→Chronology of this page: new section |
MarciulionisHOF (talk | contribs) →Painting a welcome picture: new section |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
You may want to enter your question using the "Ask a Question" button on the question page. If you would like to ask your question manually, please type it directly underneath the dotted line below. Thanks! - Teahouse Hosts |
You may want to enter your question using the "Ask a Question" button on the question page. If you would like to ask your question manually, please type it directly underneath the dotted line below. Thanks! - Teahouse Hosts |
||
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦--> |
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦--> |
||
==Painting a welcome picture== |
|||
I'm new here but I've been told there are discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict. Initially, I thought this was posted to discourage me from contributing, but now I wonder if this is a necessary concept. "This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarciulionisHOF&diff=623023001&oldid=622484794] |
|||
I'm asking: Do "standards of behavior" include something against the act of [[shaming]]? I've just been painted as a character in [http://beirut.indymedia.org/images/2004/04/1133.png this cartoon] by the unsupported allegation that I cry/chant/siren 'antisemitism' at <insert fish story>. |
|||
'''"you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic (excuse for attack)"''' - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=623552691&oldid=623552357 link] |
|||
Certainly, unsubstantiated slander is the wrong way to welcome new contributors. No wonder this editor (read: gate-keeper) goes on to complain about other editors destroying the way he feels the article should look like. Other than wishing to know what the discretionary sanctions say about this conduct, I wonder if this the first time this editor has done this and is it considered permissible under "standards of behavior"? (I sure hope not) [[User:MarciulionisHOF|MarciulionisHOF]] ([[User talk:MarciulionisHOF|talk]]) 12:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Chronology of this page== |
==Chronology of this page== |
||
The chronology of this page is currently out of order. New posts top ''and'' bottom. Can someone please sort this out? (I can't do large edits at my present location) Best, [[User:W.carter|<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter</em>]]<small>[[User talk:W.carter|'''<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk</em>''']]</small> 11:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
The chronology of this page is currently out of order. New posts top ''and'' bottom. Can someone please sort this out? (I can't do large edits at my present location) Best, [[User:W.carter|<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">w.carter</em>]]<small>[[User talk:W.carter|'''<em style="font-family:Verdana;color:DarkBlue">-Talk</em>''']]</small> 11:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:32, 31 August 2014
Painting a welcome picture
I'm new here but I've been told there are discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict. Initially, I thought this was posted to discourage me from contributing, but now I wonder if this is a necessary concept. "This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies."[1]
I'm asking: Do "standards of behavior" include something against the act of shaming? I've just been painted as a character in this cartoon by the unsupported allegation that I cry/chant/siren 'antisemitism' at <insert fish story>.
"you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic (excuse for attack)" - link
Certainly, unsubstantiated slander is the wrong way to welcome new contributors. No wonder this editor (read: gate-keeper) goes on to complain about other editors destroying the way he feels the article should look like. Other than wishing to know what the discretionary sanctions say about this conduct, I wonder if this the first time this editor has done this and is it considered permissible under "standards of behavior"? (I sure hope not) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Chronology of this page
The chronology of this page is currently out of order. New posts top and bottom. Can someone please sort this out? (I can't do large edits at my present location) Best, w.carter-Talk 11:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Motto
Hi All,
I was at Wiki-mania and listened to an interesting talk on disputes between editors and the problems of recruiting new editors.
Anyway, the talker (sorry can't remember his name) mentioned a Motto that should be adhered to by all editor on Wiki. It went something like this "Regard everyone has having good intent".
Can anyone tell me this exact Motto?
Thanks Alex2121a (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I really need your help...
Hello! I made an article Jessel Mark Magsayo.. it is about a boxer.... actually he doesn't have a title yet.. but he is a professional boxer. what can I do for it not to be deleted? please help me.. this is the link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessel_Mark_Magsayo Graciana2314 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Graciana2314. Please review our notability guideline for boxers. Unless the subject of your article meets that guideline, I am sorry to say that it is likely that the article will be deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Flame of the Forest
I have edited the title "Flame of the Forest" for Butea monosperma . The flower of it really resembles a flame by shape and by colour . The flowers of Delonix regia and Spathodea campanulata do not resemble a flame at all . Please answer me why you can not accept my editing . Thanks !
- Kmobio - your edit to the Flame of the Forest disambiguation page was to remove all the other links to alternate meanings of "Flame of the Forest". There is plenty of well-documented evidence that the name is used at times for all of those different meanings, regardless of your personal opinion about how appropriate (or otherwise) they are. Stating that your edits are "the true knowledge" does not take carry the same weight in Wikipedia as evidence and references. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
How do I delete my Wikipedia user account?
How do I delete my Wikipedia user account? LouiseLevergneux (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- You can go to WP:RTV for instructions to vanish. TranquilHope (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Footballbox collapsible
Hello. Im mostly creating and editing football articles. I create some of them in my mother language - bulgarian. The problem is there are quite inaccurate stuff about this template. For example, if someone scored an own goal you write {goal|minute|o.g.}. In bulgarian there aren't any template like this. There are many templates missing. My question is can I create them and how? IvanMilkov (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, IvanMilkov. We only have information about editing English Wikipedia here. Each language Wikipedia is administered separately. I suggest that you contact an administrator or experienced editor on Bulgarian Wikipedia regarding how new templates are implemented there. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
unregistered user 86.172.40.147
Hi I was the person asking about Valid TV sources on british programmes downthread. After posing the question, a fellow editor and someon here advised me to write the problem on the Through the Keyhole talk page, which I did, however I don't know if anyone will answer. anyhow soon after I had posted the question, I noticed that 86.172.40.147 had started enforcing his rein on various British programme pages eliminating sources and episode guides citing WP:NOTSTATS and WP:OVERKILL, but, he has not only been targeting game shows, but documentary series and travel series and the like. I don't know what programmes WP:NOTSTATS entails. This user however, is now constantly deleting informations from various pages nightly and has gone on to many pages in the space of a few days and will continue to do so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.172.40.147). I did talk to a few of my British editor friends on the BBC side and they tell me that Press Office spoilers are fine as well as Radio Times are valid. (I've been using them for years), but 86.172.40.147 is totally against this. Even AldezD did not have problem with my use of ITV sources.
