From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Teahouse  (Redirected from Wikipedia:TH/Q)
Jump to: navigation, search

Question forum »Host profiles »Guest profiles » Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia.


WP teahouse logo.png

Bigu (avoiding grains): rice radical.[edit]

On the page: "Bigu (avoiding grains)" and the last line of the heading; "Grains in Chinese Agriculture and Culture", is a popup (after clicking; rice radical 米) showing the character for rice (supply) being drawn. Is someone able to direct me to the source of this programme or app. of the character being drawn, please. "Stroke order animation" is the key phrase - I found, on rice radical 119 page. I was wondering on the animation's source in case there were more as they are easy to read for the sight sensitive. animations are a good learning tool. Or it may be outside Wikipedia's scope. Maproom|maproom has it correct. Thank you, I found the Chinese stroke animation software downloads via google chrome.:.Sudaama90 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Sudaama90 and welcome to the Teahouse! I believe the feature you're thinking about is the Hovercard, which is a Beta feature on Wikipedia, which lets you see the summary of another Wikipedia article by hovering your mouse above a page link. You can find the feature here. Adog104 Talk to me 02:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The "rice radical" page you mentioned seems to be Radical 119, but there's no video of it being drawn there. Did you mean to ask if we could direct you to a video? That would be outside Wikipedia's scope, yes, unless the video was uploaded (with proper licensing) to Wikipedia or it's sister site, Wikimedia Commons. There doesn't seem to be a video about how to draw the "rice radical" (as Radical 119 is apparently sometimes called) on Wikipedia or Commons, so I would recommend a Google search for a video. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Gestrid, I believe that the article being discussed is Bigu (avoiding grains), about a traditional Chinese medicine ritual. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Cullen328: He said something about "after clicking rice radical". The wikilink "rice radical" leads to Radical 119. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
At Radical 119 I see the animation shown to the right. This must be what the OP means. Maproom (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
And, Sudaama90, if you click on that radical on this page, it takes you to the file's information page, which has a lot of information about the origin of the animation. --ColinFine (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

ColinFine|talk]] I'm sure that's good information but I couldn't find "file's information"..Sudaama90 (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

who is the longest serving admin?[edit]

curious 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:62 (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that Jimbo Wales is among the earliest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be whoever the first admin was on or after January 15, 2001, the day Wikipedia began. Of course, I doubt there was just one administrator. There were probably at least a few. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The very earliest administrators back in 2001 were Bomis employees, since that company hosted the Wikipedia software back then, long before the Wikimedia Foundation began. Jimmy Wales ran that company. Here is a very early conversation about granting administrator powers to other editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Aren't newspapers considered adequate 'reliable sources'? What are 'non-trivial references'?[edit]

The article I wrote on Ajai Vir Singh has been declined because of lack of adequate reliable sources. It was my understanding that newspaper articles are reliable sources. Also, I don't understand what non trivial references include. Can someone help me understand this better? And what exactly should I do to have the article accepted? Thanks. WikiMurk (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

News paper articles can be reliable sources, but "non-trivial references" means that the newspaper articles need to be specifically about the article subject instead of merely mentioning the article subject in passing.
Try starting with just the newspaper that mention the article subject in the title and are just about that subject. Write a short article summarizing and paraphrasing only those sources. Then, after the draft is approved, expand it with the other sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, to answer your question on what constitutes a reliable source, I suggest you take a look at our reliable sources guidelines. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Article summary text in official app[edit]

The official WP app shows summary text for most articles. For example, the summary text for London reads "Capital of England and the United Kingdom". However, I am not able to edit this information as it does not exist in the article itself. Is the summary text editable anywhere? It's fine for London, but I have noticed articles where it is wrong, in some cases even appearing to have been vandalised. —BillC talk 14:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@BillC: the information you are referring to is found in Wikidata so the text for London is found at d:Q84 where it can be edited by editing the first field - the description. Nthep (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help. —BillC talk 17:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this person notable enough for wikipedia[edit]

Before I attempt this again, I wonder if my daughter is notable enough for Wikipedia and if I might kindly ask for opinions about this from those in the Teahouse. Her name is Ashley Kidd and she is a professional Wake Boarder (2 time world champion). She's the best thing that has ever happened to me, and I just want to do something special for her....that is if her notoriety is enough to warrant a listing in Wikipedia. Thank you, Don Kidd............PS I realize listings attempted by friends or family members are frowned upon, but in the end it's all about the notoriety, so I hope you will look past that.Donaldrkiddjr (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Donaldrkiddjr. Notability (NB: not notoriety) on Wikipedia is generally judged by whether a subject, such as your daughter, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For sportspeople, there are some specific guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Since you have a clear conflict of interest, if you do try to write the article then you need to declare this (well done for acknowledging it here). I think the best thing to do would be to wait for someone else to write the article, but if you insist on doing it yourself, then you should do so via Wikipedia:Articles for creation so that it can be reviewed before going "live". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Update to the above: I now see that you'd already submitted a draft, so that comment about Wikipedia:Articles for creation is redundant - you're already doing that. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As long as your daughter is notable enough (in Wikipedia's special sense), you're not being paid to create the article, and you declare your conflict of interest properly, you should be fine.
Also, the article must be in a neutral tone. It must also include any notable bad things that she may have done, if any.
I realize that's a lot of guidelines, but it's all so that, in the end, it becomes a better article.
-- Gestrid (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi from me too, Donald, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the reasons writing about family and friends is discouraged is that it is terribly hard to write in a neutral, boring, and encyclopedic way about that person. I had a look at your draft User:Donaldrkiddjr/sandbox. I've re-written it in a more neutral encyclopedic tone and added references in the proper formatting to give you an idea of how to go about taking it forward. I think it is possible that she passes the notability criteria for sportspeople, as I was able to find references for her twice being the wakesurfing world champion. However, this is a fairly new sport and there isn't any specific guidance on it at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I'll see if I can find a couple of experienced sports editors for a second opinion. In the meantime, I've moved it to Draft:Ashley Kidd which is the preferred location for drafts like this. The page Help:Getting started has some useful basic tips, check it out. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Donald has continued the conversation on my talk page, in case anyone wants weigh in there. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spelling: US or British English?[edit]

