Wikipedia:Teahouse

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

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239

Sock puppet

I've been accused of being a sock puppet. What the hell is a sock puppet? And what does this mean? Ministar Nesigurnosti (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry"- that's what I saw on the article "Sock Puppet". I had no idea what it meant. I wish you a happy editing! Haneen Khan (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ministar Nesigurnosti! A sockpuppet is a username being used by someone who was blocked from editing for any reason. I see that you are suspected of being a sockpuppet of Iaaasi. This means that you are probably editing pages similarly to how the user Iaaasi would edit. This means that your username will be submitted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, and you will be checked by a special group of users who can see if you are, indeed, a sockpuppet. If you're not, you should have nothing to fear. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Talkback Template

Is the template is in problem? I have an example example.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Pratyya! I think I see the problem: the template doesn't have the brackets to link. I'm pretty sure I can figure this out, but if not I'm sure that one of the more coding-oriented hosts can do it. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as suspected, this is too crazy, not to mention it's indefinitely-protected, and I am not an administrator. I'll bring the issue up at the host lounge and see who can fix it. Until then, I'll just be manually tweaking it. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait, I see the problem. It comes up with a pipe character (|) instead of a pound sign (#) to link to the section, which is throwing everything off. I'll put in an edit request. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it in its sandbox. You may view the progress on the Test cases page. Technical 13 (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered the edit request and fixed the issue. Thanks guys. Chamal ^T•C 15:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new articles

Hey everybody! Simple question. This is embarrassing but, How do u create a new article? please help me as I am a new member of Wikipedia and have only done some minor edits and I really want to help contribute to wiki. thanks, Haneen Khan (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the Search box at the top of the page. Search the article you want to create. If it exists then no need to create. but if doesn't then you'll get a suggestion and under the suggestion you'll get your searched content in redlink. Click that and start your article. Hope this helps you.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the tab searchbox and give your article directly like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your content.

Then you'll see

Start the *** article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it.
Search for "***" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

These three lines.

Click the first line to start your article.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Haneen. I'd strongly recommend you use the Article Wizard, which will take you through the process of creating an article step-by-step, it's far easier than trying to do it all in one go in mainspace. Just click here to get started. Good luck, and feel free to ask for help if you need it. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU Yunshui and Pratyya for those really helpful responses. I really appreciate them :) Haneen Khan (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Yunshui, I was helped by someone the same way I recommended Haneen when I was a newbie. Can you please explain why you asked him to use the Article Wizard?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Haneen. Welcome back to Wikipedia. I suggest that find a featured or good article on a similar topic to the article that you will write. If you intend to write an article about Pakistan, go to WikiProject Pakistan and look for the table showing FA and GA articles. Click on the number in the Total column for a list of those articles and scan over a few of them. Use an article as a sample as you write. If you will write about a person, go to WikiProject Biography and scan high quality biographical articles. I find that imitating good writing helps improve my writing. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much everybody. Really. And thank you for giving me some important tips on creating an article, Doctree. Haneen Khan (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in the case of new movements which do not have written references?

My article on "Kimono Jacks" is awaiting review. It does not have written references because nobody has written about these events yet. (Except for me, in my as yet unpublished PhD thesis.) The movement is, however, easily verifiable through all the websites and links posted. Will it automatically be rejected, or will can it be posted and have references added as people begin to write about the movement in written documents? Thank you for your help, Dr. Kimono. Dr.Kimono (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You see your article lacks reference. But that is not only the problem. Your article doesn't suit Wikipedia. See this article for example. Hope this helps you.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources there can be no article. However if the websites you mention do qualify as secondary reliable sources they can be used to write an article. A web page is also a written document. If the websites are created by people closely involved with the subject then they cannot be used. Roger (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. U. C. 700 ?

Do you recognize the above Roman date as such. That year occurred early in the Roman conquest of Britain. I suggest that authors will use Roman dates when they are available for that time period. Our Christian calendar is thoght to be in error, perhaps by as much as eight years. RCNesland (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style agrees with you in this respect: "Dates for Roman history before 45 BC are given in the Roman calendar, which was neither Julian nor Gregorian. When (rarely) the Julian equivalent is certain, it may be included." —Strachkvas (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was changed

Hi,

I researched a portion of a Wiki page, then made some changes to it.

Then, the original author of the page went in and changed my edits.

I don't want to get into a turf war (even though I know my edits are more accurate).

What's Wiki Etiquette on these matters?

Is there a Wiki umpire who could peek at the page?

Thanks!

Richard Apple 00:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard apple (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)‎[reply]

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not sure what page you mean, but in general, don't revert somebody more than three times (especially within 24 hours). Usually, people try to talk over the dispute either on somebody's user talk page (the "talk" link in the page history) or on the article talk page (the talk tab on the left). I'd recommend the former course of action as it'll get you a quicker response. ^King Jakob _C2 01:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I suggest that instead of you editing an article that you place a section on it's talk page with recomendations. If I seem incorrect, please let me know. Sincerely RCNesland (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Asante Africa Foundation Article

I created the Asante Africa Foundation article, which was approved for submission but I cannot find it on Wikipedia. Please advise on what to do (Afrisante (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a little while for a new page to show up on Wikipedia's search function. Your page can be found at Asante Africa Foundation. —Strachkvas (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone revise the English of my edits?

My English is not perfect. I would greatly appreciate if someone revise my edits. I will err less, if I can see my mistakes corrected.Dariusvista (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell me what yo edit I will try to do some of them.Lee Tru. (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some brazilian swimmers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dariusvista Dariusvista (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

person pic

im trying to post a picture of a person on their page. (matt Blanchard) Im trying to post it in the box on the left. MattFlynnForPresident (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt. Whenever you see anywhere while editing something that starts with "{{name..." that's the coding for a template. The template page will be at Template:Same Name and if you visit the template's page, it will often (properly) have documentation explaining how to use it.

Here, the template is Template:Infobox NFL player ({{Infobox NFL player}}). However, the template's documentation for the image parameter, in this particular instance, is kinda crappy (which I'll probably go fix soon). So the answer is to add next to | image = the exact name of the file without any other image coding (e.g. File:Name.jpg). Some infobox templates require certain other coding such as brackets around the file name and so on, but this one supplies them. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up, the Template:Infobox_NFL_player is being discussed about a possible revision. I am one of the editors that will be (and has been in a personal sandbox of mine) making revisions to this template to make it more "user friendly". I would be happy to answer any questions about it that I can. Technical 13 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick questions

Hi. I just have two quick questions.

