Wikipedia:Teahouse

Cassiopeia, 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

how can i insert photo in my edition?

Ovijatrik (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

First Article deleted, any advice on how to revise it so it will get passed as a page?

Hi,

I've just written my first article about an organization called Stop Organ Trafficking Now. It was rejected and this was the reason: "A tag has been placed on Stop Organ Trafficking Now requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable."

There isn't really much about this organization other than it's official website and some links and resources from that website, so how can I improve it to get it passed. I really want this article about this organization to get passed, so I want to make sure that I'm taking the necessary steps to do so. Here is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sandbox

Thanks! Reema98 (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Reema98. We only have articles here on Wikipedia that are notable as Wikipedia defines it. In order to establish notability, the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The group's website is not independent. So, you will have to find independent reliable sources covering the group in order to have an article accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was going to move (really, copy and paste) from the draft space, but I see you already have it up at User:Reema98/sandbox, which is the best place to work on something. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. I was a bit confused with the way Wikipedia explained it. I'll try to find some independent sources, but I doubt there are any reliable ones, as I have searched before. Thank you so much User:Cullen328, I will keep your response in mind when writing future articles!

Reema98 (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How to cite the author of a foreword?

Hi! I'm trying to find out how to properly cite the foreword author. The main author will not be cited for this article, if that matters. I've puzzled through a few pages about citations and don't see the answer. Thought it might be easiest just to ask the experts here. Foreword author: Bessel A van der Kolk, MD

Thanks!Karinpower (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Removed extraneous </ref>, and added {{reflist-talk}} so that the reference will show.

Hello, Karinpower, and welcome to the teahouse. I suggest using the "chapter" parameter and use the "editor" parameters for the book authors. So

{{cite book |last=van der Kolk|first=Bessel A|chapter=Foreword|editor1-last= Ogden |editor1-first= Pat |editor2-last= Minton |editor2-first= Kekuni |editor3-last= Pain |editor3-first= Clare |year= 2006|title= Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy |publisher= [[Norton]] |page= xxiii |isbn=0393704572}}

displays as:

van der Kolk, Bessel A (2006). "Foreword". In Ogden, Pat; Minton, Kekuni; Pain, Clare (eds.). Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy. Norton. p. xxiii. ISBN 0393704572.

--ColinFine (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wish to delete my article, remove my Commons file and delete my profile

This is more trouble than it's worth. How do I delete my Wiki profile, short article and associated image that I've spent the last 5 days working on? It's 10 times easier to publish it privately.

Thanks, A much better place (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, A much better place. Your draft article was declined because we already have an article about your topic, No. 168 Squadron RAF. You are welcome to help expand and improve that existing article. But it is against policy to have two articles on the exact same topic.

You blanked your draft and an administrator who saw your note here deleted it in accordance with your request. If by "profile", you mean a user page, you do not now have a user page. If you ever had one, it no longer exists. You can blank your user talk page if you wish. You can't delete your account. If you no longer want to edit, just stop editing. We have millions of inactive accounts. As for an image you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, you will have to ask an administrator there. In theory, release of an image under a Creative Commons license is irrevocable, but if there was some misunderstanding, perhaps someone there will assist you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Expanding width of my Infobox

I am using the OS info box. In my sandbox I created 2 (by copy, paste and edit): one just to show the logo and the other shows the screenshot & the list of information. The problem is the top box is 3/4 the width. I'd like them to align. Suggestions? ThanksRobpater (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Robpater: Welcome to the Teahouse! The OS Infobox actually lets you put both the logo and the screenshot into one infobox. I've jumped in and made the edit to your sandbox here, so you can see how it's done. I also removed excessive file formatting things; for infoboxes, you typically only need to put the file name and then include the size as another parameter (as I've done). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that the images you want to include are non-free (copyrighted). Wikipedia tries to limit its usage of non-free images, so as a result, we cannot use them on our userpages. I've commented out the images here; if you ever move the contents to an article, you can then restore the images. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. RobRobpater (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

.... but is there a way to size infobox width? It appears to me the box has a maximum and minimum limit but cannot be set for a specific width independent of text content. 76.66.154.112 (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I request a Draft review to be based on verifiability and WP:CALC?

I keep getting reviewers that are arbitrarily rejecting my draft because they do not understand verifiability and WP:CALC

Is it possible to request a reviewer that understands verifiability and WP:CALC?

