Ryan Vesey (talk | contribs) Undid revision 495238999 by Heatherawalls (talk) While a question isn't explicitly stated, I see one and I would like to reply |
Ryan Vesey (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
Briefly an editor of Wikipedia |
Briefly an editor of Wikipedia |
||
[[User:Abraham Bartolo|Abraham Bartolo]] ([[User talk:Abraham Bartolo|talk]]) 03:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
[[User:Abraham Bartolo|Abraham Bartolo]] ([[User talk:Abraham Bartolo|talk]]) 03:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Hello Gary, I am interested in hearing a little more about what has been troubling you on Wikipedia to see if we can resolve this issue. It appears like you are a very knowledgeable person and your improvements to [[Rendition (law)]] and [[Bankruptcy in the United States]] are welcome. I also noticed that it does not appear that you have had any prior interaction with other editors. I believe your issue is due to the warning that appeared on [[Rendition (law)]]. All that error means is that after inserting a reference you forgot to put the tag {{code|</ref>}}. It is a very common error and I still make it sometime. In addition, it appears that you had a little bit of difficulty getting the wikimarkup for italics correct. That is fine, and if you would like more assistance for either of these things just let me know. You can either ask a question here or leave a message [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|on my talk page]]. I can help explain things to you and point you to some useful essays and help pages. If it is something else that has upset you, please let me know about that and I can hopefully find a way to fix or offset that.<tt> </tt>[[User:Ryan Vesey|'''''Ryan''''']] [[User talk:Ryan Vesey|'''''Vesey''''']] [[Special:Contributions/Ryan Vesey|<small>Review me!</small>]] 04:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Edit summaries == |
== Edit summaries == |
||
Revision as of 04:50, 31 May 2012
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 12 sections are present. |
I give up: procedures trump substance.
I understand why the phrase "don't tas me, Bro." appears in relation to a dubious offer of help to neophyte editors: the advancement of knowledge requires the procedural cognoscenti to "taser"-- by the use of procedural challenge --those who disagree.
Congratulations: You & hypocrisy have won.
Enjoy your power & the perquisites of opaqueness. _
Gary Bollinger Briefly an editor of Wikipedia Abraham Bartolo (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Gary, I am interested in hearing a little more about what has been troubling you on Wikipedia to see if we can resolve this issue. It appears like you are a very knowledgeable person and your improvements to Rendition (law) and Bankruptcy in the United States are welcome. I also noticed that it does not appear that you have had any prior interaction with other editors. I believe your issue is due to the warning that appeared on Rendition (law). All that error means is that after inserting a reference you forgot to put the tag
</ref>
. It is a very common error and I still make it sometime. In addition, it appears that you had a little bit of difficulty getting the wikimarkup for italics correct. That is fine, and if you would like more assistance for either of these things just let me know. You can either ask a question here or leave a message on my talk page. I can help explain things to you and point you to some useful essays and help pages. If it is something else that has upset you, please let me know about that and I can hopefully find a way to fix or offset that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Edit summaries
What happened to the common edit summaries feature? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Template modification assistance
Hi, I'm looking for a modification of the Infobox Tennis Grand Slam events template so that it links to the previuos and next event similar to the Infobox tennis event template. It seems the creator of both these templates is not active anymore and while I can do some simple template editing I don't have the skills for this modification. Is there a helpdesk for templates or a pool of experienced template editors that I can call on to help out? Thx! --Wolbo (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
My new messages
Where do I find my new messages? Is this a link that appears only when I have new messages? I stumbled upon it before but cannot find it again to see if I have any new messages. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Tattoodwaitress! Welcome to the Teahouse. Yup, that message (the big orange one) only pops up when another Wikipedian leaves a fresh comment on your talk page. To find your talk page, just click here: User talk:Tattoodwaitress. You can also see it in the top right menu (when you are logged in) next to your username as "My talk." That is where your messages will be or any comments on your talk page :) I hope this helped! Sarah (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Proper way to redirect
Apologies but I goofed up trying to redirect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warid_Congo Exactly where should I put the redirect so that it goes straight to Warid Telecom as the page should not exist anyway? Truealpha (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed that with . Stuartyeates (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it Stuart, and welcome Truealpha! I'll explain how you can redirect it properly, per your request! The nice thing about redirects is that you can just redirect it to another page - so, if you redirected it to the wrong place (a misspelling or wrong word, whatever) you can just redirect it to the correct name - Warid Telecom. You probably don't need to nominate the wrong redirect for deletion, since perhaps it is related to the correct name, but if you do, and forgive me for linking to policy, you can pick the right deletion tag here: Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Redirects. I hope this helps :) Sarah (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much to both and thanks also for clarifying. Appreciate it! Truealpha (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Creating my user about me page
