Wikipedia:Teahouse

Marchjuly, 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.

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

Most recent archives
1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224

Is it conflict of interest?

I am the curator of a museum in a historic building. I understand it would be inappropriate for me to edit an article discussing the building's use as a museum while working here, but is it a COI if I make edits to an article about the history of the building before its present use? Thanks, Carlaldrich (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge you face is whether the building is, of itself, part of the exhibits in the museum. If so then the history is also about a museum exhibit. But you will drive yourself nuts here. The real question is, "Can you make the edits in an entirely WP:NPOV manner, and, where necessary, with citations/references?" While other editors may differ, my view is that,. if you can do this, and do not succumb to WP:OWN, then you can make these edits with a good heart.

Declaring what you intend to do on the talk page before you do it is appropriate.

If you cannot do it then there are mechanisms to request others to consider the edits you wish to make. Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight. I'll definitely be careful with what I write and request edits as needed. It's more clear the way you explain it. Carlaldrich (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion?

Hi! I hve been editing a few pages and I recently came across this article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danie_Cortese_Entertainment I have been contemplating whether to request this article for deletion or whether to improve it. What must I do? The page has been deleted a few times, but it ends up either being edited like an advertisment or with less information. Thanks King Cobra (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@6033CloudyRainbowTrail: Hey, thanks for your question. On its face, the article is probably a good candidate for speedy deletion as an unremarkable company, so you could nominate it if you were thinking about it. Just be sure to notify the article creator as well. If the article has been repeatedly recreated with no attempt to address the issues, the reviewing administrator will probably protect the article from being recreated until evidence that the company is notable comes to surface. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short story with same title as short story collection

There are a number of first edition short story collections by Mark Twain named the same as one of his famous short stories. These are COLLECTIONS and contain many other stories as well.

Short story articles already exist for most of these on Wikipedia, and someone has linked photos of - in many cases the wrongly-attributed covers of the short story collections (ex. the photo of the British first edition saying it's the American first edition), etc. I'd like to correct the attributions and find no way to edit the data on the right hand side of the page.

ALSO - it seems silly to create entirely new pages for the COLLECTIONS containing the titular short stories. I'd like to add the collection data to the short story article. Is that considered good Wikipedia form? It seems having two entries, one for the story and one for the short story collection would just create page proliferation issues.

What to do? Create a new page for the short story collection, or add info on the collection to the short story page of the same title. Sa magnuson33 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Aden site in western Mississippi has related Aden sites in western Louisiana. It should read western Mississippi.JamesFogleman (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I was attempting to correct a minor error on the Aden archaeological site post. JamesFogleman (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuyming your main change is correct, get rid of <ref></ref> that you have placed in the article by accident. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability feedback

I'd like some feedback on whether or not this person is notable. He's been the CEO of several companies and he's mentioned in several well known publications. However, not all the articles are in depth. Here's a list of the best ones--I also have some smaller publications that I found through Highbeam:

Sorry if I've posted this request in the wrong spot. If there's a better place for this, please let me know. Thanks!Cecibell (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He might be. Not all of those sources are useful, however. Why not go to WP:AFC and click the link to create an article? A review by our volunteer reviewers will set you on the correct path. Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to submit an article

Hi Folks,

I am a "classic car" hobbyist. In particular, I have a classic Rolls Royce. These are just cars with the exception that they have a very sophisticated hydraulic system. A very important part is called the Accumulator Control Valve (ACV). This is not unique to Rolls Royce. All hydraulic systems with hydraulic pressure accumulators have a corresponding control valve.

Given the importance of this component, I thought its behavior should be explained, but I find no explanation, anywhere; not even in the Rolls Royce documentation. No only missing for Rolls Royce, but articles of this component in general were in notable short supply.

To rectify this deficiency, I have written an article explaining its behavior. This article is approximately 20 pages, so it is non-trivial. I'd like to publish it. How do I do this?

Chris. 107.128.74.229 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You face one major obstacle. Your twenty page draft, if unreferenced (more of which in a moment) is likely to fail Wikipedia's rules on original research. It may also be too lengthy. Nonetheless, if you click on Draft:Accumulator control valve you may then fill it with your text, and save it. At this point it is not submitted for review.

You need to be clear that none of the material in the draft is material that is the copyright or others. Equally, if you have published it yourself elsewhere, you need to go through the process described at WP:donating copyright material, establishing your ownership of copyright, and your onward licencing of it.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Thsi brief statement is actually enormous. It is a major gating factor against acceptance

When you are happy with it, place the text {{Subst:Submit}} at the head, exactly as t appears, and you will enter the pool of drafts fopr review. This is an iterative process, submit>review>edit>resubmit etc

It would be ideal, but not compulsory, for you to create an account here. Doing so allows you privileges that are not granted to anonymous editors. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how to link to project gutenberg inside a reference

hi

I edited sphere-world by adding two references, one of them to a book on project gutenberg but now, How can I link in the reference to also to the wiki page about project gutenberg? (so i have to link to two places at the same time, one to project gutenberg and another to [[1]] also i removed the unreferenced tag , am I allowed to do so? WillemienH (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WillemienH: Hi WillemienH. It's great you're adding references – one of the most important ways you can help out on Wikipedia! I added to the {{cite book}} template you placed |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37157 to link the title to that ebook location, and added |via=[[Project Gutenberg]]to attribute that location for the source and link to our article on it. I've actually never used the "via" parameter before but it seems appropriate for the purpose here (though there are other ways you might include Project Gutenberg explicitly with a link, and someone else might think another way that would be better). Yes, you are allowed to remove maintenance tags once the issue it flags is addressed, and in this case it was called for because, following your edit, its output was actually untrue; the article was no longer "unreferenced". However, the article contains many other unsourced statements, so I have added to it {{refimprove}} where the unreferenced template used to be. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think the article needs more editing but am not sure on how to do it, could you help me with it, which references do you think needs improvement? (as it is now it is all in the reference) but i think the article needs some major reediting I think, add comments to Poincare's thought experiment. Is there a thought experiment template? WillemienH (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a version of Template:Help me usable on article talk pages? All ideas welcome!

I have a lot of real-life limitations (see my user page if you are curious about the details), so I often have to dump my thoughts on an article talk page such as this one. Just search my talk page contributions for titles containing the word "help" and you'll see what I mean (although I only started to add that word more often during this past year and sometimes I forget).

I'm taking this approach more and more since otherwise I lose a lot of my observations to half-done, never-finished article edits. Also, editing articles is much more likely to trigger flare-ups of my illnesses' symptoms than chattily (as you see) explaining the problems I would like to see fixed.

Tl:Help me won't work, because I do what I can when I can with little follow-up and can go years without even checking my own talk page (though Notifications has helped). I could use Template:Expert-talk with Template:Expert-subject, except in most cases a topic expert isn't needed, just an experienced WP editor. (Hm. Those templates might work well for my last edit that I mentioned. Maybe I'll remember, maybe I won't.)

Well, thinking it through as I post, I guess it's not really necessary to highlight one talk page proposal over another, except that people often reply to such proposals with instructions on how the proposer could make the changes, and I simply can't. My difficulty is different. ... Is there a recruiting table somewhere in the Teahouse? Ha!

Thanks for any and all advice. I also like looking for little things I can do, such as wikilinking to template pages in the Edit summary and elsewhere so newbies can learn about them more easily. Hopefully.

I appreciate that, if I ever get healthy enough to work again, gradually learning about WP while volunteering here is the main hobby that has helped me keep my work-skills up and a significant help towards keeping my brain active.

BTW, I wish this form had a preview function so I could verify my Wikitext worked. Also, I wish searching for T[something]:[string] automatically expanded to Template:[string] just like WP:[string] expands to Wikipedia:[string].

Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who responds to a lot of helpme requests, I can safely say that they are used on article talkpages with some regularity - they can be legitimately placed on any talkpage (article, file, template etc.), even though user talkpages are preferred. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I moved my article for editing?

I have moved my sandbox to Draft:Title - but I can't tell if I have got it to a place where it will be edited. Have I done so?S.tollyfield (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @S.tollyfield: If you're referring to Draft:Leicester Gataker, looks good to me! If you want to delete the unused pages (User:S.tollyfield/sandbox & Draft:S.tollyfield/Leicester Gataker), you can do so by placing {{Db-author}} on them. This is how you can request speedy deletion under G7 criteria, which is for pages that you have created and are the sole contributor to. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to submit this article for consideration, but can't see the button to do so. Moving it to Draft does not seem to have achieved thisS.tollyfield (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Put {{subst:submit}} at the top of that page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanksS.tollyfield (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas and Jonesy

Hey guys! I have helped to write an article about Australian explorers Cas and Jonesy, but am having some issues that I would appreciate help resolving. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas_and_Jonesy

If anyone can help me it would be much appreciated.

