Wikipedia:Teahouse

AlanM1, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Semi-protected change requests

How long does it usually take for these to be read and answered? I posted a few days ago on a pope's page and have a few agree-als but am curious what the turn-around time usually is. Zkbt (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently, there are a number of editors dealing with Semi-protected edit requests, so the list which can be seen here, currently (see timestamp) there are only two requests, the oldest one was at 02.35 this morning. The time taken usually depends on the type of request, and the familiarity of the editors with the subject.
However, I suspect you are referring to your edit at Talk:Pope Francis. As you did not follow the Semi-protected edit routine, but just added a request on the talk page, this was not flagged as a semi-protected edit, so did not appear on the list. This could have sat there for months, if not years, however, two editors have already come along and agreed with you, although they appear not to have make the changes.
The good news is that as your account should now be WP:autoconfirmed, you can make the changes yourself - and refer to the consensus on the talk page. - Arjayay (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

GA bot

Because I have decided to become a regular GA reviewer, I would like to get a bot that notifies the nominator of the article. But I don't know how to. Help please? 14:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles deleted and blocked account

Hi,

I created articles for the company I work for, which were flagged as "unambiguous advertising" and deleted straight away. There was no specific mention as to what was advertising or considered advertising so I had no chance to change it before deletion, which is really annoying considering that's three weeks of work thrown down the drain. How am I supposed to get my account unblocked and retrieve what I did and prevent deletion in future?

Many thanks,

Wikikokoba (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Wikikokoba. First of all, regardless of how you edit the article you should never work on an article if you have a wp:conflict of interest If you have a personal interest or stake in a topic you aren't supposed to edit articles about that topic. It's not always black and white what is a COI but if you work for company X in any way than by wikipedia standards you have a conflict by definition and should never edit articles about X. So when your account is restored you should not go back to work on that deleted article. Sorry. The second thing is that when an editor said the article was "unambiguous advertising" that doesn't necessarily mean it was written the way a commercial advertisement would be, what it means is that the tone of the article wasn't encyclopedic, so for example even a nice conservative corporate web site's overview information from that standpoint would be "unambiguous advertising". If the tone is to promote the subject of the article, as opposed to present both the good and the bad that is considered promotional. If you still want to edit other wikipedia pages, and I hope you do, then I think your account becomes unblocked after a certain period of time. I noticed that on your talk page there is a comment from User:Eingangskontrolle about deleting the article in question. If you want more input on why the article was deleted I suggest you leave a message at Eingangskontrolle's talk page --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it legitimate to ask a City Spokesman (or other interested party) to upload photos taken by that person.

I want to use photos that a City Spokesman took as part of his job and gave me permission to upload to WikiCommons. I would prefer that he upload them himself and give permission for public use (Select "This file is my own work" in the WikiCommons Wizard)? Or is that a violation of COI? Is this the correct or most appropriate way to deal with this?

If it is more appropriate that I upload the photos, how should I fill in the Release Rights fields in the Upload Wizard?Unclefeet (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Unclefeet, welcome to the teahouse. Yes it's fine for them to upload the photographs themselves, if they wish to freely license them. It doesn't constitute a conflict of interest unless there is some problem like the photos being a large number of purely promotional images that have no informational value at all (which seems unlikely). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that because the person took the photographs in the course of his job duties, it's possible that the city, not he, owns the copyright to them. See Work for hire. One would have to investigate the specific situation to determine who can claim copyright. Deor (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

More on JFK's health

I would like more information on JFK's health.

Betty Cummings (184.17.72.232 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Betty. This is a place for asking questions about editing Wikipedia. However, there is a section in John F. Kennedy#Health that discusses his health issues. The cited references go into greater detail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been accused of being a 'clone account' made for non-faithful purposes, what is the correct response?

I got involved in an article, titled 2014 Banker Suicides, as I thought it was in bad shape and could use repair (but was still hopeful). It was under investigation for a possible deletion, so I made it my top priority to improve quickly.

The person who proposed the deletion of the article in question accused me of being a clone account, judging I created my account just yesterday. I reiterated with a response saying that he should assume good faith.

This particular article is especially controversial and I somewhat regret adopting the article now.. what to do? I still believe in the article, but I'm starting to become scared off by all the arguing going on on the deletion page.. should I continue to improve the article? Flipandflopped (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flipandflopped and welcome. Could you please point out where this allegation is made? Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 02:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Flipandflopped. When a brand new Wikipedia account such as yours makes 88 edits in 24 hours, enters into a contentious Articles for Deletion debate making several comments, and also adds content to and deletes content from a variety of articles, including adding properly formatted references, then it is not surprising that other editors may wonder if you are really a newcomer as you have claimed. We don't often use the term "clone account" but perhaps someone suspects that yours may be a sockpuppet account. But all I saw was a comment that your account was less than 24 hours old. Yes, we should assume good faith, and there are legitimate reasons why a previous editor would begin contributing with another account. So, if you are truly a new editor - welcome! If not, please do not claim to be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the majority of those supposed edits were from the wikipedia tutorial I took, as I am fairly certain I did not make 88 real-life edits. He didn't use the exact terminology clone account either, that was my own words (sorry). If I'm linking this correctly, the allegation is made here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 banker suicides Whether I am actually incorrect or not about the article's legitimacy, I'm worried that I've treaded into deep water with the whole thing (perhaps I joined talks about page deletions and such preemptively).. should I continue to try and improve the article? Thanks for the help! --Flipandflopped (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it common practice to continue to edit an article whilst it is pending for deletion? I did not realize how that I was actually THAT odd-looking for a newcomer until you summarized my activity.. golly. I did not intend to commit any form of malpractice or anything.. I just ended up arriving at the "Pages for deletion" page by clicking a series of links.. and decided to contribute (obviously I shouldn't have). But I am not a sock puppet for anyone.. in fact I'm actually a high school student aspiring to become a writer (that's how I know how to cite). Am I at risk of some sort of repercussions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipandflopped (talk • contribs) 03:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to edit an article that is nominated for deletion as long as the edits are constructive. Personally I would ignore the reference to your new account and continue to edit in good faith. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Flipandflopped, you have received good advice from Flat Out. Contribute productively, continue learning our policies and guidelines, and try to avoid contentious situations for a while. Good luck with your writing plans. You can get lots of practice here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! I will stop contributing on the deletion page, and make good faith edits on the article while it still exists. Thanks a bunch for the help! It's much appreciated. --Flipandflopped (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Best ways to search for sources and references

Hello! I'm curious what on-line resources other editors have found work well for finding sources and references? Obviously Google has to be the top answer, but since Wikipedia takes a worldview on its subjects (and many of its articles focus on non-US based subjects) and Google will vary its search results based on where the search originated (I have no clue to what degree), are there other search engines and resources experienced editors use on a regular basis to find sources to help improve articles? Hopefully this question makes sense. Thanks! EBstrunk18 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@EBstrunk18: Hey EB. If by Google you are talking about its main search, of the web, I don't consider that even high on my list of things to check first because it does not tend to concentrate reliable sources. But Google Books, and Google News archive (before it went down for rejiggering lo quite a number of months ago now) are go-to spots, and you may have meant that but spoke loosely. Anyway, other places I try (free) are those I've gathered and listed at Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources. For paywall/subscription sites, Newspaperarchive.com is rather awesome. Ancestry.com is okay. Then there's JSTOR which is great, and other databases listed at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/header. Often if I'm looking for a subject that's region specific I will Google (yes, regular Google but just as a means to an end:-) something like largest welsh newspapers or list of newspapers aberdeen and thereby find these types of websites that have a list of links to the websites of local newspapers. Then you open a bunch of them up in tabs and do searches in each (that has a search facility) for some specific subject in quotes. I also target a number of magazines even if they are behind a paywall (e.g, The New Yorker], Time], etc.) to see if I can locate a good prospect, which I can then ask for access to at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (WP:RX). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Awesome! You interpreted my loose speak correctly:) This is a whole new world of specificity. Thanks for the resources. Appreciate it! EBstrunk18 (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@EBstrunk18: If you are looking for sources that have that scholarly reliability, use scholar.google.com. You won't be able to access everything (unless you are working from a college campus that subscribes to relevant databases), but it's better than a blanket Google search. Also, why not develop a relationship with your friendly librarian? She or he will always point you to authoritative information. And, most libraries now have a chat function on their home page so there is no need to go in (though then you miss seeing all the great books you can be reading :)). There are a number of academic search engines that bring up more scholarly results. Go to livebinders.com and search on a binder entitled Google Alternatives, then use the Deep Web tab to see a great listing to try! Good luck! Ms. Vibrarian (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate references

When there are bare references (and also multiple in number), it is possible to merge them to avoid duplication via WP:REFLINKS. But is there any software that helps find duplicate ref's that are complete (i.e. not bare) and merge them? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be such a tool in the RefToolbar under "Error check", but I've only used it a few times, and I am not sure how effective it is. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 16:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe REFLINKs will merge references that are not bare. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Another way is to go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets → Editing → tick the box for "Citation expander: Automatically expand and format citations (uses "Citation bot")." After you do this when you let the bot out of its cage it will tidy duplicate references among other things. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please give your opinion on an AfD article.

