Wikipedia:Teahouse

Eman235, 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

Truth and Wikipedia

Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*? Green Mountain 12:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but feel harassed

I've recently had a few content based arguments with an editor and all of a sudden my page is filled with harassment and intimidation. Fascist behavior. What is the recommended way to prevent this project from becoming a hub for such conduct where editors of opposing political views don't collude to imprison their opposition? As of now, I feel like someone marked me as a target. Not a good experience. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, MarciulionisHOF. I read through the discussion on your Talk page, and the Arbitration Committee discussion it refers to here, and honestly I think this is case of communication mix-up. I am sorry that you feel harassed, but I doubt that was the original editor's intent. They sent you the standard notice that is sent to all editors working on those pages, to let you know how sensitive they are and that more care may be required than normal - the notice is exactly as the Arbitration Committee decided, and it comes from the template at template:Ds/alert. It was not intended to imply that you (or any other editor) had done anything wrong, nor to impose any one view. What to do about it; I can't think of anything better to suggest than adopting the Committee's recommendation: "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary." --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Before this, said editor accused (and continues to) accuse me of foruming... whatever that means, I don't think he read the policy properly. Adding that he posted it as a prerequisite to starting an investigation. Having another friend pop out of nowhere with links to where editors get side-blinded and banned... your suggestion might be fine if I was naive. Seeing that I no longer am (with the link to editors being banned) -- my concern on how the project handles cases of political assassination is pertinent. Has this been handled by the project in the past? Is there a guideline to find editors who participate in which-hunting on political opponents and removing them from making editing into a fascist-rule ("don't say it!, don't even think it!") style experience? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

want to know more how to write article and how to upload images

want to know more how to write article and how to upload images(Sachinrpatil (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sachinrpatil, welcome to the Tea House. Have you read Wikipedia:Your first article? It has a useful introduction to what you need to know before starting an article. It is best to wait until an article is created and accepted before trying to add images to it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Taxobox template format problem

I added a Taxobox template to the article Heliozoa, and as far as I can tell I have followed the example on the template's help page, but there is a weird formatting problem with some bare html visible when the page is loaded. I'm not sure if others can see it too. Anyone knows how to fix this? Thanks a lot! Kbseah (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Kbseah, I have no idea why this worked, but when I added "color = pink" (copied from Protist), it seems to have fixed the problem. Color is not normally required, because it is determined by the kingdom (as specified in Template:Taxobox), but this one does not appear to fit into any of the listed colors - so perhaps that is how it got confused. I imagine you could change that color however you like. Anyway, I hope this helps... --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hidden Categories

I'm totally frustrated. My article (Callawassie Island) was accepted but needs improvements on references. Our writers are really trying but we just don't know what additional references are needed and i, as the typist, am at a loss.

So, here's the story. I 'copied' and 'pasted ' the article into Works and, upon printing it out, discovered additioal listings in the 'copy'/'paste' print-out that I just am not able to access on The Wikipedia 'Edit' page for the article. The items are listed under the heading: Hidden Categories. It appears that the six items listed would let us know what needs to be done, except I just can't seem to be able to access these 'Hidden Categories'. I've tried doing a search, but no luck. I don t even know if I am on the right track.

The items listed on the print out, but not on Wikipedia's page are: All articles with dead external links . . . I did find one and I'm working on it Articles with dead external links from August 2014 . . . Same thing? Wikipedia Articles needing copy edit from August 2014 All articles needing copy edit Articles needing additional references from August 2014 All articles needing additional references

How do we find out what needs additional references, etc.

Please . . . basic language. I am not computer language or Wiki language savvy!

Thanks a bunchj146.135.44.193 (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New Article

I simply want to create and/or upload a new article about a club of which I am a member (sports club with long history). Where do I begin 206.188.147.48 (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Tea House

The best way to create or submit your article is here

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 02:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Random link to article needing editing.

At one time I came upon a page that could automatically link me to an article that needed editing, I am curious what that page was? AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Amandawhyte99 to Teahouse! Was it GettingStarted the page you were looking for? ///EuroCarGT 21:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @AmandaWhyte99: Hey Amanda. Please copy this code: ?gettingStartedReturn=true Now, navigate to any random article → place your cursor in your browser's address bar after the existing url → paste the copied code → hit enter. Voilà.

By the way, the Wikipedia:Community portal (which is a permanent link under the "interaction" menu on the left hand side of the interface) provides a big list of articles in need of work under certain categories, and you can have that list of open tasks always available by transcluding it into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. You can also sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That gave me lots of options. I may not be a wordsmith but am decent at research and love to provide references.

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

British TV sources

I've got a little argument that needs some resolution if someone can help me. I don't know if anybody here knows about the initiative by users like AldezD who curb episode guides for game shows and say WP:NOTSTATS. they keep the transmissions section but revert any unsourceable episode related info. There are a few people that do the same work as this editor.

There is an unregistered editor who follows AldezD with the IP starting with 81 or 86, who does delete alot of the episode guides on British game shows, but for some strange reason, chooses to keep the Episode Guide for a program called "Through the Keyhole". The sources he uses is British Comedy Guide, which other major editors on the British Side have told me in the past that is an unreliable site as it is fan edited. I've offered to change the listings for ones from the ITV press office or TV listings sites which many editors, including AldezD himself have approved of. But 81/86 continually shuts me down telling me they are unreliable, which tey aren't. I've suggested that we delete the episode guide as it is WP:NOTSTATS and is incomplete anyhow. I am awaiting his response.

