Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 20 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 30

Claim of vandalism

Hello, a user claimed that I vandalize a page (I just put sourced content) and that I put nonsense to Wikipedia. He wrote these claims on my talkpage with an unsigned message. How can I protect my rights or try to take step against this user? Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would start by discussing it on the article talk page and explain why you believe your edit is correct and not vandalism - for example why you removed the further reading section?. It could be as simple that all the other editor is seeing is your changes of all the dates from mdy to dmy format and that is what they are considering to be vandalism. I'd be tempted to leave the dates alone unless there is a compelling reason why they should be dmy - if there isn't the convention is to leave them in the format that was used first. NtheP (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Dear Nthep thanks for your attention, but the point here is that the user wants to put some info claiming that X is brother of Y. This info has been taken from an Arabic blog containing vandalism about a leader of a country. I put another version of the story based on a source. It is really strange since such a simple and clear event cannot be easily seen. Thanks, anyway.Egeymi (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
That's why you need to discuss it on the talk page, what is obvious to you isn't to someone else. NtheP (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that the other editor definitely should not have called your edits vandalism and I've left a message on their talk page informing them of this. --NeilN talk to me 22:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

AfC submission declined


I am not new here, and have been editing since mid-2008. However, my recent submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Find and replace was declined as a how-to manual by the reviewer, although, (s)he did state that it was a good topic. I'd been invited here by the reviewer. I would greatly appreciate assistance in rewriting the article to become more encyclopedic. I do have reliable sources, and at least I've accomplished that. Help would be greatly appreciated. (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I had a quick look and understand the how-to comment. With reference to similar articles (e.g. Cut, copy, and paste) there could be scope for an article about find and replace. However, I think a few more sources are needed first - not just from instructional guides but perhaps how programmers, writers, journalists and others use the feature. Without such sources, the article is liable to be merged into a broader topic. Such sources will contribute towards establishing notability of the term. If/when you are sure of this, you can decide what you think the content of the article should be, if not a how-to. Try having a think about what someone who's never used a computer would want to know (not how to do it, but what it does and under what circumstances it is commonly used). I hope that's some help. -- Trevj (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Your assistance is appreciated. Can you guide me as to where I can find some sources? Those were the only two reliable sources I found regarding the topic. (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing my signature

How can I change the contents/ formatting of my signature? Mrmagikpants (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You can change your signature in preferences, under "Signature" (shows in this image). I suggest reading WP:Signature first though as there are certain rules and restrictions.
When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind: A distracting, confusing, or otherwise unsuitable signature may adversely affect other users. For example, some editors find that long formatting disrupts discourse on talk pages, or makes working in the edit window more difficult. Complicated signatures contain a lot of code ("markup") that is revealed in the edit window, and can take up unnecessary amounts of narrative space, which can make both reading and editing harder. Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 18:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
( Says the person with the 10 word signature ;) )
Hi Mrmagikpants, welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to know how to do things like change the color, feel free to ask us more specific questions of course. heather walls (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

set up barometer 1st time

is there someone on line who can help me to get a barometer up&running????? living in Corby northants. uk. (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. This page is for questions about Wikipedia and how to edit it. You might find an answer to help you here and if you need to know the current air pressure in your location you can find it here - the weather looks fairly settled for the next day or so, so the current pressure of 753 mmHg is unlikely to change much soon. NtheP (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


how do i edit a page? Becca. (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Click on the [edit] button on the right hand side, or at the top, and type into the box with the article text in, then click save page at the bottom.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Becca, welcome to the Teahouse! I think Riley answered this your talk page, too. heather walls (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

