Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vivek.bekhabar (talk | contribs) at 08:13, 21 July 2015 (→‎semi-automated edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Cullen328, 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.

semi-automated edits

Hi, what are semi-automated edits ? I have seen at few of the user page. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any edit performed by the user but assisted by a program. So for example if you had rollback rights and downloaded huggle, you would be able to revert edits and issue warnings at the click of a button. This also goes for programs like igloo, autowikibrowser, hotcat, and twinkle. I'm not too sure about AFCH but I'm sure it would fall in a similar category. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 07:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AFCH does count. Yes, a "semi-automated edit" is just any edit that wasn't performed by manually pressing edit, making your changes and pressing "Save page". Twinkle is the most common semi-automated tool, which can speed up anything from reverting vandalism to nominating articles for deletion, by opening various dialog boxes that simplify processes. To give another example, STiki speeds up editing by presenting you with diffs that it thinks might be vandalism, and giving you options to allow the edit to pass through or to revert it and warn the user. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 07:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to assess an article

I recently received page reviewer rights (not pending changes) and started to review articles at AFC, as well as patrol and tag new pages at the respective new pages feed. I would just like to know how to give an article a quality grade without having to review it in the AFC process. At the moment the only people who I see with the ability to do so are admins, but I have a feeling it has something to do with talk pages and a bot that tags a page for you. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 06:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PotatoNinja. If you're referring to the quality scale (shown on the article's talkpage) then this is generally allocated by members of the relevant WikiProject, rather than by administrators. If you're a member of, say, WikiProject China, then you are perfectly entitled to make quality assessments of articles relating to China. Yunshui 雲水 07:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note not corresponding to info in Reference

Hello,


Was looking at the Superior colliculus page and the first citation has the wrong date on it. I went to edit it but it just refers to the references: 

==Notes==
{{Reflist|colwidth=20em}}

Thing is, the reference list is correct, but it has a different date than that shown in the note.

I don't know how to edit it :)

Note 1 says, Wallace et al., 2005 - but the actual reference says 1998.

How do I change the appearance of this note so as to reflect the real date of the article cited?

Thanks for your time! TrishApps (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • TrishApps, corrected! You would have done this through the editing tab on the top of the article and then correcting the same by finding where it was cited. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had VisualEditor enabled then you wouldn't even have to look at the source and coding. All you would need to do would be to edit the page and click the faulty in-line citation. Enable this feature by going to your preferences and ticking the checkbox in the beta features tab. Just a tip though, so you just do your thing. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this appropriate for Wikipedia?

I have been asked to created a Wikipedia entry for a Society I do administrative work for. I am not sure this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Can someone help me please. Thanks Nicky 129.180.47.210 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for them, then you have a conflict of interest, and most editors would tell you not to make or edit an article. If you are being paid to work for them, then we especially do not want you to do anything relating to an article about the society. If you do so, stick to the article's talk page, and make it clear that you are being paid to edit there (either by creating an account that announces such on your user page or noting that in each message if you choose not to make an account).
For there to be a Wikipedia article about the society, we require multiple professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically about the subject, independent of the subject, and independent of each other. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help.129.180.47.210 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are pages where you can request an article be created if the subject is in fact notable (covered substantially in reliable independent sources such as books, articles, newspapers and scholarly journalys). NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Deleted Pages - Double Crossover Merging Interchange

Hello,

I created a page on the Double Crossover Merging Interchange (DCMI) November 2011. I create the page based on a presentation I had seen and the inventor's website. In 2013 it was moved to the Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) page, as the DCMI has some of the characteristics of a DDI. Since then, it appears the the section describing the Double Crossover Merging Interchange has been removed from the DDI page? At the time the DCMI was moved to the DDI page, the consensus was that the "subject fails to meet the GNG and would probably fail RS". Since then there several Secondary Sources have become available.

I am very unexperienced with Wikipedia and most of what I have done has been from bumping around trying to figure out how to proceed in what seems like a disorienting maze...LOL! I really need some assistance and clarity on how exactly to proceed. I think I have two alternatives that I can pursue: 1. Request for the original DCMI page to be un-delete. 2.reqest for the delete section the was delete from the DDI page to be restored. I have already requested the undeletion of the original page, and I was referred to the merging of the DCMI to the DDI page (see below)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Double_Crossover_Merging_Interchange

Should I provide more information on the secondary sources I mentioned and request the original page be restored. So this leaves alternative 2. Request the DCMI section that was moved from the original DCMI page to the DDI page, and then subsequently deleted from the DDI page, be restored.

I tried to figure out how to do this, but I have been unsuccessful. I thought the Talk page would be where I should discuss this, but I can not find any text that suggested the deletion of the DCMI from the DDI page? How can I request the DCMI be put back on the DDI or restored to it's own original page? Any suggestions or assistance is greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

CliffCliff Shaffer (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Double Crossover Merging Interchange 2
Welcome to the Teahouse, Cliff Shaffer. This matter has been discussed in section #14 of Talk:Diverging diamond interchange. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem using the drop-down template for citing inline sources in my first article in a personal sandbox

Please help me with...I'm working on my first practice article in a personal sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wpulley/sandbox). I'm using the drop-down template you fill out for creating inline sources. I've encountered two problems on my first source I've cited. First, I'm citing one article within a book. I've tried filling in the access date two different ways, both 13 May 2015 and May 13, 2015. However, when I click "save page," I get the following error message in red print where the access date should show up-- "Check date values in: |date= (help)"

Another issue: My source is an article within a book. I only see a box for title. How do I see an individual article as well as the the title of the book the individual article or chapter shows up in.

Thanks,

Wpulley (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wpulley, I have explained the date problem at Wikipedia:Help desk#Reference problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wpulley. On the second question, the {{cite book}} template that you're (implicitly) using has a parameter "chapter" for specifying individual chapters in the book. I'm afraid I've never used the interactive citation tool you're using, so I don't know whether there is a way of putting the chapter title in using it; but if not, you could edit the reference afterwards to do so. See the link above for examples of how to use it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

adopter

please could you tell me where I how I could become an adopterJamie-Burk (talk) @Jamie-Burk (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie-Burk (talk • contribs)

