent" usually means not published by ISKON. I'm sorry to disappoint you; possibly I could make an argument that we should include such content, but the very firm agreement here is that we will not, and I don't see it changing. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review Timelines

I submitted an article for consideration. My name is garryanas and the article is Ashley Little (author). I'm new to this, but I think I posted the article over a month ago, and I have not heard back yet. Did I submit the article properly? Or is there simply a backlog in getting responses. Thanks!Garryanas (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Garryanas and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you accidentally removed your article from the review queue on 11 May after it was rejected for notability issues. If you intend to resubmit the article for review I would suggest that you clean up and improve the references to avoid the article being rejected again. Philg88 ^♦talk

Thanks PhilG88. When I go to my 'contributions' link, the May 11 entry says 'currant' in bold next to it. On May 11 I cleaned up the article and added some recent information and then clicked the submit button at the bottom of the page. Are you sure that I removed it?? I must be confused about how to submit. If you can, please clarify. Thanks!Garryanas (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Garryanas. I don't know what happened previously but Darylgolden has now kindly replaced the header and resubmitted the article for review. I would still advise you to improve the referencing. As for your original question, reviews sometimes take up to a month depending on backlog. Now that your article has been mentioned here at the Teahouse it may well get done sooner. Good luck! Philg88 ^♦talk 05:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garryanas (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Garryanas. I took a look at your draft and made some minor changes. A big problem is the messy way your references are formatted. Please read Referencing for beginners, and be sure that all of your references are formatted properly. This makes it much easier to evaluate the notability of the topic. Good luck to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my article: John L. Benjamin II, keeps getting rejected?

Hi, I want to know why does my article: John L. Benjamin II keeps getting rejected? I'm not really understanding when I get a response. My article are based on true events and people.

Thanks, John Benjamin IIJohn L. Benjamin II 23:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John L. Benjamin II (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the TeaHouse. The decline reason provided by User:Hewhoamareismyself was not very helpful. The biggest problem here is that it seems likely that John L. Benjamin II, whose biggest claim to fame appears to be having been CEO of a record label that at one point produced a recording that had 4000 downloads in only a few weeks, is simply not notable enough for Wikipedia to need to have an article about him. The notability guidelines for music can be found at WP:NMUSIC. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John L. Benjamin II. Your draft article has many problems. Foremost is that you have provided no evidence that the person is notable by Wikipedia's standards. All biographies of living people must have inline references according to policy, and your article lacks them. Verifiability is an essential part of an acceptable Wikipedia article, and a reader has no way (other than your personal assurances) to verify that the content is accurate. Your article apprears to be an autobiography. Such articles are highly discouraged as it is very difficult for a person to write a neutral biography of themself. Your article has lesser problems having to do with formatting and wikilinking, but I have tried to focus on the major problems that are difficult or impossible to overcome. I suggest that you write an article on another notable topic, or improve an existing article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. Best, Old Beeg _··warble·· 02:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I put the infobox in?

I can't put the infobox in. Can you help me? Naomitwin (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Naomitwin. I have inserted a song infobox into the page for Neko Miko Reimu. Best, Old Beeg _··warble·· 00:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found at Template:Infobox song along with instructions for filling in the fields. Best, Old Beeg _··warble·· 05:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit?

I have my article ready in my sandbox.How can i submit it for review?I mean afterclicking the review button in green,i am directed to another sanbox kind of place and my article is missing? Do i have to copy paste it?Shubham.opensource (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shubham.opensource. Just follow what the instructions say. Just click "Save Page" and let our system do the rest! Your article will be added automatically. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

uppercase and lower case searches

I'm currently working on some spelling errors. The latest one concerns the use of aquarius instead of Aquarius. Is there a way to force a search to discriminate between upper and lower case. Jodosma (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jodosma and welcome back to the Teahouse! There is no way to do a case sensitive search that I can find anywhere I'm afraid. The only way you are going to get that information is to request a database dump scan. I'm currently in the process of downloading and processing the approximately 50GB expanded file for this. As soon as that is complete, I'll see what I can find for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update I'm about 3 hours into a 5 hour database scan, I'll have the rest of your results in about 2 hours I expect. For now, if you would like, there are a few instances of "cancer" that you can find in Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jodosma/zodiac/cancer/. Not sure how many are related to the zodiac sign which should be "Cancer" and how many are related to the disease, but I'm sure you can sort it out. I hadn't even thought about the disease until just now, but I'm sure I could refine that search quite a bit to try and cut many of the medical ones down. Once I complete the last 4 signs, I'll post the entire results to User:Jodosma/zodiac. Didn't want you to think I forgot about you, database scans can be slow is all. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a bit of work you've done for someone who was rude to you a while ago. Thank you for taking the time and trouble, although I don't know yet how I'm going to use the info as I don't have any interest in the zodiac and I fear that having all these subpages may lead some people to think I'm some kind of astrological nutcase. I would have come across the zodiac signs in WP:Lists of common misspellings anyway eventually, if I don't get tired of it. I'm simply interested in misspellings at the moment, not the subject matter. I hope you won't mind if I get those extra pages deleted if and when I decide I don't need them. ciao. Jodosma (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

do different types of links make a difference to the editors?

I noticed that some of my links get an automatic footnote number and some don't. I am citing court cases and Congressional testimony links mostly. Is one type more important or useful then another?Seattle2311 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Seattle2311, welcome to the TeaHouse. After looking briefly at your talk page and one of your article drafts, I think the numbers you are seeing may not be what we refer to as "footnotes" at all. So for example Brandt v. United States commentary is an external link with a limited text explaining what it is, and thus the text appears as the link here. By contrast, [1] is what we call a "bare URL" with no text explaining what it is, and thus is represented by a number here as you can see. But neither of them is an inline citation (also known as "footnote").