Alex Alexandersawyer (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alexandersawyer! I fixed the first couple sentences. I think this structure fits with wikipedia norms a little better. What I always do when I'm writing an article is I give an overview of the article in the lead and include the reason why they are most notable (why they are in wikipedia to begin with). For this article, I'd axe the two examples you've given from the lead (adding them below) and bring up the fact that they have been on various TV shows. I think the section of the article where you discuss their endurance events could benefit from breaking it into smaller sections. I would work on the sources too. It's good that you gave a name for the website as opposed to a bare url, but if you give the name of the specific page/article you are looking it, that will really help if the link rots. Also, a date that you retrieved the info is helpful. That should be a good start. :-) Bali88 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex - That's great thanks mate! I changed a lot of stuff you suggested, how do I get rid of the multiple issues messages? Will someone eventually get around to re-checking the article out or do I have to request another read through? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandersawyer (talk • contribs) 07:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandersawyer In this circumstance, I think you can probably just remove the tone tag. When they placed the tags they were supposed to start a conversation on the talk page detailing the issues and how you can fix them, which they didn't do. The tone seems largely okay to me and if the editor who placed the tags has further issues with the tone, they can post on the talk page and suggest further clean up. I would leave the citations needed tag for now, there are still a few pieces of into that don't have citations. It's unclear if you just placed the source at the end of multiple paragraphs from each source or if some things are just unsourced. (I suggest having at least one reference per paragraph so that it doesn't appear unsourced to your readers) You can remove that tag when you either find references for those or appropriately place the refs. :-) Bali88 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My article is shortlisted for deletion, but I just wanted to help document the Summer of Monuments

In Oregon there is one historical place without a picture or a location, and I wanted to learn more. So I found a great source. But the page is too short for Wikipedia. Can someone help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umatilla_Site_(35_UM_1) ShaunaaltmanShaunaaltman (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That other editor shouldn't have nominated that article for speedy deletion as "subject unidentifiable," since the subject seems pretty obvious to me. I contested the speedy deletion and replied on your talk page with some additional ideas. Welcome! VQuakr (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote an article but only parts of it show up in preview

Hi there, I've wrote an article in my sandbox but when I preview it only part of what I have written is showing up. Could you help me with this? Innovatepsych (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Innovatepsych. There was a misplaced slash in one of your references. I fixed it for you. This is a common syntax error that has the unfortunate side effect of suppressing display of the content that follows. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what would you understand by the term renaissance

hello i am kumud i need to write about 600 words on ...what would you understand by the term renaissance discuss can someone please help ? 106.78.21.58 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kumud. You might want to direct your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. This is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, rather than general subject matter questions.Keihatsu ^talk 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering The Articles

I'm new to Wikipedia and I had to go to the 'How to start your first article' page, but the problem is I can't seem to remember them at the top of the head. I recently created a page and got a nomination of a speedy deletion. I checked back and noticed that it was too short, but I don't know how to make the article professional. ICon Delta (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ICon Delta: Just to clarify, are you referring to the difficulty of remembering certain help pages on Wikipedia? If so, it definitely is a challenge - there are hundreds! What I recommend is taking a look at the shortcut links located near the top-right of most Wikipedia help and policy pages. For example, WP:FIRST will take you to Wikipedia:Your first article. Wikipedia:List of shortcuts (or WP:SHORTCUTS) also provides a long, but uncomplete list of Wikipedia pages and their respective shortcuts. Over time, you'll eventually get used to them and will be able to recite them off the top of your head.

Another solution is for you to create a user subpage for yourself (perhaps at User:ICon Delta/Links), and then list links that you find helpful that you can refer back to at any time. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you are referring to remembering what articles you've contributed to, you can do so by clicking the "Contributions" link at the very upper-right hand corner of the page. Alternatively, just head to Special:Contributions/ICon_Delta. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

need help

im trying to find the cover of kendrick lamars upcoming single "i" with eligibility to use in an article Camcamhamham (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Camcamhamham, welcome to the Teahouse. Using an image of the cover of the single i on Wikipedia would only be possible if Wikipedia were to have an article about the single (as an actual article, not just a draft), and would only be permissible on that one article itself. So it cannot happen yet, as no such article yet exists. On the other hand, quite a few of Lamar's singles end up being notable enough for there to be articles about them, as can be seen from Kendrick Lamar discography, so perhaps i will be next. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The monument project

Hi all together, for a few weeks i got this weird idea, which does not leave my mind. The community does a great job in providing open knowledge, but i guess it won' t last over centuries or ages. It is just bits and bytes stored on devices with limited lifetime. Why don't we leave a footprint on this planet, which lasts over the ages. Let us put Wikipedia or something similar in stone like the Egypts did. I have no clue how to organise, but the community will know. If anyone is interested in this idea: Let us find a site to start this project. Mundanus (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mundanus and welcome to the Teahouse. In my opinion the Wikipedia IS the footprint. It is not just "bits and bytes", it is free knowledge for anyone. Who knows, maybe a WP article was the seed to an irrigation project in a village, saving hundreds of people, or maybe someone read an article on how to hold elections and decided to do something for their community. To me, such things are far more important "monuments" than some stones. But others may have different oppinions. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course many things are more important than stones. Wikipedia is more important than stones. But why not add something really persistent? Wikipedia is changing all the time. And no one can say if someone is able to reconstruct our knowledge in 5.000 years. --Mundanus (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the Wikipedia (we) don't succeed in getting knowledge to other people now, then the WP (we) don't deserve to be remembered even a hundred years from now. Stop dreaming (about monuments), get on editing! Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mundanus: Actually, there is a project unrelated to WP that might interest you called something like "The Long Now" or maybe related to such a project. They are putting knowledge on long-lasting monuments with text that spirals down to text requiring magnification.

But I think a monument to open-source volunteers is a great idea, and if that ever comes about, I hope WP is part of it. But with projects like GLAM, WP volunteers are in the museums, even if a durable WP monument is not.

Oo, I don't like that when this form pops up, I can no longer see the posts I'm responding to. Someone said something about dreaming vs. editing, and I think both are valuable. :) But of course, there's always the poem "Ozymandius" (sp?) to consider. Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your opinion, unfortunately i did not find the project that "puts knowledge on long-lasting monuments with text that spirals down to text requiring magnification". On longnow.org they just build a clock. --Mundanus (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Hello! If an article exist in other language too, what template is needed, so at left side other language shows in the list. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 19:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aftab Banoori, that function is automatic. If the same article exists on other Wikipedias it will be displayed "at the left side". It just takes a while for the bots to do it all, sometimes a day or so. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aftabbanoori and W.carter: Hi Aftab. I hate to disagree with W.carter, but while there is some automation you cannot rely on it. As far as I know if an article is not at the same name in both languages (almost invariably true if the subject is not a proper name), or Wikidata does not yet have an entry for the topic, you or someone will need to act to link them. In very short summary, you should see on the left hand side of the article, near the bottom, "languages" and underneath that a pen icon with the text "Edit links" next to it. That's where to start I believe. There a lot of information you can read about this, with instructions, at Wikipedia:Wikidata. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit:Please disagree with me when you are right! :) That scenario completely slipped my mind. My bad, w.carter-Talk 22:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear W.carter and Fuhghettaboutit

I am very grateful to both of you, for the information.

Best wishes & regards,

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 02:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a gallery of examples for wikipedia markup?

I'd love to see dozens or even hundreds of great examples that show correct usage and best practices for the mechanics of markup. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cloudjpk and welcome to the Teahouse. From what I know the Help:Wiki markup is as close as you get to this. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does a local TV station game show count as its own article?

I am editing the Wikipedia article KEDT, and one of the local shows the station produces is a game show called **Challenge!** (and yes, the exclamation point is part of the title). Should this stay in the KEDT section, or can I start a new article on the topic?

Thanks, XndrK (talk | contribs) 17:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the Game Show is of notablilty and you can add facts and sources, I don't see why not. I'll copyedit the article for you when it's done.Mirror Freak 17:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll get to work on the page immediately.