How do I bring a section heading down under a group of userboxes without using a million <br /> line breaks here?
How do I fix the numbering here?

Thank you. ~~JHUbal27 19:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JHUbal27 I fixed both (or at least I think I did if I understood what you intended). As to the first, I added {{clear}} before the second section header (diff). As to the second, I simply removed the hard returns which have no affect on spacing in 'read mode', but break the continuation of the numbering (diff). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

page help

I have some userboxes on my page, and the text below them is being indented/recessed into them, please help. thanks!72.71.204.141 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We will need to know your user name. You were not logged in when you asked your question.--ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to what I did regarding the post immediately above, it might be that adding {{clear}} templates between the offending section might fix the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HELP WITH SOME BOXES

I made some changes on the WP U2 page but then it chaged its original format. the the Wikiproject box, the Quick links box, the discussion pages box and the Statistics box went to the bottom instead of staying the right where it always were. Please, help me to undo this but keeping the new adds

See, this is where I add and I need to keep it there:

Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks more like a WP:WikiProject U2 to-do list than a Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions or Wikipedia:Help desk to-do list. I would probably post the list on the WikiProject's site and if you want help, perhaps a link to that site requesting the volunteers of these pages to take a look. I realize you are fairly new, but the way that you are posting your to-do list atm seems more like a list of demands from these self-help groups to do the WikiProject's work for them. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total misunderstanding - the user is asking for help with the format (layout) of the left panel that is not being seen on the left anymore. Wikipedia:WikiProject U2 - > Wikipedia:WikiProject U2/leftpanel.Moxy (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my misunderstanding... Looking at those two pages though, they look the same with the vector skin and gadgets I am using. What are you using for skin and what gadgets do you have turned on? Technical 13 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am using an "unskin" version of Wikipedia 'cause i am on the Intranet not the Internet.

The list I post above is not for here, is the to do list of the WP U2, I was explaining that's what I posted and then the whole page changed its format and the right panel went below the left one. I want to correct that. Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

First-time user updating my company's profile, have I done it correctly?

My name is Craig Johntson and I work for a company called Standard Life. I have made some small additions to our company's wikipedia page today and wanted to know how I can check with the community that the changes that have been made are okay. In the past there have been people within the company who have tried to update the page without using any references and therefore the updates were removed. Just wanted to check that as a first time user the content I put up there is correctly referenced. Our company page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Life.

Kind regards,

CraigCraigj77 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your management list to look like a list and one of them even has their own wikipage, which it is now linked to. Other than that (and a shortage of references in some sections) it looks fine to me. Technical 13 (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig, you should probably disclose your COI on your user page. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that as well... Simply prepend {{COI}} to the top of the page. Technical 13 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a user page template. I don't think there is one for that (yet).--ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Life isn't a user page. Oh... I misread you... The {{COI|date=April 2013}} should be prepended to the top of Standard Life... {{Connected contributor|Craigj77|Standard Life|editedhere=yes|declared=yes}} should be prepended to the top of Talk:Standard Life... Hope that clears it up... I suppose it wouldn't hurt to make up a template a user can put on their page saying they have edited certain articles and they want to disclose a possible COI... I'll work up a draft template for this soon and see how people like it. Technical 13 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, thanks you very much for your help, will get the COI added. Cheers, CraigCraigj77 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies

		Cookies!
		Keithbob has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you to all the wonderful people and valuable help that is found here at Teahouse!! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Chamal ^T•C 17:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: sorry bout my formatting error, I had a bit of difficulty with the template :-( -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When will my article submission go live?

I wrote an article about a talent agency in Los Angeles, California recently and submitted it for publication. When will it go live, and how can I check to see if there are any issues that come up with my article? (The article is called "Equitable Stewardship for Artists" DavidEDevries (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, DavidEDevries! Unfortunately, there are a large amount of articles submitted, and so it may be weeks before yours is even reviewed. If you want to see comments come up, you might want to add the page to your watchlist. Go to the page and find the star to the right of "View history". Click that and it will come up with a notice saying the page is on your watchlist. The star will now be blue. Now go to "Watchlist", between "Preferences" and "Contributions", and click on that. You should see the last edit you made to the page. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any skins with large print?

I was using the Chick skin for viewing and editing WP. But that skin and others are being eliminated beginning April 15th. The four remaining skins Vector, Mono, Modern and Cologne Blue all have very small print. Is there any way to userfy my account to create larger type? Thanks in advance! — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Keithbob! Unfortunately, there is no way in "Preferences" to have large print for all text. However, if you go to "Gadgets" and then "Appearance", you will find an option seven from the bottom that says "Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as infoboxes, navboxes, and reference lists." Once you do that, all you can do to make large print is magnify the zoom. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob, you can change the font sizes (among other visual aspects) by editing your common.css page (or the corresponding style page for your skin), which will override the default CSS values. However, this can involve quite a bit of work, depending on how much you want to change. Most modern browsers allow you to change the font size, so I think it might be easier than editing CSS pages. If you want to do it though, you can read Help:User style for some help and tips. Chamal ^T•C 16:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob, if you ask your question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), I'm pretty certain someone there can help you tweak your common.css to get you the end result you want. NtheP (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keithbob, I'd be happy to try and help you tweak your css for a larger font. Technical 13 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boy you folks are good :-) Fast and reliable..... Go Teahouse!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Keithbob, If you want to change the font size then you could add this code to your personal css page. #mw-content-text {font-size:110%} Of course you can change the size to your personal taste. Cheers --Ushau97 ^talk 16:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you, that was so easy and so helpful!!! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking the the element and class name and was going to suggest nearly the same thing with #mw-content-text {font-size: larger;}... Ushau97 beat me to it... Technical 13 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tech13 !!!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple Issues" in Article

The article I submitted on Matthew Locricchio was cited for having multiple issues in its citations. I believe I have corrected these. What can I do to get the "Multiple Issues" statement removed?RichardKFarley (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, RichardKFarley! One of the largest rules on Wikipedia, probably right behind "Be civil", is "Be bold!" If you feel as if you have corrected an issue, feel free to remove the notice saying that it has that issue. There is no harm in taking it off; if you realize later that you didn't fix all those issues, you can be bold again and put a sign back up. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the editor who previously on your talk page recommended a number of links for you to read. In particular, I think that you would find it easier to achieve a consistent citation style if you were to use the citation templates as outlined at WP:CITEQR. You might find these templates available via a "Cite" link in the edit toolbar above the edit window, which would then give a new toolbar with a "Templates" dropdown at the left-hand end, but if these options aren't available on your toolbar you can just copy the template & use it. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The citation issues with the article Matthew Locricchio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) do seem to have been resolved. I would normally not recommend removing such a template until you have asked the poster of the template to look over the article again. That way you are less likely to get wrapped up in an edit war (which I think you should be fine in this case) where you think they are fixed and the poster of the issues strongly disagrees and considers your removal of the template combative. Besides, it rarely hurts to ask. Technical 13 (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Documents as a Reference

Hello All,

I have a letter, written by the head of a government department, signed by him, on official letter-headed paper, giving an organisation official credence. Is there a way that I can use it as a reference?

