Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 245

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 240←Archive 243Archive 244Archive 245Archive 246Archive 247→Archive 250

How long do I have to wait?

I was blocked yesterday for 24 hours for "edit warring" on the Wikipedia page for Katy Perry. My block has now expired, so, at least in theory, I am allowed to edit again. However, I do not want to risk being blocked again, or worse. On the Talk page for Katy Perry, I posted my disagreement with the interpretation of one of her songs. To be fair, I do not feel that an interpretation of one song or one album even belongs on Katy Perry's page, but I was blocked for deleting the interpretation. Nobody has responded to my comments on the Talk page. How long do I have to wait with no responses before I am allowed to edit the page to either remove the song interpretation (or add another, more accurate interpretation) without fear of being blocked again?

Also, it seems that Wikipedia's rule is that secondary sources take precedence over primary sources. That makes no sense to me, to be honest. If I want to post Katy Perry's own interpretation of the song in question, which she wrote, am I allowed to do so, as long as I make it clear that I a referring to the writer's own interpretation? Or is that going to get me blocked.

Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not currently blocked. However...you were actually blocked for edit warring and not for deleting the interpretation alone. You just did it 4 times which crosses the 3 Revert Rule. Remove that again and you will be blocked again, and it will escalate the term of the block from 48 hours to a longer block. The article is has featured status and that means that it has the general consensus that the article is superior to the average article and has a large number of editors watching ti to make sure editing is by consensus. If you have no consensus for your changes and have been reverted...it is time to gain a consensus on the talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
So, in other words, I am permanently banned from deleting a factually incorrect comment. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You personally probably should not remove it again. But that doesn't mean it can't be removed. Go to the talk page, discuss it, and see if others agree with you. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, that is not right @Mitsguy2001:. What you should not do is fight back and forth with other editors in article text. This is called an editwar and is unhealthy to Wikipedia. Instead, what you should do, if you want the change made, is to go to the article talk page, start a discussion, and present your sources of information and try to make your case, so you can reach a consensus with others. That's how you enact change when others disagree. The process you are using is the problem. When there is a disagreement, we talk it over with others, and present evidence to support our case. We don't just ram through a change over and over again and hope that it sticks. --Jayron32 02:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you at least agree with me that (regardless of whether the interpretation is right or wrong) the interpretation of a single song or album should not be included on the Wikipedia page for an artist, especially when the posted interpretation contradicts what the artist herself said about the song? Is there an official policy on this matter to back me up? If so, then can I delete the interpretation without fear of being blocked, given that I would be doing it to confirm to Wikipedia policy? Or is there no such policy? Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I will tell you what I believe. I believe your question has been asked and answered and the rest belongs on the talk page to persuade editors there...not here. All content that is not a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy or guidelines is a matter of consensus. As far as I can see there is nothing to support any unilateral action by any editor on this article. To do so requires that it is a BLP, copyright or other policy concern. Thanks and happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Per Mark Miller, I'm not really making any statements about the specific content under contention here: Such a discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. If you have links to sources where the artist discusses their interpretation, put those on the article talk page and make your case there. My only concern is over behavior here; which needs to be constructive... --Jayron32 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not looked at the content. But that does not matter at the moment in the first place. What I do want to tell you is this. Please read some of the wikipedia starting policies. One of the things you should read is WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is not about the truth we are just here to report reliable sources. If all of the reliable sources in the world would suddenly say the world is flat, then wikipedia would say the world is flat no matter how wrong that might be. What you can do is find reliable sources, and once again go to the talk page. How long you should wait. If you were reverted for an infinity amount of time. Especially after you have been blocked for edit warring. NathanWubs (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Just to disagree slightly with NathanWubs: Wikipedia does care about truth, but it cares about verifiable truth. It isn't that Wikipedia doesn't want the truth, it's just that we don't accept the truth just on someone's word. The words "verifiable" and "verifiability" mean "able to be shown to be true" from the latin word Veritas, or "Truth". The meaning of the oft-repeated phrase "Verifiability not Truth" at Wikipedia doesn't mean "Truth makes no difference" It means "It isn't what is true that matters, it's what you can prove to be true that matters". Because that's what verifiable means: proven to be true. At Wikipedia the standard for proof is that it is written about by reliable, third-party sources. So, if you say what you are writing is the truth, that may or may not be so. What Wikipedia needs is to know where you got your information from before we can assess if it is true or not. --Jayron32 14:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, @Mitsguy2001:, I agree with you on this issue. It looks like you guys have come to a consensus, but just thought I'd tell ya. For something like this where the article states a fact as literal truth: the songs are about teenage love, and the writer of the songs herself says something that contradicts that, we need to consider whether our reliably sourced statement is worth having on wikipedia. I mean, just because it's deemed a reliable source doesn't mean it's true. For whatever reason, many wikipedians want to hide behind the policy and say that they have no duty to truth, they have a duty to verifiability. I just think it's silly. It may be following the letter of the rule, but it's ignoring the spirit of it, which is to have an accurate encyclopedia. I'm not saying we should skip the verifiability phase and just post what we believe to be the truth, sources be damned, but on top of verifiability, we should also consider which sourced information is the most reliable and true. In this case, where Perry herself said something that contradicted what the magazine said, I would err on the side of truth in this case and then attribute the statement. It would be different if it was a self-serving statement, but it's not. She knows what she wrote the songs about. The way I would handle it is to say "W magazine said her songs are about teenagers in love, but Perry said..." Secondary sources aren't always preferable to primary ones. It just depends on what it is and how you use it. Bali88 (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Like I said, we came up with a reasonable compromise. I agree with you about the letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. I have a feeling that Wikipedia is going to have a lot of letter of the law vs spirit of the law type arguments.
As for primary vs secondary sources: I think sometimes a judgment call is needed. In the case of "Teenage Dream", since Perry was discussing a then-new song that she wrote that had never caused any controversy, she had no incentive to lie about it, so I trust that anything she said was true. On the other hand, if she was discussing a controversial song years later, which she maybe regretted, then it would make sense to put the truth into question. I think that judgment calls need to be made, but unfortunately, it seems that Wikipedia has no place for judgment calls such as this one.
Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous to say that reading the lyrics of a very popular song, which basically everyone has heard, to be "original research". But the other 2 editors involved just kept throwing that phrase at me.
Also, I still have a problem with the fact that I basically have a de facto lifetime ban on editing that part of Katy Perry's page. The other 2 editors have said they will report me if I edit it again, and the administration has said that if they report me, I will get blocked again, for longer this time. It seems that the administration sided with the other 2 editors since they are more experienced. Plus, I picture the kind of people who would be Wikipedia admins to unfortunately be more "letter of the law" type people rather than "spirit of the law" type people. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, First of all, a couple editors cant tell you that you aren't allowed to edit on something. As long as you can provide references for your edits, you can add anything. But the ref's have to be valid though. Mirror Freak 13:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal involvement