For how to add inline citations aka footnotes, see WP:REFB. This is preferable to including external links in the body of your text or at the end of your draft.

I'm not sure how well an apparent opinion piece in the Washington Examiner qualifies as a reliable source, if at all, but it is more useful when citing it as a source to mention the name of the publication, the title of the piece, the name of the author, the date published, and a date you accessed it.

Also be careful using Google search links as references because sometimes what they lead to might be different depending on who is clicking the link and when. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I submit an article about myself?

Can I submit an article about myself? 66.91.199.148 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 66.91.199.148, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, creating autobiographies on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as the writer may have a strong conflict of interest with the subject. However, if you are notable enough to deserve your own article, you can request that the article be written for you here. Cheers! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually requested articles are at WP:RA. AFC is Articles for Creation, where the OP will (mostly) be required to write the article themselves.

It would be best first to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing carefully. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the content to other language ?

Currently i am doing my project on Biography and autobiography in literature ...94.59.126.83 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)so i need to translate the whole content to another language...94.59.126.83 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)how can i do that.................hope will help me translate the content94.59.126.83 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, person with an Ip starting with 94, and welcome to The Teahouse. For Wikipedia articles that need to be tranlsated, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Translation. But it looks like you may be talking about something else, so if that's the case, The Language Reference Desk is where you want to go.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 94.59.126.83 and thanks for the question. If the translation you need is not listed in the language list to the left of the article, there are a number of alternative options that might help you. If you tell me which article you are talking about and what the target language is, I will try to help you. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 16:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Native knows better

Hello,

I wonder why contributors edits massively on an Wiki page of any topic or person of which the contributor is not native!

I have witnessed native users creates a Wiki page about a topic or person and non-native person uses his/her Senior level with manipulating edits.

For example I know my neighbour better than a person who lives in thousand miles away and tries to edit Wiki pages on the basis of some reference which the person believes or may be stack with. :)

Correct me if I am wrong.

Regards.

Dhruba Deka

DhrubaDeka (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DhrubaDeka, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedians can edit any article they want to, whether they're familiar with the topic or not. They may be editing to copy edit the article, fix syntax or typos, or revert vandalism. However, as long as they cite their sources and write in a neutral point of view, there's nothing wrong with them being there. While a native might know about a subject more than others, sometimes other editors need to get involved to ensure the article meets encyclopedic standards and avoids any conflicts of interest. Cheers! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DhrubaDeka. It might be true that a native knows better; but the overriding criterion for Wikipedia is verifiability. The problem is that if the material is not referenced to a reliable published source, a reader tomorrow or next week or next year has no way of checking that it is correct: the person who posted the information might be mistaken, or lying, or pretending to be somebody close to the subject; or the person might have posted correct information and somebody else come along afterwards and vandalised it. Only if the information is referenced to a reliable published source has the reader got a way of checking it. (It does very rarely happen that an apparently reliable published source is itself wrong; but Wikipedia cannot do anything about that case, and still follows the source). --ColinFine (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:K6ka & User:ColinFine,

I agree with your point. And thanks for your response.

I am aware about the citation and reference.

Even so, I have little confusion. Mostly the references are either News portal links or Official sites. And in India, media/newspapers itself under controversy of vandalism and bias reporting.Most of the well known and reputed Indian media are known for bias reporting now a days. While some small circulated media has the coverage of TRUTH but bigger media dominates the TRUTH by its circulation and read counts.

In such case, whom should we cite? The low circulated local media(which try to give a fight against bias and vandalism of reporting) for the local incident/topic/people or largest circulated bias media?

Your response will help me to come out of this confusion.

Thanks-

DhrubaDeka (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check review status

Hi, I have written an article on Swarachakra.I wanted to know what is its status?Is it reviewed or still in process?Also if i make some changes in the document (in sandbox),will it be reflected in main document?Shubham.opensource (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shubham.opensource! Your article was actually deleted, because it didn't say why it was notable. I see you already have it saved in your sandbox. Just keep adding more references to it and when you feel it's good enough to have an article click the "Submit your draft for review!" button highlighted in green at the top of the page. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Point (lookout)

Echo Point (lookout) I've made a few links [2] to this entry as the shorter form name is showing details of a tv show.
Is this an acceptable name-ing usage ?
Should Echo Point the tv be changed to include something else ?
Can I make a disam page for three items as opposed to the disam page for just Echo ?
Compared to Ruined Castle how short is too short ? Dave Rave (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dave Rave. We have no article by that name. Please provide a link to the exact name of the article, so that we can comment appropriately. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate elaborating when the details are already in the question. --Dave Rave (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Dave Rave doesn't seem inclined to provide the clarification that Cullen328 requested, I think the point is that existing links to Echo Point should not be pointing to and article about a television programme, so Dave has changed them to redlinks, and is asking about the name he has chosen for the non-yet-existent article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do i contest deletion?

