Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tenryuu, 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

Conflict of Interest

Hello Teahouse - My first foray into wikipedia and I'm trying to find my way but the first thing I've done is tried to correct some minor inaccuracies on the page about my husband. I corrected the dates of my son's birth and have pointed out some other inaccuracies in the talk section but the only result I have had is a conflict of interest banner. This is rather frustrating. I haven't gone in and rewritten the parts that are inaccurate because I understand that to do so would be wrong but how do I get the information corrected or removed? Journalists turn to wikipedia for their 'facts' and it is tiresome to see the same mistakes repeated from wiki to newspaper. The incorrect sections have no citations (obviously, because they are not true and can't be found anywhere). Because my husband is a Dr Who there are a zillion people who think they are experts in him but if you look and see for instance, where his brother is wrongly given a dead twin, the information doesn't even correlate with his brother's wikipedia entry. I have also tried to point out that Liverpool is on Merseyside and not in Lancashire, that they have given the wrong place of birth and so on and so on. Is there anything I can do? Annie McGann 01:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)--Annie McGann 01:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reading. Annie McGann 01:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieMcGann (talk • contribs)

New Page

I have recently just created a page about a music producer but because he is not 'famous'or 'significant' it will be deleted?

This is surely unfair on the 'little guy' so to speak?

HardstyleIntegra (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@HardstyleIntegra: The "little guy" can get his own article once he is notable, having significant coverage. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

does anybody check my edits?

I've made a few edits. Is there anyway for me to know if my edits are <approved> or moderated in some way? Also, I found some spam links in articles. What is the best way to report? Kiwiben (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kiwiben, welcome to the Teahouse! Feel free to ask lots of question! Your edit is "approved" as soon as you save it. If there is something wrong with it, someone might revert it, (example being if it is vandalism or something.) other than that you're good! I don't think anyone "moderates" your edits, but I do know people "patrol for vandalism" so your edit might be looked at there. For your second thing, I recommend you read about vandalism to find that out or you can just delete it on the spot when you see it. Let me know if this helped you! --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Only articles with a protection that force new and anonymous users to submit edits will have to be approved by a pending changes reviewer. You are autocomfirmed so you don't have to worry about that. If you see spam links, you can undo it and give them a warning message about it. If they continue, you can go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to report the person. TranquilHope (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In terms of reviewing article content, I have an additional comment. Each article often has people who "watch" it. For instance, if it falls within a groups of articles under a WikiProject of interest to that user. When updates are made to an article that a user is watching, they may check for the difference ([diff] in the Watchlist) between versions and make copyedits if they so choose.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, User:TranquilHope, Don't you rooks know how to indent properly? Only joking, although, you are doing it wrong. It's one more colon than the last person. So if there is none you reply with 1 colon same if there are 3 colons you reply with 4. Just letting you know. Also I think you should put a space as well. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Funny! Posting using "Join this discussion" doesn't indent. Probably better to use "edit" instead going forward, which also allows for previews.--CaroleHenson (talk)

One-room, three-story guideline

Hello,

I'm in the middle of a review and am having a hard time finding the guideline of hyphenating compound words with numbers, like one-room and three-story.

Is it stated somewhere that I'm missing?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello CaroleHenson, can WP:HYPHEN be of help? It mentions "Correct: 9-millimetre gap" and "Correct: 12-hour shift", not with "written" numbers though... Maybe someone else knows. w.carter-Talk 22:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi W.carter, I found something clearer just now in an article (vs. MOS). It's in English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers. Thanks so much for chiming in! So, I guess I don't need to post the link (lol), but I'll have it for future guideline links.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh! That page looks like pure gold for me. Thanks! w.carter-Talk 22:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad it helps! I went ahead and put the link in the review just to have it documented in general / for others that might not be familiar with it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can YOU answer this?

(I changed the name of this from bugginess to what it is now.) Hi. I have this bug, using mobile, no app, yes browser. OK on certain occations, (I think it's when one section of an article has lots of words.) I try to edit something, (Right at the bottom.) and it won't let me. I can backspace, but can't type. It's only for article that have long sections. Examples! On Deadpool, Mystique and Deal or No Deal Australian game show pages, I'm trying to, change Deadpool will be getting married to got married in publication section, change appeared in Lego Marvel to is a playable character, thats in video game section, and add a fantastic four part in the featured section of those articles respectively. It's like on phone the character limit is shorter than on an actual computer. And is there a place where I can ask someone to do stuff like this that I can't do? If you wan't you can change the first 2 yourself for me. (I dought anyone would know about the third one.) Thanks everyone. Soz for typos. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

Hi All,

I am currently working on an article about the American artist Jamie Baldridge. I would like it to be sufficiently comprehensive and I seem to be having trouble uploading any sort of portrait images of him or samples of his works of art without them being immediately deleted from the Commons. All images which I have used are widely available on the internet and are derived from published interviews, gallery and museum releases, and/or articles about the artist. Other images were provided with his permission as I worked on my dissertation. Would these not fall under "Fair Use"? Is there a more appropriate way for me to acquire the needed visual references for the article without them being immediately deleted? I do apologize if this is a very naive question, but I am quite new to Wikipedia and I do wish for this article to be of high academic rigor.

Many Thanks!Doctor Interesting (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Doctor Interesting. Wikipedia has very strict policies regarding copyright in general, and image copyrights in particular. All images on Wikipedia Commons are either free of copyright or freely licensed by their copyright holders for reuse by anyone for any purpose. Accordingly, you can't upload anything there that is copyrighted unless it is freely licensed. See Creative Commons license for details. If the artist wants to upload one or more representative images of his work, that is fine as long as he understands that someone could make posters or t-shirts with those images. If you took a portrait of him yourself, you could upload that.

What you call "fair use" applies to images uploaded here to Wikipedia itself. We call these "non-free images", and their use is very tightly restricted. The image must be irreplaceable, the resolution must be low, the image can be used only in a designated main space encyclopedia article, and so on. Common examples include business logos, book and album covers, movie posters and the like. Portraits of people applies only to those who have died since in theory we can obtain a freely-licensed image of a living person. Representative samples of an artist's work are allowed.