Someone put up an article about me some while ago but it has never been updated. I looked at it yesterday and was frustrated by the amount of out of date material and so I updated it myself but it was then removed by your watchdog. How can I update this page? 86.20.212.116 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Nobody reverted your edits, but someone did revert edits by Maestro1952. So, your last revision is the current version. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid no one can edit or add something about himself/herself, as this article is about you, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello IP 86.20.212.116 - I assume you are talking about our article Paul Spicer (musician)?
The edits made by User:Maestro1952 were reverted by The Original Bob with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Maestro1952 (talk): Please find relevant citations when adding information to articles.". However, I note he did not go back far enough in the history, so did not revert the changes you made as 86.20.212.116. These changes have three problems:-
  1. You have a clear conflict of interest in editing any article about yourself, which is why you should not do it - please read and follow our guidelines on conflict of interest - suggesting any changes you want made on the talk page and citing reliable references (see below)
  2. As explained in the edit summary, your changes were totally unreferenced - before you started yesterday, there were 6 references for a "readable prose size" of 374 words. You doubled the length of the article to 756 words, but added no references whatsoever. All information on Wikipedia should be verifiable in reliable, independent sources
  3. Your additions were generally fairly neutral, but they did include a "plug" for a book you are writing.
Unless sources are added for the additions you made as an IP, the article will have to be reverted back to the version before you started yesterday. - Arjayay (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My edits looked good in preview but ended up in the middle of someone else's text when I published.

I have searched this site for where to post questions about issues with the website itself instead of issues about the content. My search was not successful so I posted here. If you know where to ask techinical questions about why post submission would enter content in the wrong part of an article please let me know. Thanks Breedentials (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Breedentials, welcome to the Teahouse. Did this happen while you were editing Lead poisoning? Could you point me to the particular edits or edits where content was put into the wrong part of the article? I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi I JethroBT, yes it was during my edits to Lead poisoning however there was an additional time this happened in the past which I don't exactly remember. This was the edit. Thanks, Breedentials (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Breedentials: Yeah, it looks like something odd is going on there. This edit looks fine, but in your next edit to the article, the "By March 26, 2014..." paragraph was added multiple times for some reason, and some content was removed for no apparent reason. It sounds like this isn't a case where you copied the paragraph and, without realizing it, pasted it in a few spots. I think good place to report this is on Bugzilla that address any technical issues on Wikipedia. You will need to register an account to report a bug; let me know if you need any help with the process. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The term Pally?

