Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, 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

Rules on off Wikipedia discussion

Can you point me to the rules governing discussing/coordinating editing Wikipedia on other forums? Also about being too close to a topic to edit it? Jniech (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Creating a Fully protected page

How can I create a fully protected page. For example, I want to create a page for our company. But only the company members or a authorised member can edit that page. Mmhyamin (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't do that. If I'm understanding correctly, you're asking for a page completely under the subject's control. That's what a Corporate website does; not what Wikipedia does. Of course, I may be misunderstanding. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

REF TOOL

I want to use wiki's REF TOOL Bar. Where do I find it? ladydeonne (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Howdy Lady Deonne. Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. Go to Referencing for beginners and watch the first 5 minute video (click the "full screen" button so you can see the examples). You'll be referencing like an expert in minutes. Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 00:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Signature customization inquiry

Hi again. I noticed that some editors have special fonts on their signatures. I tried this once but it didn't quite work. I know there's a tutorial on signature customization, but it didn't cover fonts. Could anyone show me an example of a customized font and its code, or a table of the different fonts available for such endeavors? Maybe it's not available to new editors? I don't know. Thanks, Das Pig_talk 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Das Pig, and welcome to Wikipedia! This would be the code for the signature if you wanted a cursive font:

<span style="font-family:cursive;">[[User:Biblioworm|Biblioworm]]</span> <span style="font-family:cursive;">([[User_talk:Biblioworm|talk]])</span>

Also, here's a list of basic fonts. To change fonts simply replace the "cursive" with the name of the one you want. Hope that helps! --Biblioworm 00:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! DasPig _talk 00:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Das Pig

You can find useful information and examples of signature here

If you want you can customize them

Best wishes

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 03:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about article tone

Hi! There's an article that I was editing recently that reads exactly like a resume--no personal information, just degrees, theses, achievements, "clinical positons," and the like. Just bullet points; punctuated with a semicolon; like on a resume. Could someone propose this article for deletion or edit it or something? I mean, I think I can, just...can I have some advice on what to do with such articles in the future? That would be good. Thanks, Das Pig_talk 22:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, CaptainPiggles, thanks for noticing, and thanks for asking. There are several things you can do, depending on whether the subject is in fact notable, and on how much effort you are willing to put into it. The ideal, if you are willing, would be to search for the reliable sources, indepedent of the subject which have been written about him. If you can't find any, then he is not notable, and you can nominate the article for deletion using the Articles for deletion process. If you can find the sources, then you could rewrite the article based on the sources.

But often we don't have the time or inclination to do that much work, in which case the tags you've already added are fine. Actually, since it is a biography of a living person, anybody is entitled to remove any unreferenced information in it; but just doing so without doing any work to improve the article might be seen as unconstructive by some editors. --ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help...Das Pig_talk 23:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll make sure to see what I can do about the article. Das Pig_talk 23:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

ColinFine, I did search around on the Internet for Mr. Kaidashev, but still, only achievements and awards turn up...he is listed in the "Minor Awards" in the "2001 Exchange Research Fellowship Award Winners" in the EAACI archives, but that's about it. The same archives listed forty-five different scientists and the like, and this is a hand count with the help of Ctrl+F (the narrow keyword was "Prof."). And Mr. Kaidashev was mentioned once for a minor award. It's quite obvious that he is not notable, because if he was, almost every other person—especially the ones that got major awards—on that list would have an article dedicated to them...perhaps another resume-like article. Mr. Kaidashev has an impressive and extensive resume, but as nothing about his early or personal life has surfaced, or any other reasonable information, this article is, I believe, pretty useless to Wikipedia. Thanks, DasPig _talk 02:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, by all means nominate the article for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Using ecyclopaedia Britannica as a source

Hello, would someone be kind enough to tell me if encyclopaedia Britannica can be used as a source on Wikipedia. Even better would be a link to a relevant Wikipedia guideline page about doing such a thing. Thanks Mbcap (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mbcap: Welcome to the Teahouse. Encyclopedia Britannica is extremely credible, and thus can be used as a source. Generally, if a source is known for being accurate and having editorial oversight, it's reliable. If you're interested, have a guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, that goes into more detail, but it's pretty long and dense reading. --Jakob (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

reformulate Text to a page just created, that was been tagged

How can I reformulate a Text to a Page created by me, that a gnome has tagged to be deleted, because she finds it is too similar to the Text of the source I used for the informations?MirisElocin (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings MirisElocin welcome to the teahouse. I assume you are referring to this article: Majestic_Theatre_(South_Broadway,_Los_Angeles) It was deleted due to detection of a copyright violation. Copyright is taken a lot more seriously at wikipedia than at most sites. Casual copy and pasting of text from other sites is almost never allowed. So we have automated tools to detect potential copyright infringements. I'm just a novice when it comes to these tools but from my quick look at the report for the Majestic it seems to me that this might possibly be a case of a false positive. Here is the report: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Majestic_Theatre_%28South_Broadway,_Los_Angeles%29&url=http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/2422 I could quite possibly be missing something, I don't know much about these tools, but it seems to me that the similarities in text are essentially things like the address. I think the editor that deleted the article was @Lstanley1979: He is the editor you should contact about reverting the deletion. BTW, even if the material is not a copyright violation that doesn't mean the article won't be deleted. You need to establish the wp:notability of the theatre using good references. Also, it's never a good idea to refer to other editors as "gnomes". Civility is an important requirement for a Wikipedia:editor. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MirisElocin and MadScientistX11. The flagged copyvio was word-for-word the same as the reference page, which was why I tagged it as a violation. As I said in the comment, if you do create an article that goes live, please don't copy text directly from the source or reference (which had a clear (c) notice on it, so it wasn't a CC-BY-SA licensed text, which would be compatible with Wikipedia's own licence). Please write article texts in your own words, as although it might have been a placeholder for a more expansive article, Wikipedia cannot host copied text, even temporarily.

If you want to write a replacement article on the subject, please feel free to do so - just use your own words and remember to make sure you have significant sources on the theatre's legacy to ensure it is a notable building. LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional comment - you've now changed things and I think I can take the speedy off. Just be careful when uploading articles - don't base them too closely on one source; instead, read the material and put things into your own words (even if you intend to go back and change it later), so this won't happen in future. LouiseS1979 (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

How to start with editing?

Now, you probably got a lot of these questions but where do I start with editing, and how? Andro498 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure do, @Andro498: Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers/Welcome can help you learn first but the majority of us old-time editors started by reading articles, until we noticed something bad. Like, misspelling, bad grammar, important facts missing. Whatever. So, we fix it. Then we fix something else. Continue doing it and learning and wow, it becomes a big thing. For more details, try looking at #becoming a pro-editor at Wiki. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very helpful! Andro498 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

how does author add review information to article already in wikipedia

I am an author. My book has a Wikipedia entry but it is incomplete. I want to provide links to reviews in known publications. I think I create a new Section under Editing Talk at the book's entry and then supply the web links. What symbols do I need to use at the top?

I also need to correct one number, for which I can refer to another correct Wikipedia article.Helen Winternitz (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Helen Winternitz. Thank you for asking. I'm guessing you've read about conflict of interest, which is why you know about not editing the article directly. There is no particular way you have to format your suggestion - I recommend putting it in a new section of the talk page - (there will be a 'new section' or '+' button on the top, which will give you a field to enter for the title of the section). Note that simply adding links to the reviews to the article would not be appropriate, (there are tight restrictions on adding external links unless they are being directly used as references), but it may very well be appropriate to add some text to the article based on what the reviewers said, and using the reviews as references. I would be inclined to suggest that you propose some text to add to the "Reception" section, being careful to draw only on what the reviewers have said, and not on your own knowledge or opinions. If you read referencing for beginners you can format the references in your proposed text, and make the job of the editor who carries out your request easier. Alternatively, you may just include the references, and ask for somebody to write some text from them. Please sign your contribution to the talk page, as you have here.