Hey Jamie-Burk. If you are talking about our program for experienced users to adopt less experienced users, see Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. See also the Wikipedia:Co-op. However, and to the extent this is what you meant, I feel constrained to tell you that the very fact that you're asking this question (and also noting you've made only 108 edits to Wikipedia) strongly indicates to me you lack sufficient experience to be an adopter. Wikipedia is vast and complicated and giving pertinent advice really does require significant experience. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. were you possibly asking about being adopted? (If so, you would be the adoptee.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jamie-Burk: I agree with @Fuhghettaboutit:, you're just too inexperienced to adopt other users, however if you instead are looking for someone to adopt you, then the links are above. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I seeeeee!!! so you base my edits on what lack of intelligence???Jamie-Burk (talk) @Jamie-Burk (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie-Burk (talk • contribs)
You have only been editing Wikipedia for a week and have made 108 edits. You seem to be taking the response, which is not meant to be personal, very personally as an attack of what you may think we see as a "lack of intelligence". The problem that I see with the way that you asked the question is that it isn't properly capitalized and punctuated, and proper capitalization and punctuation are very important in article space, and your command of grammar, capitalization, and punctuation in Wikipedia space is an indication of how well you are likely to do in article space. It isn't a "lack of intelligence", but experience does count, and punctuation does count. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jamie: I genuinely thought you might have meant adoptee, because you are so new you could not possibly be competent to be an adoptor. That observation has nothing to do with intelligence but with experience. Do you know intimately the differences between the various methods of deletion and each of their highly specific ins and outs and which to apply during new pages patrol or when maintenance tags should be added instead and where to find them and the result of past discussion about drive by tagging, and what one should recommend be done as due diligence before taking an article to AfD, and where to nominate deletion if a page is outside the mainspace, and whether an image qualifies as fair use image to be used in X, and how to turn page curation back on if the toolbar is no longer showing? Are you familiar enough with the numerous essays that might be applicable to a particular situation so you could point a relevant one out to someone, like Wikipedia:No angry mastodons?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jamie-Burk. No one is picking on you here. The simple truth is, Wikipedia is anything but user friendly. An editor that either does not know how to, or fails to see the importance of, signing their posts on this page is much more suited to being adopted than adopting, and I encourage you to take advantage of one of the mentoring programs lusted above. Good luck. John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with CEO

Good Afternoon, Is an article written by a newspaper, where they interviewed the CEO of a company a good reference?

Thank you, PattiMoly99 (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The not-very-helpful answer is: "it depends". You can ask specifics at the reliable source notice board providing the specific Wikipedia article, the specific newspaper article, and the specific content that you want to source from the source to Wikipedia. If you are asking about "Does it establish "notability" for the company or the CEO so that they meet the threshold for a stand alone article? " - Generally, No. the interview subject is directly related to the the subject of the article - not independent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Was helpful! PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please delete my article?

Hi, I created Food neophiles: profiling the adventurous eater. I didn't realize I had infringed copyright and would like the article to be deleted asap!! Roxydog13 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have successfully tagged it for speedy deletion. An administrator will delete it soon. Thank you for recognizing that copyright violations should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

applied thought

What is known as 'applied thought'.This word is related to Hinyaan section Of Buddhism.14.98.76.97 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This page is for asking for help in editing Wikipedia, not for general knowledge questions. If you don't find what you are looking for in the article Vitarka, I suggest you post your question on the Wikipedia Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half Yellow Face

Please advise what is the source for the circumstances of the death of Half Yellow Face ? This information should not be posted without a citation68.3.147.32 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP user. As you can see, the information in the article Half Yellow Face about his death does not have a citation to a source, and Theroadislong has recently tagged it as {{citation needed}}. It is strongly preferred that all information in articles is cited to reliable published sources, and uncited information may be removed by anybody; but many editors feel that it is often more constructive to tag the information as Theroadislong has done.
As for asking for the source: the answer is that I don't know, and probably 99.99% of the people who read this page don't know. (I had never even heard of Half Yellow Face before I read your question). If you can't find a source yourself, you could ask on the talk page Talk:Half Yellow Face, or on the User Talk page of the user who has written most of the article, NoAmGeogSoc (actually I see that Up the Rosebud has just asked there - is that you, logged in?). A third possibility is to ask at the Reference Desk, where people enjoy hunting references to answer questions. --ColinFine (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

inline external links

Wikipedia is telling me to change my inline external links to internal links. Would someone explain to me what that means and how to do it? Lelisek (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lelisek, and welcoem to the tehosue. In Draft:Standard Publishing, which you drafted, there is for example the following text:

... this group met at the home of [https://jaysteeleblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/thomas-w-phillips-1835-1912/ T. W. Phillips], a noted businessman ...

This should be replaced by

... this group met at the home of [[T. W. Phillips]], a noted businessman ...

The first links to an external page by its URL, the 2nd to a Wikipedia article (which may not exist) by its page title. If the URL had led to a reliable source, it could possibly be cited as a source, but blogs are almost never reliable sources.
And by the way, "Wikipedia" is not telling you anything, the reviewing editor, Dodger67 is telling you, and he is correct. The same change should be made to any other external links in running prose. External links should only be used in the "External links" section or in citations. DES (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what T. W. Phillips means? Is this a link to somewhere? Lelisek (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
T. W. Phillips is a redlink. A hyperlink takes you to the Wikipedia page under that title: for instance, typing [[Earth]] will produce "Earth". In the case of T W. Phillips, we don't have an article on that subject, so it takes you to a page that doesn't exist, with a box there for registered users to allow them to create the page. The idea behind this is that someone will come across the redlink and decide to write an article on that topic, which helps the encyclopedia grow. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...assuming that the redlinked subject is notable.--ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lelisek. I converted "Christian Endeavor" for you as an example. After you clear the external links up, your article looks good to go. I am going to do some work on the references for you. This looks to be a solid article. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two authors with same name

Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy or Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy

Who wrote The Gigantic Turnip?

name of the story

The name of the book and the writer is A. Tolstoy

C

D

Once again full name is missing Aero Slicers 14:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy was born in 1883 then it is unlikely he wrote a book first published in 1863. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Teahouse is for learning how to edit Wikipedia. This is a general knowledge question. Try Reference Desk for Humanities. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

