Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:56, 21 September 2014

Shortcuts

Finnusertop, 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.

To read the newest questions, skip to bottom
About the Teahouse

Most recent archives
1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245

Username on top the page I created

Why is it that my username appears on top of the page I created? Is this a temporary thing? Childrenofheart (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any statistics for how many people visit the talk pages for articles?

Just something I was wondering. Are there any statistics of the average number of people who visit a talk page for articles? I don't mean any specific article, just all articles in general. 86.21.101.169 (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Tea House

On the left side in "Tools" heading you will see "Page Information" click it, then at the bottom of the page you will see "Page view statistics" under heading "External Links" click it to view for article traffic.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 04:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Internet Archive images (flickr stream)

Hi. Hopefully someone has thought about this before. I'm interested in using the millions of images recently uploaded by Internet Archive, but I'm not sure if I can freely use them on Wikipedia. https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/ is the URL. If I click on a random image, it says "No known copyright restrictions" and "Public". But if I do a search, say for "fish", there is a License filter near the top of the page which has following options, Any License; Creative Commons only; Commercial use allowed; Modifications allowed.

Basically, do I need to apply this filter every time I search for images, so that I only use "Commercial use allowed" images? Annoyingly, the individual image pages don't mention the Creative Commons status of the image (Commercial use allowed, or Modifications allowed).

confused* Marvinthefish (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marvinthefish, I don't know everything about copyright licenses or this archive, but I would be very careful about using it. Just to check it out I did a random seach (Gothenburg) and right away spotted two pics that would be inadmissible on the Wikipedia for copyright reasons since the things in the pics were copyrighted. One was a fairly new stamp and the other one was a toy. And you must have had some sort of luck when you clicked on random pics to get the "No known copyright restrictions" or "Public". When I clicked at random, I got all kinds of "All rights reserved" and other copyright notices. Hopefully some more experienced editor will come along and add to this answer. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explored a bit more, and I think that the more correct link to the old pictures is this and the search box is a bit down the page. The link above is to all of the pictures at Flickr. But a picture still have to have all of the license boxes ticked, or marked with the "No known copyright restrictions" to be used on the Wikipedia. w.carter-Talk 21:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heya @Marvinthefish:! You might want to ask this same question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions which is a place designed exactly for questions like the one you asked; it is patrolled by people who tend to have a bit more knowledge about copyright issues and the like. Good luck! --Jayron32 21:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you so much for those answers. I'll definitely try over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. With so many images available, it would be important to know if we can use them on WP. Marvinthefish (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste, Marvinthefish. You may freely use the material of Internet Archive's collection. If in doubt, simply review the excellent descriptions provided by IA and look for the license information (commonly located on the right side of the page). Wikimedia Commons would be the appropriate place to upload such material, and we've already a substantial number of them (see commons:Category:Files from Internet Archive Book Images Flickr stream.) -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mean_as_custard > ??

Who is < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mean_as_custard > ?? Microtexnano (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Microtexnano and welcome to the Teahouse. Mean_as_custard is an editor who joined the Wikipedia on 7 nov 2009, 17:43, and has so far made 83 763 edits here. That is all anyone knows. All users identities are unknown unless the user wants to reveal it their self. There is no "hidden record" of user names and identities. If you want to know anything about a user, go and ask at their user page. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information regarding mean custard.

Mean_as_custard a British?Microtexnano (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know, and it is totally irrelevant; however, he or she is a very experienced editor, and I would take their advice, rather than continuously adding vast amounts of highly promotional material to Grace Christian College - which appears to be your only interest here. - Arjayay (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to correct spelling of a name?

In the "List of Historic Buildings in Klamath Falls, Oregon, the builder's name is listed as Willard B. Miller, which should be Willard D. Miller, or as he was most often called, W. D. Miller who operated the W. D. Miller Construction Co. and built numerous structures in Klamath Falls. He was my father. How do I correct his name?71.214.80.22 (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has fixed it [1] . Keihatsu ^talk 17:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello user with an IP-number and welcome to the Teahouse. In order to change something in an article, you have to come up with a reliable source to back it up. Even if he was your father, and I'm sure both you and he are honorable men, that is not enough for an encyclopedia. However, I went source-hunting and found a form about the building from the United States Department of interior, which must be considered a reliable source, and it clearly states that "The building was built by W.D. Miller...". So, with the source in place as a reference I took the liberty of correcting your fathers name in the list. I only had to add (builder): Willard D. Miller (builder) to his name since there is another man with the same name who has an article here on the Wikipedia: Willard D. Miller. Hope that's ok with you. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I've de-linked Willard Hotel as that was a "false-link" which redirected to Willard InterContinental Washington - Arjayay (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Wikipedia in other launguages

I'm a complete beginner and intend making a contribution on the same subject to the English version and the Italian version of Wikipedia. My contribution includes a list of people who are on or the other, but not both and other people who are (for example) on the Spanish or German version When I requested help on the Italian Wikipedia, I was told in that it was against the rules to include links to other language versions (although I attemped an it works), but I should create a "red" link to a page that says there is no page on the person in question (which theoretically should encourage another contributor to create the missing page). Are the Wikipedia rules not the same worldwide? If so is the sort of link I'd like to include (Interwikilink?) allowed or not? ScozzeseVolante (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ScozzeseVolante and welcome to The Teahouse. Each Wikipedia has its own rules. I think it's possible for you to include a link from the English Wikipedia to other language versions. The answer to how is in here somewhere and I'll have to look.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you asked the question here, and you received an answer. Please don't ask a question in more than one place unless it takes you a long time to get an answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :Hi ScozzeseVolante. I see you've also asked this at the help desk where you have answers. Let's continue the conversation there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit the Wikipedia page?

Dear Team, I am new to Wikipedia, and I have some questions (my user name is: Lotus Flower in the Modern Art). I would like to add new information about new movement in the art and information about contemporary artists.

What rules must be followed to edit page (for example: Contemporary Art or Expressionism)?

Thanks, Lotus Flower in the Modern Art 134.90.0.217 (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome Lotus Flower in the Modern Art.

Some senior person will guide you about editing.