I noticed on a talk page where someone had complained and asked that "cancelled" be corrected and spelled "canceled". Someone replied that "both" are correct. I know that in the U.S. it is spelled "canceled" but out in the British world it goes by "cancelled". Does Wikipedia have a policy on spelling English words? 3dSurveyor (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi 3dSurveyor please see WP:ENGVAR which opens:-
"The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other"
It then explains that each article should be consistent, how the variety should be chosen, and that once chosen it should not be altered - Arjayay (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • WP's policies (linked above) are there mostly to favour stability. If an article exists in one form, then we avoid changing it. Simply because otherwise every editor coming along may well change it again to their own favoured version.
If an article is inconsistent, then it should be made consistent. It might spell "colour" both ways. It might use both "color" and "valour". But gain agreement and consensus on the talk page first. This should usually be by reverting to the first choice made in early versions of the article.
There is no policy of, "Wikipedia is in the US", therefore it has a preference.
It is more complicated if an article is tightly related to one national version: in such a case we do change article text to match. But gain consensus first. "Washington DC" is pretty obvious, but others much less so. Yes, "rock and roll" might be an American invention, but that's not a sufficient reason to change the wording.
Some articles are deliberately international and describe national variations within sections of that article. There is nothing in ENGVAR which says that an article must be made so consistent as to use words which are simply inappropriate, such as "sidewalks in London" (rather than "pavement"), even in an article on sidewalks that uses US English. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

how to add categories to a post[edit]

i have made a post on wikipedia please help me add categories to this post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raksha57 (talkcontribs) 05:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Raksha57. If you are talking about Vijyant Thapar, you have a much more serious problem with that article. It has been nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Everything you add to Wikipedia, except brief cited quotes, must be your own original writing. Once you create an article on a notable topic that does not violate copyright, we can help you add categories. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayant Thapar, which I think concerns the same person. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Raksha57. In addition to the problems with the text pointed out above, there are also some serious problems with the media files you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. You uploaded these files as your "own work" and freely licensed them, but they all appear to have been taken from the a website about Thapar. Unless you can show that this website has clearly agreed to freely license these images or provide proof that you created them yourself and that you are the their copyright holder, they are almost surely going to be deleted from Commons as copyright violations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Bots replacing manually updated information[edit]

How do I stop a protected auto bot from replacing my new information with the bots outdated information? SusanneSCSusanneSC (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SusanneSC, and welcome to the Teahouse! In general, the bots we have on Wikipedia do a pretty good job keeping up with stuff. (For example, it was HostBot that invited you here.) In this case, the bot was right to revert you, as we don't normally allow Facebook links in the External Links section, per our External Links Policy. In the future, though, if you feel the bot has made a mistake, feel free undo the edit the bot made. Before you undo an edit made by a bot, make sure it had good reason to revert it. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
To summarize the guideline: An external link to a person's official website is allowed (or even encouraged) in the biography of that person. Additional links to other social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and so on, are not necessary and are actively discouraged. If the person does not have a conventional website, then a single link to a verified social media site is allowed. Many Facebook pages for celebrities are unofficial, unauthorized fan pages, and are of no use on an encyclopedia, so caution is in order. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@SusanneSC: When the bot saw you added a Facebook link, it reverted all your consecutive edits in the page history [1]. That may seem harsh. You can try to redo the other edits but several of the other changes were problematic. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing issues, Like Edit Misleading and Edit Warring[edit]

So I've tried editing more than 3 times. i was told i was edit warring. Which i am not! In the last edit i cited the United Nations recognition of a decolonization committee which established That we are not self determining and USA should move to resolving this issue promptly. i also cited The atlantic press where it establishes what the supreme court of usA says. where it establishes that we are not a commonwealth and o not have right to self-determination nor authority that does not derive from US congress.

So why is my edit misleading again? Why are my edits getting erased. WHEN THE USA SUPREME COURT says it.

here i leave a quote from the article.

"A Supreme Court ruling in the case Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, which was about double-jeopardy protections for Puerto Ricans, established that Puerto Rico has no real authority it does not derive from Congress. The U.S. House’s easy passage of the debt-relief bill PROMESA stripped away even more of Puerto Rico’s functional self-governing authority, establishing an independent board with no Puerto Rican oversight that can restructure Puerto Rico’s debts and set financial priorities. The Court’s ruling in Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust affirmed both of these policies, clarifying that Puerto Rico cannot create its own municipal bankruptcy code and is also excluded from the normal bankruptcy protections granted to municipalities in states, leaving its only legal restructuring path with Congress. With financial ruin fast approaching for the island, it seems the only legally viable path for debt relief is an upcoming vote on PROMESA in the Senate."

Do i have to write the definitions of a Colony and a Commonwealth as well for editor to accept that this is not a war im trying to pursue. This is something real.

or are the UN and The Atlantic and supreme Courts ruling not reliable enough to be used as a reliable source.?

where am i going wrong, what am i doing wrong? JohamGabriel (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@JohamGabriel: edit warring on Wikipedia means that you're repeatedly trying to make the same (or a very similar) edit to an article in the face of opposition. The best way to resolve this kind of dispute is through discussion on the respective article's talk page. Sometimes, people simply don't understand why the edit was being made, and it's easy to convince them. Other times, they're dead set against it, and it's like talking to a brick wall. Those times are very frustrating, but Wikipedia does have several forms of dispute resolution that can perhaps help. Looking over your talk page, it looks like someone has asked you not to use the edit summary "fixing typo" when you change text to have a new meaning. This is good advice, and you should follow it. A typo is something like "dodn't". This is obviously an accidental error and should be fixed to say "didn't". The meaning is the same, and only the spelling was changed. When you change something other than spelling, you shouldn't say that you're fixing a typo. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi JohamGabriel. The edit you are trying to make is very clearly original research, by way of synthesis. It will not become part of the article until such time as the world – as reflected in a preponderance of reliable sources, so that adding it would not be undue weight – recognizes that the official name of Puerto Rico is something other than the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. And such sources will not exist until such time as government process changes the name officially from what it is now, to something else. What you are confusing is the fact of what the official name actually is (and other matters such as its official designation as a territory), with an ideological desire for the name to reflect what you believe is its proper descriptive status. That is to say, even if there were a million reliable sources saying "the official name should be changed, since Puerto Rico is not actually a 'commonwealth'", it would still be incorrect to change it as you have tried to do. Rather, if such sources existed, then the article might discuss, for example, the movement to change the official name, but that still would not make what the official name is any different.

