Wikipedia:Teahouse

Hoary, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

A page has been flagged, how do I fix it?

A page has been flagged with these notes, how do I correct the page for the flags to be removed:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Christopher H. Martin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images (July 2014)

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (July 2014)

2602:306:32AD:F280:3404:6E7F:2FA9:7CE5 (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The article you're referring to is Christopher H. Martin. Notability needs to be established by finding sources, and the banner provides helpful links to search for them. What you need are reliable, independent sources sources that discuss Martin in detail; so far, there is just an article on one of his commissions. You could also try searching for sources on Kidz Creations and Hearts for Hounds. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. So I need to find articles that discuss him, then post a link to the article or the article itself?

2602:306:32AD:F280:3404:6E7F:2FA9:7CE5 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For example, on the commissions and exhibitions section, do I add text there then embed the links to the sources? Like done for the Formula One Track?

Also, what banner are you referring to that provides helpful links to search?

16:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.223.40 (talk)

The banner I'm referring to is the one you quoted above: Find sources: "Christopher H. Martin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Try clicking on the links and you'll get some search results. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by Formula One Track; there is no Wikipedia article on that. You embed citations, not links: see Citing sources for how to do that. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have another question. In regards to Kidz Creations, if there are articles written to support the text, how should those articles be referenced in the section? Should a link be placed in the Kidz Creations section or just in the References section? Thank you.

2602:306:32AD:F280:3404:6E7F:2FA9:7CE5 (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Am I allowed to create the Wikipedia article for the company I work for?

Hi, all.

I work for a high tech company in the finance industry. While researching the market I noticed one of our competitors has an Article in Wikipedia, and it lists their competitors. The company I work for is not mentioned there, despite it actually being a legitimate competitor. It may be due to the fact that the company I work for doesn't have a Wikipedia article.

I want to create an article for the company, and it won't be marketing, just the facts. Am I allowed to do that? Omriyuval (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Omriyuval, welcome to the Teahouse. I recommend you begin by reading Conflict of interest and Best practices for editors with close associations. The section Don't create new articles says it pretty clearly, but also suggests an alternative approach. You could also try requesting an article at WikiProject Finance. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove box demanding more links

Hi. Two days ago I added content to the article on the Irish composer John F. Larchet, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Francis_Larchet. There is a box at the top of the article demanding (quote) "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text. (May 2014)" (end of quote). I think I did what you asked for. Now, who will remove the box (I don't see how I can do it)? Thanks, Aklein62 (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aklein62. I reckon there's enough wikilinks in there now. All you need to do is edit the page and remove the {{Underlinked|date=May 2014}} code at the top of the edit window. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Name Change

I also want to change the name of a qikipedia article "Ek Din Geo k Sath " .Correct name is "Aik Din Geo Kay Sath". How can it be done ?

Zohaib Ashraf (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The links in the article refer to it as "Aik Din Geo Ke Saath", with a double-a, so I'll move it to that for you. Rojomoke (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How can I change the name of a wikipedia article?

If a wikipedia article's title is grammatically incorrect, for instance uncapitalised like 'james bond' instead of 'James Bond' is there any way to change this? Alexandertagg (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a user can move the article to the correct title. If you tell me which one, I can move that for you. Valenciano (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that it is Dangerous demos. It has more serious problems than the name -- it has been nominated for deletion and the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerous demos.--ukexpat (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Little objection on Adam and Eve page

Adam- The First Man page, the pictures of Adam and Eve are nude hiding themselves with leaves of a tree. This is correct they had to do so because they disobeyed the only order given by God. But pics only glamorizing that aspect while before attempting the sin they were fully covered with something(clothes or something else)but why no picture showed that?119.158.4.147 (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I'd recommend you bring this idea to the article talk page that has the image issues to get views from editors who are more knowledgeable about the specific article. I'm guessing you mean Adam or Adam and Eve, and if that's the case, feel free to bring this to their attention at Talk:Adam or Talk:Adam and Eve. (As a side note, I always thought they were both nude the entire time before original sin, and only after did they realize it and became ashamed and hid.) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(another) article ready, waiting for a title

Hi again. Here User:Basicdesign/sandbox is an article more or less near-ready, but can't find appropriate title for it: the word doesn't exist in English. Any help? Mind: this article is not about "ironworks" but the resulting state after ironworks has been done and the prod ended. It is therefore not a smithy either, nor a bloomery or bloomsmithy. So what can it be called? Basicdesign (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Slag heap the phrase you want? - Arjayay (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

And the Wikipedia article at Slag. So better to improve that article with the material in your sandbox.--ukexpat (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Title for new article

Hi. Got a translation in progress of the spanish article on Marismas de Isla Cristina (to be mentionned in the article Mummichog which is also found there, not just in US). Should that new article be titled "Marismas de Isla Cristina" or "Isla Cristina marshes"? Basicdesign (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Isla Cristina marshes" as per WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." "Marismas" is not even a commonly used/understood foreign word - Arjayay (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Basicdesign, thanks for your question. Let me add in my own two cents to what Arjayay has said above. Article titles for non-English topics are not always straightforward for naming. The basic idea is that you should use whatever term is most used in English-language sources that provide coverage of this particular place. So, check out the sources you've found for the article and use your best judgment, and perhaps do a little more research if you're not sure. Translating a foreign name into English is possible, but I personally wouldn't recommend it if it's not described that way in sources. If you need a second opinion, feel free to ask me or another host here if you'd like. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How to fix a typo in the title of an article?

Hi - Can someone please give me instructions for how to fix a typo in the title of an article? Changrutheliza (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Changrutheliza. We deal with errors in article titles by moving the article from its current title to the correct title. Please see WP:MOVE for an explanation of how to do this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to take off the 'multiple issues 'message ?

Now that I updated the article ( in fact I've merged my draft and the article) and that I have added references is it possible to take off the 'multiple issues 'message ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattha_Kaksekar_Limited

Lucie-boyer (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary did it already.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already taken off the template thanks to your work on that article. For future reference, though, it's perfectly fine to remove such messages if you feel they are no longer applicable or the issues have been addressed. Keihatsu ^talk 01:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeppers, and yes I did find the page by this, I tend to lurk and patrol and maybe help out (like in this one) though I'm sure other people could've handled it. Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Note, that I have moved the article to Hattha Kaksekar in accordance with our naming conventions for companies.--ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is tv tropes not considered a reliable source?

Why is TVTropes not considered to be a reliable source?

2602:306:C541:CC60:54AD:AAFB:88D3:24D (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can edit TV Tropes, if they get an account. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Here is an article that gives a nice overview of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Sites that don't have some process to review the quality and authenticity of the information usually aren't considered reliable. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

How to create flags for clubs

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia and my objective is to improve articles based on cricket, especially Indian Cricket.

I was wondering how to create visual flags for cricket clubs to be used in articles? Looking into the flag templates for countries and country data templates, is not giving me (or may be I am unable to interpret them) to create flags suited for this improvement.

Any help would be appreciated.

Dheeerajdrjagarwal (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Before you embark upon that task, please read the guidance on the appropriate use of flags at Wikipedia:MOSFLAG.--ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Help starting band description page?

Hi! Can someone help us get started on describing a band on a new band page?LibraryOfSandsBandFan (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings LibraryOfSandsBandFan, welcome to the teahouse! The first thing you should look at are the Wikipedia guidelines for wp:notability Notability for Wikipedia means that there is significant coverage of the topic for an article before the article is created. Things like blog sites, fan pages, iTunes listings, are not considered enough. I.e., not all bands are notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia page. Essentially if there aren't several references to them in magazines, newspapers, major online news sites (e.g. Slate, Huffington Post), then the band (or any other topic) is not yet notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. From your name I'm assuming the band in question is Library of Sands. I googled them and the first two pages of hits were all the kinds of references (blogs, iTunes, etc.) that are not considered enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Of course that was just a quick look on my part. If you decide you want to try creating an article for Library of Sands a good place to start is here: Wikipedia:Starting_an_article also this page: wp:42 provides a nice overview of life the universe and everything from the standpoint of what makes a good wikipedia article. My advice would be that before you try creating a new article on any topic you get some experience editing existing articles first. There are many articles that need editing from simple cleanup to better refs, etc. If you look here: Wikipedia:Community_portal and scroll down a bit to where it says "Help Out" there are many links to get you started editing. Hope that was helpful. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is one reliable source from Uncut magazine: My Bloody Valentine, "m b v": second thoughts. Also, the article mentions that the band leader used to front Brightblack Morning Light, so you can check out that Wikipedia article both for an example of how an article on a band might look and also for more sources. And finally, you might find help at WikiProject Alternative Music. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How can I get an email to StarryGrandma?