Please help. Can you take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Attacks , which was AfD'd, tagged "Keep" and then AfD'd again; and give your opinion whether it meets notability requirements? I think it does but I will let you draw your own conclusion. Right now it's between me and another guy who are basically saying, Yes it is! No It isn't! Before we get to "Nanny nanny boo bah" I'd like some outside voices! Thanks! Sanshuimom (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Feral House used as a source

I was looking up The Lemon Pipers Green Tambourine and Feral House is used as a source to call Green Tambourine Bubblegum, but Feral House is kind of problematic. Bubblegum is a negative term. The second album by the Lemon Pipers was bubblegum, but Green Tambourine is Psychedelic. I can't check the source, since I am not likely to wish to go out and support Feral House by buying their stuff. Since I'm from San Francisco and married to Hippy, Feral House far from a neutral point of view. I would prefer all music or Rollingstone be used. Apriv40dj (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Found something better that is still online if one clicks on it. http://www.waybackattack.com/lemonpipers.html Apriv40dj (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I got a reply in my email this afternoon, but then I go here and there is nothing, so I click on history and see something, but no way to see what someone posted as a message to me. I also wanted to add that Adam Parfrey is not an authority on music. But, I don't go to the website to look, I just think that the reference is a bad one, without looking to check, because I don't wish to visit a bad website. It is impossible to "put down" Green Tambourine as bubble gum without any credentials in the music industry. It is just personal opinion and should be deleted therefore, unless someone wishes to find and cite a creditable reference. Now if I got ahead and do it, I don't want to be jumped on as being a bad editor later on, which is why I am asking now. Apriv40dj (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Last night got another reply in the email and nothing is here today either, but I have save this post for future references. I can find it again. I think the way it seems to work is you have to use "reliable" references unless you find an article that no one notices or cares about, then you can use any reference even if the reference is wrong or not even about the subject, and it can stay for years and years like this one did, as long as it not noticed by anyone. It is hypocritical to require such sterling references for some articles and then on other articles anything goes. Wikipedia should just make one standard and have all articles adhere to that standard. I was told ABC Go Local is not a good reference because its local, but at least ABC is on TV every night at 530 and has a national news center. That should count as important. How does Feral House trump ABC in importance? I am not checking back here again if I get a reply, since it will be a mistake so you will have to leave a message on my talk page if you wish to discuss it. Next thing you know we can use Vice Travel as a Travel Guide for tips on how to talk to foreigners in their countries. That is the slippery slope. My perfectly true with real referenced articles got axed in favor of the collected works of Feral House. Apriv40dj (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to ask random editors to help save their article from deletion?

An editor with whom I know of know prior interaction asked me on my talk page to improve their article to help save it from deletion. Is this appropriate? It feels like an attempt to gather votes. In what circumstances is it acceptable to contact other editors?Jacona (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Many AFD nominations are improved to fit within guidelines during the AFD discussions. What you're describing sounds like a completely normal and appropriate request. If the article can be improved to the point that it fits within wikipedia guidelines, it should and probably will be kept. Now, if he was asking you to vote to keep the article regardless of its merits, there might be an issue there, but asking for help improving the article is a normal request. You may contact other editors in any circumstance that you see fit. :-) Bali88 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A sincere request for help to improve an article is perfectly fine, JaconaFrere. A request to comment at an AfD debate should be neutral and should not lobby for or against deletion. If several people are asked, it is improper to select those likely to take one side of the debate. A range of opinions should be sought. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Asking for help improving the article (in my opinion, at least) is a good thing. Clearly they want the article to be kept, but they want to achieve that by improving the article. Asking someone to vote a specific way would be highly inappropriate. :-) Bali88 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

Can we change redirects ? Zince34' 11:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

(Please leave a teahouse talkback template at my talkpage to let me know.)

@Zince34: Hey Zince34. When you are redirected you will always see at the top of the resulting page (Redirected from NAME) just below the title of the page. If you then click on the link, you can access the redirect itself. For more, please see Wikipedia:Redirect. I've used a ping instead of a teahouse talkback message, which should be just as effective in drawing you back here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

i want to start a new entry on: Dennis Loraine. how do i do this?

there is no entry for Dennis Loraine. i want to create an article on him. how do i do this?Pearce Mitchell (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pearce, welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, assemble your sources about this person. Newspaper articles about him, magazine articles about him, significant coverage of him in books published by respectable major publishers, respectable online news sites like this one - if that is the correct Dennis Loraine.

Then start your article at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation. You may find Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners useful as well. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU. I WILL START THIS ENTRY FOR "DENNIS LORAINE", A BRITISH STAGE ACTOR AND A BIT OF A ROGUE. AM READING A BOOK ABOUT HIM, WRITTEN BY HIM, AND PUBLISHED BY A REPUTABLE PUBLISHER.Pearce Mitchell (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to use sources *not* written by the subject. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The book was not written by him, but by his son. I realize I still need to be careful to ensure my account, my Wikipedia entry, is factual and accurate. PearcePearce Mitchell (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The son still has a conflict of interest.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

notability guideline for biographies

Hello, I am trying to finalize my page on wiki - Coskun Yilmaz (business man) but i receive the same notification as:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

i changed all the references, i added the english ones.. What can i do more? Kindly please inform. Should i broaden the content? Kindly please help. It is so important for me Ylmazcsk (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ylmazcsk. I have moved the page to Coşkun Yılmaz: we don't add extra information to an article name unless it is required to distinguish it from other same with the same name.. It looks to me as if almost all the references on the page are to the company, not the person. The businessweek link is about the person, but is only a directory listing, not substantial coverage, so does not establish notability. All the rest might establish that the company is notable, but not that the person is (Notability is not inherited). Unless you can find substantial coverage of Coşkun Yılmaz personally in reliable sources, independent of him or his company, then I'm afraid he is not at present notable in Wikipedia's meaning of the word, and we will not have an article about him. Also, if you are Coşkun, you should read about why we strongly discourage autobiography on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear ColinFine, thank you very much for your help. I will do the changes as per your reply. i will reference the independent sources - but those references should be english ? or other language is also fine? Kindly please let me know, thanks a lot Ylmazcsk (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, Ylmazcsk. English sources are preferred on English Wikipedia but if you can't find them, opther languages are fine.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with recent deletion

Greetings all,

So I put together an article and went through a lot of back and forth with various reviewers to refine the data to an acceptable format. At that point, things looked good only to come back today and see that the article was deleted.

Fortunately, I saved the page in a text document and it is currently in my sandbox. Can anyone help me understand why it was deleted? I would have been happy to have worked to make it right (which is what it says is the preferred course over deletion), but I did not have that opportunity.

This was the reason for deletion: 17:19, 25 March 2014 JzG (talk | contribs) deleted page RJ Parker (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW))

Jasonwilczak (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jasonwilczak: Welcome to the Teahouse, Jason. Thanks for your question. I've read over the article in your sandbox and reviewed the sources used to establish notability. The biggest concern I have is that many of your sources lack reliability because they are blogs ([1], [2], [3], [4]) or are self-published or otherwise not independent from the subject ([5]). In addition, the World Book Award does not appear to be a particularly notable literary award. Its own website is unavailable and the only info about it comes from a PR website. In order to establish the notability of this author, I would suggest trying to find news articles from sources that have an editorial board, like a newspaper or magazine, and see if there are more recognized literary awards. Otherwise, the author does yet reach either the notability criteria for authors or the general notability criteria to merit an article right now. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help and feedback with page

If there is an experienced Wikipedia editor out there that isn't afraid of an article about a software design pattern Dependency injection could use some help.

I had an experienced editor working with me but he's grown quiet. If this isn't the right place to ask please tell me where is.

Thanks,

Galhalee (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Galhalee. Perhaps Ironholds might express an opinion? Or Technical 13? It's WAY above my grey head. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Largely above mine, as well, but I do have some comments:

• More inline references would be good;
• Most of the article seems to consist of example Java. This is (I'm sure) great code, but relatively limiting for the reader, first because it's exclusively Java syntax, without examples in other languages, and second because...well, the goal isn't to provide an essay about or tutorial around dependency injection (which is what this reads as, with its hypothetical questions and extensive inline code), but simply to explain what it is, where it's commonly used, why it's commonly used, and what the advantages and/or disadvantages of it are.--Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've been researching more citations and will add them and reflect them in content as I do. Is this what you mean by inline references?

As for the code I trust it's easier to look at then this was. Rather than great I was going for simple and understandable.

I'd love to provide examples in many languages but, well there are a LOT of programming languages. I'm using the language Fowler used in the article where he coined the term Dependency injection.

I removed a hypothetical question from Interface injection comparison.

As for sounding like a tutorial, can it be saved? Or should I move the bulk of it to wikihow and gut the page?

I welcome any more feedback. And thanks for the help Galhalee (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Galhalee: happy to help out in more detail; I totally think it can be saved :). Want to chat on my talk page? Ironholds (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Templates for Agency Reports....

I am writing a series of articles on major agency reports that were the result of reviews and audits... is there a template or suggested format for these ... see my article Board_on_Infrastructure_and_Constructed_Environment#Project_Management_at_Department_of_Energy_.28DOE.29 ...

Thanks Risk Engineer (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

how to create a new Wiki page about a person

How do we get started creating a new Wiki page for an individual? 50.190.212.55 (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey person editing from 50.190.212.55. I assume by "Wiki" you mean Wikipedia? Using that term to mean Wikipedia can be confusing, as Wikipedia is just one of thousands of wikis. The first place I would suggest you look at is Wikipedia:Notability (people). That is a good starting point to answer the threshold question: Can an article on the person be sustained within the bounds of our policies and gudelines? The second thing I suggest you do (assuming the answer to the first question is yes) is sign up for an account. But please note that Wikipedia accounts are only for one person; shared accounts are forbidden (I say this because of your use of the word "we"). Then head on over to the Wikipedia:Tutorial where you will learn the basics of editing and our policies. And finally, you might take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

When you have gotten used to editing, head on over to the Article Wizard. It is often a very good place to start creating articles. Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Republish after making changes

If an article was deleted because of notability issues and I think I have fixed them- should I try to republish the article or should I try to get more feedback for it in The Teahouse?

Jedenl (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You may publish the article again, there is no rule against it. But, you should be aware that the article may be deleted again for the same issue if the problem is not resolved. If you are not sure whether the article is ready, you may use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to hear other editor's opinion on the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Article on TXTImpact

I submitted a article on TXTImpact and it was deleted due to copyright. I wasn't sure why, can you help?

Thanks 98.221.140.9 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 98.221. I can't find any record of such an article in the deletion logs, so I can't say for sure; but usually this means that the text has been copied from somewhere else. This is not generally allowed, as that would be an infringement of copyright: you should write the text in your own words, summarising what is in existing sources. There are certain circumstances where text may be copied: if the material has been explicitly put in the public domain (which means much more than just being published) or has explicitly been licensed under the CC-BY-SA licence. But even if it is legal to use text from elsewhere, the text will often be inappropriate in tone for Wikipedia, especially if it is promotional in any way. --ColinFine (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Located it: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TXTImpact. See what Colin said above. The text you posted appears to have two whole paragraphs of text copied and pasted from this website or a number of others that come up in a search for unique text that was used in it and that appear to preexist it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Marratt and Ellis Opticians

Hi there, I'm about to give up. This business had a very long and significant history. I wanted to record the facts and events for present and future generations. Am I wasting my time? Is the article considered lacking in notability and therefore always will be declined, or does it just need more input to reach a successful submission? This is my first and perhaps my only attempt at a Wikipedia article. If it's worth going on, I need some encouragement. Gomez050 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "This business had a very long and significant history". You need to illustrate that in the article and back it up with verifiable references. Failing that your time would be better spent on another article. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The article appears very unfocused, Gomez050. It has more material on the neighborhood the business is in than on the business itself. How is it relevant to the business that the Germans bombed the neighborhood? That is true for most of London. At the end of the day, an article on a business has to meet the notability standard for a business found at WP:NCORP. It requires mention of the business from reliable sources from a diverse geographic area. A case may be made for notability for the founder and perhaps that may be a better article to attempt. I really find nothing on the business from outside of London. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi John
Thank you for your advice. I expected this submission to be eventful. The exercise has been long, but I have come away with a knowledge of the weird and wonderful ways of Wikipedia. I have carefully considered the points you have raised and perhaps you are correct. I've enjoyed the challenge, but disappointed with the lack of success, and will now sign off. Gomez050 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Company page?

