Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Averruncus (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 11 February 2015 (→‎non-admin AfD closure: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Melecie, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.
Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host
New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2-3 days.

non-admin AfD closure

recently an Afd discussion (here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christi_Lynn_McGarry) was closed by a non-admin. I believe this closure was premature and inappropriate. The closing user account is only a month and a half old. I also believe the closing user may have a COI with the subject due to location. This user has also semi-recently been blocked and has had issues with inappropriate editing. I don't want to re-open the AfD myself, since I have contributed to it. How do I dispute the closure? Deunanknute (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, but don't know the logistics. Also note that the closer was one of the premature RfA people from awhile ago, and has been blocked recently. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 17:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I insert a picture?

Hello I am new here and would like to know how to put a picture on a page. It is one taken from my own camera.Lbhiggin (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted

I spent most of the afternoon writing a page about Modstox, pretty much the same as the BriSCA F1, BriSCA F2 and Hotstox page, yet it has been deleted and I have been given a warning.....This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Modstox, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont have a clue what I have done wrong or why the page was deleted, please can someone advise me please. I cited and referenced and done everything correctly.Nij4829 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you will have to ask user Coffee for his reasons because since the page has been deleted, I can't see its history. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 17:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user knows full well that they were advertising (and I would assume works for the company or is being paid to do the editing). Here's just a taste of the article: "The main focus for Modstox is low cost, easily attainable parts, durability, close performance, safety and most importantly fun." — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I will do that now Nij4829 (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nij4829:Don't bother, you know you are attempting to advertise for Modstox on this encyclopedia and I've told you it's not allowed. End of discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee I am not trying to advertise anything. I was simply trying to write a page just like the BriSCA F1, BriSCA F2, SuperstoxNij4829 (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the quotes you have posted, They are just snippets of information that I have found from the internet.

I am not in anyway or have ever been connected to the club, I just appreciate grassroots motorsport.

I will happily delete anything you deem as advertising. This is my first page, so I am sorry if I upset anyone or made a mistake.Nij4829 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous and Bad Citations

Recently I joined the Wikipedia to edit an article. I use wiki as a reference source for my school, but not as a primary source due to questionable sources. I also donate to support wikipedia because I believe in the content that wiki offers its readers. However, in the page I question, a user has continued to post defamatory and erroneous sources. I have deleted but they keep adding them back. Is there a solution to this? The information is quite harmful to the reputation of the page's focus. Page: Taylor Lianne Chandler. Thank you for your timeEatprayswimm (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of the references led to problems in the article. And the material was entered poorly. You may not like the information, but the sources are reliable. You can't take out material that has been reported in reliable sources, however unfortunate it appears for the subject of an article. The subject of the article can request that the entire page be removed, but that is generally done only for people that aren't well-known publically. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you define what Wikipedia classifies a reliable source? Information provided to the unreliable sources (such as enstarz, hollywoodgossip, etc.) has been done so by the subject, Taylor Lianne Chandler. They are personal interviews and no information has been verified by outside sources. This concerns me the current use of Wikipedia. Again, thank you for your time.Eatprayswimm (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section of text dissapearing?

Hi, not sure if its just on my browser, but the first paragraph of the 'Critical Reception' section on the page 'Zookeeper (film)' dosen't appear in the published article when I view it. Its there when you click 'edit source', but when reading the article it just dosen't show up. I've never encountered this before. Thanks, Jonie148 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonie148 I fixed it. There was a typo in the markup used to close a reference, this caused the software to include everything after that reference up to the "proper" end of the next reference to be included as the reference itself. It's a fairly common error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thanks for that Roger (Dodger67). --Jonie148 (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new article whose name duplicates an existing name

'Woca', in addition to the 2 uses presently in the DB, is the name of a native plant in Southern Oregon (or maybe wider). It was substantially used as a food by the native population before we Anglos pushed them aside, and grows in water as do water lilies. What I'd really like is for someone else to create this article, as I'm still very green on the site!

... Jerry Brown Geodejerry (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Geodejerry, also known as Jerry Brown. I am assuming that you are not the governor of California. If I am wrong, please let me know. Your question raises several implications. Should an article about a species be given the formal Latin name or the common name? That depends on which is used most often in reliable sources. If we have several articles, or potential articles, with the same name, how should each be named? Please read WP:DISAMBIGUATION for a detailed explanation. As for someone else creating the article? Maybe, but not highly likely. After all, YOU are the new editor motivated to bring this article to fruition. We need new editors. Please consider giving it a try. Read Your first article and return here to the Teahouse at any time to ask for advice. You can do it! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some people here anonymous?

It is stupid. When I signed up I saw no option for this. How do they? Why? I tried to thank someone that has all the numbers like 774.088669.399 but I can't. You should have to have a name here, I don't care what your name is but you should have one. I believe thier called IP adresses. DangerousJXD (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the teahouse DangerousJXD If you wanted to propose changing a wikipedia:policy the place to do that is here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) But I wouldn't recommend trying to change this one. Its well established and I think the vast majority of editors would want to keep it. For what its worth I completely agree with you. I think this is a policy (like several others I would change if it was in my control) that dates back to the earliest days of wikipedia. The idea was that we wanted to encourage as many people to be editors as possible so we didn't want to have any barriers to editing, people could just jump right in and start typing without having to establish a user ID. In the early days I think that made sense. Wikipedia needed to achieve a critical mass, get brand recognition, etc. Also, in those early days there were a lot fewer people on the Internet so those that were on it tended to be better educated than the average population. BTW, you are correct those numbers are Internet Protocol numbers, the unique number assigned to your device or computer that lets the rest of the Internet know where to send back requsts for data. If you make an edit without being logged in the system just takes your IP address and uses that as your user ID but of course as a result there are a lot of things that can't work as they would with someone who has an ID. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, DangerousJXD. There is an irony in the question you raise. There is an assumption among many that the best way to edit anonymously is to decline to open a Wikipedia account, and just edit. That is entirely incorrect. The editor's IP address is disclosed. That may reveal their home town, and in some cases, it may also reveal their school, their employer, their mobile phone carrier or other personal information.
On the other hand, an editor who creates an account, choosing a generic user name, disclosing no personal identifying information, and who edits in compliance with our policies and guidelines, enjoys the highest degree of anonymity. No one knows their gender, age, race, nationality, or even continent of residence. That's by far the best way to edit anonymously.
I choose another path. I believe in openness as an editor. I disclose my real name (Jim Heaphy), my home town, age, family and career information, and so on. I have nothing to hide and recommend openness for those who are fully prepared to be open. But many editors have legitimate reasons for anonymity. In my opinion, the best way to edit anonymously is to open an account and then to decline to reveal personally identifying information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DangerousJXD. To clarify a bit in plain talk, an IP number is sort of the address for your computer or phone, and having that number it's fairly easy for a person with computer knowledge to track that computer down. So not so anonymous. However, a computer or a computer address can be used by many people and that is why you cannot thank that "address". For example: Big companies or entire universities can have the same IP address, and thanking that you would be thanking everyone there! These shared IP addresses can sometimes result in "unusual" things. Like when the IP for the United States House of Representatives was temporarily banned from editing Wikipedia because someone there was using that address for vandalism. I have also seen somewhere here, can't remember where, that there are editors who live in countries where the Internet is sketchy or controlled in some ways, who prefer to edit from different IPs for some reason. Remember that this is an international site and it's open to everyone whatever their preferences in identifying themselves are. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 10:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "When I signed up I saw no option for this. How do they?". Anonymous users are simnply users who do not sign up. If you don't log in to your account then you are also anonymous. But as others say, "anonymous" means your IP address is revealed when you edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Sorry but all those arguments you make are arguments FOR having a user ID not against. As Cullen328 rightly pointed out you are MORE anonymous when you have a user ID but don't announce who you are then when you don't login and leave your IP address. I would never edit with just an IP address for that reason alone. I'm a bit of an extremist when it comes to the security of my computers and network and exposing my IP address would be something I would never want to do on ANY site. There is nothing about having a user ID that requires you to use the same IP address. I know that for a fact because I've logged in from different devices in different parts of the country. The use of anonymizers or things like the Tor browser are different and use of those is typically discouraged but can be allowed for people in the circumstances you describe. But even in those cases you can and would want to have a user ID rather than just leave whatever IP address the anonymizer generated, it puts one more level of indirection between you and your computer. I honestly can't see a good rational reason for not doing what @DangerousJXD: implied in his initial question and requiring that everyone login before they edit. I think its just one of those things that people cling to because its always been that way and they don't like change but I think Dangerous is totally right we should require people to login if they are going to make any edits. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MadScientistX11: I was not arguing either for or against ID or IP, simply stating how it worked. Please do not read an argument where there is none. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 13:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn AfD