As our dialogue proceeded on the StarryGrandma talk page, she suggested we use email and said she just sent me one.(several days ago.) I responded on the talk page but there was no pickup. She is probably expecting an email response from me.Thank you.You are welcome to review our dialogue on her talk page dates July 16-28.Janvermont (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Janvermont: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can email this user by going to this link. You will have to go to Special:Preferences to set an email address for yourself before you can do this. --Jakob (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to transfer copyrights or add a co-author to an article?

Hello again,

Sorry to "pollute" this forum but I was wondering if it was possible to add an author to one of our article ? Thanks.

Lucie-boyer (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please would you expand your question? I have no clear understanding of what you mean. Fiddle Faddle 08:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lucie-boyer: I think I know what you're asking. You don't add "co-authors" to articles. Whenever anyone edits a page, their username is automatically recorded in the page history. Here is an example of a page history. --Jakob (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

How to merge two articles ?

Dear friends,

My article was rejected because there is already an article on my topic. In fact, it is not very complete. I've let a message on the article's talk page but no news. Besides, I've asked for the help of an administrator on my talk page and I am still waiting for a reply. What do you think about it ? Do you have any advice ? Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattha_Kaksekar_Limited my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lucie-boyer/sandbox

Lucie-boyer (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If you feel enough time has elapsed between your placing the article talk page notice and today, simply go ahead and migrate the content of your sandbox to the extant article and retain as much as is appropriate of the extant article. Note on the article's talk page that you are starting and that you have finished. Then follow the instructions I left in your sandbox to consider if a history merge is required. This is a time simply to go ahead and do it. Obviously you do it by copying and pasting your content into the extant article, and you do need to put an edit summary saying that you are merging (in the edit summary box above the SAVE PAGE button). Fiddle Faddle 08:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you have had a reply from an admin precisely where you placed the request for help. These requests should be on your own talk page normally. Fiddle Faddle 08:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much ! I will come back to you if I have any problem. I've seen the message of the administrator. Thank you Timtrent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucie-boyer (talk • contribs) 08:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

editing and creating pharma/medic related pages

Hi, ive just created a page of a popular vaccine used across the world. I'm trying to understand that during creation and editing pages of similar nature, how do i create the top RHS "drugbox" to specify illustrate extensive chemical composition data Nnayak83 (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nnayak83. When you see an infobox or any other feature in a Wikipedia article that you want to emulate in another article, then examine the underlying wikicode using the "edit" option. Copy and paste the underlying code into your sandbox and experiment with it, customizing it to your needs, until you understand it thoroughly. Then, you will ready to copy and paste it into another article. As far as reliable sourcing for a medical article, please read WP:MEDRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

thanks Cullen, will give it a whirl during my next edit. will get back if anything else Nnayak83 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to use the {{Third party}} cleanup tag?

Hello! I have conveniently placed the cleanup tag below for your reference:
{{Third party}}

I have recently added a cleanup tag to an article, but the user who created it seems to be very defensive and said that if no one gave a valid explanation, then they would remove the tag. The sources in the article Frankie Grande are too closely related to the subject and it should have more third-party references to be verifiable. I have nominated the article for deletion here because a person does not inherit (Frankie's sister is pop star Ariana Grande) any notability on Wikipedia. I am trying to discuss their question on the talk page of the article, but I do not have a convincing answer. Can someone please help me to explain it to them in the most painstakingly accurate way possible? ~~JHUbal27 06:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the answer has to be "When you consider that the article warrants this banner, please use it."

I have made a tiny edit to your question so that this page does not show the banner itself, but links to the template.

Questions such as this are worthwhile. They create thoughts. Even had it remained unanswered, the asking of it was important. Fiddle Faddle 20:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi JHUbal27, welcome to the teahouse. I took a quick look at the article. On the talk page here: Talk:Frankie_Grande#Third_party_tag Ssilvers has made what seems to me to be a good argument why the tag isn't appropriate. I'm not saying I agree with the argument, I haven't looked at all the refs in enough detail to have an opinion either way, but as an argument it seems appropriate to me. I may be missing something but I didn't see that you had responded to their points. I think that would be the place to start. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with Conflict of Interest editing

I have a situation where another editor is the "Manager - Media & Communications" for and organization, and he is reverting my edits to that organization's article because they don't show it in the light he wants. I know there is a process of escalating warnings to deal with situations like this, but I can't find it: would somebody be so kind as to point me to it? Gronk Oz (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz. I think you might be looking for WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest as well as possibly {{COI}} and {{uw-coi}}. Have you already tried discussing your concerns with this other editor? Sometimes people who do this type of thing are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's position on COI, and a friendly "heads up" usually clears things up no problem. If you've haven't tried to discuss this with them already, then maybe it would be a good idea to do so before slapping them with a warning. You know just to assume good faith and not bite a newcomer, etc. My understanding is that although COI editing is for the most part highly undesirable, there are certain cases where it is allowed. Maybe informing this other person about WP:PSCOI will help them understand what they can and cannot do on Wikipedia. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Gronk OZ. I see that you have tried to make your concerns known to this other person on both the article's talk page and their user talk page. The other editor has offered to discuss things with you or anyone who may have concerns on the article's talk page and I see that you have been trying to do so to no avail. I would suggest that you not make anymore edits to the article just for the time being in order to avoid any possible accusations of edit warring, etc. and because there is really no need to add any more fuel to this fire. I also suggest that you take a look at WP:COIN. There are editors there who are well versed in this kind of thing, and will probably know the best course of action to take. You might also want to look at WP:SPA since that seems to apply in this case too. Sorry, I couldn't be of more help, perhaps some admin will be more willing to take direct action. -Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the advice, Marchjuly - I think it is just the perspective I needed. The other editor is discussing some of the issues now, so it looks promising that we might be able to reach a consensus and build a better article as a result. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please advise!! Christopher H. Martin PAGE

To whom it may concern,

Our page, Christopher H. Martin has been flagged “this article appears to be written like an advertisement”. We have removed all product photos (paintings) and links to our website/addresses. Please advise, thank you!

2602:306:32AD:F280:1DEA:5322:1AF6:FDC2 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for your contributions, though note that the article is still written in a promotional tone. The images and external links aren't the only thing that cause the article to be promotional - a lot of the article will need to be re-written. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done some basic cleaning up (enough to warrant removing the advert and external links tags, I think). The article still could use a bit of work in other areas, such as referencing. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You say we. Each person who edits has to have his or her own account. And when you say "our" page, this may be a sign that you have a conflict of interest.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Competitor has made malicious edits to company page

I looked at my companies Wikipedia page today and saw a few new negative edits have been made last week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xero_(software)

I image these edits were made by a competing company. The accounts (two separate ones) were created the same day and have edited no other pages. It appears to be a coordinated effort.

These edits are malicious. One of the edits go as far as to say we are "faltering" in the U.S. and uses an op-ed article as the source.