Non-free images can't be used in draft articles. So, first finish your draft article, and when it is in main space, that is the time to add them in accordance with our non-free image policy, which you should read carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Cullen,

Thank you for the very helpful information. I believe that I am beginning to understand. Would it be appropriate by Wikipedia's standards to ask the artist to upload a picture of himself for use in the article (once it is not a draft) since he would be the copyright holder? Also, my understanding is that I could use one or two representative examples of his work in the main space of the article itself as long as they are low resolution? Would you indulge me a bit further and let me know exactly what is meant by "irreplaceable" in reference to said images?

Thank You Again. Doctor Interesting (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Doctor Interesting, the artist can upload a portrait to Wikimedia Commons if he holds the copyright. By "irreplaceable", I mean no free image can substitute. I can't create a free image of a book cover, or a movie poster, or a company logo. Those items are copyrighted even if I photograph them. Similarly for a portrait photo of a person who has died. If no free image exists, none can be created now. In that sense, a copyrighted photo is "irreplaceable". Of course, we need to attribute it, and use a low resolution version so as to avoid infringing on the potential of the copyright holder to sell the high resolution image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding yourself to "Wikipedia librarians"

I am trying to figure out how to my username to the Wikipedia librarians page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_librarians however I do not see any place to do that. Does anyone have any ideas? Wthowerto (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wthowerto: Hi Wthowerto. Pages of all stripes are added to categories by placing category code on the page you wish to be added to the category – not the category page. Thus, you would add to User:Wthowerto the following code (usually placed at the bottom [and on its own line]): [[Category:Wikipedian librarians]]. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You could also add the code {{User librarian}}. It will display Template:User librarian and automatically add the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

References and punctuation

Full points end sentences, including in scientific articles.

Therefore, references, which are attached to certain words without space, may not be discriminated should the word be inside or at the end of the sentence. All other typo rule makes WIKIPEDIA look ridiculously altering the common and universal rule.

Examples taken from http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/:

"Meissner's corpuscles of the prepuce may be compared with similar nerve-endings in the finger-tips and lips, which respond in a fraction of a second to contact with light objects that bring about deformation of their capsules [14]."

"However, complex sensation, at least in the glans penis, may be mediated by free nerve-endings rather than by specialized end-organs [15]."

Now, users "Arthur goes shopping" and "Powers", who appallingly contest that universal rule must be warned to stop that insidious edit warring. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau. Wikipedia's manual of style, says "Any punctuation (see exceptions below) must precede the ref tags", so the examples you give do not match Wikipedia's rules. The MOS, like most things in Wikipedia, is determined by consensus. If you think this should be changed, you are welcome to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:manual of style; but changing the consensus requires enrolling other people to you view, so you are very unlikely to succeed by making bald assertions, calling things ridiculous, or being rude about well-established editors. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

All right, thank you; the issue was that my first post was abruptly archived without my being warned of the answers done as usual in my e-mail box, so that I was shocked.

Since discriminating references in the middle of the sentence and at the end of it is highly illogical and therefore "appalling" indeed in an encyclopedia, I'm rising the question where you indicated me, hoping that, in this place, examples taken from scientific litterature ("other people") will be taken into account.

At last, may the users be well-established or not, first, I did not call them but the thing they were doing "ridiculous". I do not see anything rude in emphasizing that they contested by mere affiming the contrary of what I was affirming, without any justification. And this, according to the wiki rule, is called "edit warring". Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read MOS:REFSPACE Theroadislong (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau: Hi Michel. How did you come to the conclusion this was the universal rule? Please see, just as a sample:

 • [1]: University of Washington School of Pharmacy:
          “How are citations done in the biomedical literature? ... The citation number goes outside of punctuation..."

 • [2]: American Medical Association (AMA) & Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (ADA) Styles:
          "To format the superscript numerals, follow these guidelines: place outside of punctuation comma, period."

 • [3]: MLA Format Guide:
          “The citation is placed at the end of the quote, outside the closing punctuation.”

 • [4]: Chicago Style Reference Sheet:
          “The endnote reference number always appears ‘outside of punctuation.”

 • [5] World Meteorological Organization:
          "Footnote references in a text are always placed outside of punctuation"

 • [6]: Hawai‘i Journal of Medicine & Public Health:
          "Place citations outside of punctuation marks."

--Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit! First, I've always noticed that American standards in matter of editing, and even orthograph (for instance the use of which that is different, and much more logical, in England English), are complicated and unusual by comparison with European ones, so that you will easily find hundreds of such journals to which I do not care. I've created my own standard in my scientific articles (https://independent.academia.edu/MichelHerv%C3%A9BertauxNavoiseau) and it is exactly the same as that of BJU International, the famous English urological review. Now, I've started a discussion in manual of style, we'll see what happens though I doubt that the likely American majority will follow me; I have given two very logical reasons for my point. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau: I'll say it again. Establishing (or changing) consensus does not depend only on logic. This is a community of people working together. Taking a combative position, writing as though yours is the only possible view and anybody who disagrees with you must be stupid, and assuming that there is an American bias, are not ways of winning support for your argument. --ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your fueling assumptions are simply libelling, indeed, I am not taking a combative position; I am giving mine, that's all:

1/ The encyclopedist mind is a universal one, for which reason logic must be our main ground.

2/ Thank you very much to confirm that view by your: "writing as though yours is the only possible view".

3/ However, you are right again saying that consensus is based upon other reasons than logic, but then, it seems to me that you are walking upon very slippery ground; indeed, among many other examples, the Nazis, for instance, as well as those who committed the genocide of American Indians, established a formidable consensus in favour of the logic of invasion and extermination, still alive today in the American policy of aid to Israel.

4/ I do not think that giving a reference to the logic of the British journal or urology may be called "only logic".

5/ I hate combative positions, war, weapons and violence, particularly upon the child whom I defend in my site at academia.edu (bertaux). So, I do not intend to indulge in edit warring, all the more about this trifle question.