Hi. One of my competitors has a company page? How can I create one for my company?Sarahpo1114 (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've left some important and useful information on your talk page. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems you forgot to sign your talk page message, Anon126. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So I did Anon126 (talk - contribs) 16:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding images from computer desktop

I was wondering how to add images from your computer desktop. VladDroid256 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello VladDroid256, and welcome to the Teahouse! To prevent spamming, uploading images is only enabled after your account is 4 days old and has made 10 edits. After your account has met those conditions, head over to the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, which will guide you through the process of uploading files, but I would keep the following points in mind: Wikipedia has a rather stringent image use policy that entails what kinds of images are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. All images you upload must be one of the following: your own work, freely licensed, in the public domain, or meeting the non-free content criteria. In other words, in order to respect copyrights, we cannot simply take any random picture from the internet and use it in Wikipedia. May I ask what kind of image you would like to upload? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding the following image which I downloaded onto my computer. I wanted to stick it onto my user page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mercedes_sls_amg_e-cell.jpg VladDroid256 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Just paste this code on your userpage: [[File:Mercedes sls amg e-cell.jpg|thumb]] Perhaps some other kind host will add links here to the tutorial for images. I'mm headed out and don't have time to look them up right now. Happy editing! John from Idegon (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of a Source

I am looking to improve the stub, "Expense Accounts." I found an article online at accountingcoach.com but at the end of the piece, there is no author listed. Does this mean that this source won't be considered verifiable or notable? Gina at Stockton College (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Gina at Stockton College. According to the "About" page on that website, all the content is written by Harold Averkamp, CPA, MBA. The issue is reliability. The website looks solid to me, but I have no expertise in accounting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Article tagged AfD, consensus "Keep," Then re-tagged AfD

I wrote an article Fox Attacks which a user tagged as AfD. The discussion resulted in "keep." The guy who tagged it just re-tagged it as AfD again. What do I do? Sanshuimom (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The AFD was closed as "Keep", but when it was realised that a contributor to the debate was a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, the editor who had closed the AFD reopened it to allow the debate to continue. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

So...I wait, I guess.

There was one inappropriate contributor, and one who said delete. Does it matter that there were 5 other contributors that said "keep"? (Am I whining?)

Also, the person who AfD'd the article in the first place has deleted many of my sources, IMO making the submission weaker. And I think it might be inappropriate to plug them back in. Correct?

Sanshuimom (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It is perfectly OK to improve an article during the AfD process by adding solid sources, Sanshuimom. It is also OK to make note of that in the debate. However, if the sources you add are weak, expect that to be noted as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

New Article for Review

I recently wrote a new article about Wilma Johnson (artist) and this template is present at the top of the page:

"This page is a new unreviewed article. This template should be removed once the page has been reviewed by someone other than its creator; if necessary the page should be appropriately tagged for cleanup. (March 2014)"

How long does it take for new articles to be reviewed?

Thanks Mathilde761 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at which editor made the last edit but one, I think you could almost regard the article as having been reviewed!  :-) --David Biddulph (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Great thank you David. And how long will the template still be visible on the article?

Mathilde761 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how many people are formally reviewing new articles. Category:All unreviewed new articles has 870 articles, and the breakdown by age is shown at Category:Monthly clean up category (Unreviewed new articles) counter. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion because of Notability

Can you take a look at this article and help me understand how to make it more notable? I thought that the references were solid. Maybe I am not supposed to use their website as verification?

[[6]]

Jedenl (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jedenl, and welcome to the teahouse! I don't know that there's too much you can do, at least at this point. What we're looking for is a significant amount of coverage by folks who don't have a financial interest in promoting the business. The article in Verily is a start, but that's probably not enough to build an article around. Once that business gets a bit more press, notability shouldn't be an issue. If you want to read the actual guidelines, check out WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response!

What about the press from the Oprah Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, Glamour Magazine, Lucky Magazine, etc. Are those considered notable sources?

Jedenl (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

For future reference- is it okay to use their website as verification albeit not for notability?

Jedenl (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jedenl—if those sources discussed (as opposed to just mentioning) the business, then I think you have a pretty strong case for notability. Would you mind heading over to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and requesting that the article be put into your userspace? Once that happens I can take a look at the references and get a better idea what's going on. (I'm going to be offline for much of the rest of the day, so another editor might decide to help out before then.) As to using their website: that's not considered to be an independent source, so it would not be considered reliable (in the wikipedia sense) for any potentially controversial claim. Ideally, a link to the website should only show up in the "external links" section. In practice, there's generally not a problem with using a home page to establish the location of the business, number of employees, date of incorporation, etc. The home page can't be used to establish the notability of the business. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

License

Why does Wikipedia not use non-commercial license? We do not use it for commercial purposes in articles, right? Zince34' 12:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(Please leave a teahouse talkback template at my talkpage to let me know.)

One of the core, fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that it is free, and its content can be reused by almost anyone. The CC-BY-SA license allows this, whereas the non-commercial-only variant of that license would legally prohibit a huge number of potential users from utilising Wikimedia content. For example, many schools and educational institutions are legally commercial entities.

Because you can't change media's copyright by including it on your website, we can only include media that is compatible with the CC-BY-SA license (with fair-use exceptions).

There's a lot more information on Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ and links therein. Hope that was useful. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

One more question too. What does cleanup mean in Wikipedia ? Zince34' 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Zince34. :) Wikipedia uses a commercial-friendly license because we want our content to be reusable as widely as possible, even if this means that people can sell it. There may be good reasons for this - for instance, people may need to recoup the cost of distributing the information. But with the licenses we've chosen, what we've done is make sure that they can't use it exclusively and that they can't prevent people from in turn redistributing their derivative content. They can sell it, but they don't truly "own" it.

Cleanup means various things, but generally just that somebody sees a problem that needs fixing. It can also refer specifically to Wikipedia:Cleanup - a project that is dedicated to (naturally) fixing problems. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As a rule-of-thumb, "cleanup" is a broad term that refers to issues that can be fixed without knowledge of the article's subject. Spelling, grammar, layout and formatting issues are typical "cleanup" tasks. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that really ended my doubts. Zince34' 12:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added a "reflist" and references section, but the red message still shows about there not being one.

Hi, I've been adding some further details to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Damp_(film) and I added a references/"reflist" section because the message in red showed up: "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page)."

But adding the "reflist" dosen't seem to have worked - the error message still shows, and there is no references section visible on the presented page, even though I've added one. I don't understand why, or how to rectify. Any help would be gratefully received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beryl reid fan (talk • contribs) 10:06, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC) (Editor had tried to sign, but signature didn't work because of unterminated <ref> in question.)

Hello Beryl reid fan. You had missed out the closing '>' from </ref>, so it failed to close the <ref>, which therefore swallowed the rest of the page including the {{reflist}}.

 Fixed ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, ta v. much - Someone (perhaps you?) seems to have fixed this for me - thanks - though I'm not entirely sure which </ref> was missing the final / ??? but ta, anyway Beryl reid fan (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You can see which one by going to the article history page and looking at the diff. This was the one. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very helpful. Beryl reid fan (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Literal Translation" for non-English articles

hello!! i just want to ask if the "lit. Only You" translation as seen in this article Ikaw Lamang is correct,, is it acceptable or should it be just "in english: only you",, im new here and was just wondering if this is the norm,, Damngoshgosh (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Damngoshgosh. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way it is done. There are often different ways of doing things that are equally acceptable in Wikipedia. What is wrong with the article is that it does not have a single reference to a reliable source independent of the subject, and without these it does not establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criterion for "notability", and the article is liable to be deleted. The article needs references to reliable published sources such as major newspapers. (They do not have to be in English) --ColinFine (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Help me "delete-proof" my article

Please review my latest edit and changes I tried to make on my article. I have credible info about myself and my work as an actor with credible articles written about me, but it still gets kicked out. Please review this link and advise - thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikilink Mvoliphant (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mvoliphant and welcome to the Teahouse. There is no such thing as a "delete-proof" article on Wikipedia, although I consider it highly unlikely that either William Shakespeare or Janis Joplin will ever be deleted. That is because those topics have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and no sane person would argue otherwise. On the other hand, it is a demonstrated fact that people have a very hard time writing neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia articles about themselves. Please read, study and absorb WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and consider stepping back, unless you are as famous as Shakespeare or Joplin. But you are alive and neither of them are. So you have the extra obligation of complying with our strict policy on biographies of living people. Are you prepared to deal with that challenge? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome to wikipedia! I looked at the biography. I have seen that episode of Snapped--great job! At this point, I think it will probably fail notability standards. It sounds like you've got a good start and will likely continue to get good roles, but I've seen actors with more than you be deleted for failing notability. My advice is to stick the draft in your sandbox and try again when you have a few more roles under your belt. A good strategy for the time being might be to create your own website. Let me know if you need any help. :-) Bali88 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

my article was deleted continously

i don't know why my article was deleted, they said i can't show the importance of my article. please tell me what can i doEng.class.cityu (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HKU_Dry_Club? This is an article about a Facebook page. It will not be "notable", and will not be suitable to be an article unless there exists significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Facebook groups, unless they become extremely large, will almost never obtain such status. From reading your draft I am almost certain HKU Dry Club is not a notable entity. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do on Wikipedia to change this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 01:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am a Hong Kongese. May be foreign people think that it is not singificant for them, but HKU dry club is a facebook page which the majority of Hong Kong's universities students or even the young generations pay a lot attention to them. We are introducing the new popular facebook page which means a lot to Hong Kong culture as well as young generation. I believe this page will gain more and more popularity. So that we really want to post it on wikipediaEng.class.cityu (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If the club reaches Wikipedia's standards of notability in the future then a page can be created. However Wikipedia does not create articles in anticipation of future notability, nor as part of campaigns to make entities notable. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Making suggestions for future changes

I was wondering if there is a formal procedure or correct way to leave a note on an articles talk page making suggestions for future changes or sections that others may want to consider adding? JPeachman (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@JPeachman: Even if there is, most folk just leave an informal and informative note on the talk page. I know I do. Fiddle Faddle 20:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There are no formalities, JPeachman, other than an expectation that your suggestions will be logical, clearly written, and based on Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

editing a reveiw

Hello,

I am wondering if it is possible and/or not against the rules to add a comment on a review of a wikipedian. As I am not a reviewer.

