Wikipedia:Teahouse

A lad insane, 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

starting a page

Is there a target you have to meet when creating a new page. I.E minimum word limit or minimum links to support the page. Sarah1971 20:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hired guns for article improvement

I feel like I heard in the past you can possibly offer donations in users' names or badges of some kind to encourage editors to improve a particular article. Is this true? Where would I make that request/offer? Ceaseless (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

need help responding to "issues"

The site I've editing got hit with a bunch of issues today, some of which I don't know how to deal with, and some of which I don't agree with. If I do something about an issue, can I delete it from the list? I would really appreciate some guidance on this. This is the address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcani_Institute_of_Agricultural_Research Issue statements: >This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (March 2014) I can change some language. After I make the changes, do I delete this comment? >This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: inappropriate text and image formatting, captions, embedded links, wikilinked section heaeders, bold; see WP:MOS. (March 2014) I don't know what is wrong or inappropriate here - I would need specific guidance, if possible >This article may require copy editing for cohesion and tone; WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. (March 2014) I can change some language. After I make the changes, do I delete this comment? >This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (March 2014) Again, I need specific guidance. >This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (March 2014) I strongly disagree with this statement. The majority of the references are to articles in the international reviewed scientific literature. What can be more neutral than that? >Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (March 2014) I strongly disagree with this statement. The majority of the references are to the international reviewed scientific literature. What can be more neutral than that? e1baa340@opayq.com (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ergraber- Welcome to the Teahouse! I see, the article is tagged with multiple maintenance tags. Every maintenance tag displays a message with one blue link to address the issue. Fix issues and remove the tags. If it is still being re-instated by someone, make a case on the article's talk page. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding 'further reading'

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and was interested in adding some journal article citations to a biographical article. Is that a useful addition if I don't add any text to the article itself? Would I put these under a 'further reading' section? Thank you very much for your time Bitofdust (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bitofdust, and welcome to the Teahouse. If the sources have some information that the article has, its best to add it. However, adding a "Further Reading" section is just fine as long as the sources are what we consider a reliable source. K6ka (talk | contribs) 18:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you K6ka, I appreciate your help and your welcome. The two articles are from a journal available in JSTOR so they are reliable sources. But it probably would be best to see if I can also make some additions to the main article with information from the articles. Bitofdust (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I need help creating a new entry

Negri’s Original Occidental Italian Family Style Restaurant I need help creating a page for Joe Negri of Joe Negri restaurant in Occidental, CA but there is already a different Joe Negri Jazz Musician, first I need instruction on how to create the page, then to resolve the conflict. I have two sources from the web. http://sebastopol.towns.pressdemocrat.com/2011/10/news/occidental-restaurateur-joe-negri-dies-at-78/ http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/pressdemocrat/obituary.aspx?pid=154257462 I can't make references work or change photos either, I will proably need help when I do it. Joe Negri was a friend of my father, I knew him when I was a kid. Joe Negri's restaurant is now run by his family, but they don't have a website for it. They must not be into the internet very much. I can see reviews on yelp and trip advisor. I was there about a year ago. It is very large and very popular. Apriv40dj (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, although I am afraid I don't think I can help. The basic requirements for any Wikipedia article are at WP:42:- the subject on an article requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unless Joe Negri received extensive coverage, in something like the Los Angeles Times, which is deemed to be reliable and independent, he would not meet these requirements. Sources like Yelp and Trip advisor are both created by members of the public, so are not "reliable", nor are Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media, nor indeed Wikipedia itself. If Mr Negri did receive extensive coverage in the national or regional media then it may be possible to create an article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I was not going to use yelp as a reference, I posted my two references. I need help creating the article. I am sure it is valid. You did not click on my sources, you only noticed I mentioned yelp. I only mentioned that the restaurant has no webpage, but is reviewed. I think it has merit, I was not asking if I think it should be created, I wanted to create the page. Apriv40dj (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC) I have another idea, even if the article is found to be without merit, it would go under the wiki travel in re: Occidental as it is the biggest and most major restaurant there. Occidental is a very small town. Apriv40dj (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading book covers

Hi, I recently uploaded an image of a book cover in an article about the author of the book. I think (hope) I covered all the bases about the low resolution and the book being the subject of the article's discussion, but the image is still tagged for the administrator's final decision. I just wanted to make sure I covered everything I needed before the final decision is made. Could somebody help me make sure? The page is this:

File:Postnow Angst book cover German translation of Postnov, Strah.jpg

it is a cover of the German edition of a novel by Oleg Postnov. ZCB135 ZCB135 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi ZCB135. Because the rationale for using a book cover is that the image is necessary to help identify the book, you cannot use an image of the cover on any page apart from an article about the book. We do not have an article about Angst (book) on Wikipedia, and so the image cannot be used here. I'm afraid I'm going to have to delete it for the time being; if you can create an article about the book itself then it can be uploaded again. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think the book merits a separate article, so I will write it in a haste. Will you give me until the end of the week? But also—would you if I add a large subsection about Angst in the Biography, will you allow the book cover stay in the biography section? This is the most notorious book by that writer, and the German edition is the one that's most identifiable. What do you think?

Also (this might save the day) the artist on the cover is from a couple hundred years ago. I wonder if that is too old for copyright. Would that help? ZCB135 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZCB135 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

An article in Dutch on "Folpet" needs improvement; how best is this done?

When the translated ( http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folpet) Dutch to English I do not have "editing rights." I would like to write a "Folpet" entry for the English Wikipedia. Can these two pages co-exist (one in Dutch, one in English)? The English version will not be identical (more data added) then the Dutch version. What is the best path to proceed?Elliot Ben Gordon (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Elliot. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, with respect to "editing rights", but yes, the English and Dutch Wikipedias may each have an article on this subject, provided it meets their requirements about notability (the requirements may not be identical in the two Wikipedias); an yes, the English article may be based on a translation of the Dutch article (and should acknowledge this for the purposes of attribution) but may then diverge from it. Please see Translation for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyber Police

User:AniceMathew was blocked because he harassed a user. His repeated unblock requests were also declined. Ever since then, he has been creating new accounts which quickly get blocked because he leaves clear evidence of sockpuppetry. In his latest sock GadidhaKoduka, he has stated that he will "definitely keep making accounts, until u people [Wikipedia] get tired of blocking me". So I think blocking him does not get the job done, but something else should. Is there any? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kailash, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately there are not really any better alternatives for dealing with this sort of thing, with the exception that administrators may choose to employ Wikipedia:Rangeblocks in some circumstances. There is an essay entitled Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore that outlines one approach to the problem. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Kailash29792. If he becomes a serious problem then administrators or checkusers might consider implementing a rangeblock to deal with his IP range, but generally speaking it's best to just ignore tiresome users like this. Revert their edits, report them to an admin or to the sockpuppet board, and just don't engage. There's one of him, there's goodness knows how many editors who can remove his work - trust me, he'll get bored first, they always do. Incidentally, I've blocked the latest incarnation - let me know if you see any more; it only takes one click... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Find and replace

I want to replace a word that appears several times in an article. Is there a "find and replace" function here? Will there be additional markup if you want to make your "find" a "match case"? Thanks Geraldinho108 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Geraldinho108: Hey Geraldinho108. Yes, the search and replace feature is in the edit window. It's a bit hard to notice. Once you're in edit mode, click advanced just above the edit field and look to the far right. The icon for it is: . It has a match case option you can toggle on and off. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding image in Sandbox

Hi I want to add image in sandbox and move further,please help me. Thanks in advanceWill Talk2 (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. The picture tutorial has the basic code for adding images. If you still need help, feel free to reply here. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox, I do not believe my advice above is appropriate. If you want to include an image in the infobox, that will have to wait. Most likely, the cover of the book is copyrighted, and Wikipedia's policies do not allow such images outside articles. (If you want to have your sandbox reviewed and turned into an actual article, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top.) Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello,thanks for the suggestion,still in development article.once i am done with article ,i will submit. the images can found in public domain,what exactly mean by public domain?Will Talk2 (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Will Talk2. If you want to add images to Wikipedia, then you will have to learn about how to avoid copyright violations and how to follow our policies on use of non-free content. When something is not covered by copyright, it is in the public domain. In the United States, this most commonly refers to works first published before 1923. So any literary work, photo, illustration or art work published before then can be used freely by anyone, and such images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The cover of a recent book is copyrighted, as are recent movie posters, album covers, video game screenshots and so on. We can use an image of a book cover on Wikipedia only in a far more restricted way than items in the public domain. A low resolution image of a recent book cover can be used in a main space article about the book, but not in article drafts or user pages. These policies have legal implications and must be followed carefully. Always ask a more experienced editor if you are in doubt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Page creation for a company I am associated with conflict of interest? best practices.

