Wikipedia:Teahouse

David notMD, 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

My minor addition was again reverted

I added a small fact to the Wikipedia page on the movie Free Birds. It was reverted without comment, and I asked for help here - see below.

I found a reference for the fact, and did another edit. My edit was again reverted, with the comment 'Saying "it wasn't released" adds nothing. Were better off not inclusing it.'

I personally think the fact that a film released in theatres in 3D was not released in the United States for the home market in 3D is a relevant fact for an article about the movie.

I have never had an edit I made reverted like this. I don't think reverting back to my version seems like a very productive move. How should I proceed? Benthatsme (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Benthatsme. I think that might be a reasonable thing to note in the article, but the source you gave is just a blu-ray listing. If sources discussing the film in depth have noted that it was not released in 3D in the US, then it's probably relevant to the article. If they haven't, then it does still look (to others) like original research; it may be true that it was not released in 3D, but it's not being remarked upon by the secondary sources usually used to feed a Wikipedia article. The source looks a bit flimsy compared to the extensive commentary given as other sources for the article. What I'd be looking for would be other commentators who have remarked on it not being released in 3D in the US, rather than just that that is a fact. The www.blu-ray.com source looks like a primary source, which are useful for verifying information about a film (such as its release on blu-ray, which that same source is also used to prove) but not usually used for making editorial comments about them. There's nothing in the source which states it was not released in 3D at all, so the addition was probably reverted as not being shown by the source or proved by the source to be a particularly noteworthy issue.

Generally, if you can't find a source which highlights something as unusual or remarkable about a particular subject, it's not generally highlighted in a Wikipedia article.

Regarding the other person and their reversion, in general, when this happens, the normal procedure would now be to ask them why they didn't like the edit and discuss it with them on the talk page for the article here or their user talk page here. I know it's frustrating, but approaching the person who disagrees with you about the relevance or otherwise of a particular passage is the best way of getting a concrete answer (particularly in light of the above). It would also help if you approached them assuming they changed your edit in good faith rather than with an accusatory or upset/angry tone. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Recycle Rush copyright violation help

Hello,

At the Recycle Rush page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycle_Rush), I have recently had basically all the information deleted for copyright violation issues. I can say that the part which violated the copyright (the "rules" part) was not done by me, so I will just have to do it myself another time so that it doesn't violate the copyright. However, the "events" part that I had written had not violated any copyrights, so I do not understand why it was deleted. Plus I even included the source for that part and you could clearly see that there was no copyright violation. If someone could please inform me on this, it would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! TheRoboticGuy (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@TheRoboticGuy: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I agree that the list of events should probably not have been reverted. As for the rest of it, the problem may be that you (or someone, since you are not the guilty party) need to write the information in your own words and not just say what the source said. Also, we do not use "℠" and "®" in articles. It would be helpful to find multiple sources that establish notability, and especially sources independent of the subject of the article. Have magazines and newspapers covered this sport?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Subject of Notability

This has nothing to do with the article that I originally attempted to write, but comments about the exclusion of a reference to a person who was not considered "notable". The person excluded from an article was a tutor to the "notable" person whom the article was about. So I ask do we only include that Haydn was a teacher of Beethoven because Haydn, himself was a notable person. Then perhaps we should edit the article about Johann Sebastian Bach and exclude his brother, Johann Christoph Bach, and his father, Johann Abrosius Bach, because if they had not been related Johann Sebastian Bach, and played a part in his musical education, no one probably would have taken note of them. They were not really famous or notable in and of themselves. I contest that sometimes a person is notable simply because they played a part in the life of someone else who would be considered "notable". I think your rules on "notability are just a little too stringent, because if you would enforce those rules in the article about Johann Sebastian Bach, I believe there would be a lot of people missing. I'm not advocating that we make people notable because they walked down the same street as the notable person did, but if they played a significant role in their lives, perhaps they should be included. 98.239.215.41 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Article Submission Denied. Came across as advertisement. Need insight

I recently submitted an article for my current company I work for. It was denied on the basis it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. Could you take a looks and provide insight into the areas that come across mroe as a advertisment so I can remove or edit them? Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lumo_(sonarDesign) Bclark1220 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#17:15:43.2C 5 January 2015 review of submission by Bclark1220 -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence not adequate

Hi guys,

I submitted the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chris_Rokos_%28former_hedge_fund_manager%29

Unfortunately is was declined as "This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability". I was nearly sure that references used by me were verifable and independent.

Any ideas will be appreciated. MichelleOD (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MichelleOD. I think the references are borderline adequate. In my view the Reuters one is the only one substantial enough to contribute to notabililty - one or both of the FT and WSJ may do so, but I can't see them. The rest are reliable, and so can be used to support individual claims in the article, but are not in my view substantial enough to demonstrate notability. (Institutional Investors Alpha might be, again, but reads to me like a press release, in which case it is not independent). I suggest you ask The Herald (the user that declined it) on their talk page how you might improve it. --ColinFine (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Money in the Bank 2015

Please move WWE Money in the Bank (2015) to Money in the Bank (2015). At first Money in the Bank (2015) must be linked from other pages. This message is only for administrators. Thanks. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ikhtiar H, if you have a request for a page to me moved, the right place for that is at the Wikipedia:Requested moves, not the Teahouse. Best w.carter-Talk 13:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My article has been declined and don't seem to get what is wrong with it

Hello My article has been declined and don't seem to get what is wrong with it. All the best85.241.24.149 (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi 85.241.24.149, welcome to the Wikipedia Teahouse. Your article is declined because you do not have a Wikipedia account. If you have a minute, consider creating one. It's an easy way to keep track of your contributions and helps you communicate with the rest of the community. All you need to register is a username and password. However, if you would like to continue editing anonymously, that's fine too. Thanks. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello 85.241.24.149, to add to the answer given abowe, the only edits I can see on your account are this question and one at the Help desk. Did you perhaps just forget to log in when you wrote these questions? In that case, please provide us with the name of the article you were working on and we will be able to help you. w.carter-Talk 13:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. When Draft:Saturnia (band) was declined the note left at the top of the page stating the decline reasons had a number of links in it that further explained the words being used. To wit, it said:

"This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

Did you click on any of those links to see what the concepts meant? There is a larger problem however. The draft was a blatant copyright violation, which has now been noted in its deletion log. Please do not copy and paste any copyrighted text again. Note that if you are the owner of the text, we could only use it if you or someone else with ownership of over the copyright, released it to the world under a compatible free copyright license (or into the public domain); we could not use it simply with your permission for our use here. If this content was suitable in the first place to be in an encyclopedia article—it was very promotional and could not be used in the form submitted anyway—some of the the methods for provided a copyright release are set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Template required

I am looking for an existing navbox template which creates a navbox like {{Ladies European Tour Seasons}} but which I can get by entering something like {{:numberlist|name=Ladies European Tour Seasons|link=Ladies European Tour|min=2006,max=2015}}. I'm surprised I can't find something. Nigej (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

sizing photo in infobox

Hi, I'm working on the Paul Steinhardt page, and would like to adjust the photo I'm using at the top of the infobox.

1. How can I make it larger/wider? 2. How do I change the caption? (this is a photo I uploaded)

Thanks so much for the help! Sleepy Geek (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sleepy Geek, welcome to the Teahouse. The infobox code starts {{Infobox scientist. That means it uses Template:Infobox scientist which is also linked at bottom of the edit window if you click "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page". The template page has documentation for the image parameters. I used that in [1]. There is also a caption parameter. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

{{Reflist}} in edit mode

In article on Morrison Formation there is a {{Reflist}} but the actual references do not display. I want to add to this article and cite my addition. Thanks. Hilyard (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hilyard. Inline references are not placed in the Reflist section, which is a template. The coding for each individual reference is placed in the body of the article, immediately following the content being referenced. When the page is displayed in the normal viewing mode, the Reflist template displays the references in the proper order in the References section of the article. This is a simplified explanation of what can be very complex in lengthy, sophisticated articles. Please read Referencing for beginners for a good overview, and feel free to ask follow-up questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The references are appearing in the article so I presume you are trying to see the ones you add in your edit..??? To do that you need to preview the article and if you are edition only a section -- you need to add a {{reflist}} temporarily to the bottom of the section so the references will appear below the section -- remove it before saving the edit. Hope thos helps, Ariconte (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Another tip:   to see what the citation will look like before you save your edit, if you use a cite template from the toolbar, you can press the Preview button, then 'Show parsed view' to see how the citation will appear in the references.  ~I hope this helps.  ~Eric, aka:71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

how can I get a new page started about the Coworking Institute

The Coworking Institute, established by myself in 1999, predates the establishment of coworking as described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coworking - The author of the coworking page at one time mentioned that my use of the term was an antecedent to his, but he found that it somehow proved confusing, and wished to make a clean separation between his use of the term and mine. Rather than make the distinction clear on his coworking page, he chose to remove all references to my use of it. I believe, however, that there are some very useful connections to be made, and would like to go about doing so. However, as I am the person who coined the term as well as started the Coworking Institute, I realize there would be conflict of interest and I would not be able to create such a page. I would like therefore to find someone who would be interested in doing that.

