:Hello [[User:Saurabh Chatterjee 2|Saurabh Chatterjee 2]] and welcome to the Teahouse. I will leave you a small guide and some links on your talk page. Although I see now that you have found out how to do that already. Best, [[User:W.carter|<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter</em>]]<small>[[User talk:W.carter|'''<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk</em>''']]</small> 20:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
:Hello [[User:Saurabh Chatterjee 2|Saurabh Chatterjee 2]] and welcome to the Teahouse. I will leave you a small guide and some links on your talk page. Although I see now that you have found out how to do that already. Best, [[User:W.carter|<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter</em>]]<small>[[User talk:W.carter|'''<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk</em>''']]</small> 20:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
== Dwpaul ==
I do not understand how this Dwpaul gets to wander around editing peoples pages and he accused me of vandalism and I would never do such a thing! I thought said it said she was born 1993 but she was active from 2008- Present I just do not get it!
@DangerousJXD: Welcome back. To put it simply, nope. The best you can probably do is check a user's contributions for recent edits, or use X! Edit Counter to show when an editor is most active during the day (I've linked to mine; see the time card for when I usually edit), but there is no direct way to tell when someone is online and active. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs05:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clock
Is there any way to change the times I see on Wikipedia from a 24 hour clock time to a 12 hour clock time? So instead of an edit saying it was made at 18:30, it says 6:30. I think I remember seeing this option somewhere but I don't remember where. Thanks, --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DangerousJXD: If you head over to your preferences, and check out the Gadgets list, there's one gadget that says "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". The documentation is located at Wikipedia:Comments_in_Local_Time. I think this will only change the times shown in signatures, however, and not page histories; hopefully someone else knows of a script that covers the latter. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs05:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i need help getting a page reinstated due to a mistake regarding copyright infringement
i work for a company named Splunk. we do not wish to use our page for marketing purposes (and don't edit it ourselves) but recently an unknown party registered a domain that includes our company name, copied content from the Splunk wikipedia page, and used it on their site. as a result, an editor triggered some automation via the 'duplication detector' and the Splunk page was suspended pending investigation.
unfortunately, we're unable to determine the identity of the party who registered the domain.
what we can show via the page history is that the content in the Splunk wikipedia page existed there long before the domain in question was registered (sometime in January of this year). so obviously the site copied from wikipedia, and not the other way 'round.
my question is, how can we reverse the suspension of the page? can someone help?
New updates of Awards received by Korean boy band Got7
Kindly update the awards and nominations received by Kpop boy band Got7. I am fan. I knew they have already 16 awards for groups and 3 individual awards. but only 3 are recorded. These are: BEST KPOP ROOKIE GROUP OF 2014 from 1) SBS POP ASIA, 2)6th PHILIPPINES KPOP CONVENTION AWARDS, 3)2014 EATYOURKIMCHI AWARD and 4) 2014 INTERNATIONAL K-MUSIC AWARD (I.K.M.A) -JAPAKO MUSIC
Another award for BEST NEW ARTIST from 5)2014 SBS MTV BEST OF BEST, 6)KPOP + MUSIC AWARDS 2014 and 7)JPOPASIA MUSIC AWARDS 2014(KPOP CATEGORY and 8)2014 SOOMPI AWARDS
And also ASIAN NEW GROUP AWARD at 9)2014 YOUKU NIGHT
other awards: 10) BEST FANDON VOTING in TWITTER, 2nd place.
For individual award: There are 3. JACKSON for 11) MALE HOTTEST STAR at 6th PHILIPPINES KPOP CONVENTION AWARD, 12) BEST NEWCOMER ON VARIETY SHOW at 2014 SBS AWARDS and 13) BEST VARIETY STAR at 2014 SOOMPI AWARDS. Please update. Thank you. Jonah514 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Jonah514. The Teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. It is not a place for K-pop fans to request other editors to carry out specific edits. Are these truly notable awards? Are the awards discussed in reliable sources? As a fan, are you capable of fully complying with the neutral point of view? If so, you can carry out the edits yourself. Read Referencing for beginners for instructions. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please check the notability and references in my article draft?
Could someone please tell me if my article about RealSelf has enough notability? Also, let me know if there are any reference format changes that I need to complete. I'm still a beginner and would love the feedback! I want to make sure everything is correct.
I'm still waiting for approval of my article...
But while I wait, I thought I would get my questions resolved now.
In an infobox, how do I add a picture? I know that copyright will not be an issue as it's a photo taken for the subject of the article. The page for uploading a photo was just a bit too over my head.
Elemont.aide (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Elemont.aide.Adding a properly licensed image once it's already available either here or at the Commons is easy. You would just add the name of the image (either with or without "File:" in front of it), next to the existing image parameter in the article's infobox. That is, after: | image =. Be sure to copy the exact file name (and yes it is case sensitive). Uploading an image is more difficult. Are you sure copyright is not a problem? I ask because even if the image was taken just for the purpose of using it in the article, there are many copyright pitfalls. The image has to be released to the world under a free copyright license that is compatible with our licenses – it cannot be licensed for use just here while retaining non-free copyright, and the image must be released in a verifiable manner. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Meanwhile, I'm sorry the upload interface was a problem. But you shouldn't be using our interface at all. Since this is a living person, the image must be free, so if its licensing is not a problem, it should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here (sign up) so that all Wikimedia projects have access to it. The Commons' upload interface is different than ours and can be accessed here. If you have a problem with the process, you can note where you were stumped and describe the specifics here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UK equivalent for a US "night on the town" ?
is there a UK equivalent for a US "night on the town" in order to explain swifty why some people such as male athletes, male fans and male celebrities find themselves in trouble that might have been avoided?66.74.176.59 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Isn't this the place for questions? If what you suggest is just a "might" level advice then I would not think much of one's question answering abilities although a volunteer.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm mistaken, but the Teahouse is a place only for new editors to learn about editing, and it is very rare that a person will answer your question here. I am simply referring you to a place where people might be more experienced, sorry if you misunderstood me. ~HackedBotatoChat with me ♽ Contribs21:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to create a new article. It is intended to be similar to an existing article -Rues de Paris- and I want to create a similar entry in Spanish for my city. The entry does not exist. Will it be easier to start with the existing French to use the format? How to go about it?
thanks
Jorge Jorge Patino Sarcinelli (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jorge Patino Sarcinelli and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all: this is the English Wikipedia and all articles here must be in English. If you wish to create an article in Spanish you must do so at the Spanish Wikipedia. Most formats are similar on the Wikipedias in different languages, but some things differ. So you would have to ask at the Spanish Wikipedia, their version of the Teahouse is the es:Wikipedia:Café. Best, w.carter-Talk20:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Style and Translation
When translating the name of an organization from its native language to English, is the proper form <English name> (<Official name>) or <Official name> (<English name>)? Examples
The Cervantes Institute (Instituto Cervantes) offers DELEs.