The article 2006 ICC Awards is contested for deletion. The nominator pooints out the notability of the article. I find no reason for this to be non notable and we have a lot of articles in wikipedia regarding each annual awards. So, how come this be "for sake of creation". I don't think this should be deleted.Abhinav0908 (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhinav0908. I see you have removed the proposed deletion tag from the page, which means the article will not be deleted at this point. Should the editor who placed that tag wish to nominate the article for deletion then you will be able to voice your opinion as to why it should be kept. I recommend that if you haven't done so already, add the article to your watchlist so you can see if that happens. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Philg88, I read in the policy that the nominator can remove the tag with an explanation and i have added it to my watchlist now.Abhinav0908 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhinav0908: Just for reference, a subject is not usually considered notable because other stuff exists. It must be notable on its own merits per Wikipedia:Notability and more specifically in this case per WP:Notability (sports). Trying to argue that an article should be created or should not be deleted because there are many others like it on Wikipedia is usually not going be well received by other editors. It's better to try and argue why the article is notable in and of itself than by comparing it (either positively or negatively) to other articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I do not know anything about cricket so I cannot say either way. I suggest you bring this up at WT:CRIC. If the article does indeed have notability problems or other issues, then the members of WP:CRIC would probably know the best way to fix it. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add Liks

Resolved

Helo Sir/Mam Can u will helo me please in my article it show it is an orpahn there is no links in this article ad links how to add links thanks.RockySharma1328 (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add the link to your article here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question seems to be Md asif. Am I correct, RockySharma1328? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your page got a link from List of Indian film actors now.[3] This is how you solve the "orphan" tag issue. Tag removed, happy editing.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I change the image in an image file?

Can I change the actual image in an image file (say, to a sharper or better-sized version of the same thing) without having to re-do upload process, re-submit fair use rationale, and leave an orphan behind? If so, how? Specific problem (currently) is with " File: Wood Pile, 1949, b&w print by artist Fay Chong.jpeg " in article Fay Chong. Right-hand border of image keeps getting cut off, just want to tweak it a bit w/o having to create entire new file each time. Thanx, Tomseattle (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tomseattle. The answer to your question is "yes". If you click on the image, you will get basic information including that you uploaded it. Then click on the license information, and the full details will appear. You will see a choice "Upload a new version of this file", so that's what you should click, with a simple explanation of why the new version is better than the old one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks. I'll look for it.Tomseattle (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cullen328:. So is it really possible to tweak the above mentioned picture even though the file is tagged with: "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed..."? This is the case with the pictures at Fay Chong. (I am curious about this for pictures I might want to use in other articles, and this seemed just as good place as any to ask.) Best, - W.carter (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've sorted out the licensing templates with the image but I see no reason to crop it. Maybe it is a problem with your browser/settings, Tomseattle? Philg88 ^♦talk 16:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the file I saw yesterday had less than the original image. The right hand edge of the image was missing. So uploading a low resolution version of the full image is acceptable. The image is being used as a representative example of the artist's work. That is an acceptable use of a non-free image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was using "crop" here in the photographic sense i.e. to remove the border, I didn't mean that the upload/use was unacceptable. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Fay Chong in detail, another issue concerns me, Tomseattle. Here's my concern: We should use non-free images only in cases where no free image is available. It seems that, during the Great Depression, Chong worked for the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration, where he created art works on the Federal payroll. All works of employees of the U.S. Federal government are in the public domain, and therefore free. As Wikimedia projects prefer free works except in the limited cases when no free works are possible, I recommend that you find one or more of his WPA works which can be freely uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used by anyone without restrictions. Then, add those to the article and delete this non-free work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biography for Marcel Paula Carmen Houston

I wrote a biography for Marcela Paula Carmen Houston and it was rejected twice, I think because I did not have any references that could be used to verify the contents. I obtained the information to create the article by conducting detailed interviews with Marcela over many days. I got the information directly from her. There is nothing to actually reference since nothing else is published about her that I know of. The link to the draft that has been rejected is Marcela Paula Carmen Houston.

What can I do to get this article published? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. CMW4903 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CMW4903:, the reason your article is declined is indeed because it has no published sources. We require reliable sources to prove that information about this person is true. Moreover, since you stated that this person has nothing published about her, she is likely not notable enough for Wikipedia. See our notability criteria for artists. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) 02:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CMW4903. By interviewing the artist, you have engaged in original research, which we don't publish on Wikipedia, but which is perfectly fine elsewhere. I suggest you submit your article to a reputable art journal instead. If published, that article could become a reference in a future Wikipedia a article about the artist, if she becomes notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know which sourcing method to use?

I heard someone say that we shouldn't change the citation format. Do I need t learn several types? Harmelodix (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harmelodix! You should learn a little about the various types of citation formats, so that you can decide which one you'd like to use when you create your own articles. If you are adding a source to an article that you happen to be reading, you can usually just look at the code and copy the format that the previous editors have used. Sometimes you come to one that already has more than one type, or some that are well formatted and others that have missing information; then you have to use your judgement and copy whichever seems to be mostly used. The main thing is not to go into a article that has many complete citations neatly organized in one format, and decide that you like another one better and change them all. Not only is this a waste of time, but it's disrespectful to the editor who did the previous work. Also, for scientific and scholarly articles, there are sometimes types of referencing that are specifically preferred for those subjects, and another editor may revert your changes. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Harmelodix. If you write a new article, you can choose the referencing style you prefer. If you are editing an existing article with an established referencing style, do your best to stick with that style. You can copy the Wikicode for an existing reference from the article into one of your sandbox pages, and then change all the fields to the material for your new reference. Once you have it right, copy and paste the new reference into the actual article. So you don't really have to "learn" it. You just need to copy its format accurately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help Updating Page

I'm brand new to making changes on Wikipedia pages. I edited the page for Pagliacci Pizza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagliacci_Pizza), addressing the issues with it being "written like an advertisement" and "not citing any references or sources" but I forgot to add my edit summary. Is there a way to go back and add the edit summary without making more revisions to the page? Also, can anyone tell me how else the page can be improved upon so that the "multiple issues" box goes away? Thanks in advance!

RebekahW (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, RebekahW. You can make a dummy edit, leaving an edit summary for your previous edits. See H:DUMMY for details. I will check out the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted an unreferenced claim about support for charities. I removed the tags you mentioned since those issues have been resolved. In other words, the way that the "multiple issues" box goes away is that any editor removes it. You could have removed it yourself, RebekahW, but I am happy to do it for you, since you are new to this kind of thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback requests - where?