I do not at all contest that Brad's use of the term "coworking" to describe the idea of a shared, and hopefully communal office space is original to him. I do want to make clear, however, that I did use the term "coworking" - actually earlier than 1999, but as far as the wayback machine is able to document, 1999 - http://web.archive.org/web/19990429122650/http://technography.com/ - which is a good enough date to establish my prior use - to describe what I called "working together as equals." It seems to me that this is very much in the same spirit as Brad's use of the term. And it is also true that I linked the use to computers. Here's a bit more of the history of my use of the term: I had developed a methodology I called "technography" for facilitating meetings. It was based on using a single computer (at that time, computers were hard to come by and never found in meeting rooms) with a big projector to help document and organize collaborative work, especially brainstorming and strategic planning meetings. I've written about that extensively, first in 1986 in a publication called "Power Meetings." Later in 1990 is a book called "Connected Executives". Here's an article from the LA Times - http://articles.latimes.com/2000/mar/29/business/fi-13745 - describing a bit more about my use - and an article by Michael Schrage which shows me using the domain - http://www.co-intelligence.org/CItidbits-SchrageCollab.html - I established the CoWorking Institute in which Gerrit later joined me in the capacity of archivist to help document other applications of technology to support collaborative work. When I discovered that Brad had started using that term, I was delighted, and supported him totally in his efforts to apply it to his concept, granting him the use coworking.com and coworking.org - Gerrit and I decided to keep coworking.net I feel that conceptually, we are working towards the same ends, which is why I feel so good about his use of the word. On the other hand, I do believe that, though he may not have known about my prior use of the term, that reference to me, not as the originator of his use of the term, but as the originator of the term itself, is both merited and of value to all parties.

I did a search on the Internet hoping I could find some sources. I did find these links mentioning the Coworking Institute by name http://coworking.net/ | Welcome to The CoWorking Institute (this link is current, the only domain we kept) http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2004/06/11/coworking-institute/ | elearnspace › Coworking Institute http://www.livestream.com/coworkingnews | Daily News from the Coworking Institute - live streaming video powered by Livestream http://www.newhois.net/www/coworking.net.html | coworking.net - Welcome to The CoWorking Institute | The CoWorking Institute .. http://www.topictimes.com/videos/film/better-meetings-full-Pct9GfM5m5A.html | Better Meetings http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/17690 | It's A Match http://www.mcgeesmusings.net/2002/03/05.html | McGee's Musings http://www.co-intelligence.org/CItidbits-SchrageCollab.html | Michael Schrage on Collaboration http://www.cognexus.org/id27.htm | Related Work http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Bernie-DeKoven/21462041 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/amazing-what-you-can-do-with-a-little-electronic-duct-tape/article4147877/

Bernard De Koven 20:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs)

Hello, Majorfun. As you have a conflict of interest, you might need to put some basic detail about yourself on your user page if you intend to involve yourself in this project. If the institute is notable (per the usual sourcing guidelines here) then I don't see why it shouldn't have a page, but given the COI rules, I suggest you use one of the services on offer to draft and request help and assistance, such as WP:Articles for Creation, or make a request on WP:Requested Articles. LouiseS1979 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

here's one more reference - http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/156192/The-History-Of-Coworking-Presented-By-Deskmag#vars!date=1996-10-05_21:36:23! - sadly, I still haven't found any clear direction as to what the best next step might be.

Bernard De Koven 21:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

pronography on wikipedia is allowed?

I saw users uploaded pornography under the subjects of that would relate to, but why should it be allowed? I don't think it should be allowed. Apriv40dj (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Apriv40dj: Welcome to the teahouse. Since Wikipedia is not censored, pornography is allowed, but only in articles where it has a constructive use. Attempts to rid Wikipedia of it have failed many times in the past. --Jakob (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Apriv40dj, welcome to the Teahouse. You won't find photos like the ones in Playboy adorning Wikipedia articles. However, you will find sexual images in articles relating to sex (e.g., an article on a sex position might contain an illustration of that position). Is there a specific image you're concerned about? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, User:Anomie/hide-images may be of interest to you. I tried it on Commons for some time and it was helpful. It did hide all images, though, but perhaps that was because I didn't follow the instructions exactly. --Jakob (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources and editing

I have tried to edit an article, Alevism, but my edits always get reversed- I have tried putting in good academic sources, but people get emotional and revert anyway. If academic sources are not considered a good basis for editing then editing wikipedia doesn't seem very appealing. I tried in August and gave up after 2 days, but I am trying again! Edging (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Edging. A quick look at Talk:Alevism suggests to me that you are following Wikipedia policies, and the people you are arguing with don't understand them. I suggest you call for third opinion, or something else from the dispute resolution process. --ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What to do when you notice an editor is violating their sanctions

I noticed an editor is violating his permanent page ban and causing mild disruption on a page on my watchlist, but the admin who imposed the series of blocks for repeated violations of community sanctions and then gave him that page ban is busy irl for a couple of weeks. Should I mention this to another admin on their talk page or should I mention it somewhere else like the incidents page? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I infer that you mean that the editor has been topic-banned from Syrian Civil War and is continuing to edit. If this were ArbCom discretionary sanctions I would direct you to their noticeboard. Is there a noticeboard for community general sanctions issues. My advice would be to use a noticeboard or to mention this to another admin, in particular to one who is active on Syrian Civil War as a neutral admin. (You could alternatively raise the issue on the article talk page, addressing it to any admin.) I would avoid going to WP:ANI only in order to minimize disruption, since threads on disruption of contentious articles become disruptive themslves. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The user in question is under a Wikipedia:PBAN on a single page of the topic. They (singular unknown gender) have never been topic banned as far as I can tell, but the PBAN was under the general sanctions for the Syrian Civil war after several escalating blocks from the same Administrator. Having seen how ugly ANIs can get with a recently closed one from the topic, I'd rather not resort to that. I assume the fact it's a PBAN rather than a topic-ban doesn't make a difference however? I found where they log the blocks and bans (WP:GS/SCW), but not anywhere to report violations. I guess I should try to figure out which of the admins who is active on the topic is closest to counting as a neutral admin? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding information based on editor's own published research

I am sure that the answer to this is in here somewhere but could someone please clarify. If a researcher or academic wanted to edit or create an article based on their own PUBLISHED research could they do so, provided the publication is peer reviewed? Thanks Evanscartref (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is allowed, subject to limitations described at WP:SELFCITE. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Evanscartref. Adding to the correct answer above, this is acceptable as long as it does "not place undue emphasis on your work." A published researcher will be familiar with the related work of other academics. The purpose of citing one's own work must be to improve the quality of our coverage of the topic, which means summarizing all the important research on the topic. So, if you cite the four or five best sources, and you are among them, then that is fine. If you consistently cite only your own work, that is considered promotionalistic and highly discouraged. If you cite yourself to gain the upper hand in an academic dispute, the response will be quite vigorous in opposition. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"Sufficient Claim of Fair Use" Question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ScottPageAutograph.jpg#Licensing

I would truly appreciate if I could get feedback from an experienced editor, administrator, or patroller to make sure I have completed the Sufficient Claim for Fair Use information correctly and so the file won't be deleted. This is the file in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ScottPageAutograph.jpg#Licensing. This has taken quite a bit of work for a couple of reasons, so I could use help getting it right!1987atomheartbrother (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@1987atomheartbrother: I don't know the purpose of the image, can you please tell me? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

1987atomheartbrother - it looks OK but don't take my word for it - I'm not that experienced. You've filled out all the sections. Remember you can only use it for the actual article on the album. One thing I'm not sure on is whether the signature makes a difference, perhaps Cullen or ColinFine would like to take a look. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, Louise, but this is not an area of my expertise. If you want my tuppenyworth, 1987atomheartbrother, it doesn't seem to me that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". --ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I, too, have my doubts about this image, Template:1987atomheartbrother. The policy language about use of non-free images can be found at WP:NFCI, which states that album covers can be used for "visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". In practice, the usage is usually in an article about the album, which already has a full image in this case. I have my doubts that a desire to include an autograph overrides the copyright concerns. Seeing or owning an actual autographed album cover may be interesting to a fan, but seeing an image of the autograph in an encyclopedia article doesn't seem necessary to understand the musician. I did notice that the image is once referred to as a book covering the rationale, so that needs to be corrected. All that's just my opinion, and I do not normally participate in image deletion discussions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@1987atomheartbrother:. Hi 1987atomheartbrother. Great user name; love that album. Unfortunately, I don't think this meets fair use. Generally, we only consider it fair use for an album cover to appear in an article on the album itself, not to illustrate some tangentially related subject, for exactly the contextual significance reason described by ColinFine above (WP:NFCC#8). Additionally, to the extent the use is predominantly to display Page's signature, that appears eminently replaceable by a potential free equivalent that would serve the same purpose. I don't think a person's signature is very significant at all in a person's bio, and the text tells us about his contribution to Pink Floyd, which the display of a portion of the album cover doesn't add much to.