The Instituto Cervantes (Cervantes Institute) offers DELEs.
Hello Denny1213 and welcome to the Teahouse. From what I have been taught, and as per your example, if the article is about something Spanish, the Spanish should be first and it should also be in italics like this:
The Instituto Cervantes (The Cervantes Institute) offers DELEs.
If it is about something English they should be the other way:
The Cervantes Institute (Instituto Cervantes) offers DELEs.
Hi, Denny1213. If it is the title of an article, it should use the English name (as found in the sources, if they are in English): WP:Naming conventions (use English) is the guideline. This guideline is not explicit about what to do when mentioning a foreign name within an article, but I would say the use the same practice. Unfortunately this is the opposite advice from W.carter. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ColinFine, I was referring to use in the text, not the title, as the example was not a title, but I'm beginning to wonder where my tutor got their info. See the practice in this article, where it is Swe first followed by an Eng translation. w.carter-Talk21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just because something is done in an article, doesn't mean it is necessarily the right way to do it. But actually I would follow what the Bauer article does with respect to the titles of works of art (unless they have an established English name). But to me that seems to be a difference case from the name of an institution. --ColinFine (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article Rejected
I recently made an article and used all online citations to qualify the article. However it was rejected on the premiss of improper use of citations. My intent was to qualify the individual the article was written about via links to reputable websites (Per WikiPedia's guidelines)and did not find any proper citation places in my content.
So my confusion is regarding how to edit this to make it acceptable. I have seen other articles where links are listed to qualify that individual but citations were not used.
Welcome to the Teahouse. The notice on your rejected draft at Draft:Anthony DiMoro and the notice on your user talk page each give a number of useful links. Try starting with WP:Referencing for beginners. If in your last sentence you were saying that you've seen other Wikipedia pages which suffer from lack of inline citations, I'm afraid that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an adequate defence of your draft. You are, of course, welcome to improve the other pages, or to tag them as being in need of improvement. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also Jamesparticular, looking at your draft, many of the references are either not reliable (iMDB) or are not independent. In a Wikipedia article, especially one about a living person, every single piece of information should be individually referenced to a published reliable source; and apart from uncontroversial factual data like places and dates, it should be referenced to a source written by somebody unconnected with the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My post with solid documentation of the facts got deleted.
I recently made a contribution to wikipedia that was well written and documented, only to discover that my work was deleted. It certainly is controversial, but I stick to the facts, which I provide references for. I'm a brand new wikipedian, and I see how I may 'undo' my blurb that was deleted, but I'm concerned that this will just lead to a wikipedia undoing the undos in an endless battle of wits. What do you suggest?
The best first step is, if there is no edit summary providing an explanation, go to the article talk page to discuss it or the talk page of the editor who reverted you and ask for an explanation. Do NOT get into a revert/undo war, it's an easy way to find yourself in an edit war which can earn you a block.
Editors who have been paid by The Wikimedia Foundation
Thanks for being a host. How can I determine from their User Page whether an editor has been paid by The Wikimedia Foundation via a Grant, payment for marketing/branding, a salary, or in any other way? Is there a fast method? If I can't find this information, please direct me to a discussion about the issue. Thanks! Flying Jazz (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actual employees of the Foundation will have WMF after their usernames (e.g. Sage Ross (WMF)), though they may well operate other accounts for regular editing. Beyond that, users generally create their own userpages, so unless they have chosen to advertise their affiliation with the WMF, there's unlikley to be anything on their userpages that will answer this for you. Yunshui雲水13:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a discussion somewhere at Wikipedia about whether or when people outside WMF who have received payments from WMF for their services should or must indicate this on their user page? I'm not talking about an affiliation other than payment for services, receiving a grant, or something similar with funds being involved. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but that doesn't answer my question because I'm not asking about the most part. Is there some guideline or discussion about when/whether/how people outside WMF who do receive grants or payments for service should/must indicate this on their user page? There probably is, but I'm wondering if you could help me find it. I understand that it seems to be a loaded question, but I'm really just here looking to save myself some time. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flying Jazz, I'm not sure exactly what you are thinking of, but you can find a list of research projects and grant support at Research Projects and Grants. If you look around on these pages, you can find out what projects and events they have supported and, most likely, an contact person.
If you are thinking of outside legal counsel or marketing firms, you'd have to contact WMF directly to request this information. No editors, administrators or arbitrators are paid for their work, we are all volunteers. LizRead!Talk!17:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. You will have seen that your draft was deleted as a copyright violation. The notice on your user talk page explaines Wikipedia's copyright policy. If you try again, please write in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Het, Is there an Article in Wikipedia that lists some of the flaws and mistakes that were made by scholarly and academic groups
Hi, Frogger48. I have not seen such an article, and I seriously doubt that such a thing would be possible. The nature of progress is to replace one understanding with newer, more accurate ones - over and over as we learn more. In Newton's day, his Laws of Motion represented our best state of knowledge. Later, Einstein changed that with Special Relativity. Then again with General Relativity. Then along came Quantum Mechanics ... you get the idea. Every one of the earlier models could be called "wrong" (although I think "incomplete" may be a more accurate depiction). And the same process takes place in every field of science. And economics. And architecture. And plumbing. And medicine. And ... you get the idea.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gronk Oz, personally, I am not being antagonistic here, are you certainly 100% on this? Oh, and do you have universal, genuine evidence to support your claim? That would really help me a lot! Thank you very much, and have a goood day. Frogger48 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions
Hello!! I have been editing The Evil Within a lot to make it better. I would like an opinion as to how I'm doing. If you go into the page's history you'll see me in there a lot. I have finished the game in real life so most likely I won't be adding any more to it. I think I've done a fine job in improving the article.