You may have to wait for somebody to get round to the job though (if there is not much traffic on the talk page, you can add the template {{edit request}} to the talk page, which will put it on a list of pages awaiting this particular job); and please don't be offended if somebody hacks your suggestion to bits and says something rather different from how you chose to say it.

On changing a number: that sort of factual change you're probably OK making yourself - but it still needs to be referenced, and be aware that Wikipedia is not itself a reliable reference, because anybody may edit it: ideally the figure will be referenced in the other Wikipedia article, and you can use that reference. On the other hand, since you need to create an edit request on the talk page for the other matter, you might just as well put the numerical edit in the request as well. --ColinFine (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Title edits and mis-info deletes?

I'm really new and have 2 basic questions: How does one go about editing the title of an article. Also how does one go about deleting mis-information in an article? Lancelka01 (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lancelka01. We use a procedure called moving to change the name of an article. An account needs to be active for four days and have ten edits to complete a move. Your account is too new. If you mention the specific article here, and the reasons for changing the title, someone can help you. To delete uncited mis-information, just erase it, explaining why in your edit summary. If the information is cited to a poor quality source, then cite a better source, being prepared to explain why your source is more reliable than the other one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed?

Why were my edits removed?Kermisch (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kermisch. I assume you are referring to your edits to the article on Argentine wine. According to the edit summary ([1]), an editor called User:Gadfium felt that what you had added were either unsourced or else sourced from a press release. If you disagree with his reversion of your edits, it may be a good idea to contact him yourself at User_talk:Gadfium, so that he can either explain himself and/or you can explain why you feel that they can be included. Wikipedia generally likes to have articles that are well referenced and some editors may removed information that, while they might be true, they are not certain are reliably accurate. I hope that that helps! KrampusC (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kermisch, I really did not understand which edits you are talking about? Can you please mention the article which you edited? Thanks! Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is difficult because I have first hand experience with the material I submitted. I am a Argentine wine expert and I am actually the source and know these edits to be factual.Kermisch (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Howdy, Kermisch. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that content must be verifiable in independent reliable sources. Additions should usually be supported by in-line citations of a reliable source. From Wikipedia's standpoint, your additions were original research. With your knowledge, you know where information on Argentine wines is published. Watch the first 5 minute video in Referencing for beginners and you will know enough to quickly and easily add proper in-line citations to improve the Argentine wines article. Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

But you allow Laura Catena as a source promoting her father's contribution to the industry posted and cited by their US importer. Can I ask you to strike these remarks as well until I can write my own book?Kermisch (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Laura Catena authored books on Argentine wines and wine regions and, based on other independent reliable sources, is considered an expert. That you disagree with what she wrote does not invalidate her publications. After you publish books or articles that meet the criteria for independent reliable sources, your published material may be used to verify contents of Wikipedia articles. Published information is given due weight if there are conflicts between sources. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 18:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think she only wrote one recipe book. I have produced and directed a documentary on Argentine Malbec called Boom Varietal that played around the country, won 4 awards and is available on Amazon and Itunes. Can I or other people site sources used to make the film?Kermisch (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Kermisch. I don't know about sources used to make the film. Each would have to be checked against the criteria for reliable sources. The film or DVD of Boom Varietal may be used as a reliable source. To add a citation, use Template:Cite_AV_media. At times, even the cover or insert of a DVD can be cited using {{Cite DVD notes}}. Documentary films and educational DVDs are often reliable sources. You may also want to help improve the Malbec article and others. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 13:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Need Help on Creating an article that had been deleted for various reasons

Hi and this the third time I am calling for help, or probably a suggestion in this forum. My discussion is that I want to create an article named Awesome Truth (a professional wrestling tag team). When I searched to verify whether this article exists on Wikipedia, I found it is not created. So I clicked on the red link to create one. Then my eyes were caught on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awesome_Truth (please view them here)! I, however, decided to rather start my work on my sandbox. Will it will be safe for me to start the topic? If not, how can I? One thing to make sure that there is zero percent chance of my article to break the wikipedia policies. Please don't try to mention me in your answers or remind me of your answers on my talk page. Thank you! Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ikhtiar. (I don't understand why you don't want me to ping you in my answer, but I have not done so). If an article has been deleted several times, it is going to be hard to get one accepted, but not impossible. My advice is

1. Read all the deletion discussions carefully. It is possible that some of them were solely about the way the previous attempts were written (eg entirely promotional language), but if it has happened several times, it is likely that the subject simply does not pass the tests for being notable. If that is the case, then no article will be accepted, however it is written. So
2. Find several reliable published sources, unconnected with the subject, that have written about it at length. So if a major newspaper has written an article about Awesome Truth (not just a listing, or an article that mentions it in passing, or a press release, but a real article which talks at length about the team), or somebody has written a book, published by a reputable publisher, which has some pages about it, then that would be one useful source. If you cannot find such places, then the team is not currently notable, and no article will be accepted.
3. If you have found such sources, then there may be an article. Read your first article, and then use the article wizard to create it in Draft space, where it will not be subject to immediate deletion (unless it is a copyright violation) and you can work on it at leisure. --ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Without Discussion: What Can I Do

A photo file on Wikimedia Commmons that my wife contributed specifically for an article about musician Scott Page was nominated for deletion despite a number of files that are practically the same for other artists existing without problem. My wife responded to the nomination for deletion and within minutes of contesting it, the file was deleted. 1) How can they delete the file without giving a discussion the proper time to take place, 2) Why don't editors HELP other editors (it seems it's largely a territorial issue and far more destructive than constructive which is why my wife and I often refer to this article: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/)? 3) Who can we dispute this issue with as we feel this file was most definitely unfairly deleted and without any proper discussion whatsoever? Please help. The file in question is File:ScottPageAutographCrop.jpg. I believe that the file was unfairly deleted based on: Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free album cover. "The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork. As musical cover art, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the packaging of the music would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary. As musical cover art, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the packaging of the music would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary. Using a different image would be misleading as to the identity of the work. Use of the cover art in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above." Can someone please help me understand what's going on?1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi 1987atomheartbrother, welcome to the Teahouse. A comment at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ScottPageAutographCrop.jpg correctly said: "fair use is not allowed on commons". Fair use is however allowed for files uploaded at the English Wikipedia and not at Commons. If they are uploaded here then they can only be used in articles at the English Wikipedia but that also sounds like your goal. If you want to upload as fair use then use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A bit extra to add – keep in mind that Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia are separate websites that operate under separate (though often similar) policies. They are both run by Wikimedia, but have different rules dictating what is allowed. In this instance, Commons specifically is designed for photos that are to be released for public reuse, which an album cover very rarely would be. Album covers may be used on Wikipedia though. See WP:NONFREE for the guidelines. Guidance for Commons licensing can be found at commons: Commons:First steps/License selection. The gist of it is that unless you own it and are ready to license it for redistribusion, or someone else owns it and has specifically licensed it for under an applicable license like Creative Commons, which nearly no commercial album art is licensed under, then it can't be uploaded to Commons (though it may possibly be uploaded to Wikipedia). Best of luck to you and your wife on your future wiki-endeavours! Cheers. DiscantX (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter - I appreciate the feedback and my wife and I (she contributes on the picture side, I contribute on the writing side) will try the Wikipedia upload process. We appreciate your response a great deal!1987atomheartbrother (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, DiscantX - your feedback helps a great deal as well. I truly appreciate this - and the quick responses! 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hide rollback button on watchlist script

Does anyone know where to find a script that hides the rollback button on your watchlist? After this very embarrassing incident, I've decided that it would be best if I hid the link. I know that I once saw a script for that, but I can't seem to find it now. --Biblioworm 20:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So all of my fellow hosts know, I posted the code to your talk page about 15 minutes ago. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Question:

(Moved here + heading by w.carter-Talk 18:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC))

How do I play Wikipedia adventure? I tryed to play it but I couldn't. Does anybody know how to play Wikipedia adventure because I need serious help here. If any body knew how, please send to me the answer right away. By that I mean I can't enter it. Please, I need support to this game. Please answer. I am the user Mostafa12890. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostafa12890 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mostafa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure why you're having trouble. The adventure works for me when I click on the button. Try this direct link, and post here again if it does not work. Regards, --Biblioworm 18:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Mostafa12890. Sorry you are having troubles. Can you give us more detail about what the problem is? Are you getting an error message such as "Page not found"? If so what exactly is the message and what were you doing right before hand? Also, remember the IT support staff golden rule: when things aren't working reboot. The following will solve a lot of Internet gliches: clear the cache from your browser then close the browser and restart it. If that doesn't work try restarting your router. If that doesn't work try rebooting your computer. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor levels

Hey there, Just wanted to know are there any levels of editor here? As in, you begin at a novice level and thereafter depending upon the number and quality of edits are you upgraded to higher levels? Thanks Sigma.4292 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sigma! Welcome to Wikipedia!