Putting aside the "official name" issue for a more general point, we don't look at the proper noun name of things in a vacuum and just decide they are not properly descriptive and substitute our own judgment for what to call something – as divorced from actual English usage. For example, many people think the "Great Leap Forward" was very much not "great", nor a "leap forward". That observation does not change what we all call it. As one person said (in an article move [name change] discussion): "Nickel silver contains no silver, French toast is neither French nor toast, and crocodile tears are neither tears nor ever shed by crocodiles..." We still call them by their names, until that changes out in the world. As an encyclopedia of mainstream established knowledge, Wikipedia does not decide usage, it reflects it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

how do you make a new wikipedia page.[edit]

there was a topic i was searching for, and it didn't exist, is it possible to make a new page.Wasabi,the,one (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wasabi,the,one: yes, any logged-in user can create a new article on Wikipedia. Before you do so, you should read this brief advice page. It contains helpful information, including how to write an article that won't be immediately nominated for deletion. You might also consider going through articles for creation, an optional process wherein experienced Wikipedia volunteers will assist you in making sure that your article fits our criteria for inclusion. If you decide not to make use of articles for creation, you can easily create a new article by doing a search for the title you want to use. If the article doesn't exist, you'll see the text "You may create the page ..." Just click on the red link to create the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wasabi,the,one, please use Wikipedia:Article Wizard for starting new article.—Constanstin 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Bold textwhat do people really do on teahouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy 9876 (talkcontribs) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Troy 9876. The purpose of the Teahouse is described at the top of this page: it's a place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

how do i fix a referencing error in a template?[edit]

I've been trying to fix a few Check|url= errors, but on the page 2016 Montana State Bobcats football team there is one in the recruits template and I have no idea how to correct it - (montanastate should all be one word without the / in the middle). EdwardUK (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi EdwardUK and wecome to the Teahouse. Templates that generate references are tricky, not well documented, and cause gray hairs. I changed "montana state" to "montanastate" in the "247 school" field in the template, and it works now. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Acceptable source for birth date of a living person[edit]

Several attempts to source birth date for living person Ric Flauding have been rejected by editors. Please tell me what is an acceptable source? Entries for musicians such as David Benoit and Wayne Bergeron, who have worked with Flauding, do not source birthdates but simply add the person's age in parens. Will this be acceptable for Flauding's entry? Thank you. Jimnblack (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: Ric Flauding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maproom (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It's difficult to find credible sources for an exact date of birth. For many people, this simply isn't public information, and, per our policy, Wikipedia strongly discourages the inclusion of personal information that can't be well-sourced. It's much easier to find an estimate. I can often find a newspaper article on Google News that says something like "Bob Musician, age 35, played at a local venue". From that information, you can use the template {{Birth based on age as of date}}. If the article is dated "July 1, 2016", you would just plug in the numbers like this: {{Birth based on age as of date|35|2016|07|01}}. Sometimes it takes a few different searches before I can find what Wikipedia calls a reliable source. Many of the sources on Google that purport to have celebrity information are unreliable. We can't cite government databases, census information, fan sites, or self-published blogs. We can, however, cite self-published information by the subject himself, such as a Twitter post or biography on an official website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

How can a page about Anandmurti Gurumaa be deleted ???????[edit]

Dear Admin,

This is the reference to the wikipedia page of Anandmurti gurumaa" which has been deleted following the deletion debate at . I was so much SHOCK to see that she was there on wikipedia from the past 15 years and unfortunately few days back when I saw her page was missing I had requested to resume this page in response to which I have been directed to contact you I would like to bring to your kind notice that the reason mentioned in the debate is lack of resources whereas lot of sources and independent links exist featuring work of Anandmurti Gurumaa as a renowned Indian spiritual master. Moreover these reliable links belong to national newspapers like Times of India, DNA, The Hindu, India today, Amar Ujala etc. Kindly Resume her page back

References for Anandmurti Gurumaa

1. Work of Anandmurti Gurumaa in newspapers:

• MTV: • The Tribune India: • The Hindu Newspaper: • The Hindu: • Amar Ujala Newspaper: • Hindu Digest:

Tribune India: • Times of India: • (Times of India) Speaking tree: • DNA Newspaper: • India West: • Music on itunes: • Life positive: First Post: • Yes Punjab:

2. Events: • Gurumaa with swami ramdev in an event: • Karmapa: • Karmapa: • Karmapa: • Karmapa:

3. List of books published by Anandmurti Gurumaa: • SHIVA'S ECSTASY : • Know Thyself: • Going Beyond the Mind: • Quotes of the Unquotable: • Truth Exposed: • Shama- E- Rumi : • Mananuṃ darpaṇa: • Health and Healing Through Yoga: • Shakti : • Many more:

4. External links: • Verified Facebook page: • YouTube channel: • Official Website:

Salil Chaudhary 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salilchaudhary (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Salilchaudhary
First off, this is not an admin-only page. Many of us aren't admins. (In fact, I think there are only 500-something admins on English Wikipedia.) We're all just here to help new users.
Also, not many people are willing to wade through the massive wall of text you've posted, including me, so I'll just commment on why the article was deleted and hopefully clear that up for you.
Now, to answer your question, according to the deletion discussion, it was deleted because all of the references in the article failed to show how the person was notable in Wikipedia's special sense of the word. As noted in that discussion, a Google search also failed to show how the person was notable. Had that Google search shown how the person was notable, the article may not have been deleted.
Feel free to create an article by the same name, but I recommend you use the Articles for Creation process, which allows you to create a draft and have other more-experienced editors comment on it when you're ready. When an editor thinks the draft is ready, they'll move it to a more permanent page that doesn't have "Draft:" at the beginning of the name.
Happy editing!
Gestrid (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, according to your contributions, you've been spamming this post in several places. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Salilchaudhary, please read Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners. I am not interested enough to look through all the bare URL's you have given to see how many of them meet the basic, fundamental requirement for references that they are substantial pieces about Gurumaa by people who have no connection with him (and not based on interviews or press releases). What I do know is that his own publications, and anything on social media, do not contribute in any way to his notability (in the special Wikipedia sense). --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • A lot of this was already answered here as well. I'll be honest in that few to none of the links are usable in any format and even fewer are the type that would actually work towards showing notability. There aren't enough to establish notability and I'm actually mildly convinced at this point that there just isn't enough coverage (including anything not listed here) to establish notability for this person to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Involvement with other editors[edit]

Sometimes, I feel like I don't have the required inspiration to make strong edits. Is it alright to discuss my ideas on talk pages without accusations of team editing? I would, of course, still be referring to my own research and evidence I have discovered as far as possible.Armanikoka (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages team editing and actually discourages relying too much on one's own research. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Armanikoka. Discussing improvements to an article on its talk page is a good example of collaboration, which as Ian mentions is encouraged. Perhaps what you have in mind when you mention team editing is meatpuppetry, which is when you recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. That isn't allowed. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Email Link[edit]

Dear Teahouse-Friends,

I believe I should direct my enquiry elsewhere, but I wasn't sure where to start. When I created my Wikipedia account, I failed to supply an email address for my username. I would very much like to do so. I was wondering if someone might direct me as to whom I should ask or how I might go about adding an email address to my account.