Whether fair use is proper should be taken on a case-by-case basis and I can think of potential exceptions to the "album itself" standard I've articulated, but all such exceptions would involve the album cover being of such importance to the topic in a very direct way, such that the article would naturally discuss the cover as part of its prose – say, in an article on an artist who was predominantly known for painting the cover image. I just don't see it here. Tailored places to seek a second opinion are Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank everyone for their feedback, it's a real relief to see a space at Wikipedia where people are collaborative. It's not always that way!

I will leave it alone for now and see what happens but do want to ask for an opinion on this: if I were able to isolate the autograph itself, somehow... would that help sustain this file on the article, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Porcaro#mediaviewer/File:Jeff_Procaro_sig.jpg? I think I will try to do that as a back-up but will hope for the best with the submission for now.1987atomheartbrother (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the status of my article Mark Andrew Zwartynski? I am not able to add the uploaded photo and critical information. please respond.

Please respond. Thank you. I am a Wikipedia supporter, donor and contributor.Markandrewz (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Markandrewz. I see that you have written a draft in your sandbox, but have not yet requested a review through the Articles for creation process. You should not do so, because it would certainly be declined as an unreferenced biography of a living person. Another complicating factor is that it appears to be an autobiography. Please be aware that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged here on Wikipedia. Your draft has lots of numbers in square brackets indicating that you may have intended to add references, but I see no evidence of those references. You need to furnish citations to significant coverage of you and your life story in independent, reliable sources in order for other editors to conclude that Wikipedia ought to have an article about you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

of course, I am not Mark Andrew Zwartynski. Just in case someone is curious. thank you. JPMarkandrewz (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Then, please change your user name, Markandrewz, which clearly implies that you are, and is therefore a violation of Wikipedia policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

hello go to the side of wikipedia and find tool>upload file then upload a file12:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Randhawaharnir (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you make clickable links?

How do you make clickable links? I see alot of articles have words that can be clicked to bring the user to a new page. How do you do that?

GoethicTheurgy (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, GoethicTheurgy. They're called Wikilinks, and you make them by putting the name of the page in double square brackets thus: [[London]] appears as London. You can also make the text that is displayed different from the actual page name by using a pipe character '|' thus: [[London|The Smoke]] appears as The Smoke, but still links to the article 'London', --ColinFine (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is how you would make your name & "talk..."

[[User:GoethicTheurgy|GoethicTheurgy]] Place these: [[ ]] to make a link. If you wanted a link to your user page, just do this, [[User:GoethicTheurgy|GoethicTheurgy]]. You will then get this, GoethicTheurgy!!! Now you know how to make Wikilinks! have fun! Acj1 (Say Hi To Me!) 02:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

writing a submission on a band of which i am the managerKencasino (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to start a submission on my band's leader. I have seen Wiki pages on far less experienced and less rated bands and I want ours up there.Kencasino (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kencasino, and welcome to Wikipedia! Before you write your article, there are two very important things that you should consider. First, you must make sure that your band is notable, which means that it has been significantly covered in independent, reliable sources. By "significantly covered in independent, reliable sources", we mean that: 1) The source must not be directly related to, or operated by, your band. For instance, your band's website, blog, or social media page would not be an independent source. 2) The source must by written by a respected person/entity. If you were using a website, for instance, the website should have a reputation for quality and vetting; therefore, blogs and social media pages would also be invalid under this criteria, as essentially anyone can post on them. 3) The band must have a good amount of coverage, and one or two passing mentions would not do. Second, since you are the band's manager, you have a very large conflict of interest, essentially meaning that you are directly affiliated with the person or entity that you want to write an article about. Since it is generally very difficult for a person to write neutrally about something you are directly related to, Wikipedia policy strongly discourages people from writing articles about themselves or their club/band/company. Generally, if your band is really notable, someone else will eventually write the article. --Biblioworm 16:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright issues

User:Ranjodhbuttar has uploaded a picture File:Partap singh bajwa.jpg under CC 3.0 . But the picture is already present on Facebook here. The Facebook account is perhaps held by the same person. I have asked them to follow the guidelines at WP:DONATEIMAGE and send an email to donate the image, if they are the owner of the image. Do I have to do anything else? Is there any tag, which I can put on the photo? Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

the facebook account holder had given the permission to upload the photo on wiki to me

Ranjodhbuttar (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

But you need to show the proof. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 14:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ranjodhbuttar - Vigyani is right. You need to get them to email OTRS about the pictures if you claim to have their permission to use the photographs on Wikipedia. Thanks :). LouiseS1979 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

but they also need to know that permission to use the photo on Wikipedia is not enough, Ranjodhbuttar: they need to release it under a copyleft licence, so that anybody may use it for any purpose, otherwise it is not allowed in Wikipedia. Please see donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, ColinFine LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

ColinFine, free ≠ copyleft. CC BY is a perfectly acceptable free, non-copyleft license. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture Uploading

I have uploaded some pictures designed by myself, but later deleted by wiki. I uploaded the pics via photo upload wizard. How can I upload photos in cinema article pages without this problem? 37.107.100.162 (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 37, and welcome to the Teahouse. What are you trying to upload? If these are cinema articles, and the photographs are of film posters or still pictures from the film, they will need to be uploaded as WP:Fair use works. It would help to have some more information about what happened and which article is involved, as the only contribution visible from this IP address is your question at the Teahouse. If you have an account, please log on with that and post here so we can see who you are and what you've written about. LouiseS1979 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

How to ?

Please.. help me out... I want to create my own biography,, Can I ??? ..Also , if we searched some person in google by typing their name,, Some Details( I.E there personal life,awards,born date etc) are shown in the right hand side of the Google along with the search result.. So, If I create my very own biography in Wikipedia,, Will My short detail also be shown in Google right hand side like other perosns when i searched my self through google.com. ??? If it will not be shown ,,Please help me how to make it shown on the google right handside.. Also Help me out to create my own biography. Saayaash Brl (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Saayaash Brl - welcome to the Teahouse. I see you've had a page deleted already - I think you are misinterpreting what Wikipedia is for. Basically, we're not just a profile site for various people - we're an encyclopaedia which covers only notable people. If you would like a biography, then you need to establish yourself in wider society first and then someone will probably write about you. If you are already notable, then it's also advised not to write about yourself - you have a WP:Conflict of interest and probably couldn't write about yourself properly from the neutral point of view Wikipedia needs in its articles. If you want to contribute to the encyclopaedia, then you could use your user page for that purpose, but it would have to be restricted to what you contribute to Wikipedia in other places and your editing interests, articles contributed on other subjects, and so on, rather than be a general profile page for external purposes.

If all you want is an internet profile findable by Google, then there are plenty of other places to make a page about yourself - try a blog site or create your own wiki. For the moment, however, you'll have to wait for someone else to write your page for you after you've done something that makes you notable. LouiseS1979 (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Saayaash Brl: I just wanted to add to the good advise of the other hosts above: regarding Google, when an article is posted on Wikipedia (or any site for that matter) there isn't a lot of direct control over when and how Google will display it. Those things are determined by Google and the algorithms they use to rank search results. People can indirectly control it in some ways. For example, there is meta data you can add to a page such as keywords that you think are relevant to that page and doing that will help the page show up in relevant queries. There is a whole sub field of software engineering dedicated to this topic called Search engine optimization Regarding things that show up on the right side of Google searches, while I can't say with certainty since it depends on which browser, operating system, is it mobile or desktop UI, etc. For the most part I think things on the right side are paid advertizements. I.e., someone gives Google $$ so that when a search with particular keywords is made their site will show up on the right hand side. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

MadScientistX11, that's an excellent explanation - helps me out too. LouiseS1979 (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no way to pay for advertisements on the right side of Google (at least not in the infobox). I researched it some time ago and if I recall correctly they are all based off of meta data and contextual clues. Often this does come from Wikipedia but it can come from other sources, such as Google+. The subject of the search result also has to have a strong indication of significance according to Google (ie many links). The existence of a Wikipedia article may increase the chances of that infobox showing up, but it would only be one thing that Google takes into consideration.