All editors are equal at Wikipedia, and a new user's good contribution is just as appreciated as that of an experienced user who has been around for years. We do have user rights, such as rollbacker, reviewer, and administrator, but they are simply extra tools that enable trusted users to further help Wikipedia, and do not give the user holding the rights any status above editors who do not have them. Thanks, --Biblioworm 17:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We do have "levels" in a sense and they are based on edit count and length of service. However, having a higher "rank" doesn't give anyone extra clout in disputes. this lists all the service awards and goes into detail about he criteria. --Jakob (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sigma, the short answer is... sort of! Editors on Wikipedia have a number of different user rights. These rights give the editors varying levels of tools and abilities on Wikipedia. When you create an account you have no additional user rights, but 4 days and 10 edits later you become autoconfirmed; this gives you the right to move pages and edit semi-protected articles. The aim of this is to reduce disruptive editing by logged out or newly created account editors. You can then apply for various extra user rights such as rollback rights (which allow you to undo a number of edits at one time) or reviewing rights (which allow you to review edits made to articles with pending changes protection. administrators, check users, and oversighters are examples of rights which are only given to very experienced editors, providing them with some extra tools and rights. The bottom line is, though, that anyone can edit articles so long as their edits conform to Wikipedia guidelines and policies; most of the extra user rights just give you tools to help with more behind the scenes stuff that could be harmful in inexperienced hands. Hope that helps, and check the links I've added here for extra info. Sam Walton (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

becoming a pro-editor at Wiki

Hi, I wanted to know what should be the steps taken to become a pro-editor at Wiki? I have joined a few days back and had taken the Adventure game to speed up my learning curve. Also, I have tried to edit 5 articles on Wiki, but every time I begin, the task appears quite daunting. I go to the community portals and look for the topics where I have some information to begin with to edit. The task of correcting grammar, proper referencing, creating external links, looking for images combined together makes it a quite difficult. I know this will get easier with time, but if somebody more experienced has a solution to it I am looking forward to it. Thanks. Sigma.4292 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "pro-editor". Perhaps you mean "experienced user"? Becoming a respected editor takes some time here; it usually takes a few months to a few years depending on the number and, most importantly, quality of your contributions. You should also become familiar with our policies, guidelines, and some common essays. It's a lot of reading, but it will certainly help you become more familiar with how things work around here. However, you can always be bold and learn as you go along. Thanks, --Biblioworm 17:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sigma.4292, to add to Biblioworm's excellent answer, you can also speed up you path to "enlightenment" and becomming an "experienced user" by having someone who has been here for a while, and knows the tricks, as your mentor or become adopted. It is always good to have someone to "bug" with questions. There is a whole lot of trial and error to becoming a good editor here, so do not be discouraged the first 50 times you fail. We've all been there... It is also good to hang out here at the Teahouse and read all the Q&As, learn from other users questions. You can also "stalk" some of the more experienced editors and read their talk pages and learn from how they edit. Watch, read and learn. All the best, :) - w.carter-Talk 18:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! Being less new on Wikipedia, additional tools that I have found helpful are:

• In web browser, Bookmark(Favorites) really helpful Wikipedia pages (a lot of them), and
• Using Notepad (plain text editor) to stash frequently used and re-used content.

For example, I've been updating Biography articles so I have common See also section content that can be Copy & paste without having to type from scratch every time. A great time saver.

A next-day scanning of 'User contributions' helps me catch things missed or incorrect...sort of like taking a second look. User talk:JoeHebda

Regards,

20:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't understand why the 4-tildes (~) are not signing, so I added my UT above...

JoeHebda, you probably used five tildes instead of four. Cheers! DiscantX (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Sigma.4292. You have found the Teahouse, which is a great step to building your skills - I have found the good folks here to be tremendously helpful, especially when I was getting started. In addition to what has been mentioned above, some other resources that I found helpful were:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Help:Wiki markup
• Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles
• Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners • User:Yunshui/References for beginners
• Wikipedia:Cheatsheet

Hope this helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

request

In the India article the national language is not mentioned.Why?? The national language is Hindi and it should be mentioned and the drive's on is also wrong.It is mentioned as left but India drive's on right side.The steering is on the right side.I kindly request you to put this information correctlyBhootrina (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving this article. In India I see Hindi mentioned a few times, most substantially "India has no national language. Hindi, with the largest number of speakers, is the official language of the government." Are you worried about the way it is being mentioned? Also, I see left hand driving mentioned, but not very prominently, in the infobox. I see you have also placed your request at Talk:India (which is the best place to be doing it) so I shall reply thre as well. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no National language of India - Hindi is the Official language - see Talk:India FAQ No 9 - Arjayay (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bhootrina

Steering is on the right side, but the cars move on the left side of the road, thats why it is said india has left hand drive, so is in my country Pakistan.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 16:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In English, "left hand drive" means that the steering wheel is on the left hand side of the car (as is the case in much of continental Europe and the USA). It does not refer to care driving on the left hand side of the road. If the term is unclear to some readers, perhaps it should be rewritten to avoid confusion? --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Citing U S Patent and Trademark Office database

I am puzzled about how to present a citation to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database. I have cited two trademarks to confirm dates related to a business in Draft:Susan Mohl Powers. The problem is that when I rechecked the URLs to the trademarks, there was an error message that the session had timed-out. So I replaced the URLs with a link to the search engine, and added a note in the citation on entering the product name in the database. Is there a less clunky way to present this info? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It was difficult for me to find the page based on your search description but I eventually got a page with a blue "TSDR" button to http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73411973&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch. This is also the link produced by {{US trademark|73411973}} which renders as U.S. Trademark 73,411,973. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter, that's exactly what I was looking for. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

How to reuse a "{cite book ...}" source multiple times in an article, but with a different page no.

I add tens of citations a week, but not usually from a book where I reuse the book citation multiple times in a single article. I'm aware that a single use of the {{cite book ...}} template includes a |page= or |pages= parameter -- and that works quite well when I only want to use the citation once in an article, and cite either one page or a range of pages.

I've seen some other editor use some syntax at the end of a citation that allows a different page no. to show. But for the life of me, I cannot locate how to do it just now. It is definitely not in the doc for {{cite book}}. Would appreciate any help or pointers. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi N2e, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source and Help:References and page numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, PrimeHunter! That is exactly what I was looking for. N2e (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Need help formatting

I'm not sure I quite understand piping (|) yet. Would someone format this for a Reference: Browman, DL. Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, 2013, 360 p.