I withdrew an AfD I proposed here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ale Resnik. How can I get it closed? Deunanknute (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, an uninvolved person will close it soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Biblioworm 13:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

topic about "the influence of sanctions to the economy of acountry" would survive in wikipedia

I would like to write my first article and I was considering "the influence of sanctions to the economy of the country" connected with recent events on Russia and past events in the world. Would this be a topic to survive on wikipedia? Thank you for your help in advance Lyondelaliberte (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lyondelaliberte - welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for considering contributing to Wikipedia. Regarding your subject proposal, you need to tread carefully when considering what to write. Read the policy on original research: simply writing a well-sourced essay stating your own conclusions from the references isn't for Wikipedia. Rather, you would have to summarise the debate and write about e.g. International sanctions during the Ukrainian crisis or 2014–15 Russian financial crisis, in a factual, neutral tone, drawing only on what other people have said about the topic (which, as you can see from the blue links, other people have already done). If you have additional sources to add to these articles, then that would help expand them as long as you quote them directly rather than draw your own conclusions from them.
Simply put, an essay-style analysis of most topics would probably not survive long, given the close scrutiny new articles get either at New Pages Patrol or Articles for Creation. In this case it would duplicate existing topics; in other cases, people would mark it as original research, which is better published elsewhere. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 07:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A properly written article about the economic effects of sanctions (in general, not about one particular country/instance) might be viable provided there are sufficient independent reliable sources such as academic journals or mainstream press that discuss the issue in some depth. I think it may be a good idea for you to consult experienced editors who are specifically interested in economics, you will find them at WP:WikiProject Economics. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internal error notice on a talk page

Hi - My first article was recently posted and I want to contact the reviewer who approved it. It was classified as a stub, and I would like to ask how I can improve it. However, the editor's Talk Page says "click here to leave a message", but doing that results in an error message (pasted below). Any thoughts?

[2b9facbe] 2015-02-11 00:46:36: Fatal exception of type Scribunto_LuaInterpreterNotFoundError

Buckmor54 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckmor54: Hi Buckmor. You could post to the user talk page in the usual manner but I believe I have just fixed the problem with the coding at User:Onel5969's talk page so the link at the top that gave this error should work now. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It worked perfectly. Buckmor54 (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tool down, editor already notified

A tool mantained by a veteran editor has been down for almost five months now, and that editor's talk page has three comments on it (including mine, today) from other users. What to do in that case? I would like to edit one page which uses that tool, but don't want to seem rude about it. Just today I wrote the third note on the veteran editor's talk page. The other two notes were written by two other different editors, within months of each other. In wikipedia editing time (if there is such a thing), is it the right time to do something about it? Capikiw (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Capikiw and welcome to the Teahouse! I have to guess based on your contributions you are talking about Atethnekos's Toollabs:bibleversefinder tool. Since it is on labs, it shouldn't be hard to get a new maintainer to be able to restart it if Atethnekos can't be found. This question would have been much better suited for WP:VPT, but you're in luck! If the maintainer can't be found there is a tool takeover protocol being developed and someone should be able to take responsibility for the tool to keep it up and running. :) I'll do some research on it and let you know what I find on your talk page. :) Happy editing — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about removing the User sandbox template?

This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the "User sandbox" template. How does one go about removing the User sandbox template? I created a page in my sandbox and submitted it for approval. After submitting it, I submitted it as a Draft, and then got this message on the top of the page. I am a little confused on the current status of the page sent in for approval. Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Milosinawava (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! I will do it for you, see the diff of my change to the draft to see how it is done for future reference. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 21:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Once the page is moved. Does that then clear my Sandbox and allow me to begin creating another page in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milosinawava (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, KylieTastic, but moving normally leaves a redirection around, so after Milosinawava moved it, there was a redirect left in their sandbox, so it might have looked to them as if it wasn't moved. I have cleared that redirect out, Milosinawava, leaving your sandbox empty. (I wouldn't normally go into somebody else's sandbox uninvited, but I thought you would find this more helpful). --ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was just in my Sandbox and contemplating that dilemma. So, thank you very much for doing that! So, at this point, where exactly is the Draft:Cecil Garland page residing as it awaits an editor to review? Milosinawava (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Draft:Cecil Garland, Milosinawava. It's just been reviewed, a few minutes ago, and I'm afraid it hasn't been accepted. Please read the links that Dodger67 has left you in the decline notice. --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How long does it take for a page to get approved from a draft?

How long does it take for a page to get approved from a draft, on average? I developed a page called Tallest buildings outside of Boston a while ago and it is still in draft form. Any suggestions or comments?Mountainfister2015 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! At the moment there is a very large backlog for drafts so possibly more than a month. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 21:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this about Draft:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Massachusetts_(Outside_of_Boston_city_limits)? That draft is not currently in the queue to be reviewed. If it is ready for review, click the green button to submit the draft. RudolfRed (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Setting expectations for article changes to be made.

I'm a marketing employee at the University of Arizona. Looking to avoid any conflict of interest issues, I suggested some updates on the article's talk page. I've included them below:

Provided new rankings data on our “talk” page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Arizona#Rankings

Provided new employment, enrollment and endowment figures — plus a suggestion to update endowment information under “Research” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Arizona#Enrollment.2C_Employment_.26_Endowment_data

Two questions:

1) Are there other actions I can take to help the changes make it to the article?

2) What expectations should I set to co-workers regarding the turnaround time for these requests?

Thanks for any time and help

Barrettbaffert (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Barrettbaffert: Conflicts of interest generally only appear when you're trying to change information in articles so as to convey a certain perception (i.e. give undue weight to the positive while giving no heed to the negative) as this can be harmful to Wikipedia's goal of presenting neutral information. It's a very strict policy that article content must be neutral. However, if you can cite it with a reliable source, and avoid these words that might be construed as puffing or inflating certain aspects of your organization, then you're fine. In this particular case though, there's no way to embellish ranking numbers. It's pretty open-shut, numbers are numbers, so I would advise just adding the rankings yourself and keeping the citations intact. I do have three suggestions though: (1) adding bare link as references is generally bad practice. There is a gadget that can help you add some special templates we have for citing sources (Go here; under the "Editing" section, you should see "refToolbar", check that. Now, when you go to edit a page, there will be a "Cite" link in the toolbar at the top of the edit window. Click it, and in the very first dropdown menu, you should see "cite web". From there a dialog box will pop up; fill in the boxes and you can cite your individual sources. It's quite useful.) (2) I'd suggest you add a date somewhere in the table so people now when this was relevant. (3) I'd suggest you go to your userpage here and create it, clearly stating your COI disclaimer. "COI Disclaimer: I work for .... If you feel I've erred in one of my edits, or one of my edits create bias, please don't hesitate to point it out to me on my talk page." All the best with editing and I hope to see you around! Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

patrolling

Recently "DragonflySixtyseven" patrolled my page. I would like to thank him or her, but I don't understand how to contact them. So I'll just park this comment in the "teahouse" for now and say Hi, and thank you Dragonfly Sixtyseven for patrolling my page. Lbhiggin (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, patrolling means that he checked that there was nothing illicit (against wiki policy) on your page. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forming an article about a person

Hi I am trying to form a wikipedia article about a person. Although my request was rejected twice hence the reasons first it was considered self promotion and second wikipedia asked for the significance and importance of that person whom I am trying to form the article about. My reasons wouldn't satisfy wikipedia. This person is active in production community in Turkey, and took place very important photo shoots of the world famous magazines, for example he is the line producer of the photo shoot of Harper's magazine took place in Cırağan palace. İstanbul featuring Jeniffer Lopez he also worked with world famous actors Daniel Craig and Kevin Spacey. He is the one in charge of the productions of Omega watches (Daniel Craig) and Kevin Spacey interview in İstanbul. However he didn't recieve awards for these works but his name was on the magazines that he was responsible for the production of these projects. So can you give me any advice on how can I put an article about him on wikipedia which wouldn^t be deleted. I will work on researching the proper citing techniques of wikipedia. Thank you sincereley 213.155.126.6 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the person you want to write an article about satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria? --Anand2202 (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 213.155.126.6. A Wikipedia article should be based almost entirely on what people unconnected with the subject have published about the subject in reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers). If these sources exist (and they don't have to be in English, or available online) then an article can be written based on them. If they don't exist, then it is impossible to write a satifactory article about the subject, and the attempt to do so will always fail. If there are articles about him doing these photoshoots, then that would go a long way to establishing his notability. But merely having his name to the photos is not enough: we require that other people have published material about the subject. The best place to look for the techniques is referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Info = Composition in Past Tense, right?

