Wikipedia:Teahouse

つがる, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

dashed box?

Hi!

Whilst editing my user page, I have fond that in one of my sections I now have a light blue dashed box around some of my text and was wondering what it is and how I can get rid off it?

cheers Rachel L Fisher (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Rachel, I think you have fixed it for yourself but what you had was a line of text that started with a space and the software interprets this Ada command to tray all following text as a simple string with no formatting, line breaks etc, just a box outline. If you do want to indent text then start the line with a colon or series of colons. Each one will indent your text one step. NtheP (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In other words when you spaced down you indented and that created:

this

To avoid that always remember that if you want an indent to appear like

this

always remember to add a colon like

:this

The more colons you add like

::this

the further indented it will be like

this

We add a colon to indent to make a first reply to a comment and add more each time another comment is made to see the flow of the discussion. Generally you stop indenting to start a fresh unrelated post within the same thread.

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, cheers I did fix it by myself but seriously Thanks for the reason why it happens it helps better to understand the workings of Wikipedia Rachel L Fisher (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mistakes

I had made many mistakes in the past when I was new to Wikipedia like leaving edit summary empty, experimental editing on articles , uploading copyrighted images that gets deleted after sometime by commons delinker. But now, I am well familiar with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Does these types of mistakes affect my account reputation. Farhajking (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Course not, everyone was a new editor at one point in time. — -dainomite   08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

With 50 edits and a few months of participation, most would still consider you new. What matters is the future. I suggest that you devote yourself to improving the encyclopedia in a genuine way, and minor errors of the past will be forgotten. When you have made significant contributions, you will be evaluated on those. Welcome, and I wish you luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Guidance

As i am new comer in writing article on wikipedia. i just need some one to guide me in what structure article has to be created and how many references do i have submit for that article.. ?

Thanks Vishnuram7 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Vishnuram and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is far to complicated an issue to answer in a single post. I suggest that you would benifit from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! For the structure of the article, WP:MOS will be of great help. WP:REFB is the best place for referencing. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 07:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -Amadscientist. I just try it out. That will be fine for me to learn. Vishnuram7 (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -Ushau97. For references which will be useful for me. Vishnuram7 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How many sources for notability

I submitted an AFC about a perfectly notable film with tons of google hits and plenty of reviews in The Guardian, The New York Times, etc., and existing mentions in other Wikipedia articles. I was surprised there was no article.

The AFC was declined because there was an insufficient number of sources.

I get sent to a link about notability that says nothing about the number of sources.

How many sources do I need? 5? 17? 29.5? It doesn't say anywhere, yet, here my article on a notable topic is rejected because I don't have the right number of sources.

I no longer care about the article.

I would like a number for future references though. 7? Is that enough? Is 16 too few?

How many sources, and, of course I would like a link to community consensus about the number.

Thanks, -68.99.89.234 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse :) There's no set number of references. It's however many it takes to prove to us that it deserves an article. A general rule of thumb is longer articles need longer reference lists, i.e. more references. Hope this helps! gwickwire^talk_editing 03:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

If there is no set number, stop telling me there is. And, since you don't want to talk to IPs, please don't continue participating in this discussion. It's rude. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC) A "general number" is not a set number. Stop making accusations about my communication or this conversation will be stopped. gwickwiretalkediting 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I am not having a conversation with you; your hostility is obvious, and I asked you twice to stop contributing and let someone else help me out in this. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! I am confused by the article in question; if I were the reviewer, I probably would have accepted it as it seems reasonably well cited to me... especially compared to some other articles, but that's beside the point. Perhaps you could ask the reviewer on his/her talk page why he/she rejected it or did not feel the topic was notable. As for a general number, I think four independent, reputable sources that dedicate non-routine coverage to the topic is plenty, though that can definitely vary on a case-by-case basis. Thanks for the question, and sorry for your disappointment! Go Phightins! 03:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

I can't ask the reviewer anything on his talk page because the reviewer does not allow IPs to post on his talk page--so, he should not be doing AFC. The film is quite notable, extensively reviewed by major newspapers, and the article was a fine stub on the topic. I will just crowd the director's article instead. Random number, 4? No set number elsewhere? Two is okay in one policy page? Again, just hostile to non-members, imo. And now The Guardian and The New York Times are questionable sources? You don't want to work with IPs, then please don't. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I have a notice at the very top with a link to a page you can post on if you'd like to. I will respond there as if it were my own talkpage. They didn't cover it in the depth and as many sources as I felt was needed. You blanking the page angrily and walking away in a huff didn't help either. gwickwiretalkediting 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I didn't walk away in a huff. I am still sitting at the same computer. I also didn't blank the article angrily; I blanked it with purpose. I didn't see any notice on your talk page, and is that just to keep IPs separate? It doesn't change the issue; you don't want conversations with IPs, you won't allow another letter to assist me with this matter. You won't say what number is required, and it's not your decision anyhow, it's supposed to be community consensus. And, as for blanking the page, it took me longer than it took you to speedy it. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, I'm supposed to edit the red link to post a question to you? I'm an IP, I can't edit red links. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC) The article only had two, questionable sources before I declined it the first time, added tons more, then blanked the article. gwickwiretalkediting 04:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Of course I blanked the article. That's all I was interested in was including an article on a notable topic that is missing. You want a relationship, with someone you won't allow to speak to you on your talk page. I can't win. I have to blank the article now that you're involved, because the article is off the table with you. You sure got that speedy up mighty quickly, too, didn't you? -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC) This is getting a bit heated. 68.99.89.234 please don't take offense, we are all just volunteers trying our best. There are "several" options available to you please see WP:AFTERDELETE.Moxy (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Nothing has been deleted, so I don't know what this post is about, but at least it was to a subheading. Thanks. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks Go Phightins! for the answer. I would like to know the number here. This is supposed to be a friendly place to ask questions, and User:qwickwire is anything but friendly and cannot take me to community consensus to support anything he says. I asked quickwire not to respond, because he is curt and is citing pages that do not offer the information I am seeking. I know we are all volunteers here; in spite of the way I am being treated by qwickwire, I am a volunteer here also. And I was trying my best to create an article about a topic with hundreds of thousands of google hits, being surprised none of them were the Wikipedia article, a useful place to go for quick general information. I would appreciate response from anyone besides qwickwire so I don't run into this again. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(restored post) Have you tried talking to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film about this? They are a group of editors that have an interests in this topic overall. Give them a shout out - tell them about the movie. I will join you there and help with references and lets see what they think. May get a few involved and have a great new article if they believe its notable.Moxy (talk) 11:32 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Moxy, thanks for the idea. I don't know why you deleted it, but I did post there. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood what was going on. Will meet you there.Moxy (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't argue here. The Teahouse is not a place for disagreements. It is rather a friendly place for new or (experienced) users to ask questions. As for the AfC submission, I don't think it should have been declined with Needs more sources to establish notability. The submission have got enough reliable sources. And I don't think it have got a notability issue. And once again, please stop the arguments here. Thanks. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 04:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Who's arguing? Moxy posted a great idea, I took him up on it, qwickwire finally stopped posting. A bit of a dead horse overall. But, yes, the film is completely notable and should not have been declined in the state I submitted it. The film folk, however, have offered, through Moxy, to take care of it. done. 68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. That's great that you have moved the issue to WT:FILM. And I see that User:Floquenbeam have also declined the speedy. That means you have got good chances to submit it back and move it to article space. Maybe I might think of reviewing it, if you submit it back with good faith. Regards. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I think the film folks are already on top of it. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