Hi,

I help or am associated with several companies that lack a wikipedia page. What is the best practice for me to help them get a page?. I do not want to degrade wiki-pedia or the companies integrity by trying to by pass the conflict of interest provisions of wikipedia. These are legitimate companies that deserve a page. What is the best practice that I can help them get one.

Thanks in advance.IXPeak (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to create a new article about such a company, the best thing to do is to go to articles for creation, where you can make a draft and have others review it before it becomes an actual article. While you are writing, you should read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide for advice. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 04:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and help Anon126, that is the clarity I was looking for. IXPeak (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

new word

How do I post a definition of a new word? 71.204.137.25 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. In general, Wikipedia is not the place for neologisms. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Commercial links

Who do I mention it to if someone has posted 75 references linking to a commercial website on a page? Is this allowed? Jenjhall (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jenjhall. Please follow the procedures described in our guideline on spam. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

format the "further readings"section

I just added a reference to the article entitled Chien-Shiung Wu. I don't think i did a very good job with the format. so if someone would take a look and correct it, i'd be pleased. The reference I added is a new biography and is excellent. Marthad (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marthad, welcome to the Teahouse. The format you used looked OK to me, but User:Yunshui has further improved it with this edit. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry - I saw this, made the change and then got into something IRL before I could come back here and reply. Thanks for the ping, Arthur. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

How to make a complaint

Hello. Can someone tell me who to make a complaint about an admin who is rude and unprofessional? This was my first experience with Wikipedia --- certainly not a good one. I am not sure I would ever edit/write again if I have to contend with such rudeness from admins.

Thank you for your help. Susieshoe (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. You should first try to settle the issue with the user individually first, most likely on a user talk page. But seeing as you've already tried to do that, you may want to bring it up at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have a dispute on the content of an article, you should discuss it on the talk page on the article, where other users can give their opinions. You ought to be cautious about going to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents, as your own edits will be scrutinised; you ought to listen to the views of experienced editors. Assuming that you are referring to the comments of Orangemike at your talk page, there is nothing obvious there which I would regard as rudeness. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that insults on my writing ability are not considered rudeness, not to mention false accusations. He has a right to his opinions, but I am a seasoned writer and I have never been treated like that in 25 years of writing and editing. And I have never treated any of my reporters like that. Perhaps an English or writing degree should be required for admins because he made claims about my writing that are absolutely incorrect. Are grammar books provided to the admins?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=1# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:B:97B:369E:F0B:9FD1 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Productive input is what I expected. It took numerous conversations with Orange Mike before he actually gave me examples. It's like a teacher giving a student a D but not explaining why. After all,we both had the same goal - to improve content on Wikipedia. What is currently there for George Koonce in my opinion is shabby and incomplete. How Orange Mike handled the situation certainly was not productive. Let me add that I worked for hours on that. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=1# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:B:97B:369E:F0B:9FD1 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hello, Susieshoe, and welcome to the teahouse. I'm sorry that you've gotten off to a bit of a rough start. You mention that you've had some training in journalism. That should help you a lot here. I'm sure you understand that the house style for The Economist is very different than the The New York Times, which in turn is different than Time magazine. We have our own "house style" here that guides everything from the kind of sources we can use (newspapers yes, blogs no) to how much detail to include, and even the kind of prose that's expected. While much of this is written down (see WP:RS for sourcing guidelines and WP:NEUTRAL for style and tone), the actual implementation of those guidelines comes down to a rough, evolving consensus. In my opinion, Orangemike's opinion is well within the range I would expect from experienced editors.

As to rudeness: we allow quite a bit of latitude for comments directed at the edit (as opposed to comments directed at the editor, see WP:CIVIL for the actual policy). That's not the tone I personally use (especially with newer editors), but it's far from uncommon here. I'm sure we share a common experience of writing brilliant prose, only to have it hacked apart by an editor (and rudely to boot). It's not fun, but the best thing to do here is focus on the content of the comments rather than the tone. If you'd like me to help mediate between the two of you I'm happy to do so. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Lesser Cartographies. I appreciate your explanation. Let me also thank David Biddulf and Anon126 for your responses as well.

I very much appreciate your offer to mediate, Lesser Cartographies. I will definitely consider it. As you may imagine, at this point, I am frustrated and feel as though I have spent a lot of energy on this matter already. It is good to hear your comments regarding rudeness and the expectations within the Wikipedia community. Thank you for taking the time to provide the explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions&action=edit&section=2# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:B:97B:369E:F0B:9FD1 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the admin's comments were aimed at criticizing your writing skill so much as how the style of writing fits in with wikipedia guidelines. Writing a newspaper article is very different from writing a wikipedia article. It sounds like you have a lot of good information to share in this biography...would you like help taking that information and making it sound "encyclopedic? :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

AFC

Hello, I have recently been interested in Articles for creation, but the thing is, how to review a AFC is confusing. How do you review a AFC on Wikipedia?

Thanks - Happy_Attack_Dog "How`s my reverting? Call 1-800-U-GOT-BLOCKED" (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi HA Dog, welcome to the Teahouse. The easiest way to review is to add Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script. If you want to see exactly what happens to a submission when being accepted or declined, go through the history of such a page - for example you could pick one from Wikipedia:Articles for creation/recent and one from Category:Declined AfC submissions.

Also read Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions.

There are always plenty of submissions awaiting review. Let us know how you get on! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I upload from the sandox?

I have an article in my sandbox. I'm not sure if I have tried to upload it, or not, or if there's a waiting time, etc. I's been written for about a week. TIA AlexMcCallum (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alex, welcome to the Teahouse. Put {{subst:submit}} at the top of your sandbox article submission, and eventually it will be reviewed to become an article. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading images

How do you put an image on an article? (I mean, I'm entirely new to the concept of whether you just take an image off the internet to use or just make your own).

Every image on Wikipedia I've seen used is a JPEG - but how do you create a JPEG image?

Anzukiller (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anzukiller. Generally speaking (and I apologise for shouting, but the emphasis is fairly important): DON'T COPY PICTURES OFF THE INTERNET! To be more precise, Wikipedia's licencing means that only images released under a certain type of licence can be used here - most images on the 'net are not suitable, although you can upload pictures you've taken/created yourself quite safely. To do so, go to the File Upload Wizard (choose the Commons Wizard if you took or made the image yourself) and follow the (simple) step-by-step instructions. Have a look at this short essay for a bit more detail. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and as to the format - .jpeg, .svg, .gif, .tif, .pdf and several other image types are suitable for uploading. Most image viewing software (e.g. Acrobat, Paint) will give you the option of saving a picture in any one of several formats, one of which is usually .jpeg - just select it from the Save As screen. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, thank you, but about the properties of an image? For example, in my first few months as a Wikipedia user, I have made updates to the profile of Carmel McQueen from Hollyoaks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmel_McQueen - and the image used there states it is a screenshot.

But how do you make a screenshot of an image?Anzukiller (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Inserting photographs and infoboxes

Hello to all, I am writing a page on a musician Cypress Grove. All the photographs I have are copyright free because he gave the to me to publish. But I can't seem to make them appear in the draft in my sandbox. I would also like to insert the photograph in an infobox like other musicians have. I would appreciate any help I can get. Athenaathena07 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Athena, welcome to the teahouse. His giving a photograph to you in order for you to publish it on Wikipedia does not make that photograph copyright free.

For use on Wikipedia, the copyright status of the photographs can be clarified with the procedure at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and you could upload the images at Wikimedia Commons. They can then be used in articles, including infoboxes. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your problem was that you were trying to use a URL, rather than a wikilink. If you look at this diff, you will see how I corrected it. The syntax for images varies between different infoboxes. If you look at {{Infobox musical artist}}, you'll see how that one works. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Could you also instruct me on how to place a photograph on the left of the page instead of on the right?Athenaathena07 (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Need review and help in adding pictures to article

Hi,

I just added an article about Lenskart - a fledging ecommerce venture in India(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenskart). I want to add pics to the article, but am unsure on how to check for copyright rules for the pics that are available online. I'll appreciate if someone could help me in adding pictures to the article. It would be great, if you could also take some time to review the article

Thanks, Sachinj2013 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Uploading Company Logo to Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I am interning for a company and trying to upload the company logo on here in order to include it on the Wiki page I am creating. I submitted it to be uploaded a few weeks ago and was denied due to copyright/licensing issues, during which the entire page I created was deleted.