colspan and rowspan in tables

I always see the "rowspan" and "colspan" used on tables and that's to make one box in the same row/column with 2 boxes and so on. I tried it on my own but it didn't work, so can someone explain the codes and format to me about the format/codes? thanks Koopatrev (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question for me, for this reason. I've been looking at that feature, too. I know that it's recommended that one use it sparingly--with care. One thing to keep in mind is, they tend to make the sorting feature not work after the point where they occur. (That's the feature in some tables where one can click the label of a column set with the feature, and re-order the rows in alphabetical or numerical order (or reverse) according to the data in that particular column. An example would be a table of countries; you can click on the various columns and rearrange the countries by alphabetically, or by area, or by population.)
Colspan and rowspan tend to make that work wrong. There's supposed to be a work-around, but what I've found just explains WHAT you set up under some kind of coding, without telling us either how to do it or where to find out. It has something to do having a box extend over the adjacent space in the adjacent column or row; theoretically, you have the two boxes, but one box has zero width or height, and the other one is the width or height of the two boxes together.
Or something like that. I think.
I plan to look again (there's a table I've gotten obsessed with trying to make sortable--while keeping its rather elegant setup). When I re-find the various things I've found before, I'll provide links here. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Koopatrev, welcome to the Teahouse. Tables are notoriously hard to fathom out except for the simplest. There is a really good tutorial at Help:Table. As long as you remember that the basic format is
  1. define the format
  2. define the number of columns
  3. enter the data for each row
  4. close the table
then you don't go too far wrong
So a simple table like
{| class="wikitable"
|- <!-- The |- (pipe hyphen) combination defines a new row -->
! Column 1 title !! Column 2 title !! Column 3 title <!-- The ! rather than | automatically bolds and centres the text -->
| Row 1, Column 1 content <!-- These 3 lines define content for each cell in row 1.  Each cell separated by | -->
| Row 1, Column 2 content
| Row 1, Column 3 content 
| Row 2, Column 1 content
| Row 2, Column 2 content
| Row 2, Column 3 content
| Row 3, Column 1 content
| Row 3, Column 2 content
| Row 3, Column 3 content
|} <!-- The |} (pipe bracket) code closes the table -->
Column 1 title Column 2 title Column 3 title
Row 1, Column 1 content Row 1, Column 2 content Row 1, Column 3 content
Row 2, Column 1 content Row 2, Column 2 content Row 2, Column 3 content
Row 3, Column 1 content Row 3, Column 2 content Row 3, Column 3 content
So when you want to start using rowspan and colspan to make certain cells occupy more than one row or column then the trick is to remember that when you come to define a cell that has already been occupied it doesn't need defining. I've drawn tables on paper before now and shaded cells in as I code them to remind me which cells I have already defined.
{| class="wikitable"
! Column 1 title !! Column 2 title !! Column 3 title 
| rowspan="2" |Rows 1 & 2, Column 1 content <!--rowspan says how many rows for the cell to occupy. Use | (pipe) to separate instructions from content-->
| Row 1, Column 2 content
| Row 1, Column 3 content 
| Row 2, Column 2 content <!--Row 2, Column 1 has already been defined so is ignored when the rest of row 2 is defined -->
| Row 2, Column 3 content
| Row 3, Column 1 content
| Row 3, Column 2 content
| Row 3, Column 3 content
Column 1 title Column 2 title Column 3 title
Rows 1 & 2, Column 1 content Row 1, Column 2 content Row 1, Column 3 content
Row 2, Column 2 content Row 2, Column 3 content
Row 3, Column 1 content Row 3, Column 2 content Row 3, Column 3 content
Similarly for colspan
{| class="wikitable"
! Column 1 title !! Column 2 title !! Column 3 title 
| colspan="2" |Row 1, Columns 1 & 2 content <!--colspan says how many columns for the cell to occupy. Use | (pipe) to separate instructions from content-->
| Row 1, Column 3 content <!--Row 1, Column 2 has already been defined so is ignored when the rest of row 1 is defined -->
| Row 2, Column 1 content
| Row 2, Column 2 content 
| Row 2, Column 3 content
| Row 3, Column 1 content
| Row 3, Column 2 content
| Row 3, Column 3 content
Column 1 title Column 2 title Column 3 title
Row 1, Columns 1 & 2 content Row 1, Column 3 content
Row 1, Column 1 content Row 2, Column 2 content Row 2, Column 3 content
Row 3, Column 1 content Row 3, Column 2 content Row 3, Column 3 content
You can do both at one, like this
{| class="wikitable"
! Column 1 title !! Column 2 title !! Column 3 title
| rowspan="2" | Rows 1 & 2, Column 1 content
| colspan="2" | Row 1, Columns 2 & 3 content
| Row 2, Column 2 content
| Row 2, Column 3 content
| Row 3, Column 1 content
| rowspan="2" colspan="2" |Rows 3 & 4, Columns 2 & 3 content
| Row 4, Column 1 content
| colspan="3" | Row 5, Columns 1, 2 & 3 content
Column 1 title Column 2 title Column 3 title
Rows 1 & 2, Column 1 content Row 1, Columns 2 & 3 content
Row 2, Column 2 content Row 2, Column 3 content
Row 3, Column 1 content Rows 3 & 4, Columns 2 & 3 content
Row 4, Column 1 content
Row 5, Columns 1, 2 & 3 content
As Uporządnicki if you try and make the tabe sortable then it gets more complicated (I'm not sure it's totally possible) so I would stick to non-sortable tables to start off with. Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think that sortable can often be a lot more useful than clever headings.Uporządnicki (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It might be but the question was about using colspan and rowspan not sorting. NtheP (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Deactivate account

Hi ... can any moderator or advance user can tell me how to deactivate my account in wikipedia. Prosen 2s (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of an account is not possible. Please see our policy on account deletion for some alternative options. Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 06:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
But it seems to me that somewhere I saw instructions on how to disappear in Wikipedia. Also, I do see things posted with a red user name link.Uporządnicki (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you're referring to vanishing which is a discretionary process. You will see loads of postings with a redlink user name if that user's user page [[User:whatevername]] has never been created. It doesn't mean that the user has retired or such like just that the page for their use has not been created. NtheP (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Description of an Image File

Hi :) I think the English description of the photography of the Branchiostoma lanceolatum specimen must be improved, but I cannot find how. Mainly I think the word coarse is a better option than course, but I'm not a native English speaker. What do you think about? Thanks! EnekoGotzon (talk)

Eneko, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes I agree coarse would be a better spelling. As this file is hosted on wikimedia commons you need to go to the page there commons:File:Branchiostoma lanceolatum.jpg to edit it. Commons is the site where most images are used as they can then be used on any wiki not just this one. As you have an account here you automatically have an account at commons with the same username and password as you have here. NtheP (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
You are right! Solved problem! Thanks for help me! I wish a wonderful life for you! :) EnekoGotzon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding a picture to "Rudy Buttignol"

Hello, I created "Rudy Buttignol". I contacted RB's office about a picture to add and it has been put onto:

Would someone please help me with the next steps to get it up? I have read the instructions available on Wikipedia and am having trouble understanding what to do.