FWIW, I made the link at the top of glickwire's page for IP's to use live. I am sure that his intention was not to avoid talking to legit IP editors especially those creating articles at AfC. He has had some persistent vandalism on his talk page from IP editors, so it is semi protected so IP editors cannot post there. As I am sure you know, blocking is not a very effective tool to use on IP editors who commit persistent vandalism; changing your IP is as simple as unplugging your modem and plugging it back in! so when a page is hit with persistent vandalism from IP editors, it is semi protected, which stops all editing from IP editors. To date, no-one has found a better solution, and talk pages are only semi protected in extreme cases, so I am sure someone had been vandalizing glickwire pretty heavily. You could have actually made that link live too, but no-one is knocking you for not knowing that. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately because it is redlinked on his page, it was not obvious that I could have edited it. A lot of editors include somewhat rude jokes on their pages; I have seen fake "You have a new message" signs, and encountered a joke redirect from an editor, etc., etc., so I didn't bother to click. Blue-linking it might help. It is something to consider when an editor has so much vandalism from IPs that they have to block IPs from editing their talk page, maybe they should take a break from AFCs for IPs until the vandalism quiets down. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up, though. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry folks, if this offends anyone, but this needs to be carried on elsewhere if more needs to be discussed. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Taken where, where it was already taken five hours ago? Why did you call stuff extended content that wasn't and hide it? Friendly often means respectful. I am offended to be told to carry this on elsewhere after it had obviously been ended here and taken elsewhere. It seems unfriendly and unnecessary.

I created a fine article, I got told randomly to read one long page, directed to an unrelated page, told I could edit a red link, then told, no, I should have read another long page that isn't relevant to the problems with the article that don't exist, now I'm being criticized for my judgement on another page, for my judgement about an article that I read and the critique didn't read, you close my comments as "extended comments," and now you tell me that I need to carry on a conversation elsewhere, when the conversation ended hours ago, because it was moved elsewhere on on the solid advice of a helpful editor, which it clearly states here.

If this is not a friendly place, don't claim it is. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am done here, now, officially, no need for anyone else to criticize me about anything here. The criticism has been moved. And I stopped participating in it in its new place. -68.99.89.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Was/Is

Hi, I'm working on a userspace draft of an article. It's about a railroad of which only part of which still exists. So should I say The Susquehanna, Bloomsburg, and Berwick Railroad is a railroad... or The Susquehanna, Bloomsburg, and Berwick Railroad was a railroad...? Thanks

^King Jakob _C2 00:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Heya King jakob. For most things from the past which don't exist anymore, we use the past tense when discussing them. There are a few edge cases which are not always readily apparent, but make sense when you look at them, but the example you have mentioned isn't one of them. So as to not confuse you with those oddities, in the case you gave, the word "was" is appropriate because the company doesn't exist anymore. From my point of view, though some of the tracks exist, they aren't owned by the company anymore, so it would be like a business that was housed in a building. If the business went bankrupt and stopped operating, descriptions of the business itself would use "was", but descriptions of the building would use "is" (presuming the building still exists). Likewise with the railroad, discussions of the railroad company should (as you do already) use "was", while descriptions of any extant track, when discussing the actual track itself, should use "is". Does that work? --Jayron32 00:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How do I create a redirect?

i ant to know. and i just took a WikiBreak, and i'm back now!SmartyPantsKid, Signing off. 22:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartyPantsKid (talk • contribs)

Welcome! To make a redirect just create a new page, then fill it in with #REDIRECT [[(article name)]]. — nerdfighter 23:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

N.b, additionally, see WP:REDIRECT for details about how the whole kit and kaboodle actually works, as well as best practices and such. —Theopolisme (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How can I check if there once was an article that got deleted?

Whenever I click on a link and get the create article page I wonder if that was always a bad link, or whether there was once an article that has since been deleted. AND ESPECIALLY, if it was deleted, why? Today's example is "personal distance" linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics - I suspect that it was either deleted because it was too close to personal space or some other reason or that the creator of proxemics never got around to creating it. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! That article doesn't seem to be deleted. Do you mind double checking? — nerdfighter 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Bodysurfinyon, Personal distance (animals), which is the redlinked article in Proxemics, has never been created. A page that has been created and subsequently deleted will have a box with a pink background on the creation screen explaining when and why it was deleted. See My Chocolate Stinks for an example off this.NtheP (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. The pink box is the answer to the question I was trying to asking in an overrambling way. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

How to remove ip address if you edited without logging in

How to remove ip address if you edited without logging inMaggieneal (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Oversighters have the technical ability to suppress usernames and IP adresses from article histories. I cannot promise that this will work because oversighters have to be very careful what they suppress. — nerdfighter 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Contact the oversighters privately, and they are required by their policy to oversight the IP address for you :) This means that nobody except the small (no more than 30ish) Oversight team can view the IP, and they're trusted with the tools because they won't release it to anyone. Don't worry, it happens to me too sometimes :) gwickwire^talk_editing 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Best principles when creating an article about a person

Hi wiki users,

What are the best principles to follow when creating an article about an author to ensure the article doesn't get deleted? MatthewBeech92 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! The first thing to do is to find enough reliable sources (newspapers, books, etc.) to support the subject's notability. If there at least a few of these sources, the article should be able to stand. If the subject of the article is still alive, it is especially important to use sources. There are one or two other guidelines to follow, like maintaining a neutral point of view. Good luck, ^King Jakob _C2 17:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Guys (Gals?)

I'm brand spankin' new to this...hate to say I'm unsure how to reach an oversighter. Just went to the page and tried a few (hit talk). Advice on getting a message to one?75.84.246.254 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If the we are talking about a living person or anyone who has died within the last 115 years we have a policy page that covers the manner in which to deal with Biographies of living persons. There are many guidelines, not just one or two. No direspect to King jakob. Please take a minute to review our policies and guidelines. If you have any questions or concerns you may ask on my talk page. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

referencing method

hi im wondering what reference method is preferred when creating an article Gareth1504 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Gareth, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of methods but the commonest is the inline citation method that uses the <ref> </ref> tags. In it's simplest form after the text you want to add a reference to you insert <ref> your reference text </ref> and then at the end of the article you have a references section that uses the code {{reflist}} which will display the references you added in the body of the article. What you insert as the text of your reference can vary greatly but needs to substantiate your article text. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners gives a lot more information and is a good next stop for you but please stop by here again if you need more information. NtheP (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about using US government handout material on a page.

