This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Walls Jericho(talk | contribs) at 07:47, 6 December 2012(New question: What type of source is acceptable?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:47, 6 December 2012 by Walls Jericho(talk | contribs)(New question: What type of source is acceptable?)
Making your wiki account location details private? Request for oversight?
I apologise as this has no doubt be answered hours before my asking. Is it possible to make not visible, your location details? As I made my account quite a few years ago I had not noticed I had these details visible. Thanks Safez (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit- What I found more interesting, is the amount edits my account has somehow made... over 10 000... I havent made an edit in at least 2 years Safez (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tables with further splitting
Hello,
so I have been asking myself, how to do a consonants table with further splitting (for Gulf Arabic) like the table you find in the article of Egyptian Arabic with all the subdivisions and all.
I tried to copy it... but it was just... weird as I had to change a few things and I was compleeeeetely lost.
A little help would be much appreciated.
Hi, this is scarey. I've written about myself - as other writers have done. It's in my sandbox. Can it go on Wikipedia as a page, or does it need approval or proof? If it can be an entry, how do I do that? Jocy HJocy H (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to upload a picture?
Hello. I want to change a picture but when I clicked on the Insert Picture button, there's no upload option. How do I go about using another picture?Treeroy (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teeroy and welcome to the Teahouse! There are two types of images:
Free – you created the image yourself
Fair-use (non-free) – you found the image somewhere (e.g. a website)
If you created the image yourself, you may use the image upload wizard on Commons. The main file upload wizard is located at this link: File Upload Wizard, and it should be able to guide you through most of the steps. If the image is fair-use, make sure to add the appropriate copyright information in the wizard. Once you have uploaded the image, add [[File:<name of file>]] in the page's code. If you need any specific help with the process, feel free to ask here.
Hi Can.kilic; welcome to the Teahouse! Signatures are just for talk pages, actually—never add your signature when editing articles. To add your signature (to a talk page), just type ~~~~ after your comments. Happy editing! —Theopolisme23:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completed an article in my sandbox and followed the instructions to move it. I used Move to Wikipedia and to User but when I search for it I can't find it. What am I doing wrong?Robert Adamski (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Robert, welcome to the Teahouse! the problem here is that "Wikipedia" is actually the wrong choice in that menu; the correct choice was "(Article)", at the top of the list. It's actually a very common mistake to make, though, so don't worry about it! The deal is that the "Wikipedia" choice on that menu refers to what's called the Wikipedia namespace, or WP for short. It's not a place for articles, but a place for the policies, noticeboards, help pages and the like; all the information about Wikipedia, but not the encyclopedia itself. This very page is actually within the WP namespace: you can tell because it has the "Wikipedia:" bit on the front. Anyway, Nthep (another host) has moved the page back into your sandbox at User:Robert Adamski/sandbox2, so you can try again there. Hope this helps! :) Writ Keeper⚇♔21:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Robert, welcome to the Teahouse. Your article has done the rounds and is now to be found at User:Robert Adamski/sandbox2. The navigation bit first. At the top of the screen you will find a number of links to; your Userpage, your Talk page, Preferences, Watchlist and Contributions. If you click on Contributions you will see the edits you have made starting with the most recent. Moving the page, you obviously found the move button in the drop down list at the top of the edit screen and managed to move the article from your sandbox. Unfortunately you sent it to the wrong namespace. The are several namespace and intuitive as moving the article to the Wikipedia namespace is that was the wrong one. That namespace is for pages about Wikipedia (like this page). You worked out it was the wrong area and then moved it to a place in the User namespace again incorrect, I'm afraid. Articles belong in the (Article) or main namespace.
I could have moved it from the user namespace to the mainspace for you but instead I've moved it back to a sandbox page of yours. The reason for this is that left in mainsapce the article would very likely get deleted as it, currently, doesn't explain the notability of the church nor is it supported by any references. Moving it back to your sandbox at least eliminates this possibility while you work on it. I suggest you don't move it until you have resolved the notability and referencing issues NtheP (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dear sir/recently added an article about a musician and deleted by a host,how can I retrieve article based on first thread they asked me just add a real reference and I addeld .Now I wanted
to improve it.regardsShirin Nezhadbahram (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few Questions ...
1. Is there a template for Ancestry.com to prove a birth date of a subject?
2. How does one accompany their edits with a short explanation on the "View History" page to back up their contribution?
3. Are ASINs from other countries such as UK, Japan, et al allowed to prove the existence (release date, etc) for an album? The Wiki-template says, "yes" but not for US. Is this correct?
Hi Wikiguardpatrol, on the Ancestry question, they either host original records or family trees created by amateur genealogists. Neither are appropriate sources to prove or disprove a date of birth. We should be using reliable, published sourced to verify that sort of thing. Sionk (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really great question though. Especially if birth and census records repeatedly show the same birth date. I've used it to confirm birth and death dates for subjects before. Besides, where do we think secondary sources get their data? Generally someone digs it up from these sources. I think it'd be super cool to see a template for ancestry. But, c'est la vie. For now, I'd just try to link to the record if possible - use it sparingly. I'd rather have multiple primary sources that state a subjects birth and death dates, then none at all. SarahStierch (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLPPRIMARY. We shouldn't be using primary documents to support private personal details of living people. You have to make an assumption to link the correct documents (or document entry) with the correct person. That is WP:OR. Often it seems people don't even know what the source is. It is just 'stuff I found on Ancestry.com'. Sionk (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to #2. I'm a bit confused, but, you can't really add any comments to the VIew History page, except in your "Edit summary," when you make your edits. You can leave comments on the talk page discussing your contributions. I'm not sure about the ASIN, perhaps someone else here knows? SarahStierch (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Libby! Only administrators can place semi- or full-protection on a page, although most (not all) registered users can still edit a page that has been semi-protected. If you need to request the semi-protection of a page, you can ask at Requests for page protection, though you should read the guidelines about the purposes for which protection is and isn't used. Basically, semi-protection should only be used in cases of heavy, sustained disruption (almost always in the form of vandalism) of a page from many different IP addresses or brand-new accounts. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are maintenance banners supposed to be added to the References section of an article?
Hi there,
I'm in a bit of a dilemma- an IP user keeps on adding a Unclear Citation style banner and Lack of inline citations in the REFERENCES section of the Wonder Woman article. But the references section basically just lists all the refs and cites on the page, then why add these banner there. I removed it once, but the user added them again; is there really some issue that needs to be addresses?