As I say though, Google+ profiles do have a strong chance of showing up there, so maybe that might be the best course of action for Saayaash Brl.  DiscantX 23:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Should I edit this timeline?

Working on the Disappearance of Lauren Spierer article. We put the timeline of the last evening she was seen in the article. Some of the times are on the basis of witness statements and some are based on surveillance footage. The timestamps in bold that were based on surveillance footage and witness statement times unbolded. The reason this distinction is important is because in this case, the witness statements are in question, they are suspects, there is a lawsuit, etc. I feel like making that distinction is important and most everyone working on the article has agreed on that point.

Well, it seems like once a month or so, someone comes by and sees that some times are in bold and others are not and fixes them (making them all bold or all unbold). Thus far no one has brought it up on the talk page, so I'm assuming that they are simply mistaking this distinction as a typographical error. It doesn't bother me to just put them back and I put a hidden message explaining the situation. The problem is not that they're being changed, the issue is, I have to assume that the people who are fixing this "error" are representative of the average reader who just assume the same thing.

I asked this a few months back and a couple of people felt I should leave it as-is and that they themselves realized why it was the way it was, but people keep changing it, so I have to assume it not obvious to everyone. Should I try something different? Colors perhaps? Any ideas? Bali88 (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2015 Teahouse, Bali88. Do reliable sources analyze the timeline in this fashion? Do reliable sources list the various times in two typographically distinct ways? If not, beware of original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Are readers detecting OR in an article that is supposed to be a strictly neutral summary? That may explain the edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bali88 and Cullen328 It would have to be a freezing day in San Francisco (a very unlikely occurence) before I ever question anything Cullen says. But, hey it IS a freezing day in San Francisco so here goes: IMO the bold in this timeline is not OR at all. Everything in the timeline seems well referenced. But there is a crucial distinction which I agree with Bali88 it is critical to make. Some of the refs that validate the timeline are from timestamps on video surveillance. Others are from witness testimony. There is a very rational (and also well documented with sources) speculation that at least one of the witnesses is lying and knows more about the disappearance than they are saying. Hence it makes perfect sense IMO to show the distinction. If for example one of the editors had a theory that one witness in particular was less trustworthy and were only distinguishing that person's testimony that would be OR but they aren't doing that. They are taking the very logical approach of saying "here is what we know from actual cameras and here is what we know from witnesses, one or more of whom may not be as credible as the footage". Making this kind of distinction in data presentation is IMO good UI design. Regarding what to do about it: have you tried putting a comment at the top of the timeline? Something that says the issue has been discussed and that people should look at the talk page and comment there before unbolding parts of the timeline. If it is happening a lot it also might be possible to make a Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection I notice there is also some emotional discussion on the talk page about "missing white girl syndrome" which could also be a reason some people are unbolding the timeline and might further help make a case to partially protect the page. My advise would be to try the comment first though and stick to just watching the page and undoing the changes unless it is happening very frequently. Regarding using color rather than bold, I personally HATE adding color to text and think there is a chance that any editor who would ignore the comment about the bold text would also ignore the comment about colored text and would change it anyway but I could be wrong on both counts. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bali88 I noticed you already had a comment in the timeline. I added another more emphatic comment at the very top of the timeline as well. If you think the wording was too strong or otherwise want to change what I did feel free. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Freezing temperatures in San Francisco are not common but are also not rare, as last night shows. It is also not rare for me to be wrong, but my concern about the formatting remains. The paragraphs beginning with bold times seem to start with facts that could be observed on surveillance video, and then stray into information that must have come from witness statements, or interpretations, such as the conclusion that she was so intoxicated that she failed to protect her face when she fell. So, the formatting tells the reader that everything in the section that follows can be readily verified by watching the video, and I truly doubt that is so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328 and MadScientistX11. The interesting thing about these responses is that the two of you responded to the question the first time I posted it, in the same order, and said basically the exact same things. lol Honestly, I don't think people are taking a stance on the issue for any reasons at all aside from simply thinking it's a typographical error. No one has really had any qualms about discussing their issues with the article or the way the case is portrayed in the article so I feel like if people were editing it because they felt it was original research, or felt it was biased in some way, I would've heard about it on the talk page or someone would've re-reverted it back to what they had edited. Yes, I can put a warning on the page not to edit it, but that doesn't really fix the problem. I don't care that people are editing it, I want to make sure that the reader comprehends what that difference is meant to signify and doesn't just perceive it as a typo. I have to assume people are perceiving it as a typo given how many people are editing it as such. Honestly it isn't *that* big a deal. There are much bigger clarity issues than this. I just didn't know if someone had any unique ideas that I hadn't considered before. If no one else presents any, I'll just leave it as-is and call it a day. :-) Bali88 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Bali88 So I just want to explain a bit more where my point of view comes from. I used to build software for a living and I'm rather fanatical about good UI design. For that reason I almost always discourage people adding bold or italic or colors to text because it is usually superfluous. The reason I discourage such formatting is because I think it should be saved for those rare cases where there is some important information that can't be easily communicated any other way. I think this IS such a case. Cullen328 perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment but it doesn't make much sense to me. This is a timeline. The goal of a timeline is to show events in order by the time they occurred. The information they have about the events comes from two different sources. Hence, the logical thing to do is to show events that are sourced from the video one way and events from witnesses another way. I don't quite follow you when you say "the formatting tells the reader that everything in the section that follows can be readily verified by watching the video, and I truly doubt that is so." It seems to me the whole point of wanting to distinguish between video timestamp info and witness testimony is precisely to avoid people thinking that everything in the timeline is supported by video. My one other bit of advise is it might be a good idea to post this question at the reference desk, find the topic that most closely matches something like Human Computer Interaction (HCI) or User Interface design. That won't address the issue of people changing it but someone who is an expert on UI design might have some better ideas on how to present the information most intuitively. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think his issue is largely that mixed in with the surveillance video is a bit of witness testimony. I can kinda see his point, but honestly I can't see a way to present the information any differently. To me, the surveillance times are anchored, the witness times are not. The times are what is important. We know she was in this location at this time. Any suggestions or feedback are appreciated Bali88 (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me give a specific example of my concern: We have a description of her entering and exiting an alley based on video from a security camera mounted on a nearby apartment building. Then later in the same paragraph, we are told "He vomited on the carpet on the way upstairs". It seems highly unlikely to me that a security camera on an adjoining building could have recorded this. The only information in those paragraphs with bolded time stamps should be strictly objective facts observable in that specific video. Nothing from witness statements and no conclusions should be included. Those paragraphs are full of such content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for how you would fix the issue? Bali88 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps add paragraph breaks so that the only content in the bold timestamped paragraphs is what can be seen, indisputably, in the referenced videos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

hello welcome to teahouse you can open that page and click on edit and change your timeline i hope this answer would help you12:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)12:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)~

There is serious problem with using bolding (or other typographic variation such as italics, underlining, colour, font, etc.) to convey meaning, it violates WP:ACCESSIBILITY. The information it attempts to convey is lost for users who depend on screen readers as such software does not convey typographic variations to the user. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

i have a question solve as fast

solve this = _+_+_+_+_=30 only use {1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15} u can also repeat no04:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)04:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Randhawaharnir (talk)

There really isn't a place for this on Wikipedia, maybe at one of the reference desks but I don't think it would fit. It doesn't fit here, in any case. Nonetheless, 5 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 11 = 30. Tutelary (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Randhawaharnir. Expanding a bit on Tutelary's answer, the Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and for more experienced editors to provide friendly, simple answers to those questions. Everyone who uses the internet including Wikipedia needs to learn the basic procedures for searching for answers online using search engines and reference sources. Here, we discuss encyclopedia editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

dont use 4. and sorry i just want to know answer10:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)10:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Randhawaharnir (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't do this question. It's not too hard, it's literally impossible. You are trying to add 5 odd numbers to make 30. Two odds added are even, and odd add even is odd, so we get odd+odd+odd+odd+odd=even+even+odd=even+odd=odd. But as 30 is even, this is impossible. Feel free to ask me for help with maths questions on my talk page, though I may not always answer. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing articles about books

I have found an article I think I could add to. It is classed as a stub. I am hesitant to begin unless I can find some guidelines about articles on books. Don't want to get pounced on! Greenmaven (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! WP:Notability (books) would be a good place to start to determine if the book deserves inclusion. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels should point you in the right direction for how to write the article.  DiscantX 02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

My minor addition was reverted without comment. Now what?