Thanks,

Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 20:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi attack dog, welcome to the teahouse. The reviewer right is a technical thing of questionable value. Everyone is entitled to add a comment on an editor review whether they have the reviewer right or not.

(If you mean something other than an editor review - you say "review of a wikipedian" - then let us know.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Contains copyrighted material?

I am only using material available on the web for reference purposes. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jake_Wood_%28Author,_veterans_activist%29

Team rubicon (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Team rubicon, and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that the page has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G12, which means that content was copy and pasted directly from another source - in this case, http://www.linkedin.com/in/jakewood78 and http://www.gotyour6.org/storytellers-bios/. Generally when writing an article, you should write it in your own words, otherwise it is known as Copyright Infringement. The way Wikipedia likes its articles to be written is that everything is properly cited with a reliable source but it is written differently. Kinda like an essay for school, where copying someone else's essay would be considered plagiarism. Hope that helps! K6ka (talk | contribs) 19:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A minor personal attack on someone else

Hello, I was searching the recent changes page, and I found an unregistered IP address user making a minor vandal edit on an article. I looked at their contributions, and found a minor personal attack on other user's page from about a month ago. This isn't the first time that this particular IP address has made an attack on this user, and I reversed the edit. In short, I'm wondering what I should do. Should I report to an admin if something like this happens again? Thanks! --IsisAthenaArtemis Talk 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you should report them to WP:AIV if this happens again (or possibly already if they've been warned enough times). Jinkinson talk to me 19:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. If you look at the user in question's talk page, you'll see they've accumulated a number of warnings. The general policy is to warn disruptive users with progressively more serious notices (see Wikipedia:Warn_vandalism#Warnings) and then if they vandalise after getting the most serious warnings, report them to WP:AIV. Any user can issue warnings and reports, though only an administrator can issue the final block. The whole process of warning and reporting vandals, as well as reverting their disruption, is made much easier by WP:TWINKLE. I would highly recommend using Twinkle if you are a frequent vandal fighter. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Luke, do you mean to imply that if an IP editor received a level 4 warning two years ago, and you see the same IP vandalising an article (on a different topic) today, you should report the IP to AIV? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No. I think a period of inactivity of a month or two (or sustained good editing) generally "resets the clock" as far as the warnings go. For IPs in particular, patrollers should be aware that the person who is currently editing from a particular IP may not be the same person editing from that IP a few months later. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 02:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

common errors

hi there, as i am pretty new here, i was hoping for advice from other users about what the most common mark up and general errors a page can usually have, as i am hoping to edit a few pages for an assessment i have. thanks for reading :) MarinaLouise (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Welcome to Teahouse. This page is very helpful WP:CHEAT. You may also see Wikipedia:GettingStarted. Tito☸Dutta 15:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• And you might also find Wikipedia:Getting_Started helpful.
  

--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks Gronk Oz & Tito for your help there :)MarinaLouise (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Bold text in citations

Hi, For hours now, I have been trying to get rid of a BOLD text in the 14:ref in the article The Origins of Political Order. What am I doing wrong? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I've done it - there were a series of "unbalanced" single quote marks e.g. ''title''' which were confusing the software. Once it has a '' to turn on italics, or ''' to turn on bold, it stays in that mode until the marks are repeated to turn them off, or certain other breaks turn them off automatically. So, with unbalanced single quote marks - with 2 before the title, and three after, it first turned on italics, and then turned on bold instead of turning off italics, and than carried on with both, as it had no instructions to turn them off. - Arjayay (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You have indeed! My thanks! I shall now know what to look for in more detail the next time! Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox scholar

This unanswered question has been moved to the top of the page for higher visibility. Please use a ping in any answer.-- 17:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Template:Z157

Can someone (check/tell me) where is the name paramter in Template:Infobox scholar? I can see name and fullname after 4-5 parameters, (I feel name parameters should be the first one), but that is not working. Tried in Rajeshwari Chatterjee Tito☸Dutta 00:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Titodutta: The |name= parameter of {{infobox scholar}} changes the title of the infobox to something else. The title is the bolded text at the very top of the infobox. The |fullname= parameter for that template adds a new field in the infobox for the scholar's full name. You should only add a fullname parameter if the subject has a bigger name that the subject does not usually go by. It is strange how the "name=" parameter doesn't appear in the template documentation until 5 lines later. I hope this helps; sorry for the late response. If I am unclear, feel free to leave me a message below and I'll be happy to help. Mz7 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Tito. I am not sure quite what you are asking. The "name" parameter is defined in Template:Infobox scholar, and used in Rajeshwari Chatterjee. If you are asking about the order of the parameters in that template, I don't know whether or not there is a standard order, but my advice is to ignore the order and always use parameters by name. --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am confused. In Rajeshwari Chatterjee I can see {{Infobox person}} but not {{Infobox scholar}}. I suspect, however, the order of the parameters does not matter, whether in the template documentation or in the article using the template. Help:Template says "Named parameters can be defined in any order."--David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Titodutta originally tried adding it using infobox scholar. Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Titodutta: I've made an example at my sandbox. Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

URL removed when editing in user sandbox

I have been creating a page in my user sandbox which I hope to upload to wikipedia when it is finished. However when I try to cite a webpage, I click save page and the link shows up in the reference section, however when I go back to edit the page the URL has been removed. I know that the formatting is correct as I have copied references from other pages into my sandbox and the same thing happens. I am really confused as to what could be causing this so any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks U Beetlejuice U (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi U Beetlejuice U, welcome to the Teahouse. The edit [7] gave a link in footnote 3. If you didn't see the link afterwards then maybe you had to bypass your cache. I see you keep removing and restoring the link. Restore it and try to bypass your cache. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

helping friends

hi there, i am currently looking over the page Elaboration Likelihood Model. i was hoping for advice on how to best sort the mark up and citation errors on this page. thanks for reading MarinaLouise (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marina Louise, I was just floating about this morning, as one does, so I had a look at the article and adopted a consistent style for the references. Have a look and see what you think. And, anyone else, if it is no good, let me know. Regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Marina Louise, I noticed the revision of the references I made this morning has been reverted. Sorry it didn't work out. Let me know if I can be of assistance or the hosts here at Tea House. Regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC) (Tea House hosts, sorry for interfering).

Compensation for research acquisition

For the first time ever, I have requested information from a museum (The National Museum of Play), so I can receive materials relating to the Carmen Sandiego franchise. Though there is a $0.45 charge per page, that can pile up rather quickly when it comes to dense documents. As I am volunteering to edit Wikipedia in my spare time and as a pure lover of knowledge and in particular this series, I was wondering if there was a system whereby one is reimbursed for the money spent on acquiring research materials. Thankyou.--Coin945 (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Coin945: One volunteers to edit Wikipedia, and one donates one's time and other resources freely. It would be inappropriate to pay for materials such as this. Wikipedia relies on the skill and generosity of editors to survive. Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no compensation but at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request you can ask whether somebody else has access to a resource. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Coin945, and welcome to the Teahouse. You may find WP:GLAM to be of interest, which describes Wikipedia's increasingly successful efforts to collaborate with galleries, libraries, archives and museums. Also of interest is an article in yesterday's New York Times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

title of article for review

Hello to all, I have an article waiting for review. It is about a musician: Cypress Grove. But in the heading wikipedia writes Cyprus Grove. Is it influential? Or will the article go on mainstream correctly? Because I can.t modify the heading in any way. Thank you for all the help I am receiving, you are very kind. Athenaathena07 (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The process to move a page is at WP:move. It would have been moved to the correct place if and when the AFC draft was approved for publication to mainspace, but I have moved the draft for you, to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cypress Grove (musician), because Cypress Grove already exists as a disambiguation page. One thing which you could usefully do while you wait for it to be reviewed would be to read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style; there are still various discrepancies, such as formatting of dates and formatting of text. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Blanking page notice

I just want to know what template do we type to get the following:

Hello, I'm (blah blah blah). I noticed that you recently removed all content from (blah blah blah), with this edit (tagged with the difference), without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. (Signature)

I just want to know why people gave me this notice, 3 of them, wrote the same things (with no difference) except for those in the (brackets). May I ask what "shortcut" do they use? And if you replied, please "ping" or "reply to" me so I will know, or alternatively, you can use the {{teahouse talkback}} template and drop one on my talk page to inform me, or mention me here. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You will find it in twinkle, if you have enabled it. Zince34' 09:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Nahnah4 That is level 1 - of the standard "Page blanking, removal of content" templates under Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace These cover numerous talk-page situations, in an ascending order of severity. Please read the documentation, which can be different for different templates, before using any of these. They can be used with, or without, Twinkle. - Arjayay (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Making an animated gif file run on mediawiki 1.20.2

Hi, I've created a .gif file using Lunapic. On Lunapic it works as an animation but on our wiki (version 1.20.2) it just displays the first frame. Does anyone know how to make it work?

