Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 20thtryer (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 30 March 2012 (New question: A place where users get blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

GoingBatty, a Teahouse host

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

Dear new editors, no question is too basic for our Q&A board. If you need help, just click the link below! And if you have some helpful advice for someone else, go ahead: be bold! Click the "edit" button to the right of their question and start the conversation.

Click here to ask a question »

A place where users get blocked

If you are wondering where users get blocked check out20th Tryer ⚡✀ 16:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to rethink blocking policy.

For too long users are being bullied and threatened to a block. So I say no more warnings to AGF users and no more block threats.20th Tryer ⚡✀ 16:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a good idea in theory, but unfortunately, some new users do need to be blocked sometimes. We get a *lot* of vandals who have no intention of improving the encyclopedia, and we can't just let them run free; we have to block them to limit the damage to the encyclopedia. After all, "assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. Now, anyone who posts here asking a question about how Wikipedia works is probably going to be a good-faith contributor, so there's nothing to worry about here! Just, sometimes we gotta do what we gotta do, and blocking as a tool is something we always need to keep in the back of our toolbox. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably one of the better contributor who actually AGF, there are some admins who actually enjoy blocking.20th Tryer ⚡✀ 16:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous Teahouse Question

What is it that many people posting to the Teahouse are saying "I hope you don't block me for asking this...". Blocks aren't used on people who ask questions, are they? Thanks, Nathan2055talk 16:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is because many users are really threatened by the bullying response of the admins.--20th Tryer ⚡✀ 16:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks are not used on people who ask questions, no; I'm not sure where that misconception is coming from, to be honest. It seems to be a new phenomenon. Nobody has been blocked for anything they've done here, to my knowledge. For future reference to anyone who reads this: you will never* be blocked solely for asking a question on the Teahouse! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*:There are situations wherein you could get blocked, but only for egregiously inappropriate things, like pure, blatant vandalism or obvious, nasty personal atttacks or outing. Basically, the "asking a question" part of it will never get you blocked; it's only if the question contains otherwise blatantly inappropriate material.
(edit conflict) Thankfully that was only one editor who might have thought that; we don't want people to think that asking questions will get them blocked as there is obviously no basis for that idea. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you allowed to copy and paste things on wikipedia. Are you allowed to share it. Are you even allowed to remix it????20th Tryer ⚡✀ 16:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Do you mean copy and pasting things INTO Wikipedia or OUT OF Wikipedia? The first one (into), would be a no. The second is a yes, please read the Terms of Use. If you have any more questions, you can contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Nathan2055talk 16:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Nathan says, it all depends on which way the copying and pasting is going. If you, for example, want to copy an article to your blog that is perfectly fine as long as you release that blog post (I think?) under that same license as Wikipedia. Now, you cannot copy most material into Wikipedia (the exceptions being when the owner of the external content has released the material under an applicable license or it is public domain). Because of Wikipedia's edit historys, we also ask that you do not copy content from one article to another Wikipedia page without some sort of attribution of full page move. This is pretty complicated stuff, so I hope that didn't fly completely over your head. We'll be happy to clarify anything for you. :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Books

Well a question I asked last time would have blocked me. But I request to my hosts, This is not to be blocked. Okay here is the question :What are these Wikipedia Books?--Monareal (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book are collections are collections of Wikipedia articles that can be saved, downloaded or printed, have a look at WP:Books for more information. They are normally grouped by topic. NtheP (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what do you call it?

where you can have, instead of a * on each line like this

  • one
  • two
  • three

you can instead use a little triangle, and when you click on the triangle it shows the text that was collapsed and hidden before, same as many directory trees, but with normal text on a normal looking page such as this, but not the little box that says show, not the collapsible boxing, it's a little triangle which turns 90 degrees ? Oh, and yes, I probably am in the wrong place, but it's such a lovely tea house ! I cannot resist now I'm here Penyulap ☏ 11:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penyulap, it's great to see you back on Wikipedia. I've got to say - I've been looking, and I can't find it. I thought that it might be a {{collapsible list}}, but that's just a list that's... collapsible. We do have something similar in Categories, but the little arrows File:Arr_r.png and File:Arr_d.png don't actually get used for any template. Do you have any examples of it being used? You may be lucky and have another bright Teahouse expert answer you, but I'm struggling! WormTT · (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waxing Wikipedic