Hi guys! I have a question that might be a doozie. In the mid 80's I was the contractor in charge of running the x and gamma ray testing facility at Sandia National Labs called Hermes II. While there, my staff and I were called on to have the machine perform in a manner it had never been used in before. The customer wanted to extract an unguided electron beam and strike a certain target in the shielded blockhouse. Normal method is to use B-field magnetic coils, enclose the beam in vacuum extender tubes and when near the target have the beam travel only an inch or two before striking the target after exiting a vacuum foil. This is due to the fact the beam would "hose" or whip around uncontrollably via the strong magnetic and electric fields affecting it. I don't think I mentioned that the Hermes II marx generator produced a ten megavolt, 100 kiloamp ring beam with a diameter of six inches. Well, the customer brought his own staff of 26 and ignored my suggestions on how to accomplish this. The mission failed after two weeks of very expensive effort. The next Saturday I brought my crew of four in to do maintenance on the machine and fire test shots, which I was allowed to do. (I was not authorized to do experiments on the machine). That Saturday I discovered a new way to transport an electron beam without any type of guidance! The first time ever done! At last to my question: I would like to write the facts up and put it in Wikipedia. The Sandia staff got very excited when they found out what had happened. We cancelled our customers and did research on the discovery for some time. Many photos of the beam were taken and eventually copies given to me as the discoverer. I have a handout from the government at the time that was made as Public relations for all the testing facilities at Sandia. It’s nearly 20 years old but I would like to use some of the photos in it of the Hermes II facility. I would like to publish some of the electron beam photos as well. They are so cool! They are not copywrited, and the brochure was a public handout. One last interesting note; about three months later we were called over to a special meeting with guys in dark suits. They asked us what we had been doing three months earlier at night. (We had opened our blockhouse doors and sent an electron beam out into the desert by itself during the research! Talk about Star Wars!) It turns out the Russians had detected the beam and moved a satellite that was in orbit over Los Alamos and parked it over Sandia to find out what was going on! (The guys were from NSA). Hermes II no longer exists. It was torn down to make customers use Hermes III. Can I use the stuff? 24.196.255.5 (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello 24.196.255.5! The standard reliable source for scientific research is a widely-recognized peer reviewed journal. If you have the information published in such a journal, that would give you the source you need. Also, being published for "public handout" does not mean something isn't copyright. Wikipedia presumes copyright unless you can establish that it isn't, that is the original creator or publisher has released the material under a Wikipedia-compatible license or into the public domain. Without actual evidence of such licensing, Wikipedia presumes the material to be under copyright. Does that help? --Jayron32 13:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the initial research information was published in any journal due to it being classified. It is not now classified, nearly 20 years later. The brochure was a publicity handout, free to anyone. My entry above did not include my post of Montykillies, which is odd, as I thought for sure I added it. Montykillies (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Quality

In the edit history there are many commons delinker edits. e.g. File: xyz has been removed, it has been deleted from commons by abc. Because: copyright violation. Does this type of edit history affect an article quality? Farhajking (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse! You even asked this question at the Help desk too. I guess you haven't seen the answer. In case you haven't, the post is located here. Anyways, to answer your question, removing copyright violations from the article surely improves the article quality. Just because a low quality previous revision exists, if the current revision of the article is of good quality, then you can't refer to the article as a bad quality article. Great examples of these are the featured articles. Thanks. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing articles with "NPOV" issues.

Hello and good day. I've been editing a few articles, and being a fairly newer "contributor" to Wikipedia, I can't help but be wary and cautious regarding the nature of my edits, as I do not intend to break any policies. One of my recent edits, to the Filipino orthography article, is one of my endeavours towards "cleaning up" articles with "NPOV" issues. Is this an appropriate edit, or did I just make things less neutral?

I may attempt to search for reliable resources eventually, although I want to take things one step at a time. I've read a few of the articles/policies/guidelines, although I don't speak Wikipedia-nese with great fluency, so I still might require some trout-slapping, from time to time. Thank you very much in advance! --regin ^(stalk) 08:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting the Teahouse. I looked at your edit and think your to be congratulated for trying to understand it. When someting is taged as NPOV; it should be discussed on the talk page of the article. In this case it is not... I would suggest you wait a while (few days) and see if you get any feedback. If not you might bring it up on the talk page and / or remove the tag. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much as well, for the heads-up (and the swift response!) I've noted a more significant edit on another page on its corresponding Talk page, and I might do the same for the article I referenced in my original concern, should I find no feedback regarding the change. Might be able to contact people from the parent project, as it's apparently a high priority article there. Thanks again! --regin ^(stalk) 09:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorporate an article into a section of another

The article Adaptive stepsize was flagged with multiple issues, so I took a look.

At the moment, the article mainly talks about the adaptive step method used for solving ordinary differential equations. Some other methods for solving ODEs, such as Euler's method and its variations, are being discussed under Methods in Numerical ordinary differential equations. I'd like to write up an introduction to the adaptive size method for solving ODEs in Numerical ordinary differential equations and have Adaptive stepsize redirected there.

I am a new editor, could anyone please tell me whether this is allowed and is sensible to do? How can I delete the original wiki article and redirect it to the section of the other article? Thanks. Hattoriace (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The simple answer is, yes.

The detailed answer: This would be a bold merge. The article actually has the wrong template. There are no references. This also appears to be a rather obscure subject and article so it should be unconvoversial. On Wikipedia, articles may be boldly merged without any proposal taking place, though it is recommended where the merge is expected to be controversial. If you boldly merge an article and it is reverted, this should be considered part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and not undone until discussion takes place—do not edit war. Happy editing--Amadscientist (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

More detail. When you do this, you need to attempt to salvage whatever you can from the article and merge that content first before you write and additional, original prose. When doing this you must state in the edit summar: "merging content from [article A] to [article B]" (which is, of course, the article you are merging the content into). This is a requirement to attribute the previous work of the other editors. Then I suggest attempting to find some reliable sources even for your own new content if it is anything more than simple math.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, Amadscientist! The main reason for me to want to merge Adaptive Stepsize with Numerical ordinary differential equations is that the adaptive stepsize method is an improvement of Euler's method so it makes a lot of sense to put them together. But I see now that Euler's Method has its own article. Also, the methods being discussed under Numerical ordinary differential equations contain much lower level of details than Adaptive Stepsize. So salvaging the majority of Adaptive Stepsize during a merge of these two would be rather tricky (and ugly). On second thought, I will work on the Adaptive Stepsize ariticle to improve its quality and also add an introduction to the method under Numerical ordinary differential equations which will link to Adaptive Stepsize by "For more details on this topic, see Adaptive Stepsize method." Thank you again as your comments were insightful! Hattoriace (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Hi,

I was just wondering how you add a reference but make it appear as a shorter title, i.e. this is the reference: Burge, E. J, and Haughey, M., 2001. Using Learning Technologies: International Perspectives on Practice. London:RoutledgeFalmer., but I want it to appear as Using Learning Technologies: International Perspectives on Practice.