Much appreciated, Sofiabrampton (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Sofiabrampton, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to get that image into an article, there is one step left. Go to the article you want the image and add [[File:Rudy Buttignol - President & CEO Knowledge Network.jpg|thumb]] at the place you want the image. If you want to write a caption, add [[File:Rudy Buttignol - President & CEO Knowledge Network.jpg|thumb|YOUR CAPTION HERE]] instead. I hope that helps - let us know if you have any more problems. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 18:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
To add if you want to put the picture in the infobox on the article, open the article for editing and about the fourth line down you should see it say | image = <!-- just the name, without the File: or Image: prefix or enclosing [[brackets]] -->. Delete the bit inside <!-- --> including the arrows and insert Rudy Buttignol - President & CEO Knowledge Network.jpg - this is the file name on commons less the File: bit so I copy and paste from the commons page into the infobox, (this is one of the downsides to "meaningful" file names getting them right when you re-use them can be a pain, that's why I copy and paste). NtheP (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy Thanks for the instruction and they are perfect. I just added the picture. However, there is "[[File:|frameless|alt=]] above the picture on RB's page. I went into "edit" again to remove it, but couldn't find the code there. Thanks again, Sofiabrampton (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sofia, that came about because you'd included the thumb attribute inside the infobox. The way images act inside infoboxes is sometimes different from elsewhere in an article (just one of those peculiarities). I've amended the formatting to make it sit better in the infobox. NtheP (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks also to Nthep. I just went in again and someone has fixed it for me. Was that you Fuh...? I'm so grateful! Sofiabrampton (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sofia – anytime! The markup code provided above was for stand-alone placement outside of an infobox, but that that if placing the picture in an infobox, only use the image name without any of the described code. Essentially, infobox templates automatically provide all of the picture wrapping code, so when you use an image in them, you need none of it (and it breaks the template). I know this stuff can be confusing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Eh, sorry - I didn't quite know what you wanted and gave you the wrong code. It seems sorted now, which is good. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I should have specified where i wanted to put the image. But now I have larned that here are 2 different ways: one for inside the info box and another for outside. Thanks also to you, Fuhghettaboutit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiabrampton (talkcontribs) 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

translation of arab articles into english or dutch or german or french

Hello, I find some subjects have longer articles in a specific language. Where could I find help in obtaining the translation of articles written in languages I have not learned to read? I can only read Dutch, Frisian, English, German and French. (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. To request the expansion of an article using material from another language, you can use one of the templates listed at Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates. For example, to request the expansion of an article from the Spanish Wikipedia, you can place the following at the top of the article: {{Expand Spanish|xxxx}} (where 'xxxx' is the name of the article). If you wanted to, you could also help out with translations from the languages you do read, and a list of articles needing translation can be found here: Category:Articles needing translation from foreign-language Wikipedias. Hope that helps, Moswento talky 08:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 CR Vasco da Gama season

Hi, May I have a hot cup of Russian Caravan with milk and no sugar and, um... one of those small vanilla meringues? Pop it on my tab? And, while I'm here, I'm having trouble with this page. BalbinoFelipe reverted the copy edit I did back to a poor translation. I've left Balb a message on his talk page, but so far to no avail. I don't get it. Suggestions? Ta, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you left the message on BalbinoFelipe's page yesterday. Give it a bit more time. -Cntras (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do-thanks. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Bilingual / multilingual users

Is there a forum (or whatever) for discussing problems particular to multilingual issues?

My immediate problem is not understanding the relationship between user(names) on different wikipedias. I'm "Imaginatorium" in English and 想像館 in Jaoanese, but when I write on ja.wikipedia my 'settings' page says:

Username: Imaginatorium ... Existing signature: 想像館(会話)

And says that the "User page" for 想像館 doesn't exist. I can create a different user page in Japanese of course, but I'm not clear how the 'signature' user can be different from the 'username' user...?

Is there a standard way to handle this?

Imaginatorium (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia has its own username which is the original account name (yours looks like Imaginatorium) and the user page will have to be created individually for each language of Wikipedia your are editing in. Presumably you have set your signature on ja.wikipedia to be 想像館(会話) but the wikilinks for each of those should be to User_talk:Imaginatorium (so [[User:Imaginatorium|想像館]]([[User_talk:Imaginatorium|会話]])). Hope that helps. Also you will want to add the special other languages wikilinks to each page to point to the user page on the other wikipedias - en:User:Imaginatorium and jp:User:Imaginatorium respectively. Obotlig interrogate 14:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Also I believe if you wanted the ja.wikipedia signature links to point to the en.wikipedia user pages, it would be:
Obotlig interrogate 15:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I think I've sorted it out, and made a user page in Japanese as well as the original one.

Imaginatorium (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

why no Tagalog?

I'm curious, given the 90 million or so speakers of Tagalog in the world, why there are still no articles in Tagalog? (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! There is in fact a Tagalog Wikipedia, which has almost 56,000 articles. It can be found here. Moswento talky 15:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
You can also read the English Wikipedia's article on Tagalog. -- Luke (Talk) 17:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How can I get criticism/approval before making substantial alterations?