The draft is here: Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source

Matthewhburch (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Matthewhburch. In my opinion, your article in its current form does not convincingly establish that the specific discrete topic is notable. I see no issues pertaining to routine calculations, although the issue of original research and synthesis may be a problem for reviewers. When you delete the assessments of previous reviewers from your draft, it makes it difficult for new reviewers to understand the history. And when you state you will do the same in the future, that makes it far less likely that someone will volunteer to review your submission. I have not heard complaints that our AfC reviewers do not understand verifiability. This is a collaborative project, and a collaborative attitude goes a long way here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for your response, Cullen328, but unless you can provide a Wiki rule indicating that I must allow clutter to build on my article page, do not restore the comments and notices I have removed. That having been said, Everything in that article is verifiable, and the routine calculations prove it's inherent notability. If you have a specific example of something that is not verifiable, or question any part of the math which defines the article as notable due to the efficiency potential, then please address what you question in an actionable, specific manner. Matthewhburch (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability in Wikipedia terms is established by significant coverage of the specific topic in reliable, independent sources. It is not established in any way, shape or form by calculations. So, my actionable request is to point to the specific reliable sources that discuss the specific topic of your draft article in detail, Matthewhburch. I won't restore anything to your draft, but what you call "clutter", many experienced editors would call "useful information about the review history of a draft article". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328:Please note in WP:NOTE: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" Verifiable data and routine calculations demonstrating a clear advantage of one method over another is notable. The specific reliable sources that discuss the specific topic are already there, because a method is a combination of technologies. The rest is math. Math is believed (by most people anyway) to be verifiable as well. Matthewhburch (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Matthewhburch, I have said nothing about "fame, importance, or popularity" since many obscure topics are notable because of the coverage they have received. After reading the talk page of your draft, I see that other experienced editors have described your draft article as original research. I agree. Wikipedia does not publish original research, and that is policy and therefore non-negotiable. I suggest that you submit your article to a publication that does publish original research. Their number is legion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328:You indicate that obscurity is no barrier to notability. You understand that this is an obscure topic, yet simple to describe via easily verifiable data and routine math. I have provided three examples. It's obscure enough that nobody has bothered to create a name for the class of methods, like was done for Beam-powered propulsion, but that doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that it isn't notable. And it certainly doesn't mean that it's WP:OR Matthewhburch (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Matthewhburch. When Wikipedians use the word "notable", they mean that a subject has been written about extensively in publications with editorial oversight, such as books, magazines, scientific journals, etc. The focus of your article appears to be in delivering a payload in space efficiently by using the remote fueling process described in the section "A Practical Remote Fuel Method", about which you appear to have written a book. For this method to be "notable" in the Wikipedia sense, a number of scientists and/or professional science writers would need to have written about it. The references you provided describe technological items that could be used as part of a payload delivery system, but do not discuss remote fueling of a payload in transit. Action: Find some references that do discuss this. Also, in several places you have included your own opinions and conclusions; a Wikipedia editor must be neutral and only summarize what others have written, so that the result is an encyclopedia article and not an essay. Action: change such affirmative statements (for example, "we cannot build a Bussard ramjet", "this is not a feasible method", "it is irrefutable"), to sentences referring to published sources which verify that experts in this area agree with these statements (for example, Professor X of Y University, in his book ZZZ, confirms that....", or "As reported in XXX journal, experiments conducted at the ABC space research lab have demonstrated that ..."). —Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Anne Delong, for explaining clearly, and better than I did, the type of coverage of a topic that establishes notability. Matthewhburch, it seems to me that not only have you failed so far to furnish that kind of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but you have so far declined to address the core issue. Yes, relative obscurity is no barrier to notability, IF and only if the topic has received the coverage needed. You have been told many times now what our standards are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Thank you Anne, for offering constructive and useful feedback. I have addressed the addressable parts of what you have mentioned already as I worked with another editor. However, it is not possible to reference any other document on the specific method that demonstrates a practical method, except the one I have written, because that specific subset of Draft:Propulsion methods utilizing fuel accelerated from a remote fuel source has never been published. However, since it is a method of using existing technologies, defining the existing technologies that can be used to implement the method clearly define the method itself. The very clear and simple math describes the massive efficiency gains possible, which makes it notable. Obscurity, as you say, should not prevent article creation when it is very clearly obvious that an article is valid, verifiable, notable, and supported by simple calculations. Matthewhburch (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox vs. Sub page - which is better & why?

Hello,

I'm trying another article (this time for an association), but decided to start the article as I had done before, which was in my sandbox - is it ok to do this instead of creating a subpage? I marked in my sandbox and when it is time to submit the article for review, I will remove this userspace draft tag - Please advise if this is correct.

It seemed easier to create the content in the sandbox and then submit for review - does it not? what is the subpage's purpose anyway? I created a test/subpage but I still don't get it so it just sits there on my userspace, - is it ok to go to the sandbox (it is also a subpage of the user space) - I can then ask editors to take a look before i submit my article?

Also - I tried to find my old message about creating the sub page but it is gone (nine days ago) - is there a time limit to answer questions in the teahouse? Thanks in advanceAdBCWi14 (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AdBCWi14. A sandbox page is just an easy to remember name for a type of user subpage. You can use your sandbox page for any type of experimentation or article development you wish, as long as the ultimate goal is improving the encyclopedia. Active editors often have many user subpages, because they are working on several projects simultaneously. To start a new user subpage, just type a slash (/) after your user page URL in the box at the top, add a nickname for the page after the slash, and hit enter. You will be asked if you want to start a new page with that name, and when you do so, an edit window appears. Just start editing. But if you only need one page, just use your sandbox.

Old Teahouse questions get archived. You can search the archives using the search function available on this page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I need a reflist template to complete my references but I don't know what that is!

The message I received was:

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).

Could anyone tell me how to correct this error? I have been to the help page but am none the wiser and I am sure I followed the WP video on the topic of referencing.