--XndrK (talk | contribs) 23:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Pink Floyd 110 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC))

Can I auto confirm my account? 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)~~

The clue is in the term "Autoconfirm". Fiddle Faddle 16:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is already autoconfirmed. Cheers, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictorial editing and posting

How How do I create a table on a page, move media files to other places on an article? Sidewinder message me! 15:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sidewinder For creating tables on pages this is an excellent place to start: Help:Table/Introduction to tables. I'm not 100% sure about what you mean by "move media files to other places", but if you mean the placing of say pictures, you can add parameters in the file to place it somewhere else than the usual right side. Read how it's done at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Hey teahouse, So I need some peer-review. I'm trying out mentoring new users and I want to know if you guys think I'm doing a good job or not. Here's my adoptee's adoption page. Please look through the lessons and task's I gave and let me know if I'm doing good. I am extremely open to constructive criticism. Thanks!Mirror Freak 13:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have joined on July 15 of this year and you shouldn't be mentoring anyone. Your response here as well as this one and this one today suggest that you could use a mentor yourself as these are unacceptable. You should strike them and apologize.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept responsibility for that. Did you look at the lesson's I'm giving my adoptee though?Mirror Freak 14:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I really want to know is if my lesson's are good or bad and how can I improve them.Mirror Freak 15:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the red flags that I saw precluded looking further. Thank you for striking those comments. Another suggestion would be to not call people dude as I have been seeing in your communications. You will come across as more professional and garner more respect that way.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if he's not being paid to edit Wikipedia (yet?!?), then does he need to appear more professional? Or is it merely to avoid the ire of individuals such as Salvatore Rivieri? (The only versions of the original Rivieri video still on YouTube appear to infringe the brave young citizen journalist cameraman's copyright, so I won't link them here, but they do explain the relevance...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Demiurge1000: Behaving in a professional manner is not about whether or not one is being paid. How you choose to behave should be informed by the effect you intend to have on others; when someone is saying to behave "professionally", they are merely asking you to behave in a manner which elicits a certain emotional response from the receiver. The words we choose to use, the way we choose to interact with others, the way we treat others all establish an atmosphere within a working environment like Wikipedia; and that's why we want people to behave "professionally". Behaving professionally is done because you want to establish an atmosphere and because you are cognizant of how your own behavior influences the behavior of others. It has nothing to do with being paid. --Jayron32 12:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

behave in a manner which elicits a certain emotional response from the receiver - sounds almost manipulative. I much prefer spontaneity; when engaging in unpaid volunteer work, anyway. Happy editing! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I got that down. So what do I do about my adoptee? I can't just drop him.Mirror Freak 15:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MirrorFreak, I know that you have grown considerably since you joined the Wikipedia (this is shown by the way you take your responsibility towards your adoptee) and while you may not be ready for an actual adoptee, you can still be a friend and guide to him/her and give advise on how to do simpler editing, how to find things at the Wikipedia, stay out of trouble, and so on. It is sometimes easier and less intimidating for a newbie to have someone who is closer in "Wiki-age" for basic questions. Just guide "your" newbie to a page where s(he) can be adopted by a senior editor the same way you were once adopted. And stay friends! Btw, being called "dude" always puts a smile on my face, but not everyone has my quirky sense of humor^^, and you should always be correct and polite when addressing a stranger. Save the puns for your friends. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing my article Rosslyn Analytics

Hi,

I have written an article about a company I feel is notable, called Rosslyn Analytics. As I half-expected, the article was rejected for notability. They have won several awards and quite a big player in cloud and big data, an industry of interest to me. I was wondering if someone would be able to provide some help and guidance to help me turn this into an approved article? It can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rosslyn_Analytics.

Any help here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.Tommillson (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tommillson. Draft:Rosslyn Analytics was declined not for notability but because it reads like an advertisement; Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Your claims of awards were discounted because they cited Business Wire as a source; Business Wire disseminates press releases; so they are not an independent sources, which are needed to verify notability. —teb728 t c 08:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi teb728. Thank you for your feedback, I will see if I can find any other sources for my article and rethink my wording.Tommillson (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

main picture

How can you change the main picture on a page, a sports player for example. If the photo of the athlete is very old to change to a current picture with the current team of theirs Southchina19 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Southchina19. First, make absolutely sure that the photo you want to use is free and has the correct licence. This is the most important part of the process: if it's not free and correctly licenced, it can't be used on Wikipedia. If you didn't create the picture yourself, chances are you probably can't use it.

Secondly, upload the image (to Wikimedia Commons).

Finally, replace the current image by changing the line in the article that reads | image = Evan Kostopoulos.jpg to | image = name of your new image.jpg. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to create this article Billy tchouague

Hello everyone,

Happy to be here. I'm still having issues about this article Billy tchouague, can somebody help me to create this article properly in order to fit wikipedia ? or tell me what i have to do to make this article notable according to wikipedia policies and guidelines ? i'm newbie right here and don't want this article to be deleted . I Need help please as this article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Many thanks in advance. Marcosantos2014 , 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marcosantos2014. Have you read our notability guideline for association football players? That requires that the player has played in a game for a fully professional team. If the subject of your article hasn't, then this article should not exist at this time. My suggestion, then, would be to work instead on articles about topics which meet Wikipedia's notability standards. There are millions of notable topics to choose from. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cullen328, Thank you for your reply, i really appreciated. I didn't read notability guideline for association football players before i write my artcile and just realize now that my article was not really notable, i made some changes by removing Association football on it, can you please check if my article Billy tchouague is now notable ? if not i'll choose articles about topics which meet Wikipedia's notability standards as you suggest from Cullen³²⁸. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosantos2014 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I use the talk page?

Im relatively new and not sure how to use the talk page, someone please help!!!Adhisha4 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adhisha4. The talk page of an article is to discuss specific ideas for improving that article. A user's talk page is to discuss improving the encyclopedia in general, or working out specific issues between two editors. The general principle is that discussion on any talk page should advance the ultimate goal of improving the encyclopedia. General chit-chat should be taken to social media sites, of which there are many. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adhisha4, I am not sure whether you may have been asking about the mechanics of how to use the Talk page. If so, when you are reading at article, near the top left of the page (on a PC - it might be different on a mobile) there is a tab named "Talk". Click on that to see the Talk page and read any discussions so far. If you want to add something, look at the tabs in the top right, and click "Edit". Add your comments at the bottom; the normal convention is to indent each successive comment with another colon ":". When you're done, "sign" with four tildes (~~~~) and make sure you click "Save page" at the bottom. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to I reference to external source?

I am not getting the formatting in proper way. The URL was not coming in the references section Can someone help 59.182.155.46 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't find any pages edited from this IP address, so you will need to tell us which particular page you're having trouble with, so we can have a look... --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you wikilink something in the references?

Something I've spotted a few times is that people will wikilink some word in an offline source. You can see an example of this in the Gemma J article. They're citing the tv show episode and the source is appropriately documented, but they have wikilinked the name of the show. The times I've spotted it in the past, author has clarified that they are not using the wikipedia page as a reference, it is simply a wikilink, used in the same way you'd link something in the body of the article. I don't prefer to do things this way because, inevitably, someone thinks the article is using a wikipedia page as a source and it also makes it look like it's an online source when it's not (then I've clicked a link needlessly). Are there any guidelines as to the appropriateness of this? Bali88 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is substantive, and not just "some word" at random, then this is standard practice and there is nothing at all wrong with it. It is common (and encouraged) to link to Wikipedia biographies of notable authors, or articles about newspapers and magazines, publishers and the like. When citing a notable book, it is perfectly OK to link to the Wikipedia article about the book itself.

In such cases, it is the cited material in the reliable source that is the reference. The linked Wikipedia articles are not the actual reference; instead, those links provide additional information for the reader about the reliable source, without substituting in any way for the content of the reliable source itself. The source itself always comes first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Welcome to the Teahouse Bali88 and thank you for the interesting question. Wikipedia guidelines discourage the use of links to external sites. You can read more about the topic here. "Hidden" links in the body of an article are a distraction and may also give the impression that Wikipedia endorses the third party site to which the link leads. In general, only other Wikipedia articles should be linked from body text. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First article

I am new and recently created an article which is a history of a company for which there was no entry in Wikipedia. I created the text and references in my sandbox and selected "Press your draft for review". I later found a hyperlink to an abbreviation of that company however this had no content. So I decided to add to the hyperlink. I revised the article and again selected "Press your draft for review". I think I have created two lots of content for the same topic but I don't know where to check. Thank you for your assistance. Cala Munda (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cala Munda: You can always view a history of your contributions by clicking on the "Contributions" link at the very top-right corner of each page. Alternatively, you can head to Special:Contributions/Cala Munda. By the looks of it, you do indeed have two drafts for the same article: User:Cala Munda/SAGASCO and User:Cala Munda/sandbox. If you'd like to have one of them deleted, you can request speedy deletion under U1 criteria by placing {{Db-u1}} at the top of the page (which is how you request the deletion of pages in your userspace). An administrator should delete the page for you in due time.