I only removed blank spaces in your message.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 06:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC

Hello there, Lotus Flower in the Modern Art. At Wikipedia, we doesn't have specific editing guidelines, just make sure than your change is constructive (helpful to the encyclopedia). I have left a welcome message at your talk page, which you could read the useful links in it. Thanks for making the encyclopedia better! Romtam^TalkToMe 06:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. Editing Wikipedia can be very complicated, but the core principles are relatively simple. In my opinion, the most important thing to keep in mind is that our job as Wikipedia editors is to summarize what high quality, reliable independent published sources say about a topic. It is not to inject our own opinions, judgments and conclusions into articles. If you keep that basic principle in mind, you can be a successful Wikipedia editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste, Lotus. You may be interested in reviewing the standard Wikipedia:Tutorial or, you could check out the interactive tutorial over at WP:The Wikipedia Adventure. Both of these should offer guidance on your first steps in Wikipedia and both are excellent resources for new contributors. They each present information in a unique way but the lessons are largely the same. -- dsprc ^[talk] 07:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

This isn't a question about editing, but I was wondering if an experienced user could adopt me. I have been requesting adoption for more than a week. KGTaco (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KGTaco, I'm Howicus. I've been here for some time, and I'd be happy to adopt you. I'll leave a talk page message for you with more information. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it conflict of interest?

I am the curator of a museum in a historic building. I understand it would be inappropriate for me to edit an article discussing the building's use as a museum while working here, but is it a COI if I make edits to an article about the history of the building before its present use? Thanks, Carlaldrich (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge you face is whether the building is, of itself, part of the exhibits in the museum. If so then the history is also about a museum exhibit. But you will drive yourself nuts here. The real question is, "Can you make the edits in an entirely WP:NPOV manner, and, where necessary, with citations/references?" While other editors may differ, my view is that,. if you can do this, and do not succumb to WP:OWN, then you can make these edits with a good heart.

Declaring what you intend to do on the talk page before you do it is appropriate.

If you cannot do it then there are mechanisms to request others to consider the edits you wish to make. Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight. I'll definitely be careful with what I write and request edits as needed. It's more clear the way you explain it. Carlaldrich (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion?

Hi! I hve been editing a few pages and I recently came across this article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danie_Cortese_Entertainment I have been contemplating whether to request this article for deletion or whether to improve it. What must I do? The page has been deleted a few times, but it ends up either being edited like an advertisment or with less information. Thanks King Cobra (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@6033CloudyRainbowTrail: Hey, thanks for your question. On its face, the article is probably a good candidate for speedy deletion as an unremarkable company, so you could nominate it if you were thinking about it. Just be sure to notify the article creator as well. If the article has been repeatedly recreated with no attempt to address the issues, the reviewing administrator will probably protect the article from being recreated until evidence that the company is notable comes to surface. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@6033CloudyRainbowTrail: Well done for spotting this. I've deleted the article and protected it from recreation by anyone other than an admin. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short story with same title as short story collection

There are a number of first edition short story collections by Mark Twain named the same as one of his famous short stories. These are COLLECTIONS and contain many other stories as well.

Short story articles already exist for most of these on Wikipedia, and someone has linked photos of - in many cases the wrongly-attributed covers of the short story collections (ex. the photo of the British first edition saying it's the American first edition), etc. I'd like to correct the attributions and find no way to edit the data on the right hand side of the page.

ALSO - it seems silly to create entirely new pages for the COLLECTIONS containing the titular short stories. I'd like to add the collection data to the short story article. Is that considered good Wikipedia form? It seems having two entries, one for the story and one for the short story collection would just create page proliferation issues.

What to do? Create a new page for the short story collection, or add info on the collection to the short story page of the same title. Sa magnuson33 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sa magnuson33. It seems that your question has two parts, one practical and one more philosophical. As for editing "the data on the right side of the page", I assume that you are referring to the infobox. Those are generated by a template at the very beginning of the wikicode. If you edit wikicode "the old fashioned way", it is very similar to any other editing, although you have to be very careful about the syntax. The Visual Editor has some quirks, and in all honesty, I do not use it. One way or another, you edit the infobox.

As for whether Wikipedia should have separate articles about Twain short story collections, as opposed to just articles about the eponymous short stories, that is a question of notability. If reliable sources devote significant coverage to the collections as a topic separate from the title stories, then the answer is "yes". Although not a Mark Twain expert, I believe that he is indisputably a major author, and that an encyclopedia comprehensive enough to offer 4.6 million articles to its readers probably should have an article on every book, including short story collections, published under the Twain byline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Aden site in western Mississippi has related Aden sites in western Louisiana. It should read western Mississippi.JamesFogleman (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I was attempting to correct a minor error on the Aden archaeological site post. JamesFogleman (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuyming your main change is correct, get rid of <ref></ref> that you have placed in the article by accident. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability feedback

I'd like some feedback on whether or not this person is notable. He's been the CEO of several companies and he's mentioned in several well known publications. However, not all the articles are in depth. Here's a list of the best ones--I also have some smaller publications that I found through Highbeam:

Sorry if I've posted this request in the wrong spot. If there's a better place for this, please let me know. Thanks!Cecibell (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He might be. Not all of those sources are useful, however. Why not go to WP:AFC and click the link to create an article? A review by our volunteer reviewers will set you on the correct path. Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to submit an article

Hi Folks,

I am a "classic car" hobbyist. In particular, I have a classic Rolls Royce. These are just cars with the exception that they have a very sophisticated hydraulic system. A very important part is called the Accumulator Control Valve (ACV). This is not unique to Rolls Royce. All hydraulic systems with hydraulic pressure accumulators have a corresponding control valve.

Given the importance of this component, I thought its behavior should be explained, but I find no explanation, anywhere; not even in the Rolls Royce documentation. No only missing for Rolls Royce, but articles of this component in general were in notable short supply.

To rectify this deficiency, I have written an article explaining its behavior. This article is approximately 20 pages, so it is non-trivial. I'd like to publish it. How do I do this?

Chris. 107.128.74.229 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You face one major obstacle. Your twenty page draft, if unreferenced (more of which in a moment) is likely to fail Wikipedia's rules on original research. It may also be too lengthy. Nonetheless, if you click on Draft:Accumulator control valve you may then fill it with your text, and save it. At this point it is not submitted for review.