If this user is going to continue reverting and deleting program pages on a nightly basis, my enthusiasm for participating on Wikipedia will diminish for fear of getting chided and reverted by this user. I don't think there is any way that we can reason with him. He's already gotten warned on his talk page. I am thinking of starting a dispute against this user, but as he is unregistered, perhaps nothing will happen. Can anybody please help? 173.179.185.186 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, @173.179.185.186:, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you've found the wrong forum for this kind of problem. You probably want to try someplace like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard instead. Hope you are able to work through the issue amicably. --Jayron32 20:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Policy question: Different articles for same topic differentiated by tense
Over the past few months in a few different editing discussions related to possible merges and deletions I've seen a general issue come up several times and I was wondering if there are any Wiki policies related to it. The question is this: in general does it make sense to have different articles for a concept and the discipline that forms the basis for that concept? So for some specific examples there is currently an article for the concept meme and for memetics or for the concept frame and frame language and for the computer science concept object and object-oriented programming. To me this makes no sense. The concept meme can't be discussed without discussing memetics and the same for those two computer science examples. However, it seems to happen a lot and I was wondering if there is any official policy? MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, @MadScientistX11:, and thanks for stopping by! I don't know of any official policy. If a specific instance of this is bothering you, you can begin a merge discussion on the talk page of one of the articles you think need to be merged, you can read here for how to do that. In general, however, it is important to note that Wikipedia articles can be too long, and sometimes these sets of articles are intentionally split up to prevent one of them from being too long. See Wikipedia:Article size for an overview. Which is not to say that is the case in EVERY example you can find. But it could be with some; sometimes the split into two related topics is necessary for length or other considerations, sometimes it is instead more appropriate to merge the articles. It is different in every case, and each case should be taken on its own terms on a case-by-case basis. I hope this helps! --Jayron32 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Help improving an article
Hi everyone.
Full disclosure: I'm being paid to edit a page. I would like to remove the boxes at the top of the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rutka, regarding neutral point of view and neutrality.
Do I need to contact the person who flagged the page? Or are there other ways to remove these items? I'm not sure I'm the best person to make these changes.
I'd appreciate any advice.
Thanks! Varblues69 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Varblues69, in doing a quick read-through, I find nothing that appears to be non-neutral; however, I'm not exceptionally familiar with the norms for articles on people working in medicine. JamesBWatson was the last editor to make a major change, so I'll leave a note with him to see if he agrees. If you intend on adding information to the page, do note that you cannot add any material that appears to be promotional. You might like to have a conversation with CorporateM about how to add information to an article neutrally, despite the fact that you are being paid. Ryan Vesey 00:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Varblues69. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest here. Please do so on your user page as well. The tags on that article are the result of extensive editing by Deptofsurgery, an account which has been blocked for promotional editing to this and related articles. Do you have any connection to that blocked account? I recommend against removing these tags, until all concerns about promotional editing of this article have been resolved. Since you are a new editor and are paid to edit this article, you are in a very poor position to evaluate whether or not these tags are appropriate. Discuss with other editors instead. By the way, I wikilinked and copy edited the article a bit, to show good faith. I expect no paycheck for my work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed one of the two templates as there do not appear to be any outstanding issues with the article. Varblues69 might help us to remove the other by suggesting independent third party sources on the talk page of the article, Talk:James Rutka. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Proper Wikipedia articles are representative of what's beens said about the subject in credible, independent sources, however the current article relies exclusively on primary sources, such as press releases and bio pages. Our policies about living people require that we remove poorly-sourced information immediately, without discussion, which means currently most of the article needs to be deleted. Additionally, in order to qualify for an article he must be the subject of multiple, credible, independent sources that cover him in-depth - otherwise we just don't have enough quality source material to write it. It may be a good AfD candidate.
- Before you accept a job for pay you need to verify whether you can ethically obtain the client's desired outcome in compliance with Wikipedia's rules. One lesson every paid editor learns eventually is how to be selective about which jobs you accept. If you are being paid to write an article, but Wikipedia's rules dictate the article be deleted, there is no way to resolve that conflict of interest. So I would start by seeing if you can find multiple, credible, independent sources such as press articles or other profiles. CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Seemingly Arbitrary Editing
I edited this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians
There were several problems:
1. Notable members of this community (it's an ethnic group) are not mentioned- such as supreme court justices, and chief ministers, and central government ministers. 2. Unknown and unimportant minor celebrities are listed. 3. None of it is cited as often is difficult in list pages. 4. Isn't structured well.
A more experienced editor, with mysterious motives decided to revert my version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=622563030
He argued that not everyone listed was given citations.
This is absurd because the new one had as many citations as the old one if not more. Many of the people I added have wikipedia entries which show that they are members of this ethnic group. The new version in all ways was better organised and more encyclopedic than the old version.
Further many of the people listed are famous and are well-known to be from this particular ethnic group.
Why this is absurd:
-A more organised article was reverted to an absurd one. - Instead of improving the list by providing citations etc. it was blanket reverted. - The burden of citations is far excessive. I am not sure any other list page has the level of citations or evidence that the editor demands.
Since I am new to wikipedia editing, I would like to ask what can I do regarding this case?
I am persuaded my contribution was a positive one, and if this is the nature of editing in wikipediawho wish to destroy articles using pretexts than constructively improving them,then I susppose I have reason to leave this community. What should one do?
Jutsis (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed by looking at the history of this article the same user Sitush has done the same thing before: he has reverted a much more decent list to an absurd useless one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=589127793
It seems to me that this editor has an axe to grind regarding this page, since there are many lists on wikipedia which doesn't have citations for every entry.
Further the same user has edited another related list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Christians
Jutsis (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Jutsis. Welcome to the Teahouse. Please do not presume that a difference of opinion over content is vandalism. It is a failure to assume good faith and assuming good faith is important to this community.
- Wikipedia is not a directory of people in general and only people with their own Wikipedia article should be listed as notable. The burden of adding reliable sources lies with the person adding material. It is not reasonable to expect others to do it. If you have further queries about editing that page you should raise them on the talk page for that article.Charles (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Jutsis. The editor you have criticized, Sitush, is one of our most respected editors in the highly contentious area of the castes and ethnic groups of India. Your first step is to discuss the matter with Sitush, in a friendly, collaborative fashion, not in a confrontational way. If approached this way, I am confident that Sitush will explain his reasoning. By the way, you should never, ever use the word "vandalism" in this way. That word refers to deliberate, unambiguous efforts to damage the encyclopedia. Sitush is not a vandal. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Jutsis, I am sorry if I didn't not make my reasoning clear. Wikipedia requires that almost everything we say in an article is verifiable by reference to reliable sources, which is why citations are necessary. In the case of articles that are biographies of living people (we often call these "BLPs"), when the statement being made is particularly personal in nature - religious belief, sexuality, caste affiliation, etc - the consensus of the community is that the reliable source(s) must demonstrate that the person being written about self-identifies with the claim. A newspaper might say that a famous actor is a Hindu, for example, but unless the newspaper is quoting the actor it will almost certainly not be acceptable as a source for the statement on Wikipedia; similarly, although many newspapers have mentioned the caste of Amitabh Bachchan, we know from interviews with him that he rejects the very idea of caste and refuses to be identified with one.
- The problem with your contributions, and with those of many other people who add names to India-related caste and religious lists, is that they didn't even satisfy the general verifiability requirement, let alone the more stringent BLP one. I understand that you meant well but you simply cannot do this, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not understand why list of Indian groups need to have a more stringent criteria than nearly every other page of lists of people other groups such as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_European_Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_West_European_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Americans
and many many others.
By above criteria most of the above lists and many many others should be deleted completely. This all seems very arbitrary and dubiously so. The reason why I edited the St Thomas Christian list was because I thought such lists were of some value.