Thanks,

I added nowiki tags to clean things up at the Teahouse.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to add a references section at the end of your article, and then start a new line. Add {{reflist}}, which is the wikicode to display your list of references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename

Hellow fellow Wikipedians! I just recently got a rename, as of this policy, so my name is now MrWoohoo, not BrandonWu! Can someone take a look at my user page and my talk page at the notices? Also, I have a new signature that I give credit to Figureskatingfan! Thanks Christine! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 22:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse BrandonWu, oh sorry, I mean MrWooHoo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Am I ready to submit a draft?

Would an editor be able to tell me if my article looks ready for submission and if so, how do I go about doing it properly.

Thank you, Jet 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

You can submit it and wikipedians will check itSillyPotatoe (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That's true, SillyPotatoe, but you haven't told Jet1950 how to do that! Jet1950, just insert {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article. And while you're about it, add a lede - an introductory paragraph, before the first section heading, summarising who he was and what he did. You don't need any references in this, provided the information in it is all referenced in the main part of the article. --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Colin,

Thank you for your help. I'll give it a try.

Jet 22:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

Fixing and Verifying the Page: Charles Koppelman

Hello, I would like to fix this page, but am having trouble because of "Conflict of Interest". Could someone please edit the page of any promotional tone as well as try and fix the page so there are no more warnings at the top. I am also trying to add a picture to the top of the page but someone requested to delete it due to the fact that it wasn't properly described as Copyright, etc. Thanks, Charles Koppelman's Office YogiOffice (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

For the picture you need to say where you got it from.SillyPotatoe (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You need more than to say where you got it from. The copyright holder must explicitly release it under a suitable license, either publicly, or emailing Wikipedia via the OTRS system. Please see WP:donating copyright materials.

As for the article, on a quick look, it seems to be well-referenced now, but the language is still a bit problematic. "Broke into the music business" is the language of hype, not of encyclopaedias. And "was championed as the savior of the brand" would be acceptable only if the source had pretty much those words. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing and perfecting a new page

Hi guys,

I'm very very new to wikipedia, and I've just had my first article accepted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RESIST_(non-profit) It is classified as start class, and I believe it needs to be categorized and beefed up a bit. I'm working now on trying to connect it to other pages so it is no longer an orphan, but I could use some help on categorizing it, or bettering it in general. any suggestions or helpful efforts would be very greatly appreciated. Thank you! maggie Mkmcmanus (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears someone has already taken care of categorizations. Congratulations on your first article! Keihatsu ^talk 17:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Licence

I know Wikipedia has strict policy about copy right. I have seen 114 years old picture of Kohat railway station on the net. Can I add it to article about Kohat? or is it still copy right violation? neither owner nor source is traceable. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Aftabbanoori. In the United States, where Wikipedia's servers are located, a photo published before 1923 is no longer covered by copyright. Most other countries have similar rules. I think that you are safe in uploading a photo that old to Wikimedia Commons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks dear Cullen Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 17:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Post requires more notable sources

Hi there! I'm writing a page about Cooper's Hawk Winery and Restaurants, a restaurant chain in the Midwest. Before writing, I followed formats that other restaurant chains used for their Wikipedia pages. While I referenced Cooper's Hawk's website a few times, I also included more outside sources from reputable websites and newspapers. In fact, the number of third-party sources I used was more than what I found for other restaurant chains.

In the end, the page was rejected, and the reasoning was because I did not include enough third party sources, and it sounded like an advertisement. I've since revised the content and taken out phrases that may seem bias, but I'm not sure what to do about the number of sources. If I add more third party sources (I have six right now), it will make the page longer, and increase the risk of it sounding like an advertisement.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! CoopersHawk (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Try to put newspaper reports and latest article on a particular non-adv. article of a newspaper.Use neutral point of view. Focus more on its establishments and history than quality of food available there.Bishal Baishya 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Bishal BaishyaUser:Bishalbaishya2012Bishal Baishya 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

From your user-name, and the promotional nature of your draft, it appears you have a conflict of interest in editing Draft:Cooper's Hawk Winery & Restaurants. Please read, understand and follow our guidance on conflict of interest. Furthermore, it also appears that your username contravenes Wikipedia's username policy, so you should change that as well. - Arjayay (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, CoopersHawk. Your wording "formats that other restaurant chains used for their Wikipedia pages" betrays a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Those articles about restaurants should not have been written by people connected with those restaurants, just as an article about Cooper's Hawk should not be written by somebody connected with it. (My "should not" is a little bit exaggerated: writing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden, but it is strongly discouraged).

Some pointers about the language: "feature a modern, casual dining experience" is marketing speak. The English for "dining experience" is "meal". If a reliable source independent of the restaurant has described the place as "modern" or "casual", then those words can go in the article, suitably referenced; otherwise they are unsubstantiated puff, and don't belong there. And that's just the first sentence. :-) Do you see what I mean? --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Account Verificaction

Hello, I created my Wikipedia page about a month ago and I was told by someone that I have to edit random pages for a week in order to get verified by Wikipedia. I've been editing pages for three weeks now and yet nothing has happened. I think I was told the wrong thing to do. so how do I get my page to be verified by Wikipedia?Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. When you say verified, do you mean the autoconfirmed status that allows you to edit semi protected pages? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you,