I have been working on the Democratic Education entry, which, as something of an expert in the subject, I find unbalanced and inadequate. (I notice it gets poor grades in the general criticism at the top of the entry) I have already posted a new version of the introductory section, which has not been commented on, perhaps because no one has noticed. I have now produced a completely rewritten version of the history section, which I have left in the talk page for Democratic Education. I would like to feel it has some sort of general approval before just erasing the old history section and replacing it with my own version. I am a newcomer to wikipedia and feel cautious about making large alterations, but there is more that I would like to delete as irrelevant, and more that I would like to add. Elbbirg (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, Elbbirg. You have done the right thing to propose major revisions on the article's talk page. I am not an expert on the topic, but it looks to me at a brief glance that you are relying mostly on primary sources in your new history section. It would be better to cite secondary sources that summarize and assess the primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for policy on such matters. You say that you are an expert, and that is fine. But you shouldn't express your own expert judgment in a Wikipedia article in your own expert voice - instead, you should summarize what the published work in reliable secondary sources says about the topic.
You may well be right that no one has noticed the changes you propose. You may wish to post brief notes on the talk pages of editors who have worked on the article in the last year or so, asking for comment. You can find those editors by clicking on the "View history" tab at the top of the article. That may well draw attention from more editors interested in this topic. I hope these suggestions help. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 10:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for these comments. I thought I had carefully depended on secondary sources, but perhaps websites written by representatives of particular schools don't count as secondary? I shall in any case go through what I have written and try to remove any personal judgements and information that comes only from my personal experience, though of course even a selection of quotations from books, though plainly secondary, reveals a personal bias.
Elbbirg (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
You've identified a possible hidden source of POV (point of view) editing, Elbbirg. However, really good Wikipedia editors who value their reputation here will bend over backwards to reflect the full range of legitimate points of view on a given topic - those they support as well as those they oppose. Our role here on Wikipedia is not to be advocates, but rather neutral summarizers. There are plenty of opportunities for advocacy elsewhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

confused with my article whether it is still waiting for review or has been rejected

Hey, I have written an article on Medindia, a medical forum of India, long time back. When submitted for review first time it was rejected saying it looks like advertisement. second time I edited it and resubmitted. again it was rejected with a different reason saying references is not genuine. Again i have submitted it with proper references last week and havent got any response till now. please help me in this. Article link is Articles_for_creation/Medindia

thanks Ankit 05:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit0012 (talkcontribs)

Hi Ankit0012m, welcome to Wikipedia. The Article for Creation page is severely backlogged, so please bear with us. From a quick look at Medindia it seems that there are some problems with the tone of the article. Also, you need some more sources that give more substantial coverage to the subject. -Cntras (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration of Notability

I'm disappointed that my recent edits to Brave (2012 film) have been undone, the second time by a reviewer (McDoobAU93) who clearly has links to Disney. Having read the wikipedia article on notability, I believe my addition of information on a fan film qualify as such. How do such "disputes" get resolved?

Thanks Drehf (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Dref, welcome to the Teahouse! A few things spring to mind here. First and foremost, we have several means of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, but the gold standard for any dispute is to discuss it on the article's talk page, which can be accessed by clicking on the "Talk" tab in the upper-left corner of any page on Wikipedia. Only after talk page discussion has been tried should you move on to other forms of dispute resolution, such as third opinions or the dispute resolution noticeboard.
Now, to address your dispute specifically: the first thing I'd say is that saying McDoob has links to Disney (which is basically accusing him of biased editing due to a conflict of interest) is actually a somewhat serious accusation, and you really shouldn't make it unless you have real evidence of this. Secondly, I actually think McDoob is correct in reverting your addition; it's not really significant enough to mention in the article for Brave (much less have a whole section devoted to it). McDoob is also correct in telling you that teh reversion of your edit was not vandalism. Vandalism in the Wikipedia sense has a very specific meaning, and that didn't quite qualify. Finally, I will say that one point where McDoob was mistaken is his birnign up of notability; notability in the Wikipedia sense only applies to whether a subject should have its own article or not, so it's not really applicable in this case. Regardless, I believe that McDoob's intentions and interpretation of policy were correct, even if he used the wrong word. Writ Keeper 04:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I second Writ Keeper Drehf. The reason I don't think this edit belongs is that to me it appears to be undue weight in this article. It is not, at heart, directly related to this topic. It is some other subject that happens to have this subject as its focus. Please see Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Connective trivia. This is not always so clear cut but an absurdly clear example may help to illustrate. We would have good cause to mention Henry VIII in an article on Scooby Doo if that king's ghost haunted a castle in an episode of the cartoon, but we would never properly include detail about the Scooby Doo episode in our article on Henry VIII, simply because Henry VIII's ghost appeared in the episode. This epitomizes indiscriminate, undue weight on a trivial connection.

There are some other things problematic about the edit. First, it includes editorializing, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I refer to the statement therein that "It is a very funny spoof..." Second, we don't normally include user-generated material, which the video appears to be. Finally, even if in our editorial judgment it worked in the context of the article, I don't think it is possible to verify this material through an independent, reliable source.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question. Isn't significance in the eye of the beholder? Rather than literally removing my edit within a minute of my posting it, I would think that giving it some time would allow a wider group of readers to determine significance. I would understand immediately deleting it if it were offensive or such, but it isn't. Over 1000 people have watched it and found it funny.

I wasn't accusing McDoob of bias per se. I was noting from his own user page the following: "This user is a cast member of the Walt Disney World task force of the Amusement Parks Project." Thanks again, Drehf (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

One additional question: Your comment about "user generated content" seems surprising to me. Are you suggesting that only videos made by major studios are worthy of inclusion on wikipedia? Wouldn't that rule out indie films, not to mention shorts of many kinds? Thanks, Drehf (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding user-generated content, the context here does get us back to notability. Wikipedia, is an encyclopedia, by definition a tertiary source, properly only providing information as to things that the world has already published about. Notice the world "about" here, not just published but published about. Our touchstone is reliable sources discussing things from which all our content is properly derived. In the context of topics for articles, this is memorialized in the notability policy (things of which the word has taken "note"—not necessarily the dictionary definition). In the context of information in articles, this is memorialized in the verifiability policy. The effect of this is that most things that are user-generated are not notable or verifiable. Garage bands as topics of articles, for example, are rarely acceptable because they are rarely the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources and thus not notable. By the same token, user-generated films posted to some website are rarely verifiable because they are rarely mentioned in reliable sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Let me see if I can offer another example of my reasoning (and yes, I agree the terminology I used could probably have been better) ... take Rebecca Black. She was not the first/only person whose parents paid ARK Music Factory to produce a song and music video for their child, so in and of itself, "Friday" would never have been notable. However, when critics wrote about it and the video attracted hundreds of millions of hits (not 1000 or so), that's when "Friday" became notable. My point is that a tribute/parody video, in and of itself, isn't really worthy of inclusion in an article; if it were, we'd have links to every single parody of "Call Me Maybe" or "What Makes You Beautiful". --McDoobAU93 06:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