All my best wishes and sincere thanks, MagdalenaKillion MagdalenaKillion (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi MagdalenaKillion. Your preferences are linked at the top of every page. At the last section of them you will see a place to enter an email address. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Fuhghettaboutit. MagdalenaKillion (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)MagdalenaKillion


We don't need no stinking badges, but I want some for my user page. Not for achievement but to learn what they are about and identify myself a bit as I get more involved in the back end of deep WP. I'm not even sure if these are called "badges" or banners or what you call them.

I copied and corrected these and they're great:

Flag of Ontario.svg This user comes from Ontario.
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 8 years, 9 months and 5 days.

I'd like to learn how to make these into "badges" unless there's already something as good:

X!'s Edit Counter analysis of JasonCarswell

X!'s Created Pages Tool analysis of JasonCarswell

Is there a gallery or collection to browse?

Thanks in advance.

Sorry if those "badges" messed up your formatting as it did mine. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. They are called userboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Right! I just discovered them, came back here to delete. Thanks! ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@JasonCarswell: You can make your own or search for existing ones like User:Barek/userboxes/edits and {{User articles created}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help in editing the Bio of Black Mind[edit]

Need help in editing information about a Malawian HipHop Artist by the name of Black Mind. I strongly feel HipHop artists and artists in general in Malawi are not well documented hence why i decided to start documenting and i really need help to make sure the editing is ok09:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krischirwa (talkcontribs)

Hello, Krischirwa. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not the right place to "start documenting" any subject. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be sourced to a reliable published reference, so if a subject is not well documented already, then there cannot be a Wikipedia article on that subject. Please read about notability and [WP:verifiability|]]. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Krischirwa, I managed to find one mainstream press article that is substantially about "Black Mind" - - but that's all. The rest of what I found are either merely passing mentions or publicity and social media. If you can find more articles like the one I did, perhaps in Malawian magazines that are not online), you might have enough to start an article. Just keep in mind that his own publicity and social media do not qualify to establish notability. Please look closely at the notability standard for musicians, to help you decide if an article is possible. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Welcome, Krischirwa. It would be good to have better coverage of non-Western musicians on Wikipedia, and to try to combat Wikipedia's systemic bias towards Western subjects in general. We do need sources to base articles on, though. Is it possible that there are offline sources (e.g. print magazines, as mentioned by Dodger67) that could help us here? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Created a page but it has not appeared[edit]

Hi there... I created a page entitled Dr Pamela Schulz OAM in mid-June. It was the first article I have written for wikipedia and it needed some fixes. It was submitted for review and changes were made to it, according to a reply I received via the community bulletin board on 20 June. Since then, it still has not appeared. Can I find out what's happened to the article? (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP It looks like you're referring to Draft:Pamela Schulz. The draft was submitted via the article creation process, but was declined by LaMona due to a lack of reliable sources showing that Schulz is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. For reference, the draft was submitted by another IP (IP, but I'm not sure if you are the same person. If you're planning on submitting drafts, etc., it would be helpful if you created an account. You're not required to do so, but editing from a single account will make it much easier for you to keep track of your edits and for others to help you improve your draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A Question[edit]

NAC:Blocked as a sockpuppet of blocked user. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to fight vanalism in wikipedia. I want to learn more about vanalism. Help me!—The hunter boy Lets chat!! 03:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, The hunter boy, and welcome to the Teahouse! We have a nicely-written essay on how to spot and fix vandalism on this page. It explains both what vandalism is and how to fix it in a few easy steps. Since you're so new to Wikipedia, I suggest you edit Wikipedia for now so you can get a feel for how things work around here, as Wikipedia can be very different from what many people think it's like when they first start editing. However, if you run into obvious vandalism, feel free to remove it by just removing that part of the text from the page and provide your reason (ex. "removing vandalism") in your edit summary. (As a matter of fact, use an edit summary as much as possible to tell other editors why you're doing "such-and-such".) -- Gestrid (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Gestrid: Thanks—The hunter boy Lets chat!! 04:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Make image unclickable[edit]

Is there a way to make it so that if you click an image, nothing happens? Thanks. NikolaiHo 00:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nikolaiho. The answer is "no". Clicking on an image takes our readers to details about that image, including who created it and whether it is free of copyright, or freely licensed by the copyright holder, or "fair use" in compliance with our policies. This is legally necessary information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) Hi Nikolaiho. I know of at least one way to do this, but this would only be legally kosher for a public domain image (though still less than ideal). Doing so for images licensed as fair use, or under one or more free copyright licenses such as the GFDL and/or a suitable Creative Commons license would be impermissible. Can you advise the reason you want to do this and specify the image involved, if you had one in mind?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit Hi, I was just generally curious about whether it can be done or not. NikolaiHo 01:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Help formatting this table[edit]

Hi, I'm building a table (below), but I need a little help with the formatting. I'd like the first column to be wide enough so the date will sit on one line, and I want for last column, the numbers to be flush right.

Date Description Number of people
5 Aug 1963 This is a bunch of text that will go into this table. It will spread out into two lines. This is a bunch of text that will go into this table. It will spread out into two lines. N/A
7 Aug. 1972 This is a bunch of text that will go into this table. It may be only one line. 2,000
7 Aug. 1972 This is a bunch of text that will go into this table. It may be only one line. 1,000

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. KamelTebaast 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kamel Tebaast: try this
Date Description Number of people
5 Aug 1963 This is a bunch of text that will go into this table. It will spread out into two lines. This is a bunch of text that will go into this table. It will spread out into two lines. N/A
7 Aug. 1972 This is a bunch of text that will go into this table. It may be only one line. 2,000
7 Aug. 1972 This is a bunch of text that will go into this table. It may be only one line. 1,000
Nthep (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Nthep: Thank you! KamelTebaast 17:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I should have added Help:Table is a valuable asset in understanding the intricacies of formatting tables. Nthep (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Citing foreign language wikipedia articles[edit]

Hi. I'm drafting an article about mathematician Andrea Razmadze, and the only information I can find anywhere about his death is uncited material from his Georgian wikipedia article. Is there a way to show this is where I found the info? Does this even count as valid?