Thank you to Heather who responded so quickly. I am going to start my user about me page I guess that would be a good place to start. If I come back here later I could ask someone to check it out for me right? And can I always find responses to questions where I found the response to the last question in my new messages section? Or do I need to come back here to see the answers. Oh and where can I find other user about me pages to look at for examples? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there, again! You can design your userpage however you wish. There really isn't a specific type of userpage style or guide that I know of that shows you specific examples. Perhaps visiting the history pages of articles that interest you might help? (you can see my userpage by just clicking on my username in my signature). And of course, you're welcome to come back here and have us check it out :) You'll have to revisit the Teahouse to see the answers to your questions. When we answer a question for you we leave a talkback message on your userpage, so when you log in you will be told that you have a new answer. Just follow the link to the Teahouse response in the talkback box. Can't wait to see your userpage! Sarah (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Tottood! You can find anybody's talk page by clicking on the blue (talk) link next to their signature. If it's red, it means they haven't started their page yet, so there's nothing to see. To leave a message on someone's talk page, go to it and click on "New Section" at the top right. It opens a page with a place to put the heading, and a big box to write your message in. Scroll to the bottom of the box and save it when you're done. If someone leaves a message on your talk page you'll get that orange message notice. Some people may just post the answer right on your talk page. If you ask a question here, most people will answer here, so everyone can learn along with you. If you click on someone's name (like my Tlqk56), you go to their User page. (Again, if it's red, they haven't started it yet.) Start exploring and have fun!
- I'm pretty new to Wikipedia myself. I can say that you are definitely welcome to ask anything here -- I've had to ask a few really dumb questions, along with some not-so-dumb ones, and everybody is always helpful and friendly. Nice to meet you. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow thank you all so much... now when I reply to you as I am doing now (i just hit the edit button and adding to the bottom is that good? will you get the notice that I replied? Or should I hit your talk link then reply? Hope you get my thank yous. I will work a bit more on this another time... retiring for the evening. Thanks again for the help and ta ta for now. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Why Can't I Find "Good" References?
I have an article for a rather notable local band (they meet some of the notability requirements) but Wikipedia won't accept it because of my "uneliable" sources. The problem is, I can't find any "reliable" sources. Any suggestions?Cabooseofteworld (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you're having a hard time with your article. If you're unable to find any reliable sources - that means independent sources that aren't related to the band (i.e. newsletters from the band or their label, YouTube, Amazon, the band websites are all unreliable sources) - then perhaps the band isn't able to be included yet in Wikipedia. In your article for creation I didn't see any weblinks to the sources you used, which is a problem. While we like to assume good faith with all contributions, if no sources exist online then that makes many editors a bit nervous about if the subject is notable. I hate to say that the band might not be able to be included yet - usually if they are notable they have healthy coverage in the media (regionally and beyond), so, you might just have to wait until they get more coverage. I hope this helps and perhaps there are other bands you have interest in writing about who might be a bit more notable? Or perhaps you know where those reliable sources are hiding out online? :) Sarah (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
article denial
Can someone please highlight or point specifically to exactly what is unacceptable in the article I last submitted?
I have many citations and referrals and edited the article so as not to sound like an advertisement, but I fail to see what is wrong with it.
75.134.104.188 (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're not logged in, so we have no idea which article you're asking about. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello possible stranger! Like Stuartyeates says, we can't see what you've worked on as it's not connected to the IP address you are using right now and you didn't provide a link. We'd love to help if you can give us more information. heather walls (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Why does Googling my published page show the sandbox page?
Ok--got my first page published here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Burma_Road But when I do a Google search, the only page I find is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ccmulder/sandbox which is my sandbox page. Why does the actual page on Wiki not come up on Google, but only my sandbox page? And when I change that page, it also changes the actual page on wikipedia? Christopher Mulder (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Google takes a while to see that pages have moved. It'll cotton on in a couple fo days or maybe a week. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Why was my article denied
Why was my article for creation, Primary objective denied again? Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Primary_Objective Megaboltable (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. Having just had an article published and having difficulty doing so (a book written by a WWII commander, later General, which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Burma_Road), I think what they are saying is your subject does not have any independent notoriety. One of the things that helped get my page published was showing that the CIA cited it as one of the foremost authorities on guerilla warfare (see "References and Citing" below to see what I mean). So you would have to find sources that cite the book independently. At least that's what I think they mean in the explanation of why it was declined.