Thanks

Angela [Jenninan]

95.131.110.104 (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Angela, welcome to the Teahouse but questions about unrelated sites running MediaWiki actually belong at mw:Project:Support desk. It's hard to tell when you don't give a link but let me try a guess anyway. Are you trying to scale a file which breaks mw:Manual:$wgMaxAnimatedGifArea? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter, thanks for your response. I actually managed to get this animation working by removing some frames so thanks, you were spot on! My next challenge is to be able to size the image on the page. The statement I'm using is [[File:BP MODEL Ani.gif|left|alt=Blueprint|Putting the puzzle together]] and if I put a size into the statement ie. [[File:BP MODEL Ani.gif|left|200px|alt=Blueprint|Putting the puzzle together]] the image becomes static again!!! I'm sure users of Mediawiki everywhere have, or had, or will have a similar problem so any help would be most appreciated! Many thanks, Angela Jenninan (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If it animates at the uploaded size but not at other sizes then it could still be the scaling problem I mentioned. Can you post a link to the image? If you are trying to display a caption "Putting the puzzle together" then you need |frame or |thumb, but that's unrelated to scaling problems. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

New Article Question

Hi,

I just started contributing to Wikipedia. As an expert in Life Hack, Prouductivity, Time management, etc., i am thinking about contribute towards these field. But i don't see much articles related to this field. Is it possible to create new articles based on these topics?

Ashok (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Of course you can create more articles. Please read the instructions at

WP:CREATE for more information. Zince34' 08:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you were talking about your declined request here, then I probably suggest to read guidelines about referencing. Zince34' 08:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank for the info. I will check it out. Ashok (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit speed

Can the amount of data in a page make it slow to save changes ?

Regards, Zince34' 07:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zince34. Yes, in that your computer has to send the full data in order to make the change. You can edit sections, though - if you click on the "edit" next to a section header, you are only given that text. I do this a lot, especially when editing off a portable hot spot. - Bilby (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, but it took the same time to save the article and the section. But when I edit anywhere else, it's not so slow. Zince34' 10:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've known templates to slow things down as well. Mathematical notation can also take a bit of time to render. If you let us know what the page is I'd be happy to take a look and see if I can reproduce the problem. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article is ISS. Zince34' 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that just a really big article (and thanks for you edits there, btw). Nothing much we can do about that, except to edit the smallest chunk possible. I'm working on a large bibliography and the upload speeds eventually got bad enough that I'm now doing all of my editing offline and will just upload the final result once. If you're going to be doing lots of work on ISS, you might want to consider a similar approach. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Zince34' 10:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing pictures

How do I move pictures to different locations on a page. No matter where I paste the file name it always winds up on the right hand side of the page. Mmcard59 (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the Tea House. I think I can help with this one. If I use the code "File:Miniature Poodle stacked.jpg|thumb|Miniature Poodle stacked" inside the double square brackets, the picture will end up in some default place (goodness only knows). But, if I go "File:Miniature Poodle stacked.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Miniature Poodle stacked" inside the double square brackets I am saying I want it to go to the left and I want the size to be 200px. Hope this helps, otherwise our kind teahouse host will be along in just a minute. Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly: right is the default, left must be designated. Mostly we stick to either but you can read about more options at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax and Help:Table.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

\

how to write an essay on why not to give out personal information on the internet 207.204.65.132 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. - Arjayay (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Arjayay is right. If you're asking on how to do a homework, we are afraid that we can't help you. All you can do is to research more or search for pages related to what you have to find on Wikipedia and be sure to name the sources. For more information, click on this page. And, remember, do your homework on your own. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the request file upload?

Hello, I'm putting together a living person article (with the actual person since they need help). They are an author and we are trying to get their picture uploaded. Instead of waiting until Tuesday to get autoconfirmed I wanted to request someone to upload it. But when you click 'submit request' it goes to some Sri Lankan airport page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_upload (go there and click submit request)

am I missing something?

Jasonwilczak (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Someone had mistakenly pasted an article in place of the content of Wikipedia:Files for upload/Wizard. I have reverted that mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

ah,hehe, thank you. I was thoroughly confused, being my first time. I managed to just edit the main page and put a request in manually, so I'm being helped, but it was quite a funny moment. Thank you for resolving it.

Jasonwilczak (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Jasonwilczak, when you become a really experienced Wikipedia editor, then you, too, can blank Wikipedia's main page. (That's an old Wikipedia joke. Lame, isn't it?) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Noting when information is current

Hi, I'm new to this so please excuse if this is a stupid question. Sometimes important information will be expected to change in time, and it would help the reader to know when the statement in WP was current.

For example, I was updating the entry for my suburb, where a new railway line is under construction. The planned completion date is 2017, which seems pertinent. But tomorrow, that plan may change. So is it best to:

• Omit that information;
• State it without mentioning when it was current;
• Use wording like "as of March 2014, the planned completion date is 2017".

Can anybody offer thoughts on which approach is preferred? Gronk Oz (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If you include an inline reference at the end, then it would be fine to simply state "...planned for completion in 2017". Readers understand that plans may change, and if they want details, they can check the source. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, follow your second point whenever possible. "Current" ever so soon isn't - and the same applies to "recent" - I have seen article where items from 2007 are labeled as current or recent so it is best to skip those terms whenever possible. MarnetteD | Talk 01:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: In general, there is no such thing as a stupid question. Agreeing with those above, see also WP:EPHEMERAL, which addresses this issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the generous help everybody!

I am particularly keen to read through the Ephemeral guidelines and learn to use those templates: they are exactly what I was looking for to address this situation. Gronk Oz (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You might also be interested in 'Template: Update after' which I couldn't find at the Ephemeral link. It is invisible until a specified date; after which a tag appears thus:^{[dated info]} –And a hidden category is generated for maintenance. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a very neat template!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates: 45°00′N 122°00′W

Some articles has it. Need to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowForester (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The co-ordinates are of a piece of forest near Austin Hot Springs in Clackamas County, Oregon, but I'm not sure what you are asking. - Arjayay (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing error tags

Hi. I have been told by a couple of people on this page that I may remove the error tags myself, after making the corrections. I am not sure how to do that. Please help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Centre_for_Information_Policy_and_Security Thank you Pellisor (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You successfully removed the refimprove tag after your post above by taking out {{refimprove|date=March 2014}}. On the off chance you are still seeing it then you are viewing a cached version of the page (see WP:BYPASS for a fix). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent response to NY times coverage of Wikipedia’s editors skew

Regarding: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/the-geography-of-fame.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

Dear Fellow editors:

I am neither male nor have I a written a page about a male. However, I think an intelligent response to the report on the American, white-male predominance in Wikipedia would be a good thing for many reasons.

Firstly, we have all agree to be neutral in our content. Now would be a great time to talk about that, since non-editors may not be aware of that editorial pillar's importance at Wikipedia.

Secondly, we editors do not generate all of the content by any stretch of the imagination. The world generates the content. The article is very hazy about that point, to the extent of making it seem as though Editors as a collective can dictate who is world is worth noting. Quote Mr. Stephens-Davidowitz, the article's author, "With a little coding, I had a data set of more than 150,000 Americans deemed by Wikipedia’s editors to be notable." A single editor may deem who is not-notable, but that effect would be fleeting and highly temporary. If someone is truly notable, one editor de-commissioning that notable person's page would have no functional effect. That person's notability would rapidly result in a new page being generated, if that person was notable to the portion of the population of the world that generates wikipedia page.

This brings us to the third great reason to respond to this article in the civil, intelligent and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia: that our users make Wikipedia what it is and what it will become. If there is an article skew-and I don't doubt that there is-it is a reflection of user skew. In particular, the users who are invested enough to add to the body of the project. Who are these users? They are people with access to time and technology, who are not put off by a semi-technical graphical interface. It is highly likely that if we were to survey wikipedia users about their race, gender, education and socioeconomic status, we would find that the non-contributing user-base follows the standard distribution, while the contributing user-base is a single-tailed distribution skewed by an abundance of education and social advantage. Now is a great time to reach out to people who don't fit that mold. It would benefit us, them and the entire world of Wikipedia users.

I would be happy to help with the response to the article, which in fact requests a response. "This evidence is very preliminary. It is meant to start a conversation rather than offer definitive answers". On the internal side, I am thinking about ways to reach out to more people at every level in a more effective way. The article's research, and our own knowledge about who is editing Wikipedia, help us understand that too many people are being left behind, to the detriment of the whole. Quoth the article, and I think it's true: "Yet the goal of a great society is not only to leave fewer people behind; it is to help some really stand out. Here, too, we have a lot to learn."

So here, finally, are my questions: What are we going to say, and what are we going to do?

Thank you for your consideration. I am not a long-time editor, but I am a very long-time believer in this project. I would like to see this turn into a useful and productive global discussion on how more involvement with Wikipedia leads to a more equitable and just society, both online and off-line in real space and time.

Sincerely, Jedisg Jedisg (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jedisg, and welcome to the teahouse. I found the article to be fascinating, and based on what you've written above I think you've misread both the author's intent and conclusions. I don't see any need for a response. I'd be happy to discuss this with you further on your talk page, but I don't believe further discussion on a board intended for new editors would be appropriate. Best, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello: I'm not sure why this public venue isn't the appropriate one, but I take your word as sufficient. I'm more than happy to continue the discussion, but would prefer to do so where others can join in. Where would be the best location please? Cheers. Jedisg (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Jedisg

Jedisg, the purpose of this board is to help new users find their way around the editing process. The Village Pump-Misc. board would be a more appropriate venue. I'd recommend, though, that you first ask an experienced editor you trust if your concerns are well-founded. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

References to secondary sources

Hello again. I have created the web page about European Centre on Information Policy and Security: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Centre_for_Information_Policy_and_Security and I have references to at least two secondary sources, news articles on the two different website. The other two references may be considered as primary sources, as that is where I got the information about ECIPS's president and registration number. Please let me know what else needs to be done to remove the error note of: This article relies on references to primary sources. Please add references to secondary or tertiary sources. (March 2014)?

Thank you Pellisor (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pellisor: it looks to me as if you have solved that issue, so I have removed the tag. You may do these things yourself, too. I have, however, tagged the article to have the references improved. You need to make sure that every fact is a cited fact. It's the stuff of which excellence is made. You have made a great start. You might decide now to father the article rather than mother it. It's in the wild and others can and will improve it. Or you may want to keep working on it, a thing you are welcome to do. In the end, though, we have to recognise that we have other articles to create and edit, and those we have already handled can take care of themselves. Fiddle Faddle 17:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Query about this edit

Hi, as part of a project for my University, which can be found here

The section assumed that this theory was widely accepted by scholars, so I changed it to say "according to Charles Berger" who originally came up with the theory, is this an appropriate edit?

I couldn't find the original paper on Uncertainty Reduction theory by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese, and therefore must have assumed the "Interactive strategies" section was written from the authors opinion and not by accepted Scholars.

Here is a link to my Sandbox with the suggested edits on.