I recently came to Wikipedia in search of home-video release information for the movie 'Free Birds'. I find Wikipedia is often the easiest place to find such information.

In this case, there was no information about the home-video availability of the 3D version. So I eneded up spending about 15 minutes searching the web. I came to the conclusion that the 3D version had not been released for the North American market.

So I did what I try to do when I find a fact missing from Wikipedia - I added it to the article.

For the first time in my experience, my change was reverted. It was reverted without an editting comment, nor any comment on the talk page.

How should I proceed? Benthatsme (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ben, and welcome to Wikipedia! Most likely, your edit was reverted because it did not cite a source. However, since your edit was quite obviously in good faith, the reverting user should have provided an explanation. I recommend that you discuss the matter at the the user's talk page. --Biblioworm 23:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll do that next time, but following the advice of Fuhghettaboutit, I have found a source, and will add the information back to the article with a citation.

(e/c) @Benthatsme: Hi Ben. While it would have obviously been far superior for User:Koala15 to have provided his or her reason for reverting in the edit summary, I am guessing the reason was that you cited no reliable sources to verify the information you provided. These are key matters, backed by fundamental policies. Reading your post above, I am unclear whether after searching you found direct information indicating it was not released, or whether you could not find any information and concluded, based on that negative evidence, that it had not been released. The former can be cited if the source it at all reliable; the latter (which the way your post parses, seems to be indicated) is invalid original research and has no place in the article. We can only assert in an article information that is verifiable directly in a published reliable source. So what I think you should do is find a source and add back to the content while citing it; but if no source can be found, then do not add it back. One other thing you can do is ask the reverting user what the reason was for the revert. Because I linked his or her username in the post, they will get a ping so it's probably not necessary at this point, but for future reference, the first thing I would have done under analogous circumstances would have been to contact the user on their user talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the lengthy follow-up. It was not original research in the sense of the definition used here at Wikipedia - I found multiple people stating there had been no 3D release in North America, but there was no one source that seemed as ideal for a citation; the information was usually in the context of regional restrictions on Blu-Ray discs. As the fact of there being no 3D release was certainly not something that I felt would be contested, I did not go to the effort to find a citation.

In this case, I took the time to find a citation, and will add the information back to the article. Next time, I'll follow your suggestion and ask on the user's talk page.

One other thing - what is the meaning of 'e/c' at the start of your reply?

You're welcome. It means Edit Conflict, as in I was typing my post at the same time as Biblioworm, and when I attempted to post it did not allow me to, instead resulting in an error message saying there was an "edit conflict".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit made - added the information back, with a citation. I am all set, thank you for the help.Benthatsme (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"St" or "St." in article titles?

I can't find a ruling in the MoS about this (and I've looked). Guidance, anyone? and thoughts?

For an article on a person, the full word, Saint, seems appropriate. But, there are several cases where the contraction is customary: for example, (1) in personal names, e.g. St John (name), and (2) in names of churches, e.g. Category:Churches in Dublin (city).

It's a small problem with manually-ordered lists like (1), though imo the inconsistency looks a touch ugly. It's a big problem with automatically-ordered lists like (2): there are two churches in Dublin dedicated to Saint Peter, one with a period the other without, and they are 16 entries apart.

Also, compare these two dab pages: St John (name) and St. Peter (disambiguation). One title includes a period, the other doesn't. In both cases, some of the titles of the listed articles include a period, while others don't. Messy!

Despite my Brit tendency not to use full-stops with contractions like St (whether of Saint or of Street) - I would suggest that the MoS should specify that the full stop be used. AFAIK it's possible everywhere and incorrect nowhere. Narky Blert (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is distinct from the issue of how contractions like St(.) and Dr(.) should be presented within WP articles. I'm content with the existing policy there, that of sticking with the style which the original editor used. Narky Blert (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Narky Blert— the MoS does indirectly address this (in the last sentence of this section) by stating that punctuation rules used within the article apply equally to the title. So if the common name for a church includes punctuation, then so should the article title. I agree that it is a problem for sorted lists; the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template could be used to solve it but I imagine that it would be controversial to make such a comprehensive change without consensus. My suggestion is that you open a discussion on the MoS talk page if you'd like to see it changed. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Orange Suede Sofa:Thanks for your input. It's such a sizeable issue that I haven't made any edits at all. A problem is, that the names of churches (and also of schools etc.) can add or lose the period after "St", depending on the fancy of the current incumbent, signwriter or typesetter. Consistency is all I ask, and that needs consensus.

Another example: St Peter's School, York is St. Peter's in its infobox, though St Peter's in WP and on its website. I've just looked at a school photograph (in which I have a remarkably silly haircut) and an exercise book from 1964: they both have "St.", with the full-stop. So, which is its common name for WP purposes: the new one, or the one which had been used for some 1350 years? WP:COMMON suggests the one which includes the full-stop.

Quite by chance, I've just come across another, similar, example: Mrs Brown and Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter.

Even if freedom is permitted within pages, there ought (imho) to be rules for {{DEFAULTSORT}}. I'll gather my thoughts, and raise the issue on the MoS talk page. Narky Blert (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Finished article, posted on Wikipedia but still in personal sandbox

Hi there I'm still a newbie at this and I'd like to learn what to do to clear my sandbox after I've posted an article to Wikipedia. There must be another step that I'm not doing. Previously another editor has taken care of it for me but I'd like to learn what to do to clear my sandbox after posting an article. Thanks in advance. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! Once you have moved the article all you need to do is remove the stuff you don't want in your sandbox (i.e. the redirect) through the normal 'edit source' option. Arfæst! 19:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Off to give it a go. Much appreciated. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ambrosia10: Hi Ambrosia. When you are redirected, such as when trying to access a link to a sandbox that was redirected, you will always see at the top of the resulting page, just below the title of the page:
       (Redirected from NAME)
If you click on the link, you can access the redirect itself to make changes.

That being said, there is no need to use the interface-provided sandbox link that defaults to the on-the-nose title "User:name/sandbox". Sandboxes are just subpages of you user or user talk namespaces, which can be at dedicated titled and you can have multiple in use at the same time. Typically users create them specifically for one article, at an intuitive name for the use it is to be put: "User:name/title article is expected to be moved to"

So, for example, for the most recent article you created, the way to start it with an intuitive title and with a dedicated history (which can sometimes avoid problems that result from using a mass sandbox over and over) would have been be at User:Ambrosia10/Rose E. Collom. By the way, once you're done and have moved such sandboxes to the mainspace, you can just tag the resulting useless sandbox name for speedy deletion with {{Db-u1}} / {{Db-userreq}} / {{db-userpage}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this as it gives answers to other questions I had as well. Again, I really appreciate the help. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Where to go to have a sock puppet investigated?

Hello, its Mbcap again. I joint just a few weeks ago. Today I have been accused of being a sock puppet on 2 occasions. I find this deeply offensive. This is no way to treat a new editor. Please could you tell me where I could go to have this matter investigated. I will personally ask for myself to be investigated as a sockpuppet because I know the results will show the allegations to be groundless. I think Wikipedia may not be for me after all because these allegations are outright rude and not something I expected to happen. Mbcap (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mbcap and welcome to the Teahouse. Referring to your question, the proper place to request a sockpuppet investigation is at WP:SPI. However, I am not sure if it is possible to have yourself investigated as a sockpuppet just because certain editors have claimed you to be one. Tutelary (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The unsubstantiated allegation that a new editor is a sockpuppet is covered by casting of aspersions, and is a personal attack, and a very severe one. I would suggest that you advise the other editors that they are required either to file a sockpuppet report themselves, or to withdraw the accusation. If they do neither, and continue to make unsubstantiated allegations of sock-puppetry, you have the right to take them to WP:ANI and request that they be blocked. You should not and do not need to go to SPI to clear your name, because you are entitled to the presumption of innocence. Also, given the structure of a sock-puppet report, you can't request to have your name cleared, because you have to identify both the puppet and the puppet-master. In order to make that claim, they have to identify both the alleged puppet (you) and your alleged puppet-master. They are required to go to SPI or to shut up. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, is there any particular talk page where that allegation was being made? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, the allegation was made At administrator Kww's talk page by a dynamic IP. Tutelary (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Requirements to be a article reviewer

Given the enormous backlog of articles for review, what are the requirements or needed skills to be an article reviewer?