- Christopher Mulder (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Megaboltable! The reasons why your article was declined are displayed in the section beginning "The reviewer left the following comment about this submission:". In a nutshell, there's no evidence why the book should have an article in an online encyclopedia: notability is required, and the burden of finding – and including – evidence for notability rests on the creator of the article. The tone is also very promotional, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. It reads like an advert. If you can address those two issues (in particular, I'd read through the whole notability guideline to see how you can prove that the book is notable) then your article would stand a better chance of being accepted. Brammers (talk/c) 07:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is a particular notability standard for books at WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Creating an article
I'm trying to set up a new article for the school where I work - there is another article for this school under its old name - all I am really trying to do is update it with a new name 'Dorcan Technology College' becomes 'The Dorcan Academy' - I thought I was supposed to create a new article and then link it to the old one but that didn't work - then I thought I'd copy everything from the old one onto the new - but it says there are no 'reliable sources' - what is a reliable source for an English school?Auntiestrewth (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Auntiestrewth. You can rename a page by using the move tab at the top of the page. This preserves the page history. Making a redirect for the old name to the new one will help anyone searching for the old name. Reliable sources will include official inspection reports and newspaper articles.--Charles (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've moved the article to the new name, The Dorcan Academy. However, it is a tiny stub, and completely lacking in references to books, newspapers and magazines which discuss it; indeed, were it not for our rule of thumb that secondary schools are presumed to be notable, it would probably be headed for deletion in its present form. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Change of username
Hello,
I recently changed my name from whoisgalt to dounai and on wikipedia everything turned out fine. But now I can't log into the commons to upload pictures and post them to articles and I would like to see a list of my contributions on commons so I can find some of the pictures I already uploaded. Could someone help me figure out what went wrong and why I can't log in? Also to transfer over my old username info of whoisgalt to dounai on the commons Much appreciatedDounai (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Dounai. I suspect that you need to move the account separately on Commons. I'll investigate. Once that is done you should go to "my preferences" and check the global account status. Rich Farmbrough, 03:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
- Yep: Here's the commons page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Changing_username .
- Your contribs are still there http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Whoisgalt
- All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
Listing References - What am I doing wrong?
I really can't seem to list references - when I press save the page is littered with error messages. I've tried my best to follow help Help:Cite Errors page but to no avail; this is the page I am trying to write up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieza - can anyone help?
Jrussell0208 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like Voceditenore, obviously a Wikignome, seems to have fixed your problem. What it looks like you did wrong has to do with "<ref name="www.pothos.or...>". Only use <ref name=again>{{cite web...etc}}</ref> when you're going to cite the same reference in several places. After the first time, you can use <ref name=again /> to add the same reference without typing it all out again. If you're only using the reference once, just put the information between the <ref> and </ref> tags. Did that help? DocTree (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! My first ever edit, didn't go too well, clearly, but hopefully I'll be able to provide more useful edits in future. Still not 100% sure I understand the referencing but I'll read into it properly before I try it next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrussell0208 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there Jrussell0208 and welcome to the Teahouse. I was a bit confused when I first looked at the page you were referring too. It all looked fine - and then it changed in front of my eyes. I did a quick check of the page history and saw that another editor was editing the page - and they have added references and changed the content so it now works. It's annoying because it makes it hard for us to help and sort out the problem "You" were having. I can see where the problems were, and it looks like you have been trying to use ideas from HTML in setting up the references. It makes sense, but Wiki language works in a different way. Not to worry!
One way we can still help is, if you find a reference you believe should be included - I did a bit of poking about in "Google Books" and found quite a few. If you can find one - then we can help you get that reference in place the right way. We can also help you set up a sandbox page so you can use that as a place to experiment and figure out the whole reference thing. Glad to see that you are not put off by the oddity of wikipedia. We have all been there and we all know how it feels. All the best
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there Jrussell0208 and welcome to the Teahouse. I was a bit confused when I first looked at the page you were referring too. It all looked fine - and then it changed in front of my eyes. I did a quick check of the page history and saw that another editor was editing the page - and they have added references and changed the content so it now works. It's annoying because it makes it hard for us to help and sort out the problem "You" were having. I can see where the problems were, and it looks like you have been trying to use ideas from HTML in setting up the references. It makes sense, but Wiki language works in a different way. Not to worry!