I am just a bit aggravated at these times when so many people tell me one thing and then one person is a tad pigheaded and refusews to compromise. This is even when he is a proponent of WP:NOTSTATS and deletes a lot of episode grids himself. what makes Through the Keyhole so special? could someone help me with this matter and find the best possible solution? Thanks. 173.179.185.186 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally speaking you should try to discuss the content with the editors on the article talk page. If an editor is using a fan generated site to source facts, that is indeed unacceptable, however if the consenus of editors there is to keep an unreliable source you would have to report the situation to a noticeboard. Perhaps Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or request assistance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If all else fails and you feel strongly that our standards are not being kept up, you could request mediation from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, where a volunteer will help with the content dispute. Thanks and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone edit an article title for me? I can not myself

I can't figure out how to edit the title of an article, probably because I just created this account for that purpose. The article in question is 'EastLink' the canadian cable company. The proper company name is 'Eastlink' with the lower case l. I have already changed this throughout the article but can't change the articles title.

As well, will this effect the links to the page?

Riley Halpin (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I can do this either! For now, I've moved it to Eastlink (telecoms company). Really it needs to be at Eastlink (company) because the various other Eastlink companies in different fields are not at that title. Maybe an admin needs to do this.

Anyway, it shouldn't affect the links to the page significantly, because anyone going to the old links will mostly be redirected. A bot may still be cleaning up double redirects for a few hours. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It can be done, but it rarely is, because normally a lowercase name is a stylisation, or brand, or marketing strategy. In the case of Eastlink, it looks like it's name is Eastlink, but it stylizes itself as eastlink. Maybe simply add "(stylized as eastlink)" in the opening intro. Sionk (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Riley Halpin: Hi there, I've moved the article to Eastlink (company) per Wikipedia's policy of conciseness with the appropriate redirect. If another company comes along in the future then the name can be further disambiguated by adding the "telecom" back in. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Updating a Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I have been trying to update outdated information on an organizational wiki page with accurate, present, and backed up information but have had several problems. After updating the content the first time, all of my additions had been deleted within the hour. After going through and updating the Wikipedia page a second time, I was surprised to see that not only was the information I had updated deleted, but multiple parts of the original submission were missing as well.

How will I be able to edit a Wikipedia page without it being deleted moments later?

Thank you,

Jimmy66.207.216.146 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't just copy paste from a website. You have to put it in your own words and use inline citations. WP:REFB TranquilHope (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello ip. I think you are probably the user Jfotopoulos as well. If not that is fine as well. I have looked over your edits. Not only did you copy and paste something directly from a website. You also added information that was considering promotional. Wikipedia is not here to promote organizations. This is why multiply parts of the original submission were missing as well. I suggest that you take the edit summaries that came with your revert to heart. Also you were asked to discuss your editing on the talk page of the article. So I suggest you go there, and discuss what you want to add there. But beware that the information that you want to add needs to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Also if you are working for this organization you have a conflict of interest. So if that is the case please read WP:COI NathanWubs (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@NathanWubs: please explain to the new editor how he can view "the edit summary that came with your revert". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

When you go to the article, you will see several tabs at the top. One of them if clicked goes to the talk page. And another is called view history. If you click on view history, you will see all the edits that are made to the article, including edit summaries. In the edit summaries there can be the reason why something was re-edited or reverted. Now about the whole conflict of interest. Wikipedia tries to be as neutral as possible. But if you have a conflict of interest then there is just a high possibility that you will not be able to see a subject as neutral. That is why the policy is that a conflict of interest editor should not directly edit those pages that they have a conflict of interest in. However, what you can do is indeed go to the talk page of the article and discuss the changes there. So that other editors can implement them if it is properly sources. NathanWubs (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal involvement

Someone put up an article about me some while ago but it has never been updated. I looked at it yesterday and was frustrated by the amount of out of date material and so I updated it myself but it was then removed by your watchdog. How can I update this page? 86.20.212.116 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Nobody reverted your edits, but someone did revert edits by Maestro1952. So, your last revision is the current version. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid no one can edit or add something about himself/herself, as this article is about you, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello IP 86.20.212.116 - I assume you are talking about our article Paul Spicer (musician)?
The edits made by User:Maestro1952 were reverted by The Original Bob with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Maestro1952 (talk): Please find relevant citations when adding information to articles.". However, I note he did not go back far enough in the history, so did not revert the changes you made as 86.20.212.116. These changes have three problems:-

1. You have a clear conflict of interest in editing any article about yourself, which is why you should not do it - please read and follow our guidelines on conflict of interest - suggesting any changes you want made on the talk page and citing reliable references (see below)
2. As explained in the edit summary, your changes were totally unreferenced - before you started yesterday, there were 6 references for a "readable prose size" of 374 words. You doubled the length of the article to 756 words, but added no references whatsoever. All information on Wikipedia should be verifiable in reliable, independent sources
3. Your additions were generally fairly neutral, but they did include a "plug" for a book you are writing.

Unless sources are added for the additions you made as an IP, the article will have to be reverted back to the version before you started yesterday. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Long bibliography

In a draft I have created (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bknysak/sandbox), there is a very long bibliography of works. The submission was rejected due to this (the other issues have been resolved). Should I simply split the list off into another "List of..." page?Bknysak (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bknysak and welcome to The Teahouse. User:Libby norman referred you here and when I told her you had not gotten any answers, she said she would help, and she will post what she finds out on her talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

List of ornithology journals is a suggested solution.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding including references,external links and pictures to the articles we write

I want to know how can we include references,external links and pictures to the article that we write...Gaurav shetty (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gaurav shetty and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all I'm a bit concerned that you write "we", an account at the Wikipedia should only have one user. The best way for you to get started would be to Play The Wikipedia Adventure, you find a link to it a bit further up on this page. It is a tutorial about how to edit properly. You can also find useful information at the Help:Referencing for beginners. Start with these and you'll be well on your way. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank u for your help sir.....I just used 'we' in a general sense referring to beginners here.I am managing my account myself.Regards,Gaurav shetty (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page headers

Hey guys, I've seen that people have these notices on their talk page that say things such as this user, 1, What's the template for those? Thanks, Mirror Freak 12:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No answers?Mirror Freak 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, MirrorFreak, and welcome back to the Teahouse. There are lots of components in that user page. The easiest way to link to a user page, by the way is [[User:TheQ Editor]], which renders like this: User:TheQ Editor. If you go to that page and click the Edit tab, is shows the code for it. So the first notice, about being "watched by friendly talk page stalkers", comes from the template {{Wikipedia:TPS/banner|75}}. You can look at how any page was constructed in the same way, using the Edit tab, and if something there is not clear it might be best to ask the user concerned how they worked their magic. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@MirrorFreak: It's called an Edit notice and defines a header which is then transcluded to the page. You can find out all about how to create one here. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I thought you meant something else, my bad. But you might want an edit notice too -:)  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The term Pally?