censcorship on macroevolution page

Dear Wiki,

Recently, a book on macroevolution was published that contains chapters of leading scholars within the field, including “founding fathers” such as niles eldredge, stanley salthe, and leading figures including bernard wood, alycia stigall, and folmer bokma. Twice now, I added a reference to the book on the wiki page on macroevolution, and it has now twice been removed by the page’s administrator. I have also twice now, corrected the opening sentence, because it is merely one view. Some people think macroevolution and microevolution is the same and reducible to a genetic level, some disagree and include abiotic, non-genetic factors as relevant to evolution. Twice now, he has removed the correction, and twice now, he defends his own personal, distorted and opinioned view. He defines macroevolution in terms of genetics, while leading scholars in macroevolution define it in terms of abiotic (non-genetic) and genetic factors. He is censoring the page, and he has not only done this to me, he has been doing this to others as well. This violates the spirit of wikipedia. Censorship is against the spirit of wiki that is about sharing information freely on the web. The file is short and one sighted, distorted and everyone who tried to make it better, he deletes from the page. Please do something about this great dictator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oxfordwang I have notified my complaint here, as such: The beauty of wiki is that it is for everyone, not just for you alone. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to delete add ons by other people, and your behavior is not only despicable, it is territorial. Most of what is on the page is controversial and not representative for what an entry on macroevolution should be. If you are yourself unfamiliar enough with the subject, you should stay clear of it. Wiki is not a blog where you merely display what is to your likings, what you do on this cite, and what I find out from the comments from other people above me, is nothing less than censorship. we live in a free world and in a democracy. If you can't handle that and just want to use it for propaganda, you should open a blog. Wiki is not the space for you. Wiki is about people being freely able to share information on subjects they have knowledge on and that they want to share with other people all over the world. what happened in this case is that you provide a narrow shortsighted vision of what macroevolution is, you use it to your advantage to give a distorded, single-sided and narrow view, and you use nothing less but censorship. I added a book that has contributions by leading scholars in the field of macroevolution, and just who in the hell are you to think you have the right to eliminate reference to these expert scholars? Shame on you, shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.149.197 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, 89.180.149.197 (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the two edits that he has made to the page, one of which was removed by User:Vsmith as promotional, and one of which was simply blanking the page. OxfordWang (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In looking over your edit history, I think that you are lucky that you are still able to edit. This post is uncivil and is too long, difficult to read, but I see that, among other things, you blanked the page on macroevolution, and blanking a page in protest is normally considered vandalism. You also posted multiple messages to the page of another editor that have the quality of personal attacks. I suggest that you read Wikipedia policies and guidelines and learn what is proper behavior in Wikipedia before making any other edits that are likely to get you blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added info onto wiki pages before, but I don't recall having posted on the page of another editor, or attacking other editors. I blanked the page because my edits were censored. I suppose there is a fine line between "vandalism" and "censorship", and if there is no place on wiki to make reference to leading scholar's work, because it is "promotional", well, then we should all think about the purpose of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.149.197 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I blanked the page because my edits were censored" is viewed by other editors as "I disrupted Wikipedia to make a point." If you think changes need to be made to the article, and your changes were rejected, your next step should be to discuss the situation on the talk page (in this case, Talk:Macroevolution) too see what the problem is and if there's a way to include the material that addresses those concerns. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are acting in good faith and you want to discuss a content dispute, read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell you first to discuss on the talk page. If that fails, then try one of the procedures listed there, such as requesting a third opinion. However, since you deny having posted to the talk page of Oxfordwang, and your hostile edits, calling them a dictator, are right there, you may not be acting in good faith. I advise you to read in depth about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before doing any more editing that just has the effect of disrupting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deny posting on the page of oxford wang, and I must certainly do not deny calling him a dictator, that is what this post was about to begin with. I just don't have recollection of the other editor you refer to when you criticize and say "You also posted multiple messages to the page of another editor that have the quality of personal attacks" and I think you have me confused here. But so I realize this is indeed a content dispute, and I will act accordingly. Thank you all for the good advice. I must say though, Rober McClenon, that I also think it is something to introspect about if disputes over content are judged based upon lengths of messages, the ease of reading, and that they are taken as behaviors of ill faith, or as acts of disrupting, while add ons are apparently so difficult to make. Here too, I thought the whole idea of wiki was to make add ons, and having to defend that, or being tapped on the fingers for trying to, well, not good. And wiki and its editors should be able to constructively deal with criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.149.197 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I referred to another editor, I did mean Oxfordwang. He is another editor. As to length of posts, think about whether, if you were reading rather than writing a post, you would understand quickly what it was about. Some experienced editors have found that when an editor habitually posts very long posts, he or she is typically an angry editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to discuss a content issue, read the dispute resolution policy. Then discuss on the article talk page. Be civil and concise; comment on content, not on contributors. Commenting on contributors rather than on content tends to be ignored, unless it reaches the level of personal attacks, in which case it results in blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you very much for this, I've said my peace here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macroevolution . I'm sure Oxfordwang has done great efforts in the editing, but also on this page, I saw that many people's edits have been deleted, and that they too wrote angry letters like me. So with no ill intent whatsoever, but with genuine concern, I would like to ask the wiki editor community to make sure their guidelines to editors (which i'm sure also exist) are followed, because it is also discouraging to those who want to help improve to see that their comments are not taken into account, and their efforts too have been deleted.
I will say this here as well as on your talk page. First, it is not uncommon for inexperienced editors to yell "censorship" in order to "win" a content dispute. However, it does not work. The removal of content that is not properly sourced or is promotional is not censorship; it is neutral point of view. Yelling "censorship" either has no effect or makes other editors conclude that you are being disruptive. The policy that Wikipedia is not censored is more narrow than many edit warriors think it is. We do not remove material because it may be offensive if it is verifiable, but we do remove material that is not verifiable, not neutral, or is promotional. Second, insulting another editor, such as calling him a "dictator", does not work. It is either ignored or results in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked account??

I recently joined Wiki and im loving it. However i have some privacy concerns. My boyfriend swears he is not a hacker and i beg to differ! Im just a good ole country girl hoping i can get a little help from my fellow wikipediars :) Please someone help, if there is anyway you can tell by looking at a certain section of my page .... pls inform me. The cache, the cookies? I think he sees everything i do, and i dont do anything againest him. Hes ruining our relationship with this and making me a parnoid wreck! Thank yall so much. Wildflower30 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has been your only edit, so that your account has not been hacked. I don't know what you are saying is your problem with your boyfriend. We do not give relationship advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wildflower30: I am completely guessing here but keeping in mind that this is your only edit to Wikipedia (not wiki) – at least logged in under the account you used to post the above message – is the issue that your boyfriend was able to follow what pages here you had visited after the fact? If that is the case it may be that you can avoid this simply by learning how to thoroughly scrub your browser's history (yes cookies, cache and more). It depends on the type of browser but searching Google for clear everything [insert name of your browser] should allow you to follow pretty straightforward directions. It may be as simple as this but of course there is the possibility of sophisticated spying going on, like a program running in the background recording actions.