- Hi again, Jrussell0208. For me, the easiest way to cite just about anything and everything is to use citation templates. Just cut-and-paste the most appropriate template between the <ref> and </ref> and fill in the blanks, deleting any elements that aren't used. My earliest edits were all reverted because I didn't add proper citations. Take care, DocTree (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just a minor note, some people do like to name references even when they are only used once. Nothing wrong if you want to do that. Rich Farmbrough, 03:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
- Just a minor note, some people do like to name references even when they are only used once. Nothing wrong if you want to do that. Rich Farmbrough, 03:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
References and Citing
My father was with the 101 Detachment in Burma and his name appears in a book I am trying to write a new article on. I used the back cover summary and the Foreward to describe the book but did not cite to it. I edited and now cited to the back cover and Foreward although not sure that's going to be good enough. Unfortunately, I don't know how else to authenticate it as there is nothing else but the book itself. Below is the link to see how I did the references and help would be appreciated
Christopher Mulder 09:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there Chris. Glad to meet you. I was a bit surprised when you said "..there is nothing else but the book itself". I had a poke about in two of my favourite hunting grounds "Google Books" and "Google Scholar". It seems that quite a few people have used "Behind the Burma Road" as a source text to tell the wider story of events in Burma during WWII - as well as the development of A Typical warfare.
One trick that may help you drill down to sources, is to search for the name by putting it in quotation marks - "Behind the Burma Road". If you just type in the words Behind the Burma Road search engines look for any page which contain those four words. If you put them in "Quotation Marks", then the search engines look for the Exact Phrase. You many find some very useful comments about the book and the story by hunting that way. You can mix it up by also adding the published, the authors name or maybe key words from the book - place names - the names of people mentioned in the book. I spotted one reference which was eye popping "A selection from the most broadly informative books on intelligence...." - listed by the CIA. Last time I looked the CIA were noteworthy. P^)
I also pulled another trick and looked at "Google Images" - and there are lots of images linked to the Book. Some lead to copies of "Round Up" the CBI - forces newspaper from 1943 - and those may prove interesting too. If by any chance you can show links from Round Up to sections of the book it gives a very nice context. It's a hard trick to pull off, but the information from Round Up may help lead to yet further mentions of the book.
One issue I noticed quickly is that the book keeps getting mentioned, and when I went digging I found that many old documents do mention it. The problem is that these old (pre Internet) documents have been scanned and turned into Pdfs and are actually image files and not text files. That means that search engines can't read the actual text. You have to find a reference and follow the bread crumbs - Search engines can't take you right to the source. I often find that by first getting some good quality sources from other places leads to a better and more interesting way to write about the subject. You may be surprised by what you find - that CIA reference was eye popping!
I also happen to know that the book is highly regarded amongst Burma vets in both the USA and UK. It shows how the guys worked together in a nasty war environment and in many ways rank was of no interest. In some ways it's a unique history of events - and I noticed that word "Unique" kept popping up too. The book has been translated into a number of other languages. Now that is telling. All the best and happy hunting. If you need any other help just ask. That's what we're here for.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help. What I meant was I just wanted to provide a short summary of what the book is about which I could not find. So what I did was simply use the back cover and the Foreward, which should obviously be fine since that's directly from the book but was not sure how to do that and did I do it correctly? Do you see what I mean? Also, how would I cite that CIA paper. I found it here: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol8no1/html/v08i1a11p_0001.htm I did some research and found this: https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/faqs/index.html#citations Would this be correct: "Central Intelligence Agency. Public Texts In Intelligence (1963). Retrieved 2012-05-28."
- Christopher Mulder (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Greetings and Welcome to Teahouse! I'm new myself, but I do a lot of work on articles for children's books, so I may be able to help a bit. First off, my understanding is, if you're summarizing the book you don't have to cite the summary, since it's accepted that the info came from the book. But you do cite direct quotes from the book, if you use them. See the Plot section here Beezus and Ramona, for example. (This isn't a perfect article, and technically the info about the illustrators shouldn't be in the lead, but someone else put it there and I left it.) If you quote from the back of the book or the flap you must put it in quotes and cite it. You also have to cite any opinions about the book, and establish notability, which is where the great stuff Media-hound found will be important. I found the following article quite helpful, and though it's for fiction, it might have some ideas you can use, too. Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. Sounds like the book you're working on deserves a great article -- good for you! Don't be afraid to bring any questions here, the people are great. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the help. I know what you are saying, I just don't know how to do it. I actually found the book cited on the CIA website and put that in the article. But not sure what you or Media-hound are saying with regard to "establishing notability". Do I just put some quotes at the bottom? Do you see what I mean. I just wanted to start with just a summary of the book which is all I did, but that got rejected for lack of verified sources, so I did put the back cover in quotes and then also footnoted the Foreward as well--did not quote that because it was of course written in 1963 and if I quoted it, it would not be correct, so I just footnoted it.