Where can an IP editor request rollback? If here - User:Carllica4. Thanks. 82.132.224.220 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only registered editors can be granted rollback. If you are Carllica4, you are indefinitely blocked and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all, except to post an unblock request on your user talk page. Requests for rollback are handled at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, but no one's likely to grant you the tool unless you show a lengthy pattern of productive editing. Deor (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Where can an IP editor request a rollback - ie of all User:Carllica4's edits. 82.132.213.68 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I know I have seen references to vandals having all their edits reverted, but I can't remember where.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an entry for a history professor.

Hello,

I want to create an article about one of my former university professors. I no longer attend that particular university but I want to write that entry as her work is very relevant to her field. I want to make sure my entry is not seen as promotion.

Thanks!twitterstorian87 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twitterstorian14 and welcome to the Teahouse. While we would welcome an article on your former history professor, it will need to satisfy some Wikipedia guidelines with regard to notability and it needs to be written in a non-promotional tone. You might like to read this guide for some pointers on what that means. You can also use the Article wizard to help you. Good luck! Philg88 ^♦talk 15:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't too sure if your former professor qualifies, you can ask a Wikipedian (one of us, perhaps?) and we can give our opinions. A good rule of thumb for professors is to check if either a) they have been the subject of one or more biographical articles, either in the popular media or academic press, or b) they have an h-index which is fairly high for the field (showing impact). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing to create a wikipedia page every time, can anyone help me to create one?

Since yesterday I have been trying to create a page but I am failing every time. The reviewers are deleting it saying it as "unambiguous". I really need to create one. So any one out here who can help me create one.

The email I received is below:

The Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Phoenix Of My Heart has been deleted on 13 June 2014 by RHaworth, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Phoenix_Of_My_Heart.

Editor's summary: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion

Mosiur Rehman 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosiur Rehman (talk • contribs)

Hi Mosiur Rehman and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, your article has been deleted for being unambiguous advertising so I can't give you any specific pointers on what's wrong with it. Please read this guide to assist you in creating future articles. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create one for me?

Mosiur Rehman 16:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosiur Rehman (talk • contribs)

@Mosiur Rehman: What is the page about? We can give you tips on writing articles. For example, try to write in a neutral tone. Try not to promote ideas or viewpoints - just state the facts directly. Think about wearing a jabbawockeez mask - the mask isn't happy, sad, funny, or serious. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosiur Rehman: My apologies, I missed your earlier reply. I'm afraid I can't create an article for you but you could read this guide to give you an idea of what is required for an acceptable Wikipedia article. Good luck! Philg88 ^♦talk 06:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposed Article - Looking for Feedback

I have repurposed my article a bit and am looking for feedback before I submit. What do you recommend I change to encourage acceptance of my article? Does it look ready to submit?

Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox

I just want to make sure it is as perfect as possible. I appreciate your time and thoughts.

JohnKnox77 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John and welcome back to the Teahouse. It's certainly an improvement, but I would remove the "Company culture" section as it and its reference read like a recruitment advert. Good luck with your resubmission. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adopt a user

How does someone adopt me as a user. Is there any one opened. Cincao03 13:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cincao03! A user that I'm sure would be willing to adopt you is, Matty.007. Just ask him on his talk page.Schoolskater (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After edditing my sandboxed ext. links and references are gone

Dear Wikipedians I was just reveiwing a project I am responsible for in my Sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Magnus_Mansouri/sandbox) when I confirmed the changes the last bit of my document isn't appearing in the read mode any more. As we'd like to send this article soon to review to Wikipedia I wanted to set up everything and now an important part is missing. How can I get the external links and the references back to appear again? In the edditing window they still show up.Magnus Mansouri (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the teahouse. Looks like you had a reference formatting issue in the final section. I think I've now fixed it.

Incidentally, Wikipedia accounts are intended to be used by one person each, so "we" is an alarming pronoun to use. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Demiurge1000 I think Magnus Mansouri is referring to the two users working in tandem on the article. (This is evident from the history log of the sandbox.) Not so uncommon and within the lines of the Wikipedia.

I would also say "we" if some user was helping me getting "my" article in shape. Best, - W.carter (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watch & AWOL Template

2 questions: 1 - how does one *unwatch* a page? 2 - came across an article with a *sweep* template & decided to tidy it, but when I opened the edit box for the section, there was no template code in it so I can remove it when I'm finished - so does anyone have an idea where the template's code might be lurking? TYVM. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS - OK, just the 1 ques. The template was under a different header than the sub-section I'm tidying. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one's easy too - go to the page in question, click the little blue star at the top, watch it spin and turn white and bingo! page unwatched.

(You can also do this by messing around with the source code of your watchlist, but for a single page, the star is much easier). Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TYVM! :-D ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help in making this article without issues.

Please can somebody help me in correcting the mistakes/issues that are mentioned below. The link of the article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sooraj_Santhosh

Please note this is not a autobiography. All the details given have been collected from the internet by me and I am not the person about whom this article says.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article may be an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject. (December 2013) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (December 2013) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (December 2013)

Thanks in advance,

Uma Forthesakeofmusic 07:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthesakeofmusic (talk • contribs)

Hello, Forthesakeofmusic. One thing that I noticed right away is that the article has a lot of citations, but many of them are to web sites such as YouTube or JukeBox which are not considered independent and reliable because anyone can post to them. Sources for a singer should not be to recordings of the songs themselves, but to published news reports, music reviews, magazine articles, etc., written by journalists and music critics. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anne. I have added all the articles and newspaper clippings available. Most of the Youtube videos provided are by the music companies.