Also: I created the article off the MacTutor list, where his name is spelled "Andrei", but this is apparently an unusual variation; none of the other sources I found spelled it that way, including his own mathematical institute! Is there a way to change the URL name client-side? Do I even need to worry about this? Oceanchaos (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Oceanchaos. Foreign language sources are quite acceptable if there are not satisfactory English ones; but they need to be reliable, and Wikipedia (in any language including English) is not a reliable source, because anybody may edit it. If the only place you can find that mentions his death is kawiki, then it should not be in the article at all. As for the page title: you simply retitle a page by moving it. It doesn't matter too much while it is in user space - eventually, if it is accepted, it should get moved to Andrea Razmadze. (Ny the way, you can wikilink to its current place by using double square brackets thus: [[User:Oceanchaos/Andrei Razmadze]] appears as User:Oceanchaos/Andrei Razmadze). --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, ColinFine. That makes sense, I will remove the details about his death. Perhaps an editor who speaks Georgian can find more information. I moved the article: my concern is now that the MacTutor list of pending articles no longer points to my article (points to Andrei R, not Andrea R), and I don't know how to prune it off. Can you pass this on to the relevant editor? Oceanchaos (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Oceanchaos. Is this a possible reference for his death? [2] Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Theroadislong. That is the MacTutor page that suggested the topic in the first place. I didn't cite it directly because it seemed to be derived almost completely from one reference, and I try to summarize source material whenever possible. However, I have added it as an 'external link'. While the MacTutor article mentions that another (French) mathematician wrote a condolence letter, it doesn't say where or how Razmadze died, or where he was buried, which seem like much more important bits of information to me. Oceanchaos (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Oceanchaos. I have found and cited a source for his dates of birth and death. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks, but I already had multiple sources for the *dates* of his birth and death. The pieces of information I don't have (except in the are (1) the location of his death, (2) the cause of his death, and (3) the location of his burial.
@Oceanchaos: This source's statement that he "passed away unexpectedly" indicates the cause may be unknown, which is quite common (not that I'm implying you should speculate in the article, but you could find a way to quote that).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I would love to have an editor help me![edit]

I am trying to write a page for a Hollywood Producer and Book Publisher/Editor and it keeps being deleted. Can one of the editors please contact me to help me get this up to par so it can be approved and stay up?

Wildeyedeagle (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, sure! If you could post the name of the person, that would be appreciated. Thanks! ProgrammingGeek (Page!Talk!Contribs!) 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Under this account, it appears that you have not made any edits that have been deleted. You submitted Draft: Webster Stone, and it was declined (not deleted) and you were recently advised that it had been untouched for five months. It is still there, but you need to improve it based on my previous comments. If you want advice in improving it, this is a good place to ask for advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A glitch with my notifications.[edit]

This is not a question about editing, but i don't know where else can i get an answer. My account seems to have some sort of a technical glitch. I do not receive my alerts on the Bell Button, and my Notices do not appear on time. What should i do? Wasiq 9320 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you can ask at the Village pump technical page. The techies hang out there and they may be able to help you. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wasiq 9320, welcome to the Teahouse. Some things have moved between the two buttons. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 147#Notification issue. If you think notices are missing or delayed then please link to the edits you think should have caused them. If it's about mentions of you then note there are many conditions at mw: Manual:Echo#Technical details. The most common reason for no notification of a mention is that the edit was not signed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User reverts / edit waring[edit]

Background: User:1 changes something controversial in a sentence [following WP:BRD], but also adds one thing into the sentence that is sourced and not controversial. User:2 either reverts the entire sentence or re-edits the sentence, deleting the non-controversial edit.

Is this acceptable? Should this be discussed on the Talk page? Is there a policy against this? Should User:2 be warned? Thank you for the feedback. KamelTebaast 16:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

All content issues should be discussed on talk pages. If User 2 reverted both a controversial edit and a non-controversial edit, the revert of the non-controversial edit may have been an honest mistake. It would be appropriate for User 1 both to restore the non-controversial edit once and to discuss both edits on the talk page. I see no need for a warning in this case, because it is likely a mistake by User 2. If User 2 insists that they were right in reverting both parts of the edit, then that is controversy and the entire matter has become controversial and should be discussed. Do you have a specific example? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is the example. I added two (benign) edits: Gan HaShlosha National Park and Reshafim and User:2 deleted them both, along with the more controversial edits. Thank you. KamelTebaast 19:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Continue discussion on the article talk page. Editors should be aware that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to articles that involve the Arab-Israeli conflicts. These sanctions are intended to minimize battleground editing, including about areas that are real battlegrounds. If discussion on the talk page is inconclusive, read the dispute resolution policy and follow a dispute resolution procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! KamelTebaast 22:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Modifying infobox from a template[edit]

I'm working on my first page about an organization (in a personal Sandbox), and everything is pretty straight-forward for me. However, the info box template for organizations is not quite how I would like it. Is it good form to modify it? My prototype is small and has a details section which gives the motto, incorporation info, and director name. It also has a colored bar between sections, which I could code using css, but I don't know the basic rules/policies regarding use of info box templates.

If it is OK to modify, where is the documentation on it? Any other ideas for me?? Illuminer2 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Info box or geo box templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

uploading a non-free logo image[edit]

I want to upload a non-free logo image on Wikipedia's article but Idon't know how, can anybody help me please? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, shorouq★kadair. Please read our policy on use of non-free images, which should give you the information you need. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
For a new user, I'd recommend that you do not read the Wikipedia project pages about fair-use images. The information isn't presented in a easy-to-understand format. Also, there is a lot of discussion between editors about the scope of the policy, etc. Just follow the directions at Template:Logo rationale. And, don't worry about the policy. If something isn't right, then we can fix it. Wikipedia is a collaboration, and your contributions are always welcomed. Senator2029 “Talk” 04:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Does this tool help to check spelling mistakes and referencing error? Rainbow Archer (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Rainbow Archer:, yes AutoWikiBrowser does as long as you specify the spelling mistakes and referencing errors you are looking for. Before you use AWB please bear in mind that you are responsible for every edit you make with it and that the capacity to make large numbers of incorrect edit is always present. Nthep (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me add a couple real examples to explain why care is important. If you are correcting spelling errors and correct the spelling of "basket-ball" to "basketball", as many edotors have done, that will be incorrect when done in Timeline of women's basketball, where the spelling "basket-ball" is correct. If you change the spelling of "chuse" to "choose", as someone asked me to do today in United States presidential line of succession that will be incorrect. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

mediation necessary?[edit]

is dispute resolution necessary before posting a grievance in ANI? --HamedH94 (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, HamedH94. It depends what the issue is, really. If it is a simple content dispute and you have already tried discussing things on the article's talk page, then I would suggest pursuing dispute resolution. However, user conduct issues should probably be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or another appropriate venue such as Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Add images to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