And then format the same for a Selected Books section: Browman, DL. Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology. Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, 2013, 360 p. 68.7.39.60 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Here it is: <ref name=browman 2013> {{cite book |last1=Bookman|first1=DL |title=Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology |date=2013 |publisher=Univ. Nebraska |location=Lincoln |isbn= |pages=360 }}</ref> Just add this after your statement that is sourced by it, but please add the full ISBN number first. If you need to use it again in the same article, you may source it with just a simple: <ref name=browman 2013/>Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Stuart Styron

Can someone help out and rewrite some points? Thank you very much. -- Flashfox7 (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flashfox7. Your challenge is to show that this person meets our notability guideline for musicians. I Googled his album release, and didn't find any independent reviews in reliable sources. Though I could be wrong, he doesn't appear notable to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cullen328, he is an artist in an popular independent label calls "Timezone". They sell worldwide and have lots of good german artists. They already are on german wikipedia. Styron is in all online stores and he will publish cd`s elsewell all is upcoming. In social networks he is popular and has a verified facebook page already. He is not over the top or something, but he is also an actor. What do you think is the best way to describe him. I mean he is not only a musician, we can write more neutral things that would be good elsewell. There are some links I found, did you checked it? Thank you. -- Flashfox7 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, FlashFox7. It doesn't make any difference how widely he sells, what he publishes, how popular he is, or whether he has a Facebook page: what matters is (only) whether reliable published sources, independent of him, have written at length about him. If they haven't, then there is essentially nothing which can be put in an article, because almost every single piece of information in an article must be backed up by a reliable published source. The links you have given may be enough, but some of them are not useful because they are no more than mentions of him. Please see NMUSIC for more about the criteria for having an article. As for what to say about him, the answer is the same: you may say about him what the independent reliable sources say about him, nothing more. You should not use any description which is not found in them. --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the "meta-wiki"

I was quite unfamiliar with this myself, but I popped a question anyway to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech#How_many_servers_do_you_have.3F

But, does anyone have any idea what the meta wiki is and what they do? NetworkOP (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NetworkOP. Meta-Wiki is the "internal" wiki for the Wikimedia movement and the several hundred worldwide projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is for behind the scenes discussions of everything from Wikimania to grant making to system wide software developments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See also meta:Meta:About, linked on "About Meta" at the bottom of each page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not get emails when a page I have marked as “Watch this page” is changed.

Hello: Although I checked the box “Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed” in the ‘preferences’ – Wikipedia page, I do not get emails when a page I have marked as “Watch this page” is changed. Is there anything else I need to do in order to ‘watch’ (receive emails) when an edited page is changed? Please let me know. Thanks! Nandinik (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What settings do you have set in the "e-mail options" under the "Notifications" tab?
This has four options:- Do not send me e-mail notifications, Individual notifications as they come in, a daily summary and a weekly summary. - Arjayay (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! For e-mail options, I have the default setting of ‘Individual notifications as they come in’ – should I change that? Nandinik (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the notification email options work the same as the option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal for "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed". As far as I can tell, the way that works is that once an email is sent for a page on your watchlist after a change is made, you will not get another email for any future change until you view the page while logged in (not its history or a diff but the actual page), and you will only be informed by email of the first change that occurs after the last logged in viewing. See meta:Help:Watching pages#E-mail notification. Maybe someone can confirm if it works the same and thus that you are getting the notifications emailed, but the issue is that you are looking for notifications for every change, even though you haven't visited the page while logged in after receiving a notification. Again, take this with a grain of salt, because I'm not sure the notifications emails work the same way (and see nothing at wmf:Echo (Notifications) to confirm yes or no).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Make sure it does not go to your spam folder.NetworkOP (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I do have "email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" checked. I plan to carefully read the links and see what the problem might be. Thanks again for all the help! Nandinik (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you please tell me where to start

Hi, my name is Arnold Sean and I am interested in wikipedia's network and traffic management. I want to contribute to building a successful wikipedia, but I want to do so via more behind the scenes means. However, I am not aware what type of servers or what platform wikipedia uses and am wondering what type of a syntax "wikicode" is.

Thank you for reading and I would highly appreciate a response.

Yours truly

NetworkOP (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings NetworkOP There are people who are a lot more technical about the details of Wikipedia than I am but I can't resist a technical question so here are some of my thoughts. The Wiki markup language... what I'm using right here... is a markup language similar to HTML. However, Wiki markup is simpler than HTML. There is probably a way to do scripting in Wiki markup but I've never done it and for the most part articles don't need and shouldn't use advanced features like scripting. The design goal of HTML is to be a very powerful markup language that can be used for all sorts of sites, from the most basic to real time video. The design goal for Wiki markup is to provide a simple standardized language to edit the encyclopedia and to provide a consistent look and feel for the site. It is possible to escape from Wikicode to HTML if there is something really specialized that an editor needs to do but in my several years as an editor I've never seen a justified example of someone doing that and it is something I would strongly discourage a fellow editor from doing unless they had a really compelling argument. You might also want to check out the Wikipedia:Village_pump It's a place where new technical ideas are discussed and proposed. You might find this section of particular interest: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) Another great site for techies is this one: http://stats.wikimedia.org/ You can find all sorts of real time statistics there about how the site (and various companion sites) are being used and have been used over history. As far as the servers go that is a good question and I don't have a clue. My guess is that like most large sites Wikipedia uses some third party service and that the actual platform is heterogeneous, i.e. some language like Java that runs on multiple platforms and can take advantage of things like distributed processing. But that's just a guess, I would be interested in what other people have to say. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

NetworkOP here are a couple of fairly recent articles about the infrastructure. I don't know this site so have no idea how reliable this info is but just fyi: A Look Inside Wikipedia’s Infrastructure Closer Look: Wikipedia’s Internet Infrastructure --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

One last link. But I think this is probably more relevant than some of the others. This is the site for the software that Wikipedia uses which is Open Source and freely available for others to use as well: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I lied, THESE are the last links... couldn't resist just came across these while working on something else: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/Ambassadors --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think the editing toolbar is a little outdated, it looks like something from 2005, while you are the 6th most popular website in the world.NetworkOP (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: Hey NetworkOP It is a testament to the model that Wikipedia is. Google, at number one (according to Alexa [which places Wikipedia at seventh]) has 55,030 employees (according to its 2014 Financial Tables) and budgeted $569 million just for ads and had revenue of almost $7 billion. Twitter, at ninth, has about 3,600 according to their about page. Wikipedia has 241 by my count, only some of which are in the technology end, and which includes 20 fellowships, i.e., not full time and full salaried employees, and a budget of just over $50 million, which is equal to its revenue since its a not-for-profit company. If you want to volunteer and try to design something better, see mw:How to contribute. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

NetworkOP Regarding the UI, I'm the wrong person to ask. I always prefer something that is simple and functional to something that is flashy. I agree the editing toolbar looks like something from VB but it works, is easy to use, and is consistent across several different browsers and operating systems that I use. I'm actually a major fan of the Wikipedia technology. I've worked with far more sophisticated groupware environments with all sorts of bells and whistles such as Lotus Notes and IMO Wikipedia is far better and more scalable. But there is a project to develop a more up to date Wikipedia:VisualEditor If you want to help make that happen I'm sure they would welcome extra help. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

When should I welcome people?

I'm just curious about when to welcome users, would it be okay to do any newly created users or should I wait until they do some edits? Thanks! ~HackedBotato (Chat with me ♽ Contribs) 16:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@HackedBotato: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm sure the new users would appreciate a welcome right away.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! ~HackedBotato (Chat with me ♽ Contribs) 20:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is to add a welcome template - normally with a link to the Teahouse unless I saw them here already - to anyone with a red-linked talk page :D. LouiseS1979 (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Writing a article

Hello I'm trying to write an article like this -

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

For an organisation in England, i'm finding it quite confusing how to add all the info and logo as well as keep people etc

thanks

ReganHull (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ReganHull, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, off, please don't use the dreadful article United Kingdom Skateboarding Association as a model. It is an example of an article that was created several years ago, and would not be accepted now, because it has no inline references whatever, and is full of non-neutral language. if you want to write a new article, my next advice after the above would be to spend some time editing existing articles: creating a new article is hard. Then read your first article, to find out how to tell whether your subject should have an article at all: if it has not been written about at length in multiple reliable published sources which are independent of the subject, then it should not have one. If, after reading that, and finding sufficient independent published sources, you want to go ahead, I strongly recommend you use the article wizard, so that your draft is somewhere that you can work on it until you are ready to have it reviewed. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I have just nominated that article for deletion: I can't find any substantial references to it, so I believe it is unsaveable. --ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Tools for analyzing page edits

I'm hunting for a tool that might give me some insight into how many unique editors are responsible for a given page but, I'm having some trouble finding something like this. Basically I would like to be able to see how many active (and unique) editors (users/admins/IPs) are working on a specific page -- and ideally-- within a specific amount of time and, if possible, how many edits have been preformed by each editor. I know there are some studies discussing this (unique editors to overall edits made, etc) for the whole of Wikipedia but, I'm curious to find some information for specific pages. Any tools, articles or studies that exist on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Aloblivion (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aloblivion. You can click the "View history" tab on a page at the English Wikipedia and then "Revision history statistics" near the top. The tool has however been unstable for some time and isn't currently responding for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Aloblivion: welcome to The Teahouse. You could try WP:VPT to see if anyone knows whether what you want to do can be done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

When to reply to talk page posts?