Our logo may be too simple, as I have read on some forums. Here is a link to our company website with the logo at the top (although a bit smaller in size than the version I am trying to upload (which does not exist on the Internet it seems): http://www.hengtiansoft.com/CompanyInfoPage-en-0-5.html. I also read something about using the following two tags when using 'simple' logos:

This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark.
These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos.

Anyways, I am very lost, and I really have no idea exactly how to upload this logo.

Thanks,

Ashley

Insigma Hengtian (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure if the logo is in fact too simple to be copyrighted, but if it is, it may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and tagged with the notices you mentioned. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 17:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to make my sandbox into a new encyclopedia page.

Hello, experienced editors. It's nice to communicate you. First of all, I'm a Japanese native writer, so may sometimes write incorrect English. If so, please forgive me.

Anyway, I translated a Wikipedia Japanese page into English in my sandbox. Then I did 1. I made a new article titled "Funassyi (mascot)", and 2. I tried to move from my sandbox to the new "Funassyi (mascot)" page. But something wrong happened . I can see (Redirected from User:Akiko718atWiki) under the title "Wikipedia:Funassyi (mascot)".

I'm stuck. Is this check-mate? I'm panicked a little. I just love Funassyi. I just want to create its English page, and link the page to the Japanese page. Could you please show me how to solve this problem, if there is a solution. Thank you very much in advance. Akiko718atWiki (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done @Akiko718atWiki: I moved it to "article space" at Funassyi (mascot). Before it was in the "project space" where things like this teahouse and our policies are kept. Welcome! If you get a chance, can you post the link to the Japanese language version of this article here or on the article talk page so they can be linked? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Format for listing references and sources

I've read all the text regarding Wikipedia's preferred method for writing out the sources and references, but it's very confusing to me. Is there a simple sample of this I can go to? Thanks, LukeKenasnow (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kenasnow. Please read Referencing for beginners, which explains it all, and even shows you how to test the procedures on your own user talk page, or your sandbox page. Another way to learn is to study the wikicode for a brief article that has a couple of references properly formatted. Among the things to remember is that the code has to be exactly right. For example, opening reference tags are slightly different than closing tags. If you mix them up, your references won't display properly. Also, you need to have a "References" section toward the end of the article, with a proper template in order to display the references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of message at bottom of User Page and why is User page live?

Hi - please help me with my User Page draft for Marisa Lankester - there is a message at the bottom and I am not sure how to get rid of it. Also, why did my User page draft go "live' immediately yesterday while I was composing the first draft (I save it intermittently)and when I click 'preview' - I got a notice yesterday the draft would be deleted without references despite the fact I had just started entering text and was about to put my references in... HELP.KHBibby (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi KHBibby, welcome to the Teahouse. Click "Contributions" at top of any page to see your edits. Special:Contributions/KHBibby shows you have created three pages: User:KHBibby/Marisa Lank /draft article, User:KHBibby/sandbox and Marisa Lankester . The last was created yesterday and is not a user page draft. You created it as a live article in the encyclopedia. It sounds like this was not your intention. Would you like it to be moved to a user page where you can work on it in peace until you feel ready to submit it? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess you first referred to the "Cite error" message at the bottom of [1]. It was there because you used <ref>...</ref> after {{reflist}}. This is not allowed so I have fixed it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Frequent editing/editing in advance

Hello, I’m wondering if there is any policy/guideline in relation to changing the episode numbers for TV show articles on a daily basis for shows that air multiple times per week, and also editing them in advance of their screening date.

The editor in question edits a number of articles every day and usually edits in advance. For example on a Friday he/she will change the episode numbers to include an episode that screens on the following Monday. During the week he/she will change the episode numbers to include an episode that screens the following day. An example of this editing is[here]. I have asked the editor involved why he/she adopts this practice but I have had no response to date and the editor has made more changes since my query.

I would appreciate any comments on this subject. Thank you Melbourne3163 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Melbourne3163. I notice that this is an IP editor without a registered account. Many such editors don't pay much attention to talk page messages. I see no reason why an editor can't update episode numbers daily for a daily show, but I agree that it should not be done in advance of an episode airing. In the grand scheme of things, though, it is a relatively minor quirk, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your comments and I do agree this is not an 'earth-shattering' problem. I was mainly concerned about the editing in advance so I have now placed a (visible in edit mode) note in the episode number section of the ten sites the editor changes in advance, asking that the episode count be changed only after the episode has aired. Other than that, I guess it's time to move on. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding to an article

Can someone please add to Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 that it was featured in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 film), using this book as a reference, The Shadow Self in Film: Projecting the Unconscious Other (2014), Gershon Reiter, http://books.google.com/books?id=-5qdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA11 page 11, 9780786476640. Thanks.

Also, I typed this question two times before. I clicked on the ask my question button, which was not grayed out and I had the four tildes, and it appeared to accept it, with that window zapping away when I clicked the button, and the page refreshed like it was doing something and then my question never appeared.--108.14.111.10 (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

When I added this question using the edit button it made me go through a captcha. Is that why it didn't work when I tried the other way? That means that a lot of questions won't work doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.111.10 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Choosing submitted articles to review

If at some time in the future I offer to help with reviewing submitted articles, is there a quick way of finding articles in the queue that are on subjects that I can claim expertise in? RoachPeter (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Classification of draft articles is possible in the new Draft-space but it isn't implemented yet. We are working on moving the whole AfC process there as soon as possible. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What Happens If You Forget Dates Of Retrieval When Correcting Sources?

Hello everyone

So i'm finally getting around to correcting my sources. Some of the sources go back a while. What happens if you can't remember the exact date when you retrieved a source?

Thanks Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wyliecoyote1990. It's just meant to be a date where an online source contained the referenced content. It doesn't have to be when the source was originally added. If the source contains the content today then put today's date. Or are you referring to sources which are no longer online or have changed content? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to the date when i collected the source for my article. Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

But does the source still exist at the same url, assuming we are talking about Internet sources? If it still exists then it doesn't matter when you first saw it. Simply place today's date as accessdate. If the source doesn't exist anymore then there are different options depending on circumstances, and we need to know which source it was and what you used it for. And what do you mean by "correcting my sources"? Are you saying the sources had false content, were unreliable, were represented incorrectly, or do you just mean improve formatting of the sources with details like dates, or is it about something else? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It's mainly to do with formatting of the sources with dates.Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I keep asking but it's critical to the answer: Do the sources still exist, i.e. can they still be accessed today? If you are unable to answer for some reason then can you give an example? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources still exist and i can still access them. First time creating an actual article you see. Still learning Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. As mentioned, you can simply ignore when the sources were originally accessed or added and just add today's date as accessdate. The main purpose of the accessdate for online sources is helping editors track down the source if it goes offline, for example enabling the editor to look at an archive from the time. That's also why there should be no accessdate for offline sources like printed books. Any editor can add an accessdate to an existing reference. It doesn't have to be the editor who added the source or somebody who knows when it was. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks that's solved it. Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How do you find history on a large page?

View history is chronological. On a large page how do I find where a particular line was edited? Is there a way to search history? Even narrowing View History down to a section would be helpful. The summaries are not reliable for this. Galhalee (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

At the top of the history page is a link "Revision history search" which you can use to find when a particular word or phrase was added to the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a tutorial for creating a page ?

Is there a tutorial for creating a page ? Eliforme (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Eliforme. You may find Your first article and A Primer for newcomers to be useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Hello everyone. I am doing my University assignment on Charles Berger's Uncertainty Reduction Theory, asking for some help. I would like to edit Defense section and add some information about Berger's term 'hedging'. Will it be fine if I will quote Berger from the book? or should I do add something else(reliable source)?