The use of the term Pally for Palestinians, this term seems to be a derogatory term for Palestinians,if not outright racist but is being used on wikipedia. I wanted to know the rules on wikipedia and if they allow for derogatory/racist terms because I know in my country they are illegal.GGranddad (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello GGrandad, welcome (back?) to the Teahouse. Using a derogatory or racist term about another editor or a group of people would almost certainly be in breach of either Wikipedia:No personal attacks or Wikipedia:Civility. Additionally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies may be relevant. Wikipedia does not really manage things according to interpretations of laws that may happen to be in force in various countries where editors reside, but racist behaviour by editors is usually very strongly discouraged.

There is also a possibility that an editor may use a term without being aware that it is regarded as derogatory. If this is the case, even if it seems far-fetched, the first step would be to make them aware, as politely as possible, how the term is regarded by yourself and others. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

GGranddad, there are 451 pages on the English Wikipedia that contain the string "pally". I haven't looked at all of them, but they mostly seem to be referring to the actor Adam Pally, or a south Indian word for "church" or "temple". I didn't see any instances in the first hundred or so hits where the word was used to refer to anyting Palestinian. If you can point us to specific instances where it is used this way, we can do something about them. Rojomoke (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

What font does Wikipedia use for headings? Dark Liberty (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On my PC, your title "New to Wikipedia" displayed in Georgia font. Lower-level subheadings are in Arial bold. However, WP may format things differently on different devices. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Fonts are mostly generated based on what is supported by the browser(and device) or in others cases what the user specifies. For example I mostly like things in plain Arial font. So most page will show up in Arial despite a lot of websites wanting to have a different font. NathanWubs (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Georgia Normal or Bold? Dark Liberty (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Creating a new submission about a book.

My new submission was rejected due to: See WP:Notability (books).

How do I prove that colleges use the book I was submitting as a "Subject of Instruction"?

How many colleges have to use it for the article to be accepted?

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AmandaWhyte99. According to the notability guideline for books, we need evidence from independent, reliable sources showing that the book is used in courses at "multiple" institutions. Obviously, that is more than one, and in my opinion, would be more than two. But another problem with your draft is that our articles must be written from the neutral point of view. Promotional language in your draft such as "spirited challenge to a culture obsessed with romance and intimacy but dangerously ignorant of the full range and richness of human love" and "like a fresh wind, Sam Keen sweeps away tired self-help nostrums" and "a stunningly new map of love in all its forms" must be trimmed away ruthlessly and replaced with scrupulously neutral, encyclopedic language. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Although an independent reliable source saying those things might be acceptable inside quotes, as long as it wasn't too much of the article saying such things.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Did my question get automatically submitted when I entered the four tildes?

Did my question get automatically submitted when I entered the four tildes?

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @AmandaWhyte99: - nope! Typing in the four tildes doesn't automatically save the page and submit your question. The four tildes are simply a "placeholder" that is replaced with your signature only when you save the page yourself, which is done when you click the "Save page" button at the bottom of the page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It was weird, as soon as I entered the four tildes, the box disapeared. I guess my computer just dumped it.

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing

Does my wikipedia flow well when reading? I updated it to my best ability. It's been a long journey in creating an accurate and well written piece for the world to see. Thanks, Dino Wells (David R. Wells Jr. (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. I have to say....you may not exactly understand what your user page is for. It is not supposed to be used to promote yourself or your acting career or be written as if it were an encyclopedia article. It is for showing your interests here at Wikipedia and the talk page for collaborating with editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@David R. Wells Jr.: For future reference, it's also frowned upon to edit your own article. One great way to assist with the page is to edit the talk page, suggesting corrections, additions, etc. to the article and allow someone else to do the edits. Otherwise, it's considered a conflict of interest. Right or wrong, people will naturally assume that you will edit a page about yourself to promote yourself, highlight achievements, and eliminate negative information. Welcome to wikipedia, happy editing! :-) Bali88 (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

reference format

Is it better to cite book author page number ect. or a url in google books?Naytz (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Naytz:, and welcome! You do both. If you would like, there are citation templates to help you. When adding a reference, use the "cite" menu in your edit window, and select "cite book" as the template to work from. Enter as much information as you can, including author, page number, publisher, etc. THEN, in the URL field, you can add a link to the google book version. More information is always better. If you want more help with citation templates and using them, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --Jayron32 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits

Hello there !

I just updated a wiki page and I was wondering how the process works ? and if my edits were submitted correctly ?

Thank you

Cmchatton (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cmchatton: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If your intent was to edit Youngme Moon, then no, you submitted edits instead to your own userpage. In order to preserve the edit history (see Special:Contributions/Cmchatton), you may need help from another, more experienced editor to merge the page last edited 24 Oct 2013 with your recent efforts. Perhaps one of our hosts can help? --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I know someone who might help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Someone left a note in my user talk page about a possible history-merge. Which are the 2 pages to be history-merged? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Linking to a person

