Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 172

Archive 165

←

Archive 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archiving old personal talk posts

Could you please advise how I would archive old talk posts on my own talk page? (some of my posts are now four years old!) Many thanks! EMP (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! You can cut and paste the old discussions into a subpage, such as User talk:EMP/Archive 1. (You can add {{talk archive}} to the top and bottom of the archive page as a reminder not to edit the page.) It's a good idea to let people know that archives exist, so add {{archives|auto=short|search=yes}} to the top of your main talk page. (This code also gives people a convenient search box to look up old discussions.) These instructions are from Help:Archiving a talk page. See more detailed instructions there. Hope this helps! --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Article writing/content correction project?

I'm taking part in the guild of copy editors' backlog drive and one of the articles I'm copy editing needs CONTENT editing/fact checking/content addition. What wiki project/team (like guild of copy editors or typo team) should I tag it to for content editing? I know nothing about the topic. Page is Vladimir Kvachkov if anyone here wants to have at it. Peeteygirl (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Peeteygirl, thanks for your question. One of the many WikiProjects listed on the talk page of the article here would be appropriate to contract. WikiProject Russia or WikiProject Military History are your best bets, IMO. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

English Grammar Related Questions

Hi,

I have a grammar related question. Is it OK to ask it here, or should I do it somewhere else? Is there a help desk specifically for English grammar questions? Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome the Teahouse! Unfortunately, the Teahouse is for questions about Wikipedia itself. The reference desk can help you out with your grammar question. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

InfoBoxes

Hello, sorry I keep trying to do an infobox of the key facts for a webpage (copied similar code etc) but it just doesn't seem to work for me. I know I am missing a crucial step but can't work out what it is - any help would be useful as I have resorted to a table but this appears on the left hand side of the page.

Many thanks M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mande40 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mande40 and welcome to the Teahouse. When I look at the draft article you've been working on, the infobox looks fine. Did Puffin give you the help you needed? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Yes it worked a treat first time so I was really delighted as I had spent ages trying to work it out. Thank you so much for coming back so quickly.

Mande40 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

photos are welcome?

hello! Being knowledgeable in the area, I've been advised by a fellow teahouse host to collaborate to improve articles in the WikiProject Architecture. But I'm pretty new here and I'ld like to understand rules and standards: are photos welcome? can I upload them to the pages to illustrate architectural concepts? In a field like architecture, this might help a lot. Is there any specific mandatory -- or even customary -- procedure that I should follow? where can I find it? Thanks!Wikiwedid (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you take the pictures yourself? If so, that makes the process easier. See: MOS:IMAGES Checkingfax (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, and this is very important for architecture photography: make sure you understand copyright aspects of the work itself. If you are in a country that does not recognise freedom of panorama, you may be severely limited in what you can upload. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Most major English speaking countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, allow you to take photos of the outside of buildings without infringing the copyright of the architect. In the United States at least, this does not extend to sculptures. Detailed country-by-country guidelines are available at [1]. Please comply with the copyright rules for the country where you take your photos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you do upload your own photos they are certainly welcome and this should be done at Wikimedia Commons so that they can be used on other language wikis.--Charles (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I make contact with a user who has removed an edit of mine?

How do I make contact with a user who has removed an edit of mine? He says I can contact him, but i don't for the life of me know how. can you help, please? Beryl reid fan (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Beryl reid fan. You can contact Hamiltonstone by leaving a message for him on his talkpage. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanking you Beryl reid fan (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Beryl reid fan. Here's another option: If the edit is on page where a number of people have been contributing, and you think that the change may lead to a discussion about content on the page, you may wish instead to post the reasons why you think your edit was a good one on the article's talk page. Then you can add a message to the editor's talk page inviting him or her to comment. That way other editors who work on that page will see it as well and may chime in. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks v. much, Anne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beryl reid fan (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Doing Some Easy OR

Hi all, I have a question specifically related to the Fully Qualified Domain Name page. At the very end of its main content, there's a on this statement: "Due to the scarcity of domains without a dot, not all browsers will permit this to work" where this refers to the URL "http://uz/". Now, it would be super easy to research this: just open up that URL in a bunch of browsers and see which ones work. I can tell you that Google Chrome doesn't while Firefox does, for instance. But how would I then add a citation? Obviously I can't just put in a note that I tried all these browsers, that would violate WP:NOR as I understand it. Or am I wrong? If I self-publish my findings on an external blog, would that do?