6/ I have written nowhere - you have - that different positions than mine are stupid; they obey to a different logic, that's all.

7/ Each culture has its biases, the American one, well documented, consists in a Puritanism inherited from the Pilgrim fathers. It led to the now famous circumcision bias (the PACE has voted in a great majority in favour of the right of the child to physical integrity and the country, the first for AIDS, is also the first world consumer of viagra), when it is not racism, it is appalling attachment to guns, weapons, and their uncontrolate use even by the police itself, and a ridiculous and dangerous for the child male repulsion to breast-feeding.

8/ Since I have raised the debate in the proper place according to our friend's advice, debating here is pointless and I will not answer you any more. I "will not say it again". Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Once you mention "the Nazis" you loose the argument and any assumption of good faith.Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your judgment but I'm not interested in wining or losing, I'm far too old for that. I'm only interested in telling the truth as I see it. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Images on drafts waiting for review

Hello. I am done with my article and references, and was trying to upload a photo of the subject to my draft. The upload wizard is saying my article doesn't exist. Do I have to wait until my draft is reviewed and an official article before I can upload an image? Thanks, T11Tractatus11 (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tractatus11. You can add any freely licensed image from Wikimedia Commons to a draft article, without any restrictions. However, non-free images can be used only in very restrictive circumstances, and only in accepted encyclopedia articles in main space. Examples include low resolution non-replaceable images such as book covers, album covers, movie posters, portraits of people who have died, and the like. Normally, such images are approved for only one specified article, and not for general use. If such a non-free copyrighted image is appropriate for your draft article, it should be uploaded and added only after it becomes a main space encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello! Does every new user get a welcome message? I got one after my first edit from I dream of horses, it encouraged me to start editing a lot more and got me excited about editing. If not every user gets a welcome, why not? DangerousJXD away! --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A new user is not guaranteed a welcome message. However, it is good because it encourages new users to edit. Some users did not get a welcome message simply because no one gave it to them. There are a lot of new users on Wikipedia. A welcome message was automatically given to you through a program called Wikipedia:Huggle by I dream of horses as she saw you make a good edit. There is also a Wikipedia:Welcoming committee for welcoming new users. TranquilHope (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I thought I dream of horses was a female... --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: She is. [7] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Then Tranquilhope, can you fix that typo. (I would do it myself but I was given a friendly talking to about editing people's typos at talk pages.) --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

fixed TranquilHope (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't Thank people's edits

Know why? Using a phone. Used to work now does not. Last time it worked was probably 3 days ago. I tried thanking 2 or 3 people since then. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey @DangerousJXD: Interesting, do you think you could provide a few more details? Were you using Wikipedia's app, or a browser? Were you on the mobile site (en.m.wikipedia.org), or the desktop site (en.wikipedia.org)? Did the 'thank' link show up in the history, or not at all? I just tried out both on my phone in Chrome, and it was fine for me. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Deats got it. en.m.wikipedia.org is the one. I didn't download an app, just search up wiki in Google so a browser yes. This is an example of where you thank people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/624467264 Thank green button is at bottom left and and when I click it, it says, Thank action failed please try again. I only have a phone BTW. (No computer? Living in the past!) It's probably just because I am on a phone. That's my thinking. --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - Gotcha, thanks! I tried it myself on the mobile version of the site and I get the same error, "Thank action failed. Please try again." Couldn't find any bug reports on it, so I submitted one here.

For future reference, the technical village pump is a great place to talk about technical issues on Wikipedia. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - bug has been fixed, and should go live Monday. Thanks for bringing it up. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! I also have the same problem with wikilove. Can you "submit" this bug like you did for that last one? If you do here's the deatails. You already know I am on a phone and stuff. To do wikilove, I have to stroll to the bottom and press on deasktop, then I click love heart then when I press send it gives me similar messages to last prob. I would submit myself but you did it and it got fixed and it might not work for me. Thanks! :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - Done here, thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Turns out is was already reported here with more technical details - should be fixed soon. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

citation templates

The section on templates say to copy a blank version to use. I find a multitude of blank versions, but don't know how to find the appropriate one to copy for use. Once a template is copied, is it inserted at the end of the section to be cited? I know how to cite a book. But how does one cite an article by one author in a book edited by someone else? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again TBR-qed! I'm not 100% percent sure what you mean by "a multitude of blank versions" so I'll try to cover several in my answer. Yes there are many kinds of citation templates. The most common ones are Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web, Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite news. Each of these contain a number of parameters. You can pick as many or as few of these parameters to describe your source as you like. At each of these aforementioned pages there are a number of examples of what set of parameters to use. For a book with several authors or edited by someone else you just pick the parameters you think are appropriate. Here's an example of a fiction book with many of these features:

<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wales |first1=Jimbo |last2=Smith |first2=Jane |date=2001 |chapter=42 (section: On mistakes) |editor1-last=Jones |editor1-first=Jack |editor2-last=User |editor2-first=Any |title=How to edit the Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article |series=16 |volume=4 |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |location=Earth |pages=42–88 |accessdate=7 September 2014}}</ref>

Resulting in this ref:

As you can see, I have chosen the parameters needed from the very long list at Template:Cite book. When the template is copied to the article and inserted in a ref, it is called a citation. These are put after the text they cover, preferably after a comma or some other punctuation, but can be put where it is appropriate (this is an ongoing debate). I hope this explains some. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I add my name to this web page as user:PhyllisAllen123

How do I add my name to this web page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_librarians (PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)) PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhyllisAllen123. Just place this code at the bottom of your userpage:

[[Category:Wikipedian librarians]]

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How to make use of sandbox multiple times

I just finished my first article and i "moved" it but when I go to use sandbox again to make a new article, the first one seems to lay dormant in it. How to I open a new one without saving over my original article?Gtseyfried (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gtseyfried and welcome to the Teahouse. Your sandbox is now back to normal and ready to be used again. It just had a redirect to the pervious article in it. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 16:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Photo of record sleeve

Would I be breaching copyright if I uploaded a photo I've taken of a record sleeve? Tony Holkham (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham: Hey Tony. Hmm, I think there may be no one size fits all answer; that it may depend on context – specifically whether there was original content on the sleeve that meets the doctrine of threshold of originality. Of course, there's other information that might or might not make it non-copyrighted in the first instance, such as the date of publication and so on. I think you really need to tell us the specifics for any kind of complete answer.