How do you link to an article about a person for whom there are multiple entry for people with the same name? JA2230 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi JA2230, thanks for your question. Subjects that share the same name are typically disambiguated to include something in parentheses to distinguish them. For instance, the singer is James Brown (musician), and the actor is James Brown (actor). In the rare case you want to link to page that lists all people with the name James Brown, there is usually a disambiguation page, in this case James Brown (disambiguation). Hopefully that answers your question, but if not, can I ask what article are you trying to link to? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JA2230. I, JethroBT is right, but missed out something. If you write [[James Brown (musician)]], it will link to the right article, but it will appear as James Brown (musician), which is probably not what you want in your article. You can get round that by using the "pipe" character '|', and putting what you want to appear in the article after it, so [[James Brown (musician)|James Brown]] links to the same place, but appears as James Brown. Further, this particular need is so common, that there is a short cut, called the 'pipe trick': If you just put a pipe character '|' at the end, it will leave out the bit in brackets, so [[James Brown (musician)|]] also appears as James Brown, but still links to the specific article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think everything is pretty clear above, but just to avoid a possible confusion: James Brown may not be the ideal example, because the article on the musician is actually already at the undisambiguated title (because it's the primary topic). That is, the article on the musician is at the plain title James Brown (and James Brown (musician) is a redirect to it). So, if you wanted to link to the actor, whose page is actually at the parenthetically disambiguated title: James Brown (actor), and you didn't want that link to appear like that, you'd type [[James Brown (actor)|James Brown]].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

When can I blank my own talk page?

I was blocked a few days ago, and the block has expired. However, the info about the block (and my failed appeal) is still on my Talk page. Am I allowed to blank my Talk page and remove the info about the block, given that the block has expired? Or am I required to keep it on my Talk page permanently or for a certain period of time? Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course! Go right ahead and get rid of it.Mirror Freak 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hi Mitsguy2001 and welcome to the Teahouse. I've checked and your block has expired so you can blank the page according to this guideline.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @Mitsguy2001: Hi Mitsguy2001. Please see the section of the Wikipedia:User pages guideline known by the shortcut WP:REMOVED. In short, you may not remove "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices." Since you advise your block is no longer active, it does not fall within the prohibition. However, this issue has led to contention many times in the past – other users reverting such removals, so I think it would be prudent to invoke this guideline language specifically in your edit summary. For example: "removing as my block is no longer active, as I am permitted to do under [[WP:REMOVED]]". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing

Hello hosts, I tried my first edit yesterday and it didn't go so well. I was sent a message saying that one of my words was a 'peacock' word. Could someone please explain to me what that means. I would like some help as how to edit articles. Thanks so much and I am so grateful to any hosts that help me. :)Flora786 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flora786 and welcome to the Teahouse. All will be revealed when you read this guideline.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for the warm welcome :) Unfortunately the guideline you told me to check didn't answer my question. :( Flora786 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Flora786. In your edit you wrote "5 great science laboratories" and "A lovely coffee shop and cafeteria". The words "great" and "lovely" are the words in your edit described as "peacock" words. Words like these may seem harmless, but may not be used in an encyclopedia where the text should be totally neutral. Someone else might not think that the cafeteria is lovely. :) Peacock words are often marking your own (or someone else's) personal opinion and must be avoided. If the laboratories are thought of as great and renowned by many people and this is written in a paper or on a website, you could write "5 noted science laboratories". Even the word "helpful" in "with helpful interactive smart boards" is a "peacock". You might find them helpful, but others might not. I know that it is sometimes hard to resist using such descriptions, but try to look at things from an objective point of view when you edit, that is the way to avoid "peacocks". Best, w.carter-Talk 19:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying W.carter. I've already replied to Flora786's further message at my talk page. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jorma Kaukonen

Jorma Kaukonen has a wiki page which I am trying to link to a page I am setting up every time I do and save and go back to preview it the system tells me that Jorma Kauk"a"nen has no pg even though I am typing in Jorma Kauk"o"nen who has a wiki page Can you help pl Kilkenny2999 (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to link to another wikipage you have to add brackets like this [[]]. Once you do that you type whatever wikipage your trying to link to, in this case Jorma Kaukone. So it will look like this, Jorma Kaukonen Mirror Freak 16:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kilkenny2999, and welcome to the Teahouse. The error might have something to do with the auto correction in the editing area. Sometimes the software alters the spelling in unfamiliar words as you type. This happens so quickly one does not always notice it. I saw that you at least had been successful in one place with the "o"-spelling. Check, and correct if necessary, just before you do the preview or save. Things like this happens to me all the time when I'm typing Swedish names so it's my best guess. Or, it could just be that you forgot to alter the spelling on the left side (the link side) of the "|" inside the brackets. Btw, don't put the commas inside the brackets, this might also complicate things. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kilkenny2999: One more thing: Skip all the "_"'s. You don't need them when linking inside the Wikipedia. The links should be written [[John Lee Hooker]] not [[John_Lee_Hooker|John Lee Hooker]]. w.carter-Talk 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks folks

Kilkenny2999 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

creating my own page

hello sir, how can i make my own wiki page, Do i must be a celebrity to do so? Sahil paudel (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability Breedentials (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And, Sahil paudel, also see autobiography to understand why, even if you do meet the criteria of notability, you should not create a page about yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My edits looked good in preview but ended up in the middle of someone else's text when I published.

I have searched this site for where to post questions about issues with the website itself instead of issues about the content. My search was not successful so I posted here. If you know where to ask techinical questions about why post submission would enter content in the wrong part of an article please let me know. Thanks Breedentials (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Breedentials, welcome to the Teahouse. Did this happen while you were editing Lead poisoning? Could you point me to the particular edits or edits where content was put into the wrong part of the article? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT, yes it was during my edits to Lead poisoning however there was an additional time this happened in the past which I don't exactly remember. This was the edit. Thanks, Breedentials (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Breedentials: Yeah, it looks like something odd is going on there. This edit looks fine, but in your next edit to the article, the "By March 26, 2014..." paragraph was added multiple times for some reason, and some content was removed for no apparent reason. It sounds like this isn't a case where you copied the paragraph and, without realizing it, pasted it in a few spots. I think good place to report this is on Bugzilla that address any technical issues on Wikipedia. You will need to register an account to report a bug; let me know if you need any help with the process. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