I would like to revert these edits myself but understand it's a conflict of interest. I am curious what else can be done?Searchtem (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed two of the claims referencing unreliable sources, such as forums. The other two seem OK. Who adds the information is irrelevant, the important thing is whether or not it is neutral and verifiable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Businessday article seems very fair, though I think its analysis was misrepresented by the new editors. I've reworded it in a less 'tabloid' fashion. Sionk (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like you're putting a lot of stock in this one article, which contradicts the other news that came out of the annual meeting last week. Here are some more authoritative sources.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11298085

http://www.zdnet.com/us-listing-on-the-cards-at-xero-agm-7000031899/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/us-xero-results-idUSKBN0FS08A20140723

FreeRangeFrog - if it's irrelevant who edits an page, can I make edits my company's page? It's my understanding I cannot? Also, the edits made were not neutral and - as you noted - not verifiable. --Searchtem (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Searchtem, welcome the Teahouse. I think the statement by FreeRangeFrog needs amending. In general, it doesn't matter who edits it, as long as they have no conflict of interest.. I'm a little concerned that there seem to a lot of contributors to Xero (software) who have not contributed to any other articles - often a sign that there is a conflict of interest. However, not all the edits have an obvious bias. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but realistically we cannot prove a COI exists without disclosure (in most cases) and so when we see edits like these by SPAs, we have to fall back to WP:AGF and determine the validity of the edits based solely on the wording and the quality of the sources used. @Searchtem: You've already declared your COI (and you get all kinds of kudos for that from all of us) so no, we'd rather you not edit the article yourself. But this is the right way to do things. We want to fix whatever problems there are, and we're sensitive to your concerns, but at the same time we cannot keep negative information off your company's article solely because a couple of new editors added it. Now, those additional sources are good, let's find a way to balance things out and make the article as neutral as possible. That's how things should be. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly journal authors

Hi, How do you handle a citation for a scholarly journal article when there are dozens of contributors? Listing them all seems a bit unwieldy. Thanks Savannah38 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would guess it's OK to list just the first two or three.--ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

One option might be to list the first 2-3 and then ad an author as "et al." --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MadScientistX11. That's a good idea Savannah38 (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

2 questions

1. I was just wondering how I would crop a image as seen in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jacob_Zuma_2010_(cropped).jpg? 2. Regarding permissions for images, does money need permission, if it's only the money in the image, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SA_Bank_Note_2012_Specimen_image.png or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5-za-rand.JPG? Dovikap : Talk 17:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Download the image and use the crop tool in an image editing program, like GIMP or Microsoft Paint. 2. Yes. Both of those images copyrighted. So when you upload your cropped image, you would need to provide a rationale explaining why this image is needed in the specific article where you plan to use it. Simply that the page would look better with an image isn't good enough. Normally you would have to explain why using this image advances the readers' understanding of the topic, for example if you were discussing the design of the money itself or someone shown on the money. -- Margin1522 (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

New subject, no real source

Having just submitted a new Page, I cannot give any found source. My problem being I am the subjects official biographer, not working from research within newspapers but direct from the subject himself and his personal records.Therefore how am I able to get around this problem.Huey Luke (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The short answer is that it is probably an insurmountable problem at the moment. Wikipedia requires reliable, published, third party sources so without those, there is no way to verify the subject's notability. If in the future, you, or someone else, write a biography of the subject that is published by a mainstream publisher, that could be used a reference for an article.--ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Huey Luke and welcome to the teahouse. To expand a bit on what ukexpat said, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia requirements for wp:notability Not every topic is appropriate for a Wikipedia article and by your description unfortunately you've pretty much said that the subject you are writing about is not yet notable and hence not currently appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Also, you should probably review the guidelines on wp:conflict of interest I'm not sure what the policy is on official biographers but if you are being paid by the subject to write the biography then I think you probably have a conflict of interest anyway, even if the subject was notable. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you do have a conflict of interest in the article, it's best to simply propose changes on the talk page of the article, instead of actually editing it (you can made typo fixes or revert vandalism, but otherwise it's best to ask for assistance and advice first). --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary newspaper reports are good sources for sporting events. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Image Copyright Issue!

I would like to upload and use one of two images, but am unsure whether I am allowed to or not, and which tag I would use for copyright information.

One image is considered public domain, and so I believe it is allowed, but I'm not sure how to tag it.

The other image is the product of an institute, and the institute said I was welcome to use it on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if this is sufficient allowance for Wikipedia to accept though, and I don't know what tag I would use for that one either. I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify this for me! Washoe42 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If an image is clearly public domain (and note that doesn't mean that it's freely available on the internet; public domain has a specific meaning), it can be uploaded to Commons where there are a number of PD templates that can be added to it. For the other image, permission to "use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Any copyright release must be for all purposes, including commercial reuse, see Commons Licensing. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I have attention?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReWalk

This has issues: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (April 2014) This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (April 2014) This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (April 2014) This article is outdated. (April 2014)

I edited it. Now I think at least two concerns, the ad one and close connection one, can be removed. But I'm new, so yeah I'm quite nervous of removing them myself... Maybe a senior editor or moderator can look at it? Also, is there a way to like "flag" some article for senior editor attention?

Princeeternity (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Good morning! Note that the tags reference discussion on the talk page. A quick visit to the talk page shows no current discussion. Therefore, I'd say it's okay to be WP:BOLD and remove the tags. If you want, you can even leave a note on the talkpage yourself noting why you removed these tags (it's in good faith, as you believe the problem(s) are resolved). If another editor disagrees, don't worry, they'll let you know! Roberticus talk 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Princeeternity ! I find you did a good job. the article is sourced and does not look like a advertisement anymore. I would just talk a bit about the limitations of the product to definitely wipe out assumptions of promotional goals: This article gives some information on the battery, size/weight limitations and highlight the fact that the product is expensive and, for the time being, not covered by health insurance. This article quote the creator of the device, saying it is still "bulky" and not as fast as it could be.

That should make the article balanced. Then, I would delete those banners without hesitation. ;) RegardsKaptainIgloo (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay! I did that. Now please check again and tell me what else needs to be changed. Princeeternity (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Princeeternity. In my humble opinion, you can remove the banners ! Well done ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Whew! *feels like a Wikipedia editor* Princeeternity (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My article wasn't approved and I don't know the reason!

I created an article but it was not approved and I wasn't told why. Could anyone help me by any chance, i'm very confused! This is a link to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alicecoy&action=edit. Thanks a lot! 81.132.1.22 (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alicecoy and welcome. Please log in before editing. The reason is given as lack of inline citations on the draft article. You will find links there on how to correct this.Charles (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Alicecoy. I took a quick look at your draft article. Before you invest more time in it I suggest you look at the Wikipedia definition for wp:notability Not every person is notable enough in the Wikipedia sense to merit an article and from what you have in the draft about your subject I think there is a serious question whether that person is notable in the Wikipedia sense. The article I linked to will give you more details but essentially there needs to be significant coverage about the person (or topic) in newspapers, magazines, books, etc. Also, I suggest you review the Wikipedia guidelines on wp:encyclopedic style The draft article seemed to be fairly wp:promotional in that it was written the way someone's personal blog or a testimonial would be written rather than an objective encyclopedia article. Just to be clear, these comments don't contradict the other advise people have given you. Without inline citations pretty much nothing else matters, all Wikipedia articles are supposed to have those but I just wanted to give you a heads up that IMO there are other issues with your draft as well. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alicecoy, the article drafted seems to be a blogpost told more like a story rather than an encyclopedic article. Next time around, you may want to cite references in-line with the text rather than group them all together at the end. Always remember, whenever stating a "fact" or a perceived fact, (stay away from opinions and hear-say) you should reference all facts to an external news page, journal or web page, etc. Note, the credibility of the site referenced also matters. Look at referencing all disputable statements made in an article and use as many references as possible. The content of the article should be unquestionable because it has been proven so. Nnayak83 (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Line numbers for editing

Greetings again, Teahousers. When using the "Compare Revisions" tool (from the "View history" tab), it displays the line number of the change. This is helpful for identifying changes which are not especially distinctive in themselves. However, when I go to the Edit tab, there don't appear to be line numbers anywhere, so I cannot match up what I saw in the Compare tool to what I see in the Edit page. Is there some way to do this? Gronk Oz (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Hey Gronk. When looking at the diff, copy a few words that are not going to format differently in edit mode (e.g., nothing with a wikilink) To do so: highlight then ctrl+c) (copy), then when in edit mode, find that text: ctrl+f then ctrl+v) (find then paste). It becomes so fast and automatic it's like breathing after a short time. Oh, if you're on a mac, use ⌘ instead of ctrl. You can do this through menu screen options and usually access these commands with right clicks and dropdown menus and so on but using commands is vastly faster. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Fuhghettaboutit. That approach works fine when there is some distinctive wording in or near the change, but that isn't always the case. The situation which prompted me to ask this question was in the middle of a large table, which contained lots of numbers which were not distinctive at all. But from the Compare, I knew it was on line 263. I could always count the lines I suppose, but in this modern era of new-fangled computers I hoped there might be a better way... --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Ah. With that clarification, sorry, I have no idea of any way to find the line number. I can't imagine it would come up often though that the above method would not work – even in a vast table I would there to usually be some unique nearby listing to search for that would make it effective, but it just happens not to be the case here. Oh well. Maybe someone else knows of a way.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is really necessary, I would just copy the entire code into a text editor on my computer that shows line numbers. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Line numbering a page from en:Wp

It is possible to edit automatically using an external editor, but I don't know how.