- Christopher Mulder (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again, Christopher. The thing is, a new article gets looked at very closely these days, so it's harder to start one than it used to be. Please don't get discouraged, OK? Notability probably causes more problems than just about anything else, and I'm no expert. Basically you need to show that other reliable, verifiable sources have written about the topic, or use it in some way. That's why the CIA reference is so good. (Personal blogs, IMBD, and places like that don't help here.)
- Probably the easiest place to show notability for books and writers is in a section called "Critical reception", or something like that. There you talk about what newspapers, magazines, the gov't, or other books have said about your topic. That proves that it's important enough to deserve an article, which is Notability. You can't use the book itself to prove it's notable, it must be other sources talking about the book. Is this what you needed to know? And feel free to stop by my Talk page any time, if I can help.Tlqk56 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Christopher Mulder I "do" see what you mean. There is a an issue though, and that is using only Primary Sources. With books it tends to be OK as evidently the book is about ... well... the book. P^)
On the other hand the book is not a work of Fiction. It's a history and would benefit from historical contexts. In one way you have provided just a taster - like a first course in a meal. - and what about the main course - and the dessert - and even a few fine chocolates to go with the coffee? What are the most significant chapters in the book? What events and incidents does it address in detail? Has anyone said it's the best book ever written on the subject... and if so when and where? If you can find other things about the book that can be linked to it, you should end up with a page that is a feast for readers. Do you see what I mean? P^)
In one way you are at a disadvantage. The book is important to you and it has a family connection. Being close to a subject can make it hard to write about it clearly. We see that a lot with new editors who come to the Teahouse. Imagine you were at a dinner party and someone asked you about the book. Would you just quote the sleeve jacket ... or is there more to tell, and excite people with?
I went digging in the google news "Archive" section looking for any book reviews from when it was published 1963. Many are pay to view, but the Chicago Tribune had this nugget available. "The Detachment 101, whose guerrilla fighters harassed the Japanese so effectively in Burma, was a cosmopolitan unit -- Americans, Kachin tribesmen who fought magnificently, Burmans, Anglo-Burmans, Rangoon Chinese and British -- and if it was not the most successful guerrilla force we had, surely it had few equals.". They even headed the review "They Made the Jungle Too Hot for Japanese". Now how could that be used to spice up the feast? It's one thing to say what the book is - quite another what "Other" people think of it!... The New York times also said the book "..tells a story of American arms that is little known." Now those are interesting views "About" the book.
Little known and the CIA put it on the reading list as an important book for military personnel to read? How do those views and facts get served up to the reader?
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Christopher Mulder I "do" see what you mean. There is a an issue though, and that is using only Primary Sources. With books it tends to be OK as evidently the book is about ... well... the book. P^)
- Thanks so much to both of you--I have done quite a big of referencing so if you take a look at it now, I think its probably good enough--I've linked it to several sources that discuss it, so we will see how it goes. It is a good authoritative book and should be included in Wikipedia. Ultimately, my goal if it gets published is to link to the names of all of those that served in the detachment. The book as a list of all the names. Here is the link to the most recent edited version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Behind_the_Burma_Road&oldid=494839694
- Christopher Mulder (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there! It's cooking! I just knew that CIA ref would be useful! P^) .... so you have done the entrée and added a main course! How about some delicious dessert and chocolates to go with some coffee? Who has been talking about this book - and what about the press reviews? I can see where you are going now. One word of caution - unless the people named are notable (Yikes), then you may have to dig deeper to find the references! I like a guy with ambition! I also keep wondering at some of the language you are using. Remember, in Wikipedia we report facts. You have put some very important information in a foot note. It may be better in the main text! The recipe may need tweaking - But I still want to see a "Feast"! Those guys deserve no less. We can discuss the ingredients, and if it needs salt or pepper later. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well I tried to go just with facts. I bought that article (it was only $3.95) and referenced some facts from it. Here is the latest: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Behind_the_Burma_Road&oldid=494859629. If I have to take some of that out, that's fine.