How to make my page look better

So I've learned how to put userboxes, but how am I going to put them where I want them to be ? Right now they are just spread everywhere on my user page. Denizyildirim (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you want them on the left side of your page or on the right. I can set them up for you.Mirror Freak 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 DoneMirror Freak 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks a lot ! :) But if you could tell me how to do it myself, that would be great. Denizyildirim (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Denizyildirim and welcome to the Teahouse. There are so many ways to design your user page. All of them use the same kind of "code" as the articles in the Wikipedia. The WP:MOS is the place to start if you are looking for ways of improve a page. This is where you find links to all kind of "how to" pages. And while fixing up your own page, you might also improve your knowledge about editing articles. :) Another way is to look at the pages of other users (click on the "edit" tab) and simply copy codes from them to experiment with in your sandbox. Just be sure not to alter anything at the user page while copying! Happy learning! w.carter-Talk 18:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Signature

How do you create a special signature with pictures, etc, and how do you create a rainbow effect? I would like my signature to be as current but have it transition from dark red to another shade of red, perhaps closer to purple. Dark Liberty (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Tea house,

For customizing your signature you will find information here, It helped me alot when I customized my signature.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 03:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dark Liberty, in addition to the answer above there is also this page: Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial where you can also find examples of signatures. Please note that pictures in signatures is a no-no "as they annoy editors or increase server load". Best, w.carter-Talk 09:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How long do I have to wait?

I was blocked yesterday for 24 hours for "edit warring" on the Wikipedia page for Katy Perry. My block has now expired, so, at least in theory, I am allowed to edit again. However, I do not want to risk being blocked again, or worse. On the Talk page for Katy Perry, I posted my disagreement with the interpretation of one of her songs. To be fair, I do not feel that an interpretation of one song or one album even belongs on Katy Perry's page, but I was blocked for deleting the interpretation. Nobody has responded to my comments on the Talk page. How long do I have to wait with no responses before I am allowed to edit the page to either remove the song interpretation (or add another, more accurate interpretation) without fear of being blocked again?

Also, it seems that Wikipedia's rule is that secondary sources take precedence over primary sources. That makes no sense to me, to be honest. If I want to post Katy Perry's own interpretation of the song in question, which she wrote, am I allowed to do so, as long as I make it clear that I a referring to the writer's own interpretation? Or is that going to get me blocked.

Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not currently blocked. However...you were actually blocked for edit warring and not for deleting the interpretation alone. You just did it 4 times which crosses the 3 Revert Rule. Remove that again and you will be blocked again, and it will escalate the term of the block from 48 hours to a longer block. The article is has featured status and that means that it has the general consensus that the article is superior to the average article and has a large number of editors watching ti to make sure editing is by consensus. If you have no consensus for your changes and have been reverted...it is time to gain a consensus on the talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

So, in other words, I am permanently banned from deleting a factually incorrect comment. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You personally probably should not remove it again. But that doesn't mean it can't be removed. Go to the talk page, discuss it, and see if others agree with you. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, that is not right @Mitsguy2001:. What you should not do is fight back and forth with other editors in article text. This is called an editwar and is unhealthy to Wikipedia. Instead, what you should do, if you want the change made, is to go to the article talk page, start a discussion, and present your sources of information and try to make your case, so you can reach a consensus with others. That's how you enact change when others disagree. The process you are using is the problem. When there is a disagreement, we talk it over with others, and present evidence to support our case. We don't just ram through a change over and over again and hope that it sticks. --Jayron32 02:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you at least agree with me that (regardless of whether the interpretation is right or wrong) the interpretation of a single song or album should not be included on the Wikipedia page for an artist, especially when the posted interpretation contradicts what the artist herself said about the song? Is there an official policy on this matter to back me up? If so, then can I delete the interpretation without fear of being blocked, given that I would be doing it to confirm to Wikipedia policy? Or is there no such policy? Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I will tell you what I believe. I believe your question has been asked and answered and the rest belongs on the talk page to persuade editors there...not here. All content that is not a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines is a matter of consensus. As far as I can see there is nothing to support any unilateral action by any editor on this article. To do so requires that it is a BLP, copyright or other policy concern. Thanks and happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Per Mark Miller, I'm not really making any statements about the specific content under contention here: Such a discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. If you have links to sources where the artist discusses their interpretation, put those on the article talk page and make your case there. My only concern is over behavior here; which needs to be constructive... --Jayron32 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not looked at the content. But that does not matter at the moment in the first place. What I do want to tell you is this. Please read some of the wikipedia starting policies. One of the things you should read is WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is not about the truth we are just here to report reliable sources. If all of the reliable sources in the world would suddenly say the world is flat, then wikipedia would say the world is flat no matter how wrong that might be. What you can do is find reliable sources, and once again go to the talk page. How long you should wait. If you were reverted for an infinity amount of time. Especially after you have been blocked for edit warring. NathanWubs (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to disagree slightly with NathanWubs: Wikipedia does care about truth, but it cares about verifiable truth. It isn't that Wikipedia doesn't want the truth, it's just that we don't accept the truth just on someone's word. The words "verifiable" and "verifiability" mean "able to be shown to be true" from the latin word Veritas, or "Truth". The meaning of the oft-repeated phrase "Verifiability not Truth" at Wikipedia doesn't mean "Truth makes no difference" It means "It isn't what is true that matters, it's what you can prove to be true that matters". Because that's what verifiable means: proven to be true. At Wikipedia the standard for proof is that it is written about by reliable, third-party sources. So, if you say what you are writing is the truth, that may or may not be so. What Wikipedia needs is to know where you got your information from before we can assess if it is true or not. --Jayron32 14:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, @Mitsguy2001:, I agree with you on this issue. It looks like you guys have come to a consensus, but just thought I'd tell ya. For something like this where the article states a fact as literal truth: the songs are about teenage love, and the writer of the songs herself says something that contradicts that, we need to consider whether our reliably sourced statement is worth having on wikipedia. I mean, just because it's deemed a reliable source doesn't mean it's true. For whatever reason, many wikipedians want to hide behind the policy and say that they have no duty to truth, they have a duty to verifiability. I just think it's silly. It may be following the letter of the rule, but it's ignoring the spirit of it, which is to have an accurate encyclopedia. I'm not saying we should skip the verifiability phase and just post what we believe to be the truth, sources be damned, but on top of verifiability, we should also consider which sourced information is the most reliable and true. In this case, where Perry herself said something that contradicted what the magazine said, I would err on the side of truth in this case and then attribute the statement. It would be different if it was a self-serving statement, but it's not. She knows what she wrote the songs about. The way I would handle it is to say "W magazine said her songs are about teenagers in love, but Perry said..." Secondary sources aren't always preferable to primary ones. It just depends on what it is and how you use it. Bali88 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Like I said, we came up with a reasonable compromise. I agree with you about the letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. I have a feeling that Wikipedia is going to have a lot of letter of the law vs spirit of the law type arguments.