Gronk Oz A quick and dirty fix is to install the gadget that allows regex editing, replace /(\n)/g with "</nowiki>$1#<nowiki>" (no quotes), put a "#<nowiki>" at the very beginning of the page then preview.. This will give you line numbers (except in some cases). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the help, everybody. I used the external editor successfully, but it did help me psychologically to know I wasn't missing a more obvious solution. I just assumed that the reason Compare tells me the line number is so I can use that information somehow... --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Should I delete heartedly-written content?

As I'm new and unfamiliar, I have another problem. I was editing the Austrian Women Artists Organisation's page. The issue was that it was written in a fan point-of-view (This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (July 2014)) . A lot of literary phrases and influential phrases were used, like this part:

This is where the emancipatory history of an artistic women’s movement, dating back to the days of imperialism and which still has yet be inscribed into official art history, meets the history of the collaboration with the Nazi regime. Through knowledge gaps – resulting from historical and internal fractures in the association’s own history – history-writing and research, in regard to National Socialism and the association’s class-specific and colonial entanglements, are more easily forgotten.

I put that in comments, as I didn't feel like outright deleting it. Should I delete whatever conflicts with Wikipedia's standards for an article?

Princeeternity (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC

Hello Princeeternity and welcome to the teahouse. First of all, Wikipedia should be written from the Neutral point of view, also called NPOV for short, is the idea that Wikipedia does not have its own opinions or rely on the opinions of its editors. Instead, we summarize what good sources have already written about a subject and do that in a balanced way.Therefore, you should delete whatever conflicts with Wikipedia's standards for an article. Thank you. SparrowHK (talk)12:39 July 2014 (UTC

Greetings Princeeternity and welcome to the teahouse. I agree with what SparrowHK said but I would also add that IMO editing is usually better than deleting. From my quick read of the text you posted it seemed at least possible that there was actually some substantive content in that excerpt and the issue was more the way it was written. If that is the case I think a better approach than just deleting the content would be to rewrite it to be less promotional and more encyclopedic. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How do I add a description in the ""?

When someone hovers over, or clicks on, the "citation needed" mark, there has to be a description too, right? How do I input one?

Princeeternity (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Princeeternity and welcome to the Teahouse. One of Wikipedia's core policies is called Verifiability. In a nutshell, it states that readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. If a piece of information is challenged, but not so blatantly wrong to warrant its removal, then a {{citation needed}} template may be tacked on to the end of the statement. The presence of the citation needed template is enough to signify that this information's factual accuracy is challenged and a citation is needed to verify it. No further description is necessary. However, it is possible to add a description for the tag when you hover over it. To add one, use the following code: {{citation needed|reason= <reason goes here>}} replacing "<reason goes here>" with your description. I hope this helps. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Princeeternity: (e/c) Hey Princeeternity. If you navigate to a template page, here Template:Citation needed (templates are placed by being surrounded in curly braces but the actual template's page will be at Template:SameName), it will usually have instructions there on usage and other information. Here, the template page explains that the full code is {{Citation needed|reason=Your explanation here|date=July 2014}}. If you use the |reason= parameter that will display as the hover over text. Or course, the template also provides a direct link to Wikipedia:Citation needed which may be all that is needed sometimes and as you might have noticed, the template provides a default hover over text message that states: "This claim needs references to reliable sources", which is suitable for many uses without further elaboration. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I use "citation needed" a lot but that's when I am adding information and I want to establish that the source I used does not include information that was already there. I usually don't have the time or knowledge to check out what appears unsourced, or perhaps I'm at home and I want to limit what sites I go to.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Change Username

How do you change a username? I attempted to just create a new account but the username was too similar to the existing username I created previously. Boulevard Recording 02:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boulevardrecording (talk • contribs)

Boulevardrecording, welcome to the Teahouse. Head over to Wikipedia:Changing username, read the guidelines, and follow the process. If you find you need help, feel free to ask a question at this Teahouse again. Good luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

With only one edit there is no point doing that. The user should just abandon the existing account and create a new account that complies with policy. Much easier all round.--ukexpat (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot this is helpful! 75.85.18.95 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

i want to add a image to the world kabaddi league page and don't know how to? (Kinggakhal831 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC))

this is the link to the image. http://www.internationalnewsandviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/World-Kabaddi-League-Logo.jpg (Kinggakhal831 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kinggakhal831, welcome to the Teahouse. One of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles is that Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. To sustain this principle, we have a strict image use policy that generally prefers images made available under an acceptable free license. However, it appears you want to add a logo to an article. Wikipedia allows logos to be uploaded to provide illustration in the article about the subject which the logo represents.

To upload the image to Wikipedia, you must first download the image to your computer. You can do this by right-clicking the image you want to upload and clicking "Save Image As..." or something similar. Next, head over to the File Upload Wizard, which will guide you through the rest of the uploading process. In step 3, make sure you choose the "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." option. You must choose the image in the location where you saved it on your computer, describe the image, then provide important information about it (i.e. the source of the image, how you will use the file, etc.). Once you have provided this information, you can then upload the image to Wikipedia and add it to the article.

I know the process sounds arduous, but it is necessary to ensure that we don't infringe on copyrights and we are able to provide the best free-content encyclopedia there is. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask at this Teahouse again. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Did I do it right?

Hi, I'm new here and I just made my first edit. I wanted to see if I did it right, including adding the citation. Can you help? Prevalence of tobacco consumption Savannah38 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Savannah38 to Teahouse! Looking at your edit to the page, you did a good job adding the citation. You added a JAMA (journal) link which is alright, however you could add an additional source for another reliable source to back it up. ///EuroCarGT 01:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, EuroCarGT! Savannah38 (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

How much should I provide in the history section of a Company's article?

Hi there.

I am working to update the article on EZCORP, which has only had minor edits since 2009. The current history section includes the number of stores the company operated by state in 1996, and goes on to describe details that are largely irrelevant now, such as the number of items offered online in 1998. It seems to me that as I update the article, I should delete this data and replace it with more material information.

However, I am employed by EZCORP in the Communications Department. Part of my job is to keep outward facing information about the company accurate and current but I don't want to overstep my boundaries. Would deleting that information be considered "spin" or "marketing" on my part?

Thanks for your help!

Regards, AGeasy (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi AGeasy and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, if you are connected to the company that is the subject of the article, your conflict of interest would likely make any edits you make, no matter how innocent or neutral they are in reality, appear suspect. I would encourage you to read the section I linked above on conflicts of interest and see if what you have in mind would fit within those parameters. --McDoobAU93 20:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys and gals! That is not what a conflict of interest is. Just being connected to the company is not a COI. Just being employed by a company is not a COI. What we currently have as a guideline is simply:"Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest."

Basically, if you are going to receive any sort of monetary compensation as an employee for your edits here, you are discouraged from direct editing. But just being an employee is not that. Sometimes an employee has a better understanding of a companies history and so it is not, in any way against policy or guidelines for you to edit your companies page. Just a quick and friendly note here!--Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It also may be possible to request help from editors in WikiProject:Companies--see WP:RACO. Although the page is for requests for new articles, your information on updates to an existing article might interest an editor there. You can also make a list of suggestions for improving the article on its talk page, and include a link to that talk page in your request. ----Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick responses! AGeasy (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure outdated information should necessarily be deleted. After all, if it was done right, such as when the company reached a particular milestone for each detail, we could see the progress the company has made in its history. I keep running into the problem of people deleting outdated radio station formats, when in fact people would want to know the old formats and when the station had each format. That's what a history section is for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Warning regarding external links

Hello, Wikipedia! I've been visiting pages for a few different companies and adding links to virtual tours of their stores and offices. I received a warning that my external links may be blacklisted if I add too many, so I'm seeking further guidance on what I can do to stay within editing guidelines.