Shouldn't the articles be edited in 'past tense' especially when it pertains to an event? --Anand2202 (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anand2202. It depends. The past tense is usually used for events in the past, present for current and timeless facts, and for plot summaries of fictional works. See WP:TENSE. We could answer better if you told us which article you are referrring to. --ColinFine (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure of how to proceed, having had my article rejected.

I'd really appreciate some help! I'm trying to publish an article about the theatre company I work for - we're a well established, British, feminist theatre company, who have been running for 34 years, and it's a little weird that we don't exist on Wikipedia! So I wrote an article, trying hard to comply with the rules I had read in the guidelines, but my attempt was rejected for not being neutral. Is this because I work for the company in question? I absolutely understand that Wikipedia articles need to be neutral, but I'm unclear as to where I'm not complying. I don't include anything other than factual statements about the company - is it that I mention awards Clean Break have won? I've also included as many independent sources as I could find. My apologies for being dense here - I've never written a wiki article before and would really appreciate a steer as to where I'm going wrong! Many thanks, Cleanbreak (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Cleanbreak, the draft at Draft:Clean Break (Theatre Company) has a variety of problems, but given the sources that are already cited it looks like an acceptable article can be created. I would be very happy to assist you to get it into shape. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cleanbreak, as Dodger67 already said I can't see why this can not be turned into an article but it does need some attention first, so don't be discouraged. Also as you have stated a conflict of interest people will probably be more concerned with any perceived non neutral point of view. A few things jump out: firstly most of the references appears to be for awards with a lack of citation of the other text (all though it may actually be covered in the sources); the main section has a load of external links which makes it looks like self promotion. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cleanbreak. To echo what the others have said: this reads (unsurprisingly) very much as what Clean Break would want to say about themselves. That's not what Wikipedia is. An article should be based almost entirely on what other people unconnected with the subject have said about it (and published in reliable places). The article needs not to be exhaustive lists of courses, productions or anything else: the reader interested in these can follow the link to the company's website. The article should be predominantly text, summarising the history, activities and importance of the company (but, again, drawing exclusively from what others have written about it).
One other point: I'm afraid your user name probably contravenes Wikipedia's policy on user names, in that it is the name of an organisation. I suggest you create a new, personal account (you are free to use any pseudonym for it, as long as it doesn't suggest that you are representing the organisation) straight away, and abandon the existing account. --ColinFine (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have started the article here Clean Break (theatre company) Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to write and article on my father late Mr. Prakash Nayudu

and a menion of him in Wikipedia as he was a national level player of Table Tennis player and a Ranji Trophy cricketer. He was so of India's first Cricket Captain Col.C.K.Nayudu's son I request you to contribute to the article, if you know about him.Bariissh (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bariissh welcome to the Teahouse. Since you want to write about someone who is really close to you, it's very likely to create a conflict of interest. So I wouldn't recommend it. However if you can assure that you will be neutral when discussing the subject then there won't be any problem. Also the subject has to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. If not, refrain from creating an article. Before creating an article you better write it as a draft on your sandbox. That way we can review your content before moving it to mainspace. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who edits the main home Wikipedia page?

I don't see an option to edit it. Is it run by the top dogs up stairs or something? DangerousJXD (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousJXD: I wouldn't call them the "top dogs up stairs", but yes, only administrators can edit Wikipedia's main page. As you can imagine, this is necessary due to it being Wikipedia's most important page!
Note that the main page is rarely edited directly. Each section is transcluded from various project templates. For example, Wikipedia:Today's featured article is the place where editors review featured articles and queue them up to appear on the main page. Wikipedia:Did you know is where editors submit, review, and queue up entries for the "Did you know?" section of the main page. All editors can contribute to these projects, but ultimately it is the admins who do the final step of submitting the entries to get placed on the main page. If you do see an error on the main page, you can go ahead and report it at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi DangerousJXD. Main Page and templates displayed there can only be edited by administrators. Talk:Main Page displays some options if you want to suggest edits to different parts. If you cannot edit a page then it has a "View source" tab instead in the desktop version, and clicking there gives some information. I'm not sure how the mobile version works. PrimeHunter (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did I do?

OK so, on King of the Hill I added a reference. Under "reception" it says: Common Sense Media called King of the Hill "Wickedly funny at times, but not for all tastes". Then after that there was a citation thing which means it needs a reference. So I found the exact page and put the reference in (46). So my question is, did I do it right? DangerousJXD (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi DangerousJXD yes that is perfectly fine for a basic reference, however there are other templates that allow for a fuller reference to be added. If you use the normal wiki editor you can drop down the 'cite' menu on the top,then select the relevant template from the drop down templates list (in this case cite web). Use the form to fill in the key details (not all are needed) and add. I've already change the article as an example. It means you can add a title, the website, and date accessed to the entry in the reference list. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do I deal with WP:CRUSH

I am worried that a fellow editor may have the appearance of CRUSH. While I have had to re-examine my own methods of trying not to use civility to my own advantage, so to speak, I feel another editor may be using this tactic, perhaps unwittingly? Darknipples (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Darknipples. These are my personal opinions, not definitive answers. The essay WP:CRUSH that you mention, which has to do with civil POV pushing, discusses an important behavioral issue on Wikipedia. In my opinion, though, the essay has an overly pessimistic tone. Though the essay makes some good points, I disagree with other points. I advocate the "big picture" and the "long view". I recommend keeping in mind that the goal of this project is to create and improve an encyclopedia that summarizes all of human knowledge, that the encyclopedia gets better every day, that it will always have flaws and shortcomings, and that no one article or topic area is all-important. Long term productive editors tend to be generalist editors, interested in a wide range of topics, and with the skill set to foster collaboration and help resolve disputes in hot topics that they have no prior interest in. "Truly useful" editors bring the emotional attitude that underlies the neutral point of view to every dispute, and bend over backwards to try to understand and accomodate opposing viewpoints.
We have 4.7 million articles on pretty much every topic that the average mind can imagine. That doesn't mean that we need no new articles. We do. But it is worth keeping in mind that POV pushing and controversy affects a relatively small percentage of our articles. There are a massive number of articles to be improved, without any controversy whatsoever. Doing so as a break from battles can bring great satisfaction, and a renewed resolve to deal with the controversial ones in a more level-headed way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cullen. I appreciate your thoughts and suggestion. Darknipples (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cabals

What is the Cabal and how do I join it? Can I create my own cabal? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YoSoyUnHamster, welcome to the Teahouse :). There is no Cabal. The Cabals are an ingroup joke on Wikipedia. They don't actually exist, but people find pleasure in pretending they do. In order to "join" such a cabal, simply say you are a member on your userpage in one way or the other. A popular starting cabal would be the Penguin Cabal. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions. All the best, Taketa (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

adding my article to a category and subcategory

I added my article to the list of physicians within lists of physicians. Two problems arose. How do I direct the link to the subcategory? Also, on the page "Category: Physicians", the article "Alfred Worcester" has a separate page in the "Pages in Category "Physicians"" list, which I did not intend and don't know how to remove. Thank you.AgedCare14 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AgedCare14. There is no technical difference between subcategories and parent categories. You simply write the name of the category you actually want the article listed in. You didn't say which category you wanted but I have changed Category:Physicians to Category:Physicians from Massachusetts.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AS Wikipedia Biased, in absolutely any way?