I would like to say that those images should be either your own work or else the photographer must have granted you the permission to upload it. it would be fine if images from other websites are uploaded and claimed to be under a free license (CC-BY-SA, GFDL, public domain).
Hi, DangerousJXD - nice to see you back in the Teahouse lately. To look into Acagastya's concern, I spot-checked about half a dozen of those basketball images, and they all seem to be licensed appropriately. They all came from Wikimedia Commons where they were uploaded some years ago by various other users, who all classified them with acceptable licences (generally CC-BY-SA). I did not check every picture, but all the ones I checked had no licence concerns. The only thing to watch for is to ensure that each photo adds something to the article, such as illustrating something that is mentioned in the text. The articles I looked at were all fine, so I just mention this as a cautionary tale: some editors get carried away with trying to include every picture they can find, and in the end they can detract from the article. Continue to let your own good judgement be your guide.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I individually submitted a bunch of IPs as sockpuppets of a closed investigation using Twinkle Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skyhook1. I checked WP:SPI, and they are not showing up. I now realize I should have submitted them at once and manually through the main page. I don't want to do that now in case it ends up double reporting, or otherwise messing with the process. Is there a way to fix it? Will it show up on it's own? Is there somewhere else I should request help? Deunanknute (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome! About the listing though technically the wrong way, they all should have been under the same heading, it will work out. As for them not showing up at SPI, edits (especially big ones) sometimes take awhile to get through the whole wiki, remember this is all non-profit funded... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)02:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Help if I can write about "The influence of sanctions on small and medium russian enterprices"
Good evening, a while ago I posted if i could write about sanctions in russia and I was replied that existed articles who explored the topic but it could be developed. So I come now to ask opinion if writing the influence of sanctions on small and medium russian enterprices, using as source the russian media, will survive in wikipedia. Thank you in advance Lyondelaliberte (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lyondelaliberte. If there exist reliable published sources which discuss this matter, and your article summarises what these sources say, then it has a good chance of surviving. If there are few sources, or they do not say much about it, then there is not much you can write in the article, and it may not survive. Above all, each argument, judgment, or conclusion in the article must be drawn from a single source. You may not include unpublished information or your own arguments, and you may not even draw a conclusion by taking together what two sources say. See original research for an explanation. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, adding the talk page banner was correct and your post on the assessment requests seems in order. It all looks good and my quick glance at the article it looks alot better than most peoples first few contributions... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Denny1213. Might I ask why you think it should be merged back into the parent article? Sicilian Mafia is a long article, and content forks such as the article you mention are broken off when their parent page gets too long. My understanding is that this is quite usual in the case of historical articles, where the main article gives an overview of the complete history and the child article can go into more depth about the specific period. It would allow the specific article to be expanded without concerns for the length of the main article. LouiseS1979(pigeonhole)10:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How to draw attention to an erroneous book reference
The current reference note 44: "Prior, Katherine (2000). Traditional Jewelry of India. New York: Vendome. p. 312" in the article Jewellery is erroneous. Katherine Prior was co-author of one book in 2000 (Maharajas' Jewels, published in the USA by Vendome), but it does not have a page 312. I cannot work out for sure which book is being referred to. How do I highlight the problem so that an editor with the right answer can rectify the matter. Is there a template to use like the one for "citation needed"? Sedicesimo (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I too thought the book in question was Traditional Jewelry of India by Oppi Untracht (New York: Harry Abrams, 1997), and checking in the library indeed it is. The problem now arises that the wording in the article leading to that reference follows that of the book rather too closely for copyright comfort and ought to be reworded. Sedicesimo (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are vague offline sources OK as citations?
In a recent set of edits to the article on Mark Hendrick, an anonymous editor replaced several "citation needed" tags with vague citations like "Who's Who" and "The University of Manchester" (concerning an awarded degree). While I am sure that if I had access to those sources I could check them, it doesn't seem right to dismiss requests for citation with such vague statements. Can you hep me understand the norms in such situations please?
Hello, ClareTheSharer. No, those are not acceptable (they are barely more useful than no reference). If you are willing to go and looking for a more precise reference, that would be great; otherwise you can revert the edit (but make sure you explain why in your edit summary). --ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) @ClareTheSharer: Hi Clare. Tackling something you did not ask about to start, an entry in Who's Who may not be reliable in the first place, so even if a vague pointer to it was proper it might not matter (see discussions here). But no, such "sources" are useless. The heart of verifiability is sourcing so that others can check themselves that the source verifies information included. While that does not mean the source needs to be easy to access (it does not need to be an online source, and can be something only obtainable at a library in person), it does mean that the information about the source needs to be provided with sufficient transparency so that if we wanted to, we could check. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both of those encouragements. I wasn't able to find reliable sources for those points when I added the CN tags previously as part of an attempt to triage some seemingly self-serving edits made from Parliament. Consequently I've undone each of the anonymous edits made today with a suitable explanation. ClareTheSharer (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The British Who's Who entries (only accessible on subscription) are drafted by the individuals on invitation but are editorially vetted. So, critical matters may become omitted. However, it is not at all a vanity publication, unlike US directories of the same name, and it is excellent to support notability. For Hendrick it does indeed confirm the football teams he says he supports (why do we include such guff?) and he says his "recreations" include French and German. It gives his constituency office address in Preston but it does not say whether he actually lives there. Oh, and looking at other stuff, his cv is confirmed. I'll eventually get around to editing the article but I hope someone else will beat me to it! Not my area of interest. Thincat (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to get a quick overview of this article by a second pair of eyes. I'm considering submitting it for GA. It certainly might not be the longest article, but I think it covers all the main points about the fish. Its also peppered with refs, so that shouldn't be a problem. I still need to slightly expand the lede, but that won't be too difficult. --Biblioworm16:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a bad article, but it could do with some expansion before getting the GA star. If it did get promoted, it wouldn't be the shortest GA, though. --Jakob (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the sources I have, I think that's about all the available information on the fish that could be reasonably summarized. The rest of the info is mostly very detailed measurements and a list of various technical conservation measures that are being taken. --Biblioworm19:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c x 3) @Biblioworm: First, I note immediately when looking at the article that it mostly relies on web-based sources. This is not what I would expect in a fine article on an animal species. I am not saying these sources are unreliable, but they're far from the best – many are just aggregator fact sheets on the fish. Second, in any article being considered for its overall merit, if you perform a simple search of sources, and find basics not included in the article, then you can probably conclude that the article lacks coverage of key material. While the GA criteria of "broadness" is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" requirement of featured articles, I don't think this is very broad considering that sources—better sources—seem to abound with more material. The remedy for that is of course to expand with the material you can find. Here's s few sources [1], [2], [3], [4] you might use from just the start of a Google Books search. I didn't explore it but see also this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting sources. I forgot to look at Google Books. Thanks for mentioning them. I'll try to use them if possible. In any case, I think I'll hold off on the GA after some consideration. --Biblioworm19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SleepEditor and welcome to the Teahouse. First there are a few things that we need to clarify. I saw that you tried to upload an article about Heds socken in Swedish here on the English Wikipedia, that is a no-no. Only English here, but I guess you have realized that now. Second you are now editing an article about the bed company Hästens, a company that originated in Heds socken and your signature is "SleepEditor". Am I right in assuming that you are a member of that company or in some other way connected to that firm?