Thanks,WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Wonderboy, welcome to the Teahouse! In general, I believe it's okay to put maintenance tags at the tops of sections as opposed to the top of the page when the tag only applies to the content of that section. I see why the IP is putting the tags where they are; the tags are highlighting problems with the referencing, so they're being placed in the references section. The "lacks inline citations" tag doesn't need to be on the article at all; there is no shortage of them (which is a good thing!) The "unclear citation style" as a little bit more reasonable, and I could see placing it in the References section (because that's where one would see the citation styles used), the top of the article (because it needs to be fixed within the ref tags throughout the article, not in the references section), or removing it altogether (because who cares?). Maybe that's just me, though. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔17:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EricEgo2012; welcome to the Teahouse. There's no ranking system here at Wikipedia per se, although with considerable effort you might make it onto Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (you'll need over 1.2 million edits if you want to knock Koavf off the top spot, though!). If you want to improve your editing, however, I'd suggest that you may want to consider requesting adoption from a more experienced user, who can help you learn the ropes. Yunshui雲水14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia uses a bit of coding to automatically generate lists of references - here's what you need to do:
Open the page in the edit window and find the place in the article text where you want the citation to appear (usually, this will be immediately after the full stop at the end of the sentence your reference supports).
At that point in the text, add your reference between two <ref></ref> tags, like this: <ref>http://www.randomexamplewebsitename.com</ref>
Save the page. Assuming there's a {{Reflist}} template already on it (if not, put one at the bottom of the page), you'll see a small superscript numeral at the place where you placed the citation, and the full reference in the footnotes.
The {{Reflist}} template will display whatever you put in between the <ref> tags, so that's where you can change the appearance of the reference. There are a number of {{Cite}} templates you can use to format the reference; {{cite web}} for websites, {{cite book}} for books and so on. Yunshui雲水12:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images of human poop
I am NOT a troll, but just curious, what was the exact rationale behind why they decided not to have any images of human faeces on the human faeces page? They have pictures of noses in nose, pictures of people picking noses in nose picking, and LOTs more gross stuff which I would not like to talk much about (hehe). Anyway, why? I would love to add in images of human poop in the human faeces page, to make the page more informative and encyclopedic. (Note that even the main Faeces article has pictures of animal poop. So what's wrong with pictures of human dung? BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble)11:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bonkers. This was a really interesting question to wake up to . The answer would be, I really don't know. If you go on the article's talk page, you can find a list of wiki-projects that support the article; perhaps you could ask at one of their talk pages or on the article's talk page. There was just a discussion (as a matter of fact it may still be ongoing, I didn't participate, I just heard about it) regarding another similar query, so I imagine the result of that one will influence what happens should you raise the point here. GoPhightins!11:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess the principle of least astonishment would be at least partially responsible. Plus, how would an image increase readers' understanding? Unless we have some seriously anally retentive readers, anyone in the world can see an example of human faeces just about every day of their lives, if they so choose... Yunshui雲水11:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True that, but Yunshui, your statement is based on the assumption that anyone knows how human poop looks like. (On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, so... A dog just might me viewing the human poop page to find out how human poop looks like?) Whether one knows how human dung looks like is besides the point. The point is, added images of human poop would enhance the quality of the article. (And yup, not forgetting the "seriously anally retentive" readers. Anyway, I will post the question on relevant talk pages soon. Thank you! BonkersThe Clown(Nonsensical Babble)11:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Trabelsiismail. Welcome to the Teahouse. There is a line at the top of your screen with several things listed on it. One of them is titled "contributions". Click that and you will get a list of all your contributions. Alternately, on the left side of the screen is a list of links. If you click on "special pages", you will get another long list of links. Under "User and Rights" you will find a link to "User contributions". That will get it for you too. These links will get you everything yo have done under your username, except for postings to articles that have been deleted. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hello Trabelsiismail, and welcome to The Teahouse. To find the articles you have created, click the word "Contributions" at the top of the page. That will show you a list of every edit you have made. At the bottom of that page is a link that says "Articles created". Click that, and you'll get to see every page you have created. Does that help? --Jayron3221:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 77, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, it will indicate it in the title of the page. If it's a user page, the title will start with "User:", whereas if it's an article page, it won't have anything like that. As another example, the title to this page is "Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions"; the "Wikipedia:" bit at the front means that this page is within the "Wikipedia" namespace, which we use for policy pages and discussions about the project. Does that help? Writ Keeper⚇♔15:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double check that you're logged in--then you can just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/YOURUSERNAME to see a list of everything you've created/edited, including pages. —Theopolisme00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between images uploaded to Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia itself?
I am a new user and I still can't upload to Wikipedia directly but I can upload on Wikimedia commons. I am wondering whats the difference? Is it the same thing? Can I upload content that is not 'strictly' creative commons (eg. just found it on the net somewhere and the license is unclear)? ∞4 (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Inifini4, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia and Commons are closely related, but they are separate sites that serve slightly different purposes. Commons is a free image repository; it can only store images that are available in the public domain or have been released under a free licence. Most of Wikipedia's images are drawn from Commons. If you created or photographed a picture yourself, or if you can prove that it is free to be reused, you should upload it to Commons.
It is also possible to upload images directly to Wikipedia. However, this is normally only done if the picture is not free or is otherwise unsuitable for Commons. Examples of such images would be company logos or screenshots of video games, which can be used under the fair-use guidelines (basically, where there is no possible free equivalent). Only autoconfirmed users (users with four days' presence and ten edits) can upload images to Wikipedia itself.
You cannot upload any image where the copyright is unclear, this goes for virtually anything you find on the web (Google images etc.).