Is Wikipedia biased, in absolutely any way al all? Please give a descriptive answer. Thank you. Frogger48 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Frogger, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Wikipedia strives to be as neutral as possible, per our policy on neutrality. Of course, being openly editable, some bias gets inserted into articles by editors, but we work to clean this up and make it non-biased.
However, we also have another policy on giving due weight to the various opinions. This may appear to make articles biased. For example, people who believe fringe theories about the Apollo 11 landing may view the article on the landing as biased, since the article does not primarily cover their theory. However, this is simply giving the various opinions the weight they deserve, based on the commonality of them. Most people do not believe the fringe theories about the landing, so the article does not primarily discuss them. Feel free to ask any more questions that you may have. Regards, --Biblioworm 23:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly hoping Wikipedia is not just another multi-national cooperation that appears to support humanity equally and fairly and truthfully, but in real life is only pretending to be this way in order to make more money, etc. Frogger48 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very many questions. First, just another multinational corporation? Yes. Well, to be precise, Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation who also own several other things and these products are distributed in many nations. That's why I'm saying yes. Of course, it's possible you mean something else by "multi-national corporation" and that might make this answer incorrect. You can refine the question, if you like. Anyway I'll settle for answering the first one until other answers arrive. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wanting to complain about this for a while. Where are my wikipedia stock options? I know we haven't done the IPO yet but still ;-) The way I see it is that there is no such thing as a completely objective source or media on anything. We are human beings and as such we have biases and preconceived notions that we are reluctant to challenge and also are seldom completely aware of. There is solid science behind this btw, the best book is The Folly of Fools by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers. So of course there is some bias in Wikipedia and we should do as much as we can to limit and counteract it but we will never get to being completely without bias. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly good to show where these specific biases are, on Wikipedia. What do you mean by IPO, MadscientistX11? Frogger48 (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Frogger48. MadscientistX11 was joking, I believe, and was referring to an Initial public offering, where early participants in a profit making business sometimes receive major financial benefits. This is a non-profit, and our editors receive no such monetary benefits, except personal satisfaction. I got a sweatshirt once, though. I am wearing it at this very moment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. So, what are you saying Cullen328? Is the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects trustful and trustworthy? do they have secretarian biases and partisan? Also, something else, how come that Wikipedia appears to be hard toward non-minstream scientific views (or pseudosciences) ? Frogger48 (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frogger48 Wikipedia is not hard towards non-mainstream scientific views and pseudo science, its just that Wikipedia articles should be verifiable, with no original research and written with a neutral point of view. So back to your original question, I guess the answer could be 'Yes' - Wikipedia is biased towards information that can be shown to be reliable. Any non-mainstream scientific view can get onto Wikipedia as long as their are good sources. If an idea is actually scientific then the proponents should be able to work on research and writing scientific papers to back up the claims. Examples of this would LENR - just a couple of years ago any attempt to mention got removed, but all though still being a fringe idea there are enough sources that it is now covered on Cold fusion. KylieTastic (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frogger48 and Cullen328 On the IPO thing, yes it was a joke and yes that is what I was referring to an Initial Public Offering. If Wikipedia were a for profit it would have been a startup like Facebook and Google were and IPOs apply to startups. Sorry, I often forget what a huge diverse number of editors we have and that while everyone I know knows what IPO means that definitely wouldn't apply to everyone, probably not even most on Wikipedia. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kylietastic When you state "any attempt to mention got removed, but all though still being a fringe idea" maybe further expand on this. Thank yoo Frogger48 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frogger48 There is a project that is relevant to all this that I encourage you to check out: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A company I work for has changed names; I would like to updated to the new name in an existing external link. Can I do this?

I work for Roam Transport Systems (formerly MegaRail Transportation Systems). The existing article on Dual-mode transit lists the company by our old name (MegaRail) in an external link in paragraph three. I would like to change link to our new name. If you check the external link, you can see it resolves to the new company page. Is this a significant enough change to fall into the WP:COI threshold? If so, how can best can I request a correction? Carl Henderson (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have removed the external link along with others because Wikipedia doesn't use in line external links in this manner. Theroadislong (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Carl Henderson. In answer to your first question: certainly not. I've removed several of the links there, that were to particular manufacturers (see external links for the policy). In one case the link related to a different sense of dual-mode - a hybrid car. In answer to your second question: emphatically yes. Ideally, every single statement in an article should be referenced to a independent reliable published source. The article would be vastly improved if somebody would find independent sources that describe and discuss the subject (but not just a single commercial implementation of it) and write a summary of what these sources say. Once the article is fully cited, then any editor may remove the 'unreferenced' tag. Please see referencing for beginners for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My second question was imprecise. I know how to do references in Wikipedia; I checking to see if adding references to an article I have a COI with would be within generally accepted practices if I were to add them in a NPOV manner. From your response, I'm assuming the answer is "yes".Carl Henderson (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've just found the WP:COIADVICE section. This would have answered most of my questions had I read the entire COI in the first place. Sorry for the unnecessary questions here.Carl Henderson (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the Dual-mode transit page and fixed references, an external link, clarified paragraph three, and declared COI on talk page. Please feel free to review to make sure all is within Wikipedia policies. Carl Henderson (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I add, welcome back to the project after your long absence. I hope you will decide to stay. Arfæst Ealdwrítere 22:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble adding spouse(s) to info box for William Richardson Belknap,

I've been trying to add Alice Trumbull Silliman and Juliet Davison Rathbone as wives of William Richardson Belknap, but for some reason the addition does not save.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitzi.humphrey. You must use the parameter names documented at Template:Infobox person. The field displays as "Spouse(s)" in the infobox but the parameter is called spouse. Fixed in [2]. See more at Help:A quick guide to templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PrimeHunter (talk). Thank you for your assistance in making this correction.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artical Ressurection?

Hi, Is it possible to bring back an article that was deleted for various reasons. For example when I first joined Wikipedia, I remember creating a few articles for the site. But Within 2 weeks, they all got deleted due to them not having any references added. And ever since they all got deleted, I ended up coming across reliable references for them. So is there a way to bring back an article that was deleted from the site?, because I REALLY don't want to start over from scratch. (Zucat (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable article idea

Hello I would like to write an article on one of the requested topics of Wikipedia, which is “Business plan software”. Given the fact that I have already had an unsuccessful experience with the writing an article I would like to ask beforehand whether the topic I chose is an appropriate thing to write an article about. Will it be relevant to make it in a way of describing what business plan software is made for and the description of the popular software which can be found on internet. Thank you in advance for your reply Lavnastya (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lavnastya. Yes it is a good topic. However a Wikipedia article is different from a magazine article or essay on the topic. In those articles a writer will describe, analyze, compare, and draw conclusions. An encyclopedia just reports. So you need references to published articles or books that have already done the describing, analyzing, etc. It can't be your own research. The article also needs to be formal in tone, impersonal (no I or we), and dispassionate (no talking about the "wonderfulness" of something; leave out most types of adjectives). See Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Start with the history of such software. Mention specific software as part of the development of business plan software over time. Don't include a separate list of software. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavnastya: and @StarryGrandma:, I'm not sure I agree it is a good topic for a NEW article. This happens all the time on technology related articles, we get several different articles that are really about the same topic. For example Enterprise Content Management, Content management, Content Management system, there are actually even more but I hope you see my point. Now I have no idea what the OP meant by “Business plan software”. That term can be used in many different ways: Project management software like MS project, Process modeling software to analyze and reengineer business processes, Strategic software for providing high level views of the business called Enterprise Dashboards, and I'm sure if I gave it some thought I could think up more examples. Its a very generic term so of course when you google it you will get a zillion hits on wildly different topics. My advise to the OP is to first do a search on the various possible synonyms for what he means by "Business Plan software" and then make sure that there isn't an existing article already. If there is then add what you know and have solid wikipedia:references for to that existing article. Only if there are no articles on what you mean by those words (which frankly would amaze me unless what you are doing is wp:original research) then you should try to create a new article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lavnastya and MadScientistX11, I am assuming software to help a company develop a business plan as in: Gail Hiduke; J. Ryan (2013). Small Business: An Entrepreneur's Business Plan. Cengage Learning. pp. 414–. ISBN 1-285-16995-6.. This type of software is what comes up first in a Google search. Is this what you wanted to write about? StarryGrandma (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryGrandma:, If that is what he means then I think this article might already cover it: Strategic_planning_software Keep in mind that was after 5 seconds of searching. That article looks not very good so I think improving it would be great. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StarryGrandma: and @Lavnastya:as I look back over my comments I want to apologize. I wasn't very welcoming and encouraging. So let me say if that is what you mean it is a good topic, there doesn't seem to be much in the encyclopedia so far. I still think the best way would be to expand that current article, that article is much broader than Business Plan software but it specifically mentions creating Business Plans as one kind of software that comes under Strategic_planning_software but it doesn't say much else so my preference would still be to expand that article rather than create a new one. But I could see going the other way too. Also, if that wasn't what you meant please reply back and tell us what you do mean and we can give you some more guidance. I (obviously) think its a rather serious problem that Wikipedia tends to accumuate so many different and inconsistent technical articles that are essentially on the same topic but I shouldn't bring my personal crusades to the teahouse. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear StarryGrandma and MadScientistX11