About the logo: If it is a current logo it is probably protected by copyright. Any picture uploaded here must be free to use for anyone for any purpose. In some cases a logo can be used for one time only in that article under something called "Fair use". See: Wikipedia:Non-free content. Best, w.carter-Talk23:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and welcome. About the logo specifically. It is possible it could pass as what we call a Public Domain-Text Logo on Commons. If you give me a link to the precise image I can have it up on Wikimedia Commons in a second. If there is anything else, don't hesitate to contact me here or on my talk page! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dell told me to buy RS-422/RS-485 Adaptor to connect telephone to computer for FAXING!
I purchased a RS-422/RS-485 Adaptor as instructed by Dell to connect telephone to USB port for FAXING. Installed it & it didn't work after Dell told me it would without a modem. Now I have the Adaptor & haven't got a clue what it does! I did have a small dialup modem that is handling the FAXING for now.
I am a 66 year old Disabled American Veteran, technically challenged & would like to know in simple terms if I have some use for this on a home desktop?
Hi Luke and welcome to Wikipedia. Now this obviously isn't really the place for this, but since you seem lost I'll give you my two cents. The Dell representative may have been wrong in this situation. I would suggest you contact the maker of the fax machine by telephone for more assistance really... Other than that all I could recommend is learning how a scanner operates really. Hope you figure it out! -- Edward: EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to translate the page "Punic language" into French
When I click, on more, languages, I end up in wiki data and I don't know what to do then. I tried to see translating in wikipedia, but that only confused me.
Hello Exacrion and welcome to the Teahouse. To clarify, are you trying to reach a French version of the article or do you want to translate it yourself into French? If it is the first, there does not seem to be a similar article on the French Wikipedia. (the closest is one in Spanish es:Idioma púnico) If the second, please translatete it into French and add that article to the French Wikipedia. (You have to create an account there to do it) You can see at the WP:Translation how to do that properly. For instant translations of articles, you have to use a browser service like the one Google provide. There are no options in the Wikipedia that automatically translate an article for you. Best, w.carter-Talk14:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ay Yowai. I'm afraid not. In fact, there's probably no way of writing it that will be acceptable. WP:SONG#Notability says "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The article should be replaced by a redirect to Gemma Fox. --ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it has been nominated for speedy deletion. You may have a better chance of creating a article for the artist who created the song as they may have more media coverage. Good luck! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can a person please assit me in editing "Kindness"
Welcome to the Teahouse, Frogger48. A good place to start is to check the existing references. Here's a review of one of the books that may be somewhat misrepresented in the article. It would be sad to allow a fragment of psychoanalytic theory to distort the article. Another approach is to look for additional sources, either through your own independent search, or by looking at related articles. In Judaism, for example, "kindness" is called Chesed, a Hebrew word with powerfully favorable connotations. You may find useful sources there, as well as in articles from other religious and secular traditions and moral teachings. By the way, I consider kindness to be one of the values we foster here at the Teahouse. Good luck. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow my writing seem s in the advertising style to a monitor or bot
I'm working on my first project, the Globalscape Wikipedia. I'm stretched for time daily so am asking for helpful opinions on what I can do to improve the page, especially the tone. I must admit that I do not know what they are talking about because it is NOT an advertisement and one of my main and constant goals from top to bottom has been to answer the question, Who or what is Globalscape? To make sure of that, I almost used so many citations that the citations seemed to me to almost be the biggest part of the page ;D).
I constantly asked the question on every edit of the page, "Is this something a person, student, industry professional, business, would want to know and possibly seek to find out?" and support whether they are and where they are a viable, credible entity.MightyMaven (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone(s) could review the page and see what you think they might be talking about and if correct, where I can make changes. I just don't want to leave out pertinent information that all kinds of people would use to learn about the company or make decisions about it whatever those might be. And PS I am not a salesman, but the son of a country music singer songwriter. I have NEVER done advertising, lol
Thank you so much for your help.
It kind of hurt my feelings to get rebuked, like I was posting a "This is Crazy Eddie and everythings on sale. Buy buy buy!!!" and totally that is not me or this article. I've written many reports in psychology at work and I thought I was being as complete and exhaustive as possible
MightyMaven (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)MightyMaven (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MightyMaven. It is not easy writing a Wikipedia article. I'm not going to do an in-depth review, but that lead paragraph of Globalscape reads to me like one huge advertisement. It's a bit hard to identify the details, but "is a software developer ... dealing with" is vague, "mission-critical" (unless you are talking about an actual mission somewhere) is marketing speak, as is "solutions" (unless you are talking chemistry or mathematics). One of the things that makes it look like an ad is that there is far too much detail, both in the lead and throughout the article; while at the same time it is rather vague. I tried to cut the first paragraph down, but I actually cannot work out what would follow a statement like "Globalscape is a ... which provides software that ...". (A sentence of that form would be appropriate). All the "includings" and "such as" should go.