Obviously, this is a Q&A forum -- is there someplace else for philosophic WP musings? ~Eric "The Read" F184.76.225.106 (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric, welcome to the teahouse! There's no reason you can't wax away here, I'm sure we'd be interested, and might be able to give you a second opinion. The other option a lot of people do is create essays on a topic, which anyone can read. I've been fiddling around with a few for a while in my userspace, for example this rant on civility. I was going to start linking to them when I was happy with them, but at the moment, it's just a place for me to muse. WormTT · (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Okay, I am bold enough to ask a question here by now, I think so. Okay Can we propose a thing we want to make on Wikipedia?--Monareal (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose away, it might be all we can do is point you to a different place on Wikipedia where there are people who are better placed to help or advise you, but this is as good a place as any to start. NtheP (talk) 09:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I proposed on Wikiproject Spaceflight but the members were busy. So I got only an answer 4 days later.--Monareal (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Than you for your enthusiasm to contribute. Things do take time here because people are often busy in real life. I would allow a week or more for people to see a new section and comment.--Charles (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but in teahouse, I get answers in hours--Monareal (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owww, thanks. But that's just because we are many, and we worry about peoples experience in Wikipedia. Most projects (and community spaces, such as the village pump) will not have as many fast responses. This is normal Wikipedia behavior, it is just that we like to spoil our guests with very quick, great and hot tea! Chico Venancio (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a second, Wikipedia turned into Mein Kampf!--Monareal (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I encountered a disaster!--Monareal (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mir

I think this question will make me outsed from the teahouse. But I want an answer. Why some Mir modules articles have infoboxes but others have no? This could block me but if you want to please tell the answer and then.--Monareal (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monareal, thanks for dropping in. Let me start by assuring you that asking questions is not going to get you blocked or ousted from here or anywhere else on Wikipedia, this is after all an encyclopedia and people learn not only by reading but by asking questions; whether they are about article content or how to edit or why does Wikipedia do certain things in certain ways. I think the simple answer to your question is there are different ways of presenting the same information and the various editors who have compiled these articles about Mir and its modules have gone about it in different ways. One of the ones without an infobox, for example Kvant-2, may look better with an infobox or it may not. The only way to find out is to try, if you don't like the result you can undo your edit. If you like the result leave it, the worst that can happen is that somebody else doesn't like it and undoes what you did. If that happens, don't get upset or angry but ask them why they think the other way is better and see if you can find common ground between you. NtheP (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genghis Khan

I understand that there are ~1000 'Vital' articles in need of attention, but there is one that is a serious mess that needs Admin attention (or anyone who can edit semi-protected articles).

That is Genghis Khan. In addition to being vital, it is of Top importance in three categories. Any assistance in clean-up or copy-edit would be appreciated. The talk page should give you an idea as to where to start. Thanks! ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation only?

I sort of stumbled upon this page by accident -- is it supposed to be "invitation only"? ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No way!! Everyone is welcome and it is super cool that you found us! Welcome, stick around and get to know some people. heather walls (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I don't have to feel like a party crasher. Btw, I'm not a "registered" editor. (No need to explain the benefits of registering -- it's a long story.) ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, too. Feel free to ask anything you want! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I invited to teahouse?