Thank you very much for your fast reply. The truth is, I got an assignment from my Professor to write a Wikipedia article on one of the topics from Management or Business area which does not exist on Wikipedia. Hence, of course I dont want to write about the same thing that already exist or I am currently not going to edit any of the articles, because this is not what the task is about. Thats why I made my question to be sure, that I will write about something that have a chance to survive on Wikipedia. But apparently it doesnt. I have never thought it can be such a challenging task to find a missing topic Lavnastya (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Lavnastya I think its a little unfair of your professor to give you such a task. Whatever business text book(s) you are using I would bet that for every chapter and most of the major names and concepts in the index there already exists a Wikipedia article for them. Also, writing a high quality article, especially on something complex like a business concept is not easy. I'm a pretty smart guy and I didn't attempt to write a new article until I had been editing for over a year. It is much better for a new user to start out by editing an existing page so that they can get experience in the basics of Wikipedia first. BTW, feel free to point your professor to this discussion, here is the full URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Acceptable_article_idea Although, I understand if you don't want to. Anyway, good luck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lavnastya: Hey! I just had a brainstorm. There are various wikipedia:projects that keep lists of article that need improving and new articles that need to be written. The business project seemed to be the best place to start and sure enough they have a list of articles that need to be written: User:Skysmith/Missing_topics_about_Business_and_Economics BTW, that article is under a specific user which is rare, at least in my experience, for a project but it was linked to from the main business project page which is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Business There are many other projects as well. You also might be able to get help from people with deep business knowledge from one of those projects. Hope that helps. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that on the Ordnance Survey's website (https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/) that OS has changed its logo, confirmed in this article http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2015/february/os-rebrand, meaning that the logo on the Wikipedia page for OS is no longer current. How should I go about replacing this? Thanks, MatthewLaw1 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --MatthewLaw1 (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and MatthewLaw1, when I said upload locally I should have been more specific as you haven't uploaded any other files and maybe didn't know - there is a "Upload File" link in the left hand "Tools" menu. The just follow the Wizard. Any problems just pop back and ask :) KylieTastic (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist or whatever it's called

I know what it is but I got a question about it. If I add a talk page to it for example will I get a notification? Same as if someone replies to me? Thanks. DangerousJXD (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousJXD, yes if a page is added to you wp:watchlist you will get a notification when it is changed, regardless of the type of page. However, if you ignore the notification then the page will be taken off your watchlist. These things can be tweaked by changing the defaults in you user preferences --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here notification doesn't mean Notification messages . Even if you add talk page to your watchlist you won't get notification messages unless someone mention you in the discussion. But, your watchlist will display how that talk page has changed since you last visited/edited it.--Chamith (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ChamithN and DangerousJXD - I think there has been a bit of confusion. If you have email enabled, you will get an email every time a page on your watchlist changes, even if you're not mentioned (I got one because a bot posted on a talk-page I have watchlisted), and ignoring an email stops you getting these sort of notifications. Notifications - messages appearing next to your username at the top of the screen ewhen logged in - are indeed different and will only tell you if you've been mentioned by the use of specific templates (like the ones I used in this post). They don't relate to watch-lists at all. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 09:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Lstanley1979! But you said it yourself. You will get e-mail for watchlist changes only if you have enabled that on your preferences. By default this feature is disabled. And furthermore DangerousJXD wanted know whether he will get notifications for watchlist changes, not emails --Chamith (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ChamithN: - MadScientistX11 is responding to the question as if they mean email, however. No-one made that distinction, and I don't get on-wiki notifications when something on my watchlist is changed. I only get those if something is reverted (which I have been once or twice). So the message is still a little confusing. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 10:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lstanley1979 I explained that above (2nd comment). Notification messages and notifications are kind of different. Notification messages are displayed by those red color indicator (grey, if you don't have any notification messages) next to your user name on the toolbar. Watchlist changes can be considered as notifications but they are not notification messages. And I do agree with you, it is confusing.--Chamith (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand. Thanks for all that. DangerousJXD (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

When was the teahouse founded?YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YoSoyUnHamster, welcome to the Teahouse! The Teahouse was first created on February 15th, 2012. The first "real" question was added about a week and a half after that. --NeilN talk to me 04:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to reference a letter

I have included a reference to an official government letter in the Smoky Falls Generating Station article and I'd like to know what the correct format is for referencing such a document.

http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/page/5625_December_20,_2007_Hydro_Electric_Agreements_with_OPG.pdf

Thanks Walkabout14 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Walkabout14. Since the letter is publicly available on the web, use the {{cite web}} template using the governmental authority website as the major source. Otherwise, if the correspondence was private and not accessible to the public, you wouldn't be able to use it, since Wikipedia doesn't host original research and requires that any sources being used be publicly accessible.
Be aware that this is also a primary source, so be careful not to draw too many original inferences from what it says and only use it for verifying simple facts. It's probably better to stick with what secondary, reliable sources have said on the subject you're trying to write about and puts what the letter says into a wider public context. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 10:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the article, I'm going to ask what you intend to reference from it. There's a lot of secondary sources there as well as cites directly from the Power Authority, and I'm not sure it needs a primary source to augment it. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 10:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LouiseS1979, thanks for the response. Maybe I'm over-referencing but I was using that letter as a factual confirmation of the company's authority to move ahead with the project. Given the nuances of policy-making in Ontario, that directive is key to the project moving forward. The secondary sources all confirm that the project took place, but this is a useful 'breadcrumb' for anyone following the legal history of the project. Let me know if I'm overdoing it. Walkabout14 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Acceptable article ideas

Would a legitimate article on changing aesthetics of chest hair in the U.S. survive on wikipedia? My submission. Thank you. Jeffreykf (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffreykf: Welcome to the Teahouse. If there are credible sources that substantially discuss the aesthetics of chest hair in the U.S., then there can most likely be an article on it. If an article on the topic is nominated for deletion, it won't be because someone perceives the topic to be silly; we have plenty of established articles on trivial and esoteric topics, e.g. toilet paper orientation. --Jakob (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to what Jakob said and unpack it a bit more: a legitimately sourced article would need to make sure it just reported what significant sources said on the issue and not try to weave them into a creative essay. (Read about 'original research' here.) If it is a significant scholarly debate and you can summarise it, then it would be a reasonable article. If you planned to compose an essay on it drawing your own inferences from those sources, then no, that would generally count as original research. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish your own thinking on a subject - get an article published in a journal or serious magazine first, start a general academic or journalistic debate on the subject, and then it's worthy of a Wikipedia article.
Regarding whether or not it would survive if you wrote it: articles on topics such as this basically need to cover notable debates. Trivial things certainly count, but there needs to be serious coverage before it can survive deletion. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 09:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Find and replace

Is there a way to perform a mass find-and-replace other than searching manually? I'd like to replace most (but not all) instances of the word "semiautomatic" with "semi-automatic". Not a big deal, but it would be nice to do. Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Faceless Enemy. When I do a Google search, I find both forms used by reliable sources. You should be prepared to make a convincing case, beyond your own personal preference, why one is to be preferred over the other. You should never make such a change within a quotation, and KylieTastic has pointed out other potential problems. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-automatic may be common in the UK, but U.S. dictionaries (such as Merriam-Webster ones) tend to spell all semi- compounds solid (no hyphen, closed up), including semiautomatic. The OP should not change semiautomatic unless the conditions specified in WP:ENGVAR so indicate. Deor (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you all very much. I'll just leave it as-is for now. Good to know for the future. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faceless Enemy, I agree with Cullen328 and Deor that the suggested edit should not be done. Not just for this case but for most similar types of minor examples where there are two ways of spelling, grammar, etc., the default is that unless there is a very compelling reason to make the change it is better to stick with the existing decisions in the article. I also agre with KylieTastic that find/replace can be dangerous if not used carefully. But there is such a feature. Look at the editing widgets. Make sure you have "Advanced Options" selected so that you see the second row of widgets. Then look all the way to the right of the second row, you will see a find/replace widget. In regard to caution I never do the "Replace All" option, the chances are too high you might mess up a reference or some other bit of code with the word searched for in it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

changing username

Hello, i am aGastya, and i joined Wikipedia on 13 March, 2013 as Acagastya as my username but i forgot the password and then after an year made a new account. now i wish to change my username. is it possible? and is it possible to get that username(acagastya) again? please tell me the procedure to it thanks! aGastya 16:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)

Hi AgastyaC, welcome to the Teahouse. User:Acagastya has no edits so you can request a renaming of your current account at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But User:PrimeHunter should i ask for username change in acagastya first( in the old account) and then acquire that username or should i do something else?

because the link provided by you; i didn't get it as it confused me. can you tell me what exactly i need to write there. Please let me know on my talk page. Thank you! aGastya 04:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)

@AgastyaC: Let's keep it here where others can see it and step in if needed. Post this to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations while logged in as AgastyaC:
{{subst:usurp|Acagastya|reason=I lost access to my original account but want the name now.}}
Click Place your request here. and replace the seen text by the above. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query regarding citations! I think I am missing a syntax. Help!