Anyway I intent to create a new page of something of the nature: List of prominent people of Kerala with christian heritage or ancestry, and by-pass self-identification and other problems. Jutsis (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why not fix the problems that you say exist in those other articles? I can assure you that the India stuff follows policy, even if some other lists may not. I'd also advise you against creating the new page that you propose: not only would it fail to avoid the issues as you hope but it would probably fall foul of WP:POINT and might well just end up being pruned of poor content and then merged. As with categories, we don't create lists for just any old thing, although I can't remember what bit of policy says this - perhaps @Cullen328: can. If you must have a go, I suggest that you draft something in your WP:Sandbox first or, perhaps better, use our Articles for Creation process. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
wiki ambassadors for classes
Hello, My campus does not have a wiki ambassador. I am wondering if there were a way to have someone join us virtually? Or how does one go about recruiting for one? MarlaJaksch (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- @MarlaJaksch: Hi Marla, thanks for your question. There is a list of Online Ambassadors here, if you don't have a Wikipedia editor who can help you on your campus. Also, it might be helpful to reference this page for educators on getting started with the Wikipedia Education Program. Let me know if you have any other questions! I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
adding biographical information to an existing article
I have written a biography for a deceased colleague and would like to ad it to the short existing story.Andytrusty (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are we speaking of User:Andytrusty/sandbox? I've placed a template on it which will allow you to submit it for review. Before you do that please add references for the facts you assert in the draft. We require references from significant coverage about him, and independent of him, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Reading WP:REFB and WP:CITE will help you a great deal Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Andytrusty and welcome to the Teahouse. You should probably look at some other biographies of artists and see how they are written. For example you can look at Will Barnet, Edwin Austin Abbey or Esteban Vicente. There are many more to draw inspiration from here. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Resubmit article
Hi there,
I receievd a message from an editor saying that my edits could not be merged with my old piece. SHould I just resubmit the whole thing ?
Cmchatton (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at your talk page I am not at all sure what you are asking. May I suggest that your first port of call is the editor who said this to you, and see what they say? Nothing ion WIkipedia is urgent, so, if they are the busy one on your talk page, you may wait for them to reply. Fiddle Faddle 19:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Welcome back to The Teahouse, Cmchatton. This is apparently about this Teahouse topic. Grand'mere Eugene suggested a history merge, or what I assume was a history merge, of Youngme Moon and User:Cmchatton. I don't see why Cmchatton couldn't just copy and paste edits to the user page into the mainspace article. Incidentally, it has been submitted, which is surprising. Someone moved it "to get it out of limbo" according to the edit summary, when it wasn't really ready. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem with infobox
I have added more details about Rosi Sextons accomplishments in music and in mathematics, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosi_Sexton The original version concentrated entirely on martial arts and so gave an unbalanced view. I hope to add some pictures once I've checked copyright.
I have a problem with the Infobox though. It's labelled {{Infobox martial artist
My attempts to add fields for her degrees do not seem to have worked, I have hunted through the online help to find a list of the sort of infobox specifications that are available, but without success.
My own, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Colquhoun, is labelled {{Infobox scientist
But with a person who has reached a high level in disparate fields, no single type of infobox is likely to suffice
Can someone help please?
David Colquhoun (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello David, you can always use the more general {{Infobox person}}. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
My first contribution was tagged for fast deletion, but it's my fault
I wrote an article about an important band from Spain, but the page was poorly written and bad implemented from my part and Wikipedia does not consider that band notable; when they were pioneers of an entire music style in a larga country such as Spain.
I want to learn more and become a good wikipedian!
I hope you are willing to help me in the future.
Many contributions are coming!
Thanks. Inmanuel Jünger 15:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhorer (talk • contribs)
- Thanks so much for the responses.
I greatly appreciate the research and it has helped me tremendously. I will try to put in a reference for all the facts I show there.
2602:306:3793:9660:948C:BFF9:9D84:1CD (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Abhorer and welcome to The Teahouse. If the band really did pioneer an entire music style as you say, there must be a reliable source that says so. If you follow the advice given on your talk page, it may still be possible to resubmit the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Abhorer and Vchimpanzee: Technically, pioneering a music style is a legitimate claim of importance, and thus this article isn't eligible for speedy deletion, source or no. However, to convince people of the band's notability (Wikipedia shorthand for being discussed by some form of credible source), a source has to be found and added. Otherwise, the article might still get deleted at Articles for Deletion, a seven-day debate over whether any given article is notable. (In this case the article has already been deleted, though I personally don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion) --Jakob (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
USING CITATION TEMPLATE
Please tell me what is wrong with the following citation. Thanks
In the 20th century, philosophers and the general public came to apply the name “instrumentalism” to one of a group of modern schools, movements, or doctrines, including pragmatism, logical positivism, operationalism, experimentalism, and behaviorism.[1] {{cite book}}
: Empty citation (help)</ref>
[2] TBR-qed (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC) + cited the right way by w.carter
- It lacks parameter names. Try again, above the item {{Reflist talk}}, with parameter names. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Clicking the help link reveals Help:CS1_errors#empty_citation which explains with precision what yo need to do. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
@TBR-qed:You simply forgot to specify what is what. The order has nothing to do with it, the specification for the parameter is the key. The ref should be written like this:
<ref>{{cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl |title=Conjectures and Refutations |date=1965 |pages=4-5}}</ref> . And you can't place two books in the same ref. You have to make two separate refs for them. Clearer? Best, w.carter-Talk 20:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
References
wrong picture and definition of AEROTRIM
INVENTED IN 1970 AEROTRIM IS AN ELECTRIC TRIM TAB CONTROL SYSTEM AND WING LEVELER FOR GENERAL AND STILL NOW AVIATION, PATENTED AND TRADEMARKED, WIKIPEDIA SHOWS A PICTURE OF A GYROSCOPE, INCORRECT , THE FAA WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CORRECT PICTURE AND EXPLAINATION OF THE AEROTRIM TRIM TAB CONTROL DEVICE, HOW TO RIGHT THIS WRONG?108.132.42.221 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Provided you have references that show the new information, simply edit the article, making the corrections you seek, and adding the references. If the matter is contentious please build consensus on the article talk page first.
- As a matter of common courtesy, please do not type in all capitals. It is hard to read and is a breach of netiquette. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Foreign language references
Is there a policy restricting foreign language references from being used in articles? I ask because I would like to expand articles on Quakerism in Sweden and Germany, and obviously the sources available for that are mostly available in Swedish and German. --FSB95 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello FSB95 and welcome to the Teahouse. It is quite ok to use foreign language references in an article. It is always best if you add two more parts, a |trans_title= | and a |language= |, to the ref where you make an English translation of the title and a note that the text is in Swedish or German. You can check out a draft I'm working on to see how this is done. Best w.carter-Talk 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Uploading pictures
In the 3 articles I have made, which are Dusicyon avus, Dusicyon cultridens and Fuegian dog, I have wanted to add pictures. I know I have to draw the pictures myself and upload them, but when I do, they get deleted as they are considered "childish" and "unencyclopedic". Anyway, I have done the best I can to draw the pictures. What must I do? The pictures are childish because I am a child.