Dwatson251 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dwatson251, and welcome to the teahouse! I don't have a lot of context to go on here—what the article you wanted to work on? In general if you're going to be attributing ideas to a person you should have a reliable source (in the wikipedia sense, see WP:RS for details) to back that up. If you need help tracking down a particular paper, the wikipedia resource exchange is a great place to ask: head on over to WP:RX. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about referencing and citations

Hello,

Myself and 3 fellow students are working on improving the Uncertainty reduction theory page on Wikipedia as part of a class project at the University of Hull which can be found here. I noticed that there were some citations and references missing on the original page, so I've altered the references on my sandbox. I'm just asking if I've done the references correctly before I make any changes to the article itself, as you can never be too safe. My sandbox can be found here. I eagerly await any reply. RStoakes (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! I've just taken a look at the sandbox, and the references look good, except for one minor point: Inline citations generally go at the very end of the sentence or sentences that the source supports.

For example, currently, one sentence reads: Berger also acknowledges the works of Gudykunst, et al. (1985) and Parks & Adelman (1983) to extend uncertainty reduction theory to the realm of more established relationships. But it is better to put the references at the end after punctuation: Berger also acknowledges the works of Gudykunst, et al. (1985) and Parks & Adelman (1983) to extend uncertainty reduction theory to the realm of more established relationships. (It is quite common to place multiple references in the same place.) Anon126 (talk - contribs) 16:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Except that these citations (to Gudykunst (1985) and Parks & Adelman (1983)) do not actually support the statement - I'm guessing that nowhere in either work does it say, "Berger acknowledges this work", which it would need to do in order to support the sentence quoted. Remember, citations are used to prove that Wikipedia's content is verifiable - in this case, the content is, "Berger acknowledges the work of Gudykunst ect.", and so would need to be sourced to either a) Berger saying, "I acknowledge the work of Gudykunst etc." or b) another reliable source saying, "Berger acknowledges Gudykunst ect." (which would be slightly preferable). Whilst Gudykunst and Parks/Adelman would be useful in a Notes or Further reading section, they do not support the claim made in the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for a somewhat late reply,

Thank you to you both for your help and quick responses. I've made the changes that the two of you have suggested so hopefully now the changes I make will be the right ones. Again, can never be too safe. Once again, thank you very much. RStoakes (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Offer of help

Some time ago, I was sent an offer by Libby norman to help with referencing my proposed entry on Denes Agay. I don't quite understand the Wikipedia communications maze and I think this is the right place she mentioned. I have received other messages saying it would be deleted and I managed to revive it, but I don't quite know how to edit it (I tried a clumsy effort).

I'm sorry I took so long but until I got something in my email I didn't realize what was going on.

Would Libby or anyone be willing to help?

CecilieauxCecilieaux (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cecilieaux: It looks as though the article has been restored as Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Denes_Agay, so now it can be worked on. Mr Agay appears to be notable and you have a reference, so that's a great start. The submission was declined, though, because there are not enough references in reliable sources. So there is some work needed. You need to try to make every fact a cited fact, or to remove the facts until you can find citations. I often refer new editors to User:Timtrent/A good article where there is a reasonable guide to creating an article that will be acceptable to WIkipedia. It requires a bit of work on your part to read and understand, and the article you are creating looks a great place to learn and polish your skills. Come back here if there is any more information you need. I'm confident you can achieve the acceptance of this article with just a final push. Fiddle Faddle 16:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What does the ":" say? (Before the [[]]s )

May I just ask, when I see someone adding [[:Hello]], what does the colon do? I did try this on my sandbox, but I did not see any differences. Why is this so? Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Nahnah4. For Wikilinks with a prefix which normally cause the link to be treated in a special way, such as Category, File, or language codes, the colon turns off the special treatment and makes it display as a normal wikilink to the category, file, or foreign-language article. I'm not aware of any effect for other kinds of wikilinks. --ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

However, problem is, the [[:Hello]] (just an example) has a colon on the beginning with no prefix. So I don't get it. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 10:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Found it. WP:Wikilink#subpage links explains that there are circumstances where you may need the colon in distinguishing subpages, but says "An initial colon is always allowed in links to, and inclusions from, article namespace to denote "mainspace". Use only when needed." As it happens, subpages are not enabled in mainspace in English Wikipedia, so I believe there are no contexts in which the colon will be required with a simple page name, but as the statement I quoted says, it is always allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

When I first saw this question's header I was sure this was some sort of Wikipedia pun on What Does the Fox Say?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Many templates and automated tools always add a colon in user notifications about a page, so the link will work no matter what kind of page it is. It's easier to just add a colon than to check the namespace and determine whether a colon is needed. User talk:Nahnah4 has examples of this so maybe this is where you saw it. A colon in article links is rarely made by humans. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: It wasn't intentional. I only figured it out after I came up with the question, lol. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: So are you saying the colons are as of no use? --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The colon is of no use (and does no damage) in [[:Hello]] from your example and [[:Sweeter Than Fiction]] from your user page, but it's of great use in [[:File:Sweeter Than Fiction.jpg]] where it makes the link File:Sweeter Than Fiction.jpg. Without a colon it would have displayed the file instead, which isn't even allowed outside the article because it's a fair use image. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Oh, I see. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 12:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Can a host ask a question here?

Can a host ask a question here? I think so, 'cause I'm doing it right now. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we've answered that question fairly comprehensively - do you have another? ;-) - Arjayay (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Using press releases for a company article

Hi! I know Wikipedia's guidelines imply that we should avoid using press releases as references. To what extent is it okay to use them? Some things, such as accurate and specific dates are found most easily through press releases. Is that okay? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Press releases may mean newspapers and books. Please specify. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 07:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops; sorry about that. Let me elaborate: "Press releases" as in those short paragraphs companies themselves write and publish on their websites in a formal manner. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the normal meaning of Press release does not refer to newspapers or books, but rather to a statement issued by an organization for possible use by the news media. The relevant guideline can be found at WP:SELFSOURCE, Bananasoldier. Press releases are not independent sources and can't be used for the purpose of establishing notability of a topic. Once notability has been established, though, they can be used for basic factual information about the issuing entity. For example, if XYZ Corporation issues a press release saying that John Jones has retired as CEO, and Mary Smith has been selected as the new CEO, it is acceptable to add that management change to the article. But if the press release goes on to say that XYZ Corporation is the world's leading innovator of widget technology, that claim should not be added to the article based on that press release. You need to use editorial judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

One must also be aware that a normally reliable source regurgitating a press release verbatim does not impart credibility to it. News aggregators are not always selective in their treatment of so called news. WP:BOMBARD also applies where one may not use the same material in many different sources to allege notability. Sourcing is a tricky area, and is often a matter of policy plus opinion. The best answer is that, over time, one gets used to what is a useful reference and what is not. Fiddle Faddle 13:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Proper way to handle annoyance?

Hi, I've twice randomly encountered User:Niemti, the latest time, just now, on Badaber Uprising. It was on the list to copy edit. I did what I thought was a credible copyedit and overnight, Niemti systematically reverted everything (again). I don't have enough interest or expertise in the topic to really be seriously bothered but when you put a lot of work in, it's disappointing to have it wasted. [[8]] is the comment from and conversation I had with Niemti the first time around. Is there something I can do (other than putting a warning on the article talk page)? Am I missing something about what I am doing in the copy editing that I need to fix? I put the copy edit tag back on Badaber Uprising but Niemti has reverted that too. I know I sound like a bear with a sore tooth but I am honestly just a wee bit annoyed. Off to steep my orange pekoe, kind regards, Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy your tea and relax, Myrtlegroggins. The other editor you mentioned recently came off a two week block and has been blocked today for an additional six weeks, as a result of the editor's conduct in another dispute. This seems to be an editor who irritates far more people than just you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool bananas, got it. Thanks ++ Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing help.

Hello there, I am still confused about the article I want to help edit. First, I try to help fix the references, but notice that during some of the previous edits there was a reference that has been included twice. I tried to delete the extra one, but noticed on the edits that I received a -200. Someone undid my edit and got a +200. May I ask what's up with that? What edits are good enough for a positive number?

Also, after I tried fixing the references, the article still had that it needed help with citations, since there was an "unclear citation style".

Any advice? Thank you! Castil18 (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The + and - numbers you see are not a rating of how "good" or "bad" an edit is. They just show how much text was added or removed. In this case, your edit removed 205 characters. The "unclear citation style" means that the references are not formatted consistently. If you want to help improve this, you can go to the introduction to referencing to learn how. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Castil18: (e/c) Hey Castil18. The numbers you are referring to are not any sort of rating. They're the number of bytes you changed in each edit made (which corresponds generally to the number of characters you added or removed); (+30) means you added 30 bytes and (-30) means you removed 30 bytes. For more, see Help:User contributions. Regarding the references, what the article needs is inline citations to reliable sources (a number of the general references currently in the article are not at all reliable secondary independent sources, e.g. answers.com is about as far from a reliable source as can be, being anonymous, user generated content). A good place to start is Help:Referencing for beginners. By the way, as a general rule if you make a good edit but do not leave an edit summary explaining your edit, you are much more likely to be reverted by someone else if it's not sparklingly clear that your edit was an improvement. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you so much for the help!Castil18 (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds magazine archive?

Is there a way to access archived articles from Sounds magazine, from the late 70's? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Have a great day.CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@CaesarsPalaceDude: Hey CaesarsPalaceDude. I have just looked and I have not found that the archives are available online. A library may be the only option. But you might try placing a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (WP:RX), a forum where users with access to library resources, such as various databases that are subscription or pay only and so on, provide assistance. Be specific in your request as to what article(s) you are looking to gain access to. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading film posters

Hi, I'd like to know how to upload film posters, the kind of license, etc. It's for The Immigrant (2013 film). Thanks! I'm not there. Message me! 01:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The movie poster is almost certainly copyrighted, but it can be uploaded to Wikipedia so long as it follows the policy on non-free content. A low-resolution version of a movie poster will likely meet the requirements. The file upload wizard will guide you through this. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 01:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Katastasi: (e/c) Hey Katastasi. Since this would have to be a claim under fair use, this would have to be uploaded locally (to Wikipedia) rather than to the Wikimedia Commons (which is only for free images). The image would require a license and a fair use rationale, which you can provide through templates; such as {{Non-free poster}} and {{Non-free use rationale}}. I recommend the following procedure:

1. Download the film poster to your computer. Make sure either the file you download is small, or you reduce its size. This is to comply with the non-free content policy's minimal use requirement. A proper size will typically be in the range of 250 to 350 × 350 to 450 – there is no exact dimensions guide. (If you need help with size reduction, tell us in a follow-up post.)
2. Go to Special:Upload. Note that if you click on "upload file" from the interface you will be taken to a file upload wizard. This is good for some things but you can dispense with it here.
3. Click browse and choose the file from your computer.
4. Place there the license and the fair use rationale template. I recommend following the form here
5. Since you are copying and pasting from the form above (and tailoring for the specific of your upload of course) which already provides the license directly, do not choose any from the dropdown menu you will see in the upload interface.
6. Make sure the box for "Watch this file" is ticked and then click Upload file.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to create a new section into each episode of The Office(U.S. Edition).