There is a more general problem, which is that of sources. Again, I haven't gone through far through the list, but not one of the first five sources is both substantial and independent: the first two are valid, but just support a single detail; while the next three, even though they are published in different places, all appear to emanate from Globalscape itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: a summary of what reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. As a rule of thumb, every single piece of information in an article should be individually referenced to a reliable source, independent of the company: if it can't be, then it should not go into the article. For some uncontroversial factual data (such at dates, places, people's names, some numbers), a non-indepedent source is acceptable. But most of the content of the first section would be unacceptable unless it is directly sourced to a commentator unconnected with the company. --ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, CV9933! As soon as you keep the Wikipedia content policies in mind (see here for an introduction to Wikipedia policies and guidelines), be bold and expand the stub with the new content. If you have any further questions, then you may ask them below this response. Thanks for your contributions! Esquivaliencet20:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RWyman, if someone hijacks an article I would tend to just revert the changes, and leave a message on their talk page. However it depends on what precisely they have done. If you tell us the article we may be able to help more. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
National Fibromyalgia Association - I'm following another editor who has done additional research - see talk. I'm trying to help him/her. Looks like another editor is joining in. Should we just go ahead and revert to the most viable version of the article? Previous editor says Feb 25 2012 - 2nd editor agreed. Just want to make sure that we're doing the right thing. RWymant@lk16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RWyman - Its clear that the National Fibromyalgia Association still exists http://www.fmaware.org/ so the take over by people promoting National Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Association (http://www.fmcpaware.org/) was dishonest and as these are both non-profits not a nice thing to do. I see this was originally done 25 July 2013 by Cats meowmix with the edit comment "The NFCPA is the official non-profit fibromyalgia and chronic pain association since the NFA handed over all assets and rights because of financial difficulties. See press release." - however as the NFA appears to still be active this appears to be untrue. Also that editor has not been back. So a revert is definitely the correct thing to do, and should have been done back in July 2013. Anybody interest in this should just create National Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Association - but also as less of an advert as it was. Cheers KylieTastic (talk)
Thank you - I see now how this works. Others have taken the mantle and reverted the article - which is a very good thing. Thanks again. RWymant@lk18:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NEW USER first time, please help meOyinbo Princess (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello - I am new to wikipedia and I would like to know how I can get myself onto the site. I am in the entertainment business, within Nigera, a white British lady from UK. I have suddenly had a lot of followers on my social networking pages and many people asking if they can read my BIO on Wikipedia. Really not sure how to go about this, who to speak to to write it for me or how to upload the write up and pictures. I have read through the terms and conditions, but still stuck Oyinbo Princess (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Oyinbo Princess. I'm afraid you are under a misconception, that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with people publicising themselves. It does not: it is an encyclopaedia, and contains neutrally written articles about subjects which have already been written about at length by people unconnected with the subject: the articles should be based almost entirely on what these independent people have written. Promotion of any sort (commercial or not) is forbidden.
Since it is hard to write neutrally about oneself, people are strongly discouraged from working on articles about themselves. If there have been articles about you in reliable sources such as major newspapers (and not based on press releases) then Wikipedia may have an article about you; but it is best if you do not write it yourself. Social networking pages are almost completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.
Hello! I don't see the image on the page specified by you. In the history it seems that you have rectified it.
I would like to advise that do not upload images on Wikipedia.
commoms.wikimedia.org is the right place and it is easy to deal there!
aGastya 14:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acagastya (talk • contribs)
@Beryl reid fan and Acagastya: Hi Beryl. I have deleted the photograph. For future reference, you could have added to the image page the code {{db-g7}} (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). Please also note that Acagastya's advice above would only be correct if the image was either in the public domain or bore a compatibly free copyright license, and is incorrect as to this image, or any other image that is non-free and you wanted to upload and use under a claim of fair use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:ColinFine I didn't find the image mentioned by Beryl reid fan so i just advised. I know the uploading restrictions as i too have uploaded (own work)
No, Chamith, those are not necessary criteria: they are alternative; i.e. you don't have to meet those criteria in order to be notable. It's rather than if you meet one of those criteria it is likely that you will be notable. --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Andrei Marzan. Almost certainly not. I doubt that any site on Wikia would be regarded as reliable, because they are generally editable by anybody, and even if they are not, there is usually no evidence that there is any kind of control of their accuracy. I guess it is possible that a particular wiki on Wikia might be managed and controlled by a specific organisation; but I couldn't find a page on the hotwheels wiki that suggested that this was the case. --ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
X!'s Tools
Hello, i have 2 accounts but i edit Wikipedia and other sister projects through this account(AgastyaC).
Problem: My edit counts and other stats are appearing 0 in X!'s tools. but when i switched my unused account and then searched for this (AgastyaC)
the stats were there. Why so?
aGastya 07:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)
Hello AgastyaC, the program running the X!'s tools have been a bit erratic lately (as have some other programs running statistics on the Wikipedia). When you get the 0 just wait a while and try again later. Hopefully it is back up by then. I'm more concerned though when you say: "i have 2 accounts". The general rule is: One person, one account. You need to state on the user pages which the other account is, otherwise you may be accused of sock puppetry. Only use one of them to edit. Best, w.carter-Talk09:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:W.carter ,Yes i have 2 accounts. It is actually i joined wikipedia but forgot the password. so an year after made another account(this one) and i make all contributions using this one.
haven't used that account except for the process of something (uspuration).
And i don't use it.
Well will this create any problem to this account of mine?
if it is how can i avoid it?
thanks
aGastya 09:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)
@AgastyaC:You should start with doing as I suggested above, write something like "I have another account [[account]] which I don't use because I forgot the password for it" on the user page of the one you use, and a similar one on the unused one saying the reversed. Preferably you need some help from an admin to sort this out. And please remember to sign your posts with the four "squigglies" ~~~~ so your name and the timestamp appears. Cheers, w.carter-Talk09:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need your help, hosts. I'm in a big rut.