I am a new editor and was wondering what this message was about. Thank you :)

JHerbertMunster (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? :) But seriously, welcome to Wikipedia! We just saw that you were a new user, so we wanted to let you know that the Teahouse is here. The Teahouse is a pilot for a place to give new users a little more personalized help than just flooding them with hours-worth of links to policy pages. Basically, if you have any questions on how Wikipedia works (it gets pretty complicated every now and then), you can ask them here, and we'll do our best to answer. As I said, it's still a pilot, so there's not very much awareness of it yet around Wikipedia. Since it's not the go-to place for help yet, we rely on going out to new users and inviting them, to let them know that there's a place to go for their how-to questions. So, if you have any questions now or in the future, feel free to ask, and again, welcome to Wikipedia! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Hey, i'm a new editor wishing to help other people with their articles! I usually just edit spelling mistakes or wrong context. I'm also making my own articles! The first one i've made was an article called Barrettini. Anyway i've tried to upload images, but i don't now how to! Please help!!! Ragecode (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ragecode and welcome to the Teahouse! Uploading images depends on if the image is free (the copyright expired or it was released into the public domain or if the image is non-free (the copyright holder retains all rights). First, you need to determine if the image is free, or in the public domain. You can go to Commons:Special:UploadWizard to learn and upload free images. If the image is non-free, then you need to follow Wikipedia:Non-free content to upload a non-free image. Remember, a non-free image cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, as Commons is for free media files only. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 00:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Luke! Wikipedia:Non-free content is a LOT of text. And I can't find where it says to upload non-free images if they are not allowed on Commons. Does that mean load them directly to Wikipedia? heather walls (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, you will have to upload non-free images to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and choose an appropriate non-free use rationale. You can only upload non-free media to English Wikipedia. Sorry if that was a little confusing. -- Luke (Talk) 02:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made the userbox.

I have made the user box. Task 1 complete.

"BeBold"This User is Bold.

20th Tryer ⚡✀ 21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've never made a userbox and I've been around for almost ten years! I'm impressed! Sarah (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see not everyone hates me. By the way I have tonnes of experience with syntax, HTML and Java. Anything else i can help with.--20th Tryer ⚡✀ 15:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bold!!?

What exactly do you mean by be bold. 20th Tryer ⚡✀ 21:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Be BoldWikipedia:BeBold makes it seem editors can fearlessly and boldly edit. Yet this is not the case. Just look at the talk page here[1]

and here[2] . Here is a another interesting guardian newspaper link[3]. I may have just created an account yesterday, but I have been contributing for a long time as an IP. So here is what I want to do:

  1. Create a wikiproject helping users Bebold
  2. Create a userbox for bold users
  3. Write an essay about this

20th Tryer ⚡✀ 21:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there 20th Tryer, and welcome to the Teahouse. :) Our "Be Bold" policy is Wikipedia's way of encouraging you to make any change that you believe will benefit the encyclopedia. Because the website is entirely maintained by volunteers, the old Smokey Bear slogan applies here very well: "Only you can prevent [the encyclopedia from degrading]". If you see a mistake or something that needs fixing, there no way of knowing when someone else will notice and take the time to fix it if you do not. Of course, being bold is not a free pass to do anything you want -- we still have rules you need to follow and will hopefully take the time to learn -- but if there's something to improve, please improve it! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK Nole, you win the award for one of the most awesome analogies ever. Smokey Bear. LOLZ! :) Sarah (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20th Tryer, you can be fearless by being bold but not reckless. As Nolelover says if you think you are improving things then do it, but make sure that what you do is neutral and verifiable. Too many times boldness is used as an excuse for edits which are along the lines of "I believe this is true, so I'm going to add it" without any attempt at justifying what is being adding. Those edits are mostly made in good faith but if you can't back it up with sources, it is more than likely going to be taken the wrong way bu other editors, and remember they can be bold to and revert your edits. If you haven't already read past the first section of Be Bold to see what it says about putting your editing in context. NtheP (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 days, 2 warnings

Well, I only created this account 2 days ago and I have already received 2 warning. Even if someone was not intending to send me a warning, it still looks like one. Can some-one please help me before I get blocked.20th Tryer ⚡✀ 21:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that you've received any warnings, are there any particular messages that you think are warnings? NtheP (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As NtheP says, I don't see any warnings on your talk page, and I don't see any reason why you are in danger of being blocked. Was this on another talk page? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do these appear prior to logging in? If an IP assigned to the terminal or range of terminals the you are using edits anonymously, you may see warnings prior to logging in. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with twinkle