The use of the term Pally for Palestinians, this term seems to be a derogatory term for Palestinians,if not outright racist but is being used on wikipedia. I wanted to know the rules on wikipedia and if they allow for derogatory/racist terms because I know in my country they are illegal.GGranddad (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello GGrandad, welcome (back?) to the Teahouse. Using a derogatory or racist term about another editor or a group of people would almost certainly be in breach of either Wikipedia:No personal attacks or Wikipedia:Civility. Additionally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Remedies may be relevant. Wikipedia does not really manage things according to interpretations of laws that may happen to be in force in various countries where editors reside, but racist behaviour by editors is usually very strongly discouraged.
There is also a possibility that an editor may use a term without being aware that it is regarded as derogatory. If this is the case, even if it seems far-fetched, the first step would be to make them aware, as politely as possible, how the term is regarded by yourself and others. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
GGranddad, there are 451 pages on the English Wikipedia that contain the string "pally". I haven't looked at all of them, but they mostly seem to be referring to the actor Adam Pally, or a south Indian word for "church" or "temple". I didn't see any instances in the first hundred or so hits where the word was used to refer to anyting Palestinian. If you can point us to specific instances where it is used this way, we can do something about them. Rojomoke (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Creating a new submission about a book.

My new submission was rejected due to: See WP:Notability (books).

How do I prove that colleges use the book I was submitting as a "Subject of Instruction"?

How many colleges have to use it for the article to be accepted?

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AmandaWhyte99. According to the notability guideline for books, we need evidence from independent, reliable sources showing that the book is used in courses at "multiple" institutions. Obviously, that is more than one, and in my opinion, would be more than two. But another problem with your draft is that our articles must be written from the neutral point of view. Promotional language in your draft such as "spirited challenge to a culture obsessed with romance and intimacy but dangerously ignorant of the full range and richness of human love" and "like a fresh wind, Sam Keen sweeps away tired self-help nostrums" and "a stunningly new map of love in all its forms" must be trimmed away ruthlessly and replaced with scrupulously neutral, encyclopedic language. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Although an independent reliable source saying those things might be acceptable inside quotes, as long as it wasn't too much of the article saying such things.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Random link to article needing editing.

At one time I came upon a page that could automatically link me to an article that needed editing, I am curious what that page was? AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Amandawhyte99 to Teahouse! Was it GettingStarted the page you were looking for? ///EuroCarGT 21:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) @AmandaWhyte99: Hey Amanda. Please copy this code: ?gettingStartedReturn=true Now, navigate to any random article → place your cursor in your browser's address bar after the existing url → paste the copied code → hit enter. Voilà.

By the way, the Wikipedia:Community portal (which is a permanent link under the "interaction" menu on the left hand side of the interface) provides a big list of articles in need of work under certain categories, and you can have that list of open tasks always available by transcluding it into your user talk page or user page by adding the code {{Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask}} to the one or the other. You can also sign up for delivery of suggested articles to edit at User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That gave me lots of options. I may not be a wordsmith but am decent at research and love to provide references.

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Long bibliography

In a draft I have created (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bknysak/sandbox), there is a very long bibliography of works. The submission was rejected due to this (the other issues have been resolved). Should I simply split the list off into another "List of..." page?Bknysak (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bknysak and welcome to The Teahouse. User:Libby norman referred you here and when I told her you had not gotten any answers, she said she would help, and she will post what she finds out on her talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
List of ornithology journals is a suggested solution.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New Article

I simply want to create and/or upload a new article about a club of which I am a member (sports club with long history). Where do I begin 206.188.147.48 (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Tea House
The best way to create or submit your article is here
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 02:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone edit an article title for me? I can not myself

I can't figure out how to edit the title of an article, probably because I just created this account for that purpose. The article in question is 'EastLink' the canadian cable company. The proper company name is 'Eastlink' with the lower case l. I have already changed this throughout the article but can't change the articles title.

As well, will this effect the links to the page?

Riley Halpin (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I can do this either! For now, I've moved it to Eastlink (telecoms company). Really it needs to be at Eastlink (company) because the various other Eastlink companies in different fields are not at that title. Maybe an admin needs to do this.
Anyway, it shouldn't affect the links to the page significantly, because anyone going to the old links will mostly be redirected. A bot may still be cleaning up double redirects for a few hours. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It can be done, but it rarely is, because normally a lowercase name is a stylisation, or brand, or marketing strategy. In the case of Eastlink, it looks like it's name is Eastlink, but it stylizes itself as eastlink. Maybe simply add "(stylized as eastlink)" in the opening intro. Sionk (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Riley Halpin: Hi there, I've moved the article to Eastlink (company) per Wikipedia's policy of conciseness with the appropriate redirect. If another company comes along in the future then the name can be further disambiguated by adding the "telecom" back in. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 07:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page headers