The other possibility that comes to mind is that you've been editing by a relatively static IP address assigned to your connection while not logged in, and even though your browsing history is scrubbed, your boyfriend is looking at the contribution history here of the IP address. That's simple to avoid. Just don't make any more edits here while not logged in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a feature of Wikipedia is that, regardless of whether you are editing as a registered user or whether you are editing logged out from an IP address, you have a contribution history. There is no way to hide your contribution history (the contribution history of a registered account, or the contribution history of an IP address) from the world. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

waiting for page creation

I have submitted a biography for Tamara Champlin and I keep tweaking and making little changes. Does this postpone approval reviewing? Should I not do any more until after the page is hopefully created and goes live? thanks so much for your input and suggestions Paulhus15 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and improve the draft as much as you can. It doesn't delay reviewing. There's no formal queue: the editors that work at Articles for Creation are all volunteers and they can choose to review whatever takes their fancy (although many try to review the pages which have been waiting longest). Everything will be looked at eventually, although you might have to wait a couple of weeks. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much. I wasn't sure when I saw the number waiting for review going up instead of down that I wasn't causing this by my constant fixes of grammar, finding links etc. appreciate your input. mary Paulhus15 (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulhus15 - I have posted a comment with advice about the external links in the draft, you could address the issue while waiting for a full review (wich I prefer not to do as I'm not a music specialist). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Hi, how to award a barnstar to an editor and where can I find codes for them ? Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Barnstars. Next to each barnstar listed, the code to create one is written (e.g. {{subst:The Original Barnstar|message ~~~~}} produces the message shown at Template:The Original Barnstar, with {{{1}}} being replaced with your text). Just add this text under a new section of the user's talk page to give them a barnstar. Alternatively, if you have WikiLove enabled (it's under the "Editing" panel of your preferences), you can click the heart at the top of your screen and select "Barnstars" under type, with the option to choose your barnstar and a field to enter your message in. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bilorv, got it. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighter

Administrator can remove uncivil comments and gross edit summary. What special privilege does Oversighter has? Aero Slicers 04:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aero Slicers: Oversighters can remove content so that not even administrators can see it. This is generally for privacy issues and the posting of personal information. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

basic navigation

I posted a question about my added section of the article on Walther von Reichenau on the Talk tab (top left) of its corresponding page but got no response. Apparently, I'm not able to understand how to navigate in the most basic way yet. Can someone direct me?

Radixetramus (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Radixetramus. You did everything right - CabbagePotato just changed the level of the heading in your proposed text, so that it would not disrupt the structure of that talk page.
It looks as if there are not many people monitoring that talk page, so what I would do is choose one (or more) of the WikiProjects listed at the top of the talk page, go to that WikiProject's talk page, and post an invitation to come and look at your proposal. You can link to the page and section as [[Talk:Walther von Reichenau#To follow Nazi Support section]], which will appear as Talk:Walther von Reichenau#To follow Nazi Support section. --ColinFine (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand how to get this article to be accepted and am asking for help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lsw19552015Lsw19552015 (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, you should be preparing the draft article in draft space rather than on your user page. However, as it is, the article is unlikely ever to be accepted. It is promotional, and provides no evidence of notability in the Wikipedia sense, and doesn't appear to be based on reliable sources. Also, providing a link to an external web site in the body of the article (as opposed to in External Links) is a no-no. I will be posting a welcome message to your talk page containing links to various Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please read them to see what Wikipedia is and is not. It is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a platform for advertising or promotion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the content to a user sandbox at: User:Lsw19552015/Sandbox.--ukexpat (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there is also a version at: Draft:SmileMakers, Inc..--ukexpat (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

changing colours

please could you tell me how I change my background colour on userpageJamie-Burk (talk) @Jamie-Burk (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie-Burk (talk • contribs)

Hi Jamie-Burk, welcome to the Teahouse. If it's the background color of the big table then you can modify the existing style to for example say style="width: 100%; background:cyan;". See web colors for other colors. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reference list mucked up

I just posted an update under the Mac Harb heading on the Canadian Senate expenses scandal article. Being new to Wiki editing, I thought I'd start small with a tiny bit of info. I inserted the reference cite (Ottawa Citizen) which shows up OK, but did something wrong because some of the existing footnotes moved up into the article itself, under the Mac Harb heading, and they should all appear at the end of the article. Perhaps this is because I typed ==References== and {{reflist}} right after my cited reference (per Wiki's Plain and Simple)?? Two questions: 1. How do I fix this problem? 2. Just to confirm, if I'm adding references to an existing article, do I use the ==References== thing or not? Sorry about this & thanks! LettieB2 LettieB2 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LettieB2: and welcome to the Teahouse. ==References== and {{reflist}} only need to be added once at the bottom of the article, not every time you add a reference. Apart from that, the text and reference you added looks good. I fixed the problem by just removing the extra reference list, it should be fine now. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response & fixing the problem, Joseph. LettieB2 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to know what markup to use for the status and status_system parts of Taxoboxes for New Zealand endangered species.

I'm updating multiple pages about New Zealand skink and want to use the New Zealand Threat Classification status system rather than the IUCN system to indicate how endangered they are. The New Zealand system is updated more frequently and is more accurate for endemic New Zealand species. I can't work out from the Wikipedia information pages how to mark up the taxobox to ensure the New Zealand Threat Classification appears. I've been looking at the following pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Taxobox/doc#System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conservation_status#New_Zealand:_NZTCS I just need someone to explain or write out for me the markup needed to get the NZ system graphic as well as the particular classification and then I can continue adding to multiple pages on Wikipedia. Sorry my markup skills are not up to scratch to work this out myself! Thanks in advance for your assistance.Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Continued with experiments and after rereading above about 5 times I'm pleased to say this editor has finally worked out how to do it! It's simple once you know how. Sorry for the bother. Ambrosia10 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duck Life articles

i want to create duck life articles, but i'm too worried. can someone do it for me? Valehd (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Valehd, no issues I can try. Please leave all the information or links about duck life that you have on my user talk page User_talk:Vivek.bekhabar. I will check it. If I find it notable according to Wikipedia guidelines, I will write. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations

Hi, I just used Twinkle to report my first Sockpuppet investigations and I'm not sure its correct, or was the correct thing to do...

Ok the list got updated - knew I should have been more patient
  • Secondly I note all the others are user accounts not IPs, so not sure now if this was the correct way to handle this.
Would AIV, or another Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents been better? I really have no idea how to deal with people like this :/
Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KylieTastic, the oldest account (or first IP editing) should be reported as the sockmaster. Secondly, think twice about adding WP:DUCK SPI reports. They can be useful for tracking long term abuse but often a post to ANI or to the talk page of an admin who knows what's going on will do. If it's really obvious, you can try AIV. I'll handle obvious socking cases there but a few admins will decline them. --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks NeilN for sorting that and the feedback, I really wasn't sure what to do or if I'd done completely the wrong thing (2 years in and still so many policies and procedures to learn). Unfortunately I guess they'll just be back on another IP/account anyway, and post it to another title. So if I run across it again I'll report to ANI or AIV. I really don't like getting involved with such editors, but I keep running into them doing the other clean up and anti-vandalism I tend to do. Thanks again — KylieTastic (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

creating a page on wikipedia

Thank you for your message however I did not understand how to reply to your message. I just checked the reason why my article was not accepted and it stated "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

Kindly advise how to proceed

Rupesh Gurudas Halarnakar Rupesh Gurudas Halarnakar (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Non-dropframe: Now this one is something related to you.
117.222.88.36 (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rupesh Gurudas Halarnakar, you need to include verifiable references that demonstrate the article's subject is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If you need more in-depth assistance, feel free to contact me directly on my talk page. Thanks, --Non-Dropframe talk 15:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly advise how to list an organisation which is specially run by WOMEN and for WOMEN

Nirajdchoksi (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Hello Mates,[reply]

Please can anyone help me list an organisation which is specially run by WOMEN and for WOMEN.