By verified, I mean that when people try to search for me, lets say Google, my Wikipedia information/page should pop up as a search result.Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I found you quite easily. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to submit User:Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli for review as an article in the encyclopedia then place {{subst:submit}} at the bottom of the page. New users can do that right away. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

thank you so much. Although, Someone just put up my page for speedy deletion. Who and Why?!Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli! It quite frankly doesn't matter who put it up for deletion, although if you really care you can find that information in the page's history. I've removed the CSD tag as the page does not qualify for deletion under that criterion. Your request for review, which was a good move to avoid point of view and conflict of interest issues, has been declined with a note in the decline message explaining why. Based on that decline by Timtrent, I suggest you read up on our biography of living person - in-line citations guideline. If you need any further assistance, please do let us know and I'm sure someone would be happy to help you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli. It's good that you're interested in Wikipedia and want to contribute; however, it does seem like you might be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is all about. It also looks like you're not quite getting what a user page is for and what kind of information is permitted to be posted on it. So, I suggest you take a look at the following articles: "What Wikipedia is not", "Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé", "What may I not have in my user pages?" and "What may I have in my user pages?". All of these should help you better understand what you can and cannot do on Wikipedia. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Marchjuly. I think you are confused, or you edit conflicted with me and haven't read what I've written above. The draft is not tagged for deletion, it has been moved to Draft: space, and userspace drafts are most certainly okay to start in your userspace (even on your usepage if you are so inclined). This draft doesn't fall under WP:NOT, WP:NORESUMES, WP:UPNO or WP:UPYES at all. Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli, your draft isn't going to be deleted any time in the near future unless it is determined to be a copyright violation or you stop working on it (in which case it will likely be deleted in about six months as a stale draft). I know there are some users that enjoy taking drafts like these that appear to meet the WP:GNG and clean up the COI/POV issues so that the article may be accepted into mainspace. FireflySixtySeven is one of these users, and I'm wondering if he or she might be interested in this draft... I'll {{Tb}} them as well as the ping from here. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Technical 13. I am usually confused, but in this case I was editing my post when made your's. If you check, you'll see that I self-reverted the part about the page being tagged for speedy deletion and being deleted after I discovered the tag was removed [1]. Maybe you were still editing your reply to me when I made my self revert. Anyway, I guess I left the other information because I thought it might be still helpful to the OP, but in hindsight I should have removed those links as well because they only confused things and were off-topic. Sorry about that Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli and good luck with your article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The comments here helped a lot.Ndidi Okonkwo Nwuneli (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a re-write of a section

To whom this might concern,

There is a page I've been consulting on Yugoslavian history "namely "The Balkans") which is poorly written in parts (the English used simply does not make sense in places and the sentences themselves - where they do make sense - are overly long and somewhat confusing). For example:

"Bulgaria insisted on its status quo territorial integrity, divided and shared by the Great Powers next to the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78) in other boundaries and on the pre-war Bulgarian-Serbian agreement. Provoked by the backstage deals between its former allies Serbia and Greece on allocation the spoils at the end of the First Balkan War, while it fights at the main Thracian Front, Bulgaria marks the beginning of Second Balkan War when attacked them. The Serbs and the Greeks repulse single attacks, but when the Greek army invaded Bulgaria together with an unprovoked Romanian intervention in the back, regardless of the single won battles, Bulgaria collapsed."

here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans#20th_century

How does one request a language 'tidy up' from a knowledgeable subject matter expert (SME)? I have a good command of the English language but, given I am not an SME, I feel it would be unwise for me to embark upon such an edit in case I inadvertently change the author's intended meaning.

Thank you for your time...

SteveECrane (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hullo User:SteveECrane, welcome to the TeaHouse. A good copy-editor teases out the meaning in their own head before writing out what the original author really meant to say. If the meaning is totally opaque, the copy-editor will seek further clarification. Many of Wikipedia's good copy-editors have knowledge of military and political history, although one does not really need to be a subject matter expert to edit this type of subject. Given the controversial subject matter (and I assume a lengthy article), wise copy-editors will probably avoid it until and unless they can do it justice. So, put {{copyedit}} at the top of it (or perhaps {{Copy edit-section}} at the top of a section) and trust to the collected and individual wisdom of WP:GOCE. It might take a very long time though. A somewhat shorter time (but still perhaps a month or two) by requesting it on the Requests page at WP:GOCE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

Greetings, Teahousers. I have another basic question that I hope you can help with. I have been a member of a local astronomy club (the Astronomical Society of New South Wales) for some years. I notice that it does not have a WikiPedia page, and I would like to create one.

Provided I can support notability, etc, is there any conflict of interest being a club member? I have never been a club official, never been paid - just a regular member. Reading the guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest it does not seem to fall within the strict definition, but I want to make sure I get it right. If not a direct COI, should I declare my membership somewhere for transparency? Gronk Oz (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, Gronk Oz, and thanks for the question. Quoting a section of the COI policy, Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia. I think this addresses two parts of your question. First, yes you technically do have a mild COI as there is a relationship there outside of Wikipedia. Since you obviously are not here for the sole purpose of promoting the club, it comes down to the second part of the quote - does common sense tell you that you will be able to neutrally write about the topic? One challenge can be making sure that everything you write about the subject is verifiable - it can be difficult to "forget what you know" and rely on reliable sources.