Hey guys, I've seen that people have these notices on their talk page that say things such as this user, 1, What's the template for those? Thanks, Mirror Freak 12:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No answers?Mirror Freak 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, MirrorFreak, and welcome back to the Teahouse. There are lots of components in that user page. The easiest way to link to a user page, by the way is [[User:TheQ Editor]], which renders like this: User:TheQ Editor. If you go to that page and click the Edit tab, is shows the code for it. So the first notice, about being "watched by friendly talk page stalkers", comes from the template {{Wikipedia:TPS/banner|75}}. You can look at how any page was constructed in the same way, using the Edit tab, and if something there is not clear it might be best to ask the user concerned how they worked their magic. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@MirrorFreak: It's called an Edit notice and defines a header which is then transcluded to the page. You can find out all about how to create one here. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 07:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I thought you meant something else, my bad. But you might want an edit notice too -:)  Philg88 ♦talk 07:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

What font does Wikipedia use for headings? Dark Liberty (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On my PC, your title "New to Wikipedia" displayed in Georgia font. Lower-level subheadings are in Arial bold. However, WP may format things differently on different devices. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Fonts are mostly generated based on what is supported by the browser(and device) or in others cases what the user specifies. For example I mostly like things in plain Arial font. So most page will show up in Arial despite a lot of websites wanting to have a different font. NathanWubs (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Georgia Normal or Bold? Dark Liberty (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Updating a Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I have been trying to update outdated information on an organizational wiki page with accurate, present, and backed up information but have had several problems. After updating the content the first time, all of my additions had been deleted within the hour. After going through and updating the Wikipedia page a second time, I was surprised to see that not only was the information I had updated deleted, but multiple parts of the original submission were missing as well.

How will I be able to edit a Wikipedia page without it being deleted moments later?

Thank you,

Jimmy66.207.216.146 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't just copy paste from a website. You have to put it in your own words and use inline citations. WP:REFB TranquilHope (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello ip. I think you are probably the user Jfotopoulos as well. If not that is fine as well. I have looked over your edits. Not only did you copy and paste something directly from a website. You also added information that was considering promotional. Wikipedia is not here to promote organizations. This is why multiply parts of the original submission were missing as well. I suggest that you take the edit summaries that came with your revert to heart. Also you were asked to discuss your editing on the talk page of the article. So I suggest you go there, and discuss what you want to add there. But beware that the information that you want to add needs to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Also if you are working for this organization you have a conflict of interest. So if that is the case please read WP:COI NathanWubs (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@NathanWubs: please explain to the new editor how he can view "the edit summary that came with your revert". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
When you go to the article, you will see several tabs at the top. One of them if clicked goes to the talk page. And another is called view history. If you click on view history, you will see all the edits that are made to the article, including edit summaries. In the edit summaries there can be the reason why something was re-edited or reverted. Now about the whole conflict of interest. Wikipedia tries to be as neutral as possible. But if you have a conflict of interest then there is just a high possibility that you will not be able to see a subject as neutral. That is why the policy is that a conflict of interest editor should not directly edit those pages that they have a conflict of interest in. However, what you can do is indeed go to the talk page of the article and discuss the changes there. So that other editors can implement them if it is properly sources. NathanWubs (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Artical Review?

Somebody on Wikepedia Reviewed an Artical that I Have as a Draft on my own Account But I Cant Find The Review it? Where is it? (Zucat)

The only draft you have on your account is Draft:List of films broadcast by Cartoon Network. TranquilHope (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

want to know more how to write article and how to upload images

want to know more how to write article and how to upload images(Sachinrpatil (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sachinrpatil, welcome to the Tea House. Have you read Wikipedia:Your first article? It has a useful introduction to what you need to know before starting an article. It is best to wait until an article is created and accepted before trying to add images to it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to know how can we include references,external links and pictures to the article that we write...Gaurav shetty (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gaurav shetty and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all I'm a bit concerned that you write "we", an account at the Wikipedia should only have one user. The best way for you to get started would be to Play The Wikipedia Adventure, you find a link to it a bit further up on this page. It is a tutorial about how to edit properly. You can also find useful information at the Help:Referencing for beginners. Start with these and you'll be well on your way. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank u for your help sir.....I just used 'we' in a general sense referring to beginners here.I am managing my account myself.Regards,Gaurav shetty (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Acceptable references for film and music articles

Are IMDb and Discogs acceptable sources for film and album articles? Iirc, both of these sites are moderated by experts but also accept user contributions. Also, neither of these sites have references, so in the cases that those sites are the most detailed sources for a potential article, I can't find a primary source or a more reputable secondary source to confirm that the information is correct. ozhu (talk·contribs) 16:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ozhu and welcome to the teahouse! IMDb is not considered a reliable resource because its contents are user submitted and Discogs is also not deemed a reliable source. You should have a read of the rest of that second page for information on other sources for musical topics, and this page for film topics. :) Sam Walton (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Those links are ridiculously helpful. ozhu (talk·contribs) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hidden Categories

I'm totally frustrated. My article (Callawassie Island) was accepted but needs improvements on references. Our writers are really trying but we just don't know what additional references are needed and i, as the typist, am at a loss.