I am not a good writer, hence i dont have any idea how to post such listing which may give a better feel about and the service they are doing for several womens and the advantages many other womens can also take...Nirajdchoksi (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nirajdchoksi - What do you mean by "listing", are you referring to WP:Categories or something else? -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nirajdchoksi. Any article, no matter the subject, needs to be based off of reliable, independent sources such as newspapers or magazines that cover the organization in depth. If such sources exist for the organization you want to write about, you could use the Article wizard to create the page as a draft. Alternatively, you can request that the page be created at Requested articles. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nirajdchoksi, Beside what Howicus said, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a business directory, articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Your draft, User:Nirajdchoksi/sandbox reads like an advertisement. —teb728 t c 19:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band Member Timeline Colors

Hello, I have been experimenting with band member timelines such as you see with Slipknot or KISS in my sandbox and was looking for different colors to use and someone directed me to a list of "web colors" but when I entered the names of the colors into where I needed to and saved the page, an error would show up saying it had an "unrecognized value." Could someone please help me try to fix this to get any color I want to show up in a timeline? If there even is a way to do that? Thanks. :) Miamiheat631 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miamiheat631, welcome to the Teahouse. Web colors are color names or codes sent to a reader's browser, but the EasyTimeline feature doesn't send the color. Instead it produces an image file to be displayed. That means it is EasyTimeline which must understand the color specification. See Help:EasyTimeline syntax#Colors. It includes: "predefined color constant, for which 32 predefined color names are recognized (see the Ploticus color page where all these constants are defined)". The link is unfortunately down currently but "crimson" is apparently not allowed. There is a solution with a little work. Web colors#X11 color names says the decimal rgb code for Crimson is 220 20 60. Divide each number by 256 to get rgb(0.86,0.08,0.23). This notation can be used to define a new color name in EasyTimeline. Add this to the color declarations under Colors =:
  id:crimson  value:rgb(0.86,0.08,0.23)
Then you should be able to use "crimson" like the pre-defined names. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from Google's cache that these color names are predefined: black, tan1, tan2, red, magenta, claret, coral, pink, orange, redorange, lightorange, yellow, yellow2, dullyellow, yelloworange, brightgreen, green, kelleygreen, teal, drabgreen, yellowgreen, limegreen, brightblue, darkblue, blue, oceanblue, skyblue, purple, lavender, lightpurple, powderblue, powderblue2. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. Thank you very, very much PrimeHunter. :::This will sure come in handy! Once again, thanks. Miamiheat631 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Miamiheat631. You should probably make yourself aware of WP:ACCESSIBILITY. There are certain colors and combinations of colors that we don't use because of the difficulty they cause people who are colorblind or otherwise visually impaired. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please review my article? 'Small plate movement'

Hi, I've made some changes to the Small Plate Movement article to make sure it's notable and so that it doesn't sound like an advertisement. I think all the issues have been sorted, so would really appreciate it if someone could review it and let me know if I need to change anything else. Roxydog13 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roxydog13, and welcome to the Teahouse. This has a significant problem. I think if I were to put it up for deletion as it stands, and no improvements were made it would be deleted. The basic problem is that the sources cited currently all fit into three basic categories: A) sources that talk about the need to reduce portion size but do not mention the "Small Plate Movement" at all (this is the largest group); B) sources that are written by the movement, people involved with the movement, or organizations sponsoring the work of such people; and C) Sources that make brief passing mentions of the movement. None of these contribute to notability at all. What is needed is more independent third-party sources that discuss the movement itself in some detail. Without this an article on the movement as a thing cannot stand. DES (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berber name change it to Amazigh

As you guys know Berber is an offensive term to Amazighs and they dont call there language berber its called ATamazighi i was wondering it was ok for me to change it because the word bebrber means Savage so basically were calling it The Savage languagesArabAmazigh12 (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArabAmazigh12 hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I actually had never heard that Berber was offensive. This sounds like something that needs to be discussed, because there must be consensus on controversial issues like this. What article or articles need to be changed? The talk page of the articles involved seems like a good place to start, as well as Talk:Berber.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sounds good ive done it ah check it out i know Barbar is offensive cause it means Barbarian Berbers hate that termonogly so i fixed it but now a couple pages say they dont exist cause i change the names how do we fix that?ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ArabAmazigh12. I'm afraid you haven't "done it" this edit i unsourced and without consensus, nor does one change the titles of articles by changing the links at a disambiguation page. You were told above to get talk page consensus. I suggest posting at Talk:Berbers. But first read WP:COMMONNAME, we generally follow the majority of English-languge reliable sources in naming articles. DES (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Wikipedia says theres more berbers than speakers thats not quite true because there is no such thing an an Arabized Berber Theyre mainly Tribals whose Tribes have long ties with the Arab tribes like beni Hilial and hasyan so i think Arabized Berber isnt a netural term i think its more propgendist the term Arab-berber sounds better because most of them Are mixed of course genetics change over time no because no ones blood stays the same anyways cheersArabAmazigh12 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither Arab nor Berber but recently spent six months living in Morocco. On the one hand, I heard that some people consider "Berber" offensive. On the other hand, several people referred to themselves as "Berber" when speaking to me in English, but it might have a different resonance in French or Arabic. Just to say that I have no opinion myself but think that this is an issue that merits careful investigation. Till Bruckner (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

Hi, I have across one article, which I feel is not written from neutral point of view. The article is Prayag_Jha. Although I will work on it to remove the promotional tone and content in coming days. So, for the time being, can I put this tag :

 ? So, that I or fellow editor edit/remember the same. Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the tone or neutrality of an article is questionable, feel free to insert such a tag. Just keep in mind that other users have the right to challenge this claim, so make sure you state your reasoning. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 14:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already tagged the page with multiple templates. Hopefully these issues will be resolved soon. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 15:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, PotatoNinja. Please use wiki links to refer to articles on Wikipedia, like this [[Prayag_Jha]], not URLs, thak you. DES (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: When did I do do this? Because I don't recall this happening... EDIT: nevermind I think you were referring to Vivek.bekhabar -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 15:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
my error, you are correct, PotatoNinja it was indeed Vivek.bekhabar, the OP of this thread, who left the external link. Sorry about that. DES (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website under maintenance