As I'm only adding links to pre-existing articles, the topics at hand are more or less already accepted by Wikipedia as suitable information to publish. As a virtual tour is highly descriptive and by its nature, accurate and truthful, I think they are of benefit to Wikipedia's reputation for accurate information.

Please let me know what I can do! Chriswhotakesphotos (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris and welcome to Wikipedia. So far your entire contribution history consists of repeatedly adding external links to a single for-profit website. This is the profile of a link spammer and is prohibited on Wikipedia. I would suggest you stop adding external links, especially to that virtual tour website and begin to make other kinds of contributions to the project. WP:EL says: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." You may not be trying to promote that website but by repeatedly linking their site throughout WP, that is in effect what you are doing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How to upgrade article on Alan E. Freedman from C- grade

At its last ceremony, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences presented a science and technology award of merit (Oscar statuette) ...

To all those who built and operated film laboratories, for over a century of service to the motion picture industry. Lab employees have contributed extraordinary efforts to achieve filmmakers’ artistic expectations for special film processing and the production of billions of feet of release prints per year. This work has allowed an expanded motion picture audience and unequaled worldwide cinema experience.

Having found a paucity of information on the individual who created and oversaw the world's largest motion picture film processing plant, and whose tenure I speculate was exceeded by few if any, the above event motivated me to research and create the referenced article on Alan E. Freedman.

If it can be done in a reasonable amount of time, I would like to improve the quality rating of the article, "Alan E. Freedman." To do that, I request that the reviewer provide me a list of each specific deficiency found and a suggestion for improvement, to include what modifications/additions would be necessary for the article to achieve at least a "B" status.

I have extensively interviewed the subject himself and every other individual I could find who had first or second-hand knowledge of the subject and/or his accomplishments. I have researched as extensively as I know how. I am the sole possessor of most of the references cited. These include hours of video tapes with the subject's two younger sons (which I chose not to post in the commons nor to reference as the audio quality is poor and much of the material overlaps other material which is cited). Neither the successor to DeLuxe Laboratories nor 20th Century Fox appear to have any relevant materials in their archives. In short, I am doubtful that the reviewer has access to any knowledge that I do not, but I sure welcome any that he or she might possess.

Regards, Mbarrach 76.111.36.241 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If it helps, the list of B-class criteria are at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. But note that your personal knowledge, personal interviews and video are not deemed reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes, If they were published in a reliable source, they may be. Uploading them to Commons wouldn't fix that. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

After having my username changed, weird things are happening!

Hi there! My username in Wikipedia has been changed with assistance by a bureaucrat last week. Unfortunately, while the transition seems to have gone by smoothly, it also seems that some things are still redirecting to my old user name. For example, SineBot and other bots are automatically changing references to my new username with references to my old one. My signature is "corrected" to link to my old username, and this is getting annoying.

How do I solve this problem? Meşteşugarul - U 19:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestesugarul (talk • contribs)

Hi, Mleivagomez and welcome to The Teahouse. I would suggest WP:VPT. Also, for the Sinebot problem, contact Slakr.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look and see what I find there. I just noticed that SineBot is actually signing my username correctly. It's the signature that I place at the end of my comments that shows my old username. I'll have this looked at ASAP. Thank you again. Meşteşugarul - U 22:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestesugarul (talk • contribs)

I'm such a dope! I just realized what the problem was. I didn't update my preferences correctly, so my custom signature kept reflecting my old user name. If someone could slap me across the web, this is what I need right now. Meşteşugarul - U 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mestesugarul: Actually, it turns out we have a nifty tool that does that. —Mz7 (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

When do raccoon's attack?

I'm getting a pet raccoon and I was wondering at what age do they begin to attack? 172.6.246.2 (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi 172.6.246.2 and welcome to the Teahouse! Our article on Raccoons actually has a section on keeping them as pets. You may want to look at that as you consider taking on one as a pet. --McDoobAU93 18:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, the reference desk is more suitable for these type of questions. The Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How should one protect an important mathematics wikis from minoritarianism?

The article in question is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness

The article relates to a mathematical problem which has a $1 million bounty. One unfortunate consequence of the money and prestige attached to solving such a problem is that attracts interest from people who may only be described as crackpots -- I realise this is not a nice word to use, but I am unaware of an alternative. While the topic of the article is of high interest to the mathematical community, it is not of high enough general interest to receive sufficient protection from the broader Wikipedia community. Discussions on the talk page are often fruitless, as such people are quite fanatical and are not amenable to reason. The typical modus operandi in the scientific community is to not engage, this course of action on Wikipedia however only leads to the 'tyranny of the minority'.

AnonymousMath (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi AnonymousMath, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your question, one of the best options we have is page protection, which prevents users from making changes to the article unless they meet certain criteria. Most frequently we use "semi-protection", which will prevent anonymous (using IP addresses, not accounts) and new accounts (<10 edits and/or <4 days old) from editing. In the case of severe edit disputes, full protection prevents editing by all but administrators, and they will almost always honor the protection except in significant cases. If discussion on the talk page isn't working, perhaps full protection is necessary. I see that Bbb23 (talk · contribs) has already semi-protected the page. --McDoobAU93 17:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. McDoobAU93. If the problems persist after the temporary semi-protection expires, I will seek this option. AnonymousMath (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi AnonymousMath. It is indeed sometimes really easy to get frustrated when dealing with others on Wikipedia. In a perfect Wikipedia world, everyone would agree with every post I make on an article's talk page and wouldn't mess with articles that I spend time working on.

Wikipedia is, however, not perfect. In fact, Wikipedia is not a lot of things. What Wikipedia is (or at least what it is supposed to be) is a collaborative effort where editors assume good faith and work together in trying to improve articles through consensus as best as they can. Sometimes this is easy, and sometimes it can be very hard. Anyone can edit an article for better or worse. Contributions from experts are most welcome of course, but being an "expert" on a particular subject matter does not give one any special editorial control over certain articles and certainly does not mean one can claim any kind of "ownership" over a page. My understanding is that protecting a page is something typically done when all other options have been tried and have not been successful. It is not meant to be a way to try and push or support a particular point of view by limiting the access of those who feel differently. So, if you feel someone is editing in bad faith or in a disruptive way, then you can undo the edit, citing the relevant Wiki-policy, and politely ask them to stop on their user talk page. As long as you remain civil and stick to commenting on content and not the contributor, you should be OK. If you're nervous or unsure about doing this yourself, then it's OK to ask for help at the article's respective WikiProject page(s) (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics). WikiProject members are usually quite familiar with the subject matter of their project and the relevant Wiki-policies that apply; Moreover, they usually have a special interest in ensuring that the pages under their project's purview are well maintained and satisfy Wiki-standards. If things still don't improve, then there is a formal dispute resolution process that you can try. Finally, even though pretty much nobody wants to lose an argument, especially if they consider themselves to be an "expert" on the subject matter, the best thing to do sometimes when arguments get really heated is to simply just drop it for a little while and edit something else. You're not obligated to reply to someone just because they want to argue with you. If the other editor is truly disruptive and acting contrary to Wiki-policy, then their behaviour will eventually be noticed by someone else (perhaps even an administrator) and they will promptly be warned about it. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your sound advice. I am very glad you brought up the WikiProject pages. I was unaware of them. It would seem unfortunate to have to protect a page due to one individual when there are other options. I will also take your advice and 'drop it' for a little while (something I should have done before). The conversation has become too heated (my failing) and is not productive.

AnonymousMath (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Any tips for my first article?

I have submitted this article for review as I believe it has sufficient information regarding the renowned video maker Dimitri Devyatkin. If you have any time, please skim through and help me stylistically and thoroughly edit anything that is off. Thank you very much! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dimitri_Devyatkin Paveld6 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paveld6. I suggest that you read Referencing for beginners and clean up the display of your references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it pompous to merely make an edit due to grammar?

Every now and then I see an obvious grammatical error. I am proud to be a part of Wikipedia. Is it proper to edit content for grammar?25thfret (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Go for it.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Any edit, no matter how small, helps improve Wikipedia - and is encouraged! Small edits for things such as grammar are considered "minor", and can be marked as such by checking the box labelled "This is a minor edit" below the edit summary. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The best advice editors can give on Wikipedia can be summed up by two words: Be Bold! If you see anything—be it grammar, spelling, content, or images—that needs to be corrected, you are encouraged to be bold and correct it. Don't take it personally if your edits are reverted at first. It's all part of the process to gain knowledge. It is important, however, that you be bold, but not reckless. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Grammer corrections in articles are unconditionally encouraged in Wikipedia. However be careful while correcting user comments in Talk Pages and discussions (or wherever) as this could irate the users unnecessary. Do it only when you feel absolutely necessary. Peace > SaHiL (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How to edit page title?

