Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 192

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 185

←

Archive 190

Page creation for a company I am associated with conflict of interest? best practices.

Hi,

I help or am associated with several companies that lack a wikipedia page. What is the best practice for me to help them get a page?. I do not want to degrade wiki-pedia or the companies integrity by trying to by pass the conflict of interest provisions of wikipedia. These are legitimate companies that deserve a page. What is the best practice that I can help them get one.

Thanks in advance.IXPeak (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to create a new article about such a company, the best thing to do is to go to articles for creation, where you can make a draft and have others review it before it becomes an actual article. While you are writing, you should read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide for advice. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 04:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and help Anon126, that is the clarity I was looking for. IXPeak (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding image in Sandbox

Hi I want to add image in sandbox and move further,please help me. Thanks in advanceWill Talk2 (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. ~~The picture tutorial has the basic code for adding images. If you still need help, feel free to reply here.~~ Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox, I do not believe my advice above is appropriate. If you want to include an image in the infobox, that will have to wait. Most likely, the cover of the book is copyrighted, and Wikipedia's policies do not allow such images outside articles. (If you want to have your sandbox reviewed and turned into an actual article, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top.) Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello,thanks for the suggestion,still in development article.once i am done with article ,i will submit. the images can found in public domain,what exactly mean by public domain?Will Talk2 (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Will Talk2. If you want to add images to Wikipedia, then you will have to learn about how to avoid copyright violations and how to follow our policies on use of non-free content. When something is not covered by copyright, it is in the public domain. In the United States, this most commonly refers to works first published before 1923. So any literary work, photo, illustration or art work published before then can be used freely by anyone, and such images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The cover of a recent book is copyrighted, as are recent movie posters, album covers, video game screenshots and so on. We can use an image of a book cover on Wikipedia only in a far more restricted way than items in the public domain. A low resolution image of a recent book cover can be used in a main space article about the book, but not in article drafts or user pages. These policies have legal implications and must be followed carefully. Always ask a more experienced editor if you are in doubt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyber Police

User:AniceMathew was blocked because he harassed a user. His repeated unblock requests were also declined. Ever since then, he has been creating new accounts which quickly get blocked because he leaves clear evidence of sockpuppetry. In his latest sock GadidhaKoduka, he has stated that he will "definitely keep making accounts, until u people [Wikipedia] get tired of blocking me". So I think blocking him does not get the job done, but something else should. Is there any? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kailash, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately there are not really any better alternatives for dealing with this sort of thing, with the exception that administrators may choose to employ Wikipedia:Rangeblocks in some circumstances. There is an essay entitled Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore that outlines one approach to the problem. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Kailash29792. If he becomes a serious problem then administrators or checkusers might consider implementing a rangeblock to deal with his IP range, but generally speaking it's best to just ignore tiresome users like this. Revert their edits, report them to an admin or to the sockpuppet board, and just don't engage. There's one of him, there's goodness knows how many editors who can remove his work - trust me, he'll get bored first, they always do. Incidentally, I've blocked the latest incarnation - let me know if you see any more; it only takes one click... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Find and replace

I want to replace a word that appears several times in an article. Is there a "find and replace" function here? Will there be additional markup if you want to make your "find" a "match case"? Thanks Geraldinho108 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Geraldinho108: Hey Geraldinho108. Yes, the search and replace feature is in the edit window. It's a bit hard to notice. Once you're in edit mode, click advanced just above the edit field and look to the far right. The icon for it is:

. It has a match case option you can toggle on and off. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Tone of Writing

I am currently trying to write a small article edit, and would like to check that what I am saying is written in the correct wikipedia tone? So if it follows a neutral point of view etc. It can be viewed in my Sandbox. User:sarahmckinley4/sandbox Thanks Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sarah, and welcome to the teahouse! First, you're doing exactly the right thing in asking for feedback. Having taken a quick look at the article I have a couple of concerns. First, take a look at an article like alcoholism (a good article) for how to structure the article. If you prefer to see a set of guidelines, you might want to look at WP:Writing better articles. Your draft article certainly needs a "lead" (which summarizes the rest of the article) and house style dictates that section headers aren't in the form of questions. The deeper concern is the quality of the sources you're using. Medical articles get lots of scrutiny, and you're going to want to be very careful that your sources measure up to the guidelines detailed in WP:MEDRS.

Ok, looks like I spoke too soon. I see we already have an article on Internet addiction disorder. You might want to look at how that article can be improved.