Under freedom of information it would be available to any member of the public, should they choose to pay the exorbitant fee. After 30 years it would be openly available for a greatly reduced fee. I just don't fancy waiting 30 years to create the article.

So is there a way to do this? To get Wikipedia to recognise it as a source? Kiltpin (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the organisation is truly notable, it will have received extensive coverage in numerous published reliable sources, so you won't have to rely on unpublished material. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David's right, if the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements then you should be able to find suitable sources in addition. However, if you do wish to cite the document as a source, you can - Wikipedia's rules do not require that sources be free, only that they be available. If a member of the public could (at least in theory) get their hands on the document, then it can be used as a source. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your swift replies. I shan't use the letter nor shall I submit the article. I have to admit, to more than a little bitterness about this whole procedure. Wikipedia's standards of notability have risen dramatically over the years and it is no longer good enough to be a prince to get an article - you have to be a king now. I believe that Wikipedia's almost total reliance on internet referencing just cheapens and damages it. In the real world it is vox populi that matters. Kiltpin (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood, Kiltpin. There is no requirement that the material be available on the internet; it merely needs to have been published. Books and reputable newspapers are perfectly acceptable even if not available on-line. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor has there ever been such a requirement.--ukexpat (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly well, David. I asked if it were possible and the subtext was, that if it were, how to do it. The answer I got was "If the organisation is truly notable, it will have received extensive coverage in numerous published reliable sources, so you won't have to rely on unpublished material." Well, frankly that is exactly the kind of dance I am getting across at AfC. Chanting not notable, not notable, not notable is not a recognised form of encouragement. Enough, I am going back to Commons and do some real work. Where, I have to say, the standards are clear cut and we all understand what is required of us. If this sounds bitter, it is because I am. Kiltpin (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you write a new article?

I have another question, how do you write a new article? Thanks again!

Warab (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warab. Technically, you simply search for the article, and when it doesn't appear, click on the "Create the article xxx" link and start writing. However, there are process that will make it a bit easier for you, and I'd suggest you make use of them.

First, read Your first article to get an idea of what you need to create. Then, use the Article Wizard to help you with the basic process of construction. You can also use your user sandbox as a place to try out edits and collect information about your subject. Remember to provide references for the information you add, and stick to a neutral tone, and you should be fine. If you need any help, feel free to ask here or contact me on my talkpage. Good luck! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles

How would you know if an article is already there or not? Thanks.

Warab (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You could type in the title of the article in the search bar at the top right side of the page. If an article is present on the subject then it would lead you to the article. Regards --Ushau97 ^talk 11:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request that other editors review your new article

Hi, I am a little confused. On Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, there is a link that says "Request that other editors review your new article". However, it doesn't take you to an appropriate page, but to the Wikipedia:Help desk.

How do I actually get people to review an new article - User:Kunoichi.au/The JRD Group of Companies - to see if it fits Wikipedia's guidelines?

I used Wikipedia about 10 years ago, and I believe the rules have changed drastically since then.

Thanks! Kunoichi.au (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you want your draft at User:Kunoichi.au/The JRD Group of Companies to be an article, then you should click on the Submit the page! link at the box on the top of the article. When you press on it, you will be taken to an edit window. Read the message that comes up and then press Save page button. After that in a few hours or so, your draft will be submitted for review to a process called Articles for creation (AfC). Since the AfC process is highly backlogged, it might take some time (mostly a week or two) for your article to be reviewed. If your article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines a reviewer will move the draft to article space and after that readers can view your article. But you have to be patient, since the AfC process is highly backlogged. Cheers! --Ushau97 ^talk 11:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kunoichi. Welcome to the Teahouse and back to Wikipedia. I had a quick look at your draft and left comments on your talk page. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 11:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

universities

Hello again,I noticed while scrolling a question about schools. I am about to stt at Strayer University and from what I've already read it is a pretty good school. However I was wondering if there is a listing covering schools in the US ie 1 through ? best schools? The campus I will be attending is in Newark,DE. Thanks, Gerri (74.109.13.214 (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That looks like a question for the WP:REFDESK, but I will try to answer your question anyway. There are pages on Wikipedia that lists education institutes in DE. You could try the following pages.

Hope this helps. --Ushau97 ^talk 11:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, everyone! 110.174.84.124 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

numbers

Hi, Thanks for volunteering. My question,what is the definition of the word integer. Is it basically any whole number? Gerri (74.109.13.214 (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerri and welcome to the Teahouse. This is an interesting question, one that we usually don't get. Basing this on my personal knowledge, I believe an integer is any number that can be written without a fraction or decimal component. So yes, all whole numbers are integers. I am sure we have an article on it. Probably Integer. Go Phightins! 02:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. To define it,

Hope this helped.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how can 0 be a whole number? Its an integer for the sake of calculation and referencing, but I thought, could be wrong here, it was not considered whole as diving by 0 is a no no....Anyone?Coal town guy (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All natural numbers (1,2,3..) are Whole numbers (0,1,2,3...) and all Whole numbers are Integers (...-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3...).

Also, an integer is one which can be divided by 1, not vice versa. So while 1/0 is not defined, 0/1=0 and hence 0 is considered an integer. Since all non-negative integers are also whole numbers, it is also a whole number.