Nevertheless, if it is non-free, it would be a copyright violation if you uploaded it without using it in a specific article under a valid claim of fair use, requiring that its dedicated use meets each of the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and that you place on the image's page, once uploaded, the proper fair use rationale and non-free file copyright tag(s) to substantiate that fair use claim.

Please note that there's a page dedicated to answering copyright questions like this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where you might get a more informed answer from a specialist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. It's a photo of the sleeve of a Manitas de Plata 1967 Columbia LP, which I thought would make a good illustration for the article. I will go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to check further. Cheers... Tony Holkham (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"Not listening to you"

Summary: How does one handle instances where two (or more) editors on the same part of the political spectrum apply "Not Listening... nananannaa!" mentality against others, and in doing so, ignore the most recent (clearly) factual data when presented on discussion?

Samples:

• "I simply ignore most of what MarciulionisHOF says." [8]
• "I share your policy and ignore the fellow" [9]

• Material ignored: In June 2014, a unity government was sworn in by Fatah President, who also picked, among many others from Fatah, a Fatah Prime Minister.
• Sources used to ignore: mostly from 2012 and earlier.
• Editors ignored: I believe there was no consensus -- something in the area of 5^* vs 3 is hardly unanimous and a sign-off to do what you want and change the article:
• "If nobody objects to "Hamas-governed", I will change it. (Or anyone else can)." 16:32, 4 September 2014
• "Read it again. "Governed" is wrong on a number of levels." 18:58, 4 September 2014
• "as per talk page consensus" 19:04, 4 September 2014

^* one of the 5 had a fringe idea but at least it is from 2014.

Thank you in advance on any advice regarding "I can't hear you" behavior. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarciulionisHOF and welcome to the Teahouse. This is really a place for new users to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia rather than to seek advice on how to handle problems with other editors. A better place would be dispute resolution or, if you feel particularly strongly about the issue, there is always ANI. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for advice, I moved it to one of your suggested locations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How to make my user page?

I've edited Wikipedia many a times but i don't know how t create my user page and don't understand use of sandbox aGastya 09:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs) 09:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AgastyaC and welcome to the Teahouse. Looks like you now have a user page! Please come back if you have more questions.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello AgastyaC, if you want to know how to design your user page in your own style please look at Wikipedia:User page design center. The User:AgastyaC/sandbox is a place where you can experiment with texts you want to use in other places on the Wikipedia. I see that you are already using it to create some things for your user page. Maybe you should just copy paste that info to your user page. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 12:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Waddup.

What is the name of the the above this? I've heard header and submenu and template. What is the actual name of it? --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day @DangerousJXD: - the answer is "both". In the Wikipedia Manual of Style, it is referred to as a "Section heading" (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings). "Subsection headings" (also sometimes called "subheadings") and sub-sub-sub-headings are also used to break large articles into logical, easier-to-read, parts.

However, it also has a special function in the Teahouse or a Talk page, dividing one question and its discussion from another.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Now I know. Thanks Gronk Oz. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

2Q4UD

(The D stands for Dawg.) Can you tell me exactly what a Teahouse host does? Is there such thing as asking too many questions here at the Teahouse? Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD:awg. Hosts are experienced editors who manage the Teahouse. This project has drifted a bit from its origins. It started as a way to provide new users with an alternate to the Wikipedia:Help desk which can be a bit daunting for new users. Answers to questions at the help desk tend to be terse, direct users to jargon-heavy policy pages, or get filled with alphabet soup of abbreviations and shortcut links. At the Teahouse, the idea was to create a more newbie-friendly help-desk experience. The original batch of hosts (I was one) did a lot of work in inviting new users, tracking data on user retention, and coming up with the "ethos" of the Teahouse, which is intentionally supposed to be different than the help desk. We invite anyone to answer questions, but the hosts are really supposed to be cognizant of a certain manner of answering a question: provide the complete answer in your response (rather than directing to another policy page to read), greet every user directly, notify them of your response, and speak in plain terms, intentionally avoiding insider jargon. Being a "host" is an informal thing, generally any experienced user can just make themselves a "host" and so long as they understand and apply the ethos of the Teahouse, that's cool. At some point, my name was taken off the host list (I have no idea why, I think if you don't answer a question for some length of time, a bot takes your name off the list, or something), but generally there's no formal process in becoming one, just learn the ways of the Teahouse, answer questions the right way, and that's all it takes. As far as your second question: of course not. All people new to an environment learn different ways. Some people like to read manuals. Some people like to tinker and figure it out. Some people learn best by asking lots of questions. We totally get that, and when you learn in your own style, we're here to help you with whatever you need. I hope that answers all of your questions (at least for this thread... of course feel free to ask more as they come up!) --Jayron32 02:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Marvelous answer! BTW the D in my name does not stand for dawg, (That's the XD emoticon.) the header did. If you would like to know more about my user name, head to my my user page. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

More Preferences

The preference that tells you when you enter a blank edit summary (I mensioned it in my prefrences question.) does not work for me! Why? I of course have the box ticked and I saved it and it said your preferences have been saved but then I tested it twice (By not entering a summary.) and nothing, no message. It just posted without a summary. I will test again for this edit. I am using a phone, (No computer. Yes I know.) I suspect that's the issue. --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is not yet supported for mobile editing, along with many other preferences. Pinging Maryana who will know whether it's on the roadmap for them anytime soon. :-) Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Not a big deal but a little annoying. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Preferences