On a related note, can you confirm my account so I can upload to Wikipedia immediately and don't have to wait 4 days? ∞4 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick responses. Actually the image is not strictly free, its a corporate logo. But, I guess, ill request confirmation anyway, cause I haven't recovered from my adrenaline rush that I got today for my first ever edit - I am all PUMPED and can't wait. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infiniti4 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely go via Files for upload, then. When you get to the "Other" part of the Upload Wizard, make sure you fill in all the fields carefully, especially the "Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload" part. Yunshui雲水11:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ∞4, I'd like to follow up on your final question, about where to upload images whose license is unclear. The simple answer is—neither place. We need to have clarity on the license, so that it can be on commons,if it qualifies with a free license, or on Wikipedia is not free, but meets the Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines (sometimes, but not quite correctly, referred to as fair-use). Images where we cannot determine the license create all sorts of headaches, and will generally be deleted eventually, so best not to add them. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, and while people upload things they find on the net somewhere every day, we delete such images whenever we find them. On a more positive note, I'm glad you are here, I'm glad you are pumped, and I love your user name.--SPhilbrick(Talk)14:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked my username. I have a question - So what if the owner of the image gives me explicit permission to use his image on Wikipedia? Under what 'license' does that fall into? (The image is copyrighted.) With just his permission, can I then upload it to Wikipedia? ∞4 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 4! That puts you on kinda shaky ground. If the image is a photograph, the owner of the copyright will have to be willing to release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, the same license that all our writings are released under. It will then be free for anyone to use for any purpose, forever. If the image is a logo, you can upload it without a release for the limited purpose of illustrating an article about the organization that owns the copyright. That is called fair use. Hope this helps. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vinay. Since you requested a change of username, your userpage is now located at User:Vinay Singh (your original userpage at User:Gsunny.488 is now a redirect). You cannot remove the "User:" prefix; this is the part of the title that locates your page in userspace, rather than the main article space. Yunshui雲水11:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vinay! Note that the mainspace slot Vinay Singh is already occupied by an article about a footballer; if your page is not a formal article, it must have "User:" in front of it to keep it from being listed as an article. What you have now at User:Gsunny.488 would not be accepted as an article itself. I would suggest you read the guidelines What may I not have in my user pages? to make sure you don't break those rules. Your userspace can have some basic info about you in the context of your work on Wikipedia, but if it starts turning into a resume, or a "fake article" promoting yourself, it will be deleted. The things you should use the userpage for are found at What may I have in my user pages?. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Making a link open in a new tab
I know that ctrl-click opens a link in a new tab. But can you put something in the code that makes it open in a new tab anyway? I really want this for my wikiversity editing rather than wikipedia so I hope the feature works for both, if there is one. (I tried putting in <a target="_blank"> .... </a> but it didn't work.) Droflet (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Droflet. There's no in-house script that does this, to the best of my knowledge (although you can set external links to always open in a new tab under My preferences>>Gadgets). However certain Firefox add-ons, like Tab Mix Plus, can force all links to open in new tabs; if you use Ff, that might be a road you could go down. Yunshui雲水11:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yunshui. Thanks for the quick response. But what I want is to put in an occasional external (or internal) link so that when any user clicks on it it opens in a new tab. I am surprised there is no wiki-markup to do this. If there was, then a diagram, say, from an external web site could be displayed and the user could keep that open while flicking back and forth to the wiki page where there was a detailed description or commentary. Droflet (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. I doubt that would be possible - it's up to the reader and/or their owm browser configuration to decide how they open any given link. Yunshui雲水14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not possible; MediaWiki generates the anchor tags itself; it doesn't allow users to make their own. You can get more information about which HTML tags are allowed and which aren't at Meta. Probably for the best, really; if readers want to open things in a new tab, they can always ctrl-click it themselves. No real reason for us to force them to do so. Writ Keeper⚇♔14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Writ Keeper, for the useful reference. I think that occasionally to have the ability to make a link open in a new page would be useful and, used judiciously, a benefit for the user. I am pretty sure it is mostly nerds like us who know about CTRL-click! Where should I make a request/suggestion for someone to implement an 'open-in-new-tab' enhancement to wikitext? Droflet (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about us nerds! :) Anyway, I would guess that one of the Village Pumps (perhaps Proposals, or maybe Technical) would be the way to go here, to figure out whether the community would agree with the need for it. If a consensus develops there, I think it can then be kicked to the devs. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed there (and elsewhere) a number of times before... generally to no effect. Not suggesting you shouldn't try again, but be aware that others have trodden this path before and not really gotten very far. Yunshui雲水15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editing/adding new material to a controversial page as a new user
After years of consulting Wikipedia I decided to create an account with the hopes of contributing to an article. The article I am interested in editing is "Pro-life movements"-- obviously a contentious topic that has been semi-protected to avoid vandalism. After reading the article itself, I noticed that there is no discussion of how people join the movement (i.e., do activists join because of ideological beliefs, are they recruited by members of their social network, etc.). I have read the existing scholarly literature and think that the article would benefit from a new section which summarizes the literature. I decided to enter the 'Talk' section of the page and create a new topic, but I found that as a new user I was blocked from doing so. So my question is: how can I get in contact with those who have substantively contributed to an article in order to suggest a contribution? I know that I can gain editorial access myself by making 10 edits and holding an account for 4 days, but is there a way in which I can create a discussion with existing editors without editing anything myself?
Cfordahl88 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Cfordahl, welcome to the Teahouse! You can do a few things: one, you could make an edit request and just put it on your own user talk page. Two, you can ask at the permissions page for an admin to grant you the "confirmed" permission, which is the same thing that you'd normally get by waiting out the 4 days. Three, you could just ask here. :)
As for your suggested edits, I take it you're talking about the United States pro-life movement article? I'd suggest that that section might not be the greatest place to start. I'm not sure that the movement the article is discussion is a single organization that one can really join, so I'm not sure what your section would be talking about. Also, we have to be very careful about neutral point-of-view and encyclopedic interest here: a simple "how-to" of how to join a movement might not fit in an encyclopedic article, even if well-sourced, and it might not be possible to write such a section neutrally, especially if it discusses a specific organization within the broader movement. But I'd be interested to hear what others have to say about this; certainly don't take my word as gospel. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔20:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the speedy response Writ Keeper! I will follow your suggestions. A quick clarification on my suggested edit/addition: yes, I was talking about the United states pro-life movement article. Generally speaking (and I think the existing article itself corroborates this), I think one can 'join' the pro-life movement, as the movement itself is really just an aggregate of activist organizations (of diffuse tactics, etc.). The contribution I have in mind would summarize empirical research on the motivations of pro-life activists for joining the movement (or, if you prefer, becoming pro-life activists). Past research seemed to indicate that people joined the movement out of religious or political commitment. However, recent empirical work by the sociologist Zaid Munson indicates that joining the pro-life movement might more typically result from life course changes rather than firm ideological conviction (e.g., one moves to a new town and wants to make new friends and so joins a pro-life organization).
I am a first-time writer in Wikipedia. I am creating a new math article (content) titled Standard-Slope Ingegration and need to enter math formulas that I created using MS Word Equation Editor. How do I copy my formulas into my article (or reproduce them within my article) while working in my Sandbox? Also, am I creating this content in the right place? Will I be able to move it or submit it from here when finished?PeterJItalia (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm no great shakes on editing maths articles but there do appear to be two ways to display formulas in article. The first is to use HTML for which you can find the codes (or symbols to cut and paste) at Wikipedia:Mathematical symbols. The second way is the use AMS-LaTex markup which you can find instructions at Help:Displaying a formula. From looking at maths articles it looks like AMS-LaTex is preferred but that doesn't stop you using HTML if you find that easier - it certainly looks easier to me! If you want specialist help on either of these I would suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics or the subpage dedicated to typography of maths articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Typography.