Hope that helps! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sarah, I took a very quick look also. I think you have an excellent start. One thing I would encourage you to also look at is wp:original research There is a fine line between OR and good encyclopedia writing and I think your current sandbox article may be still a bit (just a bit) over that line. The goal of Wikipedia is not to make an argument for or against any one position but rather to summarize and present the best thinking on the topic by the most widely recognized experts. I think you could perhaps edit what you currently have a bit and include it in the current article as one of the possible positions on the topic. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, User:Lesser Cartographies User:MadScientistX11 thank you so much for your feedback, it is much appreciated. I have taken your comments into consideration and will make these changes before posting it live. Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

An article in Dutch on "Folpet" needs improvement; how best is this done?

When the translated ( http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folpet) Dutch to English I do not have "editing rights." I would like to write a "Folpet" entry for the English Wikipedia. Can these two pages co-exist (one in Dutch, one in English)? The English version will not be identical (more data added) then the Dutch version. What is the best path to proceed?Elliot Ben Gordon (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Elliot. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, with respect to "editing rights", but yes, the English and Dutch Wikipedias may each have an article on this subject, provided it meets their requirements about notability (the requirements may not be identical in the two Wikipedias); an yes, the English article may be based on a translation of the Dutch article (and should acknowledge this for the purposes of attribution) but may then diverge from it. Please see Translation for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

format the "further readings"section

I just added a reference to the article entitled Chien-Shiung Wu. I don't think i did a very good job with the format. so if someone would take a look and correct it, i'd be pleased. The reference I added is a new biography and is excellent. Marthad (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marthad, welcome to the Teahouse. The format you used looked OK to me, but User:Yunshui has further improved it with this edit. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry - I saw this, made the change and then got into something IRL before I could come back here and reply. Thanks for the ping, Arthur. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks, the reference looks fine now. Marthad (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Need review and help in adding pictures to article

Hi,

I just added an article about Lenskart - a fledging ecommerce venture in India(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenskart). I want to add pics to the article, but am unsure on how to check for copyright rules for the pics that are available online. I'll appreciate if someone could help me in adding pictures to the article. It would be great, if you could also take some time to review the article

Thanks, Sachinj2013 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sachinj and welcome to The Teahouse. In general, if you find a photo online, you can't use it. There are some fair use exceptions. You could also, in a few cases, get permission from the person who took the photo.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hired guns for article improvement

I feel like I heard in the past you can possibly offer donations in users' names or badges of some kind to encourage editors to improve a particular article. Is this true? Where would I make that request/offer? Ceaseless (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ceaseless: Hey Ceaseless. I believe what you're referring to is the Wikipedia:Bounty board and the Wikipedia:Reward board which I've used a few times, both to collect a bounty and offering one myself. As you can see from the notice at the first page it is no longer in use (per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination)) but the latter still is. (I'm a bit confused how it played out that the one got closed down but the other hasn't when the essence of the complaints at the deletion discussion seem far more applicable to the still active reward board than to the closed down bounty board – odd.) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

starting a page

Is there a target you have to meet when creating a new page. I.E minimum word limit or minimum links to support the page. Sarah1971 20:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sarah1971: There is a target, but it is nothing to do with word count. Any article must meet the standards for the topic to be notable first and foremost, and that notability must be verifiable, ideally verified in reliable sources. No new artricle is likely to be perfect, but we aim to be as good as we can. User:Timtrent/A good article is one of several reasonable guides. Fiddle Faddle 21:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tim :) I have been trying really hard on my first page & some users really work you hard on correcting things, all fun & a great intense learning experience. Well I think I have covered all your advice, thanks again. Sarah1971 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

need help responding to "issues"

The site I've editing got hit with a bunch of issues today, some of which I don't know how to deal with, and some of which I don't agree with. If I do something about an issue, can I delete it from the list? I would really appreciate some guidance on this. This is the address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcani_Institute_of_Agricultural_Research Issue statements:

This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (March 2014)

I can change some language. After I make the changes, do I delete this comment?

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: inappropriate text and image formatting, captions, embedded links, wikilinked section heaeders, bold; see WP:MOS. (March 2014)

I don't know what is wrong or inappropriate here - I would need specific guidance, if possible

This article may require copy editing for cohesion and tone; WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. (March 2014)

I can change some language. After I make the changes, do I delete this comment?

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (March 2014)

Again, I need specific guidance.

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (March 2014)

I strongly disagree with this statement. The majority of the references are to articles in the international reviewed scientific literature. What can be more neutral than that?

Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (March 2014)

I strongly disagree with this statement. The majority of the references are to the international reviewed scientific literature. What can be more neutral than that?

e1baa340@opayq.com (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ergraber- Welcome to the Teahouse! I see, the article is tagged with multiple maintenance tags. Every maintenance tag displays a message with one blue link to address the issue. Fix issues and remove the tags. If it is still being re-instated by someone, make a case on the article's talk page. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reformatted the question to make it easier to read. As Anupmehra says, each of the tags has a link to an explanatory page. On a quick look I'm inclined to agree that the references look to be mostly reliable; but they are nearly all primary sources, which is not ideal. In my view the main problem with the article is that it has far too much detail about individual projects of the Institute (and that is part of what makes it read like an advertisement), and most of these are referenced to primary sources. The article should mention only a few projects in any detail, preferably those where an independent secondary source (such as a newspaper, or a book by somebody unconnected with the institute) has written about the Institute's contribution to the project. --ColinFine (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How to make a complaint

Hello. Can someone tell me who to make a complaint about an admin who is rude and unprofessional? This was my first experience with Wikipedia --- certainly not a good one. I am not sure I would ever edit/write again if I have to contend with such rudeness from admins.

Thank you for your help. Susieshoe (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. You should first try to settle the issue with the user individually first, most likely on a user talk page. But seeing as you've already tried to do that, you may want to bring it up at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have a dispute on the content of an article, you should discuss it on the talk page on the article, where other users can give their opinions. You ought to be cautious about going to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, as your own edits will be scrutinised; you ought to listen to the views of experienced editors. Assuming that you are referring to the comments of Orangemike at your talk page, there is nothing obvious there which I would regard as rudeness. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that insults on my writing ability are not considered rudeness, not to mention false accusations. He has a right to his opinions, but I am a seasoned writer and I have never been treated like that in 25 years of writing and editing. And I have never treated any of my reporters like that. Perhaps an English or writing degree should be required for admins because he made claims about my writing that are absolutely incorrect. Are grammar books provided to the admins?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=1# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:B:97B:369E:F0B:9FD1 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Productive input is what I expected. It took numerous conversations with Orange Mike before he actually gave me examples. It's like a teacher giving a student a D but not explaining why. After all,we both had the same goal - to improve content on Wikipedia. What is currently there for George Koonce in my opinion is shabby and incomplete. How Orange Mike handled the situation certainly was not productive. Let me add that I worked for hours on that. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=1# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:B:97B:369E:F0B:9FD1 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hello, Susieshoe, and welcome to the teahouse. I'm sorry that you've gotten off to a bit of a rough start. You mention that you've had some training in journalism. That should help you a lot here. I'm sure you understand that the house style for The Economist is very different than the The New York Times, which in turn is different than Time magazine. We have our own "house style" here that guides everything from the kind of sources we can use (newspapers yes, blogs no) to how much detail to include, and even the kind of prose that's expected. While much of this is written down (see WP:RS for sourcing guidelines and WP:NEUTRAL for style and tone), the actual implementation of those guidelines comes down to a rough, evolving consensus. In my opinion, Orangemike's opinion is well within the range I would expect from experienced editors.

As to rudeness: we allow quite a bit of latitude for comments directed at the edit (as opposed to comments directed at the editor, see WP:CIVIL for the actual policy). That's not the tone I personally use (especially with newer editors), but it's far from uncommon here. I'm sure we share a common experience of writing brilliant prose, only to have it hacked apart by an editor (and rudely to boot). It's not fun, but the best thing to do here is focus on the content of the comments rather than the tone. If you'd like me to help mediate between the two of you I'm happy to do so. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Lesser Cartographies. I appreciate your explanation. Let me also thank David Biddulf and Anon126 for your responses as well.

I very much appreciate your offer to mediate, Lesser Cartographies. I will definitely consider it. As you may imagine, at this point, I am frustrated and feel as though I have spent a lot of energy on this matter already. It is good to hear your comments regarding rudeness and the expectations within the Wikipedia community. Thank you for taking the time to provide the explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=2# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:B:97B:369E:F0B:9FD1 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the admin's comments were aimed at criticizing your writing skill so much as how the style of writing fits in with wikipedia guidelines. Writing a newspaper article is very different from writing a wikipedia article. It sounds like you have a lot of good information to share in this biography...would you like help taking that information and making it sound "encyclopedic? :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Bali88. So kind of you to offer. I very much appreciate it. I have been offered help by another user as well, and will begin reconstructing the page asap. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=16# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susieshoe (talk • contribs) 01:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading book covers

Hi, I recently uploaded an image of a book cover in an article about the author of the book. I think (hope) I covered all the bases about the low resolution and the book being the subject of the article's discussion, but the image is still tagged for the administrator's final decision. I just wanted to make sure I covered everything I needed before the final decision is made. Could somebody help me make sure? The page is this:

File:Postnow Angst book cover German translation of Postnov, Strah.jpg

it is a cover of the German edition of a novel by Oleg Postnov. ZCB135 ZCB135 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi ZCB135. Because the rationale for using a book cover is that the image is necessary to help identify the book, you cannot use an image of the cover on any page apart from an article about the book. We do not have an article about Angst (book) on Wikipedia, and so the image cannot be used here. I'm afraid I'm going to have to delete it for the time being; if you can create an article about the book itself then it can be uploaded again. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think the book merits a separate article, so I will write it in a haste. Will you give me until the end of the week? But also—would you if I add a large subsection about Angst in the Biography, will you allow the book cover stay in the biography section? This is the most notorious book by that writer, and the German edition is the one that's most identifiable. What do you think?