Thanks ZoeXlucky charmx (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse Zoe, see if it helps: WP:REFB --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:REFB means Wikipedia's guide on "Referencing for beginners". In that page you'll get details on how to add references etc. If you have questions, feel free to ask! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, that is great!! --xlucky_charmx (talk) 09.37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A friend wants to change an article about his father.

Hi.

A friends father died four years ago and someone has written an article about him here on Wikipedia. This article has one mistake and is very brief. Can my friend write his own article about his father to replace the existing one?

This is the current article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Leadbetter

Thanks in advance - Simon Szimon (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Simon,

I don't believe that would be a problem, as long as he cites his sources and strongly avoids having a conflict of interest. Unfortunately his (probably extensive) personal knowledge can not be used as a source. I'd also recommend perhaps rewriting or changing the current article rather than writing an entirely new article, as the original author might be a bit miffed to see all his work removed. Again, some people would advise against it, and I'd say it's only worth it if your friend knows he can be impartial on the subject and cite proper sources. —Strachkvas (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Simon, welcome to the Teahouse. First off, I think it would be a much better idea to focus on improving the current article rather than starting from scratch; starting from scratch is only a good idea when the current article is a mess. The current article isn't great, but it's adequate. Your friend is welcome to edit the article, but he should be mindful to cite reliable sources and be extremely careful editing where he has an obvious conflict of interest. Let me know if you have further questions. Happy editing, Go Phightins! 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• In addition I have seen few editors making edit request to avoid conflict of interest. --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Anyone may edit the existing article, even the subject and family members and friends. That in itself is not a problem, but if you become disruptive, edit inaccurate information or remove accurate and well sourced content then the editor will stand in conflict of interest with the goals of Wikipedia. Editors that are extremly close to the subject should take extreme care with their edits to avoid any perception of impropriety.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

User page help

I wish to enhance my user page but am unsure how to do so. If anyone is willing to help i would appreciate it. Hyleasia (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome back to the Teahouse! I believe you are looking for the Userpage design center. I'm not an expert in coding and whatnot, but you are welcome to copy the code off of my user page if you want and I am sure most others wouldn't mind either. Go Phightins! 20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will have a look at the design page. :) Hyleasia (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

Are there any specific ways of referencing on Wikipedia i.e. Harvard, etc.? --JoeyFox91 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question. No there are not (although bare external links without <ref></ref> tags are discouraged). The guidance is that reference formatting should be consistent within an article and one style should not be changed to another for reasons purely of personal taste. Take a look at referencing for beginners for further assistance.--ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ukexpat JoeyFox91 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

When adding any information to a page does it all have to be properly referenced?Mattehhh (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! When in doubt you should reference, however most people agree that you don't need to reference the obvious. — nerdfighter 17:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYKcheck

I tried purging my cache and stuff, but my DYkcheck just disappeared from the toolbox. I have already bypassed the browser repeatedly and the scripts still in my vector.js. Can help? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bonkers, try removing it from your vector.js page. Save, purge, re-add and re-bypass and see if it reappears. NtheP (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was a problem in your common.js page. I went ahead and fixed it; it should be working now. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Could you check my Commons and vector jss pages too (vector.js page is now blank)? For some reason, a good number of scripts are not working including the Teahose talkback scripts! Tito Dutta (contact)--23:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that should do it. Writ Keeper (t + c) 05:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! (Gonna try the TB right now at your talk page)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Contribution to article

Is there any way to convince the readers to improve a particular article?Farhajking (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the most common way would to put a "complainer" template at the top of the page addressing a particular issue, such as Template:Expand article, Template:Copy edit, Template:Refimprove, etc. You could add a desperate plea to the talk page as well, but not many people read talk pages. The only real way to get things done, imo, is doing them yourself.

—Strachkvas (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That is actually an interesting question. You see we seperate "reader" from "editors". There is really a conserted effort to keep that seperation. A reader is someone who comes to the encyclopedia to look for information contained in an article and an editor is one who creates that content. If you are interested in encouraging readers to become editors you may have a real uphill climb...but I encourage it myself. Good question. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Administrator

How many edits are required to become administrator? Farhajking (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There is no rule stating that you need to have made edits more than a particular count. The English Wikipedia has no official requirements you must meet to become a Wikipedia administrator. Anyone can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience. Administrators are expected to uphold the trust and confidence of the community, however, so requests for adminship from users who do not have considerable experience are not usually approved. Each editor will assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way. Before requesting or accepting a nomination, candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors for at least several months, be familiar with the procedures and practices of Wikipedia, respect and understand its policies, and have gained the general trust of the community. If you are trying to become one, then you have still got a long way to go. Thanks, --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a pretty zen question... in response, I offer the koan of WIkipedia adminship: the more you want to become an admin, the longer it will take. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no specific edit count needed to be an admin. However, candidates with under 3,000 edits tend to fail spectacularly, and candidates with under 5,000 edits are in for a very difficult time. However, candidates with 20,000 or more edits have been known to fail.^King Jakob _C2 12:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Farhajking. The essentials are covered above but I thought you might be interested in some pages that describe requirements/expectations for adminship in detail. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates and Wikipedia:Administrators. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Professional profile creation on WIKI

Hi Guys,

I wanted to create my own page describing my technical profile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chady_Maalouf) and so I did. How can I publish it on WIKI and make it "verifiable" if the only reference in this case is no one else but me.

Best Regards, Chady Maalouf. Chady Maalouf (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Chady,

Unfortunately, autobiographical material on Wikipedia is generally discouraged due to possible conflicts of interest, and if unsourced would be subject to deletion. Articles should rely on secondary sources primarily—if none exist, then the content probably doesn't belong in an online encyclopedia. Thanks for your effort to contribute, but this sort of material might be better suited to another site. Sorry!