Hi, What to do when come across through sources or EL which says "Website Under maintenance" ? eg-check 1st EL in 1 Thanks Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice KylieTastic, its a new thing for me wayback machine and could be very useful indeed. I have added a direct link in C. N. Karunakaran. Can you tell what other tools related to references checking etc wikipedia editors use or a place where I can find them and use? Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivek.bekhabar: See Wikipedia:Link rot. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I glad someone remembered that link - I forgot it and was just trying to find it :) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empty section tags

Hi, currently I am expanding the article on an artist Jim Amaral, which earlier had only one line. Article has many

tags, Should I let it be like that only or remove if considerabe content is addedt under the heading. for eg 1. Please suggest. Thanks Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove these tags so long as the sections in question do actually include meaningful content, not just random gibberish. If you don't like seeing these tags it would probably be a good idea to remove the section headings for the time being. But then again I've still got a basic understanding of the whole policies thing so I could be mistaken. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 13:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vivek.bekhabar, I agree with PotatoNinja the two that have no content remove the sections+tags. It just looks messy and does not aid the reader in any way. As far as I'm aware empty sections are tagged rather than removed to give the author, or others, time to fill in (not that article construction should really be done in the main article space). These sections can then be found again later via Category:Articles with empty sections or Category:All articles with empty sections so can be cleaned up if no content added. The original editor has made no further edits since March so removal is the sensible/tidy thing to do. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the empty section tags and tried to cleanup the section headings a bit. References shouldn't be included in section headings. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Vivek.bekhabar, if it is sensible to leave one tag (or more) I wouldn't worry that means its still listed in the categories, only if they should be removed or kept. Many tags are just place holders for the arbitrary structure a particular editor thought should exist (i.e. this was), as such they add nothing but distraction and mess, basically just using the main article space as a public TODO list. Its not good for the readers, and the talk page is a better place for such things, so I remove old ones of this type. However sometimes the section title does hold some significance, such as the oldest example I could find Khuzaima ibn Thabit where the title has dates and names so it would not be correct to remove. Hope that helps KylieTastic (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi KylieTastic, Thank you for such a wonderful explanation. I highly appreciate this. So, in these cases I believe when these tags are removed, simultaneously it should be posted on talk page. It will be helpful for other editors too. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an item to a List

Hi teahouse hosts I would like to add a recipient Here in 3rd class but there doesn't seem to be any logic in the list order. I would like to know here to put it and how do the columns stay balanced? CV9933 (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the list was intended to be expressed in alphabetical order, as shown by some of the entries. It seems as if some users have just inserted recipients into random areas based on other criteria. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 13:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The columns in each section are created by the templates {{col-begin}} (at the beginning), {{col-2}} (at the start of each column) and {{col-end}} (at the end). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that was what he was looking for. I think the order of the list entries is rather ambiguous and needs fixing up. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 13:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last part asked "how do the columns stay balanced?" The answer to that is by manually moving {{col-2}} at the start of the second column. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, my bad. Missed that bit. -PotatoNinja(Talk to me!) 14:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone, I should have looked at the talk page first as I get the impression that consensus reached in 2009 was - only cited recipients of the honour who are also notable on wikipedia should be included in the list. That may account for the apparent disorder in the list. A good learning curve, I’ll have a play in my sandbox with the column templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CV9933 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion - Theories of Muhammad in the Bible

Hi, I don't like getting into a one-on-one back and forth with another editor - so a second opinion on Theories of Muhammad in the Bible would be appreciated. As per my edit summary I believe the complete article is a direct copy from http://anticross.vomu.org/muhammad-and-messianic-prophecy/ which according to the Google cache pre-dates the upload here on 15th July. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deleted as a copyvio. DES (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: As I expected would happen the user has just recreated the article (I've reverted) - there isn't a warning in Twinkle that appears to cover adding copyrighted material so I'm not sure what to do. Obviously having the article deleted by an administrator has not got the message through. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind I found a warning template eventually that appears to fit. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference citing book chapters

I know how to cite a book, but how do I enter a reference where I am citing a book chapter which requires the following information...Author of chapter-Title of Chapter-In-Authors of book-book title-publisher-date? eg, Smith, J. Teahouse Questions. (pp 1-10) In B. Jones, Teahouse Musings. Brightfire Press. 2015. Brightfire4 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brightfire4 and welcome to the Teahouse. In the documentation of Template:cite book you will find the following example;
{{cite book |last=Bloggs |first=Fred |editor-last=Doe |editor-first=John |title=Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors |publisher=Book Publishers |date=January 1, 2001 |pages=100–110 |chapter=Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family |isbn=978-1-234-56789-7}}
which renders as:
Bloggs, Fred (January 1, 2001). "Chapter 2: The History of the Bloggs Family". In Doe, John (ed.). Big Compilation Book with Many Chapters and Distinct Chapter Authors. Book Publishers. pp. 100–110. ISBN 978-1-234-56789-7.
I think you can safely follow that format. DES (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. Thanks very much.

Brightfire4 (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the rules the same for everyone?