What are the guidelines for uploading images to Wikimedia Commons? Gordon410 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Gordon410, just click here and upload an image!—Constanstin 15:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Gordon410, you should be aware, however, that much more is involved than simply uploading an image. You must provide specific information to prove that the image has no copyright restrictions. Otherwise, it is likely to be deleted. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Where can I find images with no copyright restrictions? Thanks. Gordon410 (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Take them yourself, or obtain a release from the photographer, or use images that are in the public domain due to age. Is there a specific reason why you are asking? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Gordon410 - first, a lot of images are on Wikimedia Commons already, so I would start by searching carefully for what you want just in case it's there already. A good place to find copyright-free images is still Flickr right now. Search on Flickr and select "Any Licence" --> "Commercial Use & Mods Allowed". Then you can find images that are acceptable for use - any that aren't tagged on the right of the image view "Public Domain". (These images won't be completely free of copyright restrictions - you may have to give credit to the photographer in some cases - but Wikipedia can use them.) Download images you want to your computer and then upload them here, remembering to fill in all the details for things like licence. Another good place to find pictures that are out of copyright is the Internet Archive - in general most books published before 1900 are out of copyright now, though you may want to read through the terms. You can download scans of old books from there as jpeg files. If you can tell me specifically what you want on my talk page I can help, but those are the main things to remember. Blythwood (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I delete an image that I have previously uploaded? Comtos (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Comtos: no, but it is easy to ask for deletion, in fact, far easier than in Wikipedia. If you explain that it was uploaded in error, then it will probably be deleted quickly without fuss.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Article[edit]

I would like to object to the deletion of a article with my own reasons on the subject. Can somebody direct me to a source where the required steps to do so are present or do I respond on the article page itself by removing the deletion template along with the timestamp, the reason for deletion and add my justification for non-deletion. Regards Capn Swing (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Capn Swing. You have already put your reasons at the only place that is appropriate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefly algorithm. But, in my view, your reasons are not to the point. Wikipedia is not interested in how significant, important, innovative, virtuous, or any other measure of goodness, its subjects are (we have many articles on horrible and vile subject). It is only interested in whether enough independent reliable material has been published on a subject to ground a neutrally-written article: the Wikipedia jargon for this is whether the subject is notable or not. That is nearly the only question relevant to deletion, and you would be well advised to focus your argument on this matter. Please see WP:DISCUSSAFD. --ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, ColinFine I have noted your advice in regards with those views. Actually, I was referring to the article on grey wolf optimizer. In any case, thanks for your time and input. Capn Swing (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Capn Swing, I guessed wrong. This is why it's always worth linking to the article you're talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Capn Swing, if you want to object to the deletion of grey wolf optimizer, all you have to do is remove the tag. It is best when you remove the tag to explain either in an edit summary or on the talk page why you are removing it. The proposed deletion process is the only one where anyone can just remove the tag to stop the process. If you do remove the tag, someone might nominate it at WP:AFD. -- GB fan 11:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

how can we change logo of the business[edit]

how can we change logo of the business Vaibhav Mahadik (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vaibhav. Are you connected with Kalnirnay? In general, you should be very cautious about making changes to an article about a company you are connected with, because of your Conflict of interest: if you have a connection, you should stop editing the article (and if you are in any way paid in connection with it, you must make a declaration according to WP:PAID). However, updating the logo should not be a problem. You need to upload the new version of the logo (most logos on Wikipedia are non-free files, and may only be used in a way which conforms to all the conditions in the WP:non-free content criteria: go to the image page of the existing logo, and pick "Upload a new version of this file". See Logos for more information. By the way, I have removed some promotional language from the lead. I am dubious whether the article actually establishes that the subject is notable. --ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Senior editors assigned to each article?[edit]

Hello Cullen and thank you for your excellent answer of clarification about senior editors and articles about deceased persons, it was very helpful indeed. Please one very important question, is there always a main senior editor in charge of each article, that is ie. ticking off or editing new additions to articles? It seems like there might be a senior editor of a type assigned to an article to edit everything that is being added? Or are the only people regularly editing any particular article those that have knowledge in or are genuinely interested in the article? Thank you for your answer in advance.GrassRoots (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, GrassRoots. Articles don't have editors assigned to them, and there is no official "senior editor" status (although of course some editors are more experienced than others, and some are administrators). If you take a look at Special:Statistics, you'll see we currently have 5,198,198 articles and 112,383 editors active in the past month, so it just wouldn't be practical. Editors do make use of their watchlists to monitor articles they are interested in or have edited in the past, however, and there are other ways of detecting vandalism. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Welcome back to the Teahouse, GrassRoots. Adding to the correct information that Cordless Larry provided above, I want to emphasize that Wikipedia content is created without any hierarchy, assignments, bosses or official power imbalances among editors. Each individual editor decides on their own which articles to write, expand, improve or watch. The vast majority of productive experienced editors are volunteers working on what interests them and gratifies them personally. No one is ever the "main senior editor" of an article except in the sense that they may have contributed more than others, and no one is ever "in charge" of any article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Switch between edit and edit source[edit]

The Afrikaans Wikipedia has both "edit" and "edit source" at the top of each article. How do I easily switch between the two in the English Wikipedia? Regards Vaaljapie (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vaaljapie, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you're asking how to turn on the Visual Editor, all you have to do is go to this page, make sure the option that says "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is unchecked, make sure "Editing mode" is set to "Show me both editor tabs", and click "Save" at the bottom of the page. Please reply here if you run into any trouble. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ... and so quick! Vaaljapie (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

Please help me. I had a Wikipedia Page, List of Fatal Shark Attacks in California, and it was fine. But, someone messed it up. They ruined it, and now all my info is in the Refernces section. When I got into the Refernces section, all that is their is just The Refernces line, not my list. But, in the section with the list, their nothing showing up. When I go to edit that section, all the stuff is their. Why is it not showing up in the right place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Shakiba (talkcontribs) 04:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The article in question is List of fatal shark attacks in California. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan Shakiba, and welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed your table was missing a closing brace, so I added it. I think this addresses the problem you were talking about. If not, please let me know. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC) [And added the Reference section heading]
Hello, Ryan Shakiba. I just wanted to let you know that I tagged your article with the {{orphan}} template. This is nothing to worry about at all. It basically just means that you should link to your article in relevant articles (like articles that have to do with shark attacks) so others will find your article more easily. After you've linked to the article in a few other relevant articles, then you can remove the tag by removing {{orphan|date=July 2016}} from the top of the article in "Edit source". Currently, the article isn't linked at any other relevant Wikipedia articles. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ryan Shakiba. Since you seem quite new to Wikipedia, let me also point out the we as editors do not have "Wikipedia pages" per se. We do not have any ownership rights over the articles we create or edit, and once something has been added to the article namespace, it's there for anyone anywhere in the world to edit at anytime they want. In fact, we do not even own our user pages.
FWIW, articles tend to be improved over time through collaborative editing, which sometimes may mean that "our preferred version" is not what the rest of the Wikipedia community prefers. Any edit we make can be undone just as quickly as we made it. We hope that our edits will be improved upon over time by others, but sometime they are not. In this particular case, it looks you simply forgot to add the closing brace referred to above by the Traveling Man when you initially created the table, and that it wasn't mistakenly removed by another editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of the @ when contacting Wikipedians[edit]