There are several articles I would be interested in reviewing from the backlog list of Articles for Submission from previous months. Thanks

Publico2020 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! There are a few formal requirements to be a reviewer at Articles for Creation which are listed at this page, and it is recommended that one be familiar with the instructions here. Arfæst! 16:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Arfæst Ealdwrítere Thank you very much for your prompt and helpful response. Greatly appreciated. Publico2020 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Arfæst! 16:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked to stop helping in a particular area, what do I do?

The following massage was placed in my talk page:

"Hi! Thank you for contributing to Template:Infobox file format/doc. Although, could you, please, stop further edits related to TemplateData? I am already adding it to it as a part of mw:Google Code-in 2014 task. :) M4tx (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)"

So what should I do next, I was just thinking it would be done faster if more people helped.

NetworkOP (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

After asking if I could help, the reponse was "I cannot have any help during the work, so I am asking you to stop helping with TemplateData"NetworkOP (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

NetworkOP I think you stumbled into a coding contest. My reading of that is that Google is sponsoring a contest for kids 13 to 17 and that for the contest each young person gets a task and they are supposed to complete that task without help. There must be some metrics for evaluating the quality and timeliness of the work. If I'm understanding it correctly you could inadvertently disqualify @M4tx: (the person assigned the task) because they are supposed to complete the task on their own. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A coding contest, fine, I'll stop doing anything else with templatedata. Hmmm, never knew wikipedia had competitive areas though.NetworkOP (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have any other competitive areas. I am far too old for this coding contest.NetworkOP (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The coding contest stuff was a surprise to me as well. I've never done technical stuff here, if they ever decide to revert to Lisp or Smalltalk I'm the man but otherwise my skills are a bit dated, but I think that was an unusual situation, most stuff here I think is open source and all contributions are welcome. I don't think you have to worry about contests that much, I think this was just an unusual situation but I don't really know for sure. Perhaps PrimeHunter or Technical 13 could give you more info but I'm pretty sure that most of the tasks you find here are open for any qualified technical person to help. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

NetworkOP From time to time the Wikipedia have some friendly competitions or drives related to editing, such as copy editing, disambiguation, GAs, etc. Adding to this, I have a number of times stumbled upon competitions, assignments, etc. given by teachers or other project leaders to pupils or applicants, where the task is to research, write or otherwise create or improve an article. w.carter-Talk 15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

We even have an Education program for schools/students.  DiscantX 01:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is mainly a misunderstanding, nothing to worry about. There's been a coincidence where two editors had an edit conflict doing the same thing at few minutes distance. M4tx was doing so as part of a GCI task but that's no special concern, it's our business to evaluate the GCI students' work. Please everyone keep working on TemplateData; if you want to be extra careful, add {{WIP}} before you start. From a GCI admin, Nemo 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: Please follow links in messages if you are unsure what the message means. The message at User talk:NetworkOP#Template:Infobox file format starts by linking to Template:Infobox file format in the heading. This means the message is about that specific page. It also links to [2] which says "TemplateData: Add TemplateData to {{Infobox file format}}" and "This task is claimed." You are welcome to work on TemplateData for other templates. Wikipedia has a huge number of them. In this case it was a mw:Google Code-in 2014 task but it's generally bad for two users to work simultaneously on the same template. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank You

As a 72 year old Wikipedia novice, I would like to take this opportunity of thanking this Teahouse community for all their help and cooperation in enabling me to create an acceptable Wiki-submission concerning King Alfred School, Plön (KAS) on behalf of the school's alumni aka The Wyvern Club - the youngest member of which is about 65 years old. Without your tolerance and advice I would have got nowhere. The KAS Wiki-entry has already given a great deal of pleasure to not only all the surviving members of the Wyvern Club but their extended families and friends but especially the younger generation of grand children and even some great grand children. Once again thank you all so much for all your help and cooperation.Wyvern4859 (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wyvern4859: You're welcome! The article looks like it's off to a good start! Thanks for your hard work! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to use ToR?

Policy page Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption says that "In highly exceptional circumstances, an editor may be permitted to edit anonymously, via Tor or another anonymizing proxy." What might these highly expectional circumstances be? Isn't it sufficient that I don't want ECHELON to discover my IP address? (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I happen to be an editor who has an IP block exemption, although for a mundane reason. All registered users edit anonymously, except that a very small group of highly trusted editors called checkusers can access their IP addresses for the purposes of investigating sockpuppetry and other forms of deceptive editing. Highly exceptional circumstances justifying proxy editing might include severe and demonstrable security concerns involving a highly trusted, long term editor. Any such requests should be directed in confidence to a member of the Arbitration Committee, or a Wikimedia ombudsman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So the additional privacy offered by ToR is only allowed for a privileged few? I'm not worried about checkusers themselves but more concerned that Tailored Access Operations and other advanced persistent threats can likely circumvent the normal account security of Wikipedia checkusers and server administrative stuff. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by ""privileged few" although I am sure that you do. If you are concerned that there are unacceptable personal security concerns involved with posting on any given website, whether Wikipedia or Twitter or Facebook or the comments section of your local newspaper, then the solution is obvious: do not participate in that website. Editing Wikipedia is a volunteer activity, after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK the Tor/proxy exemption is normally only allowed where an editor is based in a country where the Internet is blocked/censored (China, Iran etc.).  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Mnn.com and treehugger.com

Hi! I was wondering if someone could check whether mnn.com and treehugger.com are reliable sources, as it's hard to tell whether they classify as blogs or news websites. Thank you, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Bananasoldier. Those websites are owned by Mother Nature Network, a "media" company started by Chuck Leavell, the hired keyboardist for the Rolling Stones. They are slick sites that seem to publish environmentally friendly "feel good" stories. There is nothing readily visible on either site describing their editorial processes, fact checking or any of the other basics of professional journalism. If I found something on either site that I wanted to incorporate into an article, I would search for a better quality source reporting the same thing. If I failed to find a better source, I would just move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

i will also see06:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)06:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)06:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randhawaharnir (talk • contribs)

Hello, Bananasoldier. When considering whether a source is reliable or not, it's worth remembering that there may not be a simple yes/no answer: sometimes it depends on what information the source is being adduced for. The best place to ask is at the reliable sources noticeboard, where each query gets treated on its merits. Oh. Searching there for treehugger, I see you asked about it there last April, and got a clear "No". --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit embarrassing on my part. Please excuse my goldfish memory! Thanks again, Bananasoldier (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding references

If you have a source that applies to multiple sentences, how would you cite it. Would you simply add the citation at the end of a paragraph or after each sentence? I am writing an article and I am getting my information from a total of 4 credible sources. I am not sure how to properly reference everything.EarthYES (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello EarthYES, and welcome to Wikipedia! The easiest way to reuse a reference is to name it. For instance, if you're referencing "http://www.example.com", you would do this: <ref name="example">http://www.example.com</ref>. The first time you use the reference, you have to write it out completely (like I just showed you), but when you need to use it again, all you have to do is add <ref name="example"/> to the end of the sentence. Happy editing! --Biblioworm 01:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

EarthYES If I understand your question you are asking if you have a reference that supports multiple statements do you need to put it after each sentence or at the end of the paragraph? There isn't a simple answer, like a lot of things here it all depends on the content but in general for most things you don't need to put a ref after each sentence, at the end of the paragraph is fine. However, there can be cases where you should get that detailed; for example highly controversial topics, very technical topics, or the same reference on multiple pages. As Biblioworm described using named references can help cut down the clutter when you have to use the same ref multiple times. Here is more info on how detailed citations should be: Wikipedia:Inline_citation#Citation_density --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. The example given above by Biblioworm does not appear to be in accordance with that policy. Or am I missing something? Taxee (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Taxee you are absolutely correct about URLs and external links but that doesn't apply to references which was the example that Biblioworm was using. It may have been confusing because a good ref should be more than a raw URL which is what this example is but I took that to be just a shortcut to show how to name a ref (any ref) with the understanding that a good ref will be a more complete citation. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks,MadScientistX11. I definitely misunderstood the general prohibition. Thanks for the explanation. Taxee (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Artical has been decline

Hi

My article has decline. I am getting " This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified"< Not sure what exactly do I need to do. This is genuine article about the company.