Also note that if you intended to submit the drafts for review, you haven't actually done so yet. After you click the green "Submit your draft for review" button, you have to scroll to the bottom and click the "Save page" button, as you would do for any other edit. Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?? flagged vandalism??

watched the movie "Freaks". The wiki page misquotes the freaks as chanting "Gobble-gobble, gobble-gobble". They are not turkeys, it is quite evident when watching the movie that they are chanting "Gooba-gobble, gooba-gobble". I tried to correct this and cited the movie however it was flagged as vandalism and reverted. Do not know what I did wrong, am trying to figure it out. Any help appreciated. Davrm44 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Shame on whoever said that was vandalism. Seriously...SHAME. Any good faith addition is never vandalism. Period. Bad editor...bad.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After two minutes of research I have also found that user Davrm44 is correct, made the change back and supplied a reliable source in the edit summary as plot sections no not need sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported ClueBot's failing at User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives. @Davrm44: please note that the "user" who performed the revision here is an automated program (a "bot") that attempts to detect vandalism. It messed up here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a little whack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and said "Bad bot".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Editing Spam (food) Page

Hello my name is Kathy! I am a part of a project group consisting of three other members (Linda, Maggie, Tiffany). We are from Cornell University, and intend to edit the Spam (food) page as a class assignment for INFO 3460. We have proposed a list of changes to the article on the Spam (food) talk page along with a list of potential sources, we would really value your feedback and ideas. For instance, how much of the historical aspect of Spam should be discussed/added? Should a separate section in regards to production of Spam be created, and would this be different from the section regarding its history? If this is the case how should the information on International Usage be presented? Any and all constructive criticism is welcome. Thanks!KathyQX94 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things tp bear in miond:

Any changes you make will require consensus. There are two types, nemine contradicet (usual for uncontroversial changes) and one formed actively, usual for controversial changes. Whatever happens you must submit to the consensus, though you may seek to form and influence it, on the article's talk page, in favour of your edits
Any item that you add to the article requires a reference, ideally, but not compulsorily, a citation. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42.

Those are, pretty much, the sole things you have to handle, and you can do that without fear. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the chosen topic Spam (food) is already notable, therefore WP:42 does not apply; and uncontroversial facts about the topic do not require a reference to an independent source (they still ideally require a reference to a reliable source).

Looking a little at your questions, it's fine to go ahead and make any changes with regard to section organisation that you think are good, but of course such changes may or may not be reverted if other editors disagree. If that happens, then you discuss it with the other editors on the talk page, to reach a consensus as to what to do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am one of the group members mentioned above for the Spam page. So it seems like we should focus on articles that are independent (e.g. not affiliated with Hormel which produces Spam) and reliable (such as articles from scholarly sources)?

Also, can anyone speak to why Spam is a B-class article in one Wikiproject but C-class in another? --Lhe3460 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lhe3460. Sounds like you get the idea of what's meant by reliable and independent. Also, each Wikiproject operates independently with regards to criteria and assessing articles. In the case of the Spam article, it looks like the page has been checked by a member of Wikiproject Hawaii, but no one from WikiProject Food and drink has gotten to it yet. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: Howicus Thank you for your help! --Lhe3460 (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

create a page

I just created a wikipedia account. It was confirmed via email. I can't seem to be able to upload anything. I want to create a page about a friend who died in 2012. I keep getting a message that I'm not confirmed. Help. Britelite 002 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Britelite 002. Welcome to the Teahouse.

You will have to wait four days and make any ten edits before you can upload. You will then be autoconfirmed. In the meantime I suggest you look through our guidelines on notability to see if your friend is likely to be notable for Wikipedia. Also bear in mind that you may have a conflict of interest as this was your friend and be careful to maintain a neutral point of view.Charles (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What am I supposed to edit four times? in four days? I have nothing to edit. Or is it either/or...wait four days or make four edits.

What do you mean a conflict of interest? How would it be conflicting and to whom? What parameters do we have for a notable person? That's a very uncomfortable designation. Would one have to be uh...famous...have an obit in the NYTimes? What? Britelite 002 (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britelite 002, we have many needs on Wikipedia. If you find a typographical error or a place where a comma is needed (most of my edits are of this type, and most of those are mistakes I made myself), these count. You can make create a userpage by clicking on your name and tell us about your interests as they relate to Wikipedia.

A conflict of interest means you are close to the subject you are writing about and may have trouble writing with a neutral point of view. Most people, when they try to write about a subject they are very familiar with, want to say the nicest things they can and praise the person or company. But an encyclopedia needs to be neutral. It is better if others write about the subject you are close to. Start by creating a draft in your userspace. Click User:Britelite 002/Draft and you can do that.

As for notability, if a person is famous enough to be written about in The New York Times, that person would likely qualify for an article. Notability doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as famous, but it means the person has been written about in detail in several reliable independent sources such as major newspapers or magazines, or even books.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blue hyperlink I put in my first reply will take you to the page which explains notabity guidelines for people.Charles (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a Page

Hello.

I am a staff member at The History Center in Tompkins County. I realized that our museum did not have a Wikipedia page, so I decided to create one. I have begun the basic structure of it, and I'm making my way through.

My question: I noticed that another local non-profit organization has mentioned us in their opening paragraph of their article "Ithaca Discovery Trail". However, they have identified us with the incorrect name (History Center of Tompkins County - which does not use "The" in the beginning of our name, and uses "of" instead of "in"). I'm curious as to how this hyperlink can be completely deleted, and replaced with a link to the article I am currently working on (The History Center in Tompkins County)?

Thank you.

TheHistoryCenterinTompkinsCounty (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse TheHistoryCenterinTompkinsCounty

Wikipedia strongly recommends people not to write articles on their employer, as you have a clear conflict of interest, making it difficult for you to write from the required neutral point of view. Please read and follow the advice in WP:COI
I note that the article The History Center in Tompkins County has been nominated for deletion as a copyright violation - and you are arguing that you own the copyright - which is precisely the problem - it is copyright. As it clearly states above the edit box "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.".
Finally, I have to tell you that your choice of username contradicts our WP:Username policy particularly WP:ORGNAME and needs to be changed. - Arjayay (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia @TheHistoryCenterinTompkinsCounty:. There's a GLAM sub-community that can be found at WP:GLAM, which may be of help. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user messages

I received a user message and would like to reply. When I am in the Talk tab, I see the message but would like to know how that works to talk back. Thanks, R SocialNtwrker (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SocialNtwrker. Welcome. Just click the blue "Edit" tab at the top of the page. Below the last entry start with a colon to indent your reply and at the end add four tildes ( ~ ) which signs it for you.Charles (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Charles. I appreciate your help. SocialNtwrker (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made two submissions with the same title

hello anyone, i made two submissions with the same title, is it possible to cancel onePauljoel.akp (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pauljoel.akp. Yes, it is. I guess you're talking about Draft:Linda Ikeji and Draft:Linda Ikeji (2)? If you edit the one you want deleted, and insert the template {{db-g7}} at the start, that is a request for an administrator to come along and delete the page. (You can only use this if you are the sole, or nearly sole, person who has contributed to a page). --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs quick solution for my articles contributed to the 'Ukulhas' Island in wikipedia.

Since I'm the creator of the 'Ukulhas' page in Wikipedia and I've been the only person who has been contributing articles to 'Ukulhas' (an island in Maldives) page in Wikipedia, I would humbly need your support and advice for the editions and further developments of the page.

In may 2012 I got the feedback about the articles which says 'This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources'.

Since no book has been written about the Ukulhas so far and I'm one of the few people who done the research on 'Ukulhas', It would really be a difficult task for me to provide more citations and more sources. In this case what would be the solutions for citation issues??

Secondly the feed back says 'This article is written like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. For that now I've been rewriting and changing the sentence structures to encyclopedic descriptions.

I'm an automated confirmed user of Wikipedia. My Username is Rappey and my User ID is 7808376.

I would be grateful if you could help me soon.

Best Regards Ramiz Rep of Maldives (Rappey (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramiz. The absence of other sources is a big problem. For most subjects, the absence of sources besides your own book would be a block, as the subject would then fail to be notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). But WP:GEOLAND says that populated places are normally notable. Can you not find any other published material on the island? Newspapers, other books? They do not have to be in English, or available on line.