What is the difference between @user:XYZ and user:XYZ in terms of how and where a user is notified, within their local language Wikipedia and across all Wiki sister projects?Lucas559 (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lucas559, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, they both notify the user the same way. The difference is the settings each user has for how they're notified. The {{ping}} template, which shows up as "@XYZ:" when you preview or or save the page (and links to their userpage) is normally used at the beginning of a post, whereas the more common way ([[User:XYZ]]) will show up as "User:XYZ" (and also links to their userpage) and is usually used in the middle of a sentence. An alternative method to using that second method is using the {{user link}} (aka the {{u}}) template, which shows up the same way as the second method when the page is previewed or saved. I should also say that capitalization does matter. In other words, [[user:XYZ]] links to a different page than [[User:XYZ]] does. Also, I should say that notifications won't work if you don't sign your post using ~~~~ in the same edit. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I would argue slightly with Gestrid on the capitalisation point. I think you'll find that user:Gestrid links to User:Gestrid just as User:Gestrid does. Capitals do matter, but only after the first letter.--David Biddulph (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I stand corrected. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Gestrid and David Biddulph: thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas559 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 20 July 2016‎ (UTC)
Notifications only work if you sign your post in the same edit as using the ping template, so that won't have worked, Lucas559. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lucas559: I can confirm that your ping didn't work. You need to type ~~~~ (which automatically turns into your signature when you preview or post your reply) at the end of your post in the same edit for it to work. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A further note on capitalization: It doesn't matter on the first character or anywhere in the namespace. uSeR:gestrid and User:Gestrid link the same page. In practice people always write "User:" or "user:" but there are other namespaces where capitalization of a later letter is sometimes changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Contributions after account creation[edit]

Is it possible to "claim" contributions made under an IP address once a user has created an account? Sario528 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no way to do it so that it looks as if they were made by you, Sario528. You are welcome to list them (or list the articles they're in) on your User page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sario528: You can also mention the connection between the IP address and account. See the box at top of Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

19 July 2016[edit]

How to make Guestbook? Can u please help me to make my Guestbook? Tiger Gang Talk 06:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe this user may be talking about Wikipedia:Guestbooks with this Guestbook thing. It's the first I've heard of this kind of thing on Wikipedia, so I'll let someone else answer. -- Gestrid (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
You already created your guestbook. What help do you need actually? Ayub407talk 07:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, based only on what I see, we have an editor, User:Tiger Gang, and maybe other editors, who are really only interested in asking questions and not in doing anything to enhance Wikipedia. I may be too quick to make this judgment. If you have a specific question, please ask it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Previously i don't know to make guestbook but i have tried it and i got success. Please sign my Guestbook. THANKS. Tiger Gang Talk 02:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Tiger Gang, as it says at Wikipedia:Guestbooks, it's strongly discouraged to ask others to sign your guestbook, and it can even get you temporarily blocked. I'm not reporting you or anything like that. This is just a warning. I suggest you read the page I just mentioned before you go forward with your guestbook. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If we sign guestbook then can we get barnstar. How to get it? Tiger Gang Talk 02:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tiger Gang: Someone will notice your good performance with whatever the barnstar would be for (in this case, a guestbook) and award it to you. They're not "official" rewards like the Golden Globes or anything. They're something a user gives you when they notice you've been doing a good job, for example, fighting against vandalism. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You are more likely to get good performance noticed and get barnstars by providing good performance in improving Wikipedia than by treating it like a game and asking silly questions. Mostly you have just taken Wikipedia like a game or joke. You have created one article, your one contribution to Wikipedia. Find more references to support its notability, and stop asking silly questions and treating Wikipedia like a joke. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Can U Say Some of the options to get rewards?

Tiger Gang Talk 03:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of a list anywhere, but, as Robert McClenon suggested, you should edit more articles, revert obvious vandalism, and basically edit Wikipedia articles in a good way. (Just remember to use reliable sources and to cite your sources.) If you do that well, you'll get noticed and get a barnstar. Actually, if you don't edit just to get barnstars, you'll probably be more likely to get barnstars. -- Gestrid (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I linked a valid source to one of my articles. However, they keep saying whatever I sourced is false. They aren't even a moderator theirself! XS2003 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, XS2003. I am assuming that you are talking about Pulpit Rock (Cape Schanck). If you are discussing another article, please let us know. You created an unreferenced stub, and another editor removed unreferenced information, which is allowed. You then called the other editor an "idiot" and started adding personal commentary into the article itself, which is not allowed. That resulted in a brief edit war between the two of you, which is also not allowed and is a very poor way to resolve disputes. Two other editors got involved and improved the article dramatically. My suggestion to you is to develop new articles in your sandbox or draft space, and do not move them to main space until they have solid references. Once there, realize that other editors are welcome to improve them in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Do not insult fellow editors by calling anyone an idiot or anything else like that. It is counterproductive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, you, User:XS2003, are extremely lucky that you are able to edit, and that you did not get blocked for 24 hours for the personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, hold on a second. I never said that they were an idiot. I simply said some idiot, and at that point, it was my first article so I didn't know who it was, I actually thought it was a bot. And I don't know who told you I was adding "personal commentry" into the article itself, because I never did. And the edit war? I explained that on my profile. The two other editors did improve it, but I still had made it and written the most. I just did not really know how to add pictures. I understand I shouldn't have called him an idiot but, really? I am "counterproductive"? Wow. And, I said some idiot deleted the entire article. I am sorry I attacked him so. But I didn't call him a pig! So, why are you guys acting like I did? Anyways, I am not here to discuss that. I am just asking if the parks is a valid source, thats all. XS2003 (talk)
Hello again, XS2003. In my opinion, the park website is a reliable source, but at the time you created the article, no source was in the article. As for the other matters, when you refer to another editor as "some idiot", the word "some" does not soften the personal attack because anyone who looks at the edit history knows exactly who you were talking about. And yes, you did add personal commentary to the article, which I will quote: "XS2003 (talk) Please don't delete what I wrote, I have sources and I am not just making this up." We simply do not include that kind of commentary in an encyclopedia article and also do not add our own personal signatures to encyclopedia articles. It just isn't done. That belongs only on talk pages, not in articles. In your defense, you are a new editor and therefore may not understand such things. I hope that you will learn from your mistakes and move on. We were all new here once. Please keep editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, so that's what you mean by personal commentary? Okay. I added that because at the time I did not know how to contact the person who edited it / didn't know about the other tabs (talk and history.) And I deleted that anyways, so it doesn't matter. And I actually made this article AFTER the source was made. David deleted the article because I called him an idiot, even though I had sources. Also,