J.podolski (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, J.podolski. A brief quote from the originator of the theory is fine, as long as it is enclosed in quotation marks, and cited properly. When I look at that article, though, I have strong suspicions that much of the content may have been cut and pasted directly from the original sources without proper attribution, rather than properly paraphrased and summarized by earlier Wikipedia editors. Please be aware that I am unfamiliar with the topic, and can't say with 100% certainty. However, if my suspicions are correct, then you are dealing with possible copyright violations and your first and most important task will be to remove all violating content and completely rewrite those sections. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much User:Cullen328, I will take your advice and will try to come with best suitable solutions J.podolski (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Article for publishing: unclear reliability

Hi, I wrote this article and submitted it for the review in order to publish it. But it was rejected with the following words: "Comment: press releases and reviews of unclear reliability dont establish notability here." But if you go to References section you'll see that it has several links to reviews on prominent Russian sites. The program is mostly popular in Russian speaking countries, but WP rules don't forbid the links to non-English sites. It has at least 4 links to reliable sites: IXBT.com, Habrahabr, Tom's Hardware and ITC.ua. All of them are quite popular in Russia and other Russian speaking countries. IXBT has a page in ruWP [3], Habragabr has a page in enWP, Tom's Hardware has a page in enWP, ITC.ua doesn't have a page in neither WP, but it is a project of the ITC Publishing House which published several computer magazines including the "Home PC" magazine that has a page in ruWP [4] and which had a circulation of 40 000 copies per month. Now, how those links cannot be reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante1717mx (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dante1717mx. Just because a website is popular and has an article on English Wikipedia or Russian Wikipedia does not mean that the site is generally reliable for use as a reference here on Wikipedia. Examples include the vast majority of the content on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Conversely, a source can be of interest to only a few people and lack a Wikipedia article about it and be highly reliable. Examples might be historical journals published by regional universities. Almost all blogs are not considered reliable sources, and the English articles indicate that these sites incorporate blogs and user submitted content. We want sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Please review WP:RS for a more detailed description. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

But they are! They have "editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking", except Habrahabr. Here I found the Wikipedia:Notability (software) article in Russian WP [5], which clearly states that those three sites are reliable. Now I hope the question is solved and someone can properly review the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante1717mx (talk • contribs) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Each language version of Wikipedia is administered separately, so a source judged reliable by the standards of Russian Wikipedia may or may not be accepted here. Please remove the non-compliant source from your draft and discuss the matter with the AfC reviewer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please also note, Dante1717mx, that the Russian guideline does not allow press releases from the software company for showing notability, and English Wikipedia also excludes use of press releases for that purpose. Press releases are not independent sources, and neither is a "cut and paste" reprint on other sites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but why do you consider that link as a reliable source? I mean it is there for proving certain aspects of the software, in this case the release date of the Windows and Mac OS versions and the total number of word entries. What other source can prove such info? Not all reference links are there to prove notability. The one that prove it are the three reviews. The Resident Evil 5 article has 3 links to Capcom's press release (titled "Announcing Resident Evil 5: Gold Edition" in the Reference section) and it poses no problem.Dante1717mx (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:THIRDPARTY. Press releases do not help in establishing notability, and their use should be quite limited. Without looking at the Resident Evil article, I would like to say that just because Article A has a certain problem, that does not justify creating Article B with a similar problem. Instead Article A should be fixed, and Article B written properly from the beginning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability Tag

Hello :) a company page I'm working on has got a Notability Box attached to the top of its page Graffiti Kings. Its asking for more reliable, secondary sources about the topic to be added.

My question is: where on the page do I add these reliable secondary web links & how

Thanks in advance Sarah1971 16:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome back to the Teahouse! A good way to do this is to simply add more information and cite reliable secondary sources. (See the introduction to referencing if you need help with this.) Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not able to see the last part

I'm not able to see what is posted after the, "No basis for RAW Sponsership" section on the discussion page of Talk:Terrorism in Pakistan, so someone please fix it.—Khabboos (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Khabboos, thanks for reporting this. Fixed in [6] Somebody had accidentally deleted the end marker from an undisplayed comment so the rest of the page became part of the comment. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A few questions

I have a few questions. First off, how do i add an photo to an article. Second, how do, for an example, add an infobox to like an Eminem album or a Book.

CFP2016 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the teahouse. Try Template:Infobox album or Template:Infobox book.

Regarding adding photos, who took the photo, and what article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... The Article is Angry Blonde (Eminem book) and it is an article i made i need help finding a picture that isn't copyrighted thats of the cover to put on there.

CFP2016 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello CFP2016. Any image of a copyrighted book cover will be covered by that copyright. However, the fair use exception to copyright law allows such use for certain purposes. Please refer to WP:NFCI which allows for usage on Wikipedia of "Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)". The article Angry Blonde includes critical commentary, so I think that uploading a low-resolution image of the cover to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons), for use only in that article, is acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Citing Web Sources/Correct Code

Hello everyone

I submitted my article to be reviewed and I've been knocked back because of poor sourcing. I've tried to correct my errors to show the website publisher and the date of retrieval. I keep getting errors,specifically a CS1 error. What is the correct syntax to solve this? Thanks.:)Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! The CS1 error was caused by a vertical bar (|) where there should've been an equals sign (=). The correct code is "publisher=Publisher's Name"; I've fixed this already. I'll also leave some additional comments on the article. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks:)Wyliecoyote1990 (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Invite to help add content to 2 Wiki pages.

Hello :) over the last few days I have tried to add content to 2 pages & withing minutes the edits are taken down by users that just love to ruin pages rather than help them?. Rather than me still trying to edit & still getting my work taken down would any nice users like to help a newbie out by adding content to the 2 pages. On both talk pages I have added a list of web links for you to source, some links are good some are poor, another area I'm no good at :( If these link should disappear then they are added on my user page.

The 2 pages are: graffiti artist Darren Cullen & hes graffiti art company Graffiti Kings

Before anyone asks or leaves a comment: I'm trying to learn like everyone else new & using a subject I know about (street art), I'm not linked to the subjects I'm working on, I'm just trying to make good of my edits that are being taken down. I'm trying to walk before I run, rather than editing/messing up many other pages.

Thanks in advance really.

Sarah1971 22:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, welcome back to the teahouse! In answer to your question, no the editors in question do not love to "ruin" pages.

I hope this helps. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well they don't like to help a newbie & know how to make a newbie feel welcome. Sorry but my impression is that there's nothing but 99% hate on here & sticking up for other fellow experienced users. If you go through my history your see maybe only 5 people have actually said hello or Hi & give advice. Sad really. Sarah1971 23:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, welcome back to the teahouse. If your statistic of "99% hate" is correct, that is certainly very alarming! And we should all do all we can to improve that statistic. Having reviewed your contributions and talk page, I agree that at least five people have greeted you with salutations like "hi" or "hello". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Help please

I'm trying to learn like everyone else new & using a subject I know about (street art), I'm not linked to the subjects I'm working on, I'm just trying to make good of my edits that are being taken down. I'm trying to walk before I run, rather than editing/messing up many other pages. The page I'm working on Graffiti Kings was up for deletion for 3 weeks & was just approved as OK. Now the page content has been ripped to shreds days after it was approved as OK. Surely if the content was wrong then people would of said this when it was up for deletion. I have since tried to follow advice & ask for advice but keep getting knocked down or no replies. Can someone please help with this page please. Is the new edits after the page was OK called for when the page was granted OK. again: Surely if the content was wrong then people would of said this when it was up for deletion. If the edits are OK then fine, as I said I'm learning. Sarah1971 18:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sarah, welcome back to the teahouse. This question has been answered at WP:ANI where you also posted it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for creation

I am the son of Dimitri Papadimos (1st May 1918 - 3rd May 1994) who was a Greek photographer. Over time I have contributed some of his work to WIKIPEDIA via Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListFiles&limit=250&user=Yani+papadimos). I have also contributed to Austen Harrison and to el:Δημήτρης_Παπαδήμος. In 2013 I created the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dimitri Papadimos that was deleted and I dont know the reason especially since articles were created using items from this project to create cs:Dimitris_Papadimos and ru:Пападимос, Димитрис. Thank you for your time in explaining to me the mater 89.210.185.207 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Yani. (I've converted the URL's in your question to wikilinks, to make it easier to read). The draft was not deleted, but was declined by Arctic Kangaroo as not being sufficiently referenced to establish notability: you can ask that user on their talk page for more information. But looking at the draft article as it stands, I see that most of the references are to works by Papadimos: these do nothing to establish notability (in the special Wikipedia sense) which requires substantial writing about the subject. The National Bank of Greece Cultural Foundation is the right sort of thing - but it is quite short. Can you find places where reliable sources (such as major newspapers, or books published by reputable publishers) with no connection to Papadimos have published longer writing about him and his work? Those would be ideal (they don't have to be in English or online, though it's preferable if they are). It looks likely that he is notable in Wikipedia's sense - but the article has to establish this by reference to specific reliable sources that talk about him.

The Czech and Russian articles may or may not be relevant. It is acceptable to translate text from one Wikipedia to another, but it is important to note that you have done so, so that the text is properly attributed: see translation for how to do this. But different Wikipedias have different rules, and just because a subject is suitable for an article in one doesn't automatically mean that it is acceptable in another. Similarly, references in an article in one language may be useful in an article in another language, but will not necessarily meet the criteria for another language Wikipedia.