hi,i need to know how i get to see all of the 1110 portals,i can only see 158,any help?? from mike.Mike333666777 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, and welcome to the Teahouse! The full list of portals is available at: Portal:Contents/Portals. I think you were looking at the list of Featured portals, which are 158 portals of particularly high quality. Moswento talky 08:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
You can also take a look at Category:Portals (in the box below). benzband (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Click the "►" below to see all subcategories:

Photo submission

I would like to submit a photo.


B. WarrerNanchang1 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nanchang1. The most important issue when submitting a photo has to do with copyright status, which can be complex. Let's say you took the photo yourself, and it is of some ordinary everyday item or scene rather than something that itself is copyrighted, like a work of art, and let's also say that you are willing to make that photo available for anyone anywhere to use in any way with few restrictions other than giving you the appropriate credit. In those circumstances, just go to Wikimedia Commons and follow the simple upload instructions to make your own photo available under a Creative Commons license. If you didn't take the photo yourself, or if there are any copyright issues involved, then we would need specific details to give specific advice. Wikipedia is very serious about handling copyright issues properly. It can be tricky, but there are plenty of people available to help. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Internal links

Besides common sense, are there any guidelines for linking a word to a Wikipedia page? For example, in the part of a sentence: "an island country spanning an archipelago of 115 islands in the Indian Ocean", "island country", "archipelago", and "Indian Ocean" are linked to the relevant article. Some could dispute whether "archipelago" needs further explanation, since it seems like a commonly understood word. However, maybe you get a list of less frequent words that includes "archipelago", and hence the linking. ListCheck (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi ListCheck. Welcome. It is largely a matter of common sense where to draw the line on linking. We aim to write for the ordinary non-expert reader and I think it is worth linking archipelago. It also leads readers on to other articles which they may find interesting.--Charles (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi ListCheck! The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. The, in my opinion, most useful portion of that page is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Overlinking and underlinking. Generally, something like archipelago will be linked, but they are often evaluated on a case by case basis. An example of the case by case nature of this is the linking of the word dog. Dog would almost never be wikilinked, but it is appropriate to link it in an article on foxes. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks you both for your quick answers. ListCheck (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am at a loss Help please

I have been editing at Conover, North Carolina a bit lately. The article was basically well written, but had reference problems and a big non encyclopedic section on shopping. I referenced what I could, took down a "cut and paste" copyvio section on history till I could rewrite it and redacted the shopping center section, which has since been put back and redacted again. Today I get the following message at my talkpage:

This is the City of Conover. As the City of Conover we would like to keep the SHOPPING CENTERS Section on our city's wikipedia page. Thank You, City of Conover, North Carolina 101 1st Street East Conover, NC 28613 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I ran a WHOIS on the IP and it is registered to the local county government. Most of the references on the article came from the cities website. What to do, please? Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52. Simply put, the City/County does not get to dictate what appears in a Wikipedia article, our policies, guidelines and consensus do. I believe this shopping centers material is unencyclopedic puffery, as you do apparently, and so I agree with your removal. However, please be careful about identifying edits in edit summaries as "vandalism" that are not clearly so, as you did when you reverted the removal (they also misidentified your removal as vandalism, but that's neither here nor there).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

When is something being said off Wikipedia considered an attack by Wikipedia policy


I have seen remarks made about another editor on a Wikipedia criticism site by a Wikipedia editor. These remarks appear to be personal and rude. Is there any mechanism for bringing this to the attention of an appropriate department here?

NewtonGeekNewtonGeek (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

NewtonGeek, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. This is a difficult area but is addressed by Wikipedia:No personal attacks under the section about off-wiki attacks. Basically the isn't a lot that can be done but if it spills on-wiki it can be used as evidence. NtheP (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Nthep, thanks. I'll look it over. NewtonGeek (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Help needed on columns

Hi, wonder if someone can give me some guidance? I have updated this page Muratti and as you can see have added all the results of the mathces over the years. It makes the page very long and I was wondering if there was an easy way of spliting that part of the text into two colums to make better use of the space? thanks in advance. (Darrylgsy (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

Hi Darryl. Welcome. I have split it into two columns but I'm wondering whether this should be in a table format of some sort instead. I'm thinking about how to do that now. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I agree that does not work as well as I had hoped.. Will see what solution you can drum up. Thanks for the quick reply. (Darrylgsy (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC))

You're welcome. Hmm. I don't think the parameters/organization works well at all but anyway, here's a possible format working with the 1905 - 1909 data. Someone please help improve this:
1905 – 1909
Year Final/
Location Winning team
and score
Losing team
and score
1905 Semi-final Guernsey Guernsey 6 Alderney 0
1905 Final Jersey Guernsey 1 Jersey 0
1906 Semi-final Jersey Guernsey 2 Jersey 1
1906 Final Guernsey Guernsey 1 Alderney 0
1907 Semi-final Guernsey Alderney 1 Jersey 2
(after extra time)
1907 Final Jersey Guernsey 3 Jersey 2
(after extra time)
1908 Semi-final Jersey Guernsey 3 Alderney 0
1908 Final Guernsey Jersey 4 Guernsey 0
1909 Semi-final Guernsey Guernsey 3 Jersey 0
1909 Final Jersey Guernsey 2 Alderney 0
--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2012

What is the proper way to list examples of a software category?