—Strachkvas (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Chady. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn; you do not need to provide a professional profile. Doing so is, in fact, not permitted; your userpage as it stands breaks the rules on userpage use and is likely to be deleted before very long. If you want to get your CV out there for employers to find, there are many websites for that very purpose - Wikipedia is not one of them. Self-promotion here is simply not allowed; if that's all you're here for, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The following two paragraphs were on the end of the next section, "Date of Birth | Place of Birth", but I think they were intended to be here, so I have moved them. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand your points of view especially regarding the references, but WIKI promotes other people (mostly famous ones) profiles and was just wondering why not promoting regular people's profiles (maybe by creating a dedicated section in WIKI) and surely by getting all needed references to backup stated info (i.e. certificates)

just an idea I had and thought it would be worth the discussion. I am not really here to promote my professional profile since I already do that on dedicated websites.

193.227.170.247 (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 193.228. No, Wikipedia does not promote anybody or anything, except maybe itself and the Wikimedia Foundation. Subjects have articles precisely because they have already been written about. --ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Date of Birth | Place of Birth

I know the date of birth and the place of birth but cannot provide an online citation - how does one satisfy a tag that says provide a citation? SistaSu (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse... One satisfies the tag that says provide a citation by.... Providing a citation! ;) Sprry, but we need these citations to verify the information. Happy editing. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bonkers :) it's hard to get on-line verification on DOB info but point taken. SistaSu (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If you provided more information SistaSu, we might be able to asist you. Which BLP article is this inregards to? I have some experience with difficult and controversial birth dating. Not much but a little.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) welcome! Although... It need not be an online source. We accept offline sources as well, such as books or magazines. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Bonkers pretty much answered my question Amadscientist - the article is not controversial just the notable person is still alive and I was wanting to improve it by providing a citation and I found that there is no where on the internet and that includes books or magazines where it is documented so I guess the tag stays there until he dies and then it will probably be available on line then. Thank you again for your help - this is a great place for newbies :) SistaSu (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point that a source 'does not have to be online - try looking in actual paper books, magazines or newspapers. Roger (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes agreed. Could you give us the name of the article in referral? I could try to find some sources. You never know, somewhere deep in the cabbage patch lies a gold bar. So a source is bound to be somewhere.... Just takes a little digging. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A record of birth exists for nearly everyone. Birth certificates can be located to verify the information and while they generally cannot be used as an inline citation (as many have too much personal data) they are documentation that is easily verified.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Redacted birth certs? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking there Bonkers, but I suppose I am an exapmle of someone who does not have a birth record from the time I was born as it was destroyed in a fire that burned the hospital down.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is very kind of you all - as this is an article that I am interested in I have exhausted the on-line sources - there are a number of issues that need to be sorted and I am just starting from the top with DOB and working my way down to improve the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Thomas_(academic)SistaSu (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And if a reliable reference cannot be found, the date of birth should be removed from the article. --ColinFine (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Colin - if a reliable reference is not found I will do that - I just did not want to remove content without at least trying hard to find a reference source. SistaSu (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Who to contact about a deleted talk page

Dear editors: I was looking at the article Barnraisers and I found that most of the links did not work. I stated tagging them, and wanted to make a report on the Talk page. There was a banner on the talk page that it had been deleted (2007), and it seems that the page had been deleted and recreated. The banner said to contact the administrator, but that administrator is retired. Is there someone else that I should contact instead? The band was probably notable enough if the references originally were good. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Anne. Have you contacted ALL the administrators involved in this rather complicated mess? If not, maybe a Teahouse host that is an Admin would look into it for you. There is still a live reference to a newspaper, which to be honest I didn't read, so it is quite possibly still notable. The biggest worry for me is that the band may no longer be together, as there own website is now dead making this article stale and in need of updating. have you tried doing some websearching to try to fix some of the broken links? Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the article under WP:CSD#G4. It was a near identical copy to the version considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnraisers, as endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 13.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit. About contacting an administrator: how do you know which editors are administrators? The reason I keep coming up with these weird questions is that I've been looking at the New pages feed, but at the oldest unreviewed pages, so most of the straightforward cases are already reviewed. One more thing - should I be asking questions about reviewing here (I really am new at it), or is there a help area that is aimed at reviewers? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Anne, if you install the NavPopUps gadget (in your preferences), when you hover your cursor over a user's name (assuming it is Wikilink), it shows their user rights, number of edits and when their account was created.--ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Anne. I know this is all moot now, but for your future reference, if you click on the redlink for a deleted article, one of the things that will show up is its deletion history, which will show every deletion and the admin that did it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on my article

Hello fellow Teahousers. I created my first "real" article with "real" sources. I acted in good faith by requesting deletion after creating my first article about my middle school. I did create an article called Academy of Chinese Culture and Health Sciences, which you can take a look at if you want. I may act in good faith by requesting deletion. Also, I created a minor airport stub called Uru Harbour Airport. Never mind those, I'll get to the point. This is a national children's television show called Noodle and Doodle. Can you please give me feedback on that article? Feel free to look at the other articles if you want. Thank you. JHUbal27•Talk•E-mail 03:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JHUbal27. I was in the process of approving Noodle and Doodle When TBrandley approved it, and I too would have rated it as a start class. I am not familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Television criteria for a higher rating than that, but generally to get an article up to "C" you need both more content and more references, which is kinda hard to do with a TV show with such a short history. Possibly instead of just a listing of the episodes and air dates as you have now, add a synopsis to it? (Assuming you can reference it). I made a comment at the AfD discussion for Academy of Chinese Culture and Health Sciences, you can see those for my comments at that. As for the airport, things that are a "feature of the landscape" such as mountains, rivers, roads, and airports are notable as long as you can show at least one reference to its existence. That reference would usually be a primary source such as the US governments official list of place names, but a secondary source such as the pilot's guide you cited should be enough for now. i would attempt ot find the official listing for it, but It is a keeper, without a doubt. A stub, but that is ok, because very simply, some subjects just never have enough information available to rise above a stub. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I just NAC'd (non-admin closure) the Afd as Keep.--ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Citing a State Constitution