If you do choose to write the article, you could consider adding Template:Connected contributor to the talk page to encourage a little extra scrutiny. If you wanted to write a draft, feel free to ping me and I can review it for you before it is moved to mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I will do that; it will take a while to get the draft ready for review, but then I will take you up on your kind offer to review it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add a little bit of personal experience here, Gronk Oz. I have been a member of the Sierra Club for 38 years, but have never been an officer or an employee. I disclose that mild conflict of interest on my talk page. I have written many biographies of notable Sierra Club leaders and also one about a wilderness property owned by the club. I do my best to write from the neutral point of view, and have never had any significant criticism of any of those articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 DoneThanks for the suggestion, Cullen. I copied your disclosure and adapted it on my own user page; it looks like a good way to provide that desired transparency.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

DC Talk Album Chart

I was trying to do an album chart on the DC Talk page, but it didn't work. Can you help me? Wikiedsir (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikiedsir, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first big issue is that the <timeline> tag was misspelled as <timelime>. Once that is fixed, the timeline returns a couple syntax errors that need to be fixed. I'm not familiar with using the timeline tool, so I can't really help you beyond that, but hopefully someone else can help you out if you can't get it. Good luck! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why was my draft declined?

I made my draft of South East Asian International Airlines (Seair-i) but it was declined. It is a new airline separate from Tigerair Philippines. Why was it declined. Maybe you could perfect it because it doesn't look right and I couldn't fix it.

From ggghhj123 Ggghhj123 (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ggghhj123. The reviewer explained that the main problem with your draft is a lack of references to independent sources required to show notability. The airline's own website is not independent. Find independent coverage and add that to the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

But if it is a new airline, it is possible that it has not yet been written about in enough places to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability; if that is the case, Ggghhj123, then Wikipedia cannot have an article about it yet. --ColinFine (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

First article - how do improve it? how do I know if it will be accepted?

I've edited a few things on Wikipedia before, but never drafted an article from scratch for inclusion like I have done for "Edward M Fram" - how do I know if it is "good enough" and how can I improve it? I'm trying to upload a picture for it but am unsure how to do this. Any other suggestions to make it better would be warmly received! -Ed. Edfram (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again EdFram. Please read Referencing for beginners for instructions on proper formatting of references. Your user name indicates a possible Conflict of interest. If so, please declare it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

uploading photos

Hello, really silly question I'm sure ... but how do I go about uploading an image (in simplest way possible please as I'm a newbie!) Thanks in advance, Ed. Edfram (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Edfram. There are some things that can't really be simplified, but I will do my best. If you took the photo yourself, and the photo is of something not subject to copyright, and you are willing to release the photo under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then it is pretty simple. Go to our sister project Wikimedia Commons, and follow the simple instructions there to upload the photo. After you upload, you will be provided with the proper wikicode that you can copy and paste into a Wikipedia article, to display the photo there.

However, if someone else took the photo, things get much more complicated. We need to know the subject, the date, who took it and where you found it. It is likely you can't use a copyrighted photo. Limited exceptions are described at WP:NFCI. I tried to keep it as simple as possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - most helpful :)

I wanted to include a photo for my first article "Edward M Fram" ... the picture dates from c.1952 and it is of the person who the article is written about. It is from my family's old photo collection - can I use the "simple" upload for this in your view? Thanks Edfram (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are an heir or executor authorized to freely license the photo, then proceed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

guidance for academic researchers

Is it acceptable to create articles about your own research to help communicate its findings to the public (otherwise it remains locked behind paywalls?). (Ii) What makes research notable? (iii) what are the criteria that make an academic notable? Publication? A national Award? Is there any guidance?

I can see that Wikipedia wants more academic editors, but as yet I cannot identify specific guidance on academic editing issues. Are there any? Open Research (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If your research has not only been officially published, but has also been the subject of substantial coverage in independent, reliable, sources, it may be suitable for an article. However, you would have a conflict of interest in presenting this - for example, you would find it difficult to present a neutral point of view if some of that coverage was critical of your research, or presented alternative scenarios. We would not, therefore, recommend that you wrote about your own research.
With regard to the notability of academics, please see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - Arjayay (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the conflict of interest issues raised above, it would be acceptable if you went to an article's talk page and mentioned that a new piece of academic research on the topic is available, providing relevant information. This would allow interested editors to read your work and, if warranted, integrate it into existing pages. Additionally, if you're an academic with expertise in a field, I would strongly encourage you to work on improving articles relevant to your area of interest (steering clear of citing yourself). Keihatsu ^talk

19:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much both. I have found this policy note about citing your own work:

'Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, includingWP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasison your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion'

which is helpful. Open Research (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Are decisions on changes made to articles decided by majority or seniority of editors?

Could someone please explain how the process is supposed to work?

(Article in question - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Controversies_section_heading) Thank you. Darknipples (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Darknipples: In a way, neither, actually! Consensus is the primary way of making decisions on Wikipedia. Essentially, all decisions should be made based on the input of all participating editors, with an effort to meet all legitimate concerns and make compromises if need be. In cases where things get tough, there are other venues to get third-party opinions from other experienced editors (such as third opinions, dispute resolution, and requests for comment). Essentially this means that while the majority usually matches up the consensus, it is not just a majority vote that determines decisions, nor are minority viewpoints necessarily left out. See Wikipedia:Consensus for details. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input User talk:SuperHamster. Should I reach out and talk to each editor/watcher listed for this page, or just wait for a certain period of time for all of them to comment? If a compromise cannot be reached, we will use one of the options you mentioned to resolve the issue. Thank you! Darknipples (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Eh, I haven't read the discussion, but it seems to be rolling along and getting more than sufficient input. There doesn't look like a need to call for input from other editors at the moment. It's been less than a day, after all.