You need to be clear that none of the material in the draft is material that is the copyright or others. Equally, if you have published it yourself elsewhere, you need to go through the process described at WP:donating copyright material, establishing your ownership of copyright, and your onward licencing of it.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Thsi brief statement is actually enormous. It is a major gating factor against acceptance

When you are happy with it, place the text {{Subst:Submit}} at the head, exactly as t appears, and you will enter the pool of drafts fopr review. This is an iterative process, submit>review>edit>resubmit etc

It would be ideal, but not compulsory, for you to create an account here. Doing so allows you privileges that are not granted to anonymous editors. Fiddle Faddle 16:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how to link to project gutenberg inside a reference

hi

I edited sphere-world by adding two references, one of them to a book on project gutenberg but now, How can I link in the reference to also to the wiki page about project gutenberg? (so i have to link to two places at the same time, one to project gutenberg and another to [[2]] also i removed the unreferenced tag , am I allowed to do so? WillemienH (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WillemienH: Hi WillemienH. It's great you're adding references – one of the most important ways you can help out on Wikipedia! I added to the {{cite book}} template you placed |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37157 to link the title to that ebook location, and added |via=[[Project Gutenberg]]to attribute that location for the source and link to our article on it. I've actually never used the "via" parameter before but it seems appropriate for the purpose here (though there are other ways you might include Project Gutenberg explicitly with a link, and someone else might think another way that would be better). Yes, you are allowed to remove maintenance tags once the issue it flags is addressed, and in this case it was called for because, following your edit, its output was actually untrue; the article was no longer "unreferenced". However, the article contains many other unsourced statements, so I have added to it {{refimprove}} where the unreferenced template used to be. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think the article needs more editing but am not sure on how to do it, could you help me with it, which references do you think needs improvement? (as it is now it is all in the reference) but i think the article needs some major reediting I think, add comments to Poincare's thought experiment. Is there a thought experiment template? WillemienH (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a version of Template:Help me usable on article talk pages? All ideas welcome!

I have a lot of real-life limitations (see my user page if you are curious about the details), so I often have to dump my thoughts on an article talk page such as this one. Just search my talk page contributions for titles containing the word "help" and you'll see what I mean (although I only started to add that word more often during this past year and sometimes I forget).

I'm taking this approach more and more since otherwise I lose a lot of my observations to half-done, never-finished article edits. Also, editing articles is much more likely to trigger flare-ups of my illnesses' symptoms than chattily (as you see) explaining the problems I would like to see fixed.

Tl:Help me won't work, because I do what I can when I can with little follow-up and can go years without even checking my own talk page (though Notifications has helped). I could use Template:Expert-talk with Template:Expert-subject, except in most cases a topic expert isn't needed, just an experienced WP editor. (Hm. Those templates might work well for my last edit that I mentioned. Maybe I'll remember, maybe I won't.)

Well, thinking it through as I post, I guess it's not really necessary to highlight one talk page proposal over another, except that people often reply to such proposals with instructions on how the proposer could make the changes, and I simply can't. My difficulty is different. ... Is there a recruiting table somewhere in the Teahouse? Ha!

Thanks for any and all advice. I also like looking for little things I can do, such as wikilinking to template pages in the Edit summary and elsewhere so newbies can learn about them more easily. Hopefully.

I appreciate that, if I ever get healthy enough to work again, gradually learning about WP while volunteering here is the main hobby that has helped me keep my work-skills up and a significant help towards keeping my brain active.

BTW, I wish this form had a preview function so I could verify my Wikitext worked. Also, I wish searching for T[something]:[string] automatically expanded to Template:[string] just like WP:[string] expands to Wikipedia:[string].

Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who responds to a lot of helpme requests, I can safely say that they are used on article talkpages with some regularity - they can be legitimately placed on any talkpage (article, file, template etc.), even though user talkpages are preferred. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I moved my article for editing?

I have moved my sandbox to Draft:Title - but I can't tell if I have got it to a place where it will be edited. Have I done so?S.tollyfield (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @S.tollyfield: If you're referring to Draft:Leicester Gataker, looks good to me! If you want to delete the unused pages (User:S.tollyfield/sandbox & Draft:S.tollyfield/Leicester Gataker), you can do so by placing {{Db-author}} on them. This is how you can request speedy deletion under G7 criteria, which is for pages that you have created and are the sole contributor to. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to submit this article for consideration, but can't see the button to do so. Moving it to Draft does not seem to have achieved thisS.tollyfield (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Put {{subst:submit}} at the top of that page. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanksS.tollyfield (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas and Jonesy

Hey guys! I have helped to write an article about Australian explorers Cas and Jonesy, but am having some issues that I would appreciate help resolving. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas_and_Jonesy

If anyone can help me it would be much appreciated.

Alex Alexandersawyer (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alexandersawyer! I fixed the first couple sentences. I think this structure fits with wikipedia norms a little better. What I always do when I'm writing an article is I give an overview of the article in the lead and include the reason why they are most notable (why they are in wikipedia to begin with). For this article, I'd axe the two examples you've given from the lead (adding them below) and bring up the fact that they have been on various TV shows. I think the section of the article where you discuss their endurance events could benefit from breaking it into smaller sections. I would work on the sources too. It's good that you gave a name for the website as opposed to a bare url, but if you give the name of the specific page/article you are looking it, that will really help if the link rots. Also, a date that you retrieved the info is helpful. That should be a good start. :-) Bali88 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex - That's great thanks mate! I changed a lot of stuff you suggested, how do I get rid of the multiple issues messages? Will someone eventually get around to re-checking the article out or do I have to request another read through? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandersawyer (talk • contribs) 07:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandersawyer In this circumstance, I think you can probably just remove the tone tag. When they placed the tags they were supposed to start a conversation on the talk page detailing the issues and how you can fix them, which they didn't do. The tone seems largely okay to me and if the editor who placed the tags has further issues with the tone, they can post on the talk page and suggest further clean up. I would leave the citations needed tag for now, there are still a few pieces of into that don't have citations. It's unclear if you just placed the source at the end of multiple paragraphs from each source or if some things are just unsourced. (I suggest having at least one reference per paragraph so that it doesn't appear unsourced to your readers) You can remove that tag when you either find references for those or appropriately place the refs. :-) Bali88 (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My article is shortlisted for deletion, but I just wanted to help document the Summer of Monuments