Also (this might save the day) the artist on the cover is from a couple hundred years ago. I wonder if that is too old for copyright. Would that help? ZCB135 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZCB135 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello ZCB135. If the artwork was published before 1923 in the United States, then its copyright has expired and an image of that artwork can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use by anyone for any purpose. However, if that old artwork is only one component of an original contemporary book cover design, including original text content, selection of distinctive typefaces, publisher's logos and so on, then that complete book cover design is subject to copyright if published more recently than 1923. Such matters can challenge experienced attorneys, and I am not an attorney. So all I can do is recommend caution. Best to use such an image only under the restrictions of our non free content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, how do you cite members of the same family please?

Hi, I am trying to write up a list of members of the same family but have been told on Wikipedia to cite the members.

How do I do this please? Two of the members are dead and two are still alive. The parents are dead also. All members were ordinary members of society with no noticeable links to anything.

Can I say something like:

Fred had two brothers, Michael and John and two sisters Mary and Joy.

I can't seem to understand what is required to ensure the family names are listed.

Many thanks. 7Lawrence 04:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Lawrence (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 7Lawrence. How do you know that Fred's siblings had those names? How do you even know that Fred had siblings?

If a reliable source says so, then cite that source. If some of these are non-notable living people, why do we need to mention them by name in an article about Fred? You can instead cite the source, and say something like "Fred was one of five children. He had two brothers and two sisters." Now, if Fred's siblings are all Hollywood stars, U.S. Senators and best-selling authors, that is another matter. But if they are ordinary private people, restraint and respect for privacy come first.

If you know that because you knew Fred and his siblings personally, then you can't mention that on Wikipedia. That is what we call original research. How do we know that your information is accurate? Maybe you got confused and Fred had three brothers. Maybe you are making things up and have never met Fred's family. Please don't be offended, because you may well be telling the truth, but how do we know for sure? That is why we rely on what reliable sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse!

How to cite source? Simple. Firstly, you must use the <ref> tags and then cite the references of where you found. Like, let's say, you found the source of the family in www.example.com/example, then you can use the {{cite web}} template. If you saw it on a book named "Example", then you can use {{cite book}} template. Confused? Go to Wikipedia:Citation for more information and let it get you a better idea. Hope you will find the BEST solution! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 07:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading images

How do you put an image on an article? (I mean, I'm entirely new to the concept of whether you just take an image off the internet to use or just make your own).

Every image on Wikipedia I've seen used is a JPEG - but how do you create a JPEG image?

Anzukiller (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anzukiller. Generally speaking (and I apologise for shouting, but the emphasis is fairly important): DON'T COPY PICTURES OFF THE INTERNET! To be more precise, Wikipedia's licencing means that only images released under a certain type of licence can be used here - most images on the 'net are not suitable, although you can upload pictures you've taken/created yourself quite safely. To do so, go to the File Upload Wizard (choose the Commons Wizard if you took or made the image yourself) and follow the (simple) step-by-step instructions. Have a look at this short essay for a bit more detail. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and as to the format - .jpeg, .svg, .gif, .tif, .pdf and several other image types are suitable for uploading. Most image viewing software (e.g. Acrobat, Paint) will give you the option of saving a picture in any one of several formats, one of which is usually .jpeg - just select it from the Save As screen. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, thank you, but about the properties of an image? For example, in my first few months as a Wikipedia user, I have made updates to the profile of Carmel McQueen from Hollyoaks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmel_McQueen - and the image used there states it is a screenshot.

But how do you make a screenshot of an image?Anzukiller (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I went to the archives of the Computing reference desk and found the advice I was given:

Steps to make a screenshot in Windows: 1. Press the Print Screen (PrtSc) key when the screen looks like what you want us to see. 2. Go to Start→Run..., type "mspaint" in the box and click Ok. 3. In MS Paint, choose Edit→Paste, then File→Save. 4. In the ::Save dialog box, choose "PNG" from the "Save as type:" box and then save the image somewhere. 5. Upload the image, e.g. to ImageShack or Wikipedia itself. 6. Link to it here.

— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!Anzukiller (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding to an article

Can someone please add to Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 that it was featured in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 film), using this book as a reference, The Shadow Self in Film: Projecting the Unconscious Other (2014), Gershon Reiter, http://books.google.com/books?id=-5qdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA11 page 11, 9780786476640. Thanks.

Also, I typed this question two times before. I clicked on the ask my question button, which was not grayed out and I had the four tildes, and it appeared to accept it, with that window zapping away when I clicked the button, and the page refreshed like it was doing something and then my question never appeared.--108.14.111.10 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

When I added this question using the edit button it made me go through a captcha. Is that why it didn't work when I tried the other way? That means that a lot of questions won't work doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.111.10 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, person with an IP starting with 108 and welcome to The Teahouse. What other way did you try?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

~~I cannot access your source. I'm going to look for something else~~ Somehow it worked the second time I tried.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I edited both articles. I think I've done what you wanted.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Can You Cancel A Review Request?

Hi

I've finished my article and sent a request for review, i have looked at it and i thought that it could be split into different sections (Early Life/Career etc)to make it easier to read. Is there a way i can cancel my request to do this? Thanks Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wyliecoyote1990. You can just undo the edit [1] which submitted it. However, it seems rather short to split into sections. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that you are also free to edit a page while it awaits review. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wyliecoyote1990 and welcome to the Teahouse. As PrimeHunter mentioned, you can undo the edit in which you submitted it. You can also replace {{AFC submission|ts=20140318221647|u=Wyliecoyote1990|ns=5}} with {{AFC submission|t|ts=20140318221647|u=Wyliecoyote1990|ns=5}} which will set it back to "draft" status and remove the request for review. Also worth noting, it could take two or three weeks to actually get to your review due to the back log, so there should be plenty of time to edit while waiting, and even if it does get declined again before you are done, there is no limit on the number of times you can resubmit as long as there is actually progress being made on the draft. :) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've collected loads of reliable sources and i'm fairly confident the article will get accepted this time. I want to split it into sections for readability.Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Wyliecoyote1990: Hi Wyliecoyote1990. I have looked at all of the sources you’ve cited and characterize as loads of reliable sources, and unless you find a whole different coterie of better sources, containing substantive content, I don’t think you should spend any more time on this particular topic. I do not think it will be accepted and if it was, with these sources, it would be a good candidate for deletion as an unreliably sourced, poorly verified, biography of a living person, with notability not demonstrated.

Putting aside reliability, Le Reviste, Egotistic, Starnostar, Walkongirls, Help For Heroes and World News all go to pages that have no content about her -- she doesn’t even appear to be mentioned on the page the links take you to. This is also true of the Sun, which is at least an actual newspaper, though a tabloid. The Nuts link, meanwhile just returns an error. Most of these are not reliable sources in any event.

Further, the following are all working links, but none of them appear to be reliable sources (not even a little bit) and even if they were, they’re mostly pin up sites: they verify nothing in the article, simply containing photographs with some naughty bits and no content from which any facts could be drawn: Samantha Bond, OnlyTease, OnlyAllSites, PinupWow, OnlySilkAndSatin, OnlyOpaques,, OnlySecretaries, Edgar Brothers and Red Hot Calendars. Her Twitter feed and [non-functioning, under construction] personal website are not independent, reliable, secondary sources. In short, as far as I can tell, the draft article right now cites to not even one reliable, independent, secondary source with substantive content. The breaks are that not all topics can support an encyclopedic article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How do you remove an article from AFC? Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Wyliecoyote1990: If what you mean is how to self-request its deletion, add to the top of the page {{db-g7}}, but I can take care of it if you say that's what you want. Don't let this discourage you from trying again – just be selective about the topic. Before you start writing make sure there really are good sources out there—books, newspaper articles, magazine write ups and so on—which don't just passingly mention the topic but which have some detail you can mine to verify at least a few paragraphs of content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've thought about either writing an article which is closer to home or adding bits to existing articles.Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Message deletetion

I was blocked for one week, I want to delete block notification from my Talk page, Can I do so? someone told me that this is not allowed. Aftab Banoori ^{(Contributions) (Talk)} 13:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aftabbanoori, welcome to the Teahouse. If the block has ended, then yes you can remove the block notification from your talk page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm having Cite errors and I'm not sure how to fix it.