Hi--How do I correct a typo in a page title (in this case, it's the name of a person)? The name is spelled correctly everywhere else in the article but there, and it's the only place I can't find a way to edit. I'm brand new at this. Thanks for your help. Sttrs (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Instead of "editing" the page title, we refer to "moving" the page to the new title. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for information about doing this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sttrs, welcome to the Teahouse. In order to rename a page and move it to a new title, your account needs to be autoconfirmed, which means your account needs to be at least 4 days old and has to have made at least 10 edits. After your account surpasses 4 days and 10 edits, you will see a dropdown tab labelled "More" next to the "Read", "Edit", and "View history" tabs. This new "More" dropdown will contain a button that will let you move pages. If you don't want to wait, I or another Teahouse host can perform the renaming for you. —Mz7 (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Article titles which has the basic guidelines for naming articles. There are some limitations. Also, and I am not saying this is the case, but sometimes article titles will indeed differ from the spelling in the body. This may be due to a consensus to title the article in a specific manner per a discussion or the MOS. Also, some special characters cannot be used in the title due to the nature of Wikipedia mark up to recognize these characters as code which causes issues with the mark up on the page itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have moved Laura Gray-Street to Laura-Gray Street as the latter is clearly the correct name and this is non-controversial.--ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That would appear to be the most common spelling.[1].--Mark Miller (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Where do I begin?

Hi, pretty new to wikipedia editing. I made my first article years ago and went back to look at it a few weeks ago and was glad to find someone had tagged it for improvement. But what do I do to help make it better? What else can I do to improve that article and others and help out with wikipedia? Is there some sort of mentoring program or a novice wikipedian workshop or something? Here is my, admittedly awful, article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Chomsky

Ultan42 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ultan42, I'll admit I've seen worse articles, if that is of any comfort. Well done for having a go! Some of the 'clean-up templates' seemed to be over-the-top so I've removed them, to help you pin point the main problems. The very fundamentals of Wikipedia are that subjects need to be "notable" enough to be included in the encylopedia and, secondly, that the information is verifiable. You can read Wikipedia's golden rule for ideas about how to prove someone is widely known/important enough for Wikipedia. 'Verifiable' is more self-explanatory - cite a reliable source that confirms the facts/claims are true.

On your other questions, I'll leave someone else to answer them, but there are very many useful tasks you can help with (besides writing articles) which will give you good experience about how Wikipedia works. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ultan42, and welcome to the Teahouse. One good place to start is with reliable sources. You likely have books (or e-books, of course), and magazines about subjects that you like, or maybe a newspaper subscription that others might not be able to read. If you find some interesting information on one of them, and find it missing or unsourced in Wikipedia, you can add it in your own words to an article about that topic, and include a reference to your document. Most importantly, choose topics that you enjoy, and have fun! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ultan42: Sionk and Anne Delong have given you some good advice. With regards to a "mentoring program" on Wikipedia, we do have what we call the Adopt-a-user program. See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user for more information on what it is, and if you are interested, head to the Adoptee's Area. If you seek any more advice about Wikipedia editing, you are more than welcome to return to this Teahouse! Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Autosave?

Hi, I very much doubt that this is the case, but I was writing a new article when my computer crashed. There's no chance it is autosaved somewhere on Wikipedia, is there? Thanks, Matty.007 18:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: I'm not sure. Sometimes when my browser crashes, I can restore the session without losing any work. Maybe you'll have that option, but I don't know for sure. --Jakob (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you happen to use Chrome, Safari, or Firefox, I highly recommend downloaded the browser extension Lazarus. It autosaves form data as you go, so you can restore it in the event that your browser crashes, computer turns off, etc. It's saved my back a good number of times. There are also other similar browser extensions out there that do the same thing, if Lazarus doesn't float your boat. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've simply re-written the content now (on a Commenwealth GB gold winner), but I'll take a look at Lazarus. Thanks both for the help, Matty.007 19:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally new here. Could I write a page about a musician/bowmaker what looks like this?

Basil de Visser

Basil de Visser (born 22 March 1956, Amsterdam) is a Dutch baroque violinist and bowmaker. Basil began playing the violin at the age of 12, and later went on to study violin with Jaap Schröder at the Amsterdam Conservatoire. It was his baroque violin playing which first sparked his interest in this instrument. After graduation he spent three years studying baroque violin with Lucy van Dael. In 1988, Basil was invited to join the Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra in Toronto, Canada. It was there that he began making historical bows under the guidance of Stephen Marvin, who learnt the craft from the master bow maker William Salchow in New York. Two years later he returned to Amsterdam, where he now works as a bow maker and baroque violinist. Bowmaker (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Bowmaker and welcome to the Teahouse! Your draft currently has a few issues—namely the use of peacock terms. Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view (representing all viewpoints fairly and without bias), and words such as "beautiful", "wonderful", and "celebrated" impart very little real information beyond promoting the subject. If you are considering writing an article, a good place to start would be to read Wikipedia:Your first article and following the Article Wizard. Wikipedia articles generally require that you cite your sources. Help:Referencing for beginners will show you how to do that. A test I often recommend is the amnesia test:

1. Forget everything you know about the subject you want to write about—act as if you know nothing.
2. Go online and do research on the subject, focusing more closely on third-party news sources and less on sources affiliated with the subject; be sure to check the reliability of the sources
3. From your research, and your research only, write an article
4. If you find that there are few or no sources to use, the subject may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

If you need any help, feel free to ask at this Teahouse again! Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mz7! Would this more agreeable? I will study your suggestions! Bowmaker (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Inputs Feedback on new article

Created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pregna_International today on behalf of Pregna International. Am new to wikipedia.

Not sure about how to add the logo. Also is this on the right track. Your inputs would be highly appreciated.

Also if ok... how to move this to the main article zone on wikipedia.

Pregna International (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pregna International, welcome to the Teahouse. I see you are currently blocked for using a shared account but if you see this... Your draft is too promotional for the article zone. Please read our conflict of interest guidelines and notability guidelines. If the subject is notable, best let someone else create an article. Also, as the logo is copyrighted, it can only show up in article space, not in a draft per our copyright guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No admin is closing Tfd!

I have listed a Tfd, Template:Report vandalism. Now the 7 days is up, and i don't think the Tfd should still be open. I can't wait!S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi S/s/a/z-1/2, welcome to the Teahouse. As Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, things get done when they get done. It'll be closed sooner or later, just have to be a bit patient. Is there a specific reason why this is urgent? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I post images (taken during WWII) from negatives inherited from my father?

I have several hundred negatives made during WWII aboard my father's ship. These negatives have been in my fathers possession since 1945. He is deceased and I am the owner of the negatives.

I am writing an article about his ship and want to use several of the images of the ship and crew. May I post the images in Wikipedia? If so under what category?

I tried to figure this out myself, but could not find a clear category. This is my first article.

Thank you.

Emerdog (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately no, just owning the negative does not give the possessor the copyright. Copyright is maintained by the original photographer.....unless the photographs were created by the US government. Sometimes photographic negatives are given to a particular person and the rights waived or transferred to the new owner. This must have been explicitly stated at the time the negatives were handed over.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's clear enough and the same conclusion I was reaching. Too bad. Thank you for taking time to explain this to me. I will just not post the images here.

Emerdog (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Emerdog, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since you have so many photos, they have to be sorted and categorized with the help of someone who really know about photos, copyrights, etc. I would suggest that you take your questions to the Wikipedia Commons (the "picture-library" for all things Wiki). Ask for help at their Village Pump, where you can find people who are experienced in things like this, and start up a discussion. Some pictures may be free to use and some may not be (copyrights are different in different countries), but those that are would probably be a very welcome addition to the Commons, and once uploaded there, pictures can be used by all the Wikipedias around the world as well as by you in an article here. Best, w.carter-Talk 00:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Emerdog! Here's something that may be helpful. Any photograph taken by an employee of the federal government in the course of their duties is public domain. This includes members of the armed forces. So, the photos may very well be public domain (though I am not entirely certain). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that applies if they take the photos as part of their duties, but not if they take personal photos while on duty. Formerip (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

You can look at this photo and read the exact words of the license Formerip and Howicus mention. But it's best to ask someone who really knows. I have been thoroughly helped by kind users at the Commons in similar matters. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 01:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments and suggestions. I will definitely ask for some help at the Commons.