As a side note, as far as I'm aware, you can't tell what users have a page watchlisted. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have written my first article, but am unsure if I've done it correctly.

Could someone please take a look at the article I've written about the painter "Richard Earl Thompson". It's my first article and I'm not sure if I'm missing anything I need to include or if I'm formatting correctly. I would like to have an info box in top right, but I'm not sure how to do it.

Thank You, Jet 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

From a quick look, it seems to be like quite a promising draft. One suggestion relates to the tone of the article. It's very nicely written, but on Wikipedia we aim for very factual, dispassionate language. So in the introductory paragraph, for instance, you might want to trim down the more visual or emotive language, or details that are not immediately relevant. I would eliminate the interjection about World War I, the stock market collapse, shifts in general attitudes in society, etc. Also, things like "his works are meditations on nature's harmonious perfection, which he visualized in his mind's eye and refined on canvas" is not really appropriate to put in Wikipedia's voice. If a reviewer has said these things, you could quote the reviewer, but the encyclopedic voice must be more detached.

I also noticed that you have many references that repeat. You can solve this problem by naming a reference, rather than spelling the whole thing out each time. See citation guidelines for details. Good luck! Keihatsu ^talk 17:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Keihatsu. I will try to change the tone as you suggest. Much of the language was from the articles written about him that I have referenced. I referenced his biography many times because I thought it was necessary when using information from the book. How often do I need to reference the book?

I really appreciate your help. Jet 18:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jet1950 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Jet. Ideally, every piece of information about the topic should be referenced to a source; so any paragraph without a reference is suspect (except in the lede to the article, which usually summarises material from elsewhere in the article); and in some passages every sentence should have a reference. As Keihatsu said, you can use named references to do this (and I've replaced Keihatsu's URL above by a wikilink to the section). You probably want to reference different pages within the same source, and you can use the template {{rp}} to do this. --ColinFine (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

VxWorks editing question

I have been updating VxWorks and now I get a message that the article has many disambiguous links but when I check it says there are none??Robpater (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Robpater. That link is added with the {{dablinks|date=June 2014}} text at the top of the article. If it no longer applies, you can remove it :) Sam Walton (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robpater (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I delete an upload in progress?

The page appears but I have not saved it. I accidentally selected a version of my article without a photo. Can I add the photo later, or can I delete the current unsaved version and upload a pdf with the photo? Kmillett (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kmillett, and welcome to the tea house. I'm afraid I'm not quite catching the meaning of your question. Did you try to create a new page, but forgot to upload a photo? If so, don't worry—everything here can be done iteratively. You can save the page, then click edit again to add a photo or any other additional information you'd like. If ever you create a file or a page but then change your mind and want it to be deleted, just add {{db-g7}} to the top and an administrator will delete it for you.Keihatsu ^talk 14:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with Jesse Rose page

Hi,

I am writing on behalf of the management of Jesse Rose and the article that was written for Jesse Rose was declined. Can somebody please help me and give me some feedback why this was declined? We want to get the page up as soon as possible. Jesse Rose is a DJ/producer and he has been around for a while so there are enough sources and references. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jesse_Rose

Sean.holbrook (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sean.holbrook and welcome (back?) to the Teahouse. Your article was declined because it does not reach the required threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. To establish that the topic is notable, you need to show significant coverage in reliable independent sources. At the moment you have two references, one of which is a blog post and doesn't count towards notability. You need to find more people who have written that Jesse Rose deserves attention. You also appear to have a conflict of interest if you are representing Jesse Rose's management - please also read this guideline. Good luck! Philg88 ^♦talk 09:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Philg88| Thank you for the reply. I am not actually working for the management. It is more like a learning project. I tried to write it as neutral as possible. The two sources I used, I took it from another wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro_house#cite_note-guardian-29 So you recommend to add more sources?

Sean.holbrook (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sean.holbrook:. Yes, you need to find more sources according to the criteria I described above.  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sean. I'm afraid it does not make any difference whether you are working for them at present or not: you have told us enough to show that you have a conflict of interest. That doesn't meant that you may not work on the article, but you need to be very very cautious, and make sure you follow the suggested practice for editors with a conflict of interest. One more point: you may want to get the article up as soon as possible: Wikipedia does not. Wikipedia wants to get as good an article as possible (which includes the possibility of no article at all, if sufficient independent sources do not exist) and doesn't care how long that takes: see there is no deadline. To me (and I suspect many other editors) when I see somebody saying they want to get an article up as soon as possible, especially if they are connected with the subject, I immediately suspect that they are here for the purpose of promotion, which is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia. My suggestion would be that you collect independent reliable sources for Jesse Rose, and if you think there are enough to ground an article, submit a request via requested articles, and leave it for somebody else to write when they choose. Then if you would like to help us improve Wikipedia, there are many other articles you can work on where you haven't got a conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Would like the know the procedure for requesting deletion of Indore - Chandigarh Express as the article has been written about a train that had not been introduced when the article was written and has significant shortcomings. Superfast1111 (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Superfast1111. You say that the train "had not been introduced when the article was written", which implies that the train is running now. Do you know? The first solution to an article with outdated information is to improve and update the article. If you have the knowledge and the interest, I encourage you to do so. If you are convinced that the topic is not notable, then please follow the instructions at Articles for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This announcement from the railway company said that service was to begin in early April, 2014. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