Hello Tea Folk!- How does one cite a state constitution? Example, if I were to be doing an article on the constitution of any US state, how would I cite their constitution? Do I need to, as it is a public document?? ThanksCoal town guy (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse. These are primary sources. They can be used to illustrate claims being made in secondary sources but any interpretation or anayslis requires a relaible source, previously published to make any claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that the text of the state constitution is available online, it would be great to add an external link to the online version. Amadscientist is correct - you can't analyze the document yourself, but you can cite regognized legal experts who have commented on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I can do that easy. BUT, If I were to state Article 1, of state x's constitution says, etc etc etc, Would I use the web site as the source of quotation from the document?Coal town guy (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not quite understand what you are all getting at. How do I quote a Constitution Article x, section 9 verbatim?? Do I type out the verbatim text, and then ref it with the state websites maintained copy? The interpretation would of course be a legal or historical sourceCoal town guy (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. In order to even mention a section of the constitution you need a reason to summarize the content and put it in the proper context. We do not just copy content from one source to the article. A reliable secondary source must have already made some previously published comment or claim. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You are not answering my question.You are quoting policy and telling me to have a nice day. AGAIN, I do not want to stick a copy of a state constitution on a page and call it an article. I want to be able to quote sections of it as I provide analysis using only reputable sources. Tell you what, DONT answer, I will figure it out. Thanks so much for inspiring another Wikipedian to contributeCoal town guy (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again CTG. Two editors have attempted to answer your question based on what you asked. There is no need to become unfriendly here. If you are not getting the answer you believe you need, perhaps you could just rephrase the question and be more specific to what you are looking for.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to perform this sort of locution. I appreciate everyones time. Thanks for helping. I am willing to accept I have bad grammar, perhaps even bad language skills, but when I ask, I want to quote a State Constitution in the context of a properly written article that would be about said constitution, how di I properly cite the text. I got, this is a not a respository...and dont analyze it your self which would be original research. Would the replies above help you, if you were me? AND Would you think it rude?Coal town guy (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammer, language skill and even spelling are not an issue. Heck dude...I can't spell worth crap. LOL! Sreiously. But, we clearly have not answered the question to your satisfaction and that concerns me greatly. Give me a moment and I will look further into the issue for you.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, I very much appreciate the effort by all here and I have had many positive experiences here. I have left a message ion your page with I hope a more clear question. I am beyond impressed that you took the time, to see, I am not the world only living heart donorCoal town guy (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

From what I am able to see, there are refs to a state web site, there are refs to a pdf, there are no refs etc etc, all of this, goes to quoting the specific constitution of a specific state. Its not a copy, its not a repository, is there an offcial method? I looked at the MOS, I also look at CITE, no real answers there pertaining to a specific state constitutionCoal town guy (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talkpage to the best of my ability. A bit complicated but I would recommend using other GA or FA articles as an example to work from.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

MUCh appreciate that, means a lot that you took the timeCoal town guy (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Content menu

I have been looking around, but i don't seem to be able to find a way on how to display a content menu on the wiki page, like the one on |50 cent page, he has the content menu nearly at the top of his page. Spikerok (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Spikerok. The table of contents will display automatically when you have more than three section headings (==Like this==). If you have fewer than three sections, you can still create a contents table by adding the code __FORCETOC__ (two underscores on each side) to the top of the page. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• If there are at least 3 sections, it'll be displayed automatically! You can use magic word _TOC__ too. See WP:TOC for details. --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys for help! Spikerok (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Style of quotation marks?

Dear Editors: I was looking at a page Anti-American sentiment in Russia on the New pages feed. Everywhere where I would use "quotation marks", the article uses «these characters». Is this a different kind of acceptable quotation marks, or should I change them? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the relevant guideline here would be MOS:PUNCT I believe, so it probably should be changed. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 23:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• That sign is generally used in Russian, Ukrainian, which is generally not used in English Wikipedia and AWB sometimes correct it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do it not while I remember. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The « » symbols are quote marks in languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet, so please go ahead and replace them. Roger (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

stopping a revert war before it starts

title page "Rob James-Collier," bio of one of the stars of the wildly popular costume drama, "Downton Abbey." Bio originally said under "personal" that Rob has a little son, and that the name of the boy and his mother were not widely known as of 2013 (paraphrase, but close). So I did the research and came up with specific information, every sentence footnoted, about the identity of his long-term (since 2005) partner/girlfriend. This actor is gorgeous, and there are lots of women and men drooling, wanting to know if he is single and they have a chance! (Lots of places on the www to document this alleged drooling!) But in any event, SOP to discuss a movie/tv star's love/marital life, right? Check his costar, Dan Stevens. I went back today to put the footnotes in proper form, and overnight, my addition was deleted/reverted. I want my information included, but I do not want to touch a "revert war" with a 10-foot bayonet. What do I do??? Many, MANY thanks in advance for saving me from the fire!Inkless Edits (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Inkless Edits. First off, thank you on behalf of Wikipedia for having the good sense not to go straight back to the article and start edit-warring - your restraint is appreciated! There are, thankfully, other courses of action available besides simply reintroducing the content. The editor who removed it, Bbb23, did so because he felt it was "unencyclopedic" - if you disagree, you can go to his talkpage and ask him to explain his reasoning further, or offer an explanation of why you think the information merits inclusion. Should the two of you be unable to come to an agreement easily, you can also initiate discussion on the article's talkpage, or request a third opinion, to get other editors' input as well. Talk is cheap, so use as much of it as you need to; there's no deadline. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a very quick reply! If I knew the meaning of "unencyclopedic," I might tackle the talk task, but, alas, this is jargon I do not understand. Is this term commonly bandied about Wikipedia? If encyclopedic means comprehensive, does unencyclopedic mean inadequate? I do however suspect this word, in fact, means, "I don't like your edit" (and that's the polite way of expressing the sentiment) "and I have no way to justify my opinion save with a confabulation of meaningless syllables."Inkless Edits (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "unencyclopedic" is often used as shorthand for "I don't think this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia". It is also used to describe text that is not written in the style expected of an encyclopedia article - "third person", "neutral tone", "unembellished by unnecessary adjectives", etc. Roger (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If the term "unencyclopedic" is acceptable at Wikipedia, it's proof positive we just can't take ourselves too seriously! The closest dictionary definition I could find for this (alleged) word makes a circular reference right back to Wikipedia and, in fact, describes "unencyclopedia" as a satirical website that parodies Wikipedia"! (maybe I should volunteer there instead?) And speaking of taking ourselves very seriously, editor Bbb23 responded to my opening salvo on his talk page - which was written to be inoffensive and jaunty - with a snide remark about my tone. Bbb23 comes across as angry and overbearing, and there seems little likelihood that our interaction will focus strictly on the usefulness, relevance and reliability of the information I provided. How can I get the help of a wiki-mediator? Many, MANY thanks in advance - I HATE this kind of dickering over minutiae!!!Inkless Edits (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