Recently I have contributed to the Preamble to the Constitution of India article where I have added many facts with reliable citation from a single source. In the reference list, the same source appeared many times making the list really long! Interestingly, BG19bot did some error fixing and now the reference list appears neat and clean with single source hypertexted with a,b,c,d. The ref list has been shortened.

Now, Again I have added some info to the Indian rhinoceros and cited them with reliable source. There are two references - numbered 5 & 16 - to David Attenborough. My query is, how can I have multiple citations to a single source? On a lighter note: I really want to lessen the burden for BG19bot!! :D Anand2202 (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anand2202. You can cite the same source multiple times by naming your references: see WP:NAMEDREFS. --ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ColinFine. That was just what I needed. --Anand2202 (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article that is the best, to use as a guide for editing...

Hilloo, hey, can someone tell me what the greatest article is in Wikipedia, that can be used as a guide for editing? Awsome!Frogger48 (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Frogger48: Welcome to the Teahouse! Featured articles are the articles that we consider the best Wikipedia has to offer. Note that these articles are very expansive and detailed - it's a goal to strive for, but it often takes many edits and a lot of time to get there; it's a step-by-step process. Another useful resource, I think, are WikiProject guidelines. WikiProjects are collaborations between editors on certain subjects. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games is a page for editors to collaborate and find information on editing video game articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines lists the guidelines for video game articles. Not all WikiProjects have these, but if you can find a WikiProject that covers your article's subject, and they have their own article guidelines, that can be a great resource. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, @Frogger48: Chiming in with additional info on WikiProjects that @SuperHamster: mentioned above. There is a directory of WikiProjects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to ensure that an image is OK to use

I am working with a few other editors to improve the Gun show loophole article. I would like to add an image. I really like this one [3] that I found via Google images that says it's labeled for reuse. How do I ensure that an image is OK to use? Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lightbreather. AFAICT there's no way to backtrack that image to a place at PBS. Can you provide the URL of the page at PBS where that's displayed in context? The URL's inclusion of "wp-content" makes it seem as if the image may have actually come from here (or possibly the Commons).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuhghettaboutit: I believe the "wp-content" is actually just a default part of the URL for WordPress websites; very likely doesn't have to do with Wikipedia.
@Lightbreather: Welcome to the Teahouse. To put it simply, for an image to be considered free by Wikipedia's standards, it needs to be able to be used for any purpose, including commercially. If you can find the licensing information for the image that permits this, it would most likely be fine to upload at the Wikimedia Commons. Some of the most common free licenses we can accept are CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or public domain images. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SuperHamster, Fuhghettaboutit "I believe the "wp-content" is actually just a default part of the URL for WordPress websites..." This is almost certainly what it is. See this search for all of the links we have here that contain it.  DiscantX 00:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found it by searching for "gun show purchase" at Google Images, filtered by usage rights "Labeled for reuse" - hey! Wait a minute! Now it doesn't show up under the labeled-for-reuse filter. Never mind, I guess... Dang! Lightbreather (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Lightbreather. Have you seen this image at Wikimedia Commons?
Houston Gun Show at the George R. Brown Convention Center
Personally, I would crop out the out-of-focus firearms in the foreground, and some extraneous stuff to the right. But it may benefit the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

How do I take my user page out of some categories? It's in a few that I don't want it to be in. YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@YoSoyUnHamster: Hey YoSoyUnHamster. So all those categories are coming from the userboxes you have displayed. Of course, you can remove a userbox to remove its included category, but another way is to substitute a userbox and then remove the category from the revealed code, thus allowing you to retain the userbox but not display the category. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Substituting can create a lot of messy looking code and you would't get later changes to the userboxes. Some user boxes accept |nocat=true, for example {{User Shark|nocat=true}} to avoid Category:Wikipedians interested in sharks. If you post links to user boxes which add an unwanted category and does not currently accept nocat then somebody can probably adapt the userbox to accept it. Often it only requires the line | nocat = {{{nocat|}}} like in the code of {{User Shark}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually asked this question on the Templates talk page because I'm finding so many categories that are assigned automatically that need to be removed. This often happens when a user cuts and places Wikipedia guidelines, a template or other content on one of their subpages so that the information will be handy. But, unfortunately, when you look at the category listing, you see all of these valid articles and then someone's user page in the category. It happens a lot and I didn't know about the |nocat=true trick. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Which templates talk page? There is more general help at Wikipedia:Category suppression. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: It took me quite a while to find the right talk page (there are SO many template pages to search through), but I found I raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Templates and Categories. I have never heard of Wikipedia:Category suppression but that sounds like the right place and also, I'm not the only person who encounters this problem! Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted the link there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the scope of "orphan page" status?

On Feb. 6 I made some edits on PLUNA destinations (diff here; history here), to say

  1. that the airline has ceased operations (which was stated in PLUNA) and
  2. to remove the "orphan" tag, because PLUNA links to it as Main article from the Destinations section.

Jetstreamer reverted my edits (diff here) with the comments

  1. "Unsourced" and
  2. "It's an orphan, actually. WP:ALSO applies for parent article."

(1) is not at issue: I should have sourced the statement. But when I asked Jetstreamer about (2), their reply didn't address the point at all. (There was another issue, also my error but not relevant here.)

I followed up with

I still don't see a source for your statement that "WP:ALSO applies for parent article". I'm not going to make an edit war about this, but unless there is an actual policy about it, PLUNA destinations is not an orphan as long as it's linked from PLUNA.

and I restored (1), properly sourced. Jetstreamer then made major revisions to the page in recognition of the airline's defunctness ("defunctitude"?), but left the "orphan" tag even though it is still linked from PLUNA.

So far I've had no reply. I haven't been able to find any policy about parent articles not counting against orphanhood, and frankly it seems a bizarre idea, in actuality as well as in the metaphor. PLUNA is linked to from about 54 pages, excluding redirect, talk, and user pages, so it certainly is no orphan. My question is,

In order not to be an orphan, does a page have to have links from outside its "family", or at least other than its "parent", however defined?*

*I haven't found any definition of "parent article", either.

Please {{ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: "WP:ALSO applies for parent article" meant you cannot remove the orphan tag just because you added a link to the "See also" section of the parent article when WP:ALSO says do not repeat links already in the body the article. The orphan status did not change after you did that. I thought this was clear. I hope it is now. Nevertheless, the orphan tag can perfectly be removed according to WP:ORPH because at least another article links to it.--Jetstreamer Talk 00:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jetstreamer: Thank you. However, your explanation seems irrelevant to the facts:
In your answer quoted above, you said
  1. that the article was an orphan – despite the link from PLUNA which had been there since 2007
  2. that "WP:ALSO applies for parent article": an assertion that you still haven't shown any authority for, including WP:ALSO itself, and that would be irrelevant even if sourced.
     
Or did you, perhaps, mean WP:ORPH? That doesn't support your claim either:
§ Step 3: Adding links:
  • When you find an appropriate parent, insert a meaningful link to the orphaned article.
    (This was already in place, as you yourself pointed out to me. That was enough to de-orphan the article. See below.)
§ Criteria:
--Thnidu (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 strikes an out???

So, I am still struggling to understand the ins & outs of being a Wiki user/ contributor. One might say I already have 2 strikes! Initially I tried editing some articles relevant to recent discoveries made at our research institute. While I did not believe there to be a conflict of interest, I now understand from Wiki's viewpoint there was, and have since learned how to go about suggesting these kinds of edits.

Then, I created my user page. I had assumed a user page was not visible to the world at large, but apparently it is. It too was deleted, allegedly because my biographical information was considered "self-promotion". I was not attempting to promote anything, simply to provide other Wiki folks with user pages an opportunity to reach out to me based upon my qualifications, for the potential of working together on articles of interest.

So this process has taught me that Wiki is hyper-sensitive to self-promoters, spammers & profiteers. In hindsight I can understand you probably encounter a lot of that- hence the sensitivity.