I edited Enterprise reconciliation software yesterday to clean up the text and add a fourth example to the three that have been in the text for some time. This morning I discovered another editor had deleted all four examples. Those examples pretty much cover all of the commercial offerings in this category. So it's no different in my mind to the examples of word processing software in that article (both in the text and a table at end), or the list of mobile phone providers that shows up in articles associated with that.

I've re-edited the page to list the examples with their external links at the bottom, rather than mid-text as it was. Certainly this is within general Wikipedia practice, as the word processor and mobile provider articles demonstrate. What do I do if the editor who doesn't like examples for this page comes back and removes them again? Obviously this article can be better written, and I'm working on getting more information to flesh it out. But when the category of software it discusses is populated in full by four commercial examples, it seems pertinent and important to mention them and link to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhitBlauvelt (talkcontribs) 14:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


Looking further, I see that such links to product pages are not considered kosher (even though the three such links previously on that page had been there for a long time). Okay, so given a page that's trying to objectively cover a category of software which is best understood with examples, where the examples are of limited number, and where there's not a lot of secondary literature on the Web to link to to substantiate them, what's the best way to handle this that's squarely within guidelines? I was trying to improve the page by making the list of examples complete, adding the fourth that's well-known in the market. Yet all these links are to pages whose obvious primary function is to promote the products — even though these pages are about the only places to find available descriptions of the products. Should the products be named without links? Certainly the word processing article names all the prominent examples of word processing software, and isn't just a generic discussion. But removing the links, leaving it to the reader to use a search engine to find them ... well, is that the way to keep this within guidelines yet still provide the examples that are necessary to really make sense of this software category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhitBlauvelt (talkcontribs) 14:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


Since SineBot is signing my comments anyhow (as I assumed would happen in this context) why does it say it's an "unsigned" comment? It's a signed comment. The robot handled it. The human expected the robot to handle it. WhitBlauvelt (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

WhitBlauvelt, welcome to the Teahouse. The editor who removed them apparently considered them to be random examples and therefore treated them as spam advertising links. Your edit summary re-adding them states that it's an exhaustive list so that might get over the 'random' spam argument. If they are removed again you should discuss on the article talk page as to why it is necessary to list them on the page. I can't help feeling that if you can't adequately explain in the article what this type of software does then adding external links to the software doesn't help and isn't a way of solving that deficiency. The links don't help me to understand any better what enterprise reconciliation software does, if anything they are so full of technical jargon they put me off the subject. You should concentrate on describing the concept in general and finding more sources that support that.
The word processing article has internal wikilinks to the software packages because they are notable enough to merit their own articles, that's very different to a list of external links.
Sinebot says your contibution was unsigned because that's the condition it found it in, you shouldn't expect contributions to be signed for you - in fact this page is one of only a small number of non talk pages where Sinebot operates. NtheP (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


I'm in the process of looking for more sources. It's a thinly-covered topic even in the trade press. But basically, if you for instance trade financial assets (stocks, bonds, other instruments), there are records kept by you, the exchange, and the seller or buyer of the assets, as well as in some cases by a "custodian" who holds the assets for you or others. Whenever records are kept in more than one place, errors can occur causing them not to match. So reconciliation software compares the records from the various players to see if they match (often a complex task due to differences in record formats), and provides alerts when they don't. If alerted, the various parties can fix the discrepancies — can "reconcile" their accounts.

I'm not sure there's a good secondary source in print which explains it to even this degree of simplicity. And you don't want an original article. If the product pages are primary sources, and there are no decent secondary sources (still looking ... maybe they're just eluding me), should it simply not be covered here? Or can the product pages be referenced, and the write up a translation of their central concepts into standard English? By comparison, to discuss capabilities of Word Perfect, is it required to only discuss third-party publications, or can you cite the Word Perfect manual? Is that a (discouraged) "primary source" or (encouraged) "secondary source" in the Wikipedia context? Not sure how to count this one.WhitBlauvelt (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, if it's thin in the trade press then it's going to be thin here and it might be that the article never really gets past stub status here. In a perfect world everything is referenced by secondary sources but primary sources can be used in certain contexts, for example, to support non contentious factual statements but that is the limit of their use. I would avoid listing the products at all because it avoids any issues about the neutrality of the article and also prevents articles becoming linkfarms. NtheP (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Why was my article put up for speedy deletion?

Here is my article: I don't see why this article would be less noteworthy than any other video game developer articles here on Wikipedia? Darakir (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Darakir, and welcome! Looking at the article, the biggest thing missing is a mention of why Paradox Development is notable. That is, what has it done to merit an article here on Wikipedia. This normally includes mentions in reliable, third-party sources. A few of the sources used in this article appear to be either self-published blogs or info from the company itself. If you can get some additional third-party mentions in there, I think there's something to be worked with. You may want to copy the article to your user space and work on it there if it gets deleted (or, if you can't get to it before then, ask the deleting admin to copy it for you). --McDoobAU93 14:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for you comment. I still don't get it though. I have put up a good number of external sources, sources that are very well known in the strategy games industry. Comparing with these other video game developer for example, my article has a lot more sources and more signs of being notable: and What makes mine so much worse than that one? What kind of sources would be better? I have magazines that have posted articles about the company, as well as reviews. There is not much more publicity to be had for a developer. Darakir (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Darakir. I think you've raised a really going point here and I hope a more experienced editor takes it up. Thanks for providing the pointers to the other two articles. You've done the sensible thing and modeled your article on existing, accepted articles (and improved on them). My understanding of WP:Notability is that none of these articles would be considered notable as is, but I'd like to hear other opinions before marking the other articles for deletion as well. Garamond Lethe(talk) 18:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph in Modern Schools of Ninjutsu