Does that clear it up?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection. I was recalling a symbolic logic argument and for some odd reason, I saw that post and BAM. VERY much appreciate it. Although, technically 0 should not be anything...as it were....Coal town guy (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there are three different categories than just one is because of how numbers have evolved through the ages. First there were only the Natural numbers (The Romans certainly didn't need 0), but then somebody thought up of 0 (Sources diagree on who that was), making them Whole numbers. And finally someone else thinks of negative numbers later, making them all into integers.

Long story short - Had we thought of all the integers from the start, we wouldn't be needing a "Whole Number"/"Natural Number" distinction.

Also, please use a TB or else i might not see your reply :)

Cheers, and happy to help!

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TB? AND many thanks for the answer. Millions of years ago, I actually enjoyed mathematics....Coal town guy (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TB is short for talkback. Which is the script I just left on your user page to inform you that you had a reply on this thread. Its usually better to leave a TB at the user's talk page to make sure they read your reply.

You can use the talkback by either selecting the TB option (if you are using Twinkle) and sending a standard talkback; or just click on TB beside my signature (Only if you have teahouse scripts enabled) to send a Teahouse talkback.

And I still am very much in love with Mathematics :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the mathematics reference desk may be a better place for this question. Chamal ^T•C 14:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or integer even.--ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to add image to this page

Hi, Below is the link to wiki page for which I am trying to add an image. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhash_Mukhopadhyay_%28physician%29 I have uploaded the file in Wikimedia Commons. File:Dr Subhash Mukhopadhy.jpg Dr Subhash Mukhopadhy URL:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr_Subhash_Mukhopadhy.jpg But while I was editing the wiki page this file was not getting added to it.Can you please help me or guide me how to add image in this particular page.Already I have added one image in one of the wiki pages and I dint face any problem.It is this particular page where I am having trouble. Thanking You in advance. Indrac2k (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I've added the image. I couldn't see any record of your trying to edit that article recently, so I'm not sure what you were trying to do and why you couldn't do it. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi David,

Above is the last discussion we had.Thanks for the quick response.I was not sure how to revive the old discussion so I had to post this new question.Well my query is in that page I am yet not seeing that picture...earlier I added one more image in the below link :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrishikesh_Mukherjee

It was visible for a moment then again the image was not present.What is the cause of this issue?Is this something to do with copyright of image?

Thanks & Regards,

IndraIndrac2k (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indra, welcome back. It is a copyright problem I'm sorry to say. You have uploaded two files to Commons and they have both been deleted as copyright violations. I don't know the specifics but I wonder if you have uploaded an image off the internet without having positive proof that it is in the public domain? That an image is in the public domain has to be expressly shown, absence of any information about copyright is taken as assuming that the image is copyrighted and NOT available for use here or on Commons. NtheP (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To that I would add that your talk page on commons is where the notifications of those copyright problems can be found. Clicking on the redlinks for each image there will show you the respective deletion logs.- David Biddulph (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to format links

I need to refer to the same source in two separate areas of my article. Is there a way for the reference on both of these to lead to the same link? Or is it alright if the same source appears twice on my reference list? Thanks in advance for your help! Ldavs (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is given at Wikipedia:Refb#Same reference used more than once. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an Ad

Hello again. i need help to create an Ad, I try doing it by mmyselfbut I couldn't. Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:40, Today (UTC+1)

I have removed your weird formatting. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "Ad" you mean "advertisement", this is an encyclopedia, and not a place for advertisements, see WP:Advertising. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this


Wikipedia ads	file info – #25

Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too good with anything technical, but at Wikipedia:Wikipedia ads#Creating ads, there are instructions for Apple and Windows users. Here are the links:

For Apple: User:Cheong Kok Chun/How to create ads for Mac OS X users

For Windows: User:Miranda/96:FEW#How do you make those ads?

Forgive me if you already tried these. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I use Linux at work. Don't worry, I think I'm not gonna need the ad...

Miss Bono (zootalk) 11:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I think I once tried to improve my signature but I couldn't get anything. can anyone help me? Miss Bono (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a test but I have made one...(t) Miss Bono (c) . You can change how much you want. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Miss Bono (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many characters have to has the signatureMiss Bono (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be as small as you want...I think. Read this.-(t) Josve05a (c) 15:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't allow me to post the signature you made Miss Bono (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I have copied my cod in to User:Josve05a/Sign, then I went to the settings and changed my signature to {{subst:User:Josve05a/Sign}} and pressed the box for "Treat the above as wiki markup." -(t) Josve05a (c) 16:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And pressed "save" (ofc) -(t) Josve05a (c) 16:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

255 characters is the length limit for signatures, which is the the maximum number of characters allowed in the signature box in your preferences. Don't use page transclusion for bypassing this limit either (see Wikipedia:Signatures#Length for details and reasons for this). Anyway, that new signature is 312 characters long so please don't use it, Miss Bono. Josve05a, I'm afraid yours is over the limit as well, but in your case it should be fine if you just remove the "signature start" and "signature end" comments. Chamal ^T•C 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I MADE IT!!! THANK YOU!! :) Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

That won't do. The talkback link & date/time tag are invisible against the black background. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change that???

Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look now Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I like the new one much better

nerd fighter 23:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note though that some colour combinations can be hard to read, especially for old farts like me: red on black for example, and white on turquoise. I think there is a website somewhere that discusses readability of colour combinations - I'll see if I can find it.--ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As somewhat of an expert on this topic, may I suggest reading WP:SIG#Appearance and color (specifically this site note) and testing your color compatibility with this tool? Technical 13 (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep taking down my info for the Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College page?

I'm trying to put accurate information on the Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College page...and actually more interesting info than what's there now...which is old, outdated and doesn't really say that much about the college. I'm not trying to spam...advertise...or coerce. I'm still learning how to post and do not have any technical expertise on siting references or uploading photos...so I'm not an expert by any means...just someone who believe that there should be good info out there.

What do you want me to do differently?

francesdyerFrancesdyer (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francesdyer, it looks like Mean as custard has already answered the same question on their Talk page. Of course, if you'd prefer to ask us something here, by all means drop in again. Sionk (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone nominate the articles for speedy deletion ?

Hello Wiki experts !