The language of Ukulhas is still a problem: every sentence oozes "travel guide". Nearly every sentence is promotional: Wikipedia articles should never say anything is "famed for its (anything)", nor should anything be described as "first ever". A community should not be described as "a warm and welcoming one" - unless perhaps this is quoted from an independent reliable source. The article goes into far too much detail for an encyclopaedia article, especially about things of interest only to people who visit. In my view, it needs a complete rewrite, and would come out at something like one quarter of the length. I suggest you contribute this draft article to something like wikivoyage, and start again with a more neutral, encyclopaedic, and non-promotional article for Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could rewrite the articles but its hard for me to find more sources about the island since no books or articles have been written so far. Rappey (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ramiz. What exactly is the source for this article? The citation only says "Ramiz Ibrahim". RockMagnetist (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ColinFine. I've extracted articles relevant to travels and moved all those tho Wikivoyage and made changes to remaining contents. I've also found few citations which I've cited. Could you please help me in doing further enhancement..Once again many thanks for your feedback advice. Rappey (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be willing to help me write an article ASAP?

I need an article written ASAP about Northern Soul the film. Would anyone be willing to help me do it? Emmaparkinson (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emmaparkinson - what's the reason for the urgency? Wikipedia has no deadlines and we are generally very reluctant to entertain the deadlines of external parties. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus redirect has become a page again

Hi, if someone could point me in the way of policy regarding consensus-reached page blanking redirects that have been recreated without addressing former issues, I would be grateful. Thanks Asdklf; (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdklf; To clarify, are you referring to someone recreating an article that was previously turned into a redirect after a discussion that reached consensus? If so, I guess the most relevant policy would simply be Wikipedia:Consensus. WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT also covers some details on blanking-and-redirecting.

If you're having issues with an editor restoring an article after discussion, I'd first attempt to discuss the issue with them on their talk page, linking to previous discussions. If there is still a dispute after that, you may try to get more input from other editors - or perhaps go through articles for deletion to get a more formal decision on whether the article should be deleted/redirected. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i am new here how can i great a page and a biography please? thanks

i have tried and my add has being deleted please help. thanks.Ninfican (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ninfican, and welcome to Wikipedia. It's important to realise that Wikipedia is not a social networking site - we don't write about ourselves because, frankly, most of us haven't done anything worth including in an encyclopedia. Unless you've been in the national news a few times, Wikipedia doesn't want or need your biography as an article.

You do have a userpage (at User:Ninfican), which you can use to tell other Wikipedia editors a bit about yourself. However, the userpage guidelines discourage excessive personal information - your userpage should tell us things that are relevant to your work here - what you're interested in and which areas you're planning to edit. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can I remove the {{User sandbox}} template from my draft submission?

I have submitted an article for review and now have this message in my Sandbox. How is this done?S.tollyfield (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, S.tollyfield. Simply edit it out, which I have now done. As part of the review process, Joe Decker moved the article into Draft space, so it should not have that template. Moving the article leaves a redirect, so if you go to your sandbox, you are automatically redirected to the new location. If you pick on where it says "Redirected from User:S.tollyfield/sandbox, it will take you back to your real sandbox, which you can edit to remove the redirect. Either reuse it (if you want to create another article), or leave it blank, or insert the template {{db-g7}} in it, which requests an administrator to come along and delete it.

Resolved

--ColinFine (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have someone look at my article before resubmitting it?

Can I have someone look at my article before resubmitting it just to make sure I am correcting the mistakes I am making? We've been working on submitting the Jerry Yarnell page for a while now.Sablanca (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sablanca, Hello! You're going to have trouble with this submission on the basis that nearly all of the sources appear to be written by Yarnell himself. Can you find some sources that are written by impartial and unrelated sources? News articles? Bali88 (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. Is there a certain amount of sources we need to have in order for it to be accepted? Sablanca (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sablanca, There is no set number of sources you need, but the number of secondary sources (written by someone else), needs to be greater than that of primary sources (written by him or someone close to him). It also matters how you use the sources. For instance, his birthdate, where he grew up, his diagnosis with lymphoma, and where he went to college are appropriate things to cite to his own writings. Those are not considered self-serving statements. However, things like the fact that he is "widely famous", the awards he has won, and the number of students need to be sourced to impartial sources. I'd get started here. There are a number of issues with tone in the article (at times it sounds like an advertisement for him), but it's getting closer. Get the sourcing fixed and I'll help you with fix the rest. :-) Bali88 (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sablanca. I believe that a decent article about this artist can be created. But please ponder carefully the following completely unreferenced sentences from the current version of the draft:

"In 2010, as part of a bold move and massive undertaking, Jerry began recording all new materials for his new TV Show Paint This with Jerry Yarnell™, for his portfolio of DVD instructional materials, and for his new 24/7 school Yarnell School Online. While his business name remains Yarnell Studio & School of Fine Art LLC, his new and only official teaching website is now www.YarnellSchool.com, easily recognized by its background color which is his signature royal blue."

This is overtly promotional, advertising, spam-type language that will never be acceptable in an encyclopedia article, which must be written from the neutral point of view. You must be ruthless in your editing, eliminating these sentences, and every other sentence, phrase and word that is promotional in any way. Only then will your draft be worthy of serious consideration. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, also kill that trademark symbol - ™ - such symbols are not permitted in articles at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When editors are personally abusive

I was recently involved in a rather strange discussion in which an editor implied that my opinion on a topic is because I am a white supremacist on the basis of a dissection of the the numbers in my screen name and that everyone else was a racist because they disagreed with the changes. I thought it was pretty funny and the editor is now blocked for other reasons (edit warring, it appears to be a spe account created solely to make these edits), but for future reference, is abusive language by other editors an actionable offense? In other words, can you get blocked just for being a jerk and calling names? Bali88 (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bali88: Welcome back to the Teahouse. It's true that personal attacks are a blockable offense WP:ANI is the place to report them, but I'm not sure that that comment crosses into personal attacks (saying "You are a neo-nazi" would be considered an obvious personal attack though). Nevertheless, there's no harm in reporting them to ANI, especially if they're making other disruptive edits. --Jakob (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: Thanks. I'm not terribly concerned about this specific editor at this point. I was just wondering how to handle it if this continues/amplifies. I know they're harassing another editor on their own talk page. :-) Bali88 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, the editor in question has now been blocked (for edit-warring, rather than personal attcks, but I don't imagine their conversational conduct helped their case). Civility is always something of a hot-button topic at ANI, so if you do ever file a report against another user there, be ready for a degree of *ahem* vibrant discussion; unless someone has directly called you something unspeakably rude, it can be difficult to get consensus on what constitutes "incivility". In theory, as Jakob points out, incivility is a blockable offence; in practice... well, it's a can of worms you may wish to leave unopened. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I inform the public that I will become my very last artwork after my death I have Terminal Cancer

How do I inform the public that I am the first artist in history to become my last ever artwork installation by arranging now a see through tank to preserve my body soon after my death as I only have 6-9 months to live according to my specialist cancer doctor due to Terminal Cancer of the pancreasTREVOR DAVID THOMAS ARTIST (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Trevor David Thomas. I am sorry to hear of your diagnosis. Unfortunately your news is not encyclopedic; so there is no place for it in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for other websites; for example, you could put it on a facebook page. —teb728 t c 23:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trevor. I am also sorry to hear of your condition, and think it a bold and challenging thing to do. I'd like to expand a little on what teb828: it's not that what you are planning to do is inherently unencyclopaedic: until something has been picked up and reported on by reliable independent sources, it is unsuitable. So if a major newspaper were to write an article about you and your intended artwork, then it could appear in Wikipedia. In short, Wikipedia is never, ever, allowed to be used to "inform the public" of something - only after secondary sources have already noted something may it appear in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unifying language in an article

If I come across an article that uses inconsistent terminology (different words for the same thing, to a confusing degree), is it kosher for me to go through and make the language consistent? 152.193.3.158 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings 152, welcome to the teahouse. It's always a good idea to give the specifics (e.g. which article) on these kinds of questions so people can take a look for themselves, because so many of these questions don't have generic answers. In general, without knowing more about the article in question making language use more consistent and coherent sounds like basic good editing. However, note that one thing that comes up sometimes is Enlish vs US spelling. Some articles have adopted English spelling (e.g. centre rather than center) and the standard is that once an article goes one way or another don't change it. So if it's using US English spelling stick with that if English English stick with that. There are often comments at the beginning of articles or on their talk pages where this has been an issue asking people not to start changing the standard. Also, using different words for the same thing isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact I do it all the time because using the same word can be rather boring for the reader. Again it all depends on the article, for scientific topics for example it can be essential to use the same term consistently. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's this page, which is all over the place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_financing