I would like to create a new section into each episode of The Office(U.S. Edition). The section would be called Best Lines of Episode. I understand this is a purely subjective subject, but I really like this show and am watching the entire series again and want to contribute to the Wikipedia pages associated with the program. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.Nickofbeer (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do this. --Onorem (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nickofbeer, since it is purely subjective it would breach WP:NPOV. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It would also violate our restriction against original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nickofbeer: You could see what you can add on Wikipedia's sibling Wikiquote (page for The Office (U.S.). Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle is where?

I cannot find Twinkle in my Gadgets list...what's up with this? I'd love to use it! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 23:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)

It should be in the "Browsing" section, but if not, you can try adding importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js'); to your common.js user script. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 01:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response.Nickofbeer (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Help a group of student to improve an article

Hello everyone. Me Maksim Kanev and a few of my fellow course mates: joe1992w, Davidvfu1, Davidvfu1, Vinchenzi and LewisHoward are working on the "Elaboration likelihood model" article, we will upload our changes by Tuesday (25 March 2014). If any of you is willing to contribute to the page, I would like to ask you to help us improve the article as it is not in a very good shape.

Thank you! Maks kv 91 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks, any help would be appreciated. Here is a link to the page Elaboration Likelihood Model. --LewisHoward (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as i dont really have a set page to wrok on i could help out today if you'd like me to look through :)LewisHoward MarinaLouise (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey MarinaLouise. You are more than welcome to help us as much as you like. We greatly appreciate your support! Thank you Maks kv 91 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

boxes

how to put boxes ? Lam Zhao Wei (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Lam Zhao Wei: I'm afraid this is too general a question for an easy answer. Please be more specific? Fiddle Faddle 20:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Depends on what you want. If you're talking about Infoboxes, you can use a template such as in here (example): Template:Infobox person. If you want an image box, with a description, you can simply do it like this: [[File:???|thumb|right|???.]] I'm not there. Message me! 01:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Example of an infobox, which provides short bits of information about a subject.

@Katastasi: I've fixed your example by adding <nowiki>...</nowiki>.

@Lam Zhao Wei: To add the boxes with short information, see the infoxbox help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon126 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 March 2014‎ (UTC)

@Lam Zhao Wei: Welcome to the Teahouse, Lam Zhao Wei. "Boxes" is too general, because it could be an infobox, a userbox, a thumbnail or a taxobox. Please clarify so we can help you. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 07:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Katastasi and Timtrent: Please put the {{Teahouse talkback}} on talk pages so that they can look back here. --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 07:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: It's kind of you to suggest that, but the suggestion is a tautology. We have that little red notifications thing at the head of every page, which is why I use {{ping}} Fiddle Faddle 09:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Okay, fine. You do not actually need to talkback the person if you use ping, though. LOL. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 09:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to skull awaiting review

Can someone kindly take a look at my article and give it a review? Comments are welcome too. Best regards,Synsepalum2013 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

See also Microwave auditory effect, which is where Voice to skull redirects to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that an article under the same name has already been deleted [9] - and note that this article seems to suffer from exactly the same problems (poor sourcing, synthesis, promotion of a fringe POV) that led to the deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

well thanks just for attention :l

Martynas Šalčiūnas (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your contribution. FYI, my article has been reviewed and declined by User:LukeSurl, with whom I failed to reach a consensus. As a result I have resubmitted my article for review. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How i make new wikipedia

I realy want to know how i make new wikipedia, so how there is wiki.teamfortress.com or others, please help :c

Martynas Šalčiūnas (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Martynas Šalčiūnas: Are you really talking about a Wikipedia or just a wiki? A wiki is a site that anyone can edit. Wikipedia is one of thousands of wikis (but is probably the largest and most famous). If you want to start a wiki, then http://www.wikia.com is probably the best place to do that. It's free and takes all of two minutes to do the initial setup. Starting a new Wikipedia, on the other hand, is only done after a lengthy (sometimes months or years long) discussion at m:Requests for new languages. Hope this answers your question. --Jakob (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

But im blocked in wikia and in wiki.com is impossible to do something i tested :l

So i realy need help, ill be thankful

Martynas Šalčiūnas (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Martynas Šalčiūnas:: Wikia and wiki.com look similar to Wikipedia, but they are entirely separate organisations and are run by different people. We cannot help you here. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for reference (but probably not entirely helpful) - this article tries to clarify between "Wiki" and "Wikipedia". Basically, "Wiki" is an improper noun, while "Wikipedia" is a proper noun. Calling Wikipedia "Wiki" (not "A Wiki") is like calling the Eiffel Tower "Tower". K6ka (talk | contribs) 02:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI

, http://wiki.teamfortress.com already exists. (Sorry if this isn't what you were asking about.)--Auric talk 19:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguate a soundtrack single

There is this one single – Baby Doll which is from a soundtrack. There is already an article disambiguated with (song). But how to disambiguate this one from that? Should I use the composers name, eg: (Meet Bros Anjjan song) or singers? – Soham (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. If it is a song from a soundtrack, it may be better to use the name of the work from which it came, since Wikipedia prefers common names for article titles. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Anon126, I don't understand, should it be Baby Doll (Ragini MMS 2 song) or Baby Doll (Meet Bros Anjjan song)? – Soham (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Soham: When you say "soundtrack" I assume that this the music from a film or other dramatic work, in which case I might recommend that you use the name of the film/work, if the song is more associated with that than the singer or composer. Otherwise, I'd recommend the singer because that's usually what it is for other songs. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is from a film, Ragini MMS 2 and in most reliable sources it is mentioned like Baby Doll from Ragini MMS 2.... Thanks. – Soham (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Today's DYK

The article Forest cobra is appearing in the DYK section right now. Its talk page seems messed up with two GA templates and the article history outdated. Can someone take a look and fix it? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 05:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sriram. The article failed a Good Article review in January, but later went through a second review, which it passed a few days ago. Therefore, both templates should be on the talk page. What problems do you see with the article history? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Really? By the way, since the article is a GA now, shouldn't there be another entry in the article history with the result 'listed'? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 06:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sriram: Article history fixed. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 02:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please help me with correcting the errors on my page

Hello. I have recently created the page: European Centre for Information Policy and Security and I have tried everything I can do to make the corrections.

European Centre for Information Policy and Security

I have even used other pages such as Green Peace, George Washington, etc. as examples, but I am still receiving the following error pages. Can you please help me correct these, or at least tell me where the errors are and how I can correct them, please. The following are the error notes, I have on my page.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

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

Question book-new.svg

This article relies on references to primary sources. (March 2014)

Pellisor (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In each of those error messages, at least one word is in blue. This is to indicate that it is a wikilink to a page where specific advice on that aspect is available. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pellisor. One of those messages says that the article relies on references to primary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on independent, secondary sources. When I look at the list of references, I see mostly primary sources. The secondary sources seem to be passing mentions, rather than significant coverage. That raises the question as to whether or not this organization is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I am not saying it isn't as I haven't searched for coverage in secondary sources. But it is up to you to demonstrate that notability, and I don't think you have yet done so. The message also says to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I see no such discussion. The message in question was added by Sarahj2107. You could discuss the matter on that editor's talk page, but you have not yet done so. So please address that issue. In the interim, David Biddulph has removed the tag about external links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article I see that since the tags were added you have addressed the external link problem. Having done that you could have removed the maintenance tag; I have done that for you. It looks as if most of the references are still to primary sources, so it would be good if you find more sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all the help. Best, PEllisor Pellisor (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Earth's date on the verge of violating NPOV?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Editors wishing to continue the discussion on the merits of creationism are invited to resume their conversation off-wiki at talk.origins. Questions as to how WP:NPOV should be applied to other articles should be taken up in a separate thread. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Hello! I was just wondering if we need to be looking at changing some information on Earth's page in the near future. See, the scientific school of thought regarding the date of the Earth's formation is based largely upon Carbon-dating...a system that is now known to be quite unreliable by much of the scientific community of today. Please also note that I am IN NO WAY taking a personal stance in this issue at this time (so I will not violate NPOV myself)! I am referring to the fact that in the modern world many scientists--I am not saying that they are religious or irreligious either--have completely rejected the Theory of Evolution due to scientific logic. Again, I cannot stress how important it is that we maintain a NPOV on a subject as touchy as this--right now, I personally find the idea of the exact date of Earth's formation to be not factually presented anywhere scientifically and so therefore it would make much more sense...and appease a majority of people...to restate the current article to read something alone the lines of, "It is believed by {many, some, a few, a majority of} scientists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old; however, due to the research of {many, a large number of} other scientists, this idea is not accepted as fact but is the most widely accepted theory" This way we do not violate NPOV! LiphradicusEpicus (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating is used to determine the age of organic materials, and can determine age up to about 60,000 years. It is not used to determine the age of the Earth. You might like to read (if you haven't already done so) our article on the Age of the Earth, which describes the techniques used to determine that value, which I don't believe are the subject of any particular controversy. Perhaps you were confusing carbon dating with Radiometric dating? Rojomoke (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, thank you for that link Rojomoke; it is quite helpful. The problem I have with this is that there is also the Tired Light theory to consider nowadays with more and more scientists supporting it. Would it not be more appropriate to specifically state that these are all theories regarding Earth's formation date?