Phette23 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are on the Wikipedia list of non-notable citation sources. Checkingfax (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of submitting your research to a blog, Phette23, you could submit it to a source with professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking. That's what we call a reliable source. If published there, it could be cited on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Checkingfax and Cullen328. I feel like the barrier to entry goes up pretty high when we talk about a professional publication such as an academic journal and I'm not sure who would be interested. But I'll consider it and hold off publishing somewhere without editorial control just for the sheer ease of it. Phette23 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

feedback on a new article

Hello. I have created a new article in a sandbox. It is my first article, and it is a biography of a living person. Is it possible to ask someone to look it over to find out whether it is appropriate and to improve it, if necessary, to reduce the chance of it being deleted after it is published? (I don't know how to do this on the talk page.)

It is currently located at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:STScI/sandbox

However, I recently submitted a request to change my username (to Hubble001) after learning that "STScI" appears to violate the policy against using organizational names as usernames. So if the change is approved, I suppose it might appear instead at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hubble001/sandbox

Thank you! 130.167.231.14 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. You might want to put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article in order to submit it to the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. This means someone will, eventually, review it to see if it is suitable as a mainspace article, and move it to mainspace if so. It also greatly reduces the chances of it being deleted after being moved. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Arthur goes shopping. Hubble001 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I made an error in editing a page and now the edit button for that particular area is not appearing.

How do I correct an error I made in editing? I saved my edit without realizing the error initially and now the edit button for that area of the page is gone. There's also a "cite error" message alert which I also need to correct. I fear it shall be a long time before I edit anything else at this rate. Thank you. Barbara Anne Nadon (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

All fixed no worries. You had added a piece of reference code to the heading that's all. Keep on editing. Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Good day, Barbara Anne Nadon. Any time that you have a section that doesn't have an "Edit" link for some reason, you can always still edit it by selecting the main edit tab at the top of the page and scrolling down. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Using a Picture from Wikipedia in another Language

Dear Teahouse, I'd like to use a picture that is already in use on the Chinese Wikipedia. I believe it is fair-use, since it is a movie poster. Can you tell me if I can link the picture to the Chinese entry, or must I re-upload the picture? Ioannespaulus (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ioannespaulus. Fair use images are hosted individually on each language's own Wikipedia, and are for use only in a specific article. This is in contrast to freely licensed images hosted on Wikimedia Commons for use anywhere, by anyone, for any purpose. So, a film poster here can be used in a specific article on the film or possibly the graphic artist, but not for general use. You will have to upload it here with an appropriate fair use rationale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How to request for proofreading of a translated work

how does one request for a translated work to be proofread? I'd like to be proofread before working on verification. I believe that is more logical. thanks Emekadavid (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help :) Thouny (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

list of pages needing edits

Greetings folks, I remember coming across a page that listed all of the gender-themed pages that were in need of edits/supplementation/revision/etc. Can anyone help me locate that page? Much obliged! Natjolly (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Maybe it was Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/to_do. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Natjolly. Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies#Cleanup listing has a link to [2]. Was that it? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your help!

Natjolly (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation Requested

Hi,

I added a "citation requested tag" to Dino Stamatopoulos regarding his behind the scenes work on the TV Show Community because there is only one mention of his name on the show's article page and it says that he left the show after the third season. Another user removed the tag and wrote "Just look at any of the show's credits" in their edit summary.

I have two following two questions: Was my adding a citation tag appropriate? and Was it's removal appropriate?

Thanks in advance -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Marchjuly and welcome to The Teahouse. I watch the show and remember who you are talking about. You were probably right to ask for a citation. I wouldn't necessarily call this controversial, but anything controversial should probably be sourced. I have generally used imdb to verify credits, but others here don't consider that a reliable source and I'm not sure of the site's status when used for this specific purpose. Maybe someone else can provide more information.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Thanks for the reply. I only added the citation request tag because an edit was made on 12 December 2013 regarding Stamatopoulos's association with the show. It was changed by an IP editor from "played the recurring role of 'Star-burns'" to "plays the recurring role of 'Star-burns'," but no citation was given for his rejoining the show as either an actor or as producer/consulting writer. My bad if I added that tag in error. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this page could be cited to show that Stamatopoulos has behind-the-scenes roles in Community. Even though the fact is non-controversial, and there is some weight to Community itself being the source, having directly-citable sources is almost always better. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@LukeSurl: Thanks LukeSurl. I agree with what you. Telling someone to "look at any of the show's credits" doesn't seem like a very good way to verify what has been written. However, at the very bottom of that HuffPost TV article it says "'Community' -- minus Harmon and Stamatopoulos -- returns for its fourth season on Thursday, Feb. 7 at 8 p.m. EST on NBC." So, I'm not sure if that verifies that he is currently back on the show as an actor, a producer/writer or both. Thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture

Does anyone think this would make a decent featured picture? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. You can nominate it featured picture candidates. There you can find about more about what it takes to be a featured picture. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolving a dispute.

Hi,

I have a question about resolving a dispute. I made a good faith edit to Shogi that I felt was an improvement. However, another more experienced user "undid" my edit and because he felt it actually made the page worse. That's fine. The person left a message on my talk page telling me what they did and that they would be willing discuss things point by point if I wanted. That's fine too. I thanked them, said I wouldn't undo their undo (though I apparently worded that poorly), suggested we work together to improve the section, and suggested that we could discuss it on my talk page, but that the Shogi talk page would probably me more appropriate. The response I got implied that because of my writing style, such a discussion on Shogi talk would likely be lengthy and possibly boring to others so my talk page was a better place to do it. That seemed like a red flag to me, but I am new to Wikipedia so I am not sure of the proper protocol. So we started discussing my mistakes, my poor writing style, my poor edits, etc. and were getting nowhere. I again suggested trying to get others involved, possibly by moving to the Shogi talk page and I've tried to keep my tone as positive as possible throughout, but I feel (wrongly perhaps) that this person is more interested in lecturing than discussing. I thought Wikipedia was about being a part of a community and trying to get as many people involved as possible so that a consensus can be reached, but it seems that I am apparently wrong. I am wondering if any more experienced editors out there have any suggestions on how I should proceed. I'd like to keep trying to improve that page, but I'm not sure now if I can. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not a experienced editor, but that looks a bit like he did not want anyone else in the discussion because he wasn't planning on having a debate, but on imposing his opinions on you. That's only my feeling, of course, but I think you should have had that discussion on the talk page, where everyone could have expressed their opinion. Doesn't mean he's wrong, though, I'm just saying that it's not nice nor welcoming for a newcomer.Thouny (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. --Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

uploading images in the country infobox

Hello!

I'm making my first wiki page about the micro nation of Columbusplein. I've tried to copy paste the country infobox from other micro nation pages, but somehow I get some text together with the images of the flag and coat of arms, that shouldn't be there, like 125px|border|alt=|Flag of Columbusplein]]

Trying to edit this text out but no idea what I'm doing wrong...

this is the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbusplein

Thanks! Seethisway (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Seethisway, welcome to the teahouse. I think the problem is that you are including too much information. The template is not expecting the square brackets [] nor some of the other markup. I have fixed the flag for you, see if you can fix the coat of arms the same way. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seethisway (talk • contribs) 11:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Still not sure why the word 'flag' shows up, but Coat of Arms is not there... Any help? Seethisway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Was this edit what you intended to do? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How Long Should It Take?

I (yesterday Morning) recently asked to be a confirmed user (because I want to upload files) and it is taking forever. I have the Criteria to skip the four days and ten edits, as the person that began to help me, stated. Why did the help stop? How long will it take to get it back? Thanks! Pending^{(tell me I screwed up} 20:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Simple English: Pending. Why such a rush? Is a little over a day really "forever"? The permissions volunteers had some questions for you and are considering the matter. You could ask them. You are going to be autoconfirmed in 2-1/2 days anyway. As my mom used to say, "Patience is a virtue". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Mom Wouldn't have happened to be my 3rd Grade teacher was she? Pending^{(tell me I screwed up} 23:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't satisfied the request to make an edit at simple:User talk:Pending to confirm you are that user. You were asked only 11 minutes after your request, and again when you made a new post without having done it. Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#Instructions also asks for such a confirmation. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is done. I made the edit at the bottom of my page the first time…not the top. Its now at the top.Pending^{(tell me I screwed up} —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Bodemmanuru

Dear Luke , thank u for review & comment. I'm new. I felt I should write few words about my birth place. I lived there for 20yrs, off & on. These are facts. But I don't know how to write them or reference them. I can write names & their contact details to verify facts, if it helps any. I will greatly appreciate ur help & direction in this matter. Please help to get the facts published. Sincerely , Reddy1md. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddy1md (talk • contribs) 02:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Reddy, and welcome to the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a place for editors to get general help from other editors. If you'd like to send a message to a specific user, you can do so on a user's talk page. To leave a message for LukeSurl, the editor who reviewed your article, you can do so at User talk:LukeSurl.