True but was it fair to create an article in February 2013 for a service that is introduced in April 2014 & expecting some other editor to clean up / suitably edit the article to a decent standard. Why should credit of an article creation go to a fake article? Superfast1111 (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Superfast1111: WP:FUTURE outlines our policy on articles about things that have yet to come. Essentially, articles on future things are acceptable as long as they are notable and are almost certain to take place. Just because something hasn't taken place yet doesn't necessarily mean it's not worthy of an article, nor does it make it "fake" or anything of that sort. The way I like to look at it is if the future event were to be cancelled, it would still have received enough coverage to be notable enough for Wikipedia.

As for the "credit of an article creation", I'm not sure what the issue is there. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and nothing is stopping anyone from improving the article now that it needs updating. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Superfast1111: I've added two references to the article. Whereever possible, it's always best to try to find references rather than consider deletion an option.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

want to add two header rows to a two-column format

Hi,

I'm trying to set up a double column to show the name of an office-holder in one column, and the years of service in the second column. I've found out how to do that.

However, I would also like to have two header rows that span both columns, to have the name of the office in the top row, and some detail about the office in the second row.

Is this possible to do (without much knowledge of formatting)?

Here's what I would like it to look like: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat. I looked at the code for those columns, though, and there seems to be a lot of data built into them, so I can't just use them as a template.

Thanks!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. It sounds like you want the below which uses colspan="2". See more at Help:Table. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A
B
C1	C2
D1	D2
E1	E2

HI, PrimeHunter. Thanks for the response. However, I'm not sure a table will work, because I want to list several officer-holders, like the example of the US Supreme Court justices. That article displays 3 or 4 columns side-by-side. Is it possible to have 3 or 4 tables side-by-side? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:You can put tables side by side by essentially putting those tables within another table. A simpler way to do this, though, is to use the col-templates, as the Supreme Court Justices example does. See the example usage for an idea of how it works. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I initially asked about using columns. But, I still don't know how to have a single cell at the top of a two-column display, the same as the Supreme Court justices example does. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at the code I used above. If this is not the table layout you want then please explain the difference. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I site a source?

I'm having a lot of trouble siting my sources. I have still done the ref thing. Can someone help me?

Spacedude3000 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Spacedude3000, and welcome to the Teahouse! To cite a source, just add this next to the passage you're citing:

<ref>Your citation here</ref>

Next, go to the bottom of the page, add a section called "References", and then add {{Reflist}} there. Very simple!

If you have any further questions, you can check out the page about citations, or just ask again here. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Another useful resource, Spacedude3000, is Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Creating my first page on Wikipedia

Hi, I work in the tourism business in Ireland. I see several instances where I could add pages to Wikipedia. I tried to create my first page some time back to learn the process. I found the experience frustrating. I will have another go and see how it goes. I felt there should be a simple template for novices to add basic pages. Possible more experienced editors could then add to the pages..... just my experience. Poshpaddy (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Poshpaddy! Welcome to the teahouse. Thank you for letting us know about your experience. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Poshpaddy. I think the page Your First Article might help you in creating new pages. Of course, wiki-markup scares a lot of newcomers, so that's what the Teahouse is here for! And you're more than welcome to fool around with the code at the sandbox. Once you get used to the markup language, you'd be amazed at how much we can do with it. Happy editing! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Poshpaddy. Another good resource for people learning how to write articles here is A Primer for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting assessment

Is there any place where you can request quality assessments for particular articles? Obviously, GA and FA articles have specific reviews but I'd like to know whether articles - particularly articles I've created - are Start-class or C-class or B-class etc.

I suppose if there's a particular article I have in mind, it would be Goodgame Studios (presumably start/stub) or The Mother (How I Met Your Mother character). But very few of articles created by me have been rated, and I'd imagine there's some rule against rating articles you've created or worked substantially on. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I normally rate an article I've worked on as C-class if I think it's appropriate. I wouldn't rate an article I've worked on as B-class or higher; it wouldn't really be appropriate (though I don't think there are specific rules about it).

The best way, perhaps, is to add the article to appropriate WikiProjects, and if it hasn't been rated there yet, it will be eventually, by the members of that WikiProject. If it already has a rating at that WikiProject, you could ask at the WikiProject for it to be re-rated? Some have particular processes for this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What to do with an IP's userpage

I noticed a completely non-notable article being created on an IP's userpage - User:86.40.242.105. The page was created by Dncollins17 and not the IP.

If this article was located in the main namespace, I'd know what to do - tag with {{db-a7}}. But the template only applies for articles in the main namespace, and Twinkle reminded me by not showing me the option to tag the page as such.

What would I do in this situation? The article wasn't even made by the IP - what deletion template should I use?

Thanks in advance. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I just tagged it csd U5...not a webhost violation. That should do it, but an admin might have a different idea. John from Idegon (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Just curious.