Hello, I needed the kind and friendly environment of the Teahouse and its hosts to ask this question.
(imagine me walking in, ordering a coffee [though I don't drink coffee], slamming it down upon the table, and groggily having my face fall onto the table as well in aggravation.)
Why is it that, irrespective of efforts to remove it, systematic bias creep seems to try and walk right back in, by way of brazen editors that wish to refill a page with just their point-of-view?
More importantly, what can I do editing-wise to make reversions of such edits (which are often multiple, sometimes make reasonable edits to certain sections whilst making purely unreferenced and biased edits to others, and unable to be reverted except manually) easier. Because, as it stands, reverting them manually (which is as slow as molasses) raises my stress levels to the max.
Welcome to the Teahouse, Tharthan. I assume that you are talking about Systemic bias. I am unaware of any bot or automated tool that would revert such edits, though some may assist you.
As Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including those pushing a point of view, only diligent monitoring by those devoted to the neutral point of view can protect the encyclopedia. This is a never ending effort. Your efforts are appreciated, but they are also voluntary. If you get frustrated with the POV pushers, just take a break, and count on others to watch and correct those articles. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tharthan. You don’t say where you found biased edits; so it is a little hard to help. Looking at your contributions, I suspect you are referring to Rockrunnerthecard’s recent edits to General American, especially his saying that GA “lacks any noticeably regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic characteristics.” If that is your objection, here is my advice.
In the first place, please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Consider that Rockrunnerthecard is mistakenly interpreting the fact that GA is “considered by many to be the accent that is the most "neutral" or lacking in distinctive regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic characteristics.” I think you will find it much less stressful if you see that Rockrunnerthecard’s changes are merely mistaken rather than biased.
As for reverting: In this case an easy way to revert would have been to edit from the last version before Rockrunnerthecard’s edits, and save it possibly unchanged. —teb728tc09:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both very much for your advice.
I seem to have become a bit jaded over the years after dealing with constant vandalism and bad faith edits that I have forgotten one of the basic rules of Wikipedia: to always assume good faith.
Your responses have reminded me that I had ought to remind myself on a consistent basis that everyone is not out there to push their points of view or to vandalise, and that some are simply mistaken in their edits, rather than being intentionally deceptive.
Hi Tharthandorf Aquanashi, as someone who has no knowledge of the subject and thus no bias to any particular information, I must admit that I can't see what bias you are talking about. With your edit summary stating "please do not write with a bias on Wikipedia.." and "...completely uncalled for." I expected to find some egregious bias. In fact the edit that Rockrunnerthecard made that you reverted here added several references, where as the text as it stands has been questioned (i.e. the [who?]). As such to me it looks like they were trying to improve the passage with referenced material, several times by using reference already used in your preferred version of the lead. So from my uninformed position on the subject I would guess that a combination of the two versions is probably the best and the full revert was unwarranted. I would suggest discussing either on the article talk page or on Rockrunnerthecard's talk page what the precise concerns were. Certainly the existing text with statement like "considered by many" is in need of improvement. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How to connect references to numbered superscripts in the text
I need a step by step guide to setting up the list of references in Wiki style and connecting each reference to a superscript in the text Ahlitanah (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ahlitanah. The numbers for the references are created automatically when you insert the references in the proper way in the article. I have left a step by step guide at your talk page about it. w.carter-Talk21:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ronald_L._Mondrush
We have tried several times to post this story into Wikipedia, and have been repeatedly denied. The reasoning has been mostly a lack of references. We have bumped up the reference list as much as possible.
The role that Ron Mondrush and his company played in the automotive industry was pretty significant, although a bit behind the scenes. But a story that should be told and included in car and car design history. At this link is the story in a self made web site, a way for us to show more of a complete look at our story. http://ronaldmondrush.com/
After one of our Wikipedia denials Teahouse came up as a reference and help spot. Perhaps you can guide us to getting this information into the annals of Wikipedia?
Thank you so much for your consideration. Ronald L. Mondrush 19:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaneys1 (talk • contribs)
I would accept this article (I don't care much about references), but I am not an admin. I would say that one reference is enough, and will support your article creation. Kitty 56 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, SandKitty256. Thanks for trying to answer. However, you don't need to be an admin to accept an article at AFC; anyone who has the relevant tools and is an established member with a good knowledge of the rules and guidelines can do it (I've accepted 2 articles into WP so far). Also, articles need to be reliably sourced. One reference would not usually be good enough to source an article, particularly primary sources like patents or company documents.
@Delaneys1: - welcome to the Teahouse; let me try to explain why you're having trouble. First of all, your article is too promotional. I know you want to try to prove your notability to us, but we're an encyclopaedia; we need a neutral point of view, which means you may be too close to your own achievements to achieve the detachment necessary. You have a conflict of interest when it comes to this neutral point of view, so you need to take care to avoid superlative words praising your own achievements. However, if you can prove notability, then the article can be edited to remove such words.
You have provided a few more sources; since some of them are offline sources, please double-check they are relevant to documenting your career. You say you were 'a bit behind the scenes'; unfortunately, many people behind the scenes are not notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. I know this can seem unfair. Giving us a 'complete look at our story' is not really what we're here for; we're here to talk about things people are already talking about. The UBATHE patents are not notable until they're being talked about by third-party sources.
As things stand, I think the article needs to be cut down - remove all the puffery about your work and references to primary sources, state what other sources have said about you and don't editorialise on your current work - because for the moment, that's not really relevant to your previous career.
I'm sorry to give you an awkward write-up. I'll help where I can if you like (I'm mainly a copy-editor). At the moment I'd mainly fail it on promotional grounds, however, so that's something I can edit for you. LouiseS1979(pigeonhole)21:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an AfC reviewer (with 100's of reviews) I thought I should pop a note in here. While it is a well written article, I'm afraid it just doesn't come up to the increasingly high notability standard. You can either keep trying, or use the move tab at the top of the page and put it in the mainspace (not recommended, but as a last ditch attempt). Good luck and contact me at my talk page if you need any other AfC help! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)02:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
replacing an outdated photo with a new one in an infobox
Hello MildredJirak. As long as the photograph is freely-licensed content (that is, for that image, you own the copyright and have released it under a free licence, or the copyright holder, the original photographer, has agreed that you can release it under a free licence), you replace the existing file name in the article with the new one.