I have a disagreement with Silver Seren about the lead paragraph of this article. I have tried to discuss the pros and cons of various approaches to the lead paragraph and why I edited it on the talk page with little helpful response. I don't mind what stays but I would be most grateful if that ever helpful person "someone" could check that my interpretation of the MOS guidelines is accurate so I won't be doing the wrong thing by others. Many thanks again, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Note for responders: copyedit diff, talkpage thread. benzband (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Myrtlegroggins! I think the edit was fine, so i've restored it (sorry about flagging the edit as "minor", i didn't mean to). Could always seek a third opinion on the matter. benzband (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Benzband, thankyou for your response. I appreciate it. I am learning that different editors will have different styles, syntax, priorities but the differences don't necessarily make one person right and another wrong. Even so, an immediate undo of something you might have spent quite a bit of time sorting out can weigh on a new editor's confidence. Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking Swedish article to an English one

There is a Swedish article for Anna-Lisa Öst, and an English article for her, but this is not evident on the article page. How does one make it so that English/Swedish is shown on the side as another language the article is in? Sammie.anne. (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sammie! Thanks for swinging by the Teahouse. What you are looking for is interwiki links. You can create one by adding [[en:Lapp-Lisa]] to the bottom of the Swedish wikipedia page (but above any stub tags that might exist. Thanks for your interest in improving the article. A bot should come by and update the English page not long after you do so. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi there, I attempted to post an image for which I have the copyright. For some reason, Wikipedia does not want to keep this image posted. It suggested I replace the image with a picture I had taken myself - but this picture IS owned by me. Help clarifying this issue? Thanks! Abursey (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Abursey, welcome to the Teahouse. The only file I can see that you have uploaded is File:Ontario's sixth Ombudsman, André Marin.jpg which originally you uploaded as a non free file. It is because of that non free status that a suggestion to delete the image was made, suggesting that a free image could be found instead. You've now re-posted the photo saying that permission has been granted by the copyright holder and are following the OTRS route of supplying written permission to wikimedia. If you are the photographer and own the copyright yourself you can edit the file and replace all the content with
== Summary ==

|Description = Image of Ontario's Six Ombudsman, André Marin
|Source = Own work
|Date= 24 May 2012
|Author = [[User:Abursey]]
|Permission = {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}
Note that by doing this you are irrevocably allowing reuse of the photograph anywhere, without attribution, not just on wikipedia. If you are not comfortable with this allowance of reuse then you should ask for the file to be deleted. NtheP (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Ignore last instructions - the OTRS ticket on the file has been acted upon and the licence changed accordingly. You won't have any more problems on this image. NtheP (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

How to archive a talk page with a bot

How do I have a bot to archive my talk page ?How to set it up.Lankancats (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lankancats! You can follow the instructions provided at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo for setting up User:MiszaBot III to archive your talkpage. benzband (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Ho, Lankancats, & welcome! If you're looking for an example to get you started, you can check out the one on my talk page. Mine is set up to automatically archive discussions that haven't been touched for 1 month, and also includes an archive header template (the part that starts with "{{Archives |search.... "), which makes your archived discussions easily browsable and searchable. Let us know if you need any more help! - J-Mo Talk to Me Email Me 19:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Where to add a list of US crisis hotlines

There is no well-researched source of US crisis hotlines for different localities on the Internet (that I can find). The local crisis line I volunteer for has a book of such lines, but it seems that it would be much more successfully maintained as a wiki resource. I'm inclined to add the list to Crisis hotline, but I don't want to run afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Thoughts?

Baumanj (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Baumanj, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikis are great tools for maintaining this type of information but wikipedia isn't the place to do it for exactly the reason, WP:NOTDIR that you have identified. There are other sites, for example where you can host you own wiki using the same code as is employed here or you can download the code and host your own wiki.
I don't agree with the presence of the table already in Crisis hotline and will be reinvigorating the discussion from 2004 on the article talk page suggesting that it is inappropriate and should be removed. NtheP (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to start a new WikiProject so i need an answer to a few questions.

I am going to start WP:PUNTLAND. So I need your help. Question 1: Can a WikiProject about an unrecognized Country have a Coordinator?

Question 2:Can a WikiProject be democratic?(Can it elect its own Coordinator?)