So, here's the story. I 'copied' and 'pasted ' the article into Works and, upon printing it out, discovered additioal listings in the 'copy'/'paste' print-out that I just am not able to access on The Wikipedia 'Edit' page for the article. The items are listed under the heading: Hidden Categories. It appears that the six items listed would let us know what needs to be done, except I just can't seem to be able to access these 'Hidden Categories'. I've tried doing a search, but no luck. I don t even know if I am on the right track.

The items listed on the print out, but not on Wikipedia's page are: All articles with dead external links . . . I did find one and I'm working on it Articles with dead external links from August 2014 . . . Same thing? Wikipedia Articles needing copy edit from August 2014 All articles needing copy edit Articles needing additional references from August 2014 All articles needing additional references

How do we find out what needs additional references, etc.

Please . . . basic language. I am not computer language or Wiki language savvy!

Thanks a bunchj146.135.44.193 (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 146.135.44.193 and welcome to The Teahouse. I don't think those hidden categories mean anything. The fact is the article belongs to the categories but you already know about the problems.
There are entire sections without references. If you put the information there, you must know where you got it. And each reference should meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. A magazine, newspaper or book or even a web site, that has editorial control, a reputation for getting facts correct.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question from Theboyaa

CAN I MAKE A. FAKE BIG BROTHER WIKI PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyaa (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No. That is you can, but you may not. Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Creation of a biography

Hi: I am new to Wiki. I want to write a biography of my father. Most of the information came from his own autobiography that has never been published, Chinese Wiki and other published source. I have many questions:

1) Does it make it official given my relationship to the subject? 2) I have been writing in the sandbox. When I am ready, do I just hit the button for review? 3) I looked at other articles and I see an introduction, then a table of content. Where do I find the table of content box and how do I add headings to the paragraphs.

Thanks very much for your help.

Dxchow (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dxchow and welcome to the Teahouse. From reading your Sandbox article, while I have no doubt that you believe your father to be be worthy of a Wikipedia article, there are some criteria that will need to be satisfied before he can be considered. First off, you need to provide some references from independent, third party sources that support your assertions. This guide will explain more. You also have an obvious conflict of interest given your relationship with the proposed article's topic so you should read about that too. Good luck!  Philg88 ♦talk 20:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi from me too, Dxchow. I had a look at your draft in User:Dxchow/sandbox and did a bit of preliminary research. From what I've seen, he would certainly quality for an article. But you need to back up your assertions with references. I've added a couple to get you started, but there are a lot more sources out there for you to use. See [1], [2], and [3]. I've also formatted it for you so you can see how it's done. You might also want to get some advice from the members of WikiProject China, particularly for the English transliteration of his name and his publications. The Table of Contents box will appear automatically once the article has a minimum of four sections. To add a new section heading put == on each side of the heading title, e.g. ==Biography==. When you're ready, just hit the button for review. It may take a while for it to be reviewed. It might not pass right away, but you'll get some helpful suggestions, and I'm sure you'll eventually get there. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits

Hello there !

I just updated a wiki page and I was wondering how the process works ? and if my edits were submitted correctly ?

Thank you

Cmchatton (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cmchatton: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If your intent was to edit Youngme Moon, then no, you submitted edits instead to your own userpage. In order to preserve the edit history (see Special:Contributions/Cmchatton), you may need help from another, more experienced editor to merge the page last edited 24 Oct 2013 with your recent efforts. Perhaps one of our hosts can help? --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I know someone who might help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Youngme Moon and User:Cmchatton.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I asked User:Anthony Appleyard to do the merge.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Taxobox template format problem

I added a Taxobox template to the article Heliozoa, and as far as I can tell I have followed the example on the template's help page, but there is a weird formatting problem with some bare html visible when the page is loaded. I'm not sure if others can see it too. Anyone knows how to fix this? Thanks a lot! Kbseah (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Kbseah, I have no idea why this worked, but when I added "color = pink" (copied from Protist), it seems to have fixed the problem. Color is not normally required, because it is determined by the kingdom (as specified in Template:Taxobox), but this one does not appear to fit into any of the listed colors - so perhaps that is how it got confused. I imagine you could change that color however you like. Anyway, I hope this helps... --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gronk Oz, that seems to work! Kbseah (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

How to request protection of an article ?

The Pakistan (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, @The Pakistan:, and welcome to The Teahouse. Protection is only undertaken for very serious problems which cannot be stopped by other means. You should probably familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's protection policy first. The page is rather long, but you can peruse it at Wikipedia:Protection policy. In shortest possible terms, it defines when protection is appropriate, which ultimately boils down to when we cannot stop disruption of an article using other means. We will try to do literally anything else first, because protection flies in the face of Wikipedia's #1 core value: that we are an open community where anyone is allowed to contribute in good faith. However, if you must request protection of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It can be a bit hard for new users to navigate that page; I am an administrator, as are several other people who spend time answering questions at The Teahouse. If you let us know what article is giving you trouble, we can also look into it. Or you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It's up to you. Good luck, and happy editing! --Jayron32 00:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Citing the same reference twice.