I am giving up on an article I had started for Dzama, a producer of rums from Madagascar. I have to say that I am impressed by the level of security used to make sure everything is factual on Wikipedia. But has it occurred to anyone that it may be such an extreme that it could actually lead to the very opposite? For example, I have been attempting to upload the company's logo. Wikipedia editors then gave me a template that included the term "fair use." When I realized that the logo was never going to be accepted unless the editor who deleted it in the first place undeletes it, I went to the undelete request page and said that I had used the wrong template before and to please undelete the logo in order to allow me to upload the logo again. The answer was that I could not upload the logo as fair use. Yet, when I go to articles for other rum companies and click on their logos, the term fair use comes up in the resulting box. I may be doing something wrong, but I am more convinced than ever that the rules are not the same for everyone. One solution, someone suggested to me, is to upload a different logo, this time with the correct template. Hmm... that would work, except that it would be the wrong logo. I then wonder how many people use such tricks to complete the article they are working on. Another editorial note that baffles me is the request for a third party source for the company's name. The account that I have as to how the company got its name came from the owner. I referenced his account on the company's own website to back it up. But that wasn't enough for Wikipedia-- another request for a "third party" source. Well, if the account of the owner of the company as to how the company got its name is not enough, what third party can there possibly be? God? Thank you for opening my eyes. I still admire what you do. And good luck with it. Jheartfield ([[User talk:|talk]]) 04:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jheartfield, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry you had a frustrating experience on Wikipedia. I hope you will change your mind about giving up. I don't see any deleted files under your account on the en Wikipedia. I do, however, see a deletion discussion of a file on Wikimedia Commons. Although many images displayed on Wikipedia are taken from Commons, they are different projects and have different rules. In particular, Commons does not accept any fair use images from anyone. This is because images (and other content) on Commons are intended to be available for use on any Wikimedia Foundation project anywhere in the world, while fair use is a concept in US copyright law. Copyright laws in other countries have rather different and in many cases significantly more limited concepts such as "fair dealing", so a image legal under fair use in the US might well not be legal in other countries. You will find that other companies with logos displayed on the English-language Wikipedia have then loaded to Wikipedia, not to Commons.
The solution, then, is to upload to Wikipedia, using a fair use tag. I suggest the File Upload Wizard, as described at Wikipedia:Uploading images DES (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to the request for a third-party source, you say "Well, if the account of the owner of the company as to how the company got its name is not enough, what third party can there possibly be?" Well there could be a book or magazine article about the company, or which discusses the company, and confirms the origin of the name. As for why a third-party source is requested, companies and their owners have been known to invent such stories as a form of marketing, sometimes with no basis in fact at all. An owner has a conflict of interest, s/he wants to do everything possible to promote the brand, which may override strict scholarly accuracy. Or an owner may be repeating a story handed down in the company or family, but which was changed in oral transmission, or even invented in an earlier generation. a reliable third-party sourvce makes any such inaccuracy less likely. I hope you can understand that, and will choose not to give up. DES (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Jheartfield, what DES explained above about the image issue – that you were trying to upload the image under fair use to the wrong website, our sister Wikimedia project only for free media, rather than to Wikipedia where fair use is permitted – maybe you didn't see it, but this was explained to you there, in response to your undeletion request: ("Right now, you are on Wikimedia Commons, which is not Wikipedia ... Some Wikipedia editions, such as the English one, choose to use the fair use exception to allow non-free illustrations in their articles. Such files must be locally uploaded ... and must not be uploaded here on Commons. To upload a non-free file locally to English Wikipedia, use their upload wizard..." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Soulflower submission

Hi, I have submitted an article Draft:Soulflower for review. Its my 3rd article. It has been declined once. Can anyone spare a little time to see how it looks ? Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vivek.bekhabar, and welcome to the Teahouse. You need more independent published reliable sources that discusss Soulflower in some detail. Of the current cited sources, the The Free Press Journal article is a mere passing mention of no value and should be removed. The New Indian Express article is basically an interview with a principal of the firm, and so does very little for notability. Don't bother to include any more sources like this. Read the comments given by previous reviewers, they offer significant info on how to proceed. But mostly, additional sources are what is needed. DES (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DES, Thanks for the suggestions, will do the changes. Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DES, I checked it and feel that the The Free Press Journal article is used just for the citation of one of principal of the firm and could exist in references. And The New Indian Express is a very respected news paper, so I thought it makes sense. That's what I feel. Anyways you suggest further ? Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vivek.bekhabar, I am aware that the New Indian Express is a respected newspaper and could function as a reliable source. The problem is that the particular article cited is an interview and so is pretty much entirely in the subjects own words. Even reputable newspapers often fo little checking of the factual accuracy of statements made in an interview, so this counts as a primary source as such, it can't be used for notability except for the fact that the New Indian Express chose to interview the person, which contributes very slightly. I wold say the same if the interview had been in the London Times or the New York Times. That is why I advised that you not add any similar sources, that is, any more interviews.
As to the The Free Press Journal citation, the sole relevant mention in the source is "Natasha Tuli from Soulflower", which is used to support the statement in the draft "The company was founded in Thailand in 2001 by Amit Sarda and Natasha Tuli." This source doesn't say that Tuli was one of the founders, not when or where the company was founded, just that Tuli was associated with Soulflower. So it doesn't support the fact for which it is cited, nor is it long enough to have any contribution to notability, which is the main concern with the draft at the moment. Citations which don't support the statement(s) for which they are cited should be removed. DES (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you DES for such in detail and clear explanation, I do agree with this Citations which don't support the statement(s) for which they are cited should be removed. Will make the changes. Cheers! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble uploading

Over Commons, I am unable to upload (directly: by my work) or indirectly (uploadion to OpenClipArt and downloading the same) some svg files.
But when I tried to upload someone elses work (in appropriate CC license) it worked. What should I do?
117.207.27.62 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to upload the png format but it degraded the look severely!
117.207.27.62 (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. Commons is a different project, and you really need to ask there. But as a long-term software support person, I would polint out that "I am unable to ..." is as useless as telling a garage "I am unable to get to work in my car". What happened when you tried? --ColinFine (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine: the error message while uploading a svg file is This file might be corrupt, or have the wrong extension.
But when I uploaded a file from OpenClipArt (that was with svg extension, it did not bug me. What should I do?
117.198.180.104 (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. That will be much more useful to somebody who knows about this area - which is not me. But, again, I recommend you ask this question on commons, at c:commons:Help desk. --ColinFine (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The message sounds like the type of the file did not match your specified extension. You mention both png and svg; so please clarify: On the failed upload what was the type of the file, and what filename did you specify? —teb728 t c 09:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saving an article for viewing by Teahouse advisors