[BUMP] It seems there is more than one way to get the help of a neutral third party, and I wonder which way to go? Many thanks!96.232.25.103 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Forgot to log in. That previous nameless entry was mine.Inkless Edits (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Inkless, we've all done that at some time :-) If you think talk page discussions with Bbb23 have gone as far as they can and are still unresolved, then probably the next place to go is Wikipedia:Third opinion and ask for someone there to offer an opinion. Looking at Bbb's talk page I'm not sure that is an exhausted conversation yet, one that has certainly got sidetracked, but the original topic isn't done. For what it's worth I would probably leave his personal life as "he is in a relationship and has one son" supported by an appropriate reference. NtheP (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you NtheP for getting back to me almost faster than I could finish writing. You are correct, the talk at Bbb23 isn't exhausted and it's waaaaaaay sidetracked, but I am glad to find some humor beings here having fun. I was preparing to pack up if Wikipedia were populated with dreary self-important types. If you want an unfortunately funny (in its excess) example of a celebrity "Personal" section, visit the Alison King page. She played opposite subject RJC for two years in British Soap, "Coronation Street," which to a great extent put him on the map in UK fandom. Thank you again for your reply!Inkless Edits (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding Videos

hi, newbie here. I have a question..Is it possible to add youtube videos into a page? (Dinisabila (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Dinisabila, welcome to the Teahouse. Technically it's possible but caution has to be displayed about copyright. Much content on Youtube is copyright violation and therefore should be avoided in line with Wikiepdia's policies on content being free. You can find out more at WP:YOUTUBE. NtheP (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are certain that you are linking to the official, authorized YouTube channel for an organzation or individual, and you are adding it as an external link in the article about that organization or individual, then it is acceptable. If there is any doubt, assume that the risk of copyright problems is high, and avoid linking. Thanks for asking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm new how to contribute?

I would like a movie I'm watching to Hoagy Carmichael pages. Can I do this from iPhone ? I don't see a tab at the top of the page that says edit. I don't see any tabs other than the menu. How do I add this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenriWiggins (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Henri, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Unfortunately, there isn't a really good editing capability for mobile devices like iPhones yet. People are working on it, but it isn't quire there yet. So sadly, you're probably better off waiting until you're in front of areal computer. If you really want to, though, you can try to switch to the desktop site, which should give you an edit tab as usual. There should be a link somewhere on the page (I think it's at the very bottom of the page). It'll still be pretty clunky and awkward (I've done it myself, and it's...less than awesome), but it does at least function. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• You can ask User:Vanischenu who has experience of editing from mobile, and he did it well! --Tito Dutta (contact) 21:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you enforce WP:ADMINACCT ?

Wrong forum - please take to the Persian Wikipedia. Thanks

I usually edit in an other wiki and we have problems enforcing accountability for admins. When we ask them questions about their admin activities, they threat us to block. Other admins also back each other or they do not risk criticizing each others wrong actions. Do you have any suggestions we can avoid tyranny of majority there? sicaspi (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Welcome to English Wikipedia and Teahouse! Which Wikipedia? Could you provide examples? You can report it at Meta! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC) It seems, it is Persian Wikipedia, where you are blocked and you can not edit your talk page too for talk page abuse! I'll see if I can ask someone from Persian Wikipedia to have a look here! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks. My question is a general question. I think we need some reliable mechanisms which protects the questioning of admin actions but I donno what it can be. --sicaspi (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC) (From Persian Wikipedia) We have a committee there similar to the Arbitration Committee here and I'm also a member. It would be a good idea for you to take a look at the regulations there to fill out a complaint. -- Nojan (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I do not want to complain for every single issue. This should not cause a problem. This is kind of a behavioural issue and is related to editing culture. Also, the fact that this committee has only 1 non-admin member among its 7 members sheds doubt on its effectiveness. --sicaspi (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Well, it's the same case in here and most arbitration committee members are admins! But here is not the best place to complain about your problem. You have to wait till your account is freed, then refer your case to the committee in your local Wikipedia. Then, if you still think no justice has been served, you can refer the case to the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope I made it clear for you. -- Nojan (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I did not COMPLAIN. I just asked a general question and did not even mention wiki fa. Do you see any reference to any specific wikipedia in my words? It was dear user:Titodutta who referred it to Fa wiki. By the way, my question is still unanswered. --sicaspi (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Folks, isn't this discussion more appropriate for WP:AN?--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC) It is a common thing that if you don't give details in question, another editor will do some studies to find those details himself. The answer is either post at that Arbitration Committee or meta! But, I can not understand the abuses you mentioned. And I did not receive any email from you which I have posted at my talk page. --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Hi, sicaspi. This is a question and answer board for inexperienced users on English Wikipedia. This is not really the proper forum for you to be raising these issues. You have been directed by several other editors to more appropriate forums for this discussion. I am going to ask you kindly to drop this here, go to one of the many places that have been suggested to you to get the help you need, and let us return to doing what it is we are here to do. Thank you very much, and I wish you luck in resolving your issue. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Procedure for removal of tags at start of article?

Last month, I noticed that the article on Yin yoga [1] had several tags at the start of the article (see below). I have dona a major re-write in which I believe I have addressed all of these issues. Is there some standard way of inviting some other editor to have a look and see if the tags could be removed? And to get feedback to improve the article?

The tags: "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (April 2011) This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (April 2011) This article may contain original research. (April 2011) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (April 2011)

Many thanks. EMP (talk 17:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. If you think the issues have been resolved, you can remove the tags, but please explain why you are removing them, either in an edit summary or, preferably, on the article's talk page. Hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Early morning person. You could start a new section on the article talk page proposing that they be removed and see if anyone disagrees after a couple of weeks. If you are sure you have removed the problems you can just boldly remove the tags.--Charles (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Ukexpat and Charles, for the fast and very helpful response. EMP (talk 19:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

referencing

hi i'm a newbie to wikipedia editing, how do you reference the correct way in wikipedia? (Dinisabila (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia! The best way to cite sources is to user the <ref></ref> tag. Inside the ref tags, you can in theory put anything you want to stand for the reference, but it's best to use templates like Template:Cite web, Template:Cite book, or the all-purpose Template:Citation.^King Jakob _C2 16:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

All further explained at Referencing for beginners.--ukexpat (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Category Question: Category:People educated at Chatham House Grammar School

Hi there, I've used this category on an article about Matt Dunn (author) but when it's been created in the category he's being shown alphabetically by first name whereas everyone else is listed by surname. What have I done wrong? G2003 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!G2003 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of other readers the page needed a template like this {{DEFAULTSORT:Dunn, Matt}}.--Charles (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it's a magic word not a template.--ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Tagging for lack of notability

Dear Editors: I found a page Kokomo Bros about a band that has no references and doesn't indicate that they did anything particularly notable. I wanted to use Twinkle to put a tag on the page to this effect, but when I tried, the banner comes up and says that it shouldn't be used on articles. (What else needs notability?}. So I thought that I could use the Page Curation tool, but it doesn't appear in the toolbox at left. What should I do? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

An {{unreferenced}} tag includes the implication that the article does not comply with WP:Notability because notability is based on the article citing proper sources. Roger (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, Anne D; have another crumpet!

According to the documentation for {{notability}} : "Add this template to the top of any page whose article subject is..." — I don't know why Twinkle doesn't understand that.