Just went through them, there is one that tells you when you are about to post without an edit summary. Is there one like this for not signing a post? I did not see one but in case I missed it. I never forget (Did once or twice but then fixed it.) to but just in case. It would a great thing for new users too, who don't know to sign. Thank you once again Teahouse. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Hey again DangerousJXD! There isn't, though it would be a very useful feature. I think the reason this would be difficult is that the software would have to be made to understand that you were on a discussion page (easy), that tildes were not placed by you (maybe easy), and most importantly (very hard), that you were making a discrete post likely requiring a new signature event, and not adding/fixing a prior post you had already signed or just doing some other edit that you would not sign, like adding a talk page template and so on. I don't know about you but I am constantly tinkering with my posts usually in the minute or two after I post them (probably my most common talk page edit summary is "fix"; [yes, I know there is a show preview button, to all you smartasses out there thinking that]). Imagine if every time you tried to fix a post you got a warning you "had not signed" or something like that? I would need a rubber room very quickly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Nice answer. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Boxes for awards

Tried to understand boxes for awards and nominations etc. Is it worth doing for the article on Duggie Fields which seems all jumbled up and Amanda Eliasch too, Also other artists etc like Tracey Emin. Isn't it neater? What are the regulations on this? Thanks for helping me.Spikequeen (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Spikequeen, if you refer to the boxes in the upper right corner of an article, they are called "infoboxes" are always good to have in an article since they give the reader some basic facts about the article. Long or short, doesn't matter. There are lots of different infoboxes for different kinds of articles. You can find them all in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. If you are referring to the basic "boxes" just for awards or nominations, these are called tables and are also a good way of sorting things out. Tables can be made in many ways. You can start reading about how at Help:Table. And I do agree that Duggie Fields needs some fixing. Happy hunting! w.carter-Talk 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I add my name to the Wikipedian Librarians cite? (PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC))

How do I add my name to the Wikipedian Librarians cite? (PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)) PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

PhyllisAllen123, welcome to The Teahouse. Please make your question clearer as this is not an idea that I recognize.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings PhyllisAllen123. Thank for the question. Is it possible that you mean the Librarians site? Wikipedia has this article for information on WP:Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries and here: Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/People. Are you intersted in helping out in this project? Regards, bpage (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I link the same wiki page in different languages

there is one wiki that i created in english that already existed in swedish. I would like to link the two. How do I do that?Brendan.anson (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Brendan.anson and welcome to The Teahouse. I have done it for you. Click on "edit" to see what I did. Each language has its own two-letter abbbreviation, and you put that inside an internal link ([[sv:Marion Pritchard]]) followed by a colon.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Vchimpanzee, you no longer need to do that as it is handled by Wikidata and automated programs. I'm not sure why that hadn't happened in this case but I've fixed it up now. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at Stockholm and there was no link to the Swedish version. But I was pretty sure I remembered what was supposed to be done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

use sandbox to generate discussion?

I tried using "talk" to generate discussion about a specific article--to no avail. Can I use my sandbox to achieve that end? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed: can you be more specific about the problem? "to no avail" sounds like nobody answered you. If that is the case, how is working in your sandbox going to help? Or do you mean something else? --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted reasons for revision 4 times on a little-active topic "Instrumentalism," and got no response. Then I made some bold edits and got reverted because of technical errors. I'm still trying to get consideration of my suggestions for revising content. If sandbox is not a means to that end, what is? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello TBR-qed. I have looked at your sandbox and your edits at Instrumentalism and at Magioladitis comment when s(he) reverted your edits and wrote: "please use sandbox". You simply misunderstood that. The editor did not mean for you to continue the discussion in your sandbox. What s(he) meant was that you should take some time to familiarize yourself with how to use the Wikipedia "code" in the editing area, and use the sandbox to do so. I would suggest that, even if it may seem like "going back to school" for you, you took the time and Play the Wikipedia Adventure (look further up this page). It is a tutorial to learn how to edit. After that, go to your sandbox and experiment with your newfound knowledge. The sandbox is a place were you can (among other things) muck about with texts to get the format right before posting the text in an article. That is what the comment was all about. If you are have knowledge about the subject you want to edit but have trouble getting it formatted the right way, please ask one of the editors contributing to the subject in question, for help. Best, w.carter-Talk 14:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and when you refer to an article, say so, not just "topic". Also use brackets like this [[Instrumentalism]] to make it into a link Instrumentalism and more easy for readers to follow than just "Instrumentalism". Again, try The Adventure. w.carter-Talk 14:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi TBR-qed. I am sorry for my brief answers but I 've been busy doing other stuff. Yes, Meant that you use your sandbox to present a new version of the Instrumentalism page and then start a discussion at Talk:Instrumentalism to ask people help you further expand the new version before it replaces the old one. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My thanks to the two of you.TBR-qed (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

over all look

Hi I am a new editor to Wikipedia. My first question is, when does the page go live? and second question, is there a way to hide at the top "USER: "my user id"".

I am also trying to set up an entertainers page so that it looks like other entertainers' pages and I am not an expert with dialogue boxes, etc. Many of the pages have a a box to the right with a picture, and other snapshot info like DOB, Years active, website links, etc. I have figured out how to get a picture, but thats it. Thanks!70.195.139.189 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, person with an IP starting with 70 and welcome to The Teahouse. The answer to your first two questions is the same. You are probably not eligible to do this, but you move the article. A registered user can move an article after four days and 10 edits.

The other question may be answered with clicking on one of these articles that has a box like you want to add. That is called an infobox and to see how it works you would click on "edit" or "view source" at the top of the page depending on the protection level.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer to your first question depends on what you mean by "live". All pages in Wikipedia can be seen by anybody (so they're live in that sense - and most can be edited by anybody). But normally only pages in the main space, that is, without a prefix such as "User:" or "Draft:" are treated as released articles - and once they're in main space, they may get deleted if they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. A page starting called "User:<your user name>" is not an article, and shouldn't be used for preparing an article: it is your user page, and it is for sharing any information you choose about you as a Wikipedia editor. But pages called "User:<your user name>/<name of an article> are called your sandboxes, and are a good place to prepare an article (because by convention people won't edit them unless you invite them to, or there is something seriously wrong with them such as a copyright violation). When your article is ready to be released, you move it, as Vchimpanzee says; but if you're inexperienced it's much better to ask for it to be reviewed, by editing it to insert {{subst:submit}} at the top. --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

how long is the wait after resubmission?