Creating your article at your sandbox is very much the right thing to do. When you are ready to move it into the main article namespace you can do so using the in built move function and moving the article to the Article namespace with whatever name you want to give it. NtheP (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the RCCM page and attenpted to improve it, but it has the following banner at the top of the page
"This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (October 2012)
This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (October 2012)
This article does not cite any references or sources. (November 2007)"
I am afraid I dont understand - there are lots of links to other articles!
Can you help me with the external links?
Why is the old dated 2007 still there as there are now references and sources in the article?
Sorry to ask such basic questions, all advice appreciated!
Hi Ding47, welcome to the teahouse! Don't worry, basic questions are easier than complicated questions :-)
When you fix a problem, it's fine to edit the page to remove the template (or part of it) as appropriate. At the moment, though, I would say the problem isn't yet fixed - for example the quite lengthy "First decade 1983 - 1993" section still doesn't have any wikilinks at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ding47, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no need to apologize just for not understanding exactly, it is the process of learning. Anyway, the more links tag refers to the amount of links provide in your article to other articles, with WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK in mind. It appears correct because the article does not provide many links to other articles at the English Wikipedia. In regards to the external links, it means that there are too many external links provided in the article itself that violate WP:ELNO and appear to read as an advertisement, which Wikipedia is not. I would suggest removing all of those external links, none of them are up for any good right now. But feel free to create an external links section, with the official website in it or something perhaps, that is fine, but you may wish to see WP:EL. The reference tag is there because no one has removed it, and updated it, you are welcome to remove it now, as there are references. Hope this helps, TBrandley18:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for those comments, I am beginning to get it , will see what I can do to improve the page
Is there any way to acknowledge an edit wrongly identified as vandalism?
Hi,
I accidentally reverted an edit by an IP user on the Wonder Woman article and wrongly identified it as vandalism. I had no intention of doing this- I wanted to simply see the edit made by the user and opened that 'comparison'/ difference between revisions page. I noticed some text in red written in front of the ip user edit title- "[rollback (VANDAL)]". As this was the first time I saw some text like this, out of curiosity i clicked on it and it reverted the entire edit by the IP user and even identified it as vandalism. Well I wanted to revert the edit made by the user but not identify it as vandalism as it really wasn't! It's not even letting me revert by actions, saying it has to be done manually- which I don't exactly want to do as I was going to revert the edit anyway.
Is there anyway I can show that the IP user's edit was NOT VANDALISM.
WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WonderBoy1998, welcome to the Teahouse! One option is to make a "null edit", i.e. make an edit adding a space, and then use the edit summary of that edit to note that the previous edit you reverted was not in fact vandalism.
Since it's a one-off and it sounds like you haven't left a "vandalism" warning for the other editor on their talk page, you could probably just leave it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened to me in the past, and I usually just write the other editor a note on their talk page, explaining that it was a mistake. Writ Keeper⚇♔18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, that sounds like you have twinkle enabled, so just go back to your edit and click the middle, brown, rollback link and use it to revert your accidental rollback, explaining so in e edit summary. :) Hope this helps! gwickwiretalkedits20:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editing for Employer
I have been asked to completely revamp Herman Saatkamp's page. He is my employer. I have searched other College President pages and have tried to model after them. I used the edit option the first few times and everything was deleted. The next time I created an account and have established a Content box and referenced one name but received an e-mail saying that it has been changed by HostBot again. What can I do to retain the information I am trying to upload?
Hello HJS, it appears the article previously existed (starting in 2005) but was full of copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO). That is, text cut-and-pasted from other sources rather than being written by an editor. Accordingly almost everything in the article has been blanked; the editor Drmies left you a message on your Talk page explaining this.
So far as improving the article, given that you work for Saatkamp, if you do edit it you must proceed very cautiously to avoid bias from your WP:Conflict of interest. Further note, since Saatkamp is currently living, for his protection we must insist on very strict sourcing requirements, so please don't add any information that can't be clearly sourced to somewhere reliable. Even if Saatkamp himself calls you into his office and says "I like reading Charles Dickens", you can't add that to the article unless it's been specifically noted in a WP:Reliable source somewhere.
If you want to contribute to the article, ensure everything is sourced as you add it in. WP:Referencing for beginners is a good place to check on formatting. Also note that official university bios are not preferred (except for basic things like date/place of birth) because they aren't formal publications and thus not subject to peer review, strict verification, etc. Feel free to post here if you make any new additions and want input, but anything you add must be a) sourced and b) written in your own words, not cut-and-pasted from a copyrighted source. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results - Knowledge Graphs - How to get content to feed into Google knowledge graphs
For instance, searching for the person "Joseph Daul" produces on the right of the search results a picture, a short excerpt from his Wikipedia article and his birth place and date. In contrast, searching for the person "Ingeborg Gräßle"(a page I have been working on) produces nothing on the right side.
Which are the variables that affect wheather or not content from Wikipedia will end up in a knowledge graph?
Stuart, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I can only give you my opinion which is that this is all down to Google's search algorithms and how much of a knowledge graph they have yet drawn up that includes the subjects in it. Take one of the examples in the video in the article you linked to and search for Leonardo Da Vinci - here you don't get the Wikipedia article on it's own but links to examples of his artworks and links to other Renaissance artists. That I suspect is a well constructed knowledge graph, Joseph Daul is less so, so there is more from one source i.e. Wikipedia showing and Ingeborg Gräßle is even less well developed so not front end graph has yet been generated. There is a Wikipedia article on this topic at Knowledge Graph but I guess we'll all have to see where it goes to in future. NtheP (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you edit the page in Facebook to which Wikipedia is linked to?
Many Wikipedia articles have their own "page" in Facebook. However, there is no available option to change the category of the page (for example: Interest, Organization, etc), and the image added to the Wikipedia article does not appear automatically in the corresponding page.
Is there any way to edit this? Do I have to go through a certain process to get the image displayed on Facebook?
Hi BigFatCake, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no control over the content of Facebook - the two sites are not connected. Facebook users often copy Wikipedia content onto pages there, but that content is a one-time copy, not a live feed from Wikipedia. If you want to see changes to pages on Facebook, you will need to contact the Facebook users who maintain those pages - Wikipedia editors can't do anything about the content of other websites. Yunshui雲水11:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yunshui, thank you very much for responding.
However, I have done some researching and am afraid you are mistaken. Facebook's "Community pages" take information directly from Wikipedia, and changes made to articles in Wikipedia automatically change these pages in Facebook as well. There is no person that is in charge of the page, so I cannot contact anyone requesting a change. I was simply curious why the picture I put up on the article was not directly impacting the community page that took information from the article, and what factors affected the "Community page"'s label as "interest, organization, school" and such.