Another question from a Wiki contributor( level :Beginner). the title of the question makes it clear and hence I would like to know even though I am not an administrator and only a contributor, still can I also nominate the new pages in feed for deletion when THEY DO NOT MEET THE WIKI GUIDELINES AND POLICIIES ? For eg: the copyright infringements and direct attacks and vandalism pages ?? Thanks in advance Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you can. I see that you are autoconfirmed already. Perhaps, you want to go to "Preferences" in the top right corner of your screen, go to "Gadgets", and scroll down. Somewhere while scrolling, you will see an option to activate Twinkle for your account. Check the box beside it, save the page and you are good to go. Read more about how to use Twinkle at WP:TW/DOC. You can also set Twinkle preferences at WP:TW/PREF. When you encounter a page you want to tag for speedy deletion, just go to the bar on top which says "Read", "Edit" and "View History". Beside "View History", you will see "TW". Roll over "TW" for the dropdown menu and choose "CSD". A box will appear for you to select the criteria. There you go. Cheers.

Arctic Kangaroo 14:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Ghirpaapi. Yes, you can, and we appreciate you doing so (as long as you do it right!). Take a careful look through the speedy deletion criteria before tagging anything (you might find this essay useful too) and go slow, but do feel free to tag inappropriate pages for deletion if you're sure they warrant it. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can also manually tag articles for speedy deletion, as I do. But the criteria for speedy deletion are pretty narrow, so be careful with that. It's nice to have another user working in the speedy deletion department. Good luck! ^King Jakob _C2 14:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Welcome back to the Teahouse, Ghorpaapi! To put it simply, I'm not an administrator, but I can still nominate things for speedy deletion. We need as many people as we can get to remove copyright infringement, direct attacks, and vandalism as soon as possible, so as long as you are nominating what needs to be nominated for speedy deletion, it's fine. I must ask you a question: do you have Twinkle? Twinkle is a semi-automated tool that makes it easy to nominate things for speedy deletion. If you don't have it, go to Preferences, and then Gadgets. It will be the fourth from the bottom in the first heading. There will be a little "TW" to the left of the search box, and if you press that and press "CSD", it will do almost everything for you, though you still have to say why it needs to be speedily deleted. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ! That was a quick, spontaneous and detailed response. thanks a lot everyone. I really appreciate the way other Wiki hosts at teahouse welcomed me and answered my query.

I just activated Twinkle from now on and will spend more time on the criterion for speedy deletion and nomination for deletion. Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.

Arctic Kangaroo 14:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

How can I know when an edition truly contribute to an article?? Miss Bono (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Miss Bono! The answer to this can vary drastically. To put it simply, a true contribution to Wikipedia is something that improves its state. This can be as minor as putting a comma somewhere to as major as creating a large new article. Minor edits are only called minor because you're not changing a whole lot, but it's still important to have good spelling and grammar. Does that answer your question? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda, but someone told me that I only have 22 edits that have contribute to Wikipedia, but I have edit more than 400 times.Miss Bono (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find who and where that person said that? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was here [1] Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Theroadislong you are a shadow- in a good sense- you appear from nowhere and also you know where is everything. how do you do that??Miss Bono (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what does it mean that??Miss Bono (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That user was saying that you had 22 edits in article space, meaning anything without a prefix, like Warriors (novel series) or Rabies. In my opinion, the three most important -spaces are article (Simon Delestre), talk (Talk:D'Entrecasteaux Archipelago pogonomys), and Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Teahouse), as articles are where you improve the encyclopedia, talk is where you discuss improvement, and Wikipedia-space is where the finer things are done, like the Teahouse or Articles for Deletion or Requests for Adminship. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What he's saying is that you have edited Wikipedia articles 22 times, while you have a much higher number of talk page edits (you can see your edit distribution here). The general expectation is that editors should spend the majority of their time building the encyclopedia, and shouldn't dicuss unrelated matters too much on user talk pages (because Wikipedia is not a social network). However, this is not a problem if you're dicussing editing related stuff or getting help on editing from another user. Don't pay too much attention to the number of edits you make in whatever area, just make sure your edits are productive and you'll be fine. Chamal ^T•C 14:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you are in a learning mode right now, asking a lot of questions. Once you have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works, you can gradually shift to a contributing mode. That means working on articles much more: adding well referenced content, removing unsourced, unverifiable content, and even writing new articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody..,lol Miss Bono (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

abuse of editing privileges

What does it means this!? Miss Bono (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Miss Bono! Abuse of editing privileges means that a Wikipedia editor is making unhelpful contributions and so is not respecting the privilege of editing either a particular aspect of Wikipedia (like articles, or Requests for Adminship) or Wikipedia as a whole. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically another term to describe this policy: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. This includes a wide range of behaviour that's generally not helpful in improving Wikipedia. Chamal ^T•C 14:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I should have said it's a term that is often used to describe the disruptive editing policy. It is sometimes used for behaviour that does not strictly fall under that policy as well. Chamal ^T•C 14:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it mostly refers to vandalism, based on my observations. Arctic Kangaroo 14:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does refer to vandalism most of the time, but not always. Take this as a rule of thumb – our standard block template {{uw-block}} (without a specific reason) is for abuse of editing privileges. So pretty much anything which can get this template slapped on your talk page falls under that category

Chamal ^T•C 15:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the admin's version of the Elastic Clause. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

auto-speedy deletions

Hi I read about this new technology on the web (recyclebots)-- tried to look it up in wikipedia and it was not there so I thought I would start a page -- I was familiar with wikipedia editing from before when we did it in school awhile back - so knew about licenses. I pulled text from two wikis with compatible licenses -- cleaned it up and then went away from my computer for a few hours. When I got back it had been marked for speedy deletion because of G12 and G11- and already deleted before I could do anything. I tried following the multiple paths in the messages on my talk page to reinstate it - the editors or bots took it out and then took out my arguments for it as well -- without responding. The only thing still pending is this (I think) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#RecycleBot I'll be honest this is a little bit frustrating as I spent a good bit of time on it and I know this is why a lot of people dont bother editing because new stuff gets smashed. I am pretty sure I could fix anything that was promotional or was a copyright vio -- but I dont even think there were any-- that said I can't find a way to get to the original text to read through it carefully anyway. What should I do?