The first version of a drawing of Dusicyon cultridens, which I drew and called a "reconstruction", was deleted because it was "by no means of one". Then I uploaded the same picture, called it a drawing, and positioned the camera so the picture was straighter. That picture got deleted.
Then I drew a picture of a Fuegian dog, based on the detail that it resembled a fox, and I tried to make the picture as lifelike as possible. I hope that picture didn't get deleted. WHAT EXACTLY MUST I DO? Remember, I am only a child, so my pictures always come out childish.Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- You don't have to draw the pictures yourself. You just need to find a picture online that will allow the picture to be used for other things.Mirror Freak 12:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Scottishwildcat12. I'm not sure where you are hearing that they were deleted for being "childish." The image that you uploaded for use in the first article you note was deleted because it was a copyright violation. If you could link to the names of some specific images, perhaps we can help you... --Jayron32 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Jayron32, I believe Scottishwildcat12 is referring to these images. Scottishwildcat12, while commendable that you took the time to draw these images, I don't think that we can use them in the article, what these articles need is taxonomic sketches done by professionals who have seen specimens. Because these animals are extinct (so taking a free photo is impossible), we can probably claim fair use on a copyrighted image from a book or website. This is a little tricky to get right. Scottishwildcat12, could you point us towards a book or (even better) a website with sketches of what professional biologists think these animals looked like when they were alive? --LukeSurl t c 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Scottishwildcat12, articles do not need pictures. For articles about extinct animals no-one really expects a picture. I suggest you don't worry about pictures for these articles. You're doing good work with the text! Cheers --LukeSurl t c 08:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Adding Photos
I just joined Wikipedia two days ago and as per the requirements I was not qualified to upload a photo to the English Wikipedia. I have been editing a biography which contains an old picture and which requires an update. I tried uploading the file to Wikimedia Commons but upon pasting the code I obtained from Wikimedia Commons in the Infobox. I couldn't see the image on preview. Can someone help me with this? Rajeshlangley (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which image are you trying to place into which infobox on which article? Generally when placing images into an infobox, you just enter the filename and not any square brackets or other coding that is necessary to place an image in a regular picture box. --LukeSurl t c 11:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Rajeshlangley: Hi Rajeshlangley. Is this about Swini Khara and the photo you posted at the Commons from hamaraphotos.com that you asked to be undeleted? If so, and looking at your comment on your talk page there, I think you may possibly have a confusion about public posting of a photograph, versus the public domain. The public posting of an image does not place it into the public domain. The photographs I see of her at that website have no copyright information, and in that absence we assume they are non-free copyrighted. In order to determine otherwise, we need an affirmative notice (or release) that is verifiably from the copyright owner, of the free copyright license or public domain status. The image currently in the article may be a few years out of date, but it is a free image. We generally can't use images of living persons at all unless they are free images. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Why can't I add photos?
When I first registered to Wikipedia I could add photos, but then all of a sudden I couldn't. They told me that I need permission to add photos, and I can only do that when I'm an auto-confirmed user. But I've been 4 days registered to wiki and have done a lot more than 10 edits, but I still can't add photos. Can someone help me? Thanks in advance. Amazingfeeling (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Amazingfeeling, your account was only created on 26 August so it's not four days old yet, that period will expire tomorrow so you'll just have to be patient for another day. Nthep (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- If the photos you want to add are freely-licensed (or you own them and wish to release them under a free license), you can add them to Wikimedia commons straight away. A benefit of this is that your photos can then be used on any Wikipedia, not just the English-language one. --LukeSurl t c 09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Is it allowed that editors of another page decide on merging it with a page I've been working on
It happened that supporters of a competitors page voted on merging their page with the one I worked on and just merged it which means that the page is redirected to their page which gives a one-sided view of the topic. Is that good practice / allowed? What can I do? I want to offer a balanced view where all sides are represented. ElDelRey1 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- There should be no "competitors" on Wikipedia. We are all working collaboratively on this project, and that means that no-one owns a page, even if they have done most of the editing of it. We also try not to have duplication of content - it is a bad idea to have multiple articles on the same topic expressing different points-of-view. In this situation, I would suggest writing on the talk page of the article in question a detailed outline, including references, of what you feel is missing from the article as it currently stands. Hopefully other editors will join in the discussion and you can work together to improve the article. If you're feeling bold, you can make the edits you feel the article needs immediately, then begin a said talk page discussion if your edits are challenged. --LukeSurl t c 09:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright Issue for images uploaded.
How can I gain the license for each photos upload in Wiki which I have taken from the online sources and the person responsible for the photos is unknown. Rameshaviboy (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @Rameshaviboy: Welcome to the Teahouse! Copyright law can get complicated, but to put it as short as I can: if you can't find the copyright owner to contact them, you really can't. Only the copyright owner of a work can choose the license that their work is released under. Not knowing the original author of a work is not enough to justify using the image at-will.
- Now, there are other factors that might be involved. For example, works in the United States are typically released into the public domain 70 years after the death of the author. I won't be getting into the specifics of these cases, but if you have any more questions or want to comment what photo you're trying to have freely licensed, we'll be happy to help. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Rameshaviboy: Expanding on SuperHamster's useful answer above, for specific images you can also ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 08:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Citing the same reference twice.
I know how to use the < ref > < /ref > function but how do I cite the same source a second time in the same article? AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can help, I think, @AmandaWhyte99:. In the first ref tag the FIRST time you want to use the reference, do this: <ref name = XXXX> and replace XXXX with some name that you will use to identify the source. Then the SECOND time you want to use the reference, use just this one tag (not both tags, but just this one): <ref name = XXXX/> and don't forget the slash. That will recall the reference from the first time, when you gave it a name. You can then use the reference twice, or as many times as you need. You can find more help at Help:Referencing for beginners, and page down to the section titled "Same reference used more than once" I hope this was helpful! --Jayron32 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, AmandaWhyte99. You get two answers! That's a great question, and here's a simplified answer. You give the reference a name, and fully cite it just once. So instead of the original ref tag, you use a slightly longer tag in this format: <ref name=example>. You can substitute any memory hint for "example", like the author surname or a key word in the book title. This isn't seen by readers. When you cite the reference a second or subsequent time, you use a single tag: <ref name=example/>. Please note the slash at the end. The reference will appear once, with letters "a,b,c,d . . ." keyed to each usage. Please refer to WP:REFNAME for complete details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yay, it worked.
AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
How to request protection of an article ?