How old should a talk page post be before it's too old to reply to? I would guess that if it was posted two or three years ago, it would probably be too old for sure, but should I reply to something someone said six months ago?Zgialor (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I go right ahead in such cases; no need to fuss. Wikipedians are sometimes grouchy but not about this kind of thing. If nobody's listening anymore, it's merely a small waste of time. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zgialor: You can use {{ping}} to notify registered users of your reply. You can check their user contributions see whether they are still active. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zgialor: I just want to add that for some editors six months is not a long time at all. More than once I've added some comments to a talk page, then gone on to work on something else and forgot about it, then come back to that page six months or more later because someone replied to my talk page comment or I just stumbled back on it as a result of other editing. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and MadScientistX11: So, if someone said something five years ago, but they're still active and what they said is still relevant, I could still reply to them? Zgialor (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zgialor: Everyone has different editing styles and I don't want to claim my way is the right or best way but for me I don't really care how old a comment on a talk page is. If it makes a cogent point that hasn't been fixed and that I have something constructive to say about I think it's fine, in fact it's a good idea, to reply regardless of how old the comment is. Even if the person who made the comment is no longer paying attention there may be others that are. I'm also a software developer. When you develop software one of the counter intuitive things you learn is that defining the requirements and maintaining the application takes up a lot more time than actually writing the code. That's how I got in the habit of over communicating. I view talk pages as meta-data about the article, they represent a history of why decisions were made and capture the rationales for making them. I will document things on talk pages even when no one else is replying just so that if someone comes along later and asks why a certain edit was done I can point back to the talk page. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: OK, that makes sense. Thanks! Zgialor (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything I do is wrong

I tried to write an article, and it was deleted as non-significant. I tried again, and it was pulled for copyright. I said the organization I was writing about would help me with details, and I was then told I had a conflict of interest. I was told the organization wasn't "notable" enough anyway and had already been rejected for inclusion. I've been warned by two "editors" not to make legal threats, even though I haven't -- I've simply pointed out that there's a Supreme Court ruling in place that covers the name of the organization, and I'm told that's irrelevant.

All I really want to do is get a redirect corrected so that when you type in the name of a specific church, it doesn't bring up the page of a white supremacist hate group that once used a similar form of the church's name in its own title.

I've read the rules. I understand COI and copyright. I get that you won't allow an article. So be it.

What I *don't* get is why the redirect can't be corrected? Since all of the brick walls I'm hitting are the result of Wikipedia's proclaimed effort to be accurate, why is this INaccuracy allowed to continue?

I understand WHY the redirect is in place and WHY it points the way it does -- but that doesn't make it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohemian Gal (talk • contribs) 02:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly not trying to be a PITA, but how is it OK that a legitimate (albeit "flaky") church continues to be tied to a hate group here -- despite the fact that there is not now, and never has been a connection between them -- and no one sees that as a problem?

Bohemian Gal (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you try the dispute resolution noticeboard. By the way, I happen to agree that the creation of the disambiguation page was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Since every editor tells me that the redirect is fine the way it is, I'm not sure what good dispute resolution will do.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I find no evidence that the Supreme Court ever ruled on this issue, Bohemian Gal. Can you please furnish a citation to the ruling? I do see that lower levels of federal courts ruled in favor of TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation in this case, and against the Hale hate group. But if the Hale group is notable (which it is) and the TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation group isn't (I see no evidence that it is), then what are we to do? Imagine some poor obscure innocent fellow named Charles Manson who is upset that an article about a murderous cult leader comes up when people search for his name. Nothing can be done about that. Wikipedia covers notable topics, even though that may be uncomfortable to those with the same or similar names. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

But the hate group isn't "Church of the Creator" -- it was formerly called "WORLD Church of the Creator". Why not add THAT as the link, and delete "Church of the Creator"? If there's to be no article on Church of the Creator (and I get it, I really do), then when people type in that phrase, they should get one of those pages that says "This page doesn't exist". Right?

All the court rulings are here: http://www.churchofthecreator.com/TM/TMindex.html

It looks like the Supreme Court sent the case back to lower court, but the decision was that the hate group is NOT allowed to use "Church of the Creator".

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You really need to be careful about the claims you make, Bohemian Gal. Don't say the Supreme Court ruled, when instead they deferred to the lower court. That is not a ruling. Wikipedia paraphrases and summarizes what reliable, independent sources say. And my Google search shows that most coverage of "Church of the Creator" is in connection with the hate group which used the name for over 20 years before adding "World" to its name in the 1990s. The best source I see is from the Southern Poverty Law Center, so maybe your complaint should be directed to them, not to Wikipedia. In their defense, they mention the Oregon group as well, describing it as "peace loving". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: your Charles Manson example -- his name isn't protected by Registered Trademark, and Church of the Creator's name is.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a legal scholar, but the gist is that the name is copyrighted by Church of the Creator, NOT the hate group.

And again, the best solution would simply be to remove the redirect completely so that "this page doesn't exist" comes up when people search here.

But I see that I'm going to get nowhere with this appeal. Again.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not consider current trademark status when evaluating the notability of a topic, as we look at the entire history. The hate group did not add "World" to its name until about 22 years after it was formed. Please describe things accurately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the best solution is to change the redirect to WORLD church of the creator and then add something within the article about the hate group's name change.

I just maintain that, to be fair and *accurate*, "Church of the Creator" shouldn't lead to the Creativity Movement.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See? Everything I do is wrong. I'm upset, I'm frustrated, feeling utterly defeated and incredibly disappointed that no one cares about this.

I give up -- you guys win.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I care, and this isn't about "winning", Bohemian Gal. It is about improving the encyclopedia within our policies and guidelines. What you need to do at this point is to create a very brief article, scrupulously neutral, and referenced to the best available independent sources. Start in your sandbox. Do not include any "preaching" language whatsoever. Exactly the opposite of your first effort. I will help. Ask on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cullen, I have left a long message on Bohemian Gal's talk page, hoping that everything will end well. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nahnah4. Thanks for trying to build bridges. But unfortunately you're giving Bohemian Gal misinformation. Notability is not about whether 1 in 5 people, or 1 in 50, or 1 in 5000, have heard of the subject: it is about whether reliable source have been interested enough to write about it. It is often the case that these go together, but not always: certainly there are bands who have many followers but haven't been noticed by writers; and conversely there are subjects known to very few who have been written about at length. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

ColinFine Oops, sorry, help me correct it. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 11:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been told -- repeatedly -- that Church of the Creator is not notable enough for inclusion, so I'm going to waste my time trying to write an article that's just going to be rejected again.

As I've said, though, the only reason I was trying to write an article was so the redirect could be changed. If someone wants to do the right thing and make that change that would pretty much take care of everything.