I know how to use the < ref > < /ref > function but how do I cite the same source a second time in the same article? AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I can help, I think, @AmandaWhyte99:. In the first ref tag the FIRST time you want to use the reference, do this: <ref name = XXXX> and replace XXXX with some name that you will use to identify the source. Then the SECOND time you want to use the reference, use just this one tag (not both tags, but just this one): <ref name = XXXX/> and don't forget the slash. That will recall the reference from the first time, when you gave it a name. You can then use the reference twice, or as many times as you need. You can find more help at Help:Referencing for beginners, and page down to the section titled "Same reference used more than once" I hope this was helpful! --Jayron32 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, AmandaWhyte99. You get two answers! That's a great question, and here's a simplified answer. You give the reference a name, and fully cite it just once. So instead of the original ref tag, you use a slightly longer tag in this format: <ref name=example>. You can substitute any memory hint for "example", like the author surname or a key word in the book title. This isn't seen by readers. When you cite the reference a second or subsequent time, you use a single tag: <ref name=example/>. Please note the slash at the end. The reference will appear once, with letters "a,b,c,d . . ." keyed to each usage. Please refer to WP:REFNAME for complete details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Yay, it worked.

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

How can I gain the license for each photos upload in Wiki which I have taken from the online sources and the person responsible for the photos is unknown. Rameshaviboy (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Rameshaviboy: Welcome to the Teahouse! Copyright law can get complicated, but to put it as short as I can: if you can't find the copyright owner to contact them, you really can't. Only the copyright owner of a work can choose the license that their work is released under. Not knowing the original author of a work is not enough to justify using the image at-will.
Now, there are other factors that might be involved. For example, works in the United States are typically released into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author. I won't be getting into the specifics of these cases, but if you have any more questions or want to comment what photo you're trying to have freely licensed, we'll be happy to help. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Rameshaviboy: Expanding on SuperHamster's useful answer above, for specific images you can also ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Cheers,  Philg88 ♦talk 08:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it allowed that editors of another page decide on merging it with a page I've been working on

It happened that supporters of a competitors page voted on merging their page with the one I worked on and just merged it which means that the page is redirected to their page which gives a one-sided view of the topic. Is that good practice / allowed? What can I do? I want to offer a balanced view where all sides are represented. ElDelRey1 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There should be no "competitors" on Wikipedia. We are all working collaboratively on this project, and that means that no-one owns a page, even if they have done most of the editing of it. We also try not to have duplication of content - it is a bad idea to have multiple articles on the same topic expressing different points-of-view. In this situation, I would suggest writing on the talk page of the article in question a detailed outline, including references, of what you feel is missing from the article as it currently stands. Hopefully other editors will join in the discussion and you can work together to improve the article. If you're feeling bold, you can make the edits you feel the article needs immediately, then begin a said talk page discussion if your edits are challenged. --LukeSurl t c 09:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Why can't I add photos?

When I first registered to Wikipedia I could add photos, but then all of a sudden I couldn't. They told me that I need permission to add photos, and I can only do that when I'm an auto-confirmed user. But I've been 4 days registered to wiki and have done a lot more than 10 edits, but I still can't add photos. Can someone help me? Thanks in advance. Amazingfeeling (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Amazingfeeling, your account was only created on 26 August so it's not four days old yet, that period will expire tomorrow so you'll just have to be patient for another day. Nthep (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
If the photos you want to add are freely-licensed (or you own them and wish to release them under a free license), you can add them to Wikimedia commons straight away. A benefit of this is that your photos can then be used on any Wikipedia, not just the English-language one. --LukeSurl t c 09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I see this template quite a lot but it doesn't make much sense; it says an article may be threatened by link rot because it contains bare urls for citations, but link rot happens to any link, whether it's a bare url or a properly constructed citation. I may be in the wrong place to make this comment; if so someone please tell me where to go (!) Jodosma (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The explanation is probably on the template in a link. The idea is that, with more info than a bare link, when the link dies as it will, diligent editors can probably find it in an archive. Thus tools such as WP:REFLINKS are useful to "cure" linkrot. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Think of it this way: A dead URL is useless, if that's all the information we have. However, even the full title of a newspaper or magazine article is very useful in finding a copy of the article at another location. Add the name of the publication, the author and the date, and it becomes increasingly easy to verify by different techniques. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the template should say that bare urls make it difficult to fix problems caused by link rot. Jodosma (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It leads you directly to Wikipedia:Link rot. The link is in plain sight. Fiddle Faddle 09:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding Photos