Mir Almaat Ali Almaat From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 05:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A WikiProject can organise itself in any way it wants, there are projects that run happily without co-ordinators, some that have several doing different jobs. Looking at the proposal for Puntland I think if it gets off the ground (debateable at this point given the level of support) then you may well be a one man band. Projects are about groups of people helping each other out on developing articles, if it's just you and one or two others then you might as well run it through your own user talk pages, there doesn't have to be a project to improve articles on a topic or group of related topics. NtheP (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

democratic question?Mir Almaat Ali Almaat From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 08:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the GoCE for instance used approval voting to select its coordinators. However Wikipedia as a whole is not a democracy. benzband (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a note: GoCE = Guild of Copy Editors. Moswento talky 14:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed thankyou Moswento (and sorry Mir Almaat about not making that clear). The page i was referring to in particular is Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators. Cheers, benzband (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm having problems with dishonest editors in mammography

Two editors have replaced 2012 cochrane with dated wrong info into the lead. Please advise. I also was contacted in my talk by a Wiki Foundation editor, but now that entry in my talk is gone. Please direct me to that Foundation editor.32cllou (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 32. I am not a volunteer here at the Teahouse but I visit often for education and answers to specific questions. Firstly, I must note that you are using very strong words to describe your problem. Medicine is an art, not a science, and to say someone is being "dishonest" because they are entering referenced material that disagrees with the study you are promoting is simply not a fair statement. Now, if you could quote several studies that say the same thing that the study you are quoting, then perhaps it might be fair to say they were "mistaken", but calling someone dishonest is never appropriate. What is going on in the article on mammography is two different viewpoints, both with scientific backup. Hence, for the article to maintain a "Neutral Point of View" that is required here on Wikipedia, both views need to be discussed. So write something describing the viewpoint you are pushing and add it, qualifying it as another viewpoint. Discuss on the article's talk page. Do not insist that your viewpoint is the only one. If that doesn't work, there are further steps available. But in order to work with other editors, you have to be willing to engage in some dialogue with them. I hope this helps. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Please read the changes made by Adjkasi and Yobol before you judge my wording, but name calling serves no purpose. Read the 2012 Cochrane on mammography[1] which is clear info no doubt conclusions and read talk to see both sending me to wiki pages irrelevant to the nature of that wiki preferred source. Someone sending me on a snip hunt (they don't exist ya know) is not constructive to use proper words. Their edits served to degrade the quality of the article.32cllou (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi 32cllou! You mentioned a message is now gone from your talk page that was there before. Apologies if you know this already and I've misunderstood, but: you can always look at the history of your talk page to view an earlier version and see all changes that people have made, just click on the "View History" tab at the top of your talk page (near the Edit button). Good luck in your discussions! Sbouterse (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I already looked there and it's gone. Please direct me to the Wiki Foundation representative that contacted me about a special survey and ways to reach him by email.32cllou (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi 32cllou, as you can see, there is no evidence of such a message on your talk page. Perhaps it was somewhere else? We can't direct you to anything that we can't see, either. What was the survey about? Maybe we can help you figure out who that person is. Good luck! heather walls (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Can administrators make stuff disappear?32cllou (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess so? I've only seen it when a page is deleted. Maybe one can answer :) That seems like a strange thing to erase. heather walls (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Generally they can't. There would at least be some evidence of it in the talk page history, which we'd be able to see, but there doesn't appear to be any in this case. Do you remember any of the wording in the notice you got? Like what the survey was about, or the name of the person? (I'm wondering if maybe 32cllou saw a site notice (geonotice or watchlist notice) and mistook it for a personal message). Equazcion (talk) 01:30, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

How do I relay events to the foundation as requested?32cllou (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

32cllou, do you mean events regarding editing in mammography? The foundation is not involved in editing, Wikipedia:Contact us explains that, "Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff." Maybe someone else can recommend who you should speak to within the Wikipedia community, or if you need some dispute resolution. Anyone have a suggestion? heather walls (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Discussing the matter on the article's talk page is generally the best way to start. There are processes like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but they are only to be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been tried and proven fruitless. My own take on this, after looking at the edits, is to echo Gtwfan52's sentiments above: It's good to add information on new studies, but a single new study shouldn't be used to outright replace the current, commonly-accepted knowledge and practices -- unless evidence becomes available that common knowledge has changed. Equazcion (talk) 01:49, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding article submission editing/help

Good afternoon,

I've made a number of attempts at editing my page in order to be approved (Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant), but still have not been successful. I've removed Wikipedia entries from the list of references in order to better meet the standards, and have cited some government documents about our organization, but there is not a lot of information published already to go on. I also viewed other related pages (i.e. Wisconsin Sea Grant) and attempted to provide as much or more information than those.

Any help and/or advice in terms of correcting the page would be highly appreciated.

Thank you in advance, JasonJ brown99 (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason. There are 101 book results with limited or full preview found through this search. There are 114 news archive results found through this search (though some will be behind a paywall). If one of the source behind a paywall looks like a really good prospect, you can request it be provided to you at WP:RX. So I am not sure where you've been looking but I think there's lots more you can write and cite using these results. By the way the attribution you've been providing in citations should provide much more information. For a book, for example, normally we would want title of the book, author, year of publication, publisher, page number, ISBN and the URL if it exists. A very useful tool for citing books with fuller attribution can be accessed here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea WP:RX existed --- thank you! GaramondLethe 21:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Great! I hope it comes in handy. I know it's come through for me in the clutch a bunch of times.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I too, add my thanks for WP:RX. This page is the most helpful and informative place I have visited in Wiki-land. I have a small suggestion for Jason. You may want to include some text on what the organization actually does (referenced, of course). From reading your article, I have no idea. As a resident of NW Indiana for many years, I was looking forward to some interesting information. I hope that eventually you can provide some. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the quick response and the additional resources. I look forward to editing and adding more info. Also, @Gtwfan52 - thank you for your interest! We're on Facebook, Twitter, and our blog if you are interested in learning more before this page is properly edited. - J brown99 J brown99 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi again J Brown. Your post directly above (with its use of "we're, "our") gives the impression that your account is being used by multiple people. You may have just been using the "royal we" for your organization, but please note that Wikipedia absolutely does not allow role accounts – a single account used by more than one person. I also note that you are now revealing that you are involved in the organization you are writing about. As such, please keep in mind the advice given at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest when you are editing. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)