Sometimes when I just roam the Wikipedia on a Sunday morning walk I come across a small text on some pages saying "Mark this page as patrolled". What is that? Is it an indication that I should do something. - W.carter (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:New pages patrol/patrolled pages - you don't have to do anything, in which case the same box will appear to the next patrolling editor who views the page.
However, if the page looks "appropriate for Wikipedia, even if it requires significant work" you can mark it as patrolled, or you can propose it for deletion, or, if it needs certain work, you can tag it with the appropriate tag(s). - Arjayay (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing user name' capitalization

How do I change the capitalization of my user name? When I originally signed up as a member, I did not capitalize my user name. Wikipedia automatically capitalized it. How do I un-capitalize it?

data (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi data, welcome to the Teahouse. The first character of user names is automatically capitalized. I see you have found how to customize your signature. You can place {{lowercase title}} on User:Ltcomdata and User talk:Ltcomdata to display the page heading in lower case, but that is all you can do. Logs like user contributions and page histories will always show it in upper case. You can type the name in lower case when you log in but others will not see what you typed. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you user:PrimeHunter. I suppose I cannot change the capitalization of any non-initial characters either? data (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Only the first character is automatically capitalized. The others are as they were entered at account creation. Changes can be requested at Wikipedia:Changing username. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! data (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I recieved an error while trying to replace a citation

I am having trouble understanding how to properly replace an old citation with a more relevant one. Specifically, "The named reference".

Link to the page with the error - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States#Notes_and_references

Darknipples (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Darknipples. We have a way of defining a reference once, and then using it multiple times in an article, by using "ref name=" in the wikicode. In this case, a master reference was defined as "Clinton pushes Congress to pass new gun control legislation". Probably what happened was that a reference was created with that name, and used several times in the article. During the course of editing over time, the master reference was deleted, but not the secondary use of the reference. So, there are two solutions: restore the master reference from the article history if it is a solid reference, or delete the secondary use of the reference. Because articles related in any way to gun control legislation are highly controversial and subject to ArbCom restrictions, I recommend caution, and that you raise the matter on the article's talk page first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"restore the master reference from the article history if it is a solid reference, or delete the secondary use of the reference."

I am unaware as to how to do either of these, as I am a novice. Any suggestions on where to obtain step by step instructions for accomplishing either of these two options?

"Because articles related in any way to gun control legislation are highly controversial and subject to ArbCom restrictions, I recommend caution, and that you raise the matter on the article's talk page first."

How do I access the article's talk page? Thank you for your help. Your advice is very appreciated. I love wikipedia and wish to learn how to contribute properly. Thank you! Darknipples (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Darknipples. Please read Referencing for beginners for the basics of how references are formatted.

When you are reading any Wikipedia article, there will be a menu bar at the top of the page. One of the choices will be called "Talk". Clicking on "Talk" will take you to another, behind the scenes, page. That is where editors interested in that page discuss possible changes to improve the article. Because you are a novice, I am willing to make the correction for you. Or you can try it yourself. Just let us know. The main thing I want you to understand is that you are welcome to make positive changes to any article here. Your input is appreciated, and we want you to edit. But I also want you to know that editing in highly controversial areas can be tough at times. Kind of like stepping into a boxing ring for the first time, although the punches are verbal rather than physical. I want you to be prepared, and I hope that you will continue editing here. Please feel free to return to the Teahouse with questions at any time, or ask on my talk page. Five years ago, I was in your shoes as a complete beginner, and I was grateful to get a friendly welcome. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

To find the reference in the history, you click on "History" or "View history" at the top of the page and pick some arbitrary date and see if the reference had all the needed information on that date. If it doesn't, you would want to search earlier if the reference was already deleted or later if it hadn't been included at all yet.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •
21:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Tool to order citations numerically

Hi! I was wondering if there was a tool to order the citations at the end of a sentence from: "I like pancakes.[32][15][9]" to "I like pancakes.[9][15][32] Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Bananasoldier! I don't believe there is a tool for that, but we have some very talented coders around here on Wikipedia who I'm sure would be willing to make one and help improve the editing experience. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 19:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: Hi. It seems that I'm a bit late, but there's a very simple way to do this. If we have <ref name = "ref32"/><ref name = "ref15"/><ref name = "ref9"/>, then we can change this to <ref name = "ref9"/><ref name = "ref15"/><ref name = "ref32"/> to produce your desired output. --Jakob (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I find a volunteer to have a wiki page edited, updated, and written better? Thanks

How does one go about having a wiki page improved i.e. adding a photo, improve the writing and information as well as update? It's a bout a race car driver. Thanks!190.238.199.210 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome (back?) to the Teahouse 190.238.199.210! You can't necessarily get someone to "volunteer" to have a wiki page edited, but you can get someone from the Guild of Copy Editors to improve your articles' writing, like you said. Maybe some more experienced Wikipedians know if there are "volunteers" on Wikipedia. Cheers! WooHoo! • Talk to BrandonWu! 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, you can do it yourself if you have the time, suitable reference material, and the inclination. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is that all sorts of people can contribute to it. Click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page you want to change, then "Show preview" once you're done to be sure it worked like you intended before Saving your changes. Registering as a user is optional, but recommended. Need help? Click on the "Help" link at left, or of course you can ask here... --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@190.238.199.210: Post on the reward board. An experienced Wikipedian might offer to help you. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)