On 16 June 2014 ONEL5969 told me to work on my article about Tadeusz Jezierski and then resubmit that article. I resubmitted that article over 60 days ago and still have no response. Is that normal? Have I done something wrong?King.parker3 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi King.parker3 and welcome to the Teahouse. No, you haven't done anything wrong. At the moment there is a significant backlog in the review queue, which means that your article is still waiting. The review will happen at some point and you never know, some kind editor here may decide to do the review for you more quickly. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The draft was re-submitted 9 days ago, not 60. Nine days isn't long at all to wait for a review at the moment. Sionk (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, King.parker3. You have done nothing wrong: as the message at the top of Draft:Tadeusz A. Jezierski says, "there are 2761 submissions waiting for review". However, in my opinion the draft will fail review. I have only looked at about a quarter of the references, but I have yet to find one which contains "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Of the six references for the first section, five do not mention Jezierski at all, and the sixth merely confirms that he is on the staff of the institute. Most of the rest of them appear to be references to works by him. Not one of these contributes to establishing notability. To establish notability (in the special Wikipedia sense of the word), the article needs either to cite substantial writing about him in reliable sources independent of him and his institution; or establish one or more of the criteria for notability of academics. I think it is quite like that Jezierski does meet one of these latter criteria: but if so, the article must spell out what it is that makes him notable and fit for a Wikipedia article. Referencing a few of his own papers might be appropriate if they support text about notable work he has done, or a particular position he has taken on some matter (though independent sources are to be preferred). But as it stands, in my opinion, there is far too much detail about the particular projects he has done for an encyclopaedia article, and far too many references that would be appropriate in a scientific paper but are irrelevant in an encyclopaedia article about him. --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Error on sidebar

At the bottom of the sidebar there is a message in red: "Error: Page Does Not Exist". Does anyone know why this may be happening? For the life of me, I can't figure out what the problem is. Thanks for your help! Ecsayer

I don't know what I did, but it's gone now. TFM LI 14:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecsayer (talk • contribs)

Ecsayer I am glad you came back to update us on this problem solved. People visiting the Teahouse learn a lot by just reading the questions and how problems get solved. I can't tell how many times I've worked on something I just couldn't get right and then *POOF* somehow it gets fixed with no input from me. Did you know that there are Wikifaeries? Maybe that is the answer. bpage (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

delete my account, if I have no edits, can I then delete my account?

I see that I cannot delete my account because my edits have to be associated to an account. In my case, all my edits are undone all the time and after a week of editing and many hours invested, there is not a single line of my edits anywhere. So, the question is - in that case, if I have no edits, can I then delete my account? Zarpboer (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Zarpboer. You now have 344 edits listed. If you no longer wish to edit Wikipedia, just stop editing. You can say that you are retired on your user page if you want. We hope you will change your mind and return some day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Zarpboer, I've looked at your edit history and it seems like you're edit-warring with users on one of these articles. I have no doubt you mean well, but when editors get in a situation like this, the best solution is to discuss on the talk page, something that you have indeed started. Give users some time to respond, as they have different schedules and off-wiki priorities that will appear from time to time. Most importantly, remember there is no deadline. You do have a fair amount of sourcing, but it seems like consensus does not agree with them. I do see your frustration, but I think discussing and building consensus should be the focus of your efforts for the time being. --McDoobAU93 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

McDoobAU93, thank you :) - I do mean well, the thing is that I have discussed my changes in the talk page, all of this week, but the troubles that I am having are with editors that know very little, or nothing about the subject matter and they do not want to check the research or citations either. All that they simply do ALL of the time, is to revert my additions and changes to an old, (pre me) version. The only explanations that I do get is that my edits are heavily my point of view, nothing factual, nothing specific and they do not want to invest the time and effort to improve the article, which has been dsiplaying, citations equired, message since 2010. One of the present citations are even fake - and so is much of the content... Much of it is fiction, rumour and based on a novel (fiction) - To make matters even more interesting, there are many agendas, points of view etc. and these all interfere with the facts :) -- thank you in advance McDoobAU93 for any additional advice? Zarpboer (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

how add Anthem or song or audio in infobox??

I want to add university anthem in infobox in that pageTharaka077 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tharaka077. Welcome. Infoboxes are intended to have a few key facts about an article, not to be the article. If there is a reliable source for the anthem it would be better to put it in the main body of the article.

At present that article does not seem to have any sources at all. That needs to be fixed.Charles (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Same Page Title in different languages

Hi ! I added a page on our international association in english Wikipedia. I would like that the name of the association (in english) redirect to the english page when it is typed in from other Wikipedia language. What is the best way to do this ?

many thanks in advance, Levi LeviAmStutz (talk) 11:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Levi, and welcome. I'm afraid the software doesn't allow us to make automatic redirects from one language version to another. Perhaps I can explain why it'd be a bad idea. Imagine you're reading the English Wikipedia, and you search for a title (for example, FIFA), expecting to read an English article on the subject. All of a sudden, you're redirected to a completely different Wikipedia, one written in a language you don't know (say, French). Don't you think you might find that confusing? And you might not even know how to get back to the English version! We don't want to trap our readers like that. If your association has articles in other languages, you can redirect the English title to them, but you can't redirect it here.

While you're here, I would also encourage you to read our conflict-of-interest policy, as it sounds like you may be a member of the organization about which you're writing.

-- Powers ^T 11:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, two interesting concerns.

I initally created a page in another language telling minimal similar information as in english and suggesting to read the english page, but it was cancelled. Would it be correct to translate the page in different languages ?