And yes, it does seem that I confused Radiocarbon dating with Radiometric dating! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე (talk to me) 22:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tired Light is an obsolete scientific theory? Theroadislong (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it's quite simple, really: if you can find reliable scientific sources that indicate there is some disagreement about the age of the Earth, then you can add that there is disagreement to the article. If you can find reliable scientific sources that show that other ideas about the age of the Earth have significant support among the relevant experts in the field, then you can add those other ideas to the article, with coverage in proportion to the degree of support. Many people misunderstand the idea of NPOV to be "everyone gets their say", but that's not how it works at Wikipedia: at Wikipedia, and particularly in scientific articles like Age of the Earth, ideas, facts, and theories are covered in proportion to their degree of support among the relevant academic fields, which also means that ideas and theories that do not have significant support do not get covered or mentioned significantly in their encyclopedia articles, either. For example, the claim that many scientists have rejected evolutionary theory on scientific grounds is something that must be backed by reliable academic/scientific publications that attest to this, were it to go into an article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I was merely using Tired Light as an example...not listing it as something I purport. This article right here I find interesting: http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/11/redshift-by-cosmic-dust-trumps-hubble-and-tired-light-theories/ ; To you, Writ Keeper, I understand your point completely. Also note that the phrase you quoted from me was something I found out from personal knowledge and experience would not put into an article without appropriate source-backing. As for the NPOV, from what I've seen there seems to be a large number of people on sides of the fence other than the typical modern school-taught science. Just out of curiosity, does Wikipedia have any kind of "ratio" when it comes to science as to when other theories should be listed/supported? Allow me to explain via example...in a 1|4 ratio requirement here, if 25% of {scientists, researchers} think one way and 75% of them think another, this requirement would allow for both sides to have their opinions/theories listed. Of course, if there is a ratio, I am sure it is much closer to 1|2! მაLiphradicusEpicusთე (talk to me) 22:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, LiphradicusEpicus. There is no ratio. We simply reflect what is in reliable, secondary sources (note I'm using those words as terms of art in the narrow, wikipedia sense). If the age of the earth undergoes any significant revision, there will be plenty of coverage in newspapers and magazines (and several Nobel prizes awarded as well). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright! Thank you for that information Cart.! Much appreciated. მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 23:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiphradicusEpicus (talk • contribs)

@LiphradicusEpicus: Hey LiphradicusEpicus, Please understand one thing about NPOV: It is not giving all views about a subject, but requires us to represent:

"...all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views... Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic."

It is absolutely untrue that there is any view by more than a rounding error of actual scientists that the earth is anything but billions of years old (though there may be debate about the exact age), and the same is true of the view of evolution (see e.g. Project Steve), which is just about the most weighty, accepted view in all of science, opposed only generally by trotting out idealogues who got their degrees from cracker jack boxes, but fostered by the alarming spread over the past twenty years of the yellow journalism that passes for news, where every time there is a legitimate scientist describing evolution, they think journalistic even handedness requires presenting an opposing viewpoint regardless of weight (and then you have the pure bias of non-news, inculcating organizations like Fox).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

At this point we must agree to disagree, as there are thousands of reliable sources of scientists rejecting evolution as a legitimate theory. Let me give you a quick number to wrap your brain around: the probability of evolution being the source of the universe's creation is quite literally less than the probability of setting off a nuclear bomb in a 747 factory and the end result being a fully completed, functioning 747 jet airplane. However, due to the fact that Wikipedia is a source to many, many different beliefs, each with their own "proof" of backing it would be absurd to try to force someone to believe any one way. On a different note, Fuhghettaboutit, I would like to thank you for your information (quote) regarding NPOV and would appreciate it if you would share your insights on the Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation page (if you look at the talk page where it talks about using the term "annexation" and the ensuing arguments you will fully understand)! Again thank you! :) მაLiphradicusEpicusთე 20:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is probably not the place for it, but I feel the need to point out that no-one, as far as I know, has suggested that evolution is "the source of the universe's creation". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

putting an image

Hey, so I want to put an image as an album cover. How should I do that? Xx7nick (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Xx7nick and welcome to The Teahouse. The first question is where is the image now?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is some advice I found elsewhere on the page: Is the image one that you've created completely yourself? If so, and if you're willing to freely license it, you could upload it to Wikimedia Commons.

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

[[File:ExamplePicture.jpg|thumb|left or right|Example Text.]]— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Now chances are an album cover is copyrighted but in the article about the album, it would qualify as fair use.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Album covers are almost certainly copyrighted and in most cases, should be used only in a Wikipedia article about that album. You can't photograph an album cover (or any copyrighted image) and say "I took the photo so I can freely license it". Since the thing you've photographed is copyrighted, such use violates the copyright. Such images should be uploaded to Wikipedia itself (not Wikimedia Commons) under an appropriate fair use rationale, which honors and protects the copyright. The only images that should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are those made freely available for use by anyone under a proper Creative Commons license. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've put it as non-free album cover and it's been approved. so what should I do next?

Xx7nick (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I had intended to put this here earlier, but you go to WP:FFU. None of the information I was finding led to that, but someone asked a question here that got answered with the information I needed.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And I found an even better answer, which I have adapted for your situation, except that there could be changes to what you do when you get to the movie poster form.

1. Download the album cover to your computer. Make sure either the file you download is small, or you reduce its size. This is to comply with the non-free content policy's minimal use requirement. A proper size will typically be in the range of 250 to 350 × 350 to 450 – there is no exact dimensions guide. (If you need help with size reduction, tell us in a follow-up post.)
2. Go to Special:Upload. Note that if you click on "upload file" from the interface you will be taken to a file upload wizard. This is good for some things but you can dispense with it here.
3. Click browse and choose the file from your computer.
4. Place there the license and the fair use rationale template. I recommend following the form here
5. Since you are copying and pasting from the form above (and tailoring for the specific of your upload of course) which already provides the license directly, do not choose any from the dropdown menu you will see in the upload interface.
6. Make sure the box for "Watch this file" is ticked and then click Upload file.

— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and how to put it into infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xx7nick (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You would put the file name after "cover=". I went to the album Madonna (Madonna album) and the file there was "MadonnaTheFirstAlbum1983AlbumCover.jpg". Your file name should be something like that. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio and cleanup

Hi all.

I came across the article Dominique Stevenson today to find that most of the article was written in bullet format. I then tagged the sections with {{Prose}}. Further research showed that the collegiate play section was a copyright violation of this, so I tagged it with {{Copyvio}}. Is there anything else that can or should be done? Vycl1994 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the section, thanks for bringing it to our attention.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of my work

Hi everyone! I have made some changes on the page "Expectancy violations theory", on the "Criticism of the theory" section. I have also added a representative diagram through Wikimedia Commons. Could I get any feedback for my work? Thank you! Irina Predescu (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A Teahouse is not to advertise but to ask questions. If you continue to do this, it may be called vandalism as the Teahouse do not need any advertising from other users. I hope you understand. Cheers! --Nahnah4 ^{Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here!} 07:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Help a new editor?

I've been posting in a few areas, but I know that this will be a good place to ask as well. I've come across a new user that's editing on behalf of their university as part of a project. The user in question is User:BrendonPorter and his project/article topic is "Gender Inequality of Education in Saudi Arabia". Can anyone help him with some basic mentoring type stuff? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to mentor anyone right now, but just to let you know, this whole teahouse thing is upside down, so for more attention, please post at the TOP of the page! I assume it's some sort of joke that the tea is spiked with something and thus everyone sees things upside down. Not a particularly funny joke, but that's just how it is for now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I'll make an offer to help on their talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you have this?

I ASKED THE QUESTION ( wHY DON'T YOU HAVE THIS) AND I HAVE IT? It was put out by the Air Force in July 1958 and it's called THE DIRECTORY OF AIR FORCE FILMS. AFM-95-8. CLEARED FOR TELEVISION AND PUBLIC EXHIBITION. IT WAS PUT OUT IN 1 JULY 1958. IT HAS 84 PAGES AND CAN COME IN HANDY IF A NON AMERICAN GOT A HOLD OF IT. BUT ALL THE MATERIAL IN IT IS OUT DATED AND THE AIRCRAFT ARE NO LONGER FLYING. B-36, B-49, FORRESTAL, DECOMMISSIONED,AIR FORCE DIGEST FILMS FOR SCHOOLS AND ENTERTANMENT AT BIRTHDAY PARTIES. NOW I KNOW YOU WILL LOOK IT UP SO YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE AIR FORCE DEPARTMENT AT THE COMMANDER AT THE 1356TH FILM LIBRARY FLIGHT, 8900 SOUTH BROADWAY, ST LOUIS 23, MISSOURI. HOPE THIS WILL HELP. MY DAD WAS INCHARGE OF HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT THE MILITARY. THIS DIRECTORY CONTAINS NO COPYWRIGHT MATERIAL. THESE FILMS SHOW THE PUBLIC AND OTHER PEOPLE . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionelman67 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lionelman67, and thanks for dropping by here at the teahouse. The Worldcat catalog know of five copies in US libraries outside of the Air Force. Not sure if that answers your question, though. As an aside, your CAPS LOCK key was turned on when you wrote the above. The convention here is that ALL CAPS is interpreted as SHOUTING, which we try to avoid. Hope that helps! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Where to practice editing?

Hey, where is a good place to practice mistake editing on wiki page? I am trying to edit wiki page, but having a problem with referncing.J.podolski (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you

@J.podolski: You can practice in your sandbox if you wish. See the very top line of your screen for the link "Sandbox". A great thought, though, is to edit live articles and use the Show Preview button until you are happy with the edits you have made. They only get saved to the article when you save the page. Fiddle Faddle 08:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are having problems with referencing, try reading WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I'm studying woody plants in Ukraine. We have many different kinds of trees grow. They pile up a separate category. But hto permanently deletes otuda trees. I do not understand why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impuls666666 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Impuls666666. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are asking, but I think that it is not a question about editing Wikipedia, which is what this page is for. Perhaps you could post your question at the Wikipedia Reference Desk, but you will need to be clearer: "hto permanently deletes otuda trees" does not convey any meaning to me. --ColinFine (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fluxys Page

My previous text has been deleted because it was considerd too promotional. I have deleted all the stuff around mission, vision, values and strategy and made the intro less promotional. May I kindly ask you to review it and give me your views? I will add references as well to documents like press articles in the course of today. Thank you very much for your feedback. --Laurent Remy 06:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentremy (talk • contribs)

Hello, Laurentremy. The current text in Fluxys (as edited by Beagel) is now fine, as far as it goes. Please do add references: at present the article is almost devoid of references, and therefore does not establish notability, and is liable to be deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)