In Oregon there is one historical place without a picture or a location, and I wanted to learn more. So I found a great source. But the page is too short for Wikipedia. Can someone help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umatilla_Site_(35_UM_1) ShaunaaltmanShaunaaltman (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That other editor shouldn't have nominated that article for speedy deletion as "subject unidentifiable," since the subject seems pretty obvious to me. I contested the speedy deletion and replied on your talk page with some additional ideas. Welcome! VQuakr (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote an article but only parts of it show up in preview

Hi there, I've wrote an article in my sandbox but when I preview it only part of what I have written is showing up. Could you help me with this? Innovatepsych (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Innovatepsych. There was a misplaced slash in one of your references. I fixed it for you. This is a common syntax error that has the unfortunate side effect of suppressing display of the content that follows. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Didn't realise it could be something so small. Innovatepsych (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what would you understand by the term renaissance

hello i am kumud i need to write about 600 words on ...what would you understand by the term renaissance discuss can someone please help ? 106.78.21.58 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kumud. You might want to direct your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. This is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, rather than general subject matter questions.Keihatsu ^talk 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering The Articles

I'm new to Wikipedia and I had to go to the 'How to start your first article' page, but the problem is I can't seem to remember them at the top of the head. I recently created a page and got a nomination of a speedy deletion. I checked back and noticed that it was too short, but I don't know how to make the article professional. ICon Delta (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ICon Delta: Just to clarify, are you referring to the difficulty of remembering certain help pages on Wikipedia? If so, it definitely is a challenge - there are hundreds! What I recommend is taking a look at the shortcut links located near the top-right of most Wikipedia help and policy pages. For example, WP:FIRST will take you to Wikipedia:Your first article. Wikipedia:List of shortcuts (or WP:SHORTCUTS) also provides a long, but uncomplete list of Wikipedia pages and their respective shortcuts. Over time, you'll eventually get used to them and will be able to recite them off the top of your head.

Another solution is for you to create a user subpage for yourself (perhaps at User:ICon Delta/Links), and then list links that you find helpful that you can refer back to at any time. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you are referring to remembering what articles you've contributed to, you can do so by clicking the "Contributions" link at the very upper-right hand corner of the page. Alternatively, just head to Special:Contributions/ICon_Delta. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

need help

im trying to find the cover of kendrick lamars upcoming single "i" with eligibility to use in an article Camcamhamham (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Camcamhamham, welcome to the Teahouse. Using an image of the cover of the single i on Wikipedia would only be possible if Wikipedia were to have an article about the single (as an actual article, not just a draft), and would only be permissible on that one article itself. So it cannot happen yet, as no such article yet exists. On the other hand, quite a few of Lamar's singles end up being notable enough for there to be articles about them, as can be seen from Kendrick Lamar discography, so perhaps i will be next. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The monument project

Hi all together, for a few weeks i got this weird idea, which does not leave my mind. The community does a great job in providing open knowledge, but i guess it won' t last over centuries or ages. It is just bits and bytes stored on devices with limited lifetime. Why don't we leave a footprint on this planet, which lasts over the ages. Let us put Wikipedia or something similar in stone like the Egypts did. I have no clue how to organise, but the community will know. If anyone is interested in this idea: Let us find a site to start this project. Mundanus (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mundanus and welcome to the Teahouse. In my opinion the Wikipedia IS the footprint. It is not just "bits and bytes", it is free knowledge for anyone. Who knows, maybe a WP article was the seed to an irrigation project in a village, saving hundreds of people, or maybe someone read an article on how to hold elections and decided to do something for their community. To me, such things are far more important "monuments" than some stones. But others may have different oppinions. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course many things are more important than stones. Wikipedia is more important than stones. But why not add something really persistent? Wikipedia is changing all the time. And no one can say if someone is able to reconstruct our knowledge in 5.000 years. --Mundanus (talk) 07:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the Wikipedia (we) don't succeed in getting knowledge to other people now, then the WP (we) don't deserve to be remembered even a hundred years from now. Stop dreaming (about monuments), get on editing! Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Mundanus: Actually, there is a project unrelated to WP that might interest you called something like "The Long Now" or maybe related to such a project. They are putting knowledge on long-lasting monuments with text that spirals down to text requiring magnification.

But I think a monument to open-source volunteers is a great idea, and if that ever comes about, I hope WP is part of it. But with projects like GLAM, WP volunteers are in the museums, even if a durable WP monument is not.

Oo, I don't like that when this form pops up, I can no longer see the posts I'm responding to. Someone said something about dreaming vs. editing, and I think both are valuable. :) But of course, there's always the poem "Ozymandius" (sp?) to consider. Thanks, Geekdiva (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your opinion, unfortunately i did not find the project that "puts knowledge on long-lasting monuments with text that spirals down to text requiring magnification". On longnow.org they just build a clock. --Mundanus (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Hello! If an article exist in other language too, what template is needed, so at left side other language shows in the list. Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 19:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aftab Banoori, that function is automatic. If the same article exists on other Wikipedias it will be displayed "at the left side". It just takes a while for the bots to do it all, sometimes a day or so. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aftabbanoori and W.carter: Hi Aftab. I hate to disagree with W.carter, but while there is some automation you cannot rely on it. As far as I know if an article is not at the same name in both languages (almost invariably true if the subject is not a proper name), or Wikidata does not yet have an entry for the topic, you or someone will need to act to link them. In very short summary, you should see on the left hand side of the article, near the bottom, "languages" and underneath that a pen icon with the text "Edit links" next to it. That's where to start I believe. There a lot of information you can read about this, with instructions, at Wikipedia:Wikidata. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit:Please disagree with me when you are right! :) That scenario completely slipped my mind. My bad, w.carter-Talk 22:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear W.carter and Fuhghettaboutit

I am very grateful to both of you, for the information.

Best wishes & regards,

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 02:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a gallery of examples for wikipedia markup?

I'd love to see dozens or even hundreds of great examples that show correct usage and best practices for the mechanics of markup. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cloudjpk and welcome to the Teahouse. From what I know the Help:Wiki markup is as close as you get to this. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does a local TV station game show count as its own article?