I understand what everyone is saying about how the hate group is more important, how they used to use the name, etc., etc., etc., but I think I've offered a suitable "compromise" -- make their redirect WORLD church of the creator, put a blurb on their page that they used to use the church's current name, and make it so if someone types in just "church of the creator" they get a "no page found" response. It doesn't "erase" the hate group, it doesn't clutter up the site with an article about an insignificant little church group, and it still gives readers the information they're seeking.

Thanks to those of you who've tried to be helpful.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What to do with an article whose title includes a blatant typo?

Neocollyris subtilef1avescens should obviously be Neocollyris subtileflavescens, to anyone who has some knowledge of Latin, especially biological Latin (flavis = yellow). (For the avoidance of doubt - 'l' not '1'.) (1) The latter article does not yet exist. (2) The typo in the existing article name is so unlikely that a rename/redirect seems pointless. What best to do? Narky Blert (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: You move the page to the new title! I've done that now and unchecked the option to leave a redirect since it's hardly a likely search term. Sam Walton (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term BCE

When and who decided to substitute the abbreviation of Before Christ (BC), with Before Common Era (BCE),which I see from time to time in articles? 2602:304:B21C:1650:F52F:E85:21E6:6979 (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The correct place to ask this kind of question is over at the reference desk, this page is for help with editing Wikipedia. That said, our article Anno Domini seems to contain some information on this question which you might find interesting. Sam Walton (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Internet user. Welcome to the teahouse. The short answer is that, and there are other conventions that this applies to such as the differences between American and British English spellings, what is important is that any article uses the term consistently. Also, the other important point is that unless there is a very good reason to choose BC over BCE (or vice versa) editors should not argue or change the convention in any one article. I.e., if it currently uses BC stick with BC if it uses BCE stick with that unless it's a rare case where there is some important scholarly reason to choose one over the other. Here is some relevant documentation: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Both styles are used as you can see in the link that MadScientistX11 provided. There has apparently been several votings about this where you can read the discussions. Most things on the Wikipedia are not "decided" by one person, if a proposal is made, then the community will vote about it. w.carter-Talk 17:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The history of the use of "CE" and "BCE" is described in our article Common Era. Such usage has been common in Jewish academic literature since the mid-19th century. It should be obvious that Jews would not want to use an abbreviation for "Christ" in their literature. The usage has spread to adherents of other religions, to agnostics and atheists, and to those who prefer to refrain from religious references in secular contexts. Either the traditional "BC" and "AD", or the secular "BCE" and "CE" are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. There should be consistent usage (with the exception of direct quotations) within a given article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there has been some discussion whether current academic use prefers one over the other in general today, but since sources even differ, just be consistent within the article but never change it if using direct quotes.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did I get so much hostility today?

I tried to help with an article about the real life event of the chocolate shop hostage situation (on Wikipedia as 2014 Sydney hostage crisis), and in reading about it there were a lot of people talking about it being terrorism, when it was described quite definitively in news and analysis as not being anywhere near being terrorism. I then saw that someone had created a page on the hashtag that was used to stop backlash against the Muslim community, called "illridewithyou" and the page was nominated to be deleted. When looking at that, I discovered that the guy who had created the article had been blocked for 48 hours, based on the accusation that he had violated the Biographies of Living Persons policy. And yet he very clearly hadn't done it, certainly not with the edit that he made on illridewithyou. He was one word different to quoting word for word what was said in the article! And we are supposed to summarise! I put the edit back in, as it was so obviously a mistake, and I had 3 different administrators threaten to ban me over it. So I put it up on the Biographies of Living Person's Noticeboard and had goodness knows how many threats and quite horrific behaviour directed at me. I asked them to stop but every request to get them to calm down just seems to make it worse and get more people involved.

I just find this confusing, as when I was editing The Strain and people disagreed, I didn't get threats like this, and when I asked people to calm down, they did. So what is the difference? Why are people so hostile with this article and this topic? I don't see any difference to how I approached it, so it couldn't be anything I did wrong, so the question is why are they behaving like that? And how can I get them to stop it?

Or do I just restrict myself to editing TV shows?

That's all fine and good and all, but that article on the hostage situation is really inaccurate, as it seems to be quoting all of the worst media reports on it and ignoring the good quality ones.

Any help is appreciated. KrampusC (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings KrampusC welcome to the teahouse. I notice no one has responded. I think because it's not that clear what specific question you are asking. It sounds like you are saying that you think some other editors are wrong and (forgive my language) it's kind of pissing you off. This doesn't help but for what it's worth I can definitely relate. I can't tell you how angry I get at times when I see someone has reverted my hard work. Once I could literally feel my blood pressure rising -- and this was over an article about Frames in Artificial Intelligence! At times like that I ponder what I call my Cartman solution and usually just say (to myself): Screw you guys, I'm going home! Seriously, there have been more than one occasions where I was sure I was right about something but I just felt like I was getting dumber having to argue with the other person and just gave up. There are always other articles to edit. Or as one of my favorite unofficial Wikipedia articles says: sometimes the best response is to just not give a fuck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you MadScientistX11 and thank you for responding. Please allow me to explain what the issue was.

The article on illridewithyou I noticed was nominated for deletion, and, on checking the reasons for it, it said that the reason it was going to be deleted, per the article 2014 Sydney siege, was because its creator, User:The Almightey Drill, had been blocked for 48 hours for a "massive BLP violation" on the illridewithyou article, and he had then responded in a very nasty way on his talk page. To me, looking at this, it didn't add up.

I am curious, in retrospect, if I should have just stayed out of it, but, as I said, the issue is that the mistake was so obvious that I felt that I should use Wikipedia's policy on "be bold" (WP:BOLD) to revert the mistake and ask the blocking administrator to consider unblocking the guy. I thought that I did it in a pretty nice way, but in response he threatened to ban me over it. He threatened me both on the article page, when he reverted me back, and then he, and 2 other administrators, threatened me on my own talk page = all over a single edit.

I thought that surely Wikipedia as a whole can't be like that, so I asked for an opinion on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, since the rules clearly state that quoting someone themselves can never be a BLP violation. I then received 9 more threats in relation to my daring to question their authority (which, incidently, does remind me of Eric Cartman's "respect my authoritae"), and then I deleted the request on the BLP page. After that, I apologised to everyone for inadvertently stepping on their toes. They refused to accept my apologies, though, and 3 of them continued to harass and threaten me on my user talk page. I was just getting sick of the harassment, so I deleted it. I was then told that it was okay, so I deleted all of it. And I left the whole thing well and truly alone. If these people want to behave so immaturely, then go ahead. At the end of the day, I don't actually care if they have this part in the article or not.

I mean, it is important to include the part that the article's creator included, don't get me wrong. If that article exists, which I believe it should, then it is very important to include the fact that the hashtag's creator is a politician who admitted to making the whole thing up. The blocking admin admitted that that was not an actual BLP violation and was not the reason that he blocked the guy. But he then insisted that there was a secret second reason, but he refused to state what it was. There may well have been a secret second reason so horrific that it can't be shown, but then if that is the case, then why am I in trouble for reverting what he admitted was wrong? Why did I get, ultimately, 11 threats, for daring to question whether it was wrong, when the blocking admin himself admitted that he was wrong?

It reminded me of some people at my work when the boss says that something is true, even though we all know it isn't. Publicly everyone supports the boss, but then, when the boss isn't looking, we all admit that the boss is pretty freaking ridiculous. Like the time we were told that we were all going to have smaller places to work. We all nodded our heads and everything, then we called up the union to complain. Because if we complain in front of the boss, then we risk getting fired. So we'd rather have the union involved.

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, there is no union, so I guess that we just have to stay away from scary bosses.