I recently placed a question (13th July) on the help desk under the heading 'Complete Replacement of Article' and it was suggested that I present the articles I was referring to for viewing. I have since navigated my way around the sandbox and am putting the finishing edit to my article. However, I am not sure what to do to make this viewable for the advisor. Do they get it from my sandbox or do I need to save it somewhere else? I am also interested in hearing from others who can advise me on my original question once I have the materials available. Thank you. 202.74.185.90 (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 202.74.185.90. I'd like to ask a few questions first:
Is User:Brightfire4/sandbox the article you've been working on (since that is the only sandbox you have edited using your current IP address)?
Are you by any chance User:Brightfire4, since you have edited that user's sandbox?
Finally, is the other article that you mentioned at the Help Desk currently titled "Cass Identity Model"? CabbagePotato (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to all your questions. I have completed my article, which is saved in the Brightfire4 sandbox and I wish this to completely replace that under the heading Cass Identity Model. I also have one other request. I would like to restrict editing of my article, once it is published on Wikipedia, to the area headed 'Critique of theory' for obvious reasons. ie, when a theorist says 'this is an account of my theory' then it is not possible for someone else to change this. I greatly appreciate your interest.
Brightfire4 (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brightfire4: I'm a little concerned about this comment that you made: "I would like to restrict editing of my article, once it is published on Wikipedia". Your referring to your sandbox article as "my article" and wanting to restrict the editing of it seems a little bit like ownership to me. You might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content to see what I mean by this. Wikipedia, after all, is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (even "anonymous" IPs can, too!), and articles should only be protected if there is sufficient rationale for doing so (such as repeated vandalism or edit-warring on that article).
By the way, I'm not very experienced at this, so I'm hoping that somebody more experienced will come along to answer your questions. Good luck, CabbagePotato (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Brightfire4. Wikipedia policy is clear, and CabbagePotato is correct above. On every edit screen it says "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" This means that all contributions are free for anyone to edit here, and for anyone to copy and reproduce, changed or unchanged, anywhere in the world. No article here is ever "restricted" to be edited only by one person or a small group of people. If a theorist wants to publish an account of his or her theory, as s/he defines it, then that should be done in an appropriate journal, or on a personal website, or in some other venue. That publication could then perhaps be cited here. A Wikipedia article should be based on what others have published about a topic. In the case of a theory, if it gains any acceptance, others beside the original theorist will adopt it and modify it, to greater or lesser degree, in almost every case. If no one else adopts it, it probably shouldn't have an article here at all, unless its critics write quite a lot about it, and in that case the article would be largely devoted to the critics. DES (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also User:Brightfire4/sandbox as it now stands is almost completely uncited. It has exactly one inline citation. It has a long list of References, many of them to the work of Cass, whose theory it is about, but many others as well. However it is generally unclear which reference supports (or is alleged to support) what statement or statements in the article. There are some inline cites of the form "(Cass, 1985, 1996, 1999)", but without page number references in any case, and many sections and paragraphs have no citations of this form either. In my view, if this were to be published as a Wikipedia article, it would be promptly deleted. it is an improvement on the current article in sourcing, but that is not saying much. It also seem to me rather promotional in tone. This isn't anywhere near ready. DES (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me respond to your comments. I am a new user so am very happy to receive advice but some of the information offered does not seem to follow logically to me. But, firstly, I have been advised about the referencing (am a new user and was actually using the parenthetical referencing style which I had read is acceptable on Wiki although the inline style is preferred) and have begun to make changes to the inline style - hence so far only one correction - and I had not realized you can all see my draft ??). Secondly, I find the comments about being able to change an established theory on Wikipaedia very odd. This would mean that anyone could go into an article on Einstein's theory of relativity or Darwin's theory and change these at whim. Seriously? I have checked on Wikipaedia a number of psychological theories that I am familiar with and they are all presented exactly as the theorist wrote them. A theorist is in fact the owner of the content of their theory, just as the patent design is owned by the inventor. Wikipaedia actually strongly acknowledges copyright law, so clearly there needs to be a distinction made between article content that is copyrighted to someone and that which can be edited without breaking copyright. Ok, so I was well-meaning in my efforts to get the article up but perhaps there is some truth in the comment that I seem to have the wrong idea about Wikipaedia. A number of people globally had asked me to offer a correct version of the theory and I had thought I was doing the right thing by making it available, especially when there are people who cannot access many of the relevant articles because of censorship etc. As for the concern that I am being promotional, I have wrestled with the style of writing aiming to provide as objective a stance as possible. I don't want to self-promote (and don't need to). I have shown the draft to others in my field and asked them to check for this and all have stated that everything that has been said can be verified factually. My understanding of reading the material on submitting an article was that Wikipaedia encouraged boldness and stated that rules were not fixed. I thought my request might be an example of these qualities. So, while well-meaning, I will find another way to offer the article to those who wish it. Thanks for taking the time to offer feedback.

Brightfire4 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious External Links

Hi everyone, just a small question. I am currently going through articles removing/repairing dead external links but I am coming across various malicious links. I have been removing them as I have gone along but am now asking, is that the correct thing to do? Or should I just put up some sort of warning for users or ask for a higher level user to check them out? CoolInu43 (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CoolInu43: if you are sure they are malicious links then removal would be ok; but, for example, I just checked the NY Times link you removed 116th Street (Manhattan) and checked it via Totalvirus.com as you did. It only returned 1 report from 63 reports as being a malicious link which suggests a false result by that 1 particular viruschecker and on that basis I wouldn't have removed the link. As a side issue I wouldn't remove deadlinks but would label them as such using {{Dead link}} so they can be investigated further as sometimes and archived version of the link can be found and added to the article. There's a lot more discussion and information about this important aspect of work at Wikipedia:Link rot. Nthep (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:ELNO #16. dead external links provide no value and should be removed. Dead links used for sources on the other hand should be maintained. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I was talking about deadlinks used as sources, TRPoD is absolutely correct about dead external links. Nthep (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:ELNO #16 actually says. As for refs, there are plenty of cases where a useful EL justifies putting effort in to recover it from an archive or to re-find a broken URL within a site. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your help with this issue. I just read the entire files you gave me and I have decided to still keep them removed. False positives are common, but so are sites changing and possible negligence by hosts leaving them exposed to hijacking and putting our community of users under a potential risk that they shouldn't be put through. CoolInu43 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CoolInu43: Please stop removing content until you learn more. I trust you mean well but your account is only nine days old and there is much to learn. You don't even know enough yet to ask the right questions. See Wikipedia:External links for what we normally mean by external links. You are not just removing external links but entire references which often take significant work to find and format, and are needed to say where article content came from. In [1] you removed a whole well-formatted reference just because the url doesn't work now, but it took me about two seconds to find a working url [2] by using Google on the title in the reference. See Wikipedia:Link rot. In [3] you said "Removal of dead links" but they were red links to Wikipedia itself, indicating a Wikipedia article may be created there later. We never say dead links about our internal red links. In [4] you removed a whole reference to The New York Times, one of the most respected newspapers in the World and a valued source we use in tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of references. Virustotal analyses a url with 63 different programs. One of them "Blueliv" has apparently marked the entire New York Times website as a malicious site for some reason. None of the other 62 programs report a problem. Do not try to purge Wikipedia of New York Times references based on a report from one program. A false positive by the program is much more likely, and even if the entire New York Times website was hacked and every page was full of malware, we should just consider to temporarily disable the url's until they fixed the problem, and not delete thousands of hours of work on valuable references. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, when I see dead links. I generally put tag of [dead link]. So, if it is in the EL section and not a good reliable source ( again I do understand that it could be a discussion point in certain cases of it being reliable or not, but in that case editor has to use his/her best judgement ), then these has to be removed ? Please clarify PrimeHunter Thanks! Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivek.bekhabar: Putting {{Dead link}} is OK. In an external links section the link can also be removed but I wouldn't do it before a failed search for a new location, for example by entering the title in Google or searching internally at the domain if it still works. References should never be removed just because they include a url which no longer works, unless the reference is replaced by another reference which supports the content. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter: Yes certainly that makes more sense...Thanks Vivek.bekhabar (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=672395701"