Unfortunately, these pictures were not taken as part of "their duties". However, there are some great images and it would be a shame to keep them "under wraps".

Since they are now over 70 years old, is there any chance they are in the public domain and no longer subject to copyright?

Emerdog (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Emerdog. Let me offer a slightly different perspective. First of all, we have to assume that the photos are still copyrighted since they were taken after 1923, and your father took them while off-duty and not under government orders. Mark Miller is correct that just owning a negative does not mean owning the copyright. So, if someone buy a bunch of photo negatives from a garage sale, that person does not own the copyrights. However, if you inherited these images as part of your father's estate, then you own both the negatives and the copyrights, and in my humble opinion, are free to upload the photos to Wikimedia Commons. Copyrights are intellectual property that can be conveyed through a will or a legal trust. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Emerdog. Upon your father's death any copyrights he owned must have passed to someone. If you are the sole inheritor of your father's estate then you must own the copyrights as well. If your father's estate was divided (perhaps among your siblings) and it is not clear who owns the copyrights, an agreement between yourselves to release the photos under a free license should be OK. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments and suggestions. Unfortunately, my father did not take these images and never held the "copyright". I don't think the crew would have thought much about such things during the war as they took and shared images.

I recollect that most of the images were said to have been taken by one crewman who, last I knew, was living in California. If he can acknowledge taking the photographs and is willing to allow their upload, would that suffice?

If so, what evidence of this permission would be needed?

Thanks again for your assistance.

Emerdog (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Emerdog: Basically, the owner of the copyright would need to send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, agreeing to the posting of the photos under a suitable license. Instructions and a sample of an acceptable e-mail message can be found at Commons:Email_templates. Deor (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be enough to upload the images...if the original photographer is available through e-mail to confirm the permissions through OTRS. Cullen328 is correct that, should your father have been the original photographer and you inherited the negatives, you would then become the copyright holder. Here is something I had forgotten about and may have some impact (ask at Wikimedia Commons) There is another copyright issue that may impact the upload in your favor Emerdog and that is, photos taken from 1923 to 1977 that have not been registered for copyright, or were not re-registered at the needed time may be in the public domain. I will look further into this but, you should certainly ask at Commons as there are experts that have better knowledge on this specific copyright law. The issue is (I believe), if published. If they were never published, I think the copyright stays with the original photographer.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Mark Miller, that is my understanding as well. The photos would have had to have been published for that "loophole" to apply. I believe that unpublished photos or negatives taken since 1923 are covered by copyright, unless there is specific evidence otherwise. Sorry for assuming the OP's father took the photos. This is tricky business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It can be a full time job just trying to understand the copyright laws of just the US...not to mention international laws and how Wikipedia and Commons handle them. Makes my head spin.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. This is getting much more complicated than I ever imaged, so I appreciate the help greatly. I will try and see if any of the crew are alive that will confirm they took some or all of the images and is willing to confirm permissions via email.

One last question. What is meant by "publish". As mentioned before, these images were printed and freely distributed among the crew during and after the war. Does that constitute "publishing"?

Emerdog (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like publishing to me, but it's best to ask at Commons like they said above.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Boldface and underlining in grammar articles

Many articles related to grammar use boldface and underlining to identify parts of sample sentences. Are there any ongoing or past discussions about guidelines for doing this consistently and more in line with MOS:BOLD?

The article I am working on is starting to look frightful with all the boldface I added. I wonder if there is a better approach. Whikie (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Whikie, welcome back to the Teahouse! I think italics are more appropriate for this; MOS:ITALICS/MOS:EMPHASIS recommends them for emphasis, which I think would include marking parts of sample sentences. I assume you are referring to the article on apposition; I think the article would look much better with italics rather than boldface. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Anon126. Yes, the article is Apposition, but the problem can be seen in other articles, such as Noun Phrase and Predicate (which I have no intention of changing). I agree with you, italics look so much better. The boldface is making things a mess. The problem is that different parts need different emphasis (this is the verb, this is the noun). Identifying subscripts as done in formal grammar books, maybe? If there are no established guidelines for this, should I be bold and try something new, and then see who screams about it? Whikie (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My friend_i Alice Smith_a likes jelly beans. My friend_\i Alice Smith_\a likes jelly beans. Whikie (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't intend to get into details here. My questions for this page are: Has this been discussed before? Should I start a discussion on my talk page? Should I just do something in the article and watch for fallout? Whikie (talk) 10:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

going "live"

How do I get a title for a page I've created, and then move from my sandbox to somewhere real?Kerrisdalian (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You can find more information at WP:CREATE or WP:ARTICLEWIZARD. Alternately you can "nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code: subst:submit (surrounded by these {{}} brackets) to the top of the draft or sandbox page."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have done this for him, and the article is now located here. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 03:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Intend on creating new Stub Article, not sure what category it belongs in.

I'm trying to create a stub article on the Flame of Hope (here's a little about it [there are many more sources than this one]: http://flameofhopewalk.ca/history/). First of all, I just wanted to make sure it was relevant enough to be accepted as an article.

Second - I'm having trouble figuring out which stub to put it under, as the stub templates don't seem to have descriptions of what they're intended for. For example, I thought "tourism" might work, but I'm not sure if it's an effective correlation. Please help! Thanks :)Washoe42 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Washoe42: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're unsure what stub tag to use, the generic stub template {{stub}} will be fine. --Jakob (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Washoe42:Hi! It seems that the article would fit it in some sub-category mentioned in Category:Monuments and memorials, so maybe you can have a look at the articles there and see what categories they are placed under (look at their talk pages) and see if you can find an appropriate one. A similar event in Sweden ("The Blood Circulation" running/walking for awareness of heart diseases) is listed under "Sports organizations" on the Swedish Wikipedia. Best, w.carter-Talk 23:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Washoe42. Another category for you to consider is Category:Challenge walks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help! I'll add the category "Monuments and Memorials in Ontario," and put it under the stub category "Ontario-stub." Washoe42 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference lost

Hello Teahouse !

I am working hard on Education in Ghana and I am just facing an annoying problem: One of my most cited reference(a pdf file) has been deleted from its source. I had saved the document before its deletion and now, I'd like to find some way to put it online again. I don't know under which licence this document is(it's a performance report issued by the ministry of education) so I don't dare using wikicommons.

I guess I could just write the references and forget the URL, but I'd really like to make that document accessible for all again. Any idea of a reliable host that would not destroy the link after a couple of months ? :( Thank you ! KaptainIgloo (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey KaptainIgloo, welcome to the teahouse! If it's a document about Education in Ghana, then I assume it is an academic work, a journal entry of some kind? You could just cite it fully using Template:Infobox journal (or a similar template if it is not an academic journal entry), then you wouldn't need to upload it anywhere. Hope this helps! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@KaptainIgloo: (e/c) Hey KaptainIgloo. It would be easier to answer concretely if I knew which of the multiple pdfs cited in the article was the non-working link (I looked at the two citations that provide Ministry of Education as the publisher and they are both working). Anyway, the answer depends on whether works of the Ghanaian government are copyrighted. Unfortunately, after looking at both Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Ghana and the Ghana Copyright Office FAQ I am left scratching my head, and so unless we learn otherwise, we must assume the article was non-free copyrighted. The result of this is that unless and until you learn it was in the public domain or bore a free copyright license allowing you to post it, you should just cite it without linking. You should not try to post it to some other site and then link to it because 1) posting it to some other site is a putative copyright violation in the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, and concomitantly 2) we cannot link to it because we are both ethically and by policy restricted from linking to copyright violations. While convenience links to online version of published sources are useful, they are by no means required. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@KaptainIgloo: @Fuhghettaboutit: Hi, is there no way to archive the page in the Wayback Machine or some other Internet vault? (I know there are several, but their names escape me at the moment.) Or must this be done while the page is still up and running? Best, w.carter-Talk 22:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK it is not possible to archive without a live version to draw from and I don't know that they archive source documents that are hosted on websites. They may, but it seems a very dicey copyright proposition (truthfully, while I find the Wayback Machine massively useful, I'm not clear on how exactly what they do in the main meets fair use).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks a lot Demiurge1000,Fuhghettaboutit and Carter for your answers. I was talking about the "Education Sector Performance Report" for the year 2012/2013( Ministry of Education, Republic of Ghana), sorry for not precising it earlier. The link is still dead and the file cannot be found elsewhere. But well...as Fuhghettaboutit said (thanks again for checking the copyrights by the way !!), one can't consider it as a free-copyright document, so I guess I'll just give the references. On another matter: I would be glad to have opinions on Education in Ghana. I'd like to make a GA out of it some day, so every advice is welcome :)KaptainIgloo (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC) For the record: I have found the document again, at another location and under a different name. Thanks again and sorry for the disturbance !KaptainIgloo (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Policy on national/international Wikipedia