That's interesting, I didn't know that. I assume there's some sort of Facebook app that lifts content from Wikipedia, in that case. I'd assume that an automated program would take data from Wikipedia periodically, so it may simply be that the Facebook page hasn't "caught up" yet, although not being much of a Facebooker myself I really couldn't say for certain. You might try asking for technical help at the Village Pump, but I suspect the only place you'll get a definitive solution is still going to be at Facebook's end. Yunshui雲水12:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:HD/facebook is the standard reply when people ask about Facebook copies of Wikipedia articles. The Help Center link [1] worked in the past but not now. I haven't found a new page with the information they had there, but it didn't say anything about how to influence the content of the Facebook copy. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Monkelese. The easiest approach is to go into the page history and find the last good diff (before the changes you want to revert took place). Open that diff, and then attempt to edit the page normally by clicking on the "Edit" tab. You'll see a warning message notifying you that you're about to save an old version of the page; ignore it and save the page. This will replace the current (vandalised) version of the article with the older (unvandalised) version.
If you find yourself doing a lot of anti-vandalism work (and good on you if you do!) then you may want to consider installing Twinkle, and automated tool which allows you to revert multiple edits. You can also look into applying for rollback rights at some point in the future. Hope this helps, feel free to ask me if you need more exposition. Yunshui雲水08:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice. It's probably worth adding that rollbacking (whether done with Twinkle or with the rollback user right) is intended to undo vandalism, not other edits. Sometimes there are valid reasons to undo a series of edits that aren't vandalism, and that should always be done manually in the way Yunshui described. Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can an article be added to a WikiProject while it is proposed for deletion?
It is always possible to add a WikiProject's banner to an article's talk page, even if the article is being proposed for deletion. It is also possible to add a comment to the talk page of a given WikiProject regarding the article being proposed for deletion. It often is the case that the editors of that WikiProject will be able to contribute to the discussion regarding the article being proposed for deletion. That would allow the editors who are involved in that topic to know about the proposed deletion, and possibly either maybe help find sources if they know of them to establish the notability of the subject, perhaps propose a merger to another article if they believe that the better option, or in some cases indicate why they believe that the article in question might not be appropriate for wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This should be encouraged, and (in my opinion) be done by the nominator, particularly if no WikiProjects are associated with the article at that time. Adding articles means that if any article alerts are set up, the article will be listed there (normally transcluded within WikiProject pages) automatically. -- Trevj (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Translating a page
I wanted to translate an existing (Russian) page into English because there's no English equivalent. What are the rules regarding this? Would I be able to simply translate all the info from the Russian page? Would I be able to use pictures from the Russian Wikipedia page without a problem? Can I cite sources that are not in English that are approved for the Russian Wikipedia?
Anyone who has any information on translating pages from other wiki's would be appreciated! I'm kind of new to this.
Hello, Geeeeklove. Welcome to the Teahouse. If you'd like to translate a page from another Wikipedia project, you might start by reading the basic advice here. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for information about proper attribution under Wikipedia's content licenses. Before you start, you may want to check that the topic of the article meets the notability requirements of the English Wikipedia. Many images can be reused on multiple wikis; if the image file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, it's probably okay. While English-language sources are preferred and it would be inadvisable to use only foreign-language sources, some Russian sources would be acceptable. If you speak Russian fluently and can confirm that the sources do support the content in question, that's a plus. I'm sure others will have more detailed advice, but I hope this helps get you started. Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Geeeeklove, welcome to the Teahouse. Translation of pages from other wikis is fine. There are a few guidelines:
it's preferable not to use machine translation
you don't have to translate absolutely everything
you must attribute the Russian wiki article in your edit summary and add the {{translated article}} template on the talk page
write in the style that suits this wiki not the Russian wiki if there are differences
check the pictures out - many of the images used on the Rusian wiki are already on Wikimedia Commons so they can be used freely. if they aren't they can be copied to this wiki but the licences need to be appropriate to this wiki.
I have read the guidelines on this, but it still seems unclear. Does not being able to use original research mean that I myself cannot be the person doing the original research, or that I cannot use original research as a reference? If I am to take the guidelines on this at face value, it sounds like I can only use as references, a summary article on the topic (or an excerpt from one) written by a credible source. If so, what is a credible source? I noticed some contentious content where the source is a blog by someone I never heard before that is not affiliated with group that is credible. How would I protest on such basis without getting into a "war"? Also, are court documents acceptable when refering to a factual statement, or do I have to find an article about the topic refering to that document? Also, what if the reference is a book, or material, that is not easy to obtain (eg it only exists in the Library of Congress)? Can a reference be directed at that or does one have to find a link of a copy avaiable on the net?Patwinkle (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Patwinkle, an a very warm welcome to da Teahouse. 1. What defines a "credible source"? Simple! Read this! 2. If you feel that the sources are "contentious", just voice out your opinion somewhere (like talk pages), or you could boldly remove them (with a valid reason, of course.) 3. Court documents can be considered credible and can be used as references. (One example of its usage: Trial of Michael Jackson) 4. References need not be found online, offline sources are also okay. (etc. books, newspapers) There is no need for an internet equivalent.
Patwinkle, there are two aspects to this, firstly the sources used and secondly the reliability of those sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of primary research, therefore preferred sources are those that review, discuss, comment upon primary evidence in other words secondary sources. There are occasions when primary sources can be used but they are limited. Reliable sources are those where they can be "trusted" so news organisations, academic journals are examples of reliable sources, blogs aren't. The sources should also be independent of the topic - this isn't so much about the reliability of the source but about maintaining a neutral point of view. As Bonkers has said if you think a source isn't credible then you should start by discussing your concerns on the article talk page explaining why think they aren't credible and suggesting alternatives. Court documents can be used if as you state they are supporting a merely factual statement - for example establishing the existence of a court case. References do not have to be available online, paper documents are fine as long as they can be read somewhere should someone wish to do so. NtheP (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hi there, there's a page i used to edit. but there's a user who keeps on reverting my edited data (even if i provide the reference). i want to know how to block or report a user for vandalism or these type of acts.?Anidemun (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Anidemun. Welcome back. If you could provide a link to the page you are concerned about, we will be better able to help you with your question. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anidemun, as far as I can tell the other editor appears to object to your including the statement and reference that Bollywood is 100 years old in 2013. Now it's only been removed once with the edit summary "Wrong details added", so it's difficult to say if it's a disagreement with the factual accuracy of your statement or that they think you've added it in the wrong place/article. Either way your first action should be to try and discuss it with the other editor either on their talk page or on the article talk page. What you are experiencing is a content dispute so when you discuss it please avoid using words like vandalism. Vandalism on Wikipedia has a specific meaning and "is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - I don't see the other editors action as meeting this definition, so you must assume that they are acting in good faith and work on that basis. If you cannot resolve this by discussion then there are further steps that can be taken but you must try and resolve it at as lower level as possible first. NtheP (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About User Names
Whataboutpbamasunreleaseddocuments & My Secret Angel and Me, LLC. I believe these user name aren't not right. What do you think? pratyya (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any empirical studies regarding the Wikipedia mechanisms that encourage editors to stay and/or drive them away?