I was editing my friend's page and did it incorrectly. I keep getting this error message, "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page)." Can anyone assist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.148.254 (talk • contribs)

I think we need to know which page this is on? Fiddle Faddle 14:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Done I suspect the table syntax and the Reflist in the wrong place did for you. I've corrected each after a minor struggle inside my head. Fiddle Faddle 14:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I need help creating a new entry

Negri’s Original Occidental Italian Family Style Restaurant I need help creating a page for Joe Negri of Joe Negri restaurant in Occidental, CA but there is already a different Joe Negri Jazz Musician, first I need instruction on how to create the page, then to resolve the conflict. I have two sources from the web. http://sebastopol.towns.pressdemocrat.com/2011/10/news/occidental-restaurateur-joe-negri-dies-at-78/ http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/pressdemocrat/obituary.aspx?pid=154257462 I can't make references work or change photos either, I will proably need help when I do it. Joe Negri was a friend of my father, I knew him when I was a kid. Joe Negri's restaurant is now run by his family, but they don't have a website for it. They must not be into the internet very much. I can see reviews on yelp and trip advisor. I was there about a year ago. It is very large and very popular. Apriv40dj (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, although I am afraid I don't think I can help. The basic requirements for any Wikipedia article are at WP:42:- the subject on an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unless Joe Negri received extensive coverage, in something like the Los Angeles Times, which is deemed to be reliable and independent, he would not meet these requirements. Sources like Yelp and Trip advisor are both created by members of the public, so are not "reliable", nor are Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media, nor indeed Wikipedia itself. If Mr Negri did receive extensive coverage in the national or regional media then it may be possible to create an article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not going to use yelp as a reference, I posted my two references. I need help creating the article. I am sure it is valid. You did not click on my sources, you only noticed I mentioned yelp. I only mentioned that the restaurant has no webpage, but is reviewed. I think it has merit, I was not asking if I think it should be created, I wanted to create the page. Apriv40dj (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I have another idea, even if the article is found to be without merit, it would go under the wiki travel in re: Occidental as it is the biggest and most major restaurant there. Occidental is a very small town. Apriv40dj (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Apriv40dj. There is a website for Negri's Restaurant. Although Occidental, California is a very small town, it is also a historic town and a distinctive tourist destination with a long and well-documented tradition as the location of Italian family style restaurants. I know that Negri's and the Union Hotel have both been in business as friendly rivals for many decades. My initial search shows lots of passing mentions of Negri's but little in the way of in-depth coverage. My suggestion would be to start out by expanding the article about the town to describe the local restaurant scene, especially the older, traditional restaurants. Perhaps with an ongoing search for coverage, you will find enough for freestanding articles about Negri's and perhaps the Union Hotel as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel terrible, my mind blanked on that other restaurant which is just across the street, the union hotel, but I guess I think of it as a hotel. I could not find that website, but that is good start to find it. It could go in references. I could collect more data. I am keeping a file and I have notes. There was something about my father had helped him out, but the details are not clear to me about exactly what my father did. I have to ask my mother again and or one of my sisters. My father would often help Italians coming into American with legal problems for free. He could speak all the dialects and he had a law degree from the university of Messina. I just have get more data to find the connection. I just thought of Joe accomplished so much and I thought he could be listed in Wikipedia, but I still can't remember how to start a new article and even harder, there is a Joe Negri Jazz musician. I could see putting the union hotel also in there, but I know nothing about it. I guess they were rivals in the restaurant business? I would need someone like to do that part of it I guess, or I mean more people could add on to the article once created. I have a lot of ideas, but they often go nowhere. I forgot how to signal people with a reply. I have notes. 76.14.60.13 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Still Not Equal

Why did Alfred Nobel establish the Nobel Prizes?

Why was Martin Luther King, Jr., given the Nobel Peace Prize? What record in the history of the prize does he hold?

How did Malcolm X's beliefs about separation of the races and violent protest change? Why did they change?

(Ferk660 (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. You may wish to read our articles on Alfred Nobel, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. --Jakob (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Problem concerning modifications of a wikipedia page

Hi, I've made some modifications concerning the English wikipedia page of Valérie Donzelli yesterday night. Everything was good, but since this morning, impossible to find the page correctly. I don't know what happened, and it's impossible to fix it... How can I fix it? Thank youConstycrispy (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've mended the Infobox - which makes the rest of the article re-appear. One of the interim edits had accidentally removed --> from a comment just before the end of the infobox. - Arjayay (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constycrispy (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding 'further reading'