Anyways thanks for the help. I will try to collect more reviews and use it for the citation.

Forthesakeofmusic 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthesakeofmusic (talk • contribs)

Categories and orphans

The page that I created says it is an orphan. I have quite a few links in the page from other wikipedia pages. I looked at the help to see if I made a mistake linking and I can't find what I did wrong. I used [[ ]] to indicate a link.

Also, I am having a little difficulty with the categorization. I am not quite sure what categories I should use other than what I have. I think I am misunderstanding a few things.

One more question. I have a sandbox 2 that I would like to delete. Let me know the best way to do that.

Any suggestions?PerformerResearch (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PerformerResearch. Is the article you're referring to is Marc Douglas Berardo? If it is, then the problem seems to be that there are no other articles in the main article space linking to it. In other words, the article has plenty of outgoing links, but no incoming links. I think that one possible way you can create an incoming link is to add Bernardo's name to Rye (city), New York#Notable people. You can create another (if you want) by adding information regarding the 2014 Wildflower! Arts and Music Festival to Wildflower! Arts and Music Festival or 2014 Kerrville Folk Festival to Kerrville Folk Festival, etc. You might find the information on What links here? to be helpful. Regarding your sandbox, you can blank it if you want to keep it and just change the name to something else by renaming the page, or you can ask that it be deleted for good by adding {{Db-userreq}} to it (See WP:U1). - Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

block

I am trying to block someone for horrible editing. I went to the block log and did the tag filter and the early year and date and it dosent work. I have done everything to try to do something on the logs but failed. Cincao03 23:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cincao03: Hi Cincao03. Only administrators can block people. The logs show past actions only. I can give more targeted advice about requesting a block if you advise what this is about but see Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cincao03. Sorry to hear that you're having problems with another editor. Have you tried discussing things with the other person either on their talk page or on the article in question's talk page? Perhaps it's just a simple misunderstanding that can be resolved through discussion. Requesting that another editor be blocked seems like a serious step to take, and one that should only be taken after you have tried everything else. Also, you might want to read "Dont' shoot yourself in the foot" before you pursuing further action. Reporting another editor means that your actions may also be scrutinized. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit (talk) how don i become an administrator. Cincao03 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<Noticed but not answered as account is no longer able to edit--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)>[reply]

Adding names to a list

How does one add names to a list of names? for example, if I want to add recipients for certain military awards, how is it done? I'm sure it's quite simple, but I don't want to do something improper. Thanks!

William von ZehleWilliam von Zehle (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@William von Zehle: Hi William. If you are talking about an article that is a list, say List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients, you would click edit this page at the top, and then add your entry into the table, studying the code to see how it's done. Such an addition can be for a person who does not yet have an autonomous article on them, but only for a person who is notable in their own right (this is a disputed subject). Note that many list articles have explicit list selection criteria defined in their text which any addition should meet.

If you mean listing someone in a category, then they must already have an independent article. If they do, find an appropriate category (I find it easiest to go to a few articles on similar subjects and see what categories they are in) and then add at the bottom of the page the code [[Category:Name of Category]]. For some subjects, often for people, you need the name to sort by something other than the article title. If the article has more than one category, you can sort by placing above the categories {{DEFAULTSORT:Last name, first name}} If only one category you can use that anyway, but you can alternatively just pipe the sort: [[Category:Name Of Category|Last name, first name]] Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to make sure everything is in order for newly submitted photo.

Hello,

I have been working on getting this photo up for quite some time now and wanted to make sure that it is fully usable before I add it to the article page. It was released under a cc by-sa 4.0.

The link to the newly submitted photo is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sally_Steele_at_the_Vegas_Rocks_Magazine_Music_Awards_2012.jpeg

The link to the webpage with the cc by-sa 4.0 disclaimer is located here:

http://vegasrocks.com/?p=1757

TIA for your help!

Rocksinnerqueen 21:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

OK, I added the 4.0 html tags to the photo. Is it useable now?

Thanks!

Rocksinnerqueen 21:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

So is it good to go now?

Thanks!

Rocksinnerqueen 22:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rocksinnerqueen. According to the website, the photo has been released under a CC BY-SA license (which is great), but it has been uploaded to Wikipedia rather than our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. My suggestion is to upload it to Commons, filling in all fields carefully and properly, since that is the project that hosts freely licensed content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocksinnerqueen. I've fixed up the licensing template and moved the file to Wikipedia Commons for you. There is nothing else you need to do but if you have any further questions please feel free to ask. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! Your time is greatly appreciated!

Rocksinnerqueen 19:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

Warnings using Twinkle

Hey Teahouse. I was wanting to know the qualifications for the different tyopes of warnings when using the software, Twinkle. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Schoolskater. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "the qualifications" - do you mean in what circumstances they are appropriate? You may find what you need at WP:Twinkle/doc. --ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse, Schoolskater! Some helpful links that may answer your question are: WP:AGF, WP:Vandalism, WP:UWUL, and WP:WARN. If you are interested in anti-vandal type stuff, you may be interested in signing up for the WP:CVU and going through the WP:CVUA. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signing with my name

Somebody has placed a comment on my talk page and signed it with my own signature. Can anyone tell me how this can happen? I know this is a simple thing to do but how can I find out who did this. Jodosma (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jodosma. It appears possible that your account has been compromised. I recommend changing your password immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my account has been compromised. I don't need a new password, as you can see now. My name is Jodosma but I'm signing off as Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it you.

@Jodosma: It only seems like you signed off as Cullen328. However, anyone who checks the diff will know the truth because diffs never lie.

- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Hello Jodosma, Have you looked at the history of your talk page? While it may be possible to fake a signature, I doubt the user can change "alias" in the history. - W.carter (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all that I hear to the contrary, I believe that you can change your body language if you really want to. Jodosma (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of cause anything is possible with computers. Unfortunately. Maybe you should ask at the Village Pump where all the tech sages hang out instead. - W.carter (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jodosmad. Not meaning to upset you but I saw the problem that you were wanting to address. And while I was looking at it, I also saw that you reacted kind-of rash toward the other editor. I know it can be upsetting to see other users signing off with your signature, But please don't react in the manner you did. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mad; if I was I wouldn't have starred out the letters. It was a useful comment, so why didn't they sign off properly. I may have wanted to send a thankyou but I can't because they didn't tell me who they were. Jodosma (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jodosma: Hey Jodosma. Here's what happened. When you list a discussion at RfD using Twinkle it gives you an option to "Notify page creator if possible?"; if you don't take the checkmark out of the box Twinkle then provides a warning for editors of the category through your account automatically when you save. Here, since you are the only editor of Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines, when you listed it for discussion in this edit using Twinkle, you automatically warned yourself the same second (and then yelled at yourself for doing so:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for solving the mystery, Fuhghettaboutit. You are a 21st century Hercule Poirot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments; I'm a lot calmer now it's been explained. I'll take a little longer to think about such things in future before I jump in the deep end. Sorry if I upset anyone. Jodosma (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so all of this proves that anything really can happen with computers.

I rest my case. - W.carter (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I prefer to be called by my first name, Frank – Frank Columbo. Poirot can never match my lazy-eyed, pretend-befuddled stare;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure you have solved the mystery. When I decided to see if they could find a solution for this, I got this response.

Twinkle isn't automatic. It is your responsibility to read the user manual. Legoktm (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jodosma and welcome to the Teahouse! Let me see if I can explain the chain of events that led up to what is a misunderstanding by you...
1. 08:17:30, June 12, 2014, you, Jodosma moved page Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines to Category:Mountain passes of the Apennines: To correct spelling of "Apennines in the title
  - See the N? That means that you created a new page.
2. 08:29:27, June 12, 2014, on Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines you, Listed for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 12#Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. (TW)
  - You see the (TW) part on the end there? Remember that. See the time stamp, compare it to the next.
3. 08:29:28, Jun 12, 2014, on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 12 you, Adding Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. (TW)
  - That also has that odd (TW) part on the end, and see the timestamp is only a second apart?.
4. 08:29:29, Jun 12, 2014, on User talk:Jodosma you, Notification: listing at redirects for discussion of Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. (TW)
  - That also has that odd (TW) part on the end, that means that you made that change using Twinkle which is a tool that allows you to make edits without the normal edit box through the api. See the timestamps are only a couple seconds difference?. Using this tool, you left a message on your own talk page for yourself informing you that this page you created (via move) was list at WP:RfD.
This means that you actually made all three edits at the same time including that edit on your talk page and no-one else is SIGFORGE pretending to be you. I hope that helps you understand how you technically made that edit and sets your mind at easy that no-one is pretending to be you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes yes, I understand. I now realise what went on and don't need to be talked down to by arrogant people like you. A smiley face in a post like your last to me is hypocritical; I can even see your smirk. If you don't think you're being arrogant why don't you take some time out and read what you wrote. Get.off.my.back. You seem proud that your home page has only been vandalised 3 times. I'm surprised it's not a lot more. ciao. Please don't reply to this because I really don't want to know you. Jodosma (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it seemed like I was talking down to you. That was not my intent, and the Teahouse is suppose to be a calm and civil place. I was unsure that this was clear and resolved to everyone that has commented here based on Vchimpanzee's comment directly above mine that reads I'm not so sure you have solved the mystery. which implied to me that not everyone understood the chain of events. Again, I apologize if I seemed to have come off harsh to you and I hope that any future interactions we may have will be much more pleasant for both of us. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links in references?

I am sometimes working on Gotland and today another user was kind enough to contribute with some information to the section about "Sports organizations". I am just curious about the way the user referenced the info, i.e. the fact that there were links in the references (number 56 & 57). This is an experienced editor and I know that this is common practice at the Swedish Wikipedia where every possible linkable word is linked, but I have not seen it here. (Well, yes I have seen it in Help:Referencing for beginners, but not at the articles). Have I missed something? - W.carter (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Template:W.carter. I usually wikilink names of publishers, publications, notable authors and so on, within references I add. This makes it easier for the reader to learn more about the source. I would consider it a "best practice". But wikilinking common words is not a good idea on English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen328, in this case it was sports organizations, so maybe the links are valid. Best, - W.carter (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted an article to review and I can't find it again, what do I have to do?

I submitted an article to review and I can't find it again or see which is its status, what do I have to do? Arturo Barajas Saavedra (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arturo Barajas Saavedra. Your submission is right here. A notification was also sent to your talk page. It appears that your submission was declined. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arturo Barajas Saavedra. It seems that the reviewer concluded that your draft article is original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. In other words, reliable, independent sources do not seem to devote significant coverage to the topic of "short serious games". They discuss broader topics which you seem to have synthesized into this draft article. I am sure that this is disappointing, but perhaps some of the content you've developed could be incorporated into one or more existing articles on broader topics? Or, perhaps your material could be submitted to a journal of pedagogy, and once published there, could be cited here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Want to Improve Wikipedia