- Christopher Mulder (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Well not sure but the "Being Reviewed" box has moved to the top (was on the bottom) above the "Declined" box so I do not know if that means it was declined again or not. I'm guessing its not yet been re-reviewed because I don't see a second "declined" in the page history (just the first) but if so, not anything else I can do at this point I guess but strip it down to no facts essentially and have it just almost as a notation page. Christopher Mulder (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Christopher. Just a minor point, that has been sorta mentioned above. The text on the flap and forward is of course copyright, so if you have copied any of it (I am not clear whether you did) it needs to be either reasonably short, and in quotes, or reworded. All the best. Rich Farmbrough, 04:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
- Christopher, I'm not sure if I just looked at the latest revision or not. But I noticed that "one of the most broadly informative books on intelligence operations and processes available in English" is a direct quote from the CIA website, so it needs to go in quotes, if it isn't already. I think it's a great opening for the article, as the Manual of Style says you should try to establish notability early in the article, and that statement really does that. You could even say something like: Behind the Burma Road is regarded by the CIA as "one..." I don't think anyone would ever bring up notability again after that. :) But of course any time you use someone else's words they need to be in quotes. I find I sometimes copy a source by mistake, myself, when I've been reading a lot on one topic, so I just thought I'd mention it. The book sounds fascinating.Tlqk56 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help Just wondering how you make comments on my talk page? Are you just hitting the "edit" button on the last comment? Christopher Mulder (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Towards the top of each talk page on the right side there's a tab that says "New Section". Click that, and a box pops up with a place for the heading and body of your message.Tlqk56 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Any time you're writing about a book, remember that the book covers and flap copy are not impartial, neutral third-party sources of the sort we love here: they are sales tools, and written as such. Thus, you are well-advised to keep well away from their use unless in the rare case where you are citing what the book copy claimed about the volume itself; and such claims, however meritricious, are seldom notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
assessment of articles
Hello, can any editor wrote an article assess this? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Egeymi. To request assessment of any of your biographical articles, go to Request an Assessment and edit the list, adding your article at the bottom. An editor who is a member of Wikiproject Biography will review your article and usually assign a new Class above stub or unassessed. Most assessors will also add comments on what would be needed to move up to the next level. The highest class that can be assigned in this manner is B. Good article (GA), A and Featured Article (FA) status requires more, starting with a nomination and then a thorough review and comments.
- You can assess new and newly improved articles for others. No special qualification is required to raise a class from stub to Start or B Class. Read the detailed article class criteria and read example(s) of articles in each class. Then go to the same place, Request an Assessment, and choose an article from the list to assess. Assessing someone else's article when you request an assessment of yours is courteous but not required. Changing the class of your own article is considered improper but it not specifically prohibited. Hope this answers your question. DocTree (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have another question. In the talk page of Sevim Tekeli, there is a statement that the article has been rated as a stub class article, but on the article page there is a remark that it is an unassessed article. Can someone explain why there is inconsistency between the pages? ThanksEgeymi (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, Egeymi. The 'Unassessed' is gone now from my viewing the page a minute ago. The inconsistency that you saw may be because the 'Unassessed' was saved in your browser's cache. Sometimes a bot assigns a preliminary assessment based on the length of the article and how many citations are listed. Good editing to you! DocTree (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Web search indexing
Does anyone know how long it takes for google or bing to index a new wiki page? Are wiki pages given some automatic preference in terms of being at the top of search results or is it totally based on clicks? I noticed a certain article was number 1 on bing but only number 7 or 8 on google does this mean bing gives preference or is it just based on clicks? ThanksDounai (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/] 12:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there Dounai - I was wondering what you were referring too, so I had to go digging. I take it you are talking about the China Pabst Blue Ribbon article? I see when you Google for that there are a number of news sources above it. The workings of Google are a closely guarded secret - and a mystery too. I do know from experience that new web content gets ranked lower than existing news content - but over a period of days the news content moves down the page and the specific content rises up to the top. It can some times take a few weeks. Seen the same issues with web based projects I have been involved with in the past. It seems the ranking is Domain Name - News - Reference Content(Wikipedia) - the rest based upon traffic. ... and it differs too between google domains. The wiki page doesn't feature on google.co.uk as Pabst is not a UK brand. All the best! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
No I was talking about Gutter oil the article I just created. Sorry about not listing the site but I didn't want to be too forward..hehe..I already plugged an article once so that was my freebie. But thanks for helping explain..Just strange that Pabst article comes up 1st on Bing. The Gutter oil article doesn't show up yet on either. I'm trying to not be that vain but just curious if anyone will read it or not.Dounai (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there again Dounai . I have been looking again at your question. It does get interesting. First I see that there are over 60,000,000 unique references to Gutter+Oil and over 250,000 for "Gutter Oil" as a unique pharse on Google in English. When you search in Chinese scripts you add at least another 40,000,000 "Unique References". I suspect that Google is also counting translations from Chinese script into English, and as it is such a hot topic in China that is skewing the whole search engine model globally. I have even done a double search combining English and Chinese scripts and that gets a result of about 2500 pages. Ah Ha! I think that your expert diligence in using languages is confusing the search engine bots and making them rank the page lower. It will rise, but there is global resistance that no-one can overcome. Hope that helps.... and you just keep up the excellent work and let's see what the next page does! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help media hound, you sound like a SEO expert! I agree there are just so many stories about gutter oil on the net both in China and in the West that it will be tough and a long wait to get to the top of the list. Oh well, life goes onDounai (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again Dounai. I can confirm from experience that Google generally indexes new WP articles within seconds. For some reason you page is not being put in the position I would expect even when doing "Gutter oil" Wikipedia. So I doubted that it was being indexed at all, and a search for "researching ways to test and identify gutter oil" confirms that it isn't. I presume if a page is somehow missed Google will pick it up at some time in the future. Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
- Search "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_oil" and you will get this page (Teahouse)! Rich Farmbrough, 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
- Search "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_oil" and you will get this page (Teahouse)! Rich Farmbrough, 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
Collapsible Menu Thingies
I keep finding collapsible menus at the bottom of pages - example {{Social issues in India}}.