I'd like to create another user page... however I am assuming a 3rd strike, as it were, would be an out- as in banned from Wiki. Ergo, how does one create a user page without providing any content about themselves while attracting those with similar interests???

Thanks

David Sabaj-Stahl (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, David Sabaj-Stahl. To date, your mis-steps have been minor and common among new editors. I do not believe that you are at any immediate risk of being blocked, as long as you strive to comply with our policies and guidelines going forward. Your user page is visible to anyone who is interested in you. Since you use what is presumably your real name, it will be visible in Google searches as well. The purpose of a Wikipedia user page is to present yourself to other editors as a Wikipedia editor. Some basic biographical information is fine, to indicate your background and areas of interest, but not to promote your outside interests in any way. Editors often list articles they have written or worked on. Adding a quote or two reflecting an editor's personal philosophy is common. Many editors mention how long they have been editing or how many edits they have made. Full details can be found at WP:User pages. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do reference sections differ?

I don't understand about the different types of references. How do "References", "Bibliography", "External Links", "Suggested Reading", and "Footnotes" differ?Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mitzi.humphrey I'm not sure there are any fixed rules, pages tend to start with a References section and others get added as editors feel the need. - see MOS:FOOTERS for the wiki explanation. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • References are the sources used to write the article.
      • Bibliography are the books used to write the article, the pages can be referred to in the references.
      • External links are weblinks to websites, added because they contain vital information that cannot be added to the article on Wikipedia (they are not used to write the article but are extra info).
      • Suggested reading are books that were not used to write the article, but might be of interest to people who read the article.
      • Footnotes are notes by the author to sections of the text. They are textual explanations and not sources.
    • I hope this helps. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome to the Teahouse, Mitzi.humphrey. You have brought up one of my favorite discussions. But before I share my thoughts with you I would like to refer you to some helpful pages on Wikipedia that will help you understand the 'hows' and the 'whys' of references and citations. I have found these pages to be quite helpful and refer to them all the time:
WP:Citing sources
Help:Referencing for beginners
As an editor here on Wikipedia my favorite task is to create content with references for articles. It has been my pleasure to run into a group of people who follow me around as I create content and fix any mistakes that I make in referencing my statements. Believe me, I make a lot of mistakes and if it were not for these other editors a lot of what I do would be fruitless. You can even ask them for help: WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks for these valuable suggestions. I'm going to see if I can copy and print them for quick, easy reference. Or do I only need to ask the Guild of Copy Editors to follow my mistakes? Or do both? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinniped?

I saw that something recently happened to Pinniped, what was it? Kitty 56 (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I am asking so many questions, it's just that I am new and this seemed the perfect place to find out the policies. Kitty 56 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kitty 56
If you click the "History" tab at the top of that article, you can see it was vandalized twice on 4 February, the frst time the vandalism was reverted by ClueBot NG, an automatic programme, the second time by a human editor. If you want to see what was changed in any edit, or any group of edits, click one empty circle in each of the two columns and Compare selected revisions. That seems to have been the only recent activity at that page. - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Vandalism! Thank you for clarifying. Kitty 56 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of vandalism? YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YoSoyUnHamster, it appears that someone decided to come along and insert a bunch of words in the article that didn't belong there, such as where they changed the link elephant seals to read telephone seals. It's not uncommon to see this kind of abuse, since anyone can edit here. When this happens, someone will be along shortly to change it back :)  DiscantX 00:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Telephone seals? Well that's just pure vandalism. Actually, I wonder what a telephone seal would look like. :) YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating 1st Wiki page

Hello Teahouse, I have just completed creating my 1st wiki page (deceased artist) which is in my sandbox and pending submission for publishing. Before I do this I have two questions. 1. Is it possible for someone in the Teahouse to check it for me first to get a view on the content and tone to ensure its suitability. 2. I would be grateful for some advice on uploading images as this page would benefit with images as reference material. The two jpeg images are paintings of works by the subject deceased artist and are more than 100 years old and are now outside of copyright and are appropriate for a free content encyclopaedia. As a courtesy I have also obtained permission from the owners of the paintings and they have given me their permission to use them as a digital image on Wikipedia. I have read the Wiki Uploading Images wizard page but am still not sure which is the correct copyright listing to use. Thanks for your advice. Toby Clark Wiki (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toby Clark Wiki, welcome to the Teahouse! I've looked at User:Toby Clark Wiki/sandbox and the content and tone are generally suitable but could use some clean up. For example, we write in prose and try to avoid structures like 1) 2) 3)... A question about sources: You have lots of content - do the inline cites source all that content? For example, does one citation source an entire paragraph? As for images, if they're over 100 years old they are in the public domain. Did you take the digital photos? --NeilN talk to me 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:NeilN, Thank you for your help. I have updated the draft article in my sandbox to avoid the structures 1) 2) 3) etc. regarding the citations inline, they do refer to the contents of the paragraphs. Thanks for clarifying the images of paintings over 100 years old are in the public domain. The digital images have been taken by the owners of the paintings who have provided permission of use. I am unsure what wiki copyright tag should be used when uploading. I tried to upload a self portrait painting of William Beetham.png. but it was taken down as i had not indicated the correct license status of the image. Many thanks for your help Toby Clark Wiki (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Toby Clark Wiki, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Just to follow up on NeilN's answer above — for copyright purposes, the painting is in the public domain, but the photo of it is not. The photo copyright is owned by the person who took the digital photo, so the process is a bit complicated to have the image approved for posting on Wikimedia Commons. In my experience, it feels like wandering into a conceptual swamp.
Since the owners of the painting seem amenable to allowing their photograph of it to be posted on Wikimedia Commons, follow the instructions here to secure their permission in writing, using an e-mail template from this page. The trickiest part of the process is selecting an appropriate license, from this confusing list. One of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses could work for a digital image of a public domain work of art, but you may find another license that suits the needs of the copyright holder. You will need to upload the image using the wizard, and in the "Other" field add this code: {{subst:OP}}, which renders a template telling the volunteers who staff the Open-source Ticket Request System (OTRS) to look for the e-mail sent by the copyright owner, in order to approve the posting. Then finish uploading and add the resulting url for the image into the licensing template, e-mail it to the copyright holder, and ask that it be returned to the OTRS e-mail address directly. OTRS is backlogged, so it may take a while (months) to finalize it, but eventually you should have a positive result. Good luck..— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grand'mere Eugene, are you sure this is correct? Per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Free_licenses: "Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights—they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing. For example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa is ineligible for copyright." --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Thanks for pointing this out, NeilN. I was going by the Wikimedia Commons page on derivative works, with the text, "This photograph of the Venus de Milo is a derivative work. The artist died more than 100 years ago, so the statue is in the public domain—no copyright problems here provided that an appropriate license is provided to cover the photographer's copyright in the photograph (italics mine). So Bridgeman v. Corel seems to differentiate between more restrictive UK law and US law, which differentiates between 2-dimensional public domain art in a frame and 3-dimensional art, where the photographer holds copyright for an image of 3-dimensional public domain art? ...starting to feel lost in the tullie weeds, again, here. But it's good news for Toby Clark Wiki, who can just upload the photo rather than use the circuitous process I described above. I should maybe heed Pope's advice, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; / Drink deep or taste not of the pierian spring: / There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, / And drinking largely sobers us again." — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grand'mere Eugene, yes, the intricacies of copyright sometimes make my head spin too. The way I understand U.S. law is that a photo of a two-dimensional object requires no artistic creativity and so cannot be copyrighted. A photo of a three-dimensional object (statue, person, architecture, etc.) requires some artistic choices to be made and so is copyrightable. --NeilN talk to me 01:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive Feedback Welcome

Hi there, An article I hoped to post was declined and I was hoping for some critical feedback to help me improve it. I've asked a few writer friends for advice, and have a few edits at my fingertips, but I wanted to get a Wiki-pro's opinion before resubmitting. Thanks so much! I'm loving the Teahouse. :) LitaOstar (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could tell us which article? Is it Draft:Nexmo by any chance? - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Arjayay, it is Draft:Nexmo indeed. Thank you. :) LitaOstar (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings LitaOstar], and welcome to the Teahouse. I have taken a look at your draft and have found quite a few problems with it that will prevent it from being added to Wikipedia in its present form. Referencing PRNewswire urls is the same as referencing your company's own press releases. A company's press release, is not really considered a neutral source of information. Your other references into the authored and published by your company also. There are many small computer and software applications that are not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines and it appears to me that this is the case in your article. It may be difficult to rewrite this article without it appearing to be promotional.
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bfpage, Thanks so much for taking time to check out Draft:Nexmo. Looks like I have some work cut out for me in terms of cleaning up the article and making sure to only site truly external sources (I clearly didn't realize press releases were not external - really appreciate that info!). This was incredibly helpful feedback, and I seriously can't thank you enough for taking the time to look at the article. Cheers! LitaOstar (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you publish to the sandbox is it live for all to see?