Thanks Fslpso (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fslpso:, you may want to read WP:RS for explanations. As you haven't linked your article here, we cannot give you specific advice. But basically, you can't copy and paste information from a company's web page (because that's a copyright problem, see WP:COPYVIO) and you need to use reliable, third party sources to verify that the company is notable in general. To use references, see WP:CITE for how to do it. Good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Flspso. Your draft article Draft:GEMS Learning Institute is entirely lacking in references and includes non-encyclopedic promotional language such as "It is an incubator of logic and creativity with a broad range of services and programs for children of all ages." Your draft article needs a complete re-write, and should summarize what Reliable, independent sources say about the school. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia has not accepted my article hindi shayari please check topic and tell me mistakes and idea to make it more attractive 06:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)06:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)06:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)~

Please help me get my article accepted...

Can you offer any specific advice? My article was just rejected but it seems to fit the guidelines to me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Property_(Malibu_artists_colony)

Thanks!Pcaabplroa (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you should just go ahead and merge your material into the article Coffee House Positano. The AfC reviewers aren't going to take it as is, but the info is interesting and fits in the scope of the other article.Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Pcaabplroa while I agree with Montanabw that the best approach is for you to merge the new info you have with the existing article I also think you have a more fundamental problem that needs to be addressed. As far as I can tell none of the references you have actually support the information you want to add. All the references you provide seem to talk about the cafe where as you are talking about a colony where artistic people lived. For example you open with: "The Property was a 130-acre Malibu artists colony that flourished from 1962 to 1993. It was located at the site of the old Coffee House Positano." You need to have a reference that actually says this is true. When I looked at the references you provided they all talked about "the old Coffee House Positano" rather than the artist colony. There is also an issue of the strength of your references. Even if they DID support what you say things like local small town papers by themselves are usually not enough to establish wp:notability. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, MadScientistX11, the Coffee House and artists colony were very different. The Coffee House was only open for 5 years. The artists colony came after and lasted 30 years. The newspaper I referenced does give the facts about the artists colony: “The wonderful surprise that sprang up after the coffeehouse closed was that it was turned into an artists' colony.... For three decades plus, the 'Budwood' colony flourished." I also referenced an Anthropology magazine and a history book. Why isn't that good enough? Pcaabplroa (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Pcaabplroa To begin with a small local paper like The Malibu Times is not a great wp:reference Secondly, perhaps I'm missing something but that article didn't really confirm what you said. It was consistent with what you said but it didn't confirm it. You said there was a "a 130-acre Malibu artists colony that flourished from 1962 to 1993". That article was about the cafe not the colony. It doesn't say anything about specific dates that the colony existed or how many acres it had or that it thrived. It says the cafe was cool (which btw it definitely was, makes me wish I had known about it when it was still there) that they had lectures, informal talks, etc. It talks about people like Ray Bradbury, Mort Sahl, and others dropping in but they are dropping in to the cafe not the colony. All I saw was one line that said there was a fire and that the cafe was (partly or completely its not clear) destroyed in the first fire and that people kept coming after. And your other references are problematic as well. The article in the anthropology times isn't actually available. At least I couldn't find it. All that I saw was the name of the article and the author. Is there an online version of that article somewhere? That would help. But even that article was problematic. It's essentially (or at least I'm deducing from the context since I can't find the article) a personal ethnography from someone who lived at the colony. Sorry if this sounds harsh but you have several rejections already and the other reviewers have said similar things and I want to try and help you understand what the issues are. BTW, I think this sounds like a very interesting topic. I tried looking for better references myself and couldn't find anything (again at least one other reviewer said the same thing). I think part of the problem though is that when searching for things like "the colony malibu" we get a lot of false positive hits for other topics. If you want to discuss this further feel free to drop a message on my talk page. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ading a large list to an existing article

I have recently been expanding the existing article on Seatrain Lines. I have compiled a list of Seatrain Lines ships to augment the article. The list is quite long, and I am wondering if it would be better as a stand-alone page with a link to/from the existing article.

The list can be seen at my sandbox page at Jeagerca/sandbox.

Thoughts?

jeagerca Jeagerca (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Jeagerca that is a nice list. Lots of info and well structured. However, there is a major problem: you have no wp:references. Where did you get all that information about the ships? You need to document every fact in the article with an inline citation. Note: I'm not saying every line in the article necessarily needs a citation, just that you have to document where every fact came from, if your source for that list was all from one place that is fine but you need to document it or the info shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. As to whether to make it part of the existing article on Seatrain Lines or a new article a good place to ask that question would be on the talk page for the Seatrain lines article: Talk:Seatrain_Lines For what it's worth I think you have enough info there that once you have it referenced it could probably merit an article of it's own. Also, I noticed on one of the project page for Seatrain: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships there are several similar lists of ships already so that seems to be a reasonable thing to do once you have the refs for the info. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, MadScientist. I'm still working through the list adding cross reference links to existing articles. I have not yet added outside references because if the list is to be inserted into the main Seatrain Lines article then the refs should be added there, but if it is to be a stand-alone page then it will of course need its own refs list. In any case, almost all of the converted ships have cross links to articles on those individual ships, and thus are already referenced there. As you may or may not know, the ultimate ship reference is Lloyds' list of ships, but it is not freely publicly accessible. However, a nice thing about researching ships is that simply entering the ship name and its IMO number into a search engine will almost always return a number of references to it. Of course, some of them will be more reliable than others, but there are a few that can be counted on. Jeagerca (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jeagerca. Let me correct what may be a misconception in your comment above. You should add inline references to the list in your sandbox right now. Those references will appear when the content is moved to main space, whether to Seatrain Lines or as a separate list article. Adding references is always a top priority.

I believe that this content belongs in its own list article, and I commend you for working on this project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks Cullen, I will start adding the refs now then. I may need some help with some of the coding if I can't figure it out, for example, how to in-line ref to an on-line source.Jeagerca (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I am writing an article.

Draft:Don't Talk (Should be "Don't Shoot")

Can you tell me if it is a good article or not? Thanks. 92.16.4.92 (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a nicely written and properly formatted stub, well done! If you can find and add some critics' opinions about the song it would help consolidate its notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be really fuckin' awesome if it got accepted. 92.16.4.92 (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

very nice but need bit change 06:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)06:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Randhawaharnir (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the title of your draft :) Since it has been made ready, I think the stale redirect can be now deleted. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What to do in a civilised dispute?

Hello once again, sorry to keep asking questions. If someone sees an article that is not NPOV and decides to discuss it in the talk page to have it changed but everyone (2 editors) goes against him, what options are available for him. I understand that consensus is important but blatant bias also needs to be dealt with. If I am at a block and there are only 2 other editors who are against improvement, is their any way to get an uninvolved editors to come and arbitrate the discussion. How do I find an uninvolved editor who is unbiased and holds no previous opinion on the issue that I require input and arbitration for? Alternatively what other options are available for me? This is important for me because I think wikipedia needs to maintain a certain standard to justify the readers confidence in our articles. This particular article has a very obvious bias starting from the very first line. Any help on what I should do would be appreciated. Thank you and sorry for the constant questions. Mbcap (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Mbcap. First, some general points: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The resolution on talk pages should be driven by rational arguments that appeal to wikipedia:policies so just because a situation may be two against one is not definitive. There is a simple way to request another editor take a look at the issues. This article tells you how to do that: Wikipedia:Third_opinion However, if you are talking about the discussions related to this article: Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant my advise in that case would be to just accept that the consensus went against you and move on. Those articles are incredibly hard to edit. I for one would never have the patience for it. I took a quick look at the discussion on the talk page and from that quick look if I were the third party I would side with the other editors. Sorry. It seems to me you kind of jumped into a discussion that had a long history and you were essentially raising again issues that had long been debated and settled. Please don't be offended if I'm misunderstanding the issues. Those talk pages are long and I only took a quick look but my advise is to get more experience editing less controversial pages first and then try going back to articles such as the ISIL one. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input MadScientistX11, I am not offended at all. You have been very kind and civil with your input. I think I will go for the third opinion options if I find it is going nowhere. Mbcap (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Mbcap OK, good luck. One more thing: there are requirements that have to be met before you seek out a third party opinion. I suggest you read that article carefully and make sure you have done all the things required before requesting a third party or the request may be denied. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If the original poster (OP) said that two editors went against them, then third opinion is not applicable. Read dispute resolution as to how to handle content disputes in general. If third opinion is not applicable, because there are already three or more editors involved, then the remaining options may be either a Request for Comments to obtain the opinions of additional editors, or the dispute resolution noticeboard to request that a volunteer moderator facilitate discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon My mistake. Thanks for correcting. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

few things i want to learn

Hello friends, TUSHAR GANERIWAL is here.. I am new editor...I want to learn how to add image..

how to create a new article..??

how to create user page..?

really enjoying wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushar Ganeriwal (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Tushar Ganeriwal the long answers can be found at Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Uploading images, Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:User pages.

