Wikipedia:Teahouse

Bonadea, 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

Article deleted but can it be re-written?

I have followed the guidelines so far, in seeing if I can be granted permission to re-write an article that was deleted. I went rather fast writing the article and it was not well referenced nor was in the correct format. I would like a second chance. I have written to the person who deleted the page...but where do I go from here? And is it even possible for me to re-write it or will it automatically be deleted due to the subject being the same content? Mkdpellet3 (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Need help editing a post

Hello Wiki Teahouse,

I am hopeful that you can assist me. There is a misleading statement in a posting relating to one of my company’s investigational drugs, but our internal regulations preclude me from directly making edits to any Wiki content relating to our molecules. The URL for the data is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filanesib. The problematic statement is as follows:

However, a clinical trial published in 2012 found that the drug exhibited a "relative lack of clinical activity"; the trial was therefore halted before it was scheduled to end.[6]

This sentence is in the middle of a string of sentences which are about the use of filanesib in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, but the problematic sentence is about a study of patients with advanced myeloid leukemias (AML). The manner in which the sentence is included is misleading because it suggests that a trial in multiple myeloma was halted due to a lack of clinical activity. While it is true that an AML trial was discontinued, but no multiple myeloma trials have ever been discontinued due to a lack of clinical efficacy. I propose that the sentence should either precede or follow the content about multiple myeloma, and it should be clarified that the discontinued trial was investigating the treatment of patients with AML.

If you are able, please let me know when the edit has been made.

Many thanks,

Steve65.114.206.125 (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, are you asking us to edit it for you since you can't?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 19:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. The content is inaccurate and my company won't allow me to edit the content. If you are not able to provide assistance, please let me know who can. I have to assume that Wiki is interested in correcting inaccuracies when identified65.114.206.125 (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference from a reliable source? Otherwise we can't "correct" it. Thank you!Mirror Freak My Guestbook 19:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Steve. I suggest that you add Template:Request edit in the format explained, to Talk: Filanesib, along with complete details and links to reliable sources backing up your proposed change. You may want to consider opening an account so that other editors can communicate with you reliably. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The source you have listed is accurate:

Khoury, H. J.; Garcia-Manero, G.; Borthakur, G.; Kadia, T.; Foudray, M. C.; Arellano, M.; Langston, A.; Bethelmie-Bryan, B.; Rush, S.; Litwiler, K.; Karan, S.; Simmons, H.; Marcus, A. I.; Ptaszynski, M.; Kantarjian, H. (2012). "A phase 1 dose-escalation study of ARRY-520, a kinesin spindle protein inhibitor, in patients with advanced myeloid leukemias". Cancer 118 (14): 3556–3564. doi:10.1002/cncr.26664. PMID 22139909.

The problem is that the sentence neglects to point out that the study is in patients with advanced myeloid leukemias. Since the sentence is sandwiched in the middle of several sentences about filanesib treatment of patients with multiple myeloma, the reader is left with the impression that the discontinued trial pertains to multiple myeloma, not advanced myeloid leukemias. The inclusion of a reference to the patients treated would at least clarify that the discontinued study pertained to advanced myeloid leukemias, not multiple myeloma.

Thanks for your help.65.114.206.125 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! What normally goes on the User page?

Hi Teahouse Host (Rosiestep ?) Thanks for the invite to the Tea House, I'm not entirely sure what to do here yet - obviously can't drink tea (joke :-) but I'll work it out eventually. First, how do I know who is here in the Teahouse? Second, it's my second day, so i should set up a User page, what do people normally put on the User page? Is there a minimum / maximum requirement? Excuse my ignorance - this is probably obvious to you, but most people of my generation have missed out on all that social media stuff. Tennispompom (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:USERPAGE for guidance. You can put more or less anything on a user page as long as it is not promotional or offensive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi ianmacm, thanks but too late! I've just created one. Could you pls have a quick look before I inadvertently offend someone? I've gone for humour, but can change it if you advise. Tennispompom (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The main idea, Tennispompom, Is that your user page should be about you and your goals, interests and accomplishments as a Wikipedia editor. It can be blank, brief or detailed. The choice is yours, and you can expand it as time goes by. As for who is "here", hosts come and go, keeping an eye on the Teahouse. A new question usually attracts someone's attention fairly quickly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tennispompom. I like your user page. Humor is fine outside of article space - see Silly Things. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well Tennispompom, I love your user page. Some of them are so boring and dry. Yours is great.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