Regarding sources, everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable through sources such as books, newspapers, and news articles. This helps make sure that everything on Wikipedia is reliable and trustworthy. Even if you know something is a fact, it should have a source - otherwise, it can be considered original research. Names and contact information would not be considered a source (and peoples' personal contact details should not be posted). Hope this makes sense! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Need advices on new article

Hello,

I am writing my first article. It is on Stationary Wave Integrated Fourier Transform Spectrometry. This is a technology that appeared twenty years ago and that is now being studied in some universities. I know it because it is used in my company. The draft is on my sandbox page.

I could use some feedback. Do you see things that need to be changed? Does it look ready to be published? I am looking forward to get some advices.

Thank you very much for your help!

Leelooleo (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse. This draft looks quite good to me. Here are some thoughts of varying degrees of importance:

First, it has no wikilinks - links to other Wikipedia articles. So, for example, you should have square brackets round waveguide like this; [[waveguide]]. This will produce a wikilink looking like this; waveguide. And so on with similar terms and concepts throughout the article. (But you generally only need to wikilink the first occurrence of a term, not repeatedly.)

Second, references come after punctuation, not the other way round.

Third, the whole of the "Technology principle" section seems to lack references. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My School

Dear Teahouse, I am a secondary (middle) school student. My friends and I discovered that our school is not on Wikipedia, whereas two other schools nearby have their own pages.

I understand significance is important, but our school has been in the news several times for rather significant happenings.

I wish to know whether my school could have a Wikipedia page. Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yours sincerely, -Chesnaught555.

Hi Chesnaught555, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would be helpful if you would provide us with your school's name, so that we can have a look for notability. Best, Matty.007 19:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, My school's name is Ysgol Gyfun Emlyn (it's Welsh and translates to Emlyn Comprehensive School).

Chesnaught555 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What sources did you find? Please can you link to them? Best, Matty.007 19:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Because this is a secondary school (ages 11 to 18), it is likely to be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. I'm not having much luck finding sources online though. Here's one minor one:

• "Lego still tops list for kids of all ages". Carmarthen Journal. December 25, 2013.

Given that the school is rated "unsatisfactory" in many areas by government inspectors [3], it is likely to feature regularly - in a negative way - in local newspapers and news websites, as well as occasionally in regional TV news or similar. Such news coverage would be suitable as independent sources, however it should still be possible to create a basic ("stub") article on the school using just the school's website and the latest inspectors' report as sources. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Matty and Arthur. I will proceed to start the page. Chesnaught555 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

uploading pictures

Hello. Can I receive instructions on how to file and upload a picture properly and how to have it copyrighted, please? Thank you.Gg53000 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Uploading images. Checkingfax (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Help for a newbie with references on a BLP

Hi all, I'm a newbie so advance apologies for silly questions. I'm working on the page for Marquese Scott. Initially I added a bunch of content but it was reverted by XLinkBot because it linked to YouTube a fair amount. I think I now understand that YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source (makes sense). I re-did the content using only sources that are third party and I think it's a good start. However, I came across WP:SELFSOURCE, which seems to suggest that I could use a YouTube video of the subject of the article talking about himself. The source (which is this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5lo2Ovjch0) is a short biographical video where the subject offers basic information about himself such as his birthdate, birthplace, when and where he began uploading the videos that make him notable, etc. These basic facts seem to satisfy the 5 requirements in WP:SELFSOURCE, such as they are not self-serving or exceptional, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, etc. So it would be nice to add these basic facts to the article, but I just want to be cautious since I know that BLPs are sensitive. Can a more experienced user offer some advice to me on whether these types of sources are appropriate here? Also, the References section looks ugly - I'm pretty sure I'm doing something wrong here - advice? And finally, is someone willing to just look over the article (either now or after I add the additional material) just to make sure I'm not doing something stupid? I want to learn the ropes, should I get a mentor? Thanks in advance for your help! GuineaPigC77 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Your links were removed by a bot that reverts links to YouTube videos. An automated machine is never perfect, and the message left on your talk page advises that you can undo its change if you feel it is appropriate. I think some other editors should comment on whether or not these links are appropriate. About the references section: It looks great! You are making good use of citation templates ({{cite ...}}). One last note: You can ask questions about the article on the article's talk page. Just click the "Talk" tab at the top-left. Thank you for your contributions! --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I ran the Citation Bot which combined some References and reduced the article size by about 25%. Cheers. Checkingfax (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the help. I'll post a similar question / comment on the article's talk page. Reading through WP:SELFSOURCE is making me more confident that things like birthdate and such are okay, so I'll make these smaller changes but maybe not the more substantial ones for now. And yes it would be great to have additional experienced editors look at it too. Thanks all! GuineaPigC77 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it a bug that wp:reliable can be lowercase but WP:QUESTIONABLE fails unless it is in uppercase?