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and was interested in adding some journal article citations to a biographical article. Is that a useful addition if I don't add any text to the article itself? Would I put these under a 'further reading' section? Thank you very much for your time Bitofdust (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bitofdust, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the sources have some information that the article has, its best to add it. However, adding a "Further Reading" section is just fine as long as the sources are what we consider a reliable source. K6ka (talk | contribs) 18:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you K6ka, I appreciate your help and your welcome. The two articles are from a journal available in JSTOR so they are reliable sources. But it probably would be best to see if I can also make some additions to the main article with information from the articles. Bitofdust (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bitofdust. I'd recommend against doing that unless other sources are citing those journals. Most academic publications in the peer-reviewed literature are considered "primary" resources, and in most cases we prefer to deal with "secondary" sources that collate and comment on the primary literature. Citing a few pieces of primary literature can give them what's called "undue weight"—why are we highlighting those particular articles instead of some other article? (And you definitely don't want to be adding journal articles that you've written yourself; that's too easy to misinterpret as self-promotion.) If you think a particular article is exceptional enough that it warrants inclusion in the further reading, then raise the issue on the talk page (and I'm happy to take a look as well). For the gritty details of these guidelines, see WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lesser Cartographies, Thank you for your response! I can see that I'll have to go back and re-read the sections you and K6ka cited above. I did add some more information to the page for Alice Baber and included references to one of the articles and a biographical dictionary. I am trying to learn how to make incremental improvements, but I definitely appreciate the feedback you've given here. Bitofdust (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

BitofDust, I just want to add my two cents, in general I think there are many better ways to help edit articles that should have priority before adding more to "Further reading". When I edit an article one of the most common things I do is to remove things from that section. It often happens that people add their own papers, or books by their favorite author, etc. For the most part if something is worth citing it should just be a reference used in the text. That's an over generalization of course, there certainly are times when "Further reading" makes sense but especially if you are a new editor I would encourage you to find more direct ways, look for articles that have tags on them documenting problems (a common one is not enough inline refs) for example. Also, you might want to try Wikipedia:SUGGESTBOT it can offer good suggestions based on your edit history. MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion MadScientistX11. I appreciate your perspective and feedback. I work in a library and often come across sources while I'm researching a person or topic that I think might provide some additional context or depth to what is present on wikipedia. I'm not promoting my own interests, but by adding these to 'Further Reading' I would also not be integrating these sources into the article in a balanced way. It is very helpful for me to know what is considered a useful edit so that I don't add contributions that are irrelevant or misleading. Thanks very much. Bitofdust (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Contents box

Hello, how can I move the Contents box from above the heading (where it was automatically placed) to under the heading?Athenaathena07 (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

When you delete the level 1 heading, which won't be there when the article gets moved to mainspace, the table of contents will move to after the lede and before the first level 2 heading, and thus be in accordance with the MOS. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you David, you are very kind. But if I remove the level 1 heading how will the name appear or do I have to substitute it with some other heading? And taking advantage of your kindness, how do I eventually move the article to mainspace? Thanks againAthenaathena07 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added the {{userspace draft}} tag to your draft. It includes a button labelled "Submit your draft for review!" so that when you are ready it can be submitted for review through the AFC process. If it is accepted, the person who accepts it will move it to the correct location. Before you submit it, you ought to check a few points, including compliance with the Manual of Style and getting rid of bare urls. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it's alright? Thanks againAthenaathena07 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to make it comply with the Manual of Style, and then when you have dealt with the bare urls to provide the extra information on the references it will be easier for a reviewer to tell whether they demonstrate notability. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to view Wikipedia pages with a black or dark background?

My question is whether or not it already exists an option I could use when viewing Wikipedia pages to see them with a black background instead of the standard white one. If not, whether there is any project to do so in the future.

Thanks,

150.214.102.155 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. It's free and easy to create an account and has many benefits. At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets you will get various options including "Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin". This is designed to work with the MonoBook skin chosen at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Without registering you can see what it will look like by appending ?useskin=monobook&withCSS=MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css to url's, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia?useskin=monobook&withCSS=MediaWiki:Gadget-Blackskin.css. Some pages set their own colors which override the Blackskin gadget, and some things are not designed with the gadget in mind and may not look optimal. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyber-Relationship Addiction - Adding Newspaper Articles For Support - is this possible?

Hey,

I am currently attempting to edit the Internet Addiction Disorder page, to add a sub-heading of Cyber-Relationship Addiction. I have reliable sources to support Cyber-Relationship Addiction is one impulse-control problem that is covered within Internet Addiction Disorder.

I would like to use newspaper articles to support existing stories of real people finding out their Cyber lover is not who they portray themselves to be online. Is this possible?