Thanks __Recyclebotboy (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Recyclebotboy. I've restored the page and left you a note about it on your userpage. Sorry it's taken so long for someone to respond to you here - we're usually a bit quicker than that! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naming an Article

Simple yet complex issue on this one particular article, namely The Bourne Ultimatum. In real life issues regarding American youth, who loves Matt Damon thinks that The Bourne Ultimatum (film) is just the only The Bourne Ultimatum. However, is the primary name of the article is nonderivative form, but, there is the film and soundtrack to consider on this matter like first two books of The Bourne Trilogy have been disambiguated into (novel) and (film) form but the last book, The Bourne Ultimatum has the base name without the (novel), (film), and (soundtrack) titles. I am asking for the reasoning of this is? If the first two Jason Bourne books are listed with (novel) in the title, so why is the last book in the original trilogy doesn't have this? Sundogs ^{UserPage My sandbox} 23:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sundogs. The first two are not both disambiguated in this manner. The novel for the second is at the primary topic name, The Bourne Supremacy—the parenthetically disambiguated name The Bourne Supremacy (novel)— is a redirect to it. Only the first ("...Identity") has the novel not in the primary topic position. In any event, I don't think consistency is at the heart of the consideration (though it is on the list at Wikipedia:Article titles, but almost always falls before weighting other considerations). The chief question is whether, as between The Bourne Ultimatum (pointing at the novel) and The Bourne Ultimatum (film), there is or isn't a primary topic. For that we can look to frequency in reliable sources and page traffic statistics (see here) (but leavening the latter results with how recent the film is). If you think the film should be primary, or that neither is and a disambiguation page should be at the main title, you can seek consensus using the requested moves process. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I?

Ok I have Wikipedia user page and have found that it doesn't show publicy, how do I get it to do so - anyone help? Stephen D Kent (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one that starts "This is a page about Stephen D Kent (Now resident in Littlehampton, West Sussex, England, United Kingdom) previously of Hollingbury, Brighton, East Sussex..." It's there for anyone to see if they follow the blue link that is your name. :) — User:Technical 13 ( C • M • View signature as intended) 23:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen. If what you mean by "publicly" is susceptibility to being found from outside Wikipedia, then it is the sixth result when I search Google for your name in quotes (Google results are not the same for everyone; where you or someone else finds it ranked will vary). If you mean something like, "why isn't it in the main part of the encyclopedia where articles reside", it doesn't belong there and would very likely be deleted almost immediately if moved there. I must tell you, even in your userspace it is rather promotional sounding and beyond what is allowed under the user page guidelines. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Red Linked Articles

I need to know if there's a way to find red linked articles to create?? Miss Bono (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to wikipedia, Miss Bono. There is a team of people working on red links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery they have a list of the most common red links at Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. I hope htis helps. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with infobox

I was creating a new article about a Cuban band and it doesn't allow me to insert the years active information. it doesn't shows that. Miss Bono (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the edit you were trying? Template:Infobox musical artist does include years_active as a parameter. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think the problem is solved. i hadn't repleaced the comment tag Miss Bono (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not wise to have generated your incomplete draft directly in mainspace at Buena Fe (banda). It is liable to suffer speedy deletion through lack of any content apart from the infobox, lack of any references, & lack of any evidence of notability. Better to spend time developing the article in a subpage of your user space, so perhaps at User:Miss Bono/Buena Fe (band), or as a draft through AFC, then submit it for review when you are confident that it meet's Wikipedia's requirements for publication. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i need to post some warning to tell the other wikiusers that i am working on that article. where can i find a template for it??? Miss Bono (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just Move it to your user space, then you can work on it there. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page already see Buena Fe (duo).Moxy (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i already saw it. thanks! :)Miss Bono (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Templates

Need to find some infobox for bands. Miss Bono (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this. Hope this helps.Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it helped. ThanksMiss Bono (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace Draft

How can i create an userspace draft. Miss Bono (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Miss Bono. Help:Userspace draft has a very easy-to-use wizard for creating userspace drafts, which would probably be better than going through the details of how to create one manually. Chamal ^T•C 15:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Miss Bono (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tell if something is notable?

Hello! I recently posted an article and it was rejected because the subject was non-notable. I am very involved in the education sector, and many things that are notable to those in the space seem not notable enough for Wikipedia. Is there a rule of thumb or a way to tell in advance if something is notable enough? I thought lots of media coverage and a huge impact on students would cover it...Bballgirl1007 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Links about notability are available at WP:N, and there are also links (some more specific) from your draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bellwether Education Partners. You talk of "lots of media coverage", but you didn't include references to that in your draft. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need to find someone who is subscribed to U2.com

To ask some technical questions about the site! Please, reply ASAP...Miss Bono (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Miss Bono! Sorry for the delayed response. In answer to your question: someone at WikiProject U2 may be able to help you. Cheers nerd fighter 00:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! You seem to be a prominent member of WikiProject U2 yourself. Another venue to ask at is the appropriate reference desk. nerd fighter 00:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing references

Hi, I'm trying to add a new reference to a Wikipedia entry and every time I edit the item it displays misaligned and in a different font size than the rest of the references listed. Thanks for the help, P

83.32.124.6 (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your contribution record doesn't show any edits before your question above, so could you please tell us which article you've been trying to edit? If you haven't already done so, I would recommend that you read WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progression through Wikipedia

Hello All, I have been editing for almost 2 years ( mainly on Commons (1000+)). Some time ago, over there, I was told that I had been given Autopatrolled status. I had neither asked for nor sought it, but it was nice to be recognised for one's efforts. It seems that these statuses (or whatever they are called) are not transferable across the WMF and have to be earned in each of the various 'departments'. So how does it work? Is it down to time served, or edit count, or articles created, or having the right friends? Do I just stand around on the corner of Hollywood and Vine and hope that a producer with a fat cigar will come along and make me a star? We hear about Administrators and Bureaucrats and Patrollers and Autopatrollers and Reviewers, but where do they all fit in and how does one get from one to the other. Is there a page somewhere that explains it all? I tried searching autopatrol and was re-directed to Graders (as in road graders). Thanks in advance. Kiltpin (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiltpin. You can apply for the most common userrights (autopatrolled, rollback, file mover and reviewer) at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Very occasionally admins will grant these rights without being asked, but usually you have to file a request. Admins and Bureaucrats are "elected" by community consensus at Requests for adminship. Hopefully the links I've provided will tell you what you want to know, but if you need any clarification, do ask! Yunshui 雲‍水 13:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yunshui - That's a good link! Kiltpin (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with referencing

Hi, I have tried to submit my article on ZANEWS twice now and keep getting told 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.' The sources I have used in the references and external links are all from reliable sources (newspaper websites etc) and not really sure what I'm doing wrong. Please help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ZANEWS

(NuggetBerrisford (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nugget, welcome to the Teahouse. I suspect, looking at the draft, that part of the problem is the lack of citations, rather than sources - although your External Links section contains several suitable sources, they aren't cited in the actual article. You've done this successfully with the Davies and Thomas references; now you need to incorporate some of the other links as footnotes as well.