I'm working on an academic project, and while even in the field there's little consensus on which term to use, I'm thinking it would be best if the article committed to one. I'll take some time to unify it when my schedule allows.... 152.193.3.158 (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not skilled enough in the field of legal finance to know if words are being used correctly or incorrectly in that article, so I don't really know what you're referring to, but while you're "unifying" the article, make sure that you include all relevant terminology so that the audience knows what you're talking about. It's good for an article to be consistent, but if you change it all to American English and make no mention of other terminology, a British reader will be lost. A good strategy that some articles employ is to include all relevant alternative terms in the lead. So for instance the CCTV article...CCTV is not a common American term. We frequently use terms like video surveillance or surveillance footage, but almost never use the term CCTV. It's a lot more common in other English speaking areas. There's nothing wrong with using CCTV throughout the article, but it's definitely worth noting in the lead alternative names so readers from other dialects know what you're talking about. Make sure you aren't removing terms that might help others understand the article. :-) Bali88 (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Law is also a good place to consult with other editors who have an interest in and knowledge of the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gartner Group white papers

Is it possible for me to get access to Gartner group papers via Wikipedia? This is strictly for editing Wikipedia not a back door for business stuff. If not (which I'm almost certain is the answer) I assume I can still reference Gartner white papers even though they are behind a paywall(?) I still have friends who work in the real world and have access to this stuff and I also have a store of papers I saved in electronic format from back when I had access. I know that journal articles would be preferable but for some Information Technology topics the journal articles are IMO just mostly so esoteric and not related to most of the actual issues that people in the real world deal with. FYI, the specific paper I'm interested in is this: https://www.gartner.com/doc/2725417/choose-right-technology-knowledge-management but I've thought about this for several other articles as well. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth asking around at the Resource Exchange; folk there can get hold of a lot of cool stuff... Someone on that project may well have Gartner access. Yunshui ^雲 _水 20:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, I didn't even know that existed. Glad I asked. Thanks Again! (I promise this is my last question at least for today ;) --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posting images

Is there a step-by-step guide for posting images in Wikipedia articles? Geoff Roynon (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, just find the picture you want to upload on the Commons and add it into the article.Mirror Freak 18:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is not in the Commons, it is an image belonging to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Do I need to add it to the Commons first and then link to it? Geoff Roynon (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then yeah, here's the steps...

Go to the Commons
Make sure you have permission to use the picture
Upload the picture
Use a wikilink to add the picture. (If you can't I help you do it)Mirror Freak 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help - will let you know how it works out. Geoff Roynon (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a problem here, GeoffRoynon. Use of imagery from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey is limited to non-commercial use only. Freely licensed images on Wikimedia Commons can be used for any purpose, including commercial uses. The licenses are not compatible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use a different source? For instance, some (but not all) Hubble images are in the Public Domain and can be used here. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't use a different source - I need to use the original image from Sloan Digital Sky Survey. This shows the colour of the object of interest as blue, other images have it as green. Why do we need to add images to the Commons before using them? Can't we simply link to the original source on Sloan for the image? Geoff Roynon (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeoffRoynon. One of the goals of Wikipedia is that it be free to use, as well as free to edit: ideally, all material in it can be reused by anybody, for any purpose, as long as they follow the requirements on attribution and licensing. Partly for that reason, the Wikipedia does not provide a way to include images from elsewhere (except from Wikimedia commons, which is a related project). For practical reasons, there is a way of including certain copyright material (such as company logos, and scans of book and record covers), but the use of these is very narrowly limited (see non-free content criteria.

You may be able to link to a page which contains an image; but this must either be a reference supporting a statement in the article, or follow the (again narrow) constraints on using external links. But the vast majority of images on the internet, I'm afraid, simply cannot be used in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've lost interest in this now. Sloan Digital Sky Survey allows its images to be used for non-commercial purposes and Wikipedia (I assume) is non-commercial yet we can't use the images from Sloan! Geoff Roynon (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself is indeed non-commercial, but we want commercial entities to be able to use our content. If you put a picture from Sloan in an article, then no one would be able to take that article and use it for any commercial purpose. Powers ^T 21:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to create WikiProject for Filipino Americans

I saw the WikiProject for Tambayan Philippines which seems to be a catchall for all things related to the Philippines as well as Filipino culture. I want to create a WikiProject specifically for "Filipino Americans" to collaborate with other users on Filipino American history and clean up stubs on biography pages for Filipino Americans. I'm very new to Wikipedia editing as of this past weekend so I'd like some help maybe finding more experienced users to create this or I suppose tips on how to make sure I'm doing this right. Thanks. Dashiellsands (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Dashiellsands:, and welcome! I've never started a Wikiproject myself, but looking into it, it looks like you would go through the process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. If you have questions about how that process works, it looks like the best place to ask is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Good luck. I hope this was helpful! --Jayron32 19:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Jayron32. I will check them out. It's quite a big world I jumped into so I appreciate simple "turn here" tips to get around.

--Dashiellsands (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-colon?

I came across the following sentence while editing random articles...Some of these images pre-dated the work the claimant had created some did not. I inserted a semi-colon. It now reads...Some of these images pre-dated the work the claimant had created; some did not. I started to wonder if a period and a new sentence.......created. Some did not. would have been better. Thoughts? Buster Seven Talk 16:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Buster Seven, and thanks for posing an interesting punctuation question for the Teahouse! I think the answer depends on context:

1. The semicolon gives equivalent weight to the two independent clauses without coming to a full stop in the flow of ideas. In other words, it maintains the flow of ideas.

2. Using a period and new sentence creates a full stop and puts more emphasis on “Some did not.” As a reader, I might expect the next sentence to further explain through examples of the images that did not predate the other images.

3. The options of using a comma and conjunction such as and or but, or a semicolon plus conjunctive adverb (however, nevertheless, additionally, etc.) plus comma give even more ways to nuance the connection between ideas.

It’s a matter of choice, depending on the meaning. Punctuation matters! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I like it with the semi colon, but either works. Ryan shell (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I think the semicolon makes us "read" it the way it would be spoken, with a soft stop connecting two equal parts. Thanks ALL for your work at the Teahouse. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline for accepted wikipedia page submission

Hi There, I've recently submitted a wikipedia page for Splice Machine. What is the time frame for getting this page accepted? Splice Machine 15:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariela Weinberger (talk • contribs)

A few months due to the backlog.Mirror Freak 15:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a movie as a reference

I hate it when this happens, I'm almost sure I've done this in the past but for some reason I can't remember and can't find the relevant documentation. I want to cite a talking head from a movie. The movie is about Margaret Mead and I want to quote at least one anthropologist. I have a draft in my sandbox btw. What I want to do is cite the specific time frame when the person is talking, something like minute = 20:02 - 25:04 but can't remember the appropriate keyword to use, minute doesn't work. Also, the video I want to reference is on Youtube. I know Youtube isn't normally a good source but in this case it's an educational video so no copyright issues, it says on the video something like "standard youtube license" and I think it adds to the verifiability if people can link directly to the actual source and watch for themselves, I assume that is OK in this situation? MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the veracity of a YouTube source (short answer: official channel, probably ok, uploaded by random unknown, probably not), you'll probably find {{Cite AV media}} is the reference template you'll need. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(the relevant parameter being "time="). Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Have to bookmark that. I will double check, I think it's not a random user but not sure; if it is a random user this video is fairly essential to understanding the criticism of Mead's work so I can probably find some official version on Youtube or elsewhere. Thanks for the prompt reply, I've been tearing my hair (what little is left) out trying to figure that out. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add

The band is new and the person isn't all that popular in social media. What I have written is everything I can about the person.Also sorry about the spelling mistakes in my pervious post. Ashley.Cunningham (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Ashley. I assume this is also about George Daniel (drummer)? Wikipedia doesn't care how popular a person is in social media. What it does care about, crucially, is whether reliable, independent sources (such as major newspapers, or websites with a good reputation for fact-checking) have written about the person. If they haven't yet done so, then the person is not notable, in Wikipedia's special sense of the word, and we cannot have an article about them. The point, I think, is that if the person hasn't been written about in reliable sources, then there is no information which is allowed to go in the article, so there cannot be an article. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Wikipedia links when there are?

Im working on a page George_Daniel_(drummer) and I got a note that it has no links to any Wikipedia pages when it does. Can someone explain. I'd greatful2 appreciate it. Ashley.Cunningham (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting fixes: turned the link (which wasn't even a link because there wasn't a space before it) into a wikilink, and removed the space before the signature. --ColinFine (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ashley. Yobot (which is a bot, not a person) correctly spotted that the article contained no wikilinks at all. While it did in fact have links to other Wikipedia articles, they were:

presented as external links, which is not recommended
directed to the mobile version of Wikipedia, which is undesirable
formatted as references, which they are not (references point to reliable sources which support statements made in the text; wikilinks are aids to the reader, and point to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects - which are not reliable sources).