I just joined Wikipedia two days ago and as per the requirements I was not qualified to upload a photo to the English Wikipedia. I have been editing a biography which contains an old picture and which requires an update. I tried uploading the file to Wikimedia Commons but upon pasting the code I obtained from Wikimedia Commons in the Infobox. I couldn't see the image on preview. Can someone help me with this? Rajeshlangley (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Which image are you trying to place into which infobox on which article? Generally when placing images into an infobox, you just enter the filename and not any square brackets or other coding that is necessary to place an image in a regular picture box. --LukeSurl t c 11:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Rajeshlangley: Hi Rajeshlangley. Is this about Swini Khara and the photo you posted at the Commons from hamaraphotos.com that you asked to be undeleted? If so, and looking at your comment on your talk page there, I think you may possibly have a confusion about public posting of a photograph, versus the public domain. The public posting of an image does not place it into the public domain. The photographs I see of her at that website have no copyright information, and in that absence we assume they are non-free copyrighted. In order to determine otherwise, we need an affirmative notice (or release) that is verifiably from the copyright owner, of the free copyright license or public domain status. The image currently in the article may be a few years out of date, but it is a free image. We generally can't use images of living persons at all unless they are free images. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but feel harassed

I've recently had a few content based arguments with an editor and all of a sudden my page is filled with harassment and intimidation. Fascist behavior. What is the recommended way to prevent this project from becoming a hub for such conduct where editors of opposing political views don't collude to imprison their opposition? As of now, I feel like someone marked me as a target. Not a good experience. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, MarciulionisHOF. I read through the discussion on your Talk page, and the Arbitration Committee discussion it refers to here, and honestly I think this is case of communication mix-up. I am sorry that you feel harassed, but I doubt that was the original editor's intent. They sent you the standard notice that is sent to all editors working on those pages, to let you know how sensitive they are and that more care may be required than normal - the notice is exactly as the Arbitration Committee decided, and it comes from the template at template:Ds/alert. It was not intended to imply that you (or any other editor) had done anything wrong, nor to impose any one view. What to do about it; I can't think of anything better to suggest than adopting the Committee's recommendation: "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary." --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Before this, said editor accused (and continues to) accuse me of foruming... whatever that means, I don't think he read the policy properly. Adding that he posted it as a prerequisite to starting an investigation. Having another friend pop out of nowhere with links to where editors get side-blinded and banned... your suggestion might be fine if I was naive. Seeing that I no longer am (with the link to editors being banned) -- my concern on how the project handles cases of political assassination is pertinent. Has this been handled by the project in the past? Is there a guideline to find editors who participate in witch-hunting on political opponents and removing them from making editing into a fascist-rule ("don't say it!, don't even think it!") style experience? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To re-iterate, this is all standard procedure and looking at the discussion nobody concerned has anything to apologize for. The wording regarding WP:AE and "investigations" was somewhat problematic, so let me explain. Unsurprisingly, this topic is extremely sensitive and this presents difficulties when working on an international collaborative project. Wikipedia has found it beneficial to set up special rules and guidelines regarding this topic to try and help everyone. Because these rules are different from normal articles, it is proper to alert every editor who shows interest in this topic about the special circumstances, irrespective of any perspective on the topic. This is the reason you were alerted in the first place. The alert and linked information is there to try and prevent the confrontations and edit-battling that these articles are prone to. --LukeSurl t c 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Dude, as much as I want to yell at you I wont. Obviously, you didn't read the notice carefully. The editor also said that it is policy for users who edit in that category to be sensitive. And don't call Wikipedia Fascist. You clearly just wanted to make a big issue out of nothing.Mirror Freak 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a wonderful idea. However, fascist behavior can occur even within progressive societies. Even on all-mighty Wikipedia, there can be groups who play games and manipulate the system. It is a good question to ask: how the project handles cases of political assassination. Has this been handled by the project in the past? Is there a guideline to find editors who participate in witch-hunting on political opponents? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) - fix horrible typo MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I wonder, would you mind very much taking a pause and reading the initial dialogue on your talk page again. Here is what I get out of it:
  1. Standard warning arrives as it does for everyone who edits in that highly sensitive area. It says "This is a sensitive area, tread lightly" pretty much, but it tells you what will happen if you wear hobnail boots.
  2. You ask, reasonably, "What does this mean?" in your own words, of course. And who would not ask?
  3. You get a pleasant reply. Seriously, do look at it again. It is sufficient information for most folk, really.
At this point you seem to misunderstand. It's fine that you do, but just go back and look again at these three dialogue items. This is seriously not a big deal. There are no fascists, no-one is silencing anyone, those for one side or the other get to edit the articles in this area, but Wikipedia wars are averted. Please just look again, with an open mind, and without feeling upset. No-one meant to upset you, no-one has singled you out for anything. If I edit in that area I'll get a notice too. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh my god! Thank you!Mirror Freak 19:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am on the record here for saying that letting editors set the stage for an investigation on someone they are in disagreement with is a bad idea. I've explained what world this modus operandi comes from. It would be smarter to seek solutions based in other, less corrupt systems. Only time will tell if such behavior is innocuous or advanced chess play. "When I asked Fischer why he had not played a certain move in our game, he replied: 'Well, you laughed when I wrote it down'." (Tal) 23:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarciulionisHOF (talk • contribs)
You seem to want to make a point. Unfortunately, while making whatever point you are making, you seem also to be unable to listen. There is no problem here save one of your own invention. People have tried in many different ways to explain this to you, but you still seem unable to take the information on board.
No-one is in dispute with you. There are no sanctions heading your way.
Let me repeat that
No-one is in dispute with you. There are no sanctions heading your way.
You have simply allowed a situation that was entirely simple to become embroiled in some convoluted logic of your own. Go back and actually read the words that were written, not the ones that seem to be dancing in front of your eyes. You do not have to admit you were wrong in public, but you do need to do so in private.
"Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" Fiddle Faddle 08:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
To try and clarify the "investigations" thing, as well as informing editors of the special rules regarding them, the presence of that template means that editors cannot claim ignorance of the rules if they violate them. This does not mean you were singled out as this notification is intended to be given to everyone who edits in this topic, and (as has been said repeatedly above) it does not mean anyone is in dispute with you, nor does it mean any sanctions are heading your way. If you come across someone editing in this topic who has not yet received this notification you are positively encouraged to post a copy of the notification on their talk page. The code to do so is {{subst:alert|a-i}}. --LukeSurl t c 08:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
At least three disputes exist on record prior to the posting of the "welcome template". Here's an infuriating example. Repeated clarifications that the action "is a required step" are intentional, otherwise it would not have been written twice. Let's not act as if no one ever tried to chess-play the system and get political opposition into trouble, I've seen two examples already (a "sock" and some disturbing clan mentality). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks as if you can't help it, then. You need to help it. I have now expended the sum total of time I am intending to spend on this and will leave you to your paranoia. We tried, we all tried. You failed. Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@Timtrent:, I appreciate your good efforts and will try to keep good faith. That said, can we at least agree that there was at least one dispute (see link in my previous post) before the template was posted on my page? Perhaps there is room to make a clarification on this template on situations where it is uncivil to post it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: I will concede that you believe that there was sufficient dispute that you feel aggrieved that the template was applied, and thus that your perception is your reality over the cause of the application. Equally I believe the other guy, too (I neither recall nor care who placed t). I will share with you my belief that this template is capable of being misunderstood, and I can see, certainly, that it has been mis-received at least once, in your own case. There is thus scope for rewording. A diligent attempt to engage editors on that template's talk page with quiet, calm suggestions ought to bear fruit. The thing is, I don't feel strongly enough for or against it to contribute to such a discussion. The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. Everything else is just background noise to show that other people are present and have opinions on us that they wish to share. It is time to step away form the template, to put it behind you as an amusing incident that is best forgotten. I have only posted this reply because you asked. Enough time has been expended on this by everyone. We could have accepted 20 drafts at WP:AFC while discussing this. Now, further questions or not from you, from me they will go unanswered, but with my good wishes for you to put this behind you. I only contributed because I saw you were hurting yourself and hoped I could help you to stop. Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Foreign language references