The Pakistan (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, @The Pakistan:, and welcome to The Teahouse. Protection is only undertaken for very serious problems which cannot be stopped by other means. You should probably familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's protection policy first. The page is rather long, but you can peruse it at Wikipedia:Protection policy. In shortest possible terms, it defines when protection is appropriate, which ultimately boils down to when we cannot stop disruption of an article using other means. We will try to do literally anything else first, because protection flies in the face of Wikipedia's #1 core value: that we are an open community where anyone is allowed to contribute in good faith. However, if you must request protection of an article, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It can be a bit hard for new users to navigate that page; I am an administrator, as are several other people who spend time answering questions at The Teahouse. If you let us know what article is giving you trouble, we can also look into it. Or you can make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. It's up to you. Good luck, and happy editing! --Jayron32 00:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Link rot template
I see this template quite a lot but it doesn't make much sense; it says an article may be threatened by link rot because it contains bare urls for citations, but link rot happens to any link, whether it's a bare url or a properly constructed citation. I may be in the wrong place to make this comment; if so someone please tell me where to go (!) Jodosma (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The explanation is probably on the template in a link. The idea is that, with more info than a bare link, when the link dies as it will, diligent editors can probably find it in an archive. Thus tools such as WP:REFLINKS are useful to "cure" linkrot. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Think of it this way: A dead URL is useless, if that's all the information we have. However, even the full title of a newspaper or magazine article is very useful in finding a copy of the article at another location. Add the name of the publication, the author and the date, and it becomes increasingly easy to verify by different techniques. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps the template should say that bare urls make it difficult to fix problems caused by link rot. Jodosma (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- It leads you directly to Wikipedia:Link rot. The link is in plain sight. Fiddle Faddle 09:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps the template should say that bare urls make it difficult to fix problems caused by link rot. Jodosma (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Think of it this way: A dead URL is useless, if that's all the information we have. However, even the full title of a newspaper or magazine article is very useful in finding a copy of the article at another location. Add the name of the publication, the author and the date, and it becomes increasingly easy to verify by different techniques. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Creation of a biography
Hi: I am new to Wiki. I want to write a biography of my father. Most of the information came from his own autobiography that has never been published, Chinese Wiki and other published source. I have many questions:
1) Does it make it official given my relationship to the subject? 2) I have been writing in the sandbox. When I am ready, do I just hit the button for review? 3) I looked at other articles and I see an introduction, then a table of content. Where do I find the table of content box and how do I add headings to the paragraphs.
Thanks very much for your help.
Dxchow (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Dxchow and welcome to the Teahouse. From reading your Sandbox article, while I have no doubt that you believe your father to be be worthy of a Wikipedia article, there are some criteria that will need to be satisfied before he can be considered. First off, you need to provide some references from independent, third party sources that support your assertions. This guide will explain more. You also have an obvious conflict of interest given your relationship with the proposed article's topic so you should read about that too. Good luck! Philg88 ♦talk 20:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi from me too, Dxchow. I had a look at your draft in User:Dxchow/sandbox and did a bit of preliminary research. From what I've seen, he would certainly quality for an article. But you need to back up your assertions with references. I've added a couple to get you started, but there are a lot more sources out there for you to use. See [2], [3], and [4]. I've also formatted it for you so you can see how it's done. You might also want to get some advice from the members of WikiProject China, particularly for the English transliteration of his name and his publications. The Table of Contents box will appear automatically once the article has a minimum of four sections. To add a new section heading put == on each side of the heading title, e.g. ==Biography==. When you're ready, just hit the button for review. It may take a while for it to be reviewed. It might not pass right away, but you'll get some helpful suggestions, and I'm sure you'll eventually get there. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Acceptable references for film and music articles
Are IMDb and Discogs acceptable sources for film and album articles? Iirc, both of these sites are moderated by experts but also accept user contributions. Also, neither of these sites have references, so in the cases that those sites are the most detailed sources for a potential article, I can't find a primary source or a more reputable secondary source to confirm that the information is correct. ozhu (talk·contribs) 16:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Ozhu and welcome to the teahouse! IMDb is not considered a reliable resource because its contents are user submitted and Discogs is also not deemed a reliable source. You should have a read of the rest of that second page for information on other sources for musical topics, and this page for film topics. :) Sam Walton (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Truth and Wikipedia
Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*? Green Mountain 12:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Green Mountain: Welcome to the Teahouse. Most content in articles is supported by references to other websites or offline documents such as books. By clicking on the blue number in brackets and superscript next to any given statement, you'll be shown the reference that is the source for the statement. Hope that helps. --Jakob (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you see "facts" that aren't referenced in the above way, but you think they should be, add the code {{cn}} to add in Wikipedia's famous [citation needed] tag. --LukeSurl t c 16:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- There was a study done that showed that wiki is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica that is disputed, but overall I would say its largely believable. Think about it: these articles are constantly combed over by experienced people who fact check and correct. They are essentially (overall) peer reviewed on a regular basis. Tribute911 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't help but feel harassed
I've recently had a few content based arguments with an editor and all of a sudden my page is filled with harassment and intimidation. Fascist behavior. What is the recommended way to prevent this project from becoming a hub for such conduct where editors of opposing political views don't collude to imprison their opposition? As of now, I feel like someone marked me as a target. Not a good experience. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, MarciulionisHOF. I read through the discussion on your Talk page, and the Arbitration Committee discussion it refers to here, and honestly I think this is case of communication mix-up. I am sorry that you feel harassed, but I doubt that was the original editor's intent. They sent you the standard notice that is sent to all editors working on those pages, to let you know how sensitive they are and that more care may be required than normal - the notice is exactly as the Arbitration Committee decided, and it comes from the template at template:Ds/alert. It was not intended to imply that you (or any other editor) had done anything wrong, nor to impose any one view. What to do about it; I can't think of anything better to suggest than adopting the Committee's recommendation: "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary." --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Before this, said editor accused (and continues to) accuse me of foruming... whatever that means, I don't think he read the policy properly. Adding that he posted it as a prerequisite to starting an investigation. Having another friend pop out of nowhere with links to where editors get side-blinded and banned... your suggestion might be fine if I was naive. Seeing that I no longer am (with the link to editors being banned) -- my concern on how the project handles cases of political assassination is pertinent. Has this been handled by the project in the past? Is there a guideline to find editors who participate in witch-hunting on political opponents and removing them from making editing into a fascist-rule ("don't say it!, don't even think it!") style experience? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- To re-iterate, this is all standard procedure and looking at the discussion nobody concerned has anything to apologize for. The wording regarding WP:AE and "investigations" was somewhat problematic, so let me explain. Unsurprisingly, this topic is extremely sensitive and this presents difficulties when working on an international collaborative project. Wikipedia has found it beneficial to set up special rules and guidelines regarding this topic to try and help everyone. Because these rules are different from normal articles, it is proper to alert every editor who shows interest in this topic about the special circumstances, irrespective of any perspective on the topic. This is the reason you were alerted in the first place. The alert and linked information is there to try and prevent the confrontations and edit-battling that these articles are prone to. --LukeSurl t c 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Dude, as much as I want to yell at you I wont. Obviously, you didn't read the notice carefully. The editor also said that it is policy for users who edit in that category to be sensitive. And don't call Wikipedia Fascist. You clearly just wanted to make a big issue out of nothing.Mirror Freak 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a wonderful idea. However, fascist behavior can occur even within progressive societies. Even on all-mighty Wikipedia, there can be groups who play games and manipulate the system. It is a good question to ask: how the project handles cases of political assassination. Has this been handled by the project in the past? Is there a guideline to find editors who participate in witch-hunting on political opponents? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) - fix horrible typo MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @MarciulionisHOF: I wonder, would you mind very much taking a pause and reading the initial dialogue on your talk page again. Here is what I get out of it:
- Standard warning arrives as it does for everyone who edits in that highly sensitive area. It says "This is a sensitive area, tread lightly" pretty much, but it tells you what will happen if you wear hobnail boots.