I am free from studies and currently waiting for result. Now, I want to improve wikipedia because that it contains some incorrect information. But I do not know, what's the method? Kindly guide me Or give me training.39.42.126.119 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create an account and try out The Wikipedia Adventure? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you see an issue with a page, you can go in an fix it yourself by clicking the "Edit" tab at the top of the page. Check out our introduction to editing, and as Fauzan recommends, I would create an account and try out the Wikipedia Adventure. If you need more help, feel free to come back to this Teahouse and we would be happy to answer any questions. Mz7 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! I support the suggestions above: create a user account, try out The Wikipedia Adventure, and ask for help here when you need it (they have always been very helpful to me). In addition, for more detail you might want to look at the Wikipedia Tutorial. Then start with some simple edits, and remember to use the "Show preview" button before you save, just to make sure it all worked the way you intended. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Singh

If you go to this article then click to go to the talk page, you are lead to a redirect which goes to the talk page of Prakash Singh Chib. It's as if a move was performed sometime ago but the talk pages got mixed up. These two articles are about two different people so it looks like the move was a wrong one. Incidentally the Prakash Singh article looks like a CV and seems very personal, perhaps it was written by the man himself. Probably needs an admin to sort it out. Jodosma (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jodosma and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for highlighting the issues with these two articles. I will sort it out and let you know. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 09:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already done

. It was actually a very easy fix, and didn't need an admin - all that had to be done was the removal of the redirect code at Talk:Prakash Singh. I've also reverted the article to a pre-spamgasm state, and added some project templates to the talkpage. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; everything looks better now, and less confusing! Jodosma (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Yunshui, that was lighting fast. Thanks! Philg88 ^♦talk 10:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to address a spam link...

I'm noticing a spam link on the wiki article "Professional Employer Organization". The spam link is from Staffmarket.com, this company sells PEO services. How do I address this spam link properly? Mikesmith5656 (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confident that it's spam, remove it. Tutelary (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was spam or not, but it was a dead link so I've replaced it with another. Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks - to include underscores, or convert to spaces?

I am trying to become a better editor, so I hope it's okay if I ask another dumb question here. It concerns wikilinks to other articles. The background is that when the target article's title has more than one word, I have been looking in the browser address bar to ensure I get it exactly right, such as "Tennis_Australia". Then in the wikilink I pipe it to the more readable [[Tennis_Australia|Tennis Australia]]. But now other editors have been systematically reversing all those to [[Tennis Australia]] with the (non-)explanation "clean up using AWB (10241)". So my question is: is there a guideline about what is the preferred approach? Gronk Oz (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: Hey Gronk. The underscores are a function of URL address – URLs never have blank spaces so underscores are substituted for them. You never need include an underscore in a wikilink and you should not pipe links unnecessarily. In this case it would be truly redundant; [[Tennis_Australia]] functions as a link the same as [[Tennis Australia]], except that the former does not read properly, so always leave out the underscore(s) and link directly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help, Fuhghettaboutit. I will do that now; all those redirections were a pain in the neck anyhow!--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article rejected, review advised looking for advice here

Hello, My first article was rejected for the second time based upon issues of notability and lack of references. I've referenced virtually every statement from published articles, and added more information to increase the ability of readers to see what is notable about the subject matter. One of the reviewers recommended stopping in here. I'd really appreciate any advice from experienced Wikipedia contributors and editors.

My article is here: User:Janisadore/sandbox

Thanks in advance for any help.

Janisadore (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Janisadore. The only reliable sources I saw on your article were Huffington Post (which was only a passing mention and not the discussion in detail which is required to show notability) and WSJ. The WSJ article was a reprint from Business Wire, which is a website that reprints press releases, making it not independent. Independence is required for references to vet notability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I appreciate your clarification.

Janet Janisadore (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Hi, in the 1997–98 season at User:Matty.007/sandbox/List of Kingstonian F.C. seasons, I can't get Leworthy's goals to format such as at my guide, List of Margate F.C. seasons. Please can someone fix this? Thanks, Mat ty.007 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matty, and welcome back (I think you're a veteran around here, correct?) to The Teahouse. The only problem I see is that Leworthy appears to be the only one whose goal total is even in the table. Maybe I'm seeing something different from what you see.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee: yes. Leworthy was a test, but in Firefox I saw his number of goals (30) in the references column, but I have been told that it is viewed fine in IE and Chrome. Thanks again, Mat ty.007 10:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request on my article

Hello, could you please give me some feedbacks regarding my article Draft:Force-A before I re-submit it review? I am aware of the remarks and comments for the last decline, and I'm looking forward to hear from you whether I should include or change anything else. Thanks! Andrchan (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrchan. I think the most important thing for you to focus on is better high quality secondary sourcing for expanded content (if you take out the lists of products and awards there really isn't all that much content) and making the article read from a more neutral point of view. In that regard, some of the language reads as rather promotional. Encyclopedia articles report on a company; they don't exclaim the virtues of a company. Examples: "thanks to its capabilities..." and "innovative solutions for a sustainable European agriculture" read as market speak from a promotional brochure. Some other notes:

• Citations go outside of punctuation. Thus, it's never: Text^[1], or Text^[2]. and always Text,^[1] and Text.^[2]

• Article subjects should not be written in all uppercase unless they are distinct acronyms ("NASA"). Thus: downcase all uses of the title in the draft to Force-A. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Downcase all other products listed as well.

• Never use registered, trademark, service mark, etc., symbols in an article (except for rare exceptions, such as in an article about trademarks). Remove every one.

• External links do not belong in the text of the article. You might use them as citations, between <ref>...</ref> tags but you should not have links in the body like "SITEVI Innovation Awards 2013", and in fact you're already using the same external links as references. Remove all of them.