Fuhghettaboutit replaced these with proper wikilinks, and then replaced the message with a different one. --ColinFine (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

editing information on a brand's page - by a member of the company

I would like to make edits to the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy_Amies_Ltd

I am a representative of the company and therefore a reliable source. Is there a process I have to go through to prove this or is there somewhere I send the relevant information I want to add to the page and they edit it on my behalf etc. For example, we (Hardy Amies Ltd) have just opened a new store at No.8 Savile Row and I need to add details of this to the page. There is also information that needs deleting as it is replicated on the 'Sir Edwin Hardy Amies' page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hardy_Amies) which is more about the brand's founder as opposed to the brand today. Thank you in advance for your help. 195.171.80.170 (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 195.171.80.170. I don't think that being part of the company actually makes you a reliable source. With that logic, a Christian could say that because he/she's a Christian, that god is real.Mirror Freak 12:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant reliable as in not a random member of the public. But thank you for your help anyway 195.171.80.170 (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an employee, you have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia in regards to the article about your company - you're therefore strongly advised against editing the article directly. However, you can, as you suggest, get someone without a COI to edit the page for you. Go to the article's talkpage and add a new section with your suggested changes. At the top of your comments, add the following code: {{Request edit}}. This will alert other users to the fact that an edit has been requested, and they can then evaluate your proposed changes and, if appropriate, implement them.

You will, however, need to make sure that you include actual reliable sources for any changes you want made - without sources, your edit request is liable to be rejected out of hand. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you so much for your help Yunshui - much appreciated! 195.171.80.170 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about my help!!!!!!!!! Just kidding. hahahaMirror Freak 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MirrorFreak. What this person means, by the way, is that we have no way of knowing you really are who you are, and what you say needs to be published somewhere so people wanting to do so can go back and check it later to see if it is really true. And as an employee of the company, you might want to add only positive information or promote the company.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why my article is going to be deleted?

My page about product of company I work for is under Speedy deletion issues. But this page is very similar to other pages of products of the same category on Wikipedia. Why one articles can stay and others (like mine) shall be deleted if they are in fact similar?Jan Goldewski (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan Goldewski welcome to the Tea House

I may be wrong, your article is written in promotional tone.

Also as you work for the company it is "Conflict of Interests"

May be senior editors like ColinFine will tell you more how to submit article about your company. If you scroll down this page you will see "How can I update company information inline with Wikipedia rules?" which is similar to your issue.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 09:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you create an infobox

I have been searching and asking on how to create an infobox to a certain person on a Wikipedia article but can never get a straight answer on how to. Can someone please help?

Thanks, Septinlas (Beau) Septinlas (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Beau, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have found two different ways to do this: an easy way and a hard way. The hard way is to follow the instructions at Template:Infobox person (actually, it's not a bad idea to scan over that anyway). The easier way is to find another article which looks similar to what you want, and copy the code from there. Just click the Edit tab, select the Infobox section, copy and then paste it into your article. Be aware that there are many different styles of infoboxes, for scientists and musicians and politicians and military people etc, so use the one which best suits your subject. Alternative templates are listed at WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Gronk Oz for the answer I've been waiting for!

Septinlas (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Septinlas. Just to add on to Gronk Oz's answer, infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for articles according to WP:INFOBOXUSE. There are lots of featured articles which have infoboxes and lots which do not. Therefore, adding an infobox to an existing article needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and should be discussed beforehand on the article's talk page to see if there's a consensus for adding one. Like any other edit, an infobox should improve a reader's understanding of the article in question. Whether other similar articles have one or not can be helpful as a guide, but an infobox shouldn't really be added just for the sake of adding an one. In fact, in some cases an infobox can actually be more of a "disinfobox" which serves no real purpose.

So, if you're talking about adding an infobox to a new article you're creating, then I suggest carefully considering if it is absolutely needed to improve the reader's understanding. Maybe ask at any relevant WikiProjects to see if they have any guidelines regarding infobox usage or specific advice. If you're talking about adding an infobox to an existing article, especially one that has existed for a long time with out one, then you should discuss it on the article's talk page first to see what the consensus might be. Make sure to check the talk page's archives, if there are any, because it's possible that the subject came up before and the consensus was not to add one. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some is posting a ling at the top of article I posted

I started an article called Redstone Building in 2007. A person named CTF83! has posted a link to a music event in Iowa where a similar building exists at the top of the page. Shouldn't this be done elsewhere, like the "Redstone" disambiguation page? There is no full article about the other "Redstone Building" in Iowa, apparently which is where the person is from. Shouldn't they start their own Redstone Building page rather than using the top of the page in San Francisco?

Energynet (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Energynet: What you seen is what's known as a hatnote. Its main purpose is to direct readers from an article they may have reached by accident to an article they were trying to reach. In this case the hatnote is okay, because the other building is known as the Redstone Building and thus someone searching for it would find the article on your Redstone Building instead. --Jakob (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with my first article. Free Rider HD

Here is the Decline message that I got... What should I change?

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Free Rider HD and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dominic951Dominic951 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dominic, and thanks for coming by the Teahouse! Your draft article was rejected because it isn't written like a good encyclopedia article should be written. It includes highly promotional language, of a sort that you'd find in a video game review or an advertisement for the game (like "an addicting game" and "Thousands of tracks, challenge friends, draw a track and more!"). It includes gameplay instructions that would be better suited to a video game manual or strategy guide (like "Undo(Shift + Z): To undo the last drawn line, power-up, or goal"). And most importantly of all, it doesn't cite any reliable third-party sources, which means no one who reads your article has any way to verify the information in the article.

My suggestion would be to look at some high-quality existing video game articles. A good model might be Crayon Physics Deluxe, which is fairly basic but demonstrates appropriate tone and referencing.

If you have further questions, feel free to ask!

-- Powers ^T 00:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Powers, I was wondering if you could give me a hand maybe. Change some things and tell me why you changed them. I would appreciate it. Thanks for the help anyway.

Question: What do you mean 3rd-party sources? What should I do to change this.

Thanks again, Dominic. — Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Dominic. I'm afraid I can't fix your article for you, because I don't know anything about the game, and I don't know where to find sources for it. I can tell you that a third-party source is one that is independent of the game developer (the developer is the first party, and Wikipedia is the second party), like a gaming magazine or other independent author. Powers ^T 14:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the link a third-party? Or a source?

Dominic951 ^(Talk)

I'm not sure which link you mean. I see three links in your draft article right now. Two go to the game's official website (first-party source) and one goes to Wikipedia (second-party source). You need reliable, journalistic sources that talk about the game without being affiliated with the game. Powers ^T 20:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I center a thumbnail image?

I am trying for ...some hours now, to center an thumbnail image, because the default thumbnail is cuting the face I have to put to the biographical article of my boss. If I don't solve it until tomorrow I am fired... I thought wikipedia works as any other editing programs, but it seems it is quite rigid, because I cannot move the image in no way to center it. I am no expert in IT, but all other programs I used worked easier... What the hell dudes, can't you make something to work? Please!!! George Tiugea George.tiugea (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, George; I'm sorry for your frustration. Can you tell us what image you're trying to use? Our thumbnails display entire images, just at reduced size, so I'm not sure how the image is being incorrectly cropped. If you can be very specific with the problem you're having, we can take a look and try to help. Powers ^T 19:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a regular .jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Claudia_Tapardel.jpg George.tiugea (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the image to her article. At this link you can see the change I made; hopefully it helps you add images to articles in the future.

I do have some concerns about the image you uploaded, though. Did you really take the photo yourself? And if so, did you do it as part of your official on-the-job duties? That can all affect the copyright status of the work. Powers ^T 19:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And George.tiugea, if your job really does depend on updating the Wikipedia article about your boss, then I suggest you get another job as soon as possible, because you have been charged with something that is difficult if not impossible. First of all, read (and show her) our policy on conflict of interest, so that she understands that neither she nor you has any control over the page, and can only suggest changes to be made to it. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the image was previously published off Wikipedia and will therefore require OTRS permissions or the image could be deleted as a copyright issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... which seems an appropriate point to mention to User:George.tiugea that they should visit WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries in order to find out how to prevent that happening. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go. I didn't think to look on Wikipedia for it.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Powers: Thank you very much for your help! I took the picture myself and it had nothing to do with the job connection at that time, I took it as a friend, and now I added in order to SHARE it with the public.