There are other issues you'll need to address, however. As it stands there's a lot of extraneous detail on the page that could be edited out. In several places, the tone of the text approaches advertising. Of most concern, though, is that fact that much of the page is a direct copy of User:SarahBerrisford/sandbox, which appears to be someone else's work - unless you can come up with a good explanation for that, the whole thing is likely to be deleted as a copyright violation. In turn, elements of the sandbox are quite close to the text of ZANews' own information page, particularly the History and Development section - again, this would constitute a copyright violation. Yunshui ?‍? 12:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for this response. My next question is - I am User:SarahBerrisford/sandbox and was using that to edit and changed to (NuggetBerrisford because I was struggling to call the article ZANEWS and just thought I would start as a new user. Can I delete User:SarahBerrisford/sandbox? I am both these users. Please help.

NuggetBerrisford (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should probably ignore the warning I just left on your talkpage... I should have noticed the similarity of the usernames

Facepalm. Sorry about that. Yes, you can delete pages that you created (and there's no copyvio issue, since you yourself wrote the text). However, I'd strongly suggest you leave a note on User:SarahBerrisford and your own userpage linking the two accounts, to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry; instructions on how to do so properly are here. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to provide a reference link?

How to provide a source link while editing a page? User:Ca.khalapCa.khalap (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ca.khalap. Links for sources are best provided as inline citations. To do this, go into the Edit tab and find the place in the text where you want to place the citation. Type the following:

<ref>details of your source</ref>

If your source is a webpage, typing the URL (with the http:// prefix) will automatically produce a link. Additional information (such as the title of the page, the publisher and the date you accessed the page) is also useful.

Then, at the bottom of the page, check to see whether there is a References section with a {{Reflist}} template. If there isn't, type the following text there:

==References==

{{Reflist}}

The Reflist template works with the <ref></ref> tags to create an automatic list of citations. Hope this helps. Yunshui ?‍? 12:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna say something to you. You add first

<ref>{{citeweb|url=Your web adress|title=Write a title that will be watched by the watchers|publisher=the publisher website or newspaper or anything that published the source|accessdate=The date it was published}}</ref>

Then as Yunshui said add

==References==

{{Reflist}}.

Hope this helps.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user: Ca.khalapCa.khalap (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the articles i created been deleted and who is willing to help me

HI GUYS .......

I'm user Khai'Z Torres.I am new in the wikipedia editing section.Recently , i'm trying to make articles about malaysian footballers whom plays in foreign leagues .Here the lists:

1.Tam Sheang Tsung(Shanghai Shenhua F.C.) 2.Titus James Palani(Le Havre AC) 3.Sean Gan Geanilli(U.S.D. Arezzo) 4.S Kumaahran(Cruzeiro) 5.B Sanjeet Singh(Cruzeiro)

Here's my question ,why when i create this articles,they keep been deleted by some other users .And can somebody hep me to create this articles

02:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khai'Z Torres (talk • contribs)

Hi Khazi'Z Torres! Welcome to the teahouse! Generally, it is difficult creating new articles, as so many different policies apply. But it seems you have run into two common problems.

The first is that it seems you didn't include references on your first attempt. The problem we have is that we need to have something to show that the person being written about is real, and what is being written about them has some support. Otherwise we could write anything, and that, of course, would be bad. :) So the first step is to find some newspaper articles or similar that talks about the person you are writing on, and use that information in the article with a reference (such as <ref>http://somewhere/</ref>).

The second problem is one that I encounter all the time, even with people who have a lot of experience on Wikipedia. In trying to be accurate, you've stuck very close to the wording of the original sources, and this creates a problem with copyright. So while you need to only say things that are in the sources, you also need to put them in your own words.

If you want, try creating the article at User:Khai'Z Torres/Tam Sheang Tsung and that will give you somewhere to work on it where it won't be immediately deleted if there are problems. And let me know if you do - I'm happy to help if I can. - Bilby (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason they were deleted (beyond the technical copyvio and ref issues) is that they fail both football notability guidelines and general notability guidelines. these are the main guidelines for football players and wikipedia overall. For all the players you have listed, they have not made a single first team league appearance for a team in a fully professional league. This is generally considered by The Wikipedia football project to be the very minimum required for an article, although in many cases playing one single game may not be enough and further sourcing may be required to achieve GNG. Where a player has not played in a fullt professional league, it is generally required that they have played international football to be considered generally notable. If you would like to seek "specialist" opinion as to whether a player is likely to pass NFOOTY or GNG, feel free to ask here. This is the talk board for the Football Project and is very popular. You will receive a prompt response and help with any of your queries. Feel free to post a message on my talk page if you have any questions regarding the notability guidelines.Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

once I've finished writing my article how do I submit it for review???

I've finished wiritng my article, and I'm not sure how to get it published? What's the next step??

Also, to upload images to associate with this article, I'm assuming that this is only possible after the article is published? correct???

Thanks.

Jsmolar (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jsmolar! When you want to submit an article for review, you can submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. You do this by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article you wrote. There is usually a very high backlog of Articles for creation articles, so it may be a while before yours gets reviewed.

As for images, I believe that as long as it isn't a copyrighted image like a book cover or movie poster or a potentially inappropriate image, it is okay to upload it and put it on a userspace page, like your sandbox, before an article becomes an actual article.

Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jsmolqar. Uploading images, and using them in articles are two separate activities. Obviously you cannot use an image until it has been uploaded, but other than that there are no time constraints on when you can do things. On Wikipedia you cannot upload images until you have been autoconfirmed, which requires four days and ten edits - one more edit than you have currently made. But wherever possible (which really means, whenever they match the strict licensing requirements) images should be uploaded to Wikimedia commons instead. See WP:IMAGES for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need tips on neutrality, tone/personal opinion, and argot for human vulnerability page

Just posted my first wiki page, but it is in threat of being deleted for neutrality (or lack thereof) issues. Suggestions for improvement welcomed. This is the link to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vulnerability_to_climate_change_in_the_Caribbean

A few questions: 1. Is the term "Human Vulnerability" at issue? The term is not one of my making but is a new way of looking at how people at risk, especially from environmental change, are measured and impacted. The page was not meant to be an opinion piece. If there are "opinion-like" entries, please point them out specifically so I can edit them accordingly.