How do I use twinkle. I thought it was supposed to be give me a revert button. But this site is glitched and the revert buttons aren't coming up.20thtryer (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, to use Twinkle your account needs to autoconfirmed for which you need to have made 10 edits AND your account must be over 4 days old. As you only created your account yesterday, I'm afraid you'll have to wait until the weekend. NtheP (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on editing! ;) Sarah (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why couldn't my micronation have an article?

Okay i'll show you one. the republic of molossia......it has an article.....so why couldn't my micronation have an article?

Thanx!!Johnryanz (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnryanz, I am not an experienced Wikipedian (so feel free to chime in here, guys!) but it seems to me that Republic_of_Molossia, if this is the article you are referring to, has sources written by folks outside of Molossia. I'm sure some other hosts can add more information here about how to express that something is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia so that your article won't be deleted. heather walls (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable, independent sources that will back up the existence of Ryoka, you'll be on surer ground. You might want to try creating your article at Articles for creation first so that if there are problems these can be commented on without the article being deleted. You could also try asking at the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations (yes there is such a project!) where the editors are all interested in micronations and can probably give you more specialist advice. NtheP (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rules getting in my way.

All these rules are seriously getting in the way of my edits!!!20thtryer (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, and welcome to the Teahouse ... I'm sorry you're having a bad experience with editing, however. Could you possibly tell us what Wikipedia rules you have problems with? --McDoobAU93 16:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, 20thtryer, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! The normal answer to this is that, if a rule is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it. You're welcome to try whatever it is you want to try, as long as you genuinely believe that it will improve Wikipedia, and a reasonable person would agree that it does.

**BUT:** you need to keep the following in mind: generally, the rules are there for a reason. If you're finding yourself completely ignoring many or all of the established policies of Wikipedia, it is probably a good sign that the change you want to make will not improve Wikipedia. Tread very cautiously around "ignore all rules" usually abbreviated IAR). Sometimes, you have to ignore them, but the trick is to know when those times are.

If you're not 100% sure that a reasonable person would agree with you on a change, it's always going to be better to ask someone else's opinion on it first. It's easier to ask for permission than forgiveness. And after all, we Teahouse hosts are more than happy to answer your questions about things like this! As McDoob says, we'd also be glad to explain any of the rules if you don't quite understand them. So, in closing, be bold, but don't be reckless. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article for creation won't submit, for the second time

Hi everyone. I've been working with a new editor on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Edward Margolies. Both myself, and Cob have tried to resubmit the article via the "submit" button but the article shows no signs that it has been submitted. Anyone have any idea on how to submit it? Or what is going on? Thanks. Sarah (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I fixed this problem for that article before. What's happening is that the old submission template is superseding the new one posted by the submit link. You have to take the old submission template off first before you can add a new one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've never dealt with articles for creation before. Where is the new template? What's the story with that? Sorry, I'm just confused by the process. Article for creation usability fail. Sarah (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the AfC usability isn't great. No worries, I took care of it for you. BTW, I put your name in as submitter; let me know if you want the other editor's name in there, instead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Actually, the submitter should be User:Thecobbrooklyn. Thanks Writ!! Sarah (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of teaching a man to fish, this is what needed to be removed:
{{AFC submission|d|npov|declinets=20120326101048|decliner=Dalisays|ts=20120326061421|u=Thecobbrooklyn|ns=5}}*{{afc comment|1=The article <redacted>)}}
I also moved the {{subst:submit}} to the top, since I think that's where reviewers prefer it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to find Vandilism