- You ask, reasonably, "What does this mean?" in your own words, of course. And who would not ask?
- You get a pleasant reply. Seriously, do look at it again. It is sufficient information for most folk, really.
- At this point you seem to misunderstand. It's fine that you do, but just go back and look again at these three dialogue items. This is seriously not a big deal. There are no fascists, no-one is silencing anyone, those for one side or the other get to edit the articles in this area, but Wikipedia wars are averted. Please just look again, with an open mind, and without feeling upset. No-one meant to upset you, no-one has singled you out for anything. If I edit in that area I'll get a notice too. Fiddle Faddle 19:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @MarciulionisHOF: I wonder, would you mind very much taking a pause and reading the initial dialogue on your talk page again. Here is what I get out of it:
- I am on the record here for saying that letting editors set the stage for an investigation on someone they are in disagreement with is a bad idea. I've explained what world this modus operandi comes from. It would be smarter to seek solutions based in other, less corrupt systems. Only time will tell if such behavior is innocuous or advanced chess play. "When I asked Fischer why he had not played a certain move in our game, he replied: 'Well, you laughed when I wrote it down'." (Tal) 23:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarciulionisHOF (talk • contribs)
- You seem to want to make a point. Unfortunately, while making whatever point you are making, you seem also to be unable to listen. There is no problem here save one of your own invention. People have tried in many different ways to explain this to you, but you still seem unable to take the information on board.
- No-one is in dispute with you. There are no sanctions heading your way.
- Let me repeat that
- No-one is in dispute with you. There are no sanctions heading your way.
- You have simply allowed a situation that was entirely simple to become embroiled in some convoluted logic of your own. Go back and actually read the words that were written, not the ones that seem to be dancing in front of your eyes. You do not have to admit you were wrong in public, but you do need to do so in private.
- "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses" Fiddle Faddle 08:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- To try and clarify the "investigations" thing, as well as informing editors of the special rules regarding them, the presence of that template means that editors cannot claim ignorance of the rules if they violate them. This does not mean you were singled out as this notification is intended to be given to everyone who edits in this topic, and (as has been said repeatedly above) it does not mean anyone is in dispute with you, nor does it mean any sanctions are heading your way. If you come across someone editing in this topic who has not yet received this notification you are positively encouraged to post a copy of the notification on their talk page. The code to do so is
{{subst:alert|a-i}}
. --LukeSurl t c 08:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)- At least three disputes exist on record prior to the posting of the "welcome template". Here's an infuriating example. Repeated clarifications that the action "is a required step" are intentional, otherwise it would not have been written twice. Let's not act as if no one ever tried to chess-play the system and get political opposition into trouble, I've seen two examples already (a "sock" and some disturbing clan mentality). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- To try and clarify the "investigations" thing, as well as informing editors of the special rules regarding them, the presence of that template means that editors cannot claim ignorance of the rules if they violate them. This does not mean you were singled out as this notification is intended to be given to everyone who edits in this topic, and (as has been said repeatedly above) it does not mean anyone is in dispute with you, nor does it mean any sanctions are heading your way. If you come across someone editing in this topic who has not yet received this notification you are positively encouraged to post a copy of the notification on their talk page. The code to do so is
- @Timtrent:, I appreciate your good efforts and will try to keep good faith. That said, can we at least agree that there was at least one dispute (see link in my previous post) before the template was posted on my page? Perhaps there is room to make a clarification on this template on situations where it is uncivil to post it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- @MarciulionisHOF: I will concede that you believe that there was sufficient dispute that you feel aggrieved that the template was applied, and thus that your perception is your reality over the cause of the application. Equally I believe the other guy, too (I neither recall nor care who placed t). I will share with you my belief that this template is capable of being misunderstood, and I can see, certainly, that it has been mis-received at least once, in your own case. There is thus scope for rewording. A diligent attempt to engage editors on that template's talk page with quiet, calm suggestions ought to bear fruit. The thing is, I don't feel strongly enough for or against it to contribute to such a discussion. The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. Everything else is just background noise to show that other people are present and have opinions on us that they wish to share. It is time to step away form the template, to put it behind you as an amusing incident that is best forgotten. I have only posted this reply because you asked. Enough time has been expended on this by everyone. We could have accepted 20 drafts at WP:AFC while discussing this. Now, further questions or not from you, from me they will go unanswered, but with my good wishes for you to put this behind you. I only contributed because I saw you were hurting yourself and hoped I could help you to stop. Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Timtrent:, I appreciate your good efforts and will try to keep good faith. That said, can we at least agree that there was at least one dispute (see link in my previous post) before the template was posted on my page? Perhaps there is room to make a clarification on this template on situations where it is uncivil to post it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
want to know more how to write article and how to upload images
want to know more how to write article and how to upload images(Sachinrpatil (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Sachinrpatil, welcome to the Tea House. Have you read Wikipedia:Your first article? It has a useful introduction to what you need to know before starting an article. It is best to wait until an article is created and accepted before trying to add images to it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Taxobox template format problem
I added a Taxobox template to the article Heliozoa, and as far as I can tell I have followed the example on the template's help page, but there is a weird formatting problem with some bare html visible when the page is loaded. I'm not sure if others can see it too. Anyone knows how to fix this? Thanks a lot! Kbseah (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Kbseah, I have no idea why this worked, but when I added "color = pink" (copied from Protist), it seems to have fixed the problem. Color is not normally required, because it is determined by the kingdom (as specified in Template:Taxobox), but this one does not appear to fit into any of the listed colors - so perhaps that is how it got confused. I imagine you could change that color however you like. Anyway, I hope this helps... --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hidden Categories
I'm totally frustrated. My article (Callawassie Island) was accepted but needs improvements on references. Our writers are really trying but we just don't know what additional references are needed and i, as the typist, am at a loss.
So, here's the story. I 'copied' and 'pasted ' the article into Works and, upon printing it out, discovered additioal listings in the 'copy'/'paste' print-out that I just am not able to access on The Wikipedia 'Edit' page for the article. The items are listed under the heading: Hidden Categories. It appears that the six items listed would let us know what needs to be done, except I just can't seem to be able to access these 'Hidden Categories'. I've tried doing a search, but no luck. I don t even know if I am on the right track.
The items listed on the print out, but not on Wikipedia's page are: All articles with dead external links . . . I did find one and I'm working on it Articles with dead external links from August 2014 . . . Same thing? Wikipedia Articles needing copy edit from August 2014 All articles needing copy edit Articles needing additional references from August 2014 All articles needing additional references
How do we find out what needs additional references, etc.
Please . . . basic language. I am not computer language or Wiki language savvy!
Thanks a bunchj146.135.44.193 (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, 146.135.44.193 and welcome to The Teahouse. I don't think those hidden categories mean anything. The fact is the article belongs to the categories but you already know about the problems.