Specifically, I'm wondering whether an automated invitation to participate in something called "the Teahouse" has been shown to affect the likelihood that an editor returns; and, if so, how?
Hi, can someone please help. I've created a user profile "Jack Dikian" recently. I have made at least 10 edits. I was successful in uploading a picture to go along my user page but the image was a little small. Today I believe I have uploaded a large image (I think into commons. Not really sure what that is. The new image is not being displayed on my user page. Does it take time? Should I just wait? Any advice? C 03:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
When editing my user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fuschiabriefs), I have two tables 2nd to last and 3rd to last from the bottom, which from what I can see are identical, apart from the individual data in them. However, in the top one, there are 2 boxes "jury votes" to the right which I can't explain why they are there, or how to get rid of them. Also, each column doesn't appear to be of equal width, whereas in the bottom table they do. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks
Hello and welcome Frederic! You need to put a colon in front of it, like this: [[:fr:animal]] which prints fr:animal. NOTE, however, that this is not a reference, merely a link to an article at another language's Wikipedia. You cannot use another Wikipedia article, in any language, to verify text at Wikipedia. Does that help? --Jayron3220:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks much. It works, although it's not very pretty.
I am having trouble changing my main title from User:MyName to Alice Lloyd Hall. By main title I mean what the entire page is centered around and I can't figure out how to change that!Katiereiner (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to move a page, you would do this. I don't think you want to do this, however. The article needs a lot of work Hello Katiereiner, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article is currently located on your user page which is fine, because user pages are frequently used as a "sandbox" to create a "draft version" of the article. If you wanted to move the article to the main article space, you would use the "move" function as is shown in the picture I just provided. However, you do not want to do this right now. Trust me. As it stands now, the article would likely be deleted very quickly if you moved it to the main article space. Instead, you really should work on the article in your sandbox until it is acceptable. Perfection is not required, but there are still some minimum standards, and the text you have written is fairly below it right now. Here's some things that need to be fixed before the text is moved to an article title:
There are no good references in the article. Wikipedia requires that all text is connected to reliable and independent sources (that is, really good well respected sources that are unconnected to the subject itself, like books, newspapers, journals, etc, which have no affiliation with the University of Michigan) before an article can exist. In the state it is right now, that is the main reason the article would be deleted. You need to remedy this first before anything else can be done. Not every thing in the world has been written about in this way, but in order to exist as an article at Wikipedia, those sources need to exist.
The text is of an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. Your writing needs to describe the subject in dispassionate terms, that is phrases like "one of the many amazing dorms..." really aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. You're job as a Wikipedia writer is to tell us about the subject, not to tell us how to feel about the subject.
I am sorry...am really lost..I can't even locate the image i uploaded...itss lost....while uploading- I simply went on the upload file box at the toolbox & followed the instructions & it got uploaded too...but now I cant find it...please help Callousfreak (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Callousfreak, according to your contributions, which you can see by clicking the contributions link at the top of the page, you have only uploaded one image File:Sabhyasachi Mukherjee at the launch of Zoya Banaras collection by Taj Khazana.jpg. You can attach this to the article on Mukherjee article by adding [[File:Sabhyasachi Mukherjee at the launch of Zoya Banaras collection by Taj Khazana.jpg]] at the at the appropriate point in the article - probably at the top. Looking at the image file you have uploaded it with a licence tag saying that it is licenced under a Creativecommons licence. On the bollywoodhungama.com site I don't see anything that indicates that this image is licenced in this way and therefore I have tagged the image for deletion from wikipedia unless in the next seven days you can supply an appropriate licence and permission. It is your responsibility to show that the image is in the public domain not for me or anyone else to disprove it ,just being available on the internet is not an indication that a photo is in the public domain. NtheP (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi peeps. The image is now on Wikimedia Commons at [[File:Sabyasachi Mukherjee.jpg]]. I've tagged the original for deletion as a duplicate of the Commons image. Keri (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
edit references
I tried to edit some links of references on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pommel_horse. But when I click the "edit" button of the References section I only get the text:
"References Reflist"
Hi Xela46, welcome to the teahouse! The references are inline citations, so they are in the body of the article itself, between <ref> and </ref> tags. Click Edit at the very top of the page, not on the right, and you'll see them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(kind of) Hello! Welcome to the teahouse! If you cite the references inline with <ref> </ref> and {{citeweb}} <nowiki>, then just go to the bottom, type <nowiki> ==References== and then {{reflist}} to produce all of the references in order. If you provide a link, I'd be glad to go take a look! gwickwire | Leave a message17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ferrari Enzo! Just a tip for you. I am an administrator, so I can check to see what articles you created have been deleted. It would be helpful, if you don't want your articles deleted, if you didn't create gibberish or nonsense articles. The only article deleted from the account you are using now was an article titled "Hfsdffftttttttrr" and it was basically some made-up baloney. This is a serious academic project, and we welcome serious contributions to it, but if you going to ask questions about why things get deleted, "because it was a joke you did just to be funny" is very high on the list of reasons. --Jayron3216:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking the time to contribute.
I'm a bot designed by another Wikipedia editor, and I'm here to help you with our deletion process. I noticed that while working on an article recently, you removed a speedy deletion template that tagged it for deletion. Don't get discouraged! Deletion discussions happen on Wikipedia all the time.
If you don't want the article to get deleted, please click here.
The link will take you to the talk page, where you can explain why the article should be kept. If you have any questions about this or need help with editing, you can ask at the Help desk.
The point about preparing a draft of an article in a sandbox is so you can get it into suitable shape there ready top become an article. It is not so that you can write the same kind of promotional crap that you have been told over and over again is not suitable to be a Wikipedia article. We are not interested in being told that someone is "a passionate individual", nor are we interested in seeing "references" to press releases, promotional web sites, and write-ups in newspapers of press releases. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it is not "just one administrator who seems too had a bad day" If you look at the deletion log Hradyesh, you will see that it has been deleted by four different administrators—all for the same reason: Your page is exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. —teb728tc22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aaanshu, a few things:
If you are concerned your article is at risk of deletion, we strongly advise you let the "Articles for Creation" process run its course. You chose instead to directly publish your article by placing it in the main article space, where it was deleted. If instead you waiting for volunteers to review it and offer advice, it would not be published until ready, and would be very unlikely to be deleted.