I am editing the Wikipedia article KEDT, and one of the local shows the station produces is a game show called **Challenge!** (and yes, the exclamation point is part of the title). Should this stay in the KEDT section, or can I start a new article on the topic?

Thanks, XndrK (talk | contribs) 17:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the Game Show is of notablilty and you can add facts and sources, I don't see why not. I'll copyedit the article for you when it's done.Mirror Freak 17:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll get to work on the page immediately.

--XndrK (talk | contribs) 23:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Pink Floyd 110 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC))

Can I auto confirm my account? 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)~~

The clue is in the term "Autoconfirm". Fiddle Faddle 16:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is already autoconfirmed. Cheers, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictorial editing and posting

How How do I create a table on a page, move media files to other places on an article? Sidewinder message me! 15:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sidewinder For creating tables on pages this is an excellent place to start: Help:Table/Introduction to tables. I'm not 100% sure about what you mean by "move media files to other places", but if you mean the placing of say pictures, you can add parameters in the file to place it somewhere else than the usual right side. Read how it's done at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Hey teahouse, So I need some peer-review. I'm trying out mentoring new users and I want to know if you guys think I'm doing a good job or not. Here's my adoptee's adoption page. Please look through the lessons and task's I gave and let me know if I'm doing good. I am extremely open to constructive criticism. Thanks!Mirror Freak 13:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have joined on July 15 of this year and you shouldn't be mentoring anyone. Your response here as well as this one and this one today suggest that you could use a mentor yourself as these are unacceptable. You should strike them and apologize.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accept responsibility for that. Did you look at the lesson's I'm giving my adoptee though?Mirror Freak 14:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I really want to know is if my lesson's are good or bad and how can I improve them.Mirror Freak 15:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the red flags that I saw precluded looking further. Thank you for striking those comments. Another suggestion would be to not call people dude as I have been seeing in your communications. You will come across as more professional and garner more respect that way.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if he's not being paid to edit Wikipedia (yet?!?), then does he need to appear more professional? Or is it merely to avoid the ire of individuals such as Salvatore Rivieri? (The only versions of the original Rivieri video still on YouTube appear to infringe the brave young citizen journalist cameraman's copyright, so I won't link them here, but they do explain the relevance...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Demiurge1000: Behaving in a professional manner is not about whether or not one is being paid. How you choose to behave should be informed by the effect you intend to have on others; when someone is saying to behave "professionally", they are merely asking you to behave in a manner which elicits a certain emotional response from the receiver. The words we choose to use, the way we choose to interact with others, the way we treat others all establish an atmosphere within a working environment like Wikipedia; and that's why we want people to behave "professionally". Behaving professionally is done because you want to establish an atmosphere and because you are cognizant of how your own behavior influences the behavior of others. It has nothing to do with being paid. --Jayron32 12:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

behave in a manner which elicits a certain emotional response from the receiver - sounds almost manipulative. I much prefer spontaneity; when engaging in unpaid volunteer work, anyway. Happy editing! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Demiurge1000: EVERY interaction you have with someone elicits an emotional response of some sort. It has nothing to do with manipulation. It has to do with the fact that when you say something, there is a real person who is hearing it, and that real person will have a real response to it. You can either fumble through life, being constantly shocked and befuddled by the way people respond to you, or you can take some responsibility for your own actions, and take some understanding of how the way you deal with people (such as behaving professionally in certain contexts) will have an effect on how they then view you, and how they respond to your behavior. It's entirely up to you, but to claim that people don't have the right to react naturally to boorish, unprofessional behavior isn't going to get you far. People will still react that way. That's why you should behave with decorum and professionalism: because we want Wikipedia to be the sort of environment people want to contribute to. Being willfully ignorant of the effect of one's actions does not excuse one from culpability for those effects. --Jayron32 18:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is suggesting, nor indeed recommending, "boorish" behaviour. Where did that come from? I also hope that no-one is suggesting any has occurred. What has occurred is a suggestion that a newer editor should purposefully change the way they normally communicate with their peers (an informal friendly manner of communication, such as might be appropriate at a Teahouse, though perhaps not a formal Japanese tea ceremony) in order to mimic a supposed "professional" tone of how much more experienced editors write, to fit in better at Wikipedia. That's not a good thing, not least because Wikipedia should aim to be welcoming, not a place where we force people to standardise how they talk and interact to fit our mould. There are also lots of ways in which pretending to be something one is not can cause problems. You may be able to think of a few in this particular context, but one is what happened to User:Wikicology at ANI recently after they copied - on numerous occasions - distinctive phrases used by one of Wikipedia's oldest and most experienced British admins.

I'm a professional in real life, and have been for longer than some Wikipedia editors have been alive. And no, I don't "fumble through" it. But being a lawyer in real life doesn't mean I play one on TV or on Wikipedia. I'm not paid to provide my professional skills here, and thus I'm not going to address people as "Dear Sir" here, and if I choose to call someone "dude" on Wikipedia, then they will just have to live with it. Or they could, as you put it, "react naturally" in the same manner as the police officer in those videos I mentioned reacted according to his nature, but that isn't going to get them very far on Wikipedia.

I think we've now strayed rather far from what the Teahouse is for - and your comment immediately above is particularly not appropriate here - so if you want to discuss this further then I suggest my or your talk page. (Or the Village Pump if it's really that important!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I got that down. So what do I do about my adoptee? I can't just drop him.Mirror Freak 15:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MirrorFreak, I know that you have grown considerably since you joined the Wikipedia (this is shown by the way you take your responsibility towards your adoptee) and while you may not be ready for an actual adoptee, you can still be a friend and guide to him/her and give advise on how to do simpler editing, how to find things at the Wikipedia, stay out of trouble, and so on. It is sometimes easier and less intimidating for a newbie to have someone who is closer in "Wiki-age" for basic questions. Just guide "your" newbie to a page where s(he) can be adopted by a senior editor the same way you were once adopted. And stay friends! Btw, being called "dude" always puts a smile on my face, but not everyone has my quirky sense of humor^^, and you should always be correct and polite when addressing a stranger. Save the puns for your friends. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing my article Rosslyn Analytics

Hi,

I have written an article about a company I feel is notable, called Rosslyn Analytics. As I half-expected, the article was rejected for notability. They have won several awards and quite a big player in cloud and big data, an industry of interest to me. I was wondering if someone would be able to provide some help and guidance to help me turn this into an approved article? It can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rosslyn_Analytics.