- There are entire sections without references. If you put the information there, you must know where you got it. And each reference should meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. A magazine, newspaper or book or even a web site, that has editorial control, a reputation for getting facts correct.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
New Article
I simply want to create and/or upload a new article about a club of which I am a member (sports club with long history). Where do I begin 206.188.147.48 (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome to the Tea House
- The best way to create or submit your article is here
- Aftab Banoori (Talk) 02:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
British TV sources
I've got a little argument that needs some resolution if someone can help me. I don't know if anybody here knows about the initiative by users like AldezD who curb episode guides for game shows and say WP:NOTSTATS. they keep the transmissions section but revert any unsourceable episode related info. There are a few people that do the same work as this editor.
There is an unregistered editor who follows AldezD with the IP starting with 81 or 86, who does delete alot of the episode guides on British game shows, but for some strange reason, chooses to keep the Episode Guide for a program called "Through the Keyhole". The sources he uses is British Comedy Guide, which other major editors on the British Side have told me in the past that is an unreliable site as it is fan edited. I've offered to change the listings for ones from the ITV press office or TV listings sites which many editors, including AldezD himself have approved of. But 81/86 continually shuts me down telling me they are unreliable, which tey aren't. I've suggested that we delete the episode guide as it is WP:NOTSTATS and is incomplete anyhow. I am awaiting his response.
I am just a bit aggravated at these times when so many people tell me one thing and then one person is a tad pigheaded and refusews to compromise. This is even when he is a proponent of WP:NOTSTATS and deletes a lot of episode grids himself. what makes Through the Keyhole so special? could someone help me with this matter and find the best possible solution? Thanks. 173.179.185.186 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally speaking you should try to discuss the content with the editors on the article talk page. If an editor is using a fan generated site to source facts, that is indeed unacceptable, however if the consenus of editors there is to keep an unreliable source you would have to report the situation to a noticeboard. Perhaps Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or request assistance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If all else fails and you feel strongly that our standards are not being kept up, you could request mediation from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, where a volunteer will help with the content dispute. Thanks and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I set up the questions on the article's talk page yesterday and now am awaiting some response. We will see what happens. How long should I wait before doing something? I asked people's opinions on acceptable sources, listing what I was told throughout the years. I also asked about this new wave of people like AldezD who are a proponent of WP:NOTSTATS AND WP:OVERKILL asking why this particular programmes episode guide was allowed to stay, while the same editor was deleting other episode guides. Would someone be able to explain to me what falls under WP:NOTSTATS AND WP:OVERKILL? my assumption was that it entails programmes like game shows and certain other programmes. however, as soon as I had written my questions on the Through the Keyhole talk page, I noticed that the editor that I was having a problem with started deleting many episode guides, not just from game shows, but from travel series, entertainment series and other programmes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.172.40.147) I'm just really confused as to when to actively add in an episode guide and when not to and also worried what I need to do when I need to source and this person stops me. I do have to admit that I am starting to get a bit disenchanted with Wikipedia as everything that previous editors have taught me is at odds with these new editors. Can anyone help?173.179.185.186 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)samusek2
Can someone edit an article title for me? I can not myself
I can't figure out how to edit the title of an article, probably because I just created this account for that purpose. The article in question is 'EastLink' the canadian cable company. The proper company name is 'Eastlink' with the lower case l. I have already changed this throughout the article but can't change the articles title.
As well, will this effect the links to the page?
Riley Halpin (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure I can do this either! For now, I've moved it to Eastlink (telecoms company). Really it needs to be at Eastlink (company) because the various other Eastlink companies in different fields are not at that title. Maybe an admin needs to do this.
- Anyway, it shouldn't affect the links to the page significantly, because anyone going to the old links will mostly be redirected. A bot may still be cleaning up double redirects for a few hours. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- It can be done, but it rarely is, because normally a lowercase name is a stylisation, or brand, or marketing strategy. In the case of Eastlink, it looks like it's name is Eastlink, but it stylizes itself as eastlink. Maybe simply add "(stylized as eastlink)" in the opening intro. Sionk (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Riley Halpin: Hi there, I've moved the article to Eastlink (company) per Wikipedia's policy of conciseness with the appropriate redirect. If another company comes along in the future then the name can be further disambiguated by adding the "telecom" back in. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 07:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Updating a Wikipedia Page
Hello,
I have been trying to update outdated information on an organizational wiki page with accurate, present, and backed up information but have had several problems. After updating the content the first time, all of my additions had been deleted within the hour. After going through and updating the Wikipedia page a second time, I was surprised to see that not only was the information I had updated deleted, but multiple parts of the original submission were missing as well.
How will I be able to edit a Wikipedia page without it being deleted moments later?
Thank you,
Jimmy66.207.216.146 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- You can't just copy paste from a website. You have to put it in your own words and use inline citations. WP:REFB TranquilHope (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello ip. I think you are probably the user Jfotopoulos as well. If not that is fine as well. I have looked over your edits. Not only did you copy and paste something directly from a website. You also added information that was considering promotional. Wikipedia is not here to promote organizations. This is why multiply parts of the original submission were missing as well. I suggest that you take the edit summaries that came with your revert to heart. Also you were asked to discuss your editing on the talk page of the article. So I suggest you go there, and discuss what you want to add there. But beware that the information that you want to add needs to adhere to Wikipedia policies. Also if you are working for this organization you have a conflict of interest. So if that is the case please read WP:COI NathanWubs (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- @NathanWubs: please explain to the new editor how he can view "the edit summary that came with your revert". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- When you go to the article, you will see several tabs at the top. One of them if clicked goes to the talk page. And another is called view history. If you click on view history, you will see all the edits that are made to the article, including edit summaries. In the edit summaries there can be the reason why something was re-edited or reverted. Now about the whole conflict of interest. Wikipedia tries to be as neutral as possible. But if you have a conflict of interest then there is just a high possibility that you will not be able to see a subject as neutral. That is why the policy is that a conflict of interest editor should not directly edit those pages that they have a conflict of interest in. However, what you can do is indeed go to the talk page of the article and discuss the changes there. So that other editors can implement them if it is properly sources. NathanWubs (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @NathanWubs: please explain to the new editor how he can view "the edit summary that came with your revert". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding including references,external links and pictures to the articles we write
I want to know how can we include references,external links and pictures to the article that we write...Gaurav shetty (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Gaurav shetty and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all I'm a bit concerned that you write "we", an account at the Wikipedia should only have one user. The best way for you to get started would be to Play The Wikipedia Adventure, you find a link to it a bit further up on this page. It is a tutorial about how to edit properly. You can also find useful information at the Help:Referencing for beginners. Start with these and you'll be well on your way. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank u for your help sir.....I just used 'we' in a general sense referring to beginners here.I am managing my account myself.Regards,Gaurav shetty (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk Page headers
Hey guys, I've seen that people have these notices on their talk page that say things such as this user, 1, What's the template for those? Thanks, Mirror Freak 12:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, MirrorFreak, and welcome back to the Teahouse. There are lots of components in that user page. The easiest way to link to a user page, by the way is [[User:TheQ Editor]], which renders like this: User:TheQ Editor. If you go to that page and click the Edit tab, is shows the code for it. So the first notice, about being "watched by friendly talk page stalkers", comes from the template {{Wikipedia:TPS/banner|75}}. You can look at how any page was constructed in the same way, using the Edit tab, and if something there is not clear it might be best to ask the user concerned how they worked their magic. --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- @MirrorFreak: It's called an Edit notice and defines a header which is then transcluded to the page. You can find out all about how to create one here. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 07:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
New to Wikipedia
What font does Wikipedia use for headings? Dark Liberty (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- On my PC, your title "New to Wikipedia" displayed in Georgia font. Lower-level subheadings are in Arial bold. However, WP may format things differently on different devices. --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fonts are mostly generated based on what is supported by the browser(and device) or in others cases what the user specifies. For example I mostly like things in plain Arial font. So most page will show up in Arial despite a lot of websites wanting to have a different font. NathanWubs (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Georgia Normal or Bold? Dark Liberty (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Edits
Hello there !