I am currently working on the edit that I would like to add to the Internet Addiction Disorderpage within my sandbox and would welcome anyone to have a look at my ongoing work.

overall, any advice regarding referencing news articles within my edit would be amazing.

many thanks, JLM003 (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JLM003! Although you don't have to use them, I find that WP's citation templates (most of which are listed here) are particularly useful for inserting references into articles and ensuring a consistent formatting style. In your case you would want to use {{cite news}}. The template's own page lists some examples of it in action: so, you would type out the code (in grey) into an article inside some <ref> ... </ref> tags, to insert the newspaper citation. Hope that helps! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you , It Is Me Here

That has been really helpful and now I know I can add newspaper articles I can continue to amend my edit. thank you for the link to the help page too. JLM003 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Including an image in an article

I want to include an image in an article but don't know where to begin with it. Any help would be gratefully received! DanielleForrester1991 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Danielle, welcome to the Teahouse. Is the image one that you've created completely yourself? If so, and if you're willing to freely license it, you could upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you wanted to put an image in. First, you would want to check and see if it is copyrighted. If it is not (or the owner said you could use it), you could put in the following template. (Note: replace example with the correct Info)

[[File:ExamplePicture.jpg|thumb|left or right|Example Text.]]

Hope that helped, Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both, the information you've given has most definitely helped. You've made it seem a lot easier than I had anticipated!DanielleForrester1991 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

How to categorize image on Wikimedia Commons

At this link there is a message that the file is not categorized. I cannot seem to find a way to categorize it. Please help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_S._Nelsen.jpg TrueBRONC (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi TrueBRONC, welcome to the Teahouse. I've put the image in all the same categories as the article Robert S. Nelsen where it's used.

I find the Hotcat very useful for adding categories; it's much easier than adding them manually. You turn it on in your Preferences in the Editing section of Gadgets. Once turned, on, you should see a + link where the categories would go, and then you click on the + and start typing and suggested names of categories will be filled out. Give it a try and let us know how you get on. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I still see the yellow box that says this media is not categorized. It is under the Licensing category. Please help. TrueBRONC (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I was categorizing the placeholder for the image on English Wikipedia, rather than the image itself on Commons. Now fixed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Arthur goes shopping. You are awesome!! :-) TrueBRONC (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the file page at the English Wikipedia per WP:F2. If a file is at Commons then click the Commons logo in the upper right corner, or "description page there" in "Information from its description page there is shown below", to get to the Commons page where categories can be added. Commons and the English Wikipedia has different categories and most categories here are intended for articles and not files. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Justification for nominating an article for review of neutrality

Can any user post the notice above, or similar type notices, to an article without any arguments other than stating in the Talk page that an article appears to be attacking someone, in this particular case a political figure, without them providing any references to any bias in the article itself? This issue has come up several times before, and each time we think we have put it to rest, until someone else posts the same unsubstantiated notice or comments.

What is the accepted criteria for allowing someone to post a question on neutrality at the top of a page or in any section of an article?

Do I have the right to remove the posted notice above from the article and ask for further discussions in the Talk page to see if there is any substantial concerns? Or do I have to leave the notice in place until enough users provide comments on the Talk page on whether there is any validity to the notice?

Assuming that somehow this posted notice remains or is eventually re-posted, how long does it have to stay before it can be removed based on some type of consensus, however limited, in the Talk page?

Are there any Wiki guidelines about this? If needed, I can direct you to the affected page. But for now, I think we have enough resourceful editors to handle it. But, it is somewhat frustrating and time consuming if certain guidelines are not being followed that allows this to happen. Wondering55 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wondering55. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. Any editor can post such a notice, but should be prepared to explain their point, and the article's talk page is the proper place to do that. Any editor is free to remove such tags, as long as that editor is prepared to explain why the identified issues have been resolved. If there is disagreement, it should be resolved through debate leading to consensus. Consensus determines the content of the article, including the presence or removal of such tags. So, the lesson is to discuss these matters, listen carefully to opposing points of view, consider whether compromise is possible, and always focus on improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(How) Can I see reviews of the articles I've started?

Most of the articles I've started have been reviewed, but, what does this mean exactly? Does it mean they've been reviewed and accepted as stand-alone articles that comply with Wikipedia policy and do not have to be deleted? Or did they leave notes and comments (like the reader comments that appear at the top of an article sometimes)? If so, can I see these revisions? -- Kndimov (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kndimov. There are many levels of reviewing articles on Wikipedia. Probably the highest level is the lengthy, intensive check by a team of editors that sometimes results in an article being categorized as a Featured article. However, you are probably referring to the lowest level of review, which is a very quick check by any editor for the purpose of verifying that the article is not complete nonsense, obvious vandalism or a slanderous attack. This review is normally completed in a few seconds, and there is no detailed fact checking and no comments are offered. The reviewer just clicks a button saying, in effect, "this article does not appear at first glance to be total garbage". By the way, no review can ever guarantee that an article won't be deleted, although it is very unlikely that a "Good article" or a "Featured article" would ever be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)