Any help here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.Tommillson (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tommillson. Draft:Rosslyn Analytics was declined not for notability but because it reads like an advertisement; Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Your claims of awards were discounted because they cited Business Wire as a source; Business Wire disseminates press releases; so they are not an independent sources, which are needed to verify notability. —teb728 t c 08:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi teb728. Thank you for your feedback, I will see if I can find any other sources for my article and rethink my wording.Tommillson (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

main picture

How can you change the main picture on a page, a sports player for example. If the photo of the athlete is very old to change to a current picture with the current team of theirs Southchina19 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Southchina19. First, make absolutely sure that the photo you want to use is free and has the correct licence. This is the most important part of the process: if it's not free and correctly licenced, it can't be used on Wikipedia. If you didn't create the picture yourself, chances are you probably can't use it.

Secondly, upload the image (to Wikimedia Commons).

Finally, replace the current image by changing the line in the article that reads | image = Evan Kostopoulos.jpg to | image = name of your new image.jpg. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need help to create this article Billy tchouague

Hello everyone,

Happy to be here. I'm still having issues about this article Billy tchouague, can somebody help me to create this article properly in order to fit wikipedia ? or tell me what i have to do to make this article notable according to wikipedia policies and guidelines ? i'm newbie right here and don't want this article to be deleted . I Need help please as this article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Many thanks in advance. Marcosantos2014 , 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marcosantos2014. Have you read our notability guideline for association football players? That requires that the player has played in a game for a fully professional team. If the subject of your article hasn't, then this article should not exist at this time. My suggestion, then, would be to work instead on articles about topics which meet Wikipedia's notability standards. There are millions of notable topics to choose from. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cullen328, Thank you for your reply, i really appreciated. I didn't read notability guideline for association football players before i write my artcile and just realize now that my article was not really notable, i made some changes by removing Association football on it, can you please check if my article Billy tchouague is now notable ? if not i'll choose articles about topics which meet Wikipedia's notability standards as you suggest from Cullen³²⁸. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosantos2014 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I use the talk page?

Im relatively new and not sure how to use the talk page, someone please help!!!Adhisha4 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adhisha4. The talk page of an article is to discuss specific ideas for improving that article. A user's talk page is to discuss improving the encyclopedia in general, or working out specific issues between two editors. The general principle is that discussion on any talk page should advance the ultimate goal of improving the encyclopedia. General chit-chat should be taken to social media sites, of which there are many. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adhisha4, I am not sure whether you may have been asking about the mechanics of how to use the Talk page. If so, when you are reading at article, near the top left of the page (on a PC - it might be different on a mobile) there is a tab named "Talk". Click on that to see the Talk page and read any discussions so far. If you want to add something, look at the tabs in the top right, and click "Edit". Add your comments at the bottom; the normal convention is to indent each successive comment with another colon ":". When you're done, "sign" with four tildes (~~~~) and make sure you click "Save page" at the bottom. --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How to I reference to external source?

I am not getting the formatting in proper way. The URL was not coming in the references section Can someone help 59.182.155.46 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't find any pages edited from this IP address, so you will need to tell us which particular page you're having trouble with, so we can have a look... --Gronk Oz (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you wikilink something in the references?

Something I've spotted a few times is that people will wikilink some word in an offline source. You can see an example of this in the Gemma J article. They're citing the tv show episode and the source is appropriately documented, but they have wikilinked the name of the show. The times I've spotted it in the past, author has clarified that they are not using the wikipedia page as a reference, it is simply a wikilink, used in the same way you'd link something in the body of the article. I don't prefer to do things this way because, inevitably, someone thinks the article is using a wikipedia page as a source and it also makes it look like it's an online source when it's not (then I've clicked a link needlessly). Are there any guidelines as to the appropriateness of this? Bali88 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is substantive, and not just "some word" at random, then this is standard practice and there is nothing at all wrong with it. It is common (and encouraged) to link to Wikipedia biographies of notable authors, or articles about newspapers and magazines, publishers and the like. When citing a notable book, it is perfectly OK to link to the Wikipedia article about the book itself.

In such cases, it is the cited material in the reliable source that is the reference. The linked Wikipedia articles are not the actual reference; instead, those links provide additional information for the reader about the reliable source, without substituting in any way for the content of the reliable source itself. The source itself always comes first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Welcome to the Teahouse Bali88 and thank you for the interesting question. Wikipedia guidelines discourage the use of links to external sites. You can read more about the topic here. "Hidden" links in the body of an article are a distraction and may also give the impression that Wikipedia endorses the third party site to which the link leads. In general, only other Wikipedia articles should be linked from body text. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First article

I am new and recently created an article which is a history of a company for which there was no entry in Wikipedia. I created the text and references in my sandbox and selected "Press your draft for review". I later found a hyperlink to an abbreviation of that company however this had no content. So I decided to add to the hyperlink. I revised the article and again selected "Press your draft for review". I think I have created two lots of content for the same topic but I don't know where to check. Thank you for your assistance. Cala Munda (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cala Munda: You can always view a history of your contributions by clicking on the "Contributions" link at the very top-right corner of each page. Alternatively, you can head to Special:Contributions/Cala Munda. By the looks of it, you do indeed have two drafts for the same article: User:Cala Munda/SAGASCO and User:Cala Munda/sandbox. If you'd like to have one of them deleted, you can request speedy deletion under U1 criteria by placing {{Db-u1}} at the top of the page (which is how you request the deletion of pages in your userspace). An administrator should delete the page for you in due time.