Regarding conflict of interest, thanks for the advise, my goal is only to provide wikipedia with the information on definition of the organisation (there is really no personal interest behind) but of course i see very well the point. In such a situation, is it better to request an other independant person to write the article ? or should i mention that the initial article was written by a member of the organisation ? thanks again for your help, LeviAmStutz (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You could join the Wikipedia for each language and see if you can write the article in each one. Each language Wikipedia has its own policies.

It is generally better if an independent person writes the article. You could do it, but you would have to follow the advice given above about conflict of interest. The important thing is independent reliable sources and neutral point of view. People writing about their own company have trouble with the second one.

For advice on how to proceed if you don't write the article, the topic immediately below this one has advice (once this is archived that location may change).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We like to create article about our open source software

We like to create article about our open source software , its opensource-socialnetwork.org we want to know that how to achieve goal, its about open source social networking software. 39.32.42.53 (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for asking. Please don't write an article about your software: it is not forbidden, but because of your conflict of interest you are strongly discouraged from writing the article.

Your best course is:

1. Look for solid references in reliable sources independent of your and your organisation. If major newspapers or magazines have published articles about the software (not just listings, mentions, or your own press releases), or websites with a reputation for reliable editing and checking facts have done so, then it will be possible for Wikipedia to have an article on the software. If these sources I have mentioned do not currently exist, then at present, Wikipedia must not have an article on it, as it will be impossible to write an article of any quality.
2. If you have found these sources, then request an article at requested articles, listing the sources, and somebody unconnected with the software may choose to pick up the suggestion and create the article.

Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

They say it's best to ask.

What is The Signpost? --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Wikipedia's in-house newspaper. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. --Jayron32 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: If you need to find details on a Wikipedia topic quickly you can often get what you want by using the prefix WP: in the search box. For example, if you search wp:Signpost (note the search is not case sensitive) and hit return, you will be taken directly to the link provided by Jayron32 above. This is also a useful way to jump around the encyclopedia as many subjects have these "shortcuts". To get here, for example, enter wp:Tea and you will see Teahouse/Questions as the second result in the search drop-down. Click the entry and you will be magically transported to this page. Hope this is useful. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Should I fill one in for stuff like the teahouse and talkpages? I don't for that but I do always for editing articles. Another one, when did the teahouse start? --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do. It is always helpful for other user who want to know what's going on. The edit summery can sometimes be used for extra comments. This Teahouse page was started on 15 feb 2012, 06:54. There might have bee an earlier version of it. Some Wiki-historian will have to fill you in on that. You can follow the history of every page by clicking on the "View history" tag and then on to "External tools: Revision history statistics" a bit further down that page. w.carter-Talk 23:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Every edit? Okey dokes then. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Every edit, although I have found that the world keeps going even if I forget sometimes. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:: → Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary → perfect recall:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the blank edit prompt info, a useful toolSovalValtos (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear, @Fuhghettaboutit:: great hint, and a really nice link to it. Thanks. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch

Tea for all of us my hair …. I am trying to edit an article which seems to be continually vandalised Amanda Eliasch The article is about a prominent person on the British Art Scene, but it is continually being put up for deletion, by people who have not a clue who she is, because London is far from the Mid West, despite a huge amount of achievements which are now not mentioned in fear of being edited out. For instance there are three more books which are not written about , I tried to but the press was wrong? The article is accused now of being written like a magazine but it has been written by prominent editors. There is so much more that could be written yet it is not for fear that one of the millions of editors may or may not like it. She is very active, she does have some dodgy press but she is a "Peggy Guggenheim" type, who can also write and create. Why is there such hatred?. It looks like the latest suspect has a stick to grind who seems to have opened an account with the specific intention of deleting her yet again?. Perhaps it is the same person. I am new to Wikipedia, but why is this article being attacked when lesser articles are kept? She has had about 5 more exhibitions. I became interested as she seems to be the sort of woman I like to support. A worker and a reasonably successful award winning writer and filmmaker. Can't we get the other editors to feel the same? Any ideas to stop the continual problems of deletion? Spikequeen (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeenSpikequeen (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would encourage you to take a step back. You've encountered an editor with an axe to grind, and sometimes there is very little that can be done about that until everyone takes a breather. Powers ^T 19:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help. you are right. Spikequeen (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeen.

moved for clarity— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Spikequeen and I sense some real frustration here. When things get crazy with editing, I switch all my information, editing, and references to a Word document where I can keep track of things in my own space and wait for things to quiet down a bit. I agree with Powers and if it were me, I would step back for a while since no one is really going to listen to your opinion at this point in time. Carefully record why you think an edit is valid, and support this edit with as many good detailed references, apart from your own opinion, as you can. So at some time in the future, you can revisit the whole debate with a whole arsenal of 'reasonable-ness', logic and references. You will never loose your ability to ask for a review by other editors or administrators. It especially helps when you approach those who oppose you with courtesy, respect and patience. Assume good faith on their part. Perhaps you could distract yourself by working on another article for a short time. I admire your passion for the truth. Best Regards, bpage (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes as, Powers says, the best thing to do when Wikipedia starts to stress you out is to take the dog for a walk in order to keep your cool. When discussions get heated, its really easy to post something that you may come to regret later on: something that may in itself be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Sometimes it's really hard to assume good faith with some editors because they are always trying to bait you in an emotional discussion. You've got to try to keep your comments focused on the contents of edits and the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines involved and avoid commenting upon the behavior of others. Once again, that is sometimes really hard to do, especially when you strongly disagree with the way someone is behaving. Articles get deleted all the time. Sometimes mistakes are made, but most of the time the reasoning is solid. Each article should be judged upon its individual merits, not in comparison to other articles. The fact that "lesser articles" are kept is irrelevant to the discussion, so other stuff exists is really not a good argument to try and make. Experienced editors who know how Wikipedia works will be more inclined to support your position if your arguments are based upon Wikipedia policy. So, it's best to simply state your case as clearly and concisely as possible, which relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines apply and leave the emotional arguments to the other side. If the other side is trying to game the system, they will eventually get caught. We cannot use their actions as an excuse for not following Wikipedia policy ourselves. Wikipedia is not really about winning. Just some friendly advice. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear March July, You are so right, I decided to look at the history of Masks. The article has so much entertainment and interesting stories which cannot be shown on Wikipedia I was getting frustrated for the subject. The problem with the internet you feel human bonds. So thank you for your help. It is tricky to really start editing before you understand procedures, but I am trying to gain confidence on this one, as it was not a politician, where I could get killed.