• Speaking of external links, they should not display in citations as URLs but as links to the title of the source. So, for example, instead of

<ref>http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/publications/CerovicZG2012PhysPlant.pdf Cerovic Z.G., Masdoumierd G., Ben Ghozlena N. and Latouche G.. (2012). A new optical leaf-clip meter for simultaneous non-destructive assessment of leaf chlorophyll and epidermal ﬂavonoids. Physiologia Plantarum 146; 251–260.</ref>

use

<ref>Cerovic Z.G., Masdoumierd G., Ben Ghozlena N. and Latouche G.. (2012). [http://max2.ese.u-psud.fr/publications/CerovicZG2012PhysPlant.pdf A new optical leaf-clip meter for simultaneous non-destructive assessment of leaf chlorophyll and epidermal ﬂavonoids]. Physiologia Plantarum 146; 251–260.</ref>, which will format as

Cerovic Z.G., Masdoumierd G., Ben Ghozlena N. and Latouche G.. (2012). A new optical leaf-clip meter for simultaneous non-destructive assessment of leaf chlorophyll and epidermal ﬂavonoids. Physiologia Plantarum 146; 251–260.

• A very minor issue: remove the {{DEFAULTSORT}}. It is superfluous as the title does not need to be sorted by something other than its proposed name.

• I have removed the logo from the draft. Fair use images may not be used outside of the article mainspace.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks very much for your feedback. I have just made the modifications you suggested. Could you please check my article Draft:Force-A again to see if I can resubmit? Andrchan (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrchan: Anytime. The article is much cleaner now, but the most fundamental issue remains unaddressed. In effect, you've cleared out the messy shrubbery which would have been a problem also, but you have not planted the trees – which are the main exhibit. You need reliable, secondary sources addressing the subject in detail. I'm sure you're aware of the rejection basis stated by the reviewer for you, that most of the sources are mere mentions of Force-A, in connection with its products. Find reliable sources that discuss the company and which are unconnected to it and use them to flesh out the entry. Please understand that No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. So, I suggest you attempt to address these issues before you resubmit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Marsh, Martyr update source

I would like to add some updated information on the George Marsh, Martyr page, in the legacy section, that, 'on 10th June 2014 a documentary was broadcast on Revelation TV' http://www.revelationtv.com/webdev/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_TV

My source for this is http://www.revelationtv.com/bin/sc-jun-2014.pdf

Is this source sufficient for this update? I'm trying to avoid an "edit war" SPSutherland (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, SPSutherland. I am unsure that this TV show broadcast by a controversial network is important enough to include as part of the "legacy" of a person who died 4-1/2 centuries ago. I suggest discussing the matter first on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. However, this advice does not seem quite right to me since you refer to Revelation TV as; "a controversial network".? How is controversy related to this film? George Marsh was controversial, plenty of media stations, BBC, CNN, newspapers, countless TV shows, radio shows are controversial. So what? I do not see that controversy is the issue, if it is then should not large amounts of information on here (Wiki) be removed. Or is there something else? SPSutherland (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to avoid an edit war.

Another wikipedian has removed my edits to an article three times already. I have tried to work on this in a way that is constructive, but he just removes all the text from the lead, including the citations, all of which have been in the article for a long while. Where should I go to get input from a senior editor. Ebonyskye (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably you added redundant information. What the you said on the first part of the article, is what you should put under a new section called "Concept". I don't know about the others, actually. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of editing warring, as this is mostly a content problem. Why not just start a new topic on the talk page, and send niemti a message. I am sure he will respond NathanWubs (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well prior to Niemti's edits the info was not redundant. It was summarized in the lead then given more detail in the body. The points were referenced with several sources. When the entire lead except one sentence was removed by Niemti I thought that was too drastic, especially since the banner states the lead was too short. Well, yeah, after you remove everything it tends to shorten the text. Plus he removed several of the supporting citations. He really offered nothing constructive and was pretty rude. So, who do I contact for another opinion to get the banner removed once I feel its ready? Ebonyskye (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen once kindly informed me that you can remove the template code on any article once the issue it's drawing attn to has been corrected. You don't need permission to take it down. ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Reference Editing

Please can any help me remove all the unnecessary referencing that you that was raised in the rejection of my article. And, can only one referencing 'Poker Knave' which seems to be a secondary source be accepted as a single referencing? The link to Newpaper publication 'The Sun Newspaper UK' is a secondary source, but only allows those with paid subscription to have full detailed access to it's publications. Your further verification is needed on this.If you need a screenshoots of the publications, I can make them available to anyone on request. Microbilo (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Microbilo and welcome to The Teahouse. It is not a requirement that people be able to access sources online, and I'm not sure whether you can provide screenshots to anyone. If they have the option of email, that would get around the idea of not posting copyrighted material here. One possibility is the resource exchange and I think I may have access to The Sun.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I see your talk page, it appears that with the sources you have, you're not going to be able to do much with the article. If I can see The Sun tomorrow at the library, I can look at what you have, but I'm not optimistic.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This library does not have access to The Sun. In the London area it has Ealing Times, Enfield Independent, The Evening Standard, Fulham and Hammersmith Chronicle, Haringey Independent, Harrow Times, i: The Paper For Today, The Independent, New Addington Advertiser, News Shopper, This Is Local London, Times Series, and Your Local Guardian.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And none of these have any search results for "Michael Lord Smith" or "Microbilo".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦-->
+==approved article not coming up in google search==
+So my article got approved recently, but it isn't coming up on google when I search for it. Is it because there are not enough references or maybe the article is too new? Thanks in advance! The article --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qianhai [[User:Qianhaisghzq|Qianhaisghzq]] ([[User talk:Qianhaisghzq|talk]]) 04:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 ==Uploading Image==
 How could I upload images on my article? It seems i can not upload images because of permission issues.[[User:Cybals|Cybals]] ([[User talk:Cybals|talk]]) 02:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)