Also note that if you intended to submit the drafts for review, you haven't actually done so yet. After you click the green "Submit your draft for review" button, you have to scroll to the bottom and click the "Save page" button, as you would do for any other edit. Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SuperHamster. Thank you for your advice. Cala Munda (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?? flagged vandalism??

watched the movie "Freaks". The wiki page misquotes the freaks as chanting "Gobble-gobble, gobble-gobble". They are not turkeys, it is quite evident when watching the movie that they are chanting "Gooba-gobble, gooba-gobble". I tried to correct this and cited the movie however it was flagged as vandalism and reverted. Do not know what I did wrong, am trying to figure it out. Any help appreciated. Davrm44 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Shame on whoever said that was vandalism. Seriously...SHAME. Any good faith addition is never vandalism. Period. Bad editor...bad.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After two minutes of research I have also found that user Davrm44 is correct, made the change back and supplied a reliable source in the edit summary as plot sections no not need sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported ClueBot's failing at User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives. @Davrm44: please note that the "user" who performed the revision here is an automated program (a "bot") that attempts to detect vandalism. It messed up here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a little whack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper and said "Bad bot".--Mark Miller (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user messages

I received a user message and would like to reply. When I am in the Talk tab, I see the message but would like to know how that works to talk back. Thanks, R SocialNtwrker (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SocialNtwrker. Welcome. Just click the blue "Edit" tab at the top of the page. Below the last entry start with a colon to indent your reply and at the end add four tildes ( ~ ) which signs it for you.Charles (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Charles. I appreciate your help. SocialNtwrker (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs quick solution for my articles contributed to the 'Ukulhas' Island in wikipedia.

Since I'm the creator of the 'Ukulhas' page in Wikipedia and I've been the only person who has been contributing articles to 'Ukulhas' (an island in Maldives) page in Wikipedia, I would humbly need your support and advice for the editions and further developments of the page.

In may 2012 I got the feedback about the articles which says 'This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources'.

Since no book has been written about the Ukulhas so far and I'm one of the few people who done the research on 'Ukulhas', It would really be a difficult task for me to provide more citations and more sources. In this case what would be the solutions for citation issues??

Secondly the feed back says 'This article is written like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. For that now I've been rewriting and changing the sentence structures to encyclopedic descriptions.

I'm an automated confirmed user of Wikipedia. My Username is Rappey and my User ID is 7808376.

I would be grateful if you could help me soon.

Best Regards Ramiz Rep of Maldives (Rappey (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ramiz. The absence of other sources is a big problem. For most subjects, the absence of sources besides your own book would be a block, as the subject would then fail to be notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). But WP:GEOLAND says that populated places are normally notable. Can you not find any other published material on the island? Newspapers, other books? They do not have to be in English, or available on line.

The language of Ukulhas is still a problem: every sentence oozes "travel guide". Nearly every sentence is promotional: Wikipedia articles should never say anything is "famed for its (anything)", nor should anything be described as "first ever". A community should not be described as "a warm and welcoming one" - unless perhaps this is quoted from an independent reliable source. The article goes into far too much detail for an encyclopaedia article, especially about things of interest only to people who visit. In my view, it needs a complete rewrite, and would come out at something like one quarter of the length. I suggest you contribute this draft article to something like wikivoyage, and start again with a more neutral, encyclopaedic, and non-promotional article for Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could rewrite the articles but its hard for me to find more sources about the island since no books or articles have been written so far. Rappey (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ramiz. What exactly is the source for this article? The citation only says "Ramiz Ibrahim". RockMagnetist (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ColinFine. I've extracted articles relevant to travels and moved all those tho Wikivoyage and made changes to remaining contents. I've also found few citations which I've cited. Could you please help me in doing further enhancement..Once again many thanks for your feedback advice. Rappey (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus redirect has become a page again

Hi, if someone could point me in the way of policy regarding consensus-reached page blanking redirects that have been recreated without addressing former issues, I would be grateful. Thanks Asdklf; (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asdklf; To clarify, are you referring to someone recreating an article that was previously turned into a redirect after a discussion that reached consensus? If so, I guess the most relevant policy would simply be Wikipedia:Consensus. WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT also covers some details on blanking-and-redirecting.

If you're having issues with an editor restoring an article after discussion, I'd first attempt to discuss the issue with them on their talk page, linking to previous discussions. If there is still a dispute after that, you may try to get more input from other editors - or perhaps go through articles for deletion to get a more formal decision on whether the article should be deleted/redirected. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Feedback:

Hello, Russell.mo. I don't know much about this, but it seems to me that it may be relevant what it is you are going to do with the information.

Nearly all the content of Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA, which means that it may be reused for any purpose as long as it is properly attributed: see WP:REUSE. The exception is certain files (nearly all of them images) which are used under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. From the link you give, RationalWiki seems to have a similar situation, but I've no idea how frequent or pervasive is the material in it which is not so licensed.

Feedback:

Hello Russell.mo. Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content would be another page to add to your reading list. It addresses directly reuse of Wikipedia material. —teb728 t c 19:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Thank you gentlemen!

I won't be inserting any images from Wikipedia. I've also acknowledged in regards to Rationalwiki's material, it's informal and biased, despite the facts some information’s are desirable. Thank you for your clarification, for saving me from one camouflaged violation, things became clearer in regards to this matter after understanding your point of view.

Note: I am planning on to rewrite the information's and or insert it exactly as it is, with a few modifications if possible, e.g., modify/amend/delete words/sentences/paragraphs, thereafter combine it with the story to make sense of it as a whole. Any idea to whom I show the work I done along with others for corrections, whether it adhered to the Wikipedias 'terms and conditions'? It's for a book.

(Russell.mo (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Feedback:

Hi, Russell.mo. I'm still completely unclear what it is you are planning to do with the information from the two wikis. Are you editing Wikipedia? Or editing RationalWiki? Or creating something new, outside both of those? (Sorry - just saw your last sentence. It's your word "insert" that was making me think you are talking about updating an existing wiki). I don't think there's anybody you need to show it to. The conditions only say that you have to attribute the source properly, and license the derivative work appropriately: there's nothing about what use you may make of the material. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

Apologies ColinFine!

Attributing the source properly: Will a simple ‘bibliography’ with URLs sufficient? E.g. follows, what I’ll put in the end of the book.

Bibliography:

The information’s gathered as the content of the book is from 'Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia and Rationalwiki’ website except the story of the book which is combined. The following are the URLs provided if you wish to gain more knowledge in regards to particular subjects discussed: URL:

URL:

License the derivative work appropriately: Where shall I licence the derivative work? I am planning to write a book, will a ‘bibliography’ with URLs aforementioned sufficient? If not what do I do? An example, step by step guide please.