Thank you for all your good advice, The Tea House is indeed helpful.

Anyway patience is a wonderful thing and the article has now I think been given a speedy keep, heaven knows what that really means, so you are right, take a breath of fresh air, and beat another dog so to speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikequeen (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

moved for clarity— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A "speedy keep" means that the deletion discussion doesn't need to extend for the full amount of time that is usually prescribed; the decision to keep is so obvious and clear that it would be pointless to extend the discussion. Powers ^T 02:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your encouraging messages. Phew there is sanity out there, your advice is so helpful. Have taken a walk, gone to see some friends and now I am feeling better. Will not edit until, all calms down on the page for fear of pen brutality. All best wishes to you all. I will hopefully find some other interesting women to edit too.Spikequeen (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved for clarity - Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing an article

Hi there!

I would like to make changes to the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rutka. Can I make direct changes to the article even though I am a paid editor.

In particular, I would like to remove the "This article relies on references to primary sources" box. I think the simplest way to remove this box is by removing references 3,4,5 and 6. However, I don't want to get flagged for conflict of interest.

Any suggestions? Thanks for your help! Varblues69 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Varblues69, welcome back to the Teahouse! The answer is yes, but tread carefully. Being paid or having a conflict of interest does not forbid anyone from editing an article, but if you don't discuss changes on the talk page first, you risk having them undone or being blocked from editing. The exceptions are basic copyediting (fixing spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) and correcting obvious errors. (What counts as "obvious" may not itself be obvious, so, when in doubt, discuss first.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it!

Varblues69 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I have seen a few Userpages that look really cool! Complete with different colors, well maintained tables, userboxes and a few other things. I have been here since two years, but still haven't figured out how to edit my page to an interesting one! Where can I find the information? Thanks. King Cobra (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, King Cobra. I recommend you look at the User page design center. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! King Cobra (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser function appears not to work. Please advise.

I sent an email to a user who did not receive it. I did not receive a confirmation in my email. The user tried a reverse send to me and had a similar experience. About three weeks ago I had an identical experience with a Wikipedia editor. Is this capability currently down? Thank you.Janvermont (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Janvermont and welcome to The Teahouse. try asking at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Vchimpanzee, I followed your suggestion at VPT and I will await a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvermont (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

ryan giggs

Does anyone know how many apps and goals he has actually got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernandezabc (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse Hernandezabc. Are you asking for references relating to this athelete?bpage (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a question for the reference desk.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Law library

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi I added a link to the Florida State Courts and County Law Library Association's website but my edit was reverted. Can you help me as to what I did wrong and how to go about correcting this. Thanks so much. Guyatri (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Guyatri, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can see why it might have seemed appropriate to you to add a link to that library alongside the other ones that were there; but I have deleted the whole section. It is rarely appropriate for an article on a general subject to contain links to particular examples of that subject (especially when the criterion for inserting them seems to be just that somebody has thought of doing so). The policy on external links says, among much else, that links are to be avoided to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." It is possible that Wikipedia could have a List of law libraries (red, because such an article doesn't exist), but even if somebody created it, that would likely list only libraries which Wikipedia already had articles about. In fact, we already have a category Category:law libraries, but by the nature of categories that can only contain existing articles.

So if the FSCCLLA library passes the Wikipedia criteria of notability, then somebody could write an article on it, and it would appear in that category; but it would still not be appropriate to link to it from Law library.

One more point: when Flyer22 reverted your change, the best thing to do was not just to apply it again (that is the start of edit warring), but to discuss it with Flyer22, either on their user talk page User talk:Flyer22 or on the article's talk page Talk:Law library. Disagreement about how to improve Wikipedia articles arises all the time, and we have a procedure to manage it, called the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold to make your change (which is encouraged), Flyer22 reverted it because they thought it was inappropriate; and the next stage if you stand by your change is to discuss the matter.

Happy editing. --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Freundlich equation

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC). I'm not actually sure whether the first paragraph below goes in this section or not.

Hello, I am a new user. I do not have much time to learn how to operate the wikipedia platform - nor do I have the energy at the moment to do so. Though I do like wikipedia and donate every so often.

I tried to contribute to a page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freundlich_equation

I was saddened to see that my involvement was quickly swept under the rug. I am writing a thesis and probably should not be wasting time on wiki. I added some information to the page and it was all taken down. Its frustrating because its just a waste of my time... I dont think ill contribute again. Granted it my addition was rough and needed refining, though it was still information that was correct.

Is the wikipedia community this difficult to gain entry? EngineeringEnigma (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, EngineeringEnigma. I am sorry that your initial go at contributing was frustrating for you. I think Mogism was right to revert your changes, but they could have been clearer in explaining why. The whole of the content of Wikipedia articles is supposed to be drawn from reliable published sources (though summarised in original words, not just copied). Original research is never allowed in a Wikipedia article. Your contributions are mostly your own views, suggestions and observations on the content of the article. This is not to belittle your knowledge of the subject; but the problem is that a reader has no way of knowing whether you are an expert, a well-meaning but misguided aspirant, or a joker intent on vandalising the article. That is why we insist that all material be referenced to reliable published sources (and yes, we realise that many articles do not reach this ideal).

Suggestions such as yours are better placed on the article's talk page Talk:Freundlich equation, where you can discuss with other editors what is sufficiently well sourced to go into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How to initiate a new page, on a new subject (place,person,topic whatever)

Recently, I joined wikipedia group. I want to know,How to initiate a new page on a new subject (place,person,topic whatever) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrajarao (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard will tell you everything you need to know about creating a new article! TranquilHope (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)