As for primary vs secondary sources: I think sometimes a judgment call is needed. In the case of "Teenage Dream", since Perry was discussing a then-new song that she wrote that had never caused any controversy, she had no incentive to lie about it, so I trust that anything she said was true. On the other hand, if she was discussing a controversial song years later, which she maybe regretted, then it would make sense to put the truth into question. I think that judgment calls need to be made, but unfortunately, it seems that Wikipedia has no place for judgment calls such as this one.

Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous to say that reading the lyrics of a very popular song, which basically everyone has heard, to be "original research". But the other 2 editors involved just kept throwing that phrase at me.

Also, I still have a problem with the fact that I basically have a de facto lifetime ban on editing that part of Katy Perry's page. The other 2 editors have said they will report me if I edit it again, and the administration has said that if they report me, I will get blocked again, for longer this time. It seems that the administration sided with the other 2 editors since they are more experienced. Plus, I picture the kind of people who would be Wikipedia admins to unfortunately be more "letter of the law" type people rather than "spirit of the law" type people. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, First of all, a couple editors cant tell you that you aren't allowed to edit on something. As long as you can provide references for your edits, you can add anything. But the ref's have to be valid though. Mirror Freak 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

AWB

What is the best way to leaern about using AWB? I've noticed that is used on so many of the articles I edit. I am a new page reviewer and think this tool could be especially helpful in what I do. bpage (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The best way to learn about AWB would be to just it or go here for the user manual. TranquilHope (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

bpage for AWB you have to request permission. To do this go to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Also you must have 500 mainspace edits. That means you must have over 500 edits to articles but as you have over 600 you should get permission. Hope this helps. NickGibson3900 ^{Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions} 07:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Upload image

Our NGO has a new logo, but the Wikipedia page shows the old one. How can I replace the obsolete logo with the current one?Wolf Haven International (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Working --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, the article Wolf Haven International now appears to have an up-to-date logo based on their website. I just lost interest in the topic, so for anything else you will need to ask someone else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You will have to create a new account as names of organisations are not allowed as your username.Charles (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding potential bias

Hello, I am a new editor to wikipedia and am still on quite the learning curve with the formatting and guidelines for wikipedia. I was motivated to start an account because as a professional occupational therapist I was concerned with the content and representation of a specialized area of practice, referred to as Sensory Integration. I also felt that the information presented on wikipedia did not accurately portray the sensory integration community comprehensively. It appears that the information regarding the theory of sensory integration is dominated by information on sensory processing and sensory processing disorder. While this is an aspect of the theory of sensory integration it is not the exclusive for of practice in the professional occupational therapy community.

I tried to use up-to-date references and sources to more accurately portray the Anna Jean Ayres page (She was the originator of the theory Sensory Integration and sensory integrative dysfunction). My edits and additions to the page were deleted and changed within 24 hours after I made them. There was no reason given as to why my edits were deleted. I then double-checked my information and sources and also asked for reviews and edits from some colleagues that specialize in the field of sensory integration. I did also receive communication and confirmation of some of the facts from the Jean Ayres family and those who run her estate and own the copyright to most of her work and photos. I then re-posted my edits onto the page. In the comment section on why I changed the content, I noted that a larger community of practitioners specializing in the Ayres Sensory Integration approach and the Ayres family reviewed my edits. The same user that had originally deleted my work without comment has since expressed concern with the page having a conflict of interest and maintaining neutrality. The Anna Jean Ayres site has now been flagged for potential bias. I felt that communicating with A. Jean Ayres family for information and photos for the Biography would enhance the legitimacy not degrade it. And I am worried about the stability of the article and want to avoid an edit war with this other user.

I would like to remedy this situation and present the facts regarding the subject matter. I would appreciate advice on how best to move forward to confirm the validity of the information as well as improving the site’s rating as a good article.

I have reviewed the criteria for a good article. Here are the guidelines to be clear: 1. Well-written: a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2] 2. Verifiable with no original research:[3] a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] and c. it contains no original research. 3. Broad in its coverage: a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7] 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8] a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[9]ASI2020 Vision (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The challenge with editing Wikipedia when one is an expert in a field is that the truth about the most modern developments is not always acceptable for a Wikipedia article. WP:TRUTH will probably not amuse you, but is worth a read. WP:ACADEME is highly relevant to you as an expert in your field, too.

Our problem, if it be a problem, is that we may only record that which is presented to the world in WP:RS. This means, for example, that cutting edge material in an obscure work area is unlikely to be grist to the mill precisely because, though cutting edge, it is obscure and thus does not appear in WP:RS.

All of this means that an article may show a bias because that bias is all that is recorded in the sources we are constrained to use. If you can find relevant sources then that is the way to handle matters. Sources are king. Knowledge is secondary to sources. That is because we are an encyclopaedia, not a publishing organ for, for example, learned papers.

Unless, of course, I am not answering the question you are asking. Fiddle Faddle 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page for Yourself?