Is it a mediawiki bug that wp:reliable can be lowercase but WP:QUESTIONABLE fails unless it is in uppercase, or is there an error with the template? If it is a mediawiki bug, how should it be reported? BenevolentUncle (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a question of redirects. WP:questionable doesn't work because there is no redirect for that form capitalization pointing to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If you want to change that, it's fairly easy to create a new redirect yourself. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi BenevolentUncle. You should find wp:questionable works just as well in the search bar as WP:QUESTIONABLE. However, it won't work as a link (wp:questionable vs. WP:QUESTIONABLE), because unlike the search function, links are case sensitive, and there's no shortcut page called "wp:questionable". There is, however, a WP:Reliable, which (because it automatically assumes capitalisation for namespace abbreviations and the first letters of page titles) the software will also read as "wp:reliable" in a link. Does that help to explain it? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What I should have done is use wp:RELIABLE instead of wp:Reliable. I am a bit shocked that wp is case sensitive, but we are obviously stuck with it now. BenevolentUncle (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been used as a feature to create different content, for example at Tab/TAB, Gold/GOLD and many other acronym cases, so it would be hard to get rid of now. The first letter isn't case sensitive so Gold/gold is the same page. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

how do you put up an article on wiki source

I have developed the article Path Grant. It is a deed, an original sourced document residing in the vault of the Registrer of Deeds in Hawkins County Tennessee.

The following message came up.......

"WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikisource, a collaborative effort to improve the co-ordination with Wikisource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks."

How does one place it in Wikisource? Bertmbc (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bertmbc, welcome to the Teahouse. You refer to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Path Grant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while our sister project Wikisource is for source texts. I don't edit at Wikisource but their website is at https://en.wikisource.org. It uses the same MediaWiki software as Wikipedia and your account automatically works there. I don't know their practices but maybe wikisource:Help:Beginner's guide to adding texts is of help. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Due Dilligence

I just started doing some editing on the article CORBA. One of the issues is that there aren't many references. I have a book that is one of the standard goto books for IT people on the topic and also since CORBA is an open standard there is great documentation on the site of the OMG standards group. So getting the refs is no problem. My question is the following: as I read through the article it seems reasonable, not great writing but not terrible and to the extent I remember this stuff it all sounds good. But I haven't done a lot of hands on CORBA work so I'm not positive that what is there is totally accurate. I realize the best thing to do would be to read carefully, consult my books, etc. but if I'm not up to that right now would it be an improvement to just add the refs even if I'm not 100% sure that the text matches them? Or would that essentially be perhaps making things worse since I'm giving good references to potentially bad info? I feel 100% confident that my refs are some of the best refs for CORBA so I think I would be improving the article, and there is nothing on the Talk page that indicates people are challenging what is there in a major way. Just curious what people think. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello MadScientistX11, and welcome to the Teahouse!

Adding an inline reference should not be done unless you are certain that it verifies the text. Normally I would suggest adding your source(s) to the Further reading section, with a note on the talk page suggesting which references could be found there; however, that section is already full of potential sources waiting for "somebody" to roll up their sleeves and dig in. Referencing the entire article would be a daunting task. My philosophy of editing: while researching on Wikipedia, leave behind a trail of minor improvements. If you can make one or two improvements, please do! ~Happy editing, ~Eric F:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

how do I add a photo?