Hello,

I recently had a play with my sandbox to get a good idea of how it all works before creating my first page. I got the page how I'd like it and hit publish. As all looked good I decided to create the real page only to receive an automated message from CorenSearchBot saying the page appears to include material copied directly from my sandbox...

I quickly deleted the contents of my sandbox and left a message in the Talk section. Oops!

So does this mean anyone can read my sandbox? Apologies if this question has been asked before. Adaircameron (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Adaircameron:, there are no hidden pages on Wikipedia. Any page is visible to anyone, it's just a question of finding some of them. So although your sandbox is in your userspace, anyone can view it (although the convention is that people won't edit it unless it is a) with permission or b) there is somthing on it that it contrary to Wikipedia policies e.g. it's an attack page). CorenSearchBot is very good at what it does but it can through up false positives as it did here, that's why it only tags pages as suspected copies and doesn't delete them. Bizarrely in this case, the tag was not by comparing your article in draft userspace directly with your sandbox but because it picked up your sandbox at a Mirror site. Nthep (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep thanks for your response. That's much appreciated. So in this case there shouldn't be anything to worry about? Be great to see my first contribution to Wikipedia go live in the near future. Adaircameron (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to worry about over the tagging. I dodn't really read the article so I can't comment on whether that is acceptable or not. Nthep (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Adaircameron. It is a good question that you have asked and it does come up quite a bit. But since the same question comes up, it's always good to have it readily visible to new editors who may not be aware of this issue. Not everyone searches the archives to find a possible answer to their current question. So you have done everyone a favor.
Whenever this question comes up, I suggest that you create your drafts off of Wikipedia on your own computer to maintain your privacy and until you're ready for anyone on the planet to see your draft. I enjoy creating content, but don't like the idea of letting other editors seeing what I have created until I believe that it is ready for peer review. When I want to see how my potential article will look on Wikipedia, I do a quick copy and paste from my word processor of my article into my sandbox, press the preview button, and take a look. Since I have not saved the page into my sandbox it is not visible to editors although I suppose there is a way that someone with the knowledge and expertise could see the preview if they so desired. Once I am happy with the preview of my new article I delete it from my sandbox and put it back into my word processor.
  Bfpage |leave a message  19:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One other bit to add, Adaircameron: it is generally not a good idea to copy and paste within Wikipedia, because it tends to cause copyright problems (the licences under which most of the material is shared require attribution). There are times when it is appropriate to copy and paste, of course, but normally to move an article from a sandbox or draft space to main space it is best to move it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a review for checks and balances before I resubmit my draft

I created my first page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Exilant_Technologies , and Anup helped to identify the issues while declining the submission. He advised to seek help from Teahouse team before I resubmit to avoid the obvious reject that I risk , being new to Wikipedia. Hence requesting the senior members to spend some time and help me out. Devopam (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Devopam. I'm afraid what I have to say is going to be a little disappointing.
Firstly, remember Wikipedia isn't a business directory; it's an encyclopaedia. Your article does read like you are trying to present the company to clients rather than give us an idea of what makes it important in its field. Lack of notability is a problem that is very hard to overcome; it means you need to produce independent, third party reliable sources to qualify for an entry here. This is, as it sounds, difficult to assert if few or no such sources exist. News coverage is simply stuff like [4], which documents something the company has done, but doesn't discuss the impact of the sponsorship in enough detail to prove this is anything other than routine coverage, which many companies gain in some form or other, as are the links to PRWeb, which is simply a company announcement, rather than an independent article. This might be signs of the company gaining a presence in its marketplace, and if it carries on like that, then maybe you could put together something in a while.
I think one of the difficulties is that you are assuming that data from e.g. Companies House constitutes a source. Yes, you're right, it proves you exist and what happened within the company, and what certificates they hold, but it's not the sort of sourcing we need to fully prove notability.
Also, if you are affiliated with Exilant, then it's also difficult to get the right perspective needed. Companies sometimes ask an employee to write a Wikipedia article, but that's really at odds with our encyclopaedic goal. Having a conflict of interest means that you shouldn't really be writing an article on the subject; if you have the sources, you might request assistance with drafting, but if the sources simply don't exist, you can't really meet the notability guidelines, and as such can't really have the article in Wikipedia until the company is significant enough to have generated those sources.
When you first joined Wikipedia, someone left a lot of links on your talk page. It might be an idea to read those pages thoroughly (particularly the WP:CORP and WP:COI guidelines I linked earlier, so you get a better idea of what writing a Wikipedia article entails. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 10:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response and I don't mind the mistakes being pointed out else I won't learn in the first place. Not trying to sound critical , but I tried to model the page after viewing more than a dozen similar companies who have very similar structure and content; I fear few of them have even lesser details actually and floating freely since a while. Another point was about the mention of conflict of interest. Nah, I haven't been asked/paid by anyone to create this article - I did because I thought I have good amount of information that I can leverage for my first article. I tried to collect as much of information that I could gather over free internet , and then cite them with full clarity (including mention of prweb). Can someone actually spend some time to help me understand / set the neutral tone here for which I shall be obliged. Devopam (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a teahouse host, but if by any chance you have a connection with the Devopam who works for Exilant, you might still have a COI. See https://in.linkedin.com/in/devopam. SovalValtos (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Devopam I'm not a host either and don't usually mention that, but I saw the need to add further information. When you say you saw similar articles that means other stuff exists but that only means we haven't gotten around to dealing with those articles yet. Instead of pointing to articles of lesser quality, we should be trying to raise the quality of all articles and, if another company is not notable, its article might be headed for deletion.
Also, you were told PRWeb wasn't acceptable as a source at this point. Once notability is clear I'm sure those sources can be used. I've used them myself not knowing I wasn't supposed to, but hopefully that's not a problem since most of those articles were already well-established.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vchimpanzee. I had a look at the PRWeb source - it's a company announcement basically from a press release. It's not really a reliable source since it's in the company's own voice. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 07:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dear SovalValtos , I acknowledge I am the same person you referred above, thanks for digging me out on the internet. My intent is to create article around a subject matter I am familiar with and hence I chose to write likewise. I respect the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia but I guess you will appreciate that I am actively editing for the first time, so ignorant about a lot many aspect I may not be expected. COI or not, I want my first article to be a good one , in terms of content and compliance. That was the intent to come and seek help from Teahouse as suggested by the reviewer who rejected my initial draft and told me why so. All I request is some good template, reference articles and little time from veterans to help me avoid such pitfalls. hi Vchimpanzee , thank you for pointing out the right issues/challenges that I am facing. I agree that referring something incorrect doesn't make my pov correct. May I request links to some good articles around Software Companies that I can use as reference to correct the problems in my draft. Apologies for the long note...Devopam (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Devopam. Try WikiProject Business and WikiProject Computing and have a look at their list of Good Articles (GAs) and Featured Articles (FAs). However, if you are connected with Exilant, you need to thoroughly read up on the neutral point of view guidelines as I suggested (and it's hard to be neutral about something with which you have this conflict of interest, even if you weren't directly instructed to write about the company). Try contributing to other articles first before trying to create an article - this is probably the best way to learn how to write good articles in accordance with policy. Unfortunately, scrutiny of new articles is very intense, and the reviewers, myself included, will judge them on their merits and not in comparison to other articles.
What I'd do now is leave Exilant alone for the moment because of the COI concerns, and try to find something else to contribute. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 07:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lstanley1979 thank you for reminding me. I should have specified that this is for non-controversial information only, even after notability is established.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of User:Sphilippian, then move of User:Sphilippian to User:Sphilippian/sandbox

Hello, Wikipedian administrators! I am writing here right now because I came up with an idea:

(And yes, there is copyrighted material in the page, but you can comment it out.)

So, could you please do that for me? ApparatumLover (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ApparatumLover. I suggest you ask FreeRangeFrog, who was the admin who deleted that page. However, I observe that the deletion log does not mention copyright, but says "Blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host", so you'll need to convince them that it was material that is appropriate to a sandbox. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

my question is can i have some help with editing and how do i know if something's spelled wrong?

as stated in the headline i need help with editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkid761 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=646672180"