Hello, How will we detect Vandalism in our User Pages? Please don't block me because of this question! My account is just three days old!--Monareal (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Monareal, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Don't worry, nobody will block you for asking this, or nearly any other for that matter, question on the Teahouse. Answering questions is what we're here for, so go ahead and ask away!
Now, to your question itself: if you mean your own user page, probably the easiest way is to just put it on your watchlist. You can do this by clicking on the star icon in the top-right corner, next to the search bar; after you click on it, it'll turn blue, which means that the page is watchlisted. Once you do this, you can then click on the "My Watchlist" link above that icon from anywhere in Wikipedia, and it will show you the most recent changes to the articles on your watchlist. So, if you watchlist your user page, all you have to do is click on "My Watchlist", and if anyone else edits it, you'll see what they did.
If you have anyone specific in mind, you can just add their user pages to your watchlist the same way you added your own, and you can then monitor it in the same way. But if you just mean anyone else's page, well, there's no real easy way to do it. When I patrol Recent Changes, I generally take a look at anyone who edits a user page that isn't their own. (That is, any page whose title starts with "User:", but doesn't have the editor's name following it) That's about the easiest way that I've come up with; I've been thinking about a way to make it a little easier to see, but it's not quite ready for primetime yet. Anyway, I hope that answers your question! Please feel free to ask any other questions you'd like; again, there's almost nothing you can ask here that we'd block you for, so don't worry about that! Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To see what constitutes a block, see the blocking policy. Don't worry, we'd never block a vandalism fighter for asking where it could be found! Rcsprinter (converse) 15:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, only changes to your talkpage create a banner. What you need to use is called a watchlist. there is a link to it at the top of your browser screen. there is a star on the top of ever page next to history. you click the star to put it on your watchlist. then you can see if there has been vandalism. I expect that is what you mean. I am no expert on watchlists, I don't use them much. Penyulap ☏ 10:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another question......

well, thank you Tito Dutta and writ keeper for your help on my last question. But I would like to know, how did other micronations get an article on wikipedia?

Like how did they? what refrences did they ahve to prove they were real and stuff. thanx, if i knew how to edit my current question and get new answers i would but i dunno how so ill just ask another question......thanx!!Johnryanz (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnryanz, can you point to some of these other micronation articles? heather walls (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found the micronation article a good place, it's interesting stuff!! I don't think there are notability guidelines for micronations, however. Very, very fascinating subject. Sarah (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello! I would like some help.

I am pretty new to wikipedia and was wondering, I had an old account were I made the article Ryoka. It was deleted, and i am certainly not asking to bring it back. But why exactly was it deleted? How can I prove it's real? I mean, the micronation Ryoka itsef refuses to join any organisations soooo how do i prove that its real so it doesn't get removed? it is a real micronation, i myself, am the leader, aaaand i would like to know how i can prove it is real. Thank you! I love wikipedia and am trying to contribute!Johnryanz (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ryoka has been deleted multiple times.
Reasons were:
  • Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance: Article about an a real person, which does not assert notability
  • Empty content etc!
Who/what is Ryoka? You'll get some help here: Wikipedia:Starting_an_article.
Also mention in your old account that you have stopped using it, see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
If you have any question, you can ask! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Johnrianz, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! The problem here is that Wikipedia has a standard of inclusion for new articles; this standard is called "notability." Basically, this means that we need the topic to be significantly discussed in multiple, third party reliable sources. The reason for this policy is that, on Wikipedia, our invormation is only as good as our sources; we need all the information we have to be verifiable in reliable sources to be able to have it. If there are no sources on a given subject, then we can't write anything verifiable about it, and if there's nothing to write, we can't really have an article! If you want to write an article about Ryoka and get it to stay, you have to find multiple sources that discuss it at some length, and that are independent of the subject and reliable. Now, I'm sorry, but I have a feeling that Ryoka's just not going to be notable enough for its own article, but that's okay! Lots of people make articles that end up getting deleted, especially when they first start out; it's no big deal! My advice to you is to find an article that already exists on Wikipedia and try to make it better, remembering to support with good sources any new information you add. You'll get the hang of it, and it can be pretty fun! And, of course, you can always come back here to ask questions. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on Page

Hello,

I am the main editor for the Birds Nest Foundation wikipedia page. The page was tagged a few weeks back for a need of clean up, to be wikified and reorganization. The page has since been edited. How can these tags be removed?