• You'll have to wait a couple more days before your account is auto confirmed and you can upload an image.
• Good ways to start:

• Start with small edits, and using the preview option to make sure the change is what you expect.
• Build up your user page, or play on your sandbox. Look at other users 'user pages' to get ideas.
• Also you could try The Wikipedia Adventure at a good start

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

hello there are many way to create the userpage join the wiki adventure for everything to learn04:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)04:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)~~

Programming Language ??

Please answer my following questions....

• Is Wiki Markup the only language used to edit wikipedia ??
• When I go to Edit source of any wikipedia page, what's the programming language used there ?
• What's the difference between C, C++ and Java ??

DtwipzBTalk 14:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Dibyendutwipzbiswas, welcome to the teahouse. Just to be clear Wiki markup isn't really a programmming language the way C or Java are, it's like HTML just a markup language. It is possible to escape to HTML and once you do that you can pretty much do anything you can do in HTML including scripting. At least I assume that is the case, I've never done it and the few times I've come across an editor who wanted to escape to HTML I've discouraged it. The problem is that most Wikipedia editors don't know or want to know the details of HTML so once someone added it to an article that article would be very hard to maintain. Also, the goal of using Wiki markup is to establish a consistent look and feel across one of the largest sites on the Internet. Escaping to HTML circumvents that. Regarding C, C++, and Java, this isn't the place for those kinds of questions. In the future please ask those types of questions here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing The Wikipedia:Reference_desk is like a reference desk at a library, you can ask pretty much any question there. This forum is meant to be only used for people with questions about editing the encyclopedia. But the simple answer is that C is a very old procedural language. It was designed to be lean and fast and of the three if you had to get absolute bat out of hell performance or a minimal code foot print (which is rare these days given that my phone has more CPU power than the mainframe I used to program decades ago) you would use C. C++ is a superset of C, everything in C is in C++ plus C++ adds object oriented capabilities. And Java is a language designed from the beginning to be truly object-oriented. It's performance isn't as good as C or C++ but the code is more maintainable because a lot of the sources of error in C and C++ stem from things like memory allocation and Java unlike the other languages does that for you automatically. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

One last point, if you want to contribute to helping on the technical side of the Wikipedia infrastructure, volunteers are always welcome. I would start with this article: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_to_become_a_MediaWiki_hacker --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, a great answer to a rather boring question. Although this ins't my first time in the Teahouse. Thank you MadScientistX11 (talk) for your kind attention towards my question. DtwipzBTalk 15:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dibyendutwipzbiswas: You asked "Is Wiki Markup the only language used to edit wikipedia ??". It depends what you mean by Wikipedia. Most editors only have to know wiki markup. All mainspace encyclopedia pages use it. But they can invoke modules written in Lua (programming language), either directly with an #invoke command or indirectly via templates which invoke modules. See Wikipedia:Lua. And in Userspace you can have JavaScript pages (not the same as Java) ending in .js, and CSS pages ending in .css. They affect the interface and layout. See more at Wikipedia:Customisation. The userspace pages only affect your own account but there are also js and css pages in the MediaWiki namespace which affect all users with JavaScript-enabled browsers (not sure about CSS). The gadgets at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets are all coded in js and/or css pages in the MediaWiki namespace. Special:Gadgets shows which pages. Templates use wiki markup but some of the central features in templates are rarely used in other pages like articles, so template coding is sometimes considered separate from normal editing. Finally, the MediaWiki software which powers Wikipedia is written in PHP. Normal editors don't have direct access to change the code but they can submit suggested changes. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

cool. DtwipzBTalk 08:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"C++ is a superset of C, everything in C is in C++" This is not exactly true, but maybe sufficient, if simplified, answer for a complete beginner. It is possible to construct valid programs that silently do a different thing when compiled as C than when compiled with a C++ compiler (although these don't come up in practice that often). (don't talk secrets) (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2015 (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)

Thanks. The article is entitled "Donald MacDonald (craftsman)." I have edited it based on my 2004 published article. I would suggest that the article be re-titled "Donald MacDonald (stained glass)." This would be much more informative. Could someone assist me with this change or "move." Lancelka01 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2015 (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)

Once I've done my edit-'next & save' option doesn't appear

As stated above, once I finish my edit, usually it gave me the option to next & save it...it's no longer doing this... A little guidance please. 👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uk updates (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Uk updates: Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse. Usually, when I make edits to a page, I'm used to seeing the "save page" button at the bottom, below the editing window. But not a "next & save" option. Are you referring to something else? Are you using the Visual Editor by any chance? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

how do you provide factual information if your editors delete a page that will improve the accuracy of another page

There is a page out of date. In order to improve its accuracy another page must be made. Your editors delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.200.214 (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you provide some information about what the deleted article was and what article it was seeking to make more accurate? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is not possible for a Wikipedia page to contribute to the accuracy of another page, because the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia pages depends entirely on the reliable sources they cite, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source (because anybody may edit it). --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Punjabi translations

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

how to create new page in punjabi language for existing topics which are in English language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰਕ (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰਕ, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every language Wikipedia is a separate entity, with its own rules and policies; but I would guess that pa.wikipedia would welcome articles translated from the English Wikipedia. I suggest you read the page Translate us to start with. I can't find a help page on pa.wikipedia, unfortunately: pa:ਅਨੁਵਾਦ may help, but that seems to be in article space rather than Wikipedia space, so I don't know how relevant it is. --ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

thing in 2015 I like to see

I'm giving hopes that BBC2 Network might shown the Crystal Ball ident very soon as I told Digital Spy Forum.

- SoundofArticles (talk)

It is good that you have dreams, but not really a topic for the Teahouse. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 16:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Help Allowed?

Excuse me, but can I help other people in the Teahouse if I am a new editor of Wikipedia? Thanks! -John Smith, graduate of Stanford University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123planea (talk • contribs) 06:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 123planea. Anyone can help here, but it takes a fair amount of experience in Wikipedia editing to provide accurate, informative answers. I don't think Stanford offers a degree in Wikipedia editing, which is learned at the School of Hard Knocks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Summerslam 2015

Please move Summerslam (2015) to SummerSlam (2015). At first you must link SummerSlam (2015) from other pages. Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it has been done. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

help required from experienced authors

hi sir, i just added the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arowana_Consulting which has been declined due to lack of sources of notability. I added a number of sources but wikipedia accepted only two. kindly help me finding more and please suggest if adding the links to pdf of certifications acquired by the company could be of some help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelrini2 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rachelrini2. No, pdf's of certifications acquired by the company are completely irrelevant to establishing notability. A Wikipedia article must be 100% based on published information, and mostly - maybe 90% - based on what other people have said about the subject. The The Hindu article is fine as a reliable, independent source - but it only mentions Arowana in passing. You need to find places where people who are nothing to do with Arowana have written at length about it, and had their writing about it published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. If you cannot find such places, then it is impossible to write a useful article about the company, and so it is not permitted to try. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My page is about to be deleted

Hi, i am Manuel98 T and i created a page for a Greek player called Alexandros Tanidis and everytime above my page i see a message about my page. It's about deletion of my page. The same happened one week ago when i put an image and i was been reported because my image was copyright (as they said), and now i created my page again and now i have a message about Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Tell me what i have to do to keep my page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuel98 T (talk • contribs) 10:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Manuel, and welcome. The concern is that Tanidis "has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league." Because of this, other editors think it will be hard to keep an article about him up to date and accurate, which is one of our goals on Wikipedia. If you want to discuss this with other editors, you can contribute on this page, but it's likely that Tanidis simply doesn't meet our minimum requirements for having an article. Shii (tock) 15:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Emoji

How to make them on Wiki? Is there a key? Chrislamic.State (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chrislamic.State and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that Wikipedia:Emoticons is the page you are looking for. w.carter-Talk 21:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)