One final point: you have said that you are his son. This means that you have a conflict of interest which may make it hard for you to write about him in the neutral way that is required. You are doing the right thing by going through the Articles for creation process, but I wanted to make sure that you understood Wikipedia's recommendations on this issue (which is why I have linked to a page discussing it). --ColinFine (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Web links

Would a certified youtube page of say a big brand like Nokia or Sony be OK to use as a reference link on a wiki page. Sarah1971 15:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Only for what the brand says about themselves and matters related to them. For example, information from Sony's youtube page about an environmental charity that they're working with or promoting or sponsoring, for example, would neither be of use for proving the notability of Sony, nor of the charity.

You would also need to format the reference to make clear what it is. Bare links alone are of little use. So for example:

Nokia markets a range of smartphones, some of which Nokia says can be used to run Android applications.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on what Demiurge said, self-published sources should usually be used as a last resort. For example: if you'd like to mention the specs of the upcoming Samsung Galaxy S5, using a reliable news article that lists the phone's specs should be used over a promotional commercial Samsung published on their Youtube channel. If an alternative like that doesn't exist though, then there shouldn't be a problem using a self-published source (like the Youtube video) as described above. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Page content

Hello, Im adding text to a Wiki page, is it OK to add text to the Wiki page taken from the personal website of the Wiki subject I'm working on. Sarah1971 14:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so long as the website owner has met the requirements of WP:DCM. However, whether the copied material stays on Wikipedia would subsequently be decided by consensus. For example, many people's websites about themselves are written in a promotional tone not an encyclopedic one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay to use an online database as a source?

For a class assignment, I have to make additions to a current Wikipedia page. I was wondering, is it okay to use an online database as a resource for my information? Thanks! Gina at Stockton College (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gina! I assume by database, you mean academic databases that contain papers, articles, etc. Academic databases are often a great place to get reliable sources for articles, so yes, as long as the source you wish to use meets the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There is no requirement for sources to be easily accessible for free, as long as they can be accessed by the general public in one way or another (such as a book in a library, a news article that has been archived in a pay-to-use database, etc.). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Gina at Stockton College (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

How to add nformation under the profile photo?

Hello, Please help me with the following problem, I know how the profile photo information should be added. But now as I try to do it, I face with a problem. The photo is added, but the information under it appears in tha main text space. Please help me to solve it. Thanks Heghvan (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Heghvan, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you refer to Vahan Artsruni where you earlier added [[File:Vahan Artsruni.jpg|300px|thumb|Vahan Artsruni]] although it's not currently there. Code like that can add an isolated image with a caption but no other text. It sounds like you want to add an infobox instead like for example in Daron Malakian. The code for that is completely different. You can use Template:Infobox musical artist. See the documentation there and note you can only use the documented parameter names. You can also click the "Edit" tab on another article to see how it did it. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyber-Relationship Addiction - Adding Newspaper Articles For Support - is this possible?

Hey,

I am currently attempting to edit the Internet Addiction Disorder page, to add a sub-heading of Cyber-Relationship Addiction. I have reliable sources to support Cyber-Relationship Addiction is one impulse-control problem that is covered within Internet Addiction Disorder.

I would like to use newspaper articles to support existing stories of real people finding out their Cyber lover is not who they portray themselves to be online. Is this possible?

I am currently working on the edit that I would like to add to the Internet Addiction Disorderpage within my sandbox and would welcome anyone to have a look at my ongoing work.

overall, any advice regarding referencing news articles within my edit would be amazing.

many thanks, JLM003 (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JLM003! Although you don't have to use them, I find that WP's citation templates (most of which are listed here) are particularly useful for inserting references into articles and ensuring a consistent formatting style. In your case you would want to use {{cite news}}. The template's own page lists some examples of it in action: so, you would type out the code (in grey) into an article inside some <ref> ... </ref> tags, to insert the newspaper citation. Hope that helps! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits and creations

Hello I am new to Wikipedia and I need help on how to make links in a page that I had made and also how to cite sources on my page. also, please visit my new page calledblitz brigade. I have made that page and please format it for me. Also, please teach me how to format an article. Thank you Callmehellor (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

According to what I have read on "help", my page (Blitz brigade) might have been already deleted due to lack of links and sourcesCallmehellor (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a number of useful links to your user talk page, including to WP:Your first article. Read that, & other articles linked. Note that in your question blitz brigade appears as a red link because Wikipedia page names are case-sensitive. You presumably intended to link to Blitz Brigade. In general as a new editor it may be advisable to use the article for creation process, which gives the opportunity to have your draft reviewed before it is published. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot David. But I still don't understand why some links that I write comes up as red and says (This page does not exist} when my mouse hovers over it. Please clarify.Callmehellor (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Callmehellor: Hey Callmehellor. Case-sensitivity that David told you about above refers to the case of letters – UPPERCASE LETTERS vs. lowercase letters. So [[blitz brigade]] will not result in a working link to [[Blitz Brigade]] (unless the lowercase version is made into a redirect to the uppercase version). Does that help clarify?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes. Thank you, that does clarify. let me try : Blitz BrigadeCallmehellor (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Callmehellor. Yes that link now works. But the page is likely to get deleted very soon unless you add the references that show it is notable (I realise that that is what you are asking). This is why it is usually better to create new pages using the articles for creation process, because they do not go straight into main article space, so you get more of a chance to get them into a fit state. I would move your into one of the draft spaces, but I don't know whether you need to do anything more than just moving it - any other teahouse hosts more up on this than I am? In answer to your question, please see referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Viewing images before uploading them to the page

Hello, Is the way of uploading an image and getting feedback about the image first, before submitting it to the page? like being able to put the image in your sandbox first? Natbrock (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Natbrock: Hey Natbrock. It depends on whether the image bears a compatible free copyright license (or is public domain), verses a non-free image intended to be used under a claim of fair use. A non-free image is not allowed to be displayed anywhere but in the article its fair use is claimed for, once that article actually resides in the article mainspace. In other words, you can't use such an image in a sandbox draft, in an articles for creation draft, or in any other page that starts with a prefix, e.g., "user:", "user talk:", "talk:", "Wikipedia:", etc. You can, however link to such an image without it displaying, and ask people to look at it through the link. A link to an image is made by prefixing a colon inside the brackets, like so: [[:Image name.jpg]] Note that if the question you want to ask is about the copyright of the image, you can ask such questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. However, please note also that it's not a good idea to upload a non-free image until the article its intended to be used in is already in the article mainspace. If the image you intend to upload is online, you could always ask a question about its upload and provide an external link to the outside page where it resides. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your help, I will use the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions before uploading the image to the page first Natbrock (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

how to apply customize signature

I have customizes my signature but dont know how to apply it. Each time I type four tides, the same old simple signature appears Aftab Banoori 05:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftabbanoori (talk • contribs)

Please also tell me why this remark appears after I sign?--->Preceding unsigned comment added by

The reason that SineBot is putting the "Preceding unsigned comment ..." comment is that your signature does not include a link to either your user page or your user talk page, so it does not meet the requirements of WP:signature. I don't know how you have tried to customize your signature, but it is possible that you have erroneously ticked the " Treat the above as wiki markup" box in your preferences at Special:Preferences. If you are not sure how to customize correctly, it is safer to stick with the default signature. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Close account

1. If I add retired to my usertalk page does my work/edits get removed or do they stay. 2. Can I retire my current account & start a new account?

Sarah1971 05:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately no, you cannot delete the work you have already done and you cannot close the account or it would lose attribution to your contributions. Please see Wikipedia:Changing username for more information. Thanks and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark :) I don't want to delete the work I have done, I want to know if Im allowed to retire a user account & allowed to start a new one. Sarah1971 05:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sarah1971. Please read about making a clean start. If you stop all use of an existing account, and start a new one in good faith, then that is fine. Please be aware that you will be expected to avoid all articles and topic areas where you have had disputes. So you may want to consider modifying your behavior, learning from your experiences as a newcomer, and continuing with your existing account. The decision is yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Sarah, it is important to note though that WP:CLEANSTART does not apply to editors whose behavior is currently under discussion. Do not create a new account while the current sockpuppetry investigation is underway as this would likely result in both accounts being blocked. VQuakr (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

how can I join a WikiProject?

Hi, I am currently trying to help out with pages related to science fiction novels. I found out that there is a WikiProject related to science fiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science_Fiction

Is it appropriate for me to join this WikiProject? If so, how do I join this WikiProject? Are there specific requirements for joining a WikiProject? Transcendentalist01 (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Just add your user name here and you will be a member! I just did myself!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Person is notable enough for own article if they are the subject of an artist/musician?