I also keep finding pages that should have them but don't.
What is the correct name for these wiki elements. I would like to find out more about them and the criteria for using them.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- They're called navboxes and they come in a template, like {{social issues in India}}, which I see you found. You can make them the same was as any other template or box, then transclude it at the bottom of an article related to the contents of the navigation box. Rcsprinter (lecture) 14:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh "Thank" You! Easy when you know the Lingo and what to search for! Much appreciated.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh "Thank" You! Easy when you know the Lingo and what to search for! Much appreciated.
Welcoming new editors
I'm not sure how your project works but I wonder if you could help this new user User:Lakshmi2510. She created an article and another editor immediately Prodded it. I tried removing the Prod tag to allow time to discuss the article with her and then the other editor immediately took the article to AfD. It's probably not an article that would survive an AfD but this does not seem to be a good way to treat a new Wikipedia editor. Do you have a welcome banner that can be added to a page? Dahliarose (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Dahliarose, i just added {{welcome}} and a Teahouse invite. Would suggest familiarizing her with WP:NOTABILITY and finding reliable third party sources to support the article. benzband (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks. I've discussed the article with her on the talk page so I'll wait for her to reply. Dahliarose (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say, best thing to do is move it to the userspace if the article seems notable. The good thing about articles related to schools is that they are exempt from speedy deletion, so even now this article can't be deleted without consensus. --Debastein (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't look as though this school will merit a standalone article, but school articles normally get redirected rather than deleted so if anyone does wish to develop in the future it can always be restored. Even though school articles are supposedly exempt from speedy deletion, there still seem to be a few that turn up as Prods. Dahliarose (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Official press releases as references
Hey All, In my current article I find that many of the facts relating to a career progression can be verified by various press releases by institutions such as universities and granting agencies. I feel as though these fall into the 3rd party, somewhat objective source category. I would very much appreciate your thoughts, especially if you disagree. This my last point to verify before submitting the article. Thanks for you help in advance! Onamir88 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Onamir, welcome to the Teahouse. The use of press releases tends to be frowned upon because anyone can do it, but it doesn't indicate notability just that an organisation felt like saying something. Perhaps what you should be looking for is reporting of those press releases in the press i.e. that someone else is taking an interest in the subject of the press release. You should also steer clear of most blogs, I see you have a reference to jewishsightseeing.com but that is reciting an article from the San Diego Jewish Times, you would be better by citing the newspaper direct.