Is that what we should do? KrampusC (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello KrampusC. I'm sorry that you feel that you were threatened and treated with hostility. I'm currently looking into the circumstances behind the situation, so I'll reply soon and try to explain why this may have happened. --Biblioworm 15:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Biblioworm. I can quote diffs for what people said, but, if I learned anything about how Charlotte Dawson dealt with her cyberbullying, I think doing so would be a bad idea, certainly in public. What I am going to do is to note my apologies to 3 of the people who, deliberately or accidentally, engaged in activities that fit the normal definition of cyberbullying. I wrote to them to apologise for accidentally offending them here: [2] [3] [4] and in response all 3 of them demonstrated an increased level of hostility towards me, including: [5], [6] and [7]. Not only has their bullying continued and escalated, in spite of my withdrawing from the situation completely, but they have tried to encourage others to bully and harass me too. In spite of the blocking admin admitting that my reverting him was not in violation of BLP [8] (as well as various other admissions), he continued to give me threats, and encouraged others to do so. He stated that the block against User:The Almightey Drill was not based on that reversion, but was based on some other, secret, problem, yet he threatened me in relation to that reversion only, and encouraged others to do so! If that isn't cyberbullying, I don't know what is!KrampusC (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@KrampusC: All right, I've looked over most of this, and this is the impression I get. A sentence stating (you know what) was added to the article. Even though there is some evidence to show that the woman editorialized or modified her story, it seems that people felt that it was BLP violation to say that she completely fabricated it, or made it up completely. With that said, I must say that I feel that you were jumped upon a little more than was necessary, especially seeing that you are a rather new user and probably not familiar with all of our policies. For example, instead of getting warned with the level 1 template (most appropriate for a new user, in my opinion), you got a a level 3 warning, merely a single minute after you had gotten your first "impending block" notice from Gnangarra.

Concerning the block of The Almightey Drill, I really can't do anything there, because Nick said that he issued the block mostly because of a serious violation that TAD had posted on a talk page. Since the revisions are revision deleted, and because I'm not an admin, I cannot see them; therefore, I'll have to take Nick's word for it and assume that it was very serious.

Indeed, Wikipedia can be a very strange place, where it can seem that experienced users love jumping upon good-faith newer users who probably don't know any better. I've been actively editing Wikipedia for a mere four months, much shorter than a lot of people here, (although I've been editing wikis for a total of around seven months), and I've already read, witnessed, and personally been through some things that just seem to be more difficult and overblown than they really have to be. There are some admins who misuse their power and influence (one had his tools taken away for that reason just two days ago), but unfortunately, there's really much you can do about it, aside from filing an Arbitration case (reserved for the most serious and repeated incidents). Now, there are also good admins who are friendly and genuinely want to help newer users. Also, here's a page that may be helpful if you get into any further disputes.

Even though this may be frustrating, especially if you really want to edit the page, this is probably the best thing to do if you want to avoid getting yourself into more difficult situations: "If in doubt, stay out!". If you want to learn more about Wikipedia and also have someone who will be around to help when you need it, you might want to check out the mentoring program. Regards, --Biblioworm 16:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you @Biblioworm: for your detailed response. The block against User:The Almightey Drill expired, after 2 days, by the way, and he hasn't been harassed at all over it. Just me. And a few other people who supported TAD (nice acronym! makes it a lot easier!) But mostly me. Based on what I read, I think that the blocking admin especially assumed bad faith, accusing me of being a meatpuppet, as did several others who supported him. As you would have read from the newspaper article, the politician herself admitted to having "editorialised" it, and, not only did I think that "editorialised" and "fabricated" sounded the same, but so did several other newspapers commenting on it. As I said above, the blocking admin admitted that that was not an issue either, and was not why he blocked TAD. Yet, perhaps because he didn't want to highlight what he had revision deleted, he didn't want to expand on the true blocking reason, so pretended that it was for that reason, even though it wasn't, and that led to me getting in trouble, even though I did nothing wrong. Another problem, as you will have noted, and as the guy who gave me my first warning eventually agreed, is that that guy was blocked, then there was a discussion about his block on the article's talk page, then the article was nominated for deletion, which, generally speaking, would be indicative of a bad faith nomination. I noted the timeline and questioned whether it was a legitimate nomination (of note, to date nobody has supported the request to delete it), and was accused of assuming bad faith and demands were made for me to revert that accusation! It was a factual statement, with reference to the timeline, and, given that the nominator commented on the talk page discussion, it seems preposterous to suggest that it was not related, or that the nomination was made genuinely. My argument was that if the AFD was made in relation to his edits, it should wait until the block had expired, as before then it is unfair. That's just simple logic really. You wait until someone has left before you talk about them, then say that they didn't vote? That's very bad. Now, I didn't outright say that he had made the nomination illegitimately, I simply referred to the facts. And he lied about it. He blatantly lied. And in lying he accused me of lying. It is just a little bit hard to take, to have someone lie to you and to everyone else while telling you that you are lying, when you aren't, and you can prove it, and they then have people blindly support them, and threaten you over it. It was just absurd.

Now, the advice you gave seems sound, but the issue is: 1) How can I get them to stop harassing me, and 2) What could I have done different in this case and hence what can I do different next time to prevent a repeat?

I don't think it is a good idea to launch a Request for Arbitration or to go to the Administrator's Noticeboard, when this is at least partially against an administrator (I don't know if the other two are admins or not but they might be) and given that his role as administrator was used as at least partial justification for his behaviour. I think that any response down that path would lead to even more trouble for me, and I imagine I'd probably get banned, drawn and quartered, as would any admin silly enough to support me over it. You'd be seeing little bits of me rolling down the street. My going to the BLP noticeboard was bad enough, as it was steamrolled so badly. Let alone if I went to an admin noticeboard. That doesn't seem sensible to me.

I guess I could just continue to stay away from them and hope that in the future they get bored of it and either stop it or pick a different target. Then if in the future, like months or years later, they start some abuse again, then I can call them on it. That's generally how you deal with bullies of all kinds, so it makes sense that that would be how you would deal with wikibullies.

And I guess as for dealing with it again, I should not boldly revert anything done by any administrator, ever, even if it is obviously wrong. What I perhaps should have done instead was to first discuss it on the talk page, and then, if I, as it seems I would have, got a lot of hostility, then I would leave it alone, or at least back off. The issue seems to be that I was bold in simply reverting it. I mean, I was clearly right in doing it, and had it been someone who wasn't an admin, and who hadn't banned someone over it, nothing would have happened. The issue seems to be that this was an admin doing it, and because, for whatever reason, he felt that it was a big deal. Or at least that blocking the guy was a big deal.

But he was only blocked for 2 days, and, in spite of some quite abusive messages by TAD, TAD wasn't blocked further. TAD also seems to have engaged in some sock puppeting, or at least it looked like that to me. Yet nothing happened to him. I would have thought that he would have got in trouble for that, not me for suggesting that the blocking reason was a mistake.