Many articles in the WikiPedia world only exist in English, and only on en.wikipedia.org. For some articles and for many users it is not neccessary to have it any other way. For a large part of the WikiPedia user community, the English pages are the most natural place to look for international (or any foreign) information. For instance: If I want to read information about a Chinese book, I look for the English pages since I am not able to read Chinese. In a situation similar to my example, I added information to an article about the Norwegian edition of a Japanese book. This was promptly deleted. When I asked for a reason for this deletion, I was told that since this was an article on en.wikipedia.org, only information relevant to the English language editions (and the original Japanese edition) was to be allowed. I find this very strange. Does this mean that I would have to translate the article to Norwegian first, and then add my information? That would lead to the situation where this new information would only be available to Norwegian users. That doesn't make sense. What is the policy in this kind of situation? Roald Andresen (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That advice seems a little unusual and in my limited experience of Norwegian wiki, not how things usually work there. Each Wikipedia will have its own rules, but generally speaking an article which has sufficient reliable sources to support it, will be fine. It's something that you'd have to discuss there though, probably with the admin who deleted it. Can you give a link to the Norwegian discussion? Valenciano (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The situation did not occur on the Norwegian wiki, but on en.wikipedia.org. I wanted to add the Norwegian release information about the book 1Q84 (see revision history), but this was promptly deleted (see discussion) Roald Andresen (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Roald.Andresen, I see now. If you look at the guidelines on article layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books they do say that editions in other languages can be mentioned. Best would be to discuss this with the user who reverted you and if you can't resolve it that way, ask for input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books. Valenciano (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but in the same way as an article on a writer will not necessarily list all the writer's books, an article on a book will not necessarily list all the translations of it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's true Colin and books wouldn't be my area of expertise so that's why I believe it's better that the editor discusses it with the person that reverted him and seeks further input if needed at the books wikiproject, as they'll be more knowledgeable about the subject. Valenciano (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Upload picture

hello! I want the image I uploaded to Ali Mohammad Pshtdar What I do. Many thanks.Iranmanesh53 (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! If you have a free licence photo of the subject (for example, you took the photo), you should upload it to Wikimedia Commons (here). But, please, do not upload some random photo you found on the internet, as it would be a copyrights infringement. When you upload the photo, learn here how to add photo to the article: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you very much to help you.Iranmanesh53 (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how to upload pictures on articles? Happypillsjr (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki.....

I was talking to another Wiki User and I saw a badge on her page for WikiMercenary I looked it up and found more like WikiCat and Wiki Gnome and my question is this. How do I figure out what I am??????? Pythonessofdelphi (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you'll want to take a look at WP:WikiFauna, then. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you I was able to identify what type of Wiki Creature I am!!!!!!! Pythonessofdelphi (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Contribution not made by me is attributed to me

My contributions list has a mystery item on it, apparently related to the new Flow extension. Although I did view that page, this question is the only edit I have made today, yet this item appears in my contributions list: "17:54, 29 July 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . N Topic:Rojlc5xnvwolwrkg ‎ (→‎Taken over by Flow) (current)". I would like to know if this is a bug, if there is a Bugzilla report, and whether the edit can be removed from my contributions list. This item makes it look like I have inserted nonsense or vandalism, so it would be great if it could be removed or at least properly attributed to whomever made it. Thanks! Eddymason (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Eddymason: Hi Eddy, thanks for your question. This is really puzzling to me, and I'm not exactly sure why a contribution was marked if you had just visited the page. I don't know a great deal about Flow or how it operates, so I can't advise you on why it happened. I'd recommend bringing this to the attention of the developers over at Wikipedia_talk:Flow. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I JethroBT: Okay, done. I simply copy-pasted it to that talk page. Thanks for the advice. Eddymason (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

{{Refimprove}}

Hello, I don't understand this template. A patroller added it on a lot of articles that I've recently created, eg. Camille Curti. 4 references for a stub of 2 phrases are not enough ? Should I add references in the infobox ? Pyb (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Pyb, welcome to the Teahouse. If you feel like the content on the article is soured, the tag probably isn't necessary. Information that is challenged or likely to be challenged should always be sourced. References in infoboxes can sometimes be helpful, but are not strictly necessary if the information is not controversial (and it usually is not because it summarizes info already in the article). The tag on Camille Curti was not appropriate in my opinion, and I have removed it, but I would revisit the other articles to see if any content could benefit from a more direct citation. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thx for the answer. Pyb (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Clive Atwell Boxer

Greetings this is Clive Atwell the champion boxer , I'm using the name cjuniora on this sight , I try editing my bio page but the information I place was remove ,how do I place them again and not have them remove ,also how do,I include photo on my bio page.

Clive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjuniora (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Clive. Wikipedia is not like other places on the web: it is an encyclopaedia, so it requires that all information be referenced to reliable published sources, especially in articles about living people. If you insert information without a source, there is no way a reader can tell whether it is correct, or has been added by mistake, or is vandalism (and, without being rude, we have no way of telling whether you are indeed Clive Atwell or somebody hoaxing). So we require that it be referenced to a published source. Further, we don't accept references to sites that are mostly user-generated, such as Facebook or most blogs, for the same reason. If there is a major newspaper, or a site which has a reputation for checking facts, that says something about a subject, then that information can go in the article, with a reference to that source.

There is another issue as well: we require that articles be written in a neutral tone, without either building the subject up or knocking them down. It can be hard for a person to write neutrally about themselves, their friends, their band, their company etc: we call this having a conflict of interest, and that link advises you how best to contribute to an article about yourself, which is by suggesting changes on the article's talk page.

I see that Materialscientist explained some of this on your talk page. Your offer to email information (on his talk page) is not helpful because, again, if the information has not been published, then a reader next week or next month or next year has no way of telling whether it is right. I hope this makes things clearer. --ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Title Change information

How to change the title of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarsadanand (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Swarsadanand. Title changing for articles can be done by moving the article to that name. If you think the change is uncontroversial, you can usually go right ahead and move it. If you think some might object to the move, I'd recommend leaving a comment on the talk page of the article with your proposed move idea and why you think it's better and see if a consensus develops. Can I ask what article you are planning on moving? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion but i don't have 'move' option as you told me...so can you solve my problem?

please reply as soon as possibleSadanand Brahmbhatt 09:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarsadanand (talk • contribs)

Pictures

How can we post pictures to on page in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shehrin (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Shehrin, welcome to the Teahouse. For uploading pictures and other media, it's easiest to go to Wikimedia Commons (you can use your Wikipedia credentials if you're not logged in already) and visit the Upload Wizard. Wikimedia Commons can only accept files which anyone can use for any purpose. That means most content you find on the web is not acceptable. But for example, most photos that you've taken yourself are OK to upload.

Here's a screenshot of the Upload Wizard:

You start by selecting the files you want to upload, then you go step by step through the process. In the final step, you'll get some wiki markup that you can copy into a Wikipedia article. Let me know if I can help. :-) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Insert an Image

How can i insert an image in the infobox of my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarsadanand (talk • contribs) 14:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

<br> vs <br /> vs <br/>

Many articles use <br> and <br /> or even <br/>. I want to know if there is a difference or if they should just use <br>. 85.246.161.111 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)