lack of process in user:Jimfbleak's deletion of Hiren's BootCD

I am appalled at the lack of process in user:Jimfbleak's deletion of Hiren's BootCD - the deletion failed to meet the stated criteria of (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). How do I get this reverted so that the pros and cons can be argued out? Where do I find the content of the removed Article and Talk pages? How do we prevent the heavy-handed arrogance of user:Jimfbleak and user:Ianmacm from destroying wp? And please look at my contribution history and expertise before leaping to the same careless conclusions that those two leapt to. BenevolentUncle (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Looked pretty promotional to me: glowing testimonials, lists of features; it even went so far as to provide a download URL for the software. If you're determined to argue the toss then Deletion review is the place to do it, but you'd probably be better off recreating it from scratch in a neutral form. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that I've nominated an article for deletion, because usually I believe in fixing the article as the preferred option. However, this article had major WP:G11 issues and was previously deleted for the same reason in May 2010.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. Step 1 of the Deletion review is to first attempt discussion with the closing administrator i.e. user:Jimfbleak, so I'll do that here. Albeit with ill grace, because Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion says that

If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria

i.e. I infer that discussion should have occurred before deletion, which did not happen. So lets first fix up the mis-process of deletion so that other wp-ians have ready access to the delete article and Talk pages before finalising a decision. I.e. revert the deletion and instead nominate it for deletion. Then I will be able to click on the Contest this speedy deletion button or follow some other appropriate process while other editors are able to have their say. btw, I don't contest that the page is dodgy, but I assert that greater care is required than relying on quick impressions. And I resent the extra work that user:Jimfbleak and user:Ianmacm are putting me through. In case you haven't figured this out, I am not a rorter, quite the opposite. Indeed, re AGF I am assuming cock-up rather than conspiracy on the part of user:Jimfbleak and user:Ianmacm, because Hiren & Co would be much better off financially if there is no readily-available wp article describing their CD's short-comings.

Once the issue of mis-process above has been dealt with, I regard the editing of this article as potentially an important test case for the future directions of wp. At the very least I regard it as essential that the world should have ready access to the article's history, even if it stays off the official wp canon - I wasted an hour trying to download Hiren's CD before I turned to wp and read its History and Talk pages (this data then let me understand the extent to which Hiren's is merely click bait vs having some dubious value reassembling and/or stealing the IP of the original authors). But the bigger issue is whether a new principle needs to be promulgated re when the rules are to be imposed; giving declining numbers of wp editors, I think that if wp fails to get such settings right then it will continue to lose contributors and then be unevenly pruned back (in the fight against increasing hordes of rorters) to an ugly stump of greatly reduced value by decreasing numbers of editors whose main talents lie in nitpicking rather than in expertly informing.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Obvious conflict of interest but also obviously (hopefully!) neutral contribution

Dear Teahouse,

I mean to do a hopefully neutral page about the company I work for. It should state the name, what it stands for (brain electrical source analysis = BESA) and that is produces software for EEG and MEG analysis. And that's it, no more. Similar open source software is on wikipedia. They are of course more notable, as more people use them to publish, still (otherwise this and other companies wouldn't exist) a lot of publications are done with commercial software too. Would that be acceptable for wikipedia? I read the documentation, and though I guess a page about or company is not desired due to my affiliation (I am assuming the notability is ok), I wanted to be sure. Thank you very much for your time. Andre Andre at besa (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andre at besa: While we deprecate WP:COI we have a mechanism at WP:AFC for helping COI editors to rip away any inappropriate material. I suggest this route to you, together with patience throughout the review process. I recommend that you declare your COI expressly n the talk page of the draft itself and deploy {{Connected contributor}} at the head as well. Some authors are able to achieve good articles despite COI. With luck you are one such. Fiddle Faddle 10:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You may also want to review WP:Notability and WP:Company before you begin. These pages will give you an idea of how we determine notability of an organization. It would be a shame to go through the effort of drafting a page if only to see it deleted as non-notable. Best of luck. Keihatsu ^talk 12:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphan

For Wikipedia:Orphan, how do you know if any articles are linked to an article? -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Annonymus user: When viewing an article (or any other page for that matter), take a look