Is there a policy restricting foreign language references from being used in articles? I ask because I would like to expand articles on Quakerism in Sweden and Germany, and obviously the sources available for that are mostly available in Swedish and German. --FSB95 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello FSB95 and welcome to the Teahouse. It is quite ok to use foreign language references in an article. It is always best if you add two more parts, a |trans_title= | and a |language= |, to the ref where you make an English translation of the title and a note that the text is in Swedish or German. You can check out a draft I'm working on to see how this is done. Best w.carter-Talk 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

wrong picture and definition of AEROTRIM

INVENTED IN 1970 AEROTRIM IS AN ELECTRIC TRIM TAB CONTROL SYSTEM AND WING LEVELER FOR GENERAL AND STILL NOW AVIATION, PATENTED AND TRADEMARKED, WIKIPEDIA SHOWS A PICTURE OF A GYROSCOPE, INCORRECT , THE FAA WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CORRECT PICTURE AND EXPLAINATION OF THE AEROTRIM TRIM TAB CONTROL DEVICE, HOW TO RIGHT THIS WRONG?108.132.42.221 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Provided you have references that show the new information, simply edit the article, making the corrections you seek, and adding the references. If the matter is contentious please build consensus on the article talk page first.
As a matter of common courtesy, please do not type in all capitals. It is hard to read and is a breach of netiquette. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_245&oldid=1142564964"