I know that saying someone doesn't soften the attack, but I actually thought a bot deleted my page. At that time I had no clue who it was. Also, to get offended by one person on the internet who calls you an idiot, and claim they personally attack you? Your not gonna survive. Cullen XS2003 (talk)

how long can a list of artworks be?[edit]

I have written an article about a British painter who has works in the Queen´s gallery. The article also includes a list of portraits of public figures which the artist has been commissioned to create. How long should that list be as a maximum? Landschaftsmaler (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Landschaftsmaler and welcome to the Teahouse. As rule of thumb, the list should only contain portraits of notable people (or portraits notable in some other way, i.e. have won a prize, are held in a notable museum, or have received press coverage) and each one of those needs independent verification. No commission should be listed without independent verification. This is an encyclopedia article, and its best not to make it too much like a CV. That's what his official website is fo. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. --Landschaftsmaler (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I have shortened the list of commissions as you suggested. Is the article OK now?--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Correcting error without source[edit]

I have noticed an error in an article, but there is no secondary source that agrees with me. What are the next steps to correcting the article? I have already discussed the issue extensively on the talk page and filed a dispute resolution. Neither have been successful. Gordon410 (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if the issue is the obvious one, which is Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, then other editors would not call it an "error", because it appears that you have an opinion that is not backed up by scholarly sources but is original research. It appears that you want to offer your own opinions that are contrary to those of scholars, and that editors think are contrary to those of scholars. In that case, there isn't a whole lot that you can do with regard to Wikipedia. A better approach would be to try to publish your analysis in a peer-reviewed publication. If the area of dispute in question is different, please let us know what the area is. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. "It appears that you want to offer your own opinions that are contrary to those of scholars, and that editors think are contrary to those of scholars." You misunderstand the issue. I only want to clarify opinions of scholars. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with them. Is this understandable? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by clarifying the opinions of the scholars? The statement that you only want to clarify the opinions of the scholars seems inconsistent with your previous statement that there is an error in Wikipedia. However, does Wikipedia accurately reflect what the scholars have written? If so, we don't need to clarify, and any "clarification" that isn't in their own writings would be original research. If what Wikipedia says is inconsistent with what the scholars have written, then Wikipedia should be corrected. Please clarify what you think should be clarified. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
"...any "clarification" that isn't in their own writings would be original research." Well, maybe you can help me understand the do's and don't's of original research. It appears that I do not have a grasp on it. For example, why did Urselius, one of the editors, replace the word genocide with extermination? Would you call that original research? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Gordon410 - Your question seems to be changing as we discuss. At first you said that there was an error. Then say that you want to clarify what the scholars wrote. Then you ask about a change in wording by another editor between two words that have almost the same meaning. What is the question? It seems to keep changing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
To add somewhat to that, the job of Wikipedia is to reflect what reliable sources have written. In a historical article, that means to reflect what historians and other scholars have written. It appears that the issue that the original poster has is not so much only with Wikipedia as with scholarly opinion, that he thinks that scholarly opinion has missed a point. It is sometimes true that scholarly opinion misses a point and needs correction, but it isn't the job of Wikipedia to provide that correction. There is only an error in Wikipedia if Wikipedia misrepresents scholarly opinion. In this case the original poster seems to think that there is an error in scholarly opinion. That isn't the job of Wikipedia to correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


NAC:Original Poster blocked as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Everyone, How to review new articles? Tiger Gang Talk 08:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Tiger Gang. I see that you've asked the same question as MasterPiece2016, below, using the same wording. I'd already noticed that the two of you were interacting quite closely for new editors. Do you know each other? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry Not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger Gang (talkcontribs) 10:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. It does seem remarkable that you (correctly) nominated Classtime for speedy deletion one minute after ‎MasterPiece2016 created it, and are now asking identical questions here. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry what are you talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterPiece2016 (talkcontribs) 10:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry's remarks are clear to me and it is a pity they are not clear to you. Thincat (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Just noting that you are both new and there are significant overlaps in your edits. For example, you nominated Office of the Status of Women for speedy deletion, and Tiger Gang notified the article's creator. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Why don't just send them to WP:SPI? To be sure if they "is" the same person. 333-blue 10:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:SPI, like many reporting forums, is backlogged. I would prefer not to see it used on idle suspicion. I agree that it does appear that they are playing games rather than trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and that they need a certain amount of patience as new users, but that there are limits to how patient we should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Robert McClenon, but I already opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarojupreti. There is also a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor impersonating others / misusing templates (I didn't realise this when I opened the SPI). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying not to bite the newcomers, 333-blue, while also attempting to work out what is going on! Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that. 333-blue 11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be three school children from Shree Harikul Model Higher Secondary School User:Tiger Gang, User:MasterPiece2016 and User:Nepali keto62 having some fun, but clearly WP:NOTHERE. Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Theroadislong yes we are from same school. But user:MasterPiece is against us because he has less contributions than us. So he is trying to implcit us. Tiger Gang Talk 01:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Tiger Gang...interesting? Adog104 Talk to me 01:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please help us from being blocked. Tiger Gang Talk 02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

To avoid being blocked, edit constructively, do not play games, discuss your edits on talk pages, and heed the advice of more experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Users now blocked for sockpuppetry. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article keep declined.[edit]

Dear All,

My article keep declined and kindly advise how to improve to get approve by Wikipedia. I have provided references to proved that he was well known top leader for our country. Nanda kyaw (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanda kyaw (talkcontribs) 09:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nanda kyaw. It seems clear to me that Aung Zan Wai meets our notability guideline for politicians as a former cabinet secretary in the government of Burma (Myanmar). He is also notable as an important witness to the 1947 assassination of the father of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi when her father was Prime Minister. I suggest that you mention his cabinet ministries more clearly in the beginning of the article, make it clear that he witnessed the assassination and testified at the trial of the assassin. Your third source is very solid. Sources in Burmese are acceptable as well. Perhaps 333-blue, who declined the draft, can comment further. This biography belongs in the encyclopedia with just a bit more work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I think so, but only one is accessable, like Cullen said, just a bit more, and then, it is suitable for Wikipedia. 333-blue 07:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Sources need to be accessible, 333-blue, but not necessarily accessible online. Accessible in a reference library is perfectly OK. What evidence do you have that the other sources are inaccessible? Our core content policy on Verifiability says: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Please reconsider. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Hum, it seems like that it is OK, but I have a suggestion to add into the article: how did he die? 333-blue 07:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank so much Cullen328 for your advise. 333-blue I have updated his political participation and how he died. Please kindly review and approve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanda kyaw (talkcontribs) 03:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done - Approved by another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)