I nominated an article for deletion because the person failed Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) mentions nothing about inclusion if the person is the muse or subject for a famous person's songs, paintings, poems, etc. The only reasonable criteria that other editors in the debate give is that the person is a very important muse for her husband, the very famous musician. Is this correct reasoning and does Wikipedia:Notability (people) need an additional line explaining how this is a basis for notable? It seems the only basis for articles such as Marie-Thérèse Walter and Fernande Olivier (since her memoirs were squelched). Alatari (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer that question, it is simply...no. Notability is not a matter of being inspiration but much more.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Alatari. In my opinion, we do not need to add language covering every single eventuality. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." That coverage does not need to be a book length biography focusing on that person to be significant. When you say that the person in question "failed" the mentioned notability guidelines, you are expressing your own opinion, not an established fact. In the relevant debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Dylan, other experienced editors disagreed with you quite strongly, and some have also praised your work improving the article. In just a minute of searching, I found a New York Times story that says that Bob Dylan's 1965 marriage to Sara Lowndes was one of the two most important factors that led to his eight year withdrawal from touring, during a time that they had four children together. It can certainly be argued that the ex-spouse of a marginally notable musician is not notable. But in the case of the ex-spouse of a musician of such enduring fame who has been the subject of intensive biographical coverage for over half a century, the conclusion may well be different, depending on the range of coverage in reliable sources. Also worthy of note is that she is the mother of another highly notable musician, Jakob Dylan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, all of those taking part in the debate are expressing opinions about how they interpret Wikipedia:Notability (people). I did not introduce the specific case I was dealing with and am not sure why you found it important to do so, but since you brought it up one of the editors expressing strong disagreement already crossed a line by accusing me of sexism in my AfD. That also is an opinion Cullen328. Per WP:NOTINHERITED her being the mother of, or wife of a musician, no matter how famous, is not allowed as criteria in a debate of notable inclusion. Level of notability is simply not inherited.

Anyway, there are two different answers to my originally posed question now. Alatari (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well then....I believe that is "much more". ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As an experienced Teahouse host, I believe that it is almost always more productive and instructive to discuss specific cases than to discuss generalities. As to WP:NOTINHERITED and your interpretation thereof, Alatari, that is not a policy and not even an established guideline but rather an essay. I happen to consider it a useful essay in many cases but to say that something is "not allowed as criteria" based on an essay is to attribute far more strength to a section of an essay than is deserved, in my opinion. By the way, I disagree with the accusation of sexism against you in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to take sides so I kept my answer really simple. My bad.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that now and realize my mistake there: This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.. Thanks for pointing it out. I may have been editing since 2007 sporadically but this is my first AfD and a learning experience. I'm going to end up being the one doing all the repairs to the article even though I'm the one with the least interest. Alatari (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If so, you deserve great credit for improving the encyclopedia, Alatari, and I thank you for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have substantially re-written the Sara Dylan article with new cites since Alatari launched his AFD on this article. Mick gold (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

adding links to support my edit

Hello, I have been making edits on pages but they get taken off due to the links being classed as spam? How else do I support my edits if I can not add links? here is 1 edit that has been refused HERE

I'm trying to learn like everyone else new & using a subject I know about, I'm not close to this company or person, I'm trying to make good of what edits are being taken down. No one can argue that the links are bad and the press coverage is poor as this person & company is very covered world wide in what they do. I feel the pages I'm editing are very key to this info. Its not personal, I'm trying to walk before I run using a subject with great links but not covered on Wikipedia.

The 2 subjects I'm learning on are: Graffiti Kings & artist Darren Cullen please help me somebody.

Sarah1971 (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page and one of the article talk pages. VQuakr (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed your edit here [7] because it was promotional in tone and the citation link was a dead link. Theroadislong (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Theroadislong :) firstly thanks for helping with my 2 subjects xxx. OK regarding edit [8], will rewording it be OK, less promotional. I think Graffiti Kings really have a place on that page being a commercial graffiti art company, & would give the reader a good idea of what a commercial graffiti art company is, especially as they are the only graffiti art company on Wikipedia. The 2 go hand in hand, fits like a glove. Thanks Sarah1971 00:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox scholar

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)

Asking a company for its logo

Hi! I'm working on improving an article about a company. The only logo I found on the company's website is blurry because of its small size. Can I ask the company to send a logo via email with a higher revolution? However, how would I fit that into the fair use rationale considering its source wouldn't be directly public? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bananasoldier. According to our guideline on use of logos, "Logos uploaded to Wikipedia must be low-resolution and no larger than necessary." Accordingly, I recommend against trying to use a higher resolution logo than the company itself uses on its own website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Google Search

I just had my article accepted (yay!), but it is very difficult to find. How do I make it more searchable. The title is Two-photon circular dichroism. I have to type that in exactly to find it on Wikipedia, it is nearly impossible to find it via Google and if I type in the acronym (TPCD) I am immediately directed to the page for The Pussy Cat Dolls. Advice?NOMS-UCF (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi NOMS-UCF. Google's algorithms are arcane and complex, but they do usually sstart showing Wikipedia pages a few days after creation. You can, however, make the page easier to find using redirects. At present, the article will only be found if you search for Two-photon circular dichroism, using, as you've discovered, that exact format. Two photon circular dichroism, or 2-photon circular dichroism won't work. What you need to do is create these two pages as well (together with any other obvious searches that should lead to the page), but rather than putting content into them, just save them with the content #REDIRECT [[Two-photon circular dichroism]]. When anyone does a search for one of these alternates, they will be automatically redirected to the page you created instead. Hope that helps, Yunshui 雲‍水 23:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I created the redirects for you. Great first article! Theroadislong (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And as Theroadislong has already noticed, I've added redirect categories to all of them. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Advice? Be patient. Wikipedia's search can take 24 + hours to update while Google's crawlers can take 2-3 days Arjayay (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Want to know what I do.....I just edit the article as much as possible (real edits...don't try to do Help:Dummy edits or other work just to drive up hits. But, if you continue to work on the article....that, in itself tends to drive it up on Google. Remember...only real edits.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

When I search on Google, NOMS-UCF, your Wikipedia article is now #6 in the search results, beating out an article published by the American Physical Society. The first five hits all appear to be highly technical articles. So you are doing very well. Mark Miller is correct that continued improvement of the article may push it up a bit in Google search results. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! I am assuming that means that The Pussycat Dolls already have the redirect for TPCD. Is there any way to overcome that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOMS-UCF (talk • contribs) 19:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Googling TPCD, neither Two-photon circular dichroism, nor The Pussy Cat Dolls appear on the first page but these things are fleeting, and ranking is not very important. There are a number of other uses of TPCD in the Google search, although I don't know if we have articles on any of them. TPCD could be made into a WP:disambiguation page - listing The Pussy Cat Dolls, Two-photon circular dichroism and any other articles we have that fit the acronym, but it cannot be changed into a redirect to just Two-photon circular dichroism. - Arjayay (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

How to update an Article for submission

I wrote an article and had feedback that it needed to be more encyclopedic, which I have now rewritten as such (I think) and cut the previous article and pasted the new one in, but I am not sure how to submit it now. Any feedback would be great!Realstonesquared (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You removed the {{AFC submission|...}} and {{AFC comment|...}} code from the top; I've restored it. There is now a "Resubmit" button you can click to request another review. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

report user

Hello, My work/edits are being attacked by another Wiki user. Is there a page I can report this person. Sarah1971 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, welcome to the teahouse. If an editor is changing edits that you have made, the first place to discuss that is on the talk page of the article concerned. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply :) I have been talking to the user on many pages but nothing gets resolved so now I need to report this to someone who can look in to this more & hopefully take action. Sarah1971 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a checkuser investigation in progress at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32, so that's probably the best next step at this point. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The checkuser investigation has not been proven, or any other claim of being involved with anything else, but yet a user is attacking my work because of this. As in the reason for edit box this user keeps saying its because I being checked? or part of a paid group? is that a good enough reason for undoing my work, surely this needs to be proven first. Is there a page I can go and report a user please. Sarah1971 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You could report them at Wikipedia:ANI if you wish, but your description of an experienced editor as "attacking" your work merely because they and other editors believe that material is not appropriate to be added to an article, sounds rather like a Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND attitude and is thus unlikely to receive much sympathy there. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help really. Sarah1971 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If I believe that a user is getting other users to gang up on another user is there a page to report this? Wikipedia must have 100,000s of editors but I find it suspect that a certain small number of users are always around to edit posts by another user & to help give support when there's a complaint towards one of their fellow friends, very strange seeing as my work has been untouched for ages, but out of the blue its boom boom boom withing days of being called names. Sarah1971 11:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not me

I noticed that a few edits were made using explicit language that I do not use. I do not believe it was me for this reason, even though I have researched this article. What should I do? Thank you. King sorks (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome (back?) to the teahouse.