Hello, I was wondering if it was a general rule that Wikipedia pages on people are not to be written by those people. or: if pages could be written by the person for the person given they were written in the right tone (impartial, concise) and were given the proper citation.

If the latter is the case, I was wondering if it would be possible for a Host to go over my sandbox page before I try to make it public.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

David Davidaromero (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Writing an autobiography is inadvisable for a great many reasons, even if you are able to write impartially. We advise against it. It usually goes very badly, often resulting in a bitter blow to the ego when one discovers that one is not notable. I urge you to reconsider. Very few people are successful in this enterprise. It is not forbidden, but it is deprecated. Fiddle Faddle 16:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. Given my credentials and the references I have put together, I will proceed.

- David Davidaromero (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Davidaromero - before you start please read WP:Autobiography. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

- David Davidaromero (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Davidaromero: Expanding on Dodger67's useful answer above, you may also want to read these guidelines on conflicts of interest, notability and reliable sources. Wikipedia also has guidelines for the formatting of references - please see Referencing for beginners.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to note here, potential autobiography writers are encouraged to use WP:AFC to create potential articles about themselves, and (as others have said above) strongly discouraged from creating articles about themselves directly. Once you have attended to all the advice given above, your sandbox page can be submitted to WP:AFC by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

One big edit, or many small ones?

I have a whole slew of tweaks for an article. Most of them are minor, stylistic matters, but a few involve changes in the order of paragraphs. What way of introducing them would be most considerate of my fellow editors? All together in one swoop, or one by one in separate edits? Kotabatubara (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kotabatubara and welcome to the Teahouse.
You probably need to aim for the middle-ground. We do not need a separate edit for every single minor change. Conversely, if you make all your changes as one edit, and an editor disagrees with any part of those changes, they cannot just revert the part of your edit that they disagree with, so are likely to revert the entire change. It is often better to edit on a section by section basis, and carry out any routine edits; spelling, grammar etc. first.
You have not said which page you wish to alter, but it is always worth checking the talk page, to be sure that your changes have not been discussed previously, and the edit history to be sure that similar changes have not been reverted in the past. - Arjayay (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for your question. There may not be an either/or answer. I have seen the stylistic edits done either way. Paragraphs may be better done one at a time. Whatever you wind up doing it is most helpful if you use edit summaries to explain what you are doing. Another suggestion is that you set up your own WP:SANDBOX and do all your tinkering there. When you are done you can ask other editors for their input on how your work looks. You can ask editors you know, or place a notice asking for input on the talk page for the article or the Wikiproject that oversees the article. All of this is just one editors opinions and others will have other ideas to share with you. MarnetteD|Talk 16:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, an editor can revert just the part he/she disagrees with. It's just harder because that means simply clicking on "undo" in the history won't work. Though there are tools I'm not familiar with where it would also not work.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kotabatubara

I am glad to share the same experience as you.

I think i also must aim for larger edits instead of minor ones. I'd be happy if we could work on this together. :) Many thanks...Flora xxx

Flora786 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dr Ghanshyam Sharma (Politician)

Hey fellow Wikipedians. Dr Ghanshyam Sharma (Politician) seems to be an unreferenced article that doesn't seem notable. Do you think I should nominate it for speedy depletion, PROD it, or AfD it? Thanks, Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 11:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been speedily deleted by another editor! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

enrolling in a course

Hey teahouse,I am willing to join courses via wikipedia but because of not having enrollment token i am not able to join. I am interrested to join Technology entrepreneurship course as mentioned by Stanford university for 2014 Spring session. so i want your help regarding this topic. krishna chalise 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia does not handle official enrolment for any courses from accredited institutions, it only provides a platform where part of the course activities might occur. The enrolment token is essentially a password which the university provides to its students so that only they can access the course materials on Wikipedia. If you want to do this course you will need to contact Stanford University itself ( http://online.stanford.edu/course/technology-entrepreneurship ). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How to wikipedia guidelines come to be?

There have been a few editing issues I've come across where there really doesn't seem to be any guidelines as to how it should be handled. There are a few things that I think would be great editing guidelines that I'd like to see implemented after I've been here for awhile. How are the guidelines created? What is the process like? Bali88 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if you provided the link to the page where you were stuck. But don't be confused, you can edit the pages as per the knowledge you have about the topic not violating the wikipedia rules. If you are in search of any ddocuments that can help you out then visit the page Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers and take some editing trainnings.krishna418(talk)krishna chalise 07:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, no, I'm not currently stuck, but while editing articles regarding criminal and civil cases, there are certain topics that come up over and over that do not have guidelines currently in place for how to address them. I would like a conversation and consensus to take place addressing how those situations should be handled on wikipedia. :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The place you are looking for to propose new polices or guidelines is: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but please research to be sure there is indeed no policy or guideline already in place before you make any proposals. After over a decade...I think we have all the bases covered but you never know.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Mark is right, we have established a fairly substantial corpus of guidelines over the years. That said, perhaps if you could indicate the editing issues you've encountered then we may be able to point you in the direction of a suitable guideline.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And, of course, we even have a policy about policies and guidelines - which is actually a quite comprehensive and readable introduction to the whole subject. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Bali88 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the main issues that keeps coming up while editing crime articles is how the information is presented. Quite often there are people editing a crime article who are on both sides of it and it ends in a big edit war. The Amanda Knox article is a great example. You have those who are adamant that she is guilty who want to edit the article to say "Amanda Knox is a murderer, she killed her roomate in a drunken sex orgy", and then on the other side of that you have other people who want to down play the whole thing. You can see some discussion on the talk page to that effect. There are quite a few wikipedians who believe that a murder conviction proves conclusively that a specific person is a murderer. There are quite a few others, like myself, who prefer to emphasis that they were convicted as opposed to stating it as an objective fact. This applies to civil cases as well. You can see the talk page for Black Bike Week for an example of a fight over how to discuss edits regarding a civil case.