I just updated a wiki page and I was wondering how the process works ? and if my edits were submitted correctly ?
Thank you
Cmchatton (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Cmchatton: Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If your intent was to edit Youngme Moon, then no, you submitted edits instead to your own userpage. In order to preserve the edit history (see Special:Contributions/Cmchatton), you may need help from another, more experienced editor to merge the page last edited 24 Oct 2013 with your recent efforts. Perhaps one of our hosts can help? --Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I know someone who might help.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Someone left a note in my user talk page about a possible history-merge. Which are the 2 pages to be history-merged? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Youngme Moon and User:Cmchatton.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I asked User:Anthony Appleyard to do the merge.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, can't be done :: WP:Parallel histories, and User:Cmchatton (which is the later edits) is not in proper Wikipedia article layout. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Artical Review?
Somebody on Wikepedia Reviewed an Artical that I Have as a Draft on my own Account But I Cant Find The Review it? Where is it? (Zucat)
- The only draft you have on your account is Draft:List of films broadcast by Cartoon Network. TranquilHope (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Question from Theboyaa
CAN I MAKE A. FAKE BIG BROTHER WIKI PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyaa (talk • contribs) 20:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
How long before new article is accepted for publication?
Hi Wikipedians,
Could someone tell me how long it is or when an article submitted becomes accepted for publication on the wiki site? I have created a document "Philip Howell" with proper citations. Someone (Orangeman) has suggested more citation which is fine, and now amended for these. The person in question is referred to on Wikipedia in other notable articles several times (more than ten). The person was a notable WW1 general, and therefore much of his career be verified in any case from the military records.
Also I need to know how to add photographs and about the process for this? Plus also who creates the summary table for an article?
With many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCFHowell (talk • contribs) 15:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Currently your work is just sitting in the draft space Draft:Philip Howell and will remain there unless further actions are taken. I have added a template to the top of the draft that you can use to "submit" the work to the review team's queue by clicking on the green button when you are ready.
(and it was @Orangemike: who did some initial tidy work.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Chatimity
Hi.
I wish to add up a wikipedia page for Chatimity, which is a Bangalore, India based social networking startup. It is available on android, windows phone and iOS with android being a major one. Chatimity also has a user base of more than 2 million users.
So I am just curious to know if it qualifies to be on Wikipedia?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratporetw (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- You need to research that, and make the determination. Using the WP:AFC process will help you to achieve reviews on the way. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Help! How to change a main picture?
Hi, I'm wondering how I can change the main picture of a wiki page. I do own the rights to the picture so don't worry about that! Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsgirl84 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Questions about things.
Can you tell me about Barnstars and Kittens and Food and when and who should I give them to?I want to upload pictures for articles about people that don't have a picture. I read the article on how to but can you explain the process in a step by step explaination?I want to make an article about a childrens show. Step by step please?Is there anything else to do other than the obvious things like editing?How will I know when someone has answered this? --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- DangerousJXD - You have covered a range of topics, so I will try to give an overview, and please feel free to come back to the Teahouse and ask if you have more specific questions.
- Editing Wikipedia can sometimes be a thankless task. Barnstars and kittens and food and coffee etc are all informal ways that Wikipedia editors can show one another support, encouragement and thanks. I can't speak for anybody else, but I find a word of thanks lifts my spirits like little else. There are no hard-and-fast rules; if you think somebody deserves a pat on the back then take a look at Kindness Campaign for ideas about how to share the love.
- Okay, while I was typing this I just got the cookie you sent, so you obviously have this one in hand already! Thanks.
- The best way to upload a picture is to upload it to Wimimedia Commons, where it can be re-used by many projects. The first, vital thing is be sure you own the Copyright and are willing to release the picture for anybody to use however they want. Then on the left hand side of any Wikipedia page, under "Tools", click on "Upload file" then select "Commons Wizard". This is a step-by-step wizard to upload your photos. Once the file is uploaded, it is just a matter of editing the relevant article to tell it where to show the image by adding a line something like
[[File:filename.jpg|thumb|right|Caption for the image]]
at the appropriate place. - If you want to create a new article, my best advice is to start by editing some existing articles to build up your experience first. Then when you feel ready to jump in to create a new article, the best guide is Wikipedia:Your first article; it might look a bit big, but it guides you through the whole process.
- If you're looking for things to do, Wikipedia:Community portal is a great place to start. Also, there may be a Wiki-project for a particular subject area which interests you such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Television perhaps.
- Finally, when somebody answers typically they will include a Ping at the start, which will notify you. In future, if you use the button to "Ask a Question" at the Teahouse, it will put your question at the TOP of the page, where it is more likely to catch people's eyes.
- I think that's it for now; come back and ask again (I do!). --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Lots of help. While I am here can you tell me how to make those drop down menus that are everwhere? Rookie huh? --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Figured it out. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Glad you figured it out, DangerousJXD. Often the easiest way to see how something is done, is simply to click the Edit tab for a page which already has a good example, and copy the code from there. That may not be very sophisticated, but it works really well. Plus, once you know the name of the command or the template used, you can look up the help for it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
What should I put on my user page.
You read the headline. Doggy dogg. :)--DangerousJXD (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hey DangerousJXD. It's really up to you. A lot of editors often talk about how the contribute or what they're interested in doing on Wikipedia. Some editors put a little info about themselves, some none at all. Some folks like userboxen, others don't. When I had this same question when I started editing, I just looked around at other people's user pages and took what I liked and left out what I didn't. Just avoid things that might come off as promotional. I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone reviewed my user page...
What does this mean? --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:New pages patrol All new pages should be reviewed, and you can find them on Special:NewPages. TranquilHope (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- This puzzled me when it happened to me, too. Basically, they are looking for serious mis-use such as attack pages or blatant hoaxes, which get deleted straight away. But there is such a backlog that currently it is about 30 days behind. New pages patrol has the details if you feel like some reading. I like the section "Be nice to the newbies". --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)