Do you mean edits listed as being from your account, or from your IP address? Edits from your account are listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/King_sorks

Edits from your IP address may have been made by a different person to whom it may have been assigned previously, or in some circumstances by a different person with whom you share an IP address. This is very common and not a concern. If you are logged in to your account then you won't see messages left for your IP address. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Tone of Writing

I am currently trying to write a small article edit, and would like to check that what I am saying is written in the correct wikipedia tone? So if it follows a neutral point of view etc. It can be viewed in my Sandbox. User:sarahmckinley4/sandbox Thanks Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sarah, and welcome to the teahouse! First, you're doing exactly the right thing in asking for feedback. Having taken a quick look at the article I have a couple of concerns. First, take a look at an article like alcoholism (a good article) for how to structure the article. If you prefer to see a set of guidelines, you might want to look at WP:Writing better articles. Your draft article certainly needs a "lead" (which summarizes the rest of the article) and house style dictates that section headers aren't in the form of questions. The deeper concern is the quality of the sources you're using. Medical articles get lots of scrutiny, and you're going to want to be very careful that your sources measure up to the guidelines detailed in WP:MEDRS.

Ok, looks like I spoke too soon. I see we already have an article on Internet addiction disorder. You might want to look at how that article can be improved.

Hope that helps! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sarah, I took a very quick look also. I think you have an excellent start. One thing I would encourage you to also look at is wp:original research There is a fine line between OR and good encyclopedia writing and I think your current sandbox article may be still a bit (just a bit) over that line. The goal of Wikipedia is not to make an argument for or against any one position but rather to summarize and present the best thinking on the topic by the most widely recognized experts. I think you could perhaps edit what you currently have a bit and include it in the current article as one of the possible positions on the topic. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, User:Lesser Cartographies User:MadScientistX11 thank you so much for your feedback, it is much appreciated. I have taken your comments into consideration and will make these changes before posting it live. Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Can anyone please tell me how to insert pictures into the pageRahulvitta (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rahulvitta. Use the format [[File:name of file|thumb|alt=description of image|caption]]. I've written a simple intro to inserting pictures which you might find helpful. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Yunshui very much for your reply.I'm gratefulRahulvitta (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking Sandbox

Hi, i want to link my sandbox onto another page, which will allow others to view my sandbox. How do I link it? Thanks ClaraRoper (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Clara, welcome to the teahouse. You would type [[User:ClaraRoper/sandbox]], which would produce a wikilink looking like this: User:ClaraRoper/sandbox.

Note that we don't link to sandboxes (or, usually, other user pages) from encyclopedia articles, so for example you would not wikilink to your sandbox from the article Internet addiction disorder. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, thank you for getting back to me. ClaraRoper (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fonts

I am creating a diagram for the page Internet Addiction Disorder and would like to make it uniform with wikipedia. What font is used? Thanks, Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. The software that renders images in Wikipedia only recognises certain SVG fonts - as long as you use one of these, you shouldn't have any problems. I'm not aware of any style guideline that prefers a specific font in diagrams, although legibility is of course a primary concern. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, thank you for your response, I will consider this! Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi, How do you reference a Journal or PDF file ?? Thank You Aliciaag93 (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Aliciaag93: Welcome to the Teahouse. {{tl|cite web}] works for a PDF if it's online and {{cite journal}} should work for a journal. --Jakob (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Aliciaag93. For a simple introduction to citing references generally, see this essay. For journals, you can use {{cite journal}} - click on the link for details. If the journal is online and has a DOI, you can use {{cite doi}}, which is much quicker and easier (the same goes for journals on JSTOR; use {{cite jstor}}). Depending on their content, PDFs can be cited in a similar way; if it's a PDF of a journal, use the {{cite journal}} template and link to the PDF's URL, if it's a PDF of a newspaper use {{cite news}} etc. Hope this helps. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, the journals were very useful -- Aliciaag93 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Educational Assignment- Social Penetration Theory- Breadth and Depth Section

Hello,

I am doing editing on the Social Penetration Theory page for my 3rd year university assignment. In particular the section about the breadth and depth of social penetration. Could I update that section with the updated information from the 8th edition of the Communication Theory Book?

I would be grateful of the feedback, advice and responses to this query. And thanks for your help. Rosiesievers20 (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rosiesievers20. I'm not aware (nor is Google) of a publication called the Communication Theory Book, but there are a number of books titled "Communication Theory" and I assume it is one of these that you're referring to. Chances are the answer is yes, but check who the publisher of the book is first - if it's the author, or a small fringe publishing house, then the book probably isn't a suitable source. You can ask for advice at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you're unsure. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Yunshui, thanks for the response, the Communication Theory Book I mentioned was by Em Griffin. I'll take this on board if I'm not sure. Thanks for your help.--Rosiesievers20 (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you mean Emory A. Griffin (2012). A First Look at Communication Theory. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 978-0-07-108642-4., then I should think that constitutes a reliable source; McGraw-Hill is a fairly prestigious and well-known academic publisher. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Education Assignment- Internet addiction disorder- Problematic internet use.

Hi. I am looking at adding to the section call Problematic internet use, on the page Internet addiction disorder. I have read up on the page itself and what could be added to the page. I believe that more could be said about problematic internet use, and i am just interested in what others think towards this section. I would appreciate peoples comments

Thanks ClaraRoper (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi ClaraRoper. The best place to ask this question would be at the article's talkpage - this is where editors can discuss the content of an article. The Teahouse is primarily concerned with general Wikipedia use rather than content, whereas the article's talkpage will be watched by editors who have a particular interest in the topic. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. Thank You for getting back to me, I will do that! ClaraRoper (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Educational Assignment- Internet Addiction Disorder- Cyber Relationships

Hey ,

I am currently looking into the Internet addiction disorder page and am looking to edit or add to this page.

I have read a little into the page and i am interested on adding a section about Internet relationship or cyber relationships. I am asking if other people think that this would be a good idea as relationships are a relation to Internet addiction disorder.

I would be grateful for any advice and suggestions within relation to adding this to the page as a sub heading.

many thanks , JLM003 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi JML003. Ultimately - as with everything in Wikipedia - it comes down to what the sources say. If you can locate a couple of reliable sources that state internet relationships are an aspect of IAD, then by all means go ahead (note my response to your classmate below regarding using text that's already present in the Internet relationship article). Yunshui 雲‍水 12:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Psychology of Internet behaviour - Internet addition HELP!

Hello,

I, (as part of a group) am looking at making a change to the page Internet addiction disorder. My chosen topic is to add a section relating to pornography and internet addiction (as it is mentioned in the top paragraph but not discussed further) taking from and linking to: Pornography addiction.

When using sources I will be using well referenced material from accredited journals that I have access to as part of my university degree.

I appreciate any suggestions as to how I should proceed and if you have any alternative ideas, then please get in touch!

Amosjfrancis (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Amosjfrancis. if you're planning on reusing content that already exists at Pornography addiction, you will need to indicate its source; see Copying within Wikipedia. The easiest way to do this is via an edit summary saying something like, "text copied from [[Pornography addiction]]", but you can also use the template {{copied}} on the article talkpage for better attribution.

You might also find the template {{Main}} worth using as well.

It's great that you're already planning which sources to use; peer-reviewed journals are an excellent source. Have a look at this short essay for some tips on how to create citations. Happy editing! Yunshui 雲‍水 12:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Help on topic

I am currently doing a University assignment using wikipedia and will be editing a page on Internet Addiction Disorder. There are 5 criteria that make you an addict that are presented on the page already, but we have studied a sixth in class. Would it be ok or even necessary for me to add the sixth one in? (talk) to Sarah McKinley Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. If you can support the addition with a reliable source that indicates six criteria, then please do feel free to add the information. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rejection of suggestions

Hello everybody, I am new at Wikipedia and the first experience has not been good. I have made a few corrections to improve the writing style of two articles about TV shows but, although I remained polite, the author rejected the suggestions on the grounds that I was revealing too many plot details - which is a laugh, since I merely corrected her prose without adding spoilers and said TV shows have been all over the media for more than a year.