Go to the Commons information page or the url and copy the filename to your clipboard. In this case that should be 'File:Edmund Battersby photo by Evan Duning.jpg'.
Go to the 'Edit' or 'Edit Source' link for the Edmund Battersby page.
Where the code says '[[File:Edmund Battersby, "...a pianist of uncommon refinement." The New York Times.jpg|thumbnail|right|Edmund Battersby]], replace 'File:Edmund Battersby, "...a pianist of uncommon refinement." The New York Times' with 'File:Edmund Battersby photo by Evan Duning.jpg'. Keep all the other parameters the same.
Hi MildredJirak, why don't you just upload another one and use it for your article? The first one is a good photo and is already categorised on the Commons. It would be a benefit for the Commons to have many freely licensed photos of Edmund Battersby. EChastain (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much everyone! I did not want to remove from the Commons but just replace it in the article with the new one. The reason for this is that under eye touch-up is visible when the photo is enlarged.MildredJirak (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I keep having problems with referencing!
Hello. I have re-written and re-worked this article multiple times throughout the past year and am still having difficulty getting it submitted. Would you please be able to help me understand what the issues are with footnotes/referencing so that I can fix it and resubmit? I would appreciate your help as I am trying to get this page up, ASAP. I am just very confused.
@Amandalynnhernandez: The two reviewers offered some specific comments that you should probably discuss with them on their Talk pages for clarification. Primefac noted that all of your references are to Hafler's own publications, which are not sufficient on their own. Wikipedia needs to see what other, independent sources have said about these papers - see WP:SECONDARY. Also, Primefac and Arthur goes shopping both pointed out that your article's wording was too close to what is already written in other sources. The words in Wikipedia need to be your own, not copied or closely paraphrased from somewhere else - see WP:PARAPHRASE --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gronk Oz: I am featuring Dr. Hafler's research and it is his own, there is nobody else who has commented on it. He is a scientific researcher. That doesn't seem to make much sense. I have already updated the document so that it no longer paraphrases too closely. I honestly do not know how to communicate directly with people on the wiki platform and am getting a bit confused about this whole process. Thanks.
Hi Amandalynnnernandez. The article has problems. It is too much about the "wonderfulness" of the person, rather than being dispassionate as an encyclopedia article is supposed to be. Leave out public relations terms like "advanced the knowledge" and "intensively investigated". Don't use terms like "seminal paper" unless you are quoting someone else who said that. Too many seminals and firsts in the article. But that's a style issue, not an approval issue. I don't see why it was turned down for not having inline references. I don't see any "contentious" material of the kind that needs inline references in the biography of a living person. As a professor holding a named chair, he meets the requirements of being notable enough for a Wikipedia article. However we do want to see references that are independent of the person and his institution. If a scientist is well-known (that is, notable) he has by definition been commented about. Scientists at his level do get written about and Google, especially Google Books, is wonderful for this. See Quinn, Susan (2002). Human Trials: Scientists, Investors, And Patients In The Quest For A Cure. Perseus Publishing. ISBN978-0-306-82091-5. I will clean up the article and approve it. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that a PROD is enough to delete an article after seven days, yet an AfD can be re-listed multiple times, with no opposition (or comments of any kind), and closed as "no consensus"? What am I missing here? Deunanknute (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deunanknute As far as I understand it the various ways of deletion are based on how controversial/uncontroversial it is. The first level for clear violation is the speedy deletion, then if not quite that clear you can use the PROD and if not contested then it can be deleted after 7 days as you said. However if anyone contest the PROD or is likely to then you have to go to AfD to get a consensus. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and to address your second point Deunanknute in the case of PROD the reviewing administrator decides to either agree or not with the proposer, where with the AfD it requires at least someone else to agree with the proposer. If an AfD is "re-listed multiple times, with no opposition (or comments of any kind), and closed as 'no consensus'" then it probably would not have been deleted by the admin as a PROD. Also the other difference is it's easy to get an article deleted by PROD un-deleted, but not if by AfD. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Deunanknute and KylieTastic:Did you get a different answer from another place? How does your other answer conflict with that provided here? My answer would have been along the lines of that provided by KylieTastic. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceyockey and KylieTastic:I was basically told that one person is not a consensus per WP:CON, and that I could re-nominate it as it was closed WP:NPASR. The article has since been AfD'd by a third party, and supported by myself and one other, so that part has been taken care of. I just don't quite understand the reasoning behind the close. Deunanknute (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Deunanknute and KylieTastic:In cases where an action is not controversial, the concept of consensus need not be invoked; another way of saying this is that one person is a quorum if nobody else cares (here, at least). The concept of controversial content is largely defined in two ways: someone disagrees with an edit after it has been made; there has been consensus reached in the past which relates to a class of edits which includes the one you've made. The first one is easy and makes up the edit-revert-discuss cycle. The second one is what trips up 90% of people who make "controversial" edits as there is soooo much history here that it's tough to know it all, and this is often forgotten by editors who were involved in that history, the thinking going "this discussion was so important, how could anyone have not known about it". Assuming good faith is a way to overcome incomplete knowledge of past consensus decisions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To put it very simply, if you don't think anyone else will be bothered by the deletion, use PROD. If it is likely to be an issue, or the PROD is removed you then take it to AfD.
How to get charge of boosterism removed from a page
Hi. I have been working to improve the page for Abertay Uni. At the top is a boosterism charge... I think the article is better now, so how can this be removed? comment added by Hpurcell1659 (talk • contribs)
Hi Hpurcell1659 looks like your question either got missed, or no one wanted to venture an opinion. Looking at the article Abertay University it has radically changed since the boosterism tag was added. Also the tag was added after much editing by the COI user User:Abertay University who is now banned. Although it still has a lot of unreferenced content I'd be tempted to remove the tag now due to the article changes and the removal of the COI editor. However it would be more likely not to be contended if you could add more references first (or remove and "praise or promote" information you cannot source). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reduce the indentation of a bulleted list?