The second issue, which is related, is that when a crime is being described, many people treat the statements of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and witnesses as literal truth on the basis of who they themselves believe. So like, if a prosecutor argues in court that a defendant killed his wife for insurance money, there are quite a few articles that say "John Smith killed his wife for insurance money". Other articles, written by people convinced of a certain person's innocence will do this the other way around. If a witness testifies for the defense about an alibi, the editor will write it as if it's the literal truth. As far as I can find, there are no wikipedia guidelines regarding this issue. (I think a way to solve the whole thing is to encourage editors to attribute all statements as opposed to presenting it as literal fact.)

These inconsistencies are problematic for a number of reasons. Yes, we do have a NPOV policy, but it's very difficult to enforce NPOV guidelines in crime articles because of the type of article it is and the emotional response it provokes. Also, convincing someone that they aren't being neutral or defining neutrality in crime articles is next to impossible. My POV on the whole issue is that we should have a uniform way that we treat criminal allegations and convictions. I feel like we should state things in a way that we know is true. For instance, if someone has been convicted of a murder, we should phrase it "John Smith was convicted of the murder of his wife. The prosecutor alleges he did it for insurance money. He denies the allegation" as opposed to "John Smith killed his wife for insurance money". This sidesteps all bias. Further, there is the real issue, particularly in America, of wrongful convictions. We may find out in the future that someone was wrongfully convicted and if we've said "John is a serial killer", we've had an inaccurate article for 10 years. If we stick to facts that can be proven and attribute all allegations, regardless of what happens in the future, if we find out he is later innocent, we have always had a reliable article.

I wouldn't bring this up, but it's one of those issues that I see constantly. There are constant arguments and edit wars over this issue and the crime articles would really benefit from some solid guidelines. If anyone can find existing guidelines that help with these issues, let me know, but after months of going over and over these issues, several times posting at teahouse or help desk or other places for advice, no one I know has found any guidelines that helps solve this issue. Bali88 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, another thing I've come across is when it's a crime article such as "Murder of so and so", people will often break BLP rules and talk about criminal actions, for which they has yet to be a conviction, as literal fact. When it is pointed out that it is a BLP violation, they will reply "well, this isn't a BLP, it's an article about a crime, so we can do that here". It's still a living person. They are innocent until proven guilty, it is an allegation until they are convicted. It's kinda sad that it needs to be spelled out that the spirit of these guidelines don't just apply to BLP articles, but for whatever reason, people are taking advantage of that loophole. Bali88 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is spelled out exactly as you want. Read WP:BLP which states " This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." I don't think it could be made more clear. --Jayron32 16:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I'll point that to them next time. I've had that conversation at least a couple times. Bali88 (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

discussing content

I want to discuss an assertion made in an article which I tried unsuccessfully to edit, but who can I discuss it with? moorewdan Moorewdan (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2014‎ ‎

Hi, Moorewdan and welcome to The Teahouse. Every article has a talk page which you get to by clicking on "talk" at the top of the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I see what you did. This is not something appropriate for an article. What you should do is ask the question on Talk:Planck units.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you play multiplayer, in Sonic Boom, can you race?

Is there racing in Sonic Boom?Moved under correct heading— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you can.Project Fairy Member Grace (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi, Project Fairy Member Grace and welcome to The Teahouse. We have a reference desk for questions like these.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How to nominate an article for a merge

Through the copy-editing page's "random article that needs copy-editing" finder, I discovered the article Adaptive Toolbox, which was an orphan article on a heuristics theory. I quickly figured out that it needed to link to the page Gerd Gigerenzer, creator of the theory. After adding some links to the adaptive toolbox page to the page on Dr. Gigernzer, I quickly realized that the two articles would be better if they were merged. However, I have no idea how to nominate for a merge. How do I do that? Luthien22 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Luthien22:, welcome to our wacky wiki world. Wikipedia:Merging gives, as many official documents do, a dreadfully long-winded description. As it happens, you've already started, by proposing the merger in one of the talk pages. The key, I figure, is to give warning. First, in the talk page of the other article, make the same proposal, preferably in a comment of its own rather than a sentence in a paragraph about something else. Wait a day or three, and join any discussion that erupts. If no discussion, make the formal proposal on the article pages themselves, use Template:Mergefrom and Template:Mergeto (the instructions are on those pages). If still no discussion for a few more days, you can generally take that as a "no objection". Cut and paste the doomed article into the chosen survivor, insert a Wikipedia:Redirect in the now dead article, and edit the new, bigger article so it makes sense as one unified article. I've done maybe a hundred mergers over the years, and several hundred splits, and occasionally run into dissent, but this procedure takes me a week or so, and mostly eliminates friction. Of course, a few cases call for quicker action, but this isn't one of those. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Luthien22 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Luthien22: Hi Luthein, If I might add to the advice above, there is one extremely important issue that is described at the process page that was not mentioned: Mandatory copyright attribution. It's simple though. When you add the content to the article you are merging to, make sure you link to the article you're merging from, with a description of that in the edit summary, e.g., Merged content from [[<source page>]] to here. See [[Talk:<merger discussion talk page section, if applicable>]], and do likewise when you redirect the article you merged from, e.g., Merged content to [[<destination page>#<destination section, if applicable>]]. See [[Talk:<merger discussion talk page section, if applicable>]]. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, thanks for that important info! Definitely will keep in mind as the merge discussion goes on. Luthien22 (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold

My Userpage was like all bold words please help the bold words on my userpage. Sri Krishna Raja (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sri Krishna Raja and welcome to The Teahouse. You do not have a userpage. Click on your name and you can start one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And apparently this user was blocked, and the problem no longer exists because the pages in question was deleted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Artical Review?

Somebody on Wikepedia Reviewed an Artical that I Have as a Draft on my own Account But I Cant Find The Review it? Where is it? (Zucat)

The only draft you have on your account is Draft:List of films broadcast by Cartoon Network. TranquilHope (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)