Adding a photo to an article: I know there are instructions on this because I've read them before, but I can't remember where they are on the Wikipedia site. Can you help, please?Beryl reid fan (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to upload a new photo not already in Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons, see: Wikipedia:Uploading images. If you want to add an already uploaded photo to the article, see: Help:Visual file markup. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanking you Beryl reid fan (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

new edit of article being considered for deletion

I have overhauled a recent article being considered for deletion and would greatly appreciate any feedback that could be given before it's reassessed (or not reassessed, I don't know how the timeline works).

The article is: /wiki/Devcoin and any criticism, constructive or otherwise, is welcome.

Thank you. I wasn't aware until today that wikipedia was open to everybody, and that has come as a pleasant surprise.Weisoq (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Weisoq, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article you've started (Devcoin) is proposed for deletion under the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion procedure. The discussion about deleting the article is ongoing here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devcoin. The reason the article is proposed for deletion is that it does not prove wp:notability of the subject. Wikipedia's policy is to include only articles about notable subjects. Notability is proved by citing reliable sources that significantly cover the subject, and that are independent of the subject (see here: WP:42). You did not cite any such source. Sources you've cited are: Devtome.com and Devcoin.org (not independent of the subject), some web blogs (not reliable sources) and also some sources that barely mention Devcoin (no significant coverage). Vanjagenije (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Vanjagenije. I don't really follow the prioritisation of notability over subject and content, but I'm discussing it with Flat Out. RegardsWeisoq (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with Article

Hello,

I've been working on an article for quite some time regarding a spiritual teacher named Kosi. It keeps getting rejected primarily because the language was deemed not neutral enough. I really scrubbed this article of all adjectives and anything that might seem to be what you call "peacock" terms. But because this process is taking so long, I think it would best if someone with more experience look at it and explain in more detail what I need to have this article approved.

She is a new teacher, but there are a lot of interviews and world-wide acceptance of her teaching. Please advise. I welcome any and all constructive criticism. Here is my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiprague/sandbox

Thank You Wikiprague (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Wikiprague, and welcome to the Teahouse. The article you submitted to the Articles for creation project is getting declined because of certain issues. I read the article carefully, I want to point out few major issues that keep the article off the main space:

1. The lead section is confusing. The lead section has a role to introduce the reader to the topic, and to establish the context. I don't think many people would understand what is "an Advaita Vedanta non-dual teacher".

2. The lead section claims that she is "the producer of the widely viewed YouTube video entitled Who Are You...Really?". First, there is no reference to prove that the video is "widely viewed" (247,000 views does not seem a much to me), and second, a link leads to a video titled "Who Dies?", and not "Who Are You...Really?".

3. Many statements in the article are completely unreferenced. For example, the article claims that she was born as "Jill Warner", but there's no citation to verify this. (This is just an example, there are much more statements without any source). See: WP:VERIFY.

4. Many parts of the article are not understandable. The text is confusing and does not provide enough context. For example, I am not able to understand any part of this sentence:

Radiant Light Ministries was a multi-faith church with an emphasis on non-dual teachings recognized as “I AM” Presence, Being, a Higher Power, Source, Creator, Christ Consciousness, Buddha Nature, Hindu Self, Pure Potential and embraced the teachings of Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, St. Germain, Babaji, Ramtha, Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and other great teachers but was not limited by, nor in judgment of religious dogma or any other restrictions.

5. The article mixes reality with fantasy without distinguishing between the two. For example, you write that she had a "mystical experience of Jesus Christ", that she "directly realized the living presence of our inherent nature", and that Sri Amma Karunamayi is "the embodiment of the Divine Mother".

6. You write about person named "Gangaji", but do not explain who is that person and why is she/he important.

7. Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most of the sources you cited are not reliable, nor independent of the subject. You mostly cited interviews with the subject (not independent sources), or blogs and YouTube videos (not reliable sources).

I hope I clarified to you the most important issues with this article. Please, do not take this as a criticism of your work. I just try to help you to understant what you need to do to improve the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

First, I am so grateful that someone finally told me specifically what was wrong. I've edited this article so many times and read the guidelines, but missed many of the things that you pointed out. I checked the links for the Who Are You...Really? YouTube video and Dotsub website links. And the links for dotsub are working properly and show that the it has been viewed by over 500,000, which is significant. So I am not sure why you did not see the dotsub. The other issues you point can be fixed. Again thank you for explain, the continued rejection with no real explanation was very confusing. Thanks You! Wikiprague (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)