Other contributors have tried to make corrections and were equally rejected. My best guess is that author takes offence whenever someones dares to tell her that her writings could benefit from a second opinion; that's too bad, considering Wikipedia actually encourages contributors to improve articles.

My question is: are articles the 'private property' of their authors so they are entitled to reject any suggestion/comment/clarification coming from third parties, or are improvements really welcome?

Bianca8castafiore (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bianca8castafiore. The answer to your last question is, no, articles are certainly not "private property". Nobody owns an article, and anybody can - and is encouraged to make improvements. Equally, if somebody disagrees that somebody else's edits are improvements, they may revert them. If the person who made the edits does not accept that reversion, the right thing to do is to engage with the second editor on the article's talk page, or on the second editor's user talk page, to try to reach agreement. This is referred to as the bold cycle, and is a cornerstone of the cooperative project that Wikipedia is. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, or if one of the editors will not engage, then there is a process for dispute resolution which they should follow. (Having glanced at the history of Broadchurch, it does not look to me as if MarnetteD is treating the article as private property; but in any case you should engage with them on the article's talk page.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not treated that article as private property and I resent this improper accusation. You must not have looked very closely at the seven edits that I have made to the article. Only two of them involved B and the rest were dealing with the American adaptation. In my edit summaries I gave B the link to WP:PLOT but I can't tell whether the editor read it or not. Plots are difficult things to deal with as details that are important to one person aren't to others. In the edits in question I could find no improvement to the article only an addition of details that lengthened the plot without improving it. However I am just one editor so your suggestion to B about using the talk page is quite correct. B editing here at WikiP is a learning process. We have several places that can aid in learning how things are done including Help:Getting started and WP:TUTORIAL. One other item that might help is to understand that when an editors edits are reverted it is not an attack on you. Most of us have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. Cheers and best wishes to your future editing. MarnetteD | Talk 02:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MarnetteD. Unless your earlier remarks were addressed to Bianca8castafiore, you must have misread my comment, where I said "it does not look to me as if MarnetteD is treating the article as private property" (emphasis added). --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ack, D'oh and a trout slap for me. Many apologies ColinFine. Missing the word "not" makes me worry about my aging eyesight. I will try and be more careful in the future. Again my apologies. Have a good weekend in spite of this. MarnetteD | Talk 15:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

my article

Note: Transferred from the Teahouse talk page; consider using a ping to alert the editor when answering given age.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I made a article Blocks when i did a infobox but it didn't work so i was wondering can u help me. Other issue the infobox has not been appearing so is it a bug or do i need to do something — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelperUset (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, HelperUset. I apologize for the delay in answering; your question sat in the wrong spot for a while.

An infobox is a template. For your draft article, I suggest Template:Infobox video game. Infoboxes summarize the content of articles in a standardized way. Most articles about video games use the same infobox to make it easy for readers to see key information. You shouldn't generally create a new infobox if one already exists for a topic. For more information, see Wikiproject: Infoboxes.

Make your draft in your sandbox. To use the infobox, copy the template and paste it into your draft at the very top. Then follow the instructions on the template page to fill in the blanks. Use your preview button to see it it looks OK, then save the page.

Hope this helps. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

use of my Sandbox

I am wondering about how to use my Sandbox. When (if ever) should I remove material from my Sandbox page? Transcendentalist01 (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your sandbox is your personal development area, where you can make test edits and build draft articles. When building draft articles, you should make sure you are actively improving it. The userspace is not an indefinite hosting site. Drafts that are not suitable for the main article space and have been inactive for a long time (usually when the editor themselves hasn't edited for a while) may be subject to deletion. Never post libelous or copyrighted content into your sandbox (or anywhere else on Wikipedia). Otherwise, there should not necessarily be any reason to remove material from your sandbox. You are given a lot more freedom in what you can write and keep in your sandbox than in other places on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:About the Sandbox for more info. If I am unclear or you are still confused, leave a note below and I'll be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am still confused about the use of my sandbox. In particular, I am wondering if I delete a draft article from my sandbox, will it be deleted from Wikipedia completely? Also, can I write or create multiple articles in my sandbox? If so, are these created on separate tabs or some other way? Transcendentalist01 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Transcendentalist01. You can have as many user sandboxes (also called user subpages) as you want; there is one (called User:Transcendentalist01/Sandbox) which you can get to by a link at the top of your screen; but you can use any other name instead of "Sandbox" - it just won't have that link (but once you've created it, you'll be able to get back to it from your "User contributions" among other way). So, say if you are developing an article on "Martian spiders", you could use a sandbox called User:Transcendentalist01/Martian spider. When your article is ready to be moved to main space, you (or someone else) will move it, and this will leave the sandbox behind as a redirect. If you try to go to it, Wikipedia will take you to the new page; but there will be a small note just under the title "Redirected from User:Transcendentalist01/Sandbox" (or whatever your sandbox was called), and if you pick that, it will take you to the actual redirect page - your sandbox - which you can edit. If you want to reuse if for a different purpose, you can just remove all the contents. If you want to get rid of the page entirely, edit it to place {{db-userreq}} at the top, and an admin will come along and delete it for you.

If what you are doing in the sandbox is creating a new article, I suggest you use the Articles for creation process instead of working in your sandbox. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Based on your help, I managed to create a subpage in my Sandbox. Transcendentalist01 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

hijaking and displaying of article on other sites

can u please tell me that why my article is hijacked by some people and displayed with different site addresses — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero3524 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, Hero3524. This is quite normal; in fact thousands of sites do this. Due to Wikipedia's free license, it's explicitly perimtted for other sites to copy articles as long as they provide attribution and redistribute under the same license. See here for more. --Jakob (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

But if they are claiming copyright of the content let someone know. It happens more often than people think.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Wording of this notice is confusing

On Dependency Injection I see this:

Does "Please add a reason or a talk parameter" just mean use the talk page? What "template" is it talking about? Do I need WikiProjects blessing before I do anything?

I've added some thoughts to the talk page but I'm reluctant to touch the main page until I know what this notice is trying to say. I am an expert on dependency injection and agree the page needs attention.

Any sort of guidance would be welcome. Galhalee (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Galhalee and welcome to the Teahouse. What that means is a suggestion to edit the template to something like {{Expert-subject|Computing|date=January 2010|reason=xxxx}}, so that what is displayed on the page gives more information about what the problem is. But it is not essential, and putting a discussion on the talk page is fine. --ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! That makes so much more sense now. I've joined the project. I'll update the notice simply because I don't want to be the only expert updating the page. Is it OK to give more than one reason? It has a number of issues. Would also appreciate an experienced Wikipedian checking up on the page as it changes. Galhalee (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Current state cross channel

How is he getting on, is he figuring out that the closest across channel 1914 100 years ago, might not of been the right reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.84.144 (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 81.147. I don't know what you are asking about, but this is a page for asking for help in editing Wikipedia, so your question does not fit here at all. You might like to ask it at the Wikipedia reference desk; but if you do, please give some more context, so that people can tell what your question relates to. --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Detail of information

As a tradesman with 7 trades and 3 professions I find a lack of detail for methods of use such as best practice for silver soldering and for recipes of materials such as hydraulic concrete or plaster proportions of sand:water:pozzollana etc. Is this a policy of wiki or an oversight? TradieJohn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappy Jack (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TradieJohn and welcome to the Teahouse. Without knowing which of Wikipedia's four million articles you are referring to, it's a bit hard to answer your question for sure. The answer is probably that it is policy: see Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. You may find something useful in our sister project Wikiversity, or failing that on WikiHow (which is unconnected with Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

ColinFine thank you for your kind reply. Obviously I out of my depth. My life has been concerned with building things by hand. While I was alive to buy the first laptop and learned several computer languages none of these would do the work for me. An encyclopedia that is theory only and does not cover the practical aspect of making thing is building castles in the air. You can not use its knowledge to build or make anything. It is 'use' less for a large range of people seeking knowledge. Now I understand how use less wikipedia is becoming, and how hard it is to incorporate practical knowledge, I will stick to simple edits adding what practical things I have learned. Thank you. CappyJack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappy Jack (talk • contribs) 09:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TradieJohn. I don't think you are out of your depth: you are just expecting Wikipedia to be one kind of tool when it is another kind, which perhaps is less useful for the things you want to do but suits other people fine. It can't contain every possible piece of information, and the people who set up Wikipedia decided that it should not contain "How To" information. But within the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation there is another project which does contain these: Wikiversity. Like Wikipedia it is a collaborative project, so I expect they would welcome you adding information in areas where you have skills. --ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)