This shows the indentation of a bulleted list item using an asterisk
If I use the <"li"> HTML tag, it works the same
It gets worse in a table
Header text
* An asterisk bullet in a table doesn't work (no bullet)
Hmm, there may be implications I don't know – why {{*}} is often used (but which prefixes a non-breaking space) – but you could use a typographical bullet (•) or •. So:
Does the linking article have to be one found in Wikipedia?
My Article (title: Alfred Edwin Jones [architect]) was accepted but categorized as an Orphan. I asked the meaning of this and got the following kind answer:
"Orphan" means the page lacks incoming links. Your page has outgoing links (otherwise it would be labeled "Dead End"). What you need to do is find other pages which mention Jones, and link his name in those articles to his article. For example, if Jones designed building X in Dublin, make sure the Article for "Building X" has Jones' name linked. And do try the "find link" tool the template suggests to you, that might make it even easier. Hope this helps!
Another possibility, EamonX1, is for you or another editor to write an article (or more) about buildings he designed. One possibility is the Cork City Hall, mentioned at Cork City Council, which includes a photo of the building. Such articles would properly include mention of the architect. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You write: 'It doesn't have to be existing mentions. You can also add mentions to relevant pages like Belvedere College#Notable past pupils. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)'
1. Not sure what you mean by an 'existing mention' (It doesn't have to be existing mentions').
2. If I come across a wikipedia article which contains the name of my man (Alfred Edwin Jones), how do I make a link between that article and my one? I know I can add the url and title of the article as a Footnote. But is that it? EamonX1 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, EamonX1 I think PrimeHunter means that if there is an article which already refers to Jones, you can make that use of the name into a wikilink; but if an article doesn't mention him but reasonably might (eg it refers to a building he designed) then you might edit the text to mention him, as a wikilink to the new article. The way you make the link is to put the name of the double in double square brackets, so [[Alfred Edwin Jones]] is displayed as Alfred Edwin Jones. You need to match the spacing and punctuation precisely, but you can make it display differently using the 'pipe' character (vertical bar), so you might use [[Alfred Edwin Jones|A.E.Jones]], which would display as A.E.Jones but link to the same article. Footnotes are usually for references to support claims in articles, and you may not use Wikilinks for that purpose, as Wikipedia is not actually regarded as a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to articles which don't already mention him. If you click edit at Belvedere College#Notable past pupils then it's easy to guess what you could add there:
Thanks for your input. Sorry for being so backward (I am over 70 - still no excuse). I realize now (am I correct?) that making links does not mean editing MY article, but editing an article which already exists - inserting a link in it if it contains the name of the subject of my article (or adding in my subject's name if it is appropriate (as in the example you give re Belvedere) and linking it.EamonX1 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the name Alfred Edwin Jones - Architect to the Article on Belvedere College, Dublin and saved it. Now when I open that Article on Widipedia the name appears in the list of notable past pupil. However it is printed in a different shade of blue to the other names which are linked. Is this an error which can be corrected? EamonX1 (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have linked the name Alfred Edwin Jones which appears in the Wikipedia article on Michael Scott, Architect. I have previewed it and saved it. However it comes out in Red print, rather than Blue in which the other links all appear. Is there something I did wrong.EamonX1 (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A new article whose name duplicates an existing name
'Woca', in addition to the 2 uses presently in the DB, is the name of a native plant in Southern Oregon (or maybe wider). It was substantially used as a food by the native population before we Anglos pushed them aside, and grows in water as do water lilies.
What I'd really like is for someone else to create this article, as I'm still very green on the site!
Welcome to the Teahouse, Geodejerry, also known as Jerry Brown. I am assuming that you are not the governor of California. If I am wrong, please let me know. Your question raises several implications. Should an article about a species be given the formal Latin name or the common name? That depends on which is used most often in reliable sources. If we have several articles, or potential articles, with the same name, how should each be named? Please read WP:DISAMBIGUATION for a detailed explanation. As for someone else creating the article? Maybe, but not highly likely. After all, YOU are the new editor motivated to bring this article to fruition. We need new editors. Please consider giving it a try. Read Your first article and return here to the Teahouse at any time to ask for advice. You can do it! Cullen328Let's discuss it07:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You’re in luck, User:Geodejerry – the WP article for the plant is already out there, under its formal name, Nuphar polysepala. The Native American name is usually wokas – as in “Harvesting wokas, the seeds of the pond lily (Nuphar polysepala), was a specialized (and crucial) Klamath adaptation.” [6] and in this book [7]. (I think woca is a misspelling - so need to worry about disambiguation pages, for now anyway). And since there aren’t, at the time of this posting, any articles called Wokas, I’ll create a page for it that just points to the Nuphar p. article – these are known on WP as WP:Redirects. And you could put this picture in. The wokas season, by Edward S. Curtis If you’d like to expand this aspect of the plant article and have questions about how to do that, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Novickas (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for a Mentor
I'm Looking for someone to help me understand why my edits are not being accepted? And other such dumb questions
I may be a lousy wiki editor. But I'm a quick learner.
Welcome to the Teahouse, Aseemseth! You may be interested in the Adopt-a-user program, where you can be paired with a more experienced Wikipedian that will answer all your questions. If you have any further specific questions, you may ask them below this response. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Esquivaliencet19:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks For the Invite: What Voice Should I Write in?
Hello, 106.68.22.102. The answer depends on what you mean by "voice". If you mean active voice or passive voice, there is no preference (writing entirely in the passive voice becomes a bit cumbersome, but there's no need to be afraid of ever using it). If you mean the level of formality, or neutrality, the answer is that writing should be neutral and in a way impersonal (it doesn't address the reader directly, it doesn't tell the reader what to think, it doesn't use language that is likely to manipulate the user's feelings towards the subject, and it should never contain any kind of argument, judgment or conclusion unless that argument, judgment or conclusion is directly taken from the writing of a reliable source unconnected with the subject. The relevant articles are WP:manual of style and WP:neutral point of view. If this doesn't answer you, please come back and ask a more specific question. --ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how this Dwpaul gets to wander around editing peoples pages and he accused me of vandalism and I would never do such a thing! I thought said it said she was born 1993 but she was active from 2008- Present I just do not get it!
.jpg){kind=link}