Thank you.

Kaito.hara (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Welcome to the Teahouse! Nice to see you here! I would be happy to take a look at the article and maintenance tags. Generally, once the issues identified have been addressed, you can either contact the editor that placed the tags and ask if you addressed the concerns sufficiently, or you can just be bold and remove the tags yourself. If others are watching the page and disagree with the removal, they would most likely mention it on the article talk page. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and cleaned up the article and made some copyedits. You can review the changes that I made and contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. I've removed the tags, since they no longer apply. At this point, we really need to find references to support the article. Rather than adding another tag at the top of the page to flag the lack of citations, I added notations within the article itself to indicate which content needs citations. Entire sections are unreferenced, including the content presenting awards and recognition. We need to find sources that support the article that are not associated or affiliated with the article subject or its affiliates. There are four references provided. Two cite the organization itself; one cites a blog, which is considered unreliable; and the fourth does not mention the subject. In order to establish notability, we need to support the article through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or need additional help. Hope you have a great day! Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 17:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian mischief or vandalism?

Wikipedia has been good to me. I think it's time I did more than just read articles. So the weekend began with a foray into simple tasks like learning references, their format, and verifying the web source. It's the first time that I encountered a lengthy addition to an article without citing additional reference. It looks more like a personal commentary IMO. I reverted the article after some checks. So my question is, what is mere accidental commentary vs intentional vandalism? Or how do experienced Wikipedians tell? Do you base it on the commentator's history of mischief? Are there Wikipedians that purposely create mischief to bring attention to a flawed or unverified statement in an article? And how do you report it if it's vandalism?SyncSeth (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SyncSeth, thanks for stopping by, that's a humdinger of a set of questions. The Five pillars of Wikipedia give principles that the whole enterprise is based on. The second says "...All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources ..." so theoretically anything that doesn't meet that pillar could be described as WP:vandalism (described as "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.") however there is the policy of assuming good faith so unless you are convinced that an uncited piece of text has been maliciously added then you should assume that it's a good faith attempt at addition that has been poorly executed.
How do any of us tell what's vandalism and what isn't, the editors contributions are one pointer as might any messages on their talk page. There is obvious stuff that is easily recognised e.g. obscenities, nonsense but there are others that will require quite close assessment before you decide and even then it's not easy.
Are there deliberate mischief makers with the sole purpose of attracting attention? Probably but it depends what you call deliberate mischief. The easiest way to deal with flawed or unverified statements is to remove them from the article but where you think such action is contentious you should also be willing to discuss on article talk pages why you think the additions were flawed.
Are there deliberate vandals? Absolutely and there are many editors here who spend most of their time fighting vandalism and their are semi-automated tools like Twinkle or Huggle available to help editors who want to help in this area. Vandals who are persistant can be brought to administrator attention at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism where an admin will consider what action to take ranging from nothing, messages on talk pages through to banning which can be short, long or indefinite. Hope this helps as a starter for 10 NtheP (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need to disagree with Nthep here; vandalism at Wikipedia is very narrowly defined, and it is best to not throw the term around lightly. It is entirely untrue that "anything that doesn't meet that pillar could be described as WP:vandalism". Good-faith additions to Wikipedia should never be labeled as vandalism. As long as someone is trying to improve Wikipedia, it is not vandalism; vandalism is only defined as a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia; if someone believes themselves to be improving Wikipedia, it isn't vandalism, even if they are failing spectacularly. There are many reasons why some change to Wikipedia may be unwelcome or unwanted, and only a small subset of those is vandalism. People who are trying to help Wikipedia, but doing it wrong, should be helped, not called vandals. --Jayron32 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation Help

I created a disambiguation page for one Article. There are two or more relevant articles.