And I have edited for a few months, so I am not really new. I am just not prolific. I don't really like to edit just for the sake of editing. I only edit about things I know about. It seems to me a bit too irritating to have to research everything for hours before I add anything. I'd rather know what I was talking about, and know where the relevant parts are before I start something. I am not being paid for this, so why go to the extra effort? KrampusC (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@KrampusC: Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I missed that you had replied to my reply. Looks like I missed a lot of discussion in the mean time but I just wanted to reply to your last point: "I only edit about things I know about. It seems to me a bit too irritating to have to research everything for hours before I add anything" Think about how the alternative to requiring references would work. You write about what you know and Mr. Foo also writes about what he knows. As will inevitably happen you and Foo disagree. Now how do we resolve it? You talk about your expertise and Foo claims to have even more expertise. There is no objective way to resolve the debate. That is why we need to use good references. Because with references we can have a process to validate information. Of course we are still humans and any process won't be perfect. As I said in my first comment I've run into several cases myself where I thought the other editor was to put it bluntly an idiot and more than once I've just decided "this argument isn't worth the aggravation" and moved on to edit something else. Yes, it's true getting good references can be a pain in the butt and the Wikipedia process if far from perfect but I think it's kind of like democracy: it is awful except compared to the alternatives. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Look, I have decided that, with Wikipedia not seeming to have any real way to deal with cyberbullying, that my best course of action is to retire this account. I had a look at WP:SOCK and it says that, so long as I am not using 2 accounts at the same time, I am okay to do that, and don't even have to tell anyone what my new account is. So I am retiring this account. I won't participate in any of the discussions I had previously. I won't edit any of the pages that I edited relating to the cyberbullying, and I won't contact any of the people that bullied me. I will wait a while before starting a new account, and I am not going to tell anyone what name I choose to have. Anyone who has wondered what has happened to me can check my contributions and see what has happened. Having read through the rules on sock puppeting, it is okay to do this, so that, I think, is the right thing to do. Otherwise I feel that someone will manipulate the threats I received to use to hurt me in the future, whether I am silly enough to make a complaint to ANI or not. As for making a complaint to ANI, I went over it in my head, and I reckon it'd take some 20 hours or more to go through all of the diffs to present a neat little summary, and even then it'd almost certainly result in a similar kind of snowball as the BLP discussion did, which, in that case, escalated the number of people threatening me from 3 up to 11. Even if I did survive an ANI, I reckon it'd lead to me having so much harassment that it isn't worth dealing with. So it is time to disappear. I will decide sometime next year whether to use Wikipedia again, or not. I probably will, but we will see. My experiences before this were fine, but my experiences editing this controversial article, or, oddly, an uncontroversial hashtag in relation to a controversial article, has convinced me that I should steer clear of anything like this. I am not 100% sure what I did wrong, but it seems like it being controversial was probably a factor. My adding references or not is a moot point, by the way, since it was a solitary edit, which had references associated with it. My prior edits to articles had references and citations in them. I won't say goodbye on my talk page or to the people I talked to. They can always check my contributions and refer to it. As for the people who bullied me, I hope that they don't see this as a green light to do this to other people. I hope that they see it as a bit of sadness that they upset someone so much that they felt the need to hide. But I can't control how other people think. KrampusC (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm sorry to hear you have to do that. I have to be honest I didn't look at the issue you were complaining about that carefully. If people were truly bullying you then that is not acceptable behavior and... this is going to seem a bit inconsistent because earlier I was advocating "just move on and find something else to edit" which is what I think is almost always the best choice in these kinds of situations but if you really were getting bullied that is a different matter. Anyway, it's fine to get a new user ID if that is what you feel you have to do. Hope your future experiences are better. In spite of running into a few people I thought were idiots in general I think the community here is truly awesome, so much more collaborative than most sites. Hopefully your future experiences will be more like what most of mine have been. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey KrampusC, please do not retire your account. Please do stay, you do not need to create another account. I see that you are quite new to wikipedia, I joined about 2 or 3 weeks ago so I am a newbie. To be honest I have had my ups and downs as well but not as bad as what you seem to have gone through. Cyber-bullying is never acceptable. I am sure there is some process on wikipedia to escalate your problem so that it can be investigated. Also I have found that controvertial topics like the cafe shooting, israel palestine conflict, islamism, terrorist or islamist related articles are toxic ground. A lot of improvements could be made, but I found I would only be able to contribute once I am grounded in wiki guidelines/policy. I think rather than retiring and changing account you should spend time editing and getting familiar with wiki policy. You would also be able to do something about cyberbullying which you were talking about. Provided you are right about the bullying, you could do something to make it stop so that it does not happen to the next person. Please let me know if you change your mind or you can message me on my talk page. Mbcap (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Real Projective Line Page

Hello. I was a little confused about why ∞+∞ is not defined but ∞*∞ = ∞. This doesn’t make sense. I believe both should be left undefined (for now) and i think 0*∞ , ∞/∞ , and 0/0 should be defined as C where C is a constant. Idk if this constant could be infinity but I certainly think these should be defined. if a/0 = ∞*b then that implies a/b = ∞*0. A similar proof could be done with the others. Am i allowed to change the page or add a note because this is more of an idea but idk if this is 100% correct (maybe a note to the right of the equation?)

From, Michael Orwin

75.129.112.17 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Michael, I hate to pass you off to another locale, but you might get better responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics which is where all the math experts hang out around here. Maybe someone there can help... --Jayron32 04:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ok. Hopefully someone responds tomorrow or Saturday morning. Don't know how quick wikipedia is. Never used wikipedia beforeJetstream5500 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, every article in Wikipedia has an associated Talk page (pick the 'Talk' tab at the top) and that's the best place to start a discussion about the article. If nobody responds there, then this is one of the places to try, but the talk page is your first port of call. The answer to your question is emphaticaly, Yes, you are allowed to change the page: the worst that can happen (as long as you are not being obviously disruptive) is that omebody disagrees and reverts your change: then you can have a discussion with them on the talk page to try and reach consensus. But here, it doesn't sound like correcting an obvious error, but a difference in approach, so I would recommend the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a very informative answer.Jetstream5500 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Various different Welcome templates

I have seen quite a variety of different welcome templates used on new users' talk pages. Is there a list of these templates and advice about when to use which one?

I'm particularly looking to welcome a new editor whose first contribution has been reverted. Thus the welcome message needs to sympathize with the loss of all their (good faith) work and then explain that it's nothing personal, such revertions happen routinely for a variety of reasons. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Roger (Dodger67) There are a lot of welcome templates listed on this page I'm sure you can find a suitable one, but the best thing is always to post a template, and then create a new section below were you can commiserate with the new user and give some friendly support. In situations like that, new users always need a friendly "voice" from a real person rather than a template. If you ever want to find templates for some reason, just write "Template:Whatever you are looking for" in the searchbox and something will turn up, then look at the bottom of the page where the categories are and you will find the page were similar templates are listed. In this case I just typed "Template:Welcome" in the searchbox and at the bottom of the page I saw "Category:Welcome templates" and clicking on that gave me the page with the list. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing redirects on Wikipedia?

I'm thinking that some redirects on Wikipedia may be confusing to viewers. For example, "Tapeworm" redirects to Cestoda and "Great Ape" redirects to Hominidae. There are many people who know what tapeworms and great apes are, but they have never heard of "Cestoda" or "Hominidae". And I am afraid that after they search "Tapeworm" or "Great Ape" into Wikipedia and be redirected, they will be like, "What the heck is Cestoda?" or "What the heck is Hominidae?" Please reply back, and also consider fixing the confusion problem. ApparatumLover (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ApparatumoLover. Anybody who looks for "Tapeworm" is redirected, as you say, to Cestoda, which says at the top: "Cestoda (Cestoidea) is the name given to a class of parasitic flatworms, of the phylum Platyhelminthes. Biologists informally refer to them as cestodes. The best-known species are commonly called tapeworms.". I don't think it could be much clearer, and it would be wrong to title that article "Tapeworm", since it is wider than only tapeworms. This is an encyclopaedia, where people go looking for knowledge: this will often involve terms that are new to them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Twin Flames topic

Hello, My name is ArcAAngelous, it is my first time using wiki as an editor. I must apologies for being so quick to edit the topic without following Wiki guidelines, I'll make sure to follow the proper guidelines from now on. With that said, I have a question regarding sources and credibility with regards to this particular subject, Twin Flames. Are channeled messages considered to be valid sources? What about extensive personal experience? What exactly can be considered valid sources in regards to a topic such as this? The current information in wiki on Twin Flames is vastly incorrect, a very good try by contributing editor, none the less incorrect. I did read that the user is aware of the page requiring a whole rewrite however, how should we proceed due to the nature of the topic?

I can cite an channeled message from a self publishing site, well known and respected, assuming that may be considered a valid source? I could also write about my own experience on the subject having vast experience, even personal experience, on the subject. However, would that be considered a valid source and/or approach to this topic? I thank thee for your consideration and time. ArcAAngelous — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcAAngelous (talk • contribs) 02:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Data erased (authentic)

My profile/bio was deleted "Guyon McCormack" by an unknown person/user deleted it. All of the info was authentic, verified, professional, and no violations. could I please have some help to bring it back and locked so people can not just edit or delete it?

Thank you, GM

gmccorma (at) usc.edu 619-895-4988 mobile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.41.131 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)