@ColinFine, Demiurge1000: I just entered this chat looking for HELP not lecturing about presumptions of something I did not do. I simply posted an informative article, having no direct relation with my job connection. All the information can be checked on the external links and more references will be added soon. I admit I added some drama to the job issue, but that was only meant to help improve the article nothing more. The final purpose was to have better information about a subject. I thought this was a place of free speech not of harassment with all sorts of accusations... Maybe I was wrong... but only in this respectGeorge.tiugea (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, the lectures are free. As a Junior Wrangler at the Teahouse, though, I must point out that neither Wikipedia nor the Teahouse are Speakers' Corner; we are not here as an unrestricted forum for "free speech". We are here to build an encyclopedia; and we hope you will join us in doing so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an article for an author's novel

On editing an author's page I want to write a synopsis of one of the author's titles. I can only do this on the page itself. I cannot create another page - when I try using title it just redirects back to the author's page. How do I create a new page?S.tollyfield (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You could create a new article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. However, before doing so, you should check that the book meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. If there have not been multiple full length reviews of the book in independent reliable sources like newspapers or magazines, then it is likely the book does not meet the criteria and therefore does not merit a separate Wikipedia article. Press releases or material produced by the publisher or on bookseller sites like Amazon does not count. Incidentally, the formal notability guideline for books is at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I believe the problem is that the title of the book is currently a redirect to the author's article. When you search for the book's title, and are redirected to the author's article, up at the top underneath the author's name, there should be a link that says "(Redirected from _______)", with the name of the book linked. You can click on that link and it will take you to the redirect page, which you can then edit as you would any other page on the wiki. Powers ^T 19:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S.tollyfield. As well as the notability issues pointed to by Arthur goes shopping, please also look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. I am concerned that you say you want to write a synopsis - the page I just linked to says " Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary". If there is nothing more to say about a book than to give a plot summary, then the book is almost certainly not notable (in the special Wikipedia sense referred to by Arthur goes shopping), and we should not have a separate article about it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted an article for review as suggested - however I do not see how I can add anything to say why the book is notable. In my view this is because there is an autobiographical element, i.e. based where the author has lived. The locations are all real and can be referenced. Also the plot relies on historical facts and genuine local myths which can also be referenced S.tollyfield (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again User:S.tollyfield. The book being based on historical facts, real places and genuine events is not a problem at all. Notability would still be established by providing references to reliable sources that discuss the book, such as reviews in newspapers, magazines or literary magazines, or academic studies that mention the book or its writing. Take as an example the short article Dancer (novel) that I wrote... notability is proven by the independent references provided. The only difference is that one does not need to provide references for the Plot section... I only did so because I had not read the book, and hence my summary of the plot information was sourced from places other than the book itself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I just amended Telegraph to Daily Telegraph as the link was going to totally the wrong place S.tollyfield (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you. I have just finally turned on WP:Navigation popups after remembering someone at Wikimania suggested it, so hopefully I will get slightly fewer wikilinks so wrong in the future. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Feedback:

Hello, Russell.mo. I don't know much about this, but it seems to me that it may be relevant what it is you are going to do with the information.

Nearly all the content of Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA, which means that it may be reused for any purpose as long as it is properly attributed: see WP:REUSE. The exception is certain files (nearly all of them images) which are used under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. From the link you give, RationalWiki seems to have a similar situation, but I've no idea how frequent or pervasive is the material in it which is not so licensed.

Feedback:

Hello Russell.mo. Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content would be another page to add to your reading list. It addresses directly reuse of Wikipedia material. —teb728 t c 19:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Thank you gentlemen!

I won't be inserting any images from Wikipedia. I've also acknowledged in regards to Rationalwiki's material, it's informal and biased, despite the facts some information’s are desirable. Thank you for your clarification, for saving me from one camouflaged violation, things became clearer in regards to this matter after understanding your point of view.

Note: I am planning on to rewrite the information's and or insert it exactly as it is, with a few modifications if possible, e.g., modify/amend/delete words/sentences/paragraphs, thereafter combine it with the story to make sense of it as a whole. Any idea to whom I show the work I done along with others for corrections, whether it adhered to the Wikipedias 'terms and conditions'? It's for a book.

(Russell.mo (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Feedback:

Hi, Russell.mo. I'm still completely unclear what it is you are planning to do with the information from the two wikis. Are you editing Wikipedia? Or editing RationalWiki? Or creating something new, outside both of those? (Sorry - just saw your last sentence. It's your word "insert" that was making me think you are talking about updating an existing wiki). I don't think there's anybody you need to show it to. The conditions only say that you have to attribute the source properly, and license the derivative work appropriately: there's nothing about what use you may make of the material. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Apologies ColinFine!

Attributing the source properly: Will a simple ‘bibliography’ with URLs sufficient? E.g. follows, what I’ll put in the end of the book.

Bibliography:

The information’s gathered as the content of the book is from 'Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia and Rationalwiki’ website except the story of the book which is combined. The following are the URLs provided if you wish to gain more knowledge in regards to particular subjects discussed: URL:

URL:

License the derivative work appropriately: Where shall I licence the derivative work? I am planning to write a book, will a ‘bibliography’ with URLs aforementioned sufficient? If not what do I do? An example, step by step guide please.

Now that you are aware of the purpose, that it is for a book, what do you suggest about the images? Disregard answering this point if I still need permissions from the creators!

Rationalwiki <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Copyrights>:

RationalWiki:Copyrights For all RationalWiki original material, i.e., that material which was developed for release on RationalWiki, and did not expressly state other licensing, and hereafter referred to as "original content", the author(s) make the following license grant. “”Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 (CC-BY-SA 3.0) or any later version.

A complete copy of the license can be read at Creative Commons Legal Code. RationalWiki may include material which is not original content, and this does not necessarily fall under the CC-BY-SA. Unless released by the author(s), such material falls under the terms under which it was released by the original authors. Under these circumstances, the use of the material on RationalWiki is per allowance in the original license, or in some circumstances, per fair use. The name RationalWiki is trademarked and the RationalWiki logo is copyright The RationalMedia Foundation, Inc. all rights reserved. Any uses, derivative or otherwise, require express written permission.

Do you suggest using Rationalwiki’s article(s) now because you understand that it is for a book? Because, at first, you noticed (before me) that its contents are not so licenced, as it ‘mirrors’ license from Wikipedia in some/most cases in the article(s) [only for the parts that are re-written from Wikipedia I am assuming Rationalwiki mirrors the license]. Can I copy/modify/amend/delete words/sentences/paragraphs of Rationalwiki’s what’s not mirrored? Disregard answering Rationalwiki topic if the embolden point above defines Rationalwiki’s ‘contents’ (which are not mirrored with Wikipedia) and not its ‘logo’, or both.

Extra Information:

I have spoken to someone and they said ‘a lawyer can only provide me with a letter that certifies the books name and the original work’, meaning, I must provide a letter he provides to whoever rewrites the book in order to collect a signature from them as an ‘agreement’ for security reasons. Assumptions suggesting now, after reading through Wikipedia’s ‘terms and conditions’ and after discussing with you, that as long as I certify my original work in an 'agreement form' with a lawyer, no one will be able to copy/modify/amend and so on until after its published, because of Wikipedia's 'terms and conditions'; I can’t copyright my work with Wikipedia’s together as a whole but I can separately [just my story only] before publication… Am I Right?

(Russell.mo (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hello again, Russell.mo. The convention is that successive replies are indented further, by using one more colon (:) at the beginning of each paragraph. Please observe this convention, rather than putting in new headings.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not allowed by the rules of the Help desk to give you legal advice. But it seems to me that all your questions wrt Wikipedia are answered on the page WP:REUSE, which both I and TEB728 directed you to. Selecting a few salient sentences from that page:

"To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) "
"Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC-BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text of the license or b) a copy of the license. For this purpose, a suitable URL is: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
"Each media file has its own information page which includes source and licensing information. Clicking on the media file will lead to this information page. Many media files are free to use as long as you follow the terms of the licenses applied to them. "

But looking at my selections is not a substitute for reading and understanding the page as a whole.

I would have thought it was appropriate to have a section at the beginning or end of the book which detailed the sources, and specified the licence: you might call it "acknowledgments", or "sources and licensing", or "the boring legal stuff". Note that attributing is a different activity, with a different purpose, from providing a bibliography or "further reading".

As for RationalWiki, as I read what you have quoted, the restriction you have bolded applies to the use of the name and logo only. But again, I may not and will not give you legal advice. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting very irritated people kepp changing my edits

I edited the Stone Cold Steve Austin page fixed a miss typed quote made the info on there more clear and filled in miss information and the guy keeps changing it back I'm getting tired of this it's happened twice!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Merrick (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, one of the basic principles of Wikipedia is anybody can edit so you will frequently experience people changing your edits. It is part and parcel of contributing here that others may change, remove or reverse things you've done. In this particular case it looks like the other editor felt you had added information that was not supported by a reference. Asking them on their talk page, or the article's talk page, is the best way forward to reach agreement. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]