Issue is one article does not has a qualified name and has name same as title (to be disambiguated). After creating the disambigution page, the search leads only to one article(having less importance) and not disambigution page. What should be done here.

Rajenver (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajenver, can you tell us the name of the disambiguation page you created so we can have a look at the page. Without seeing it I can't be sure but I suspect there might be some links that need changing or possibly page moves. NtheP (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you're talking about Chaturbhuj Temple? What needs to be done is this: the current Chaturbhuj Temple article needs to be moved to Chaturbhuj Temple (Orchha) or something similar and the Chaturbhuj Temple (disambiguation) needs to be moved to Chaturbhuj Temple. Once that's done, searches will take one to the disambiguation page as appropriate. To do this, we'll need an admin's attention, though, since an admin will be needed to either suppress the creation of a redirect or just delete the redirect after it's been made. Let me know if you think that "Chaturbhuj Temple (Orchha)" is a reasonable name for the minor article; if it is, I can get the process started for you (or you can just do it yourself; either way!) Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other article is called Chaturbhuj Temple, Khajuraho India which probably needs renaming as well. I don't think it needs an admin as Chaturbhuj Temple could just be redirected to Chaturbhuj Temple (disambiguation). NtheP (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could, but MOS says that the dab page should only be named "Subject (disambiguation)" when there is a primary-subject article occupying the "Subject" page. I don't think it makes a *huge* difference, but might as well follow MOS in the absence of a reason not to, I say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current article Chaturbhuj Temple can be renamed to Chaturbhuj Temple (Orchha) or Chaturbhuj Temple, Orchha. Orchha is Location. name. We can't create a redirect page as article exists with name Chaturbhuj Temple Rajenver (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way do we have any template (which can be added to article) for requesting rename. We have one such for WikiMedia.

Rajenver (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done the page move and made the admin move request on Chaturbhuj Temple. Once an admin sees it and responds, we should be in the clear. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rajenver, to answer your last question, no there isn't. Uncontroversial moves can be done by any user who is autoconfirmed. Other moves need to be listed at Requested Moves. NtheP (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When should I request for a review on an article?

Hi world! I'm a new wikipedian, nice to meet you all. I'm currently working on a page called Odex, it's a controversial topic in the Singapore anime community and I think is a good place to start in my journey of wikipedia contributing! The page has been tagged as neutrality disputed and I've try my best to remove any POV statements and provided some newspaper articles as citations. I've also posted on the talk page, hoping there's other editors will be interested in the page and help to improve it. But it has already been 2 weeks and there is no answer. So what should I do now? Should I wait for others to edit it since I feel like there's nothing more for me to improve? Or should I request for a review and try to improve from the feedback? --Vaktug (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vaktug, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for your contributions so far. If you're not getting any responses on the article talk page I suggest you leave a message at the talk pages of WikiProject Singapore and WikiProject Anime and manga asking for comments. These two projects have both tagged the article are being within their scope so there are more likely to be people there who can help you. NtheP (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let me know the procedure to upload the JPG files to the page.

Could you please let me know the procedure to upload the JPG files to the page. Anurag PanulyAnuragpanuly (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you'll get a detailed answer of your question Help:Upload#Uploading, see if it helps, and/otherwise, we'll talk in details. In left navbar of Wikipedia (see left), under Toolbox section, you have "Upload file" link, I generally start from there. Feel free to ask questions!--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's worth noting that free-use images are preferred. These are uploaded at Wikimedia Commons. If there's no free equivalent, then non-free images can be uploaded providing they meet the non-free content criteria. -- Trevj (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joining a WikiProject

I'm looking at joining a WikiProject, I just edit my name into the list of active members to do that?Twarther (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twarther! Yup! That is all you do - just add your name on the member list and join in on editing. What project are you thinking about? Thanks for coming by the Teahouse =) Sarah (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some projects have welcome templates, in which case you may receive a note on your talk page after joining. And some don't - but in that case, it doesn't matter in terms of your editing! -- Trevj (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=484718118"