- Having looked at your draft article I think it reads too much like a résumé with too many bullet pointed lists and not enough prose. And that the lead paragraph refers to an as yet to be published book suggests that the article is trying to promote Lobel not present a neutral picture of her. Sentences like "For more information and access to papers see Lobel's SSRN page" also suggest promotion rather than the more neutral "Lobel is the author or co-author of over 20 published papers".<ref>link to SSRN page</ref>
- Have a look at some of the articles in Category:American legal scholars to see how they are laid out, how they are referenced and what information they do and don't contain. NtheP (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! These are helpful points. One point to note with respect to press releases - it seems like your response confounds verifiability and public interest. If a non-profit organization announces their list of grantees, that is pretty much the best source to verify a statement of grant reception. It tells us nothing about whether the readers care about this particular point. Conversely, if a newspaper reporter thinks a topic is interesting to the readers, she or he may do a very poor job conveying the actual facts... (having been on the interviewee end of things, I have some annacdotes about this, even with careful papers such as the NY Times... :-) ). Thanks again, as I did find all of your comments extremely helpful in improving the article and its tone. Onamir88 (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there Onamir88 - Glad to see you have been working so hard. I was surprised that your work keeps being turned down, but then again I have seen quite a tightening of Wiki standards all round. In many ways It's a good thing. I have been looking at your references and saw that there are a few gaps in the body of work published by Prof Orly Lobel - it's there and "SO" much of it referenced over at Google Scholar - in fact she is so well known and published she has her own User Profile - and that is notable! I would explore where her work has been cited and for what reasons. Her work seems to get cited and quoted often in a number of academic fields - Law and Economics - Behavioral Research - Intellectual Property - Employment Law - Regulatory Theory . By exploring that web you may find some further interesting references. It's hard work - but someone has to do it! ... oh and remember the source does not need to be on the web. Are there any journals - magazines - other none digital sources that have been talking about her and her body of work? They are just as valuable as web content - and possibly even more so! You may find a few leads by exploring http://www.issuu.com . She gets mentioned in magazines and publications they cover. I aint done the reading so I don't know why. Over to you and All the best. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Will do. Onamir88 (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- NtheP - I have been looking for info on using press releases and can find very little. I do agree that press releases can be unreliable and even filled with purple prose. One thing struck me as I was fiddling with my Wiki edit options under User - Preferences - Gadgets. I activated The "ProveIt" gadget, whilst looking for easier referencing and citation tool, and it has a template for "Press Releases". Then I went digging and found the template listed under Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Oh boy! I then went digging under Verifiability where there is a foot note about press releases which points to Self published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Does this indicate that if you use a press release to establish a fact, such as starting a job/taking a position - maybe a person dying and it being announced - maybe someone holding a particular title - then a press release is acceptable? It does seem that press releases can be very valuable in establishing certain facts on a time line. I'm thinking about Onamir88's point on non-profits and other under represented sources/groups. As a Wiki novice me self, I keep wondering if this hound is barking up the wrong trees!
I keep poking about and finding some great things - such as the way to point to references on google scholar {{Google scholar cite|keywords=orly lobel}} which just gives you the link Template:Google scholar cite .. so much nicer than go look it up. (It does say that it should not be used in articles - only on discussion pages). I have to say that I have been exasperated looking for information and have even lookup up "Wikipedia For Dummies" - and of course no page exists. P^O
Does that page "Wikipedia For Dummies" need to be created with a link to the Teahouse, and some other forms of disambiguation? (I'm Only "half" Joking by the way!)
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)- If you are looking for "Wikipedia for dummies", try Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. If you need information about a particular topic, it is always worth typing its name in the search box prefaced by "WP:" or "Help:" - for instance, if you want to know more about use of tables in articles, both Help:Table and WP:Table lead to useful information. JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- John Thanks for the feed back - but I think you missed my use of "Irony". People who are at a loss of where to go in Wiki land would have to know that Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers exists. Maybe that needs to be on a page headed "Wikipedia for dummies" to help direct people using Web Based Irony to find the help they need? I can think of so many expressions of frustration and desperation that new editors could, would and even have used (me included) when looking for information in the wiki Labyrinth. It seems daft to let frustration grow when it's easy to make it work in the favour of Wikipedia. It may even prompt some publishers to write the book. I raised the point over at Host's lounge - talk page. It may be better to feedback there so that this doesn't end up hijacking Onamir88's question and the help on their specific question. Cheers. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
PS - Onamir88 - if you have any observations or suggestions, do join in!
- John Thanks for the feed back - but I think you missed my use of "Irony". People who are at a loss of where to go in Wiki land would have to know that Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers exists. Maybe that needs to be on a page headed "Wikipedia for dummies" to help direct people using Web Based Irony to find the help they need? I can think of so many expressions of frustration and desperation that new editors could, would and even have used (me included) when looking for information in the wiki Labyrinth. It seems daft to let frustration grow when it's easy to make it work in the favour of Wikipedia. It may even prompt some publishers to write the book. I raised the point over at Host's lounge - talk page. It may be better to feedback there so that this doesn't end up hijacking Onamir88's question and the help on their specific question. Cheers. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you are looking for "Wikipedia for dummies", try Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. If you need information about a particular topic, it is always worth typing its name in the search box prefaced by "WP:" or "Help:" - for instance, if you want to know more about use of tables in articles, both Help:Table and WP:Table lead to useful information. JohnCD (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)