According to the records at Hradyesh, no fewer than four different admins have deleted your attempts at publishing the article. I would suggest that indicates a general agreement it was inappropriate, over the course of some eight months.
While I don't agree with James B. Watson's choice of words, his overall point was correct, that it is not appropriate to repeatedly submit a promotional article, especially after being told why it's inappropriate. His language could have been better, I agree.
The Teahouse did not endorse your article, it was you that chose to publish it. I offered some structural improvements and suggestions. If you are concerned about possible deletion, you should not move an article into articlespace, but instead leave it at AfC or in your sandbox until other editors advise you it is ready.
Looking at the article, is is rather promotional, but not horrendously so. The writing could use some work to remove promotional tone. Looking at the References, one of them is to Wikipedia itself (you can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, that's circular logic), the one at the Telegraph is a press release (so no real credibility), etc. Some of them are to car enthusiast sites I'm not familiar, so no opinion on those. The one from the Times of India is literally a tweet-like mobile phone posting by a columnist, so really not worth citing. Overall, a lot of the articles seem very similar in nature, so it doesn't give the impression so much of a wide body of coverage as of a press release that's been re-spun in slightly different ways. I'm not an expert on car sourcing, but at least a portion of the sourcing does not contribute to the strength of the article.
Fundamentally, I would strongly suggest you read WP:Neutrality, and take a very hard look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hradyesh and ask yourself "what in this article could possibly be seen as advertising rather than simple fact?" Also, it's not really cricket to put in photos of the cars which don't even include Hradyesh, as that makes it look like you're advertising cars vice describing a person.
A few things to consider. Again, James was a bit brusque, but people tend to get annoyed if they feel someone is trying to "force" an article forward and ignoring critique and advice about it. We here at the Teahouse can help you with the article, but you need to understand that there are legitimate concerns about its promotional presentation and the quality of sourcing, and not simply "one person" in a bad mood. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Matthew , This is exactly what I am trying to understand
1. If you have an access request to plz check all the earlier versions and you will agree about the correction made after understanding the raised concerns.
2. This time I was working on my sandbox and requested for an article creation post which I searched my request in the pending AFC segment where I could not find the same thinking I did something wrong I posted the same content on the article project page. Thats how the entire problem started.
3. I tried to not use the earlier termed promotional language and focusing on the work and sole reason why the person should be featured in this article. i.e. introduction of Hot rods to India , Morris street and all India roadshow. Jus to make sure the article should not be termed as promotion I clearly mentioned the car is not available for sale but this car is India’s first street Rod.
4. I had filtered the list of references limiting only to leading newspapers or auto publications and can further filter the same.
5. In this learning I had come across n number of individual articles which are neither backed by any references , supported by press releases or article was just of 2 or 3 lines still these article exist in wikipedia and such speedy deletion don’t get actioned on them. To my surprise I saw one article where even James visited but not speedy deleted the article so why this double standard view points?
6. The point of my concern is at one side my article is just deleted in fraction of seconds for the claimed promotional language at the same time other articles do exist based on the same outline why those are not still not speedy deleted ?
7. Theres a code of conduct for articles and new users Is there any code of conduct for “expert”, “senior” administrators having years n years or experience on the usage of there language and behavior ?
8. I am reiterating the fact here m learning to publish my first article , yes it got speedy deleted earlier after which I again tried to correct it but this time I feel there was a scope of correction , there was scope to improve it as per the required standards if some one had a different view on the topic. Just speedy deleting the post in fraction of seconds isn't that just showing off of someones rights n powers? The way administrator responded n have opted to use the words is that acceptable at wikipedia ?
I am not here to annoy anyone but this kind of treatment by admin is not encouraging at all. This is my first article and i need to finish it in a proper manner m not asking to wave off any guidelines just requesting to help me learn .
How should I restart -in my sandbox or should I place a request at AFC ?
Hi Aaanshu. I have theory that might explain why you are having such problems: Are you perhaps Hradyesh himself, someone closely connected with him, someone who works for him, or someone commissioned to write an article about him? The reasons I think that may be the case is that in your 9 months at Wikipedia this is the only article you have worked on; you say it is “MOST URGENT” to get the article live; and you seem unable to recognize how promotional your writing is. The reason the question is important is that we have found it necessary to create a guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, because based on experience people like that have great difficulty recognizing promotional writing and assessing whether the subjects are important enough to have an encyclopedia article.
In any case I suspect that there may be a problem with your current draft that is greater than promotion. I really don’t understand why Hradyesh is important enough to have an encyclopedia article. Do I understand correctly that you think that the thing that qualifies him is that he introduced of hot rods to India? If that is what makes him important, I am sorry to say that he is not important enough for an article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for our notability guideline. —teb728tc09:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Teb for the response , with ref. to the shared theory I am an automobile passionate and after knowing about Hradyesh work which is starting of a new league in Indian automobile industry. As there was no information available on wikipedia want to contribute on the topic . In the past months whenever I can get time to write on wikipedia I try to work on this. I never rushed into anything the only thing why raised the alarm yesterday as "Most urgent" cos the article was speedy deleted and I wanted to get it retrieved to understand the concerns n make the necessary corrections.
with reference to the notability part I am quoting the wikipedia guideline under which I am working on this article:
"Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
If there are other people from different international region who are part of wikipedia profile just because they are part of hot rod , custom cars segment, my article hold significant notable credential work and reason too not only for introducing this concept in India but also making first street rod in India and the All India roadshow etc.
As you correctly repeated my words I am trying to learn writing on wikipedia - I cant start something new leaving my first article in between.The whole point here is how I can correct and proceed further to the next level on which I am seeking assistance from all the experts.
Aaanshu, you have a draft article still at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Hradyesh so you can work on that. Ignore what you are seeing in other articles that you think are deficient and concentrate on the advice you have been given - find independent reliable sources about this person and use those. NtheP (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or Should I copy the same on my sandbox and further edit ?
Is it recommended to start with a stub and then further add information on the article?
I will further filter the language to eliminate any reflection of promotional article and edit the linked references. Do I need to focus on some other stuff too?
I am editing an article and I'm not sure about the citations. If I use one of my references in more than one area of the text, do I cite it each time or only once? Moocow6and1 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moocow6and1. Welcome to the tea house. There should be an inline citation at the end of each section of text to which that reference applies. That might be one sentence or a whole paragraph. You do not need to repeat the whole reference each time. A short version can be made by giving the reference a name as explained below (edit clash). The short version will look like <ref name=(whatever the ref name is)/> Note the added slash at the end.--Charles (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Moocow! The best way to cite a reference in multiple places is to include a name in the "<ref name=>" parameter of the cite template and then to simply type "<ref name=(whatever the ref name is)></ref>" where ever you want to cite the reference. Thanks and feel free to drop by should you have further questions. GoPhightins!19:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: User:Go Phightins made an error. Let's say your reference is named "whatever". The first time you use it, it should be formatted <ref name="whatever">Reference</ref>. All other times it should appear as <ref name="whatever"/>.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·19:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Charles, very much. Of course I don't mind. I appreciate all the help I can get. I will make the necessary changes. My professor added a few other changes that I needed to make, as well.