2. If the term "Human Vulnerability" is not at issue, perhaps the opening definition is too long? Could this definition be a better alternative:

Human Vulnerability A human condition or process resulting from physical, social, economic and environmental factors, which determine the likelihood and scale of damage from the impact of a given hazard. It is found on an website India website. The definition is concise but (see the link below) it is written in anther language (Hindi?) and may not be generally agreed upon by academics/scientists. http://bsdma.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=158&Itemid=276

3. Not sure what terms are considered argot. Can someone provide specific examples?

4. Since the page was originally posted, over 30 references have been added. Are references still an issue and if so, is it the type, the number, or the format of the references that are still the issue?

Thanks and Be well. Avewiki (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Avewiki. As you see, the article has been marked for multiple reasons. The answer to your questions about the term is that you may use "Human Vulnerability" as a specific term in an article, only if the reliable sources you cite use the term. Otherwise it would be either a neologism or original research, neither of which is allowed. I have not looked at the sources you cite: does one of them explicitly define "human vulnerability"? If so, you can define the phrase, and reference the definition.

As you say, there are now plenty of references, but on a quick look, they appear to be references to facts mentioned in the article, but not to the argument of the article: a Wikipedia article should never include any argumentation, synthesis, judgment or conclusion, unless that is directly referenced to a source - again, doing so would constitute original research. So to make this article stick, you need to cite sources that present the argument in the article, not just ones that support the facts it adduces. As I say, I haven't followed the references, s o it is possible that they now do, in which case those criticisms of the article may be removed. However, in that case the question of neutrality arises: are there other reliable sources which present a counter argument? In that case, they should also be covered in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My first suggestion, is being that the article is being requested to be deleted I would quickly request that it be moved to my userspace to continue working on it as a {{Userspace draft}} so that you don't lose all of your current work and progress and have to request it be undeleted and moved later. — User:Technical 13 ( C • M • View signature as intended) 12:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Once you get it moved or at least make a copy on your userspace as a draft to save some hassle if it was to be deleted... I've just requested on the PROD page that they give you 48 hours to request it be moved or copy and paste it to your user space... This "should" give you enough time. As far as the article content goes and the issues with it...

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

The page looks like a persuasion essay for a class. If you are trying to "convince" people of your point of view, then the mainspace isn't the place for your article. If the purpose is to as factually as possible give information about a topic, then you've got a good page.

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject.

As I said above, the page looks like a persuasion essay for a class. If it is intended to be an essay, you may keep it in your userspace for a reasonable length of time if you tag it with {{Essay}}.

- Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.
This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.
- See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.

Having this added to the above two issues was pushing the bubble regarding Redundant issues which specifically says: "All articles that read like essays have an inappropriate tone, and in fact they end up in the same category, so it is unnecessary to add {{tone}} in addition to {{essay-like}}." and I would like to see the person that posted the list of issues asked about this.

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it.
- Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available.

Your article is still an orphan. If after reading my above comments you decide that you want to move it to your userspace as an essay, then I wouldn't worry about linking things to it. If you more it as a userspace draft, I would consider finding things that would link to it after you have revised it to be moved back into mainspace. A couple days before you request it be moved, start going through and creating links to what the page name "should" be for the article. This will create redlinks at first, but once it is moved, it will not be an orphan.

I hope this adequately answers your questions and is of some assistance to you. If there is anything else I can offer, please ask and remember that the only dumb question is the one that is unasked. — User:Technical 13 ( C • M • View signature as intended) 13:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Stubs: "talk"

Hello everyone, I'm brand new to this side of wikipedia. My subject of knowledge only has a small "stub" page at this point. I would like to seriously expand this, and am wondering what the etiquette is when it comes to stubs. Do I need to begin by proposing what I want to do on the "talk" section of the article? And if so, how long should await replies before just going ahead? Actually, I wonder about this last part with more evolved articles as well. If you are inspired to make changes, how long should one wait after opening it up for discussion? Thanks so much! Nagamama (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nagamama and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia! You can make any constructive changes that you want without asking on the talk page unless they are considered "controversial". If it's a stub article, I don't think expanding would be controversial. But if it's a long article that is controversial (Creation-evolution controversy, Global warming, etc.), it probably would be a good idea to post on the talk page first.

We even have a guideline called "be bold", which basically means "Just do it!". Also, edits can always be undone or modified if necessary, so don't be afraid to make mistakes. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 07:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Nagamama (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding it is fine, just make sure that what you're adding is verifiable and meets quality guidelines. If there is too much content that isn't properly referenced, the page will get deleted which looks worse than a stub. I recommend creating a {{Userspace draft}} and then move it once it is done. Doing it this way prevents it from getting deleted before you finish your edits. — User:Technical 13 ( C • M • View signature as intended) 12:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tropical Depression01W (2010)

Hi dude, do you think this will be moved in an article space by the bots?Procyclone (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, at this time I do not think Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tropical Depression01W (2010) will be moved because it is set to "Article not currently submitted for review." by the first argument of "t" in {{AFC submission|t|ts=20130324065224|u=Procyclone|ns=5}}. This doesn't mean that someone couldn't change that and request review. — User:Technical 13 ( C • M • View signature as intended) 12:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in the bottom says Review waiting how is that?Procyclone (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm confused. Did you request it be moved and are waiting for that? If so, be patient and someone will eventually get around to reviewing it and moving it if it meets standards. If you're not wanting it to be moved, simply remove the requests to review it (I would remove the newest request anyways, it will make it take longer to get reviewed because I believe it goes by the newest timestamp). The bots don't move it either way, a person will look it over and check sources and whatnot and either move it or put up a declined template. I hope this helps. — User:Technical 13 ( C • M • View signature as intended) 12:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know someone is trying, but is there a reason it should not be a section in 2010 Pacific typhoon season? Jim.henderson (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that article meet the Wiki guidelines? If not, please tell me so I can make changes Procyclone (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the backlog for review, please be patient. They will review it and let you know of anything that needs to be fixed if they decline it. Declination is not the end, it gives you a chance to fix it and re-submit it. Relax a bit, and please tell us if there is a reason it should not be a section in 2010 Pacific typhoon season. Thank you — User:Technical 13 ( C • M • View signature as intended) 12:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]