~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the page have been deleted by Yunshui. Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess that worked even better than the tag! Thanks, Yunshui. Does anybody know why the Page Curation tool is not showing up in my toolbox any more?—Anne Delong (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Hey Anne. The page curation tool only works with articles that are logged as being created within the past 60 days. If you look at any article outside that framed period, the link does not appear in your toolbox. I suspect this is what's going on with you here. For a quick way to check that it's working, see if the link appears when you look at articles listed at Special:NewPages. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If the page is within that period and you are not able to see it, that might be because someone have already patrolled the page. Or you may click on the link on the left hand side of the page. At Toolbox there will be a link Curate this article. Try clicking on it. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also please remember to sign at the end of your posts. I have done it for you at the top. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no such item as "Curate this page" listed under Toolbox on my screen, even when I click on an item listed in the New Pages Feed. However, the toolbar on the right does show up then. I know that at one time there was an item in the toolbox on the left, because I had to use it when I accidentally closed the toolbar on the right. At least I know now that it is only for new pages. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Does this happen for only one page or all the new pages listed at NewPages. If it is only for one particular page please specify which page it is --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I went to the New Page Feed and tried a number of articles, both reviewed and unreviewed, and still no "Curate this page" on the left. A bug, perhaps? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

When you open a page and see the curation toolbar there will be no link. If you close the toolbar then the toolbox link to "curate this page" should appear. This makes sense because the only function of the link is to open the toolbar, so the link serves no purpose once the toolbar is open. If, however, you're closing the toolbar and the link is not then appearing, that is a problem.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Thanks again. I was afraid to close it in case I couldn't get it back. It's too bad that the Page Curation is only for new pages. A lot of pages older than that seem to need review. Anyway, problem resolved. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, again, Anne! Twinkle has the capacity to put a speedy deletion template on a page. It is the tab marked "CSD". I cannot see the article because it has been deleted and I am not an Admin, but if it went away so fast, I am guessing that Yunshui thought it met the speedy qualification "A7" , unremarkable musician or band. Any unreferenced BLP (and articles about groups of people, such as bands, fit in there too), you can use the "PROD" tab in Twinkle and put a "BLPPROD" on it. That will also get someones attention quickly. A lot of the options that are available with page curation are also available with Twinkle. You can also use to Twinkle to leave a welcoming message for new users, which is a great thing to do. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the eponline user right?

Just asking this out of curiosity, but I've seen a few users with eponline as a user right and was curious what it means. WP:UAL doesn't list it. Cheers. Andrew³²⁷ 06:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, ep-online is a special user right for people in the Education program (EP), it allows them to add or remove online ambassadors for courses. There are quite a few special user rights for the EP. They're outlined at Wikipedia:User access levels#Table. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My post is not live!

Hi, can anyone guide me how to post the article in a way so that the article can be viewed as wiki article not as " User:User Name/sandbox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia..... help me please!

Shruti Malviya (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey,Shruti Malviya. Welcome to the Tea House. See there's a template at the top of your sandbox. The last line of the template contains

• If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here.

Click the link here. It'll take that article to the WP:AFC. There, a user or reviewer will review that article. If he/she thinks the article is okay then it'll be accepted, or else it'll be declined. Then you can improve your article.

If you do not want to go to WP:AFC then I tell you a way. search for your article at the search box. if no article exist the searchbox will show a redlink. The redlink will be your search. the click the redlink and click. Hope this helps.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I see this question was asked at a few different places and by way of the {{Help me}} template. I have posted a reply on your talk page Shruti Malviya.Moxy (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

thnx ppl....

Shruti Malviya (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Help required with creating pages that explain some undocumented musical scales.

hi i need feedback from someone with knowledge of music theory. Musoalert (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have an intermediate level of music theory understanding. What do you need to know? Powers ^T 22:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out LtPowers, but don't forget to drop off a notification on the editors page so that they know you are attempting to answer their question with:

{{WP:Teahouse/Teahouse_talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|question title goes here|ts=~~~~}}--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now I just need to figure out where I can find that code for copying and pasting. =) Powers ^T 23:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Rheem

I work at Rheem, the company whose article I just linked to. A colleague of mine has expressed his interest in adding a non-encyclopedic reference to himself in the article, see these edits: [2] [3] [4] [5]. He then created an account for himself (User:Jtcrowder49) and made a further edit, adding back his non-encyclopedic information.

Due to real life thingies, I'm loathe to actually revert and report him myself - but I know that the article needs to be watched carefully for the next hour or so, until he loses interest. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 15:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to TeaHouse! A recent edit has been reverted and a "refimprove" tag has been added! I am not sure of its notability either! --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The article has been deleted for failing to meet Notability, the issue is thus moot. Roger (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Now it has been taken to Deletion Review. Roger (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How can I edit an article's title?

Your article on "Patrol 35" (about neo-Nazis in Israel) is incorrectly titled - it should be Patrol "36"; I've edited the text within the article, but the title is remaining the same! Some of the references given within this article also make the same mistake, calling the respective group "Patrol 35", so please don't look at just those references cited therein - if one checks the group's name by doing a general search outside of Wiki (e.g., by using Google), one can see that virtually all of the search results come up with Patrol 36.

The other important point about Patrol 36 (versus Patrol 35) is that 36 (the number) is twice 18 - in effect, the name "Patrol 36" reflects the fact that it is the second style of group built along the lines of the neo-Nazi group Combat 18 (but is not a scion thereof, such as White Wolves): two times 18 is 36! (Not, of course, 35... To find out why "18" is so central to neo-Nazi ideology, check out Wiki's own article on Combat 18.)

In any event, your advice as to how to alter an article's main title (not just the header) would be much appreciated.

Totenschadel (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Totenschadel. Welcome to the Teahouse. Page titles can only be changed by slightly more established editors with an account 4 days old and 10 edits of any type. When you have reached that level you will be able to use the "move" tab at the top of the page. There are complications caused by moving page titles so it is usually a good idea to start a new discussion thread on the talk page of the article concerned to get a consensus for the move. This is reached by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the page and selecting "new section". Wait several days to allow other editors to comment before making a page move and be sure that the proposed title is consistent with the references for the article. Happy editing!--Charles (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for pointing out it. An editor has moved that page[6] from Patrol 35 to Patrol 36 per this question. Thank you···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 20:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

Hello,

I am requesting assistance as a first time user of Wikipedia for my edit which has quickly bogged down into dispute. I am seeking an immediate resolution because I do not have the time or inclination for the protracted process this may involve to simply contribute what I know to be credible , useful and missing data to an article.

The relevant links are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_the_Ripper#Edit_request_on_5_March_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper&action=history

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive

I have encountered undue accusation from editors, which I regard as neither true or reasonable, who do not want to discuss content or have it considered for inclusion in a neutral fashion.

I hope that in time I may be allowed to include the material for the sake of completion of the article alone.

Sincerely27.99.110.80 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)