Now that you are aware of the purpose, that it is for a book, what do you suggest about the images? Disregard answering this point if I still need permissions from the creators!

Rationalwiki <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Copyrights>:

RationalWiki:Copyrights For all RationalWiki original material, i.e., that material which was developed for release on RationalWiki, and did not expressly state other licensing, and hereafter referred to as "original content", the author(s) make the following license grant. “”Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 (CC-BY-SA 3.0) or any later version.

A complete copy of the license can be read at Creative Commons Legal Code. RationalWiki may include material which is not original content, and this does not necessarily fall under the CC-BY-SA. Unless released by the author(s), such material falls under the terms under which it was released by the original authors. Under these circumstances, the use of the material on RationalWiki is per allowance in the original license, or in some circumstances, per fair use. The name RationalWiki is trademarked and the RationalWiki logo is copyright The RationalMedia Foundation, Inc. all rights reserved. Any uses, derivative or otherwise, require express written permission.

Do you suggest using Rationalwiki’s article(s) now because you understand that it is for a book? Because, at first, you noticed (before me) that its contents are not so licenced, as it ‘mirrors’ license from Wikipedia in some/most cases in the article(s) [only for the parts that are re-written from Wikipedia I am assuming Rationalwiki mirrors the license]. Can I copy/modify/amend/delete words/sentences/paragraphs of Rationalwiki’s what’s not mirrored? Disregard answering Rationalwiki topic if the embolden point above defines Rationalwiki’s ‘contents’ (which are not mirrored with Wikipedia) and not its ‘logo’, or both.

Extra Information:

I have spoken to someone and they said ‘a lawyer can only provide me with a letter that certifies the books name and the original work’, meaning, I must provide a letter he provides to whoever rewrites the book in order to collect a signature from them as an ‘agreement’ for security reasons. Assumptions suggesting now, after reading through Wikipedia’s ‘terms and conditions’ and after discussing with you, that as long as I certify my original work in an 'agreement form' with a lawyer, no one will be able to copy/modify/amend and so on until after its published, because of Wikipedia's 'terms and conditions'; I can’t copyright my work with Wikipedia’s together as a whole but I can separately [just my story only] before publication… Am I Right?

(Russell.mo (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hello again, Russell.mo. The convention is that successive replies are indented further, by using one more colon (:) at the beginning of each paragraph. Please observe this convention, rather than putting in new headings.

I am not a lawyer, and I am not allowed by the rules of the Help desk to give you legal advice. But it seems to me that all your questions wrt Wikipedia are answered on the page WP:REUSE, which both I and TEB728 directed you to. Selecting a few salient sentences from that page:

"To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) "
"Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC-BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text of the license or b) a copy of the license. For this purpose, a suitable URL is: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
"Each media file has its own information page which includes source and licensing information. Clicking on the media file will lead to this information page. Many media files are free to use as long as you follow the terms of the licenses applied to them. "

But looking at my selections is not a substitute for reading and understanding the page as a whole.

I would have thought it was appropriate to have a section at the beginning or end of the book which detailed the sources, and specified the licence: you might call it "acknowledgments", or "sources and licensing", or "the boring legal stuff". Note that attributing is a different activity, with a different purpose, from providing a bibliography or "further reading".

As for RationalWiki, as I read what you have quoted, the restriction you have bolded applies to the use of the name and logo only. But again, I may not and will not give you legal advice. --ColinFine (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have English understanding difficulty ColinFine.

I understand what you've mentioned so far, it cleared a few things. The link that you and TEB728 provided WP:REUSE, it provides an example i.e.:

Example notice

An example notice, for an article that uses the Wikipedia article Metasyntactic variable under CC-BY-SA, might read as follows:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasyntactic_variable">"Metasyntactic_variable"</a>, which is released under the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0</a>.

("Metasyntactic variable" and the Wikipedia URL must of course be substituted accordingly, and you should replace the link http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ to point to a local copy of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 text on your server.)

Alternatively you can distribute your copy of "Metasyntactic variable" along with a copy of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 (as explained in the text) and list at least five (or all if fewer than five) principal authors on the title page (or top of the document). The external Page History Stats tool can help you identify the principal authors.

Another "example notice" can be based on a more informative and only slightly longer notice used (very easily used, because it is in a very short template) on Wikia. See example in use at http://fisherymanagement.wikia.com/wiki/Template_talk:Taxobox_begin

I have seen many websites establishing the following: This article uses material from the Wikipedia article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasyntactic_variable">"Metasyntactic_variable"</a>, which is released under the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0</a>.

What I can't recall now, whether the above was inserted exactly as it stated, plus, I don't know what to insert in a a book as there is no example(s) provided...

In regards to attribution, can you kindly give me an example so that I can understand how attribution is done in Wikipedia? I'll at least have a basic understanding...

Russell.mo (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Russell.mo, but I don't think I can help you any further than I have already. I have never prepared such a notice (because I have never prepared a work based on Wikipedia). --ColinFine (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting very irritated people kepp changing my edits

I edited the Stone Cold Steve Austin page fixed a miss typed quote made the info on there more clear and filled in miss information and the guy keeps changing it back I'm getting tired of this it's happened twice!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Merrick (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, one of the basic principles of Wikipedia is anybody can edit so you will frequently experience people changing your edits. It is part and parcel of contributing here that others may change, remove or reverse things you've done. In this particular case it looks like the other editor felt you had added information that was not supported by a reference. Asking them on their talk page, or the article's talk page, is the best way forward to reach agreement. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦-->
 ==Username on top the page I created==
-Why is it the my username appears on top of the page I created?
+Why is it that my username appears on top of the page I created?
 Is this a temporary thing?
 [[User:Childrenofheart|Childrenofheart]] ([[User talk:Childrenofheart|talk]]) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 ==Are there any statistics for how many people visit the talk pages for articles?==
 Just something I was wondering. Are there any statistics of the average number of people who visit a talk page for articles? I don't mean any specific article, just all articles in general. [[Special:Contributions/86.21.101.169|86.21.101.169]] ([[User talk:86.21.101.169|talk]]) 03:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)<br />