Thank you to everyone who has helped me to get this article done correctly. I am a bit rusty in regards to writing and proper punctuation.Moocow6and1 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, I understand that it needs to be put the way you showed, but I'm not sure how to get it that way. Do I type it or use a template for it? If it's a template, where would it be? Sorry for so many questions. Is there a way to connect it to the already formatted citation?Moocow6and1 (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! A few days ago, I submitted this a few days ago and it got declined for having no refs. Could someone help me find a few reliable sources? Thanks in advance for your help, Jakob23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jakob and welcome the Teahouse. This is not an answer, but I have couple of questions for you: Who wrote the book? The text says one thing, and the infobox says something different. And did this book win the Young Reader's Choice Award? If so that might be something you could reference; you can’t use Wikipedia as a reference, but you might find something about it elsewhere. —teb728tc03:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I messed up. The infobox is correct; Marie McSwigan wrote the book and Eric Bowman drew the pictures. Regarding your second question, it did win the Young Reader's Choice Award in 1945. Do you have any suggestions as to which website would have such information? Thank you for your help, Jakob03:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jakob, welcome to the Teahouse. I took a peek at the article then made a few tweaks and added a couple of references from newspaper archives. I was quite surprised that the book didn't have a page here already! Keri (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have also located several quality references about the historical origins of the story and included that information. Now reviewed and passed, the article is no longer in Afc and has been moved into the main encyclopaedia. Well done! Keri (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ahlia, welcome to the Teahouse! Firstly, thanks very much for your efforts to create a new article on Wikipedia. In order to place your writing in a sandbox, you simply create "User:Ahlia.turner/Sandbox" and you can place your work in there. There should also be a link at the top of Wikipedia, on the right hand side, to obtain it easier. In regards to the references, please see WP:CITE and learn further from that. But, basic information on references: add a <ref> tag to the start of where you would like you reference to be in the article or sandbox. Then, use {{cite web}} or something like that, and use the required parameters, which are the author(s), title, URL, work/publisher, publication date, and access date. Again, see more at WP:CITE. Now, to your question about links, you simply add [[ to the start, and then place your word to link, then ]] at the end. This will create a blue link if the article in question exists. Good luck with your article. Hope this helps, TBrandley00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ahlia, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should be aware that there are sometimes some problems when you cut and paste from Word to Wikipedia. Sometimes some of the hidden formatting information contained in Word will be copied and show up as characters once you paste it into Wikipedia. Not much you can do about it now, but be aware of it and clean up afterwards. In the future you might find it better to use an unformatted word processor like Notepad. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of a article ends the long period of time already spend on Wikipedia
I found that many times when a person honestly creates articles and does not like the previous name and he is called as sock puppet by you and deletion of his articles is a great loss to him or not. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkumartundak (talk • contribs) 14:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new so maybe I can afford to be blunt (a courtesy I expect others to extend to me). If you are talking about an article you created, and it was in English, it's probably because you need to master the language a little better. If it was written anything like you just did, it is horrible. Maybe you should try writing that article in your own language first, then try to find a way to translate it better. Otherwise, I'm sure it was a worthwhile topic.Patwinkle (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any use of multiple accounts is always viewed with suspicion. Come clean. Tell us the title of the deleted article and tell us your previous user names and we will tell you to what extent you are guilty of sock puppetry. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 16:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and I got several questions answered, thanks for the all information given by hosts.
and one answer given by hosts said I can add media files after my article goes live, but until now its only a AFC, so I want to know when my article goes live and what are the necessity to full fill?
Welcome back to the Teahouse. I see that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St. Mary's College, Chilaw is still an AFC which hasn't been submitted for review. At some stage you deleted the box that tells you how to submit when you are ready for review. It obviously isn't ready at the moment as you don't have any references, so please read WP:Referencing for beginners. In general any statement in Wikipedia needs to be able to be verified, so you should provide citations. When you have added references for the content you have added, you can submit for review. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to edit article main title?
Hi I am a first time editor and submitted an article but would like to edit the title. I have named it Ballet Nimba when in fact it needs to be corrected to Ballet Nimba as this is the name of a performing arts company. How do I do this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.66 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the page for you (if you logged into your account, you would be able to do this yourself, but you can't as an IP), it's now at Ballet Nimba. There are a few formatting and content issues, which I'll take care of shortly (to create an internal link, enclose the term in square brackets like [[this]]. Putting '''three inverted commas''' instead renders the text in boldface. See the markup help page for more details). Yunshui雲水13:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English Proofreader wanted!
Hello Wikipedians!
I just arrived on the english wikipedia and I'm writing a new article. The problem is, my english gramma is not perfect. So I'm looking for a person who can lend me a hand and checkt it for me.
Greetings Captain Miles (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changes to article
Am a new editor here.
Yesternight i spent some 1.5hrs to edit and add relevent information to a biographical article and also provided the references.Not 24 hrs since i made the edits and that article is once again as as same as it was before i edited it.Is there no way i can avoid this happening?
This was quite discouraging to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassinatora (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Assassinatora. Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume the article you're referring to is Aditya Shrivastava. If you look at the history of the article, you'll see that your changes are still intact; no one has edited the article since you. Try clearing the cache on your browser and see if that helps. (By the way, your changes look mostly fine, but the india-forums.com reference doesn't look like a reliable source). Rivertorch (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong place for image suitability question?
I have a question about copyrights. I wasn't sure where to ask. I've been on WP for a while but one of my weaknesses as an editor has been in getting uploaded images to stick. Recently, while researching the Nakba, I found that a historian claimed he had a leaflet dropped in July 1948 that he further claimed as proof that the term "Nakba" had its origins in Israeli propaganda. [2] If such a document exists, I think it would be valuable documentation of his claim. So - where can I find out ahead of time if there are any copyright concerns or how to address other provenance concerns about this document? I appreciate your help. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
_(2).jpg)
. The answer would be, I really don't know. If you go on the article's talk page, you can find a list of wiki-projects that support the article; perhaps you could ask at one of their talk pages or on the article's talk page. There was just a discussion (as a matter of fact it may still be ongoing, I didn't participate, I just heard about it) regarding another similar query, so I imagine the result of that one will influence what happens should you raise the point here. Go Phightins! 11:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
and moving the article to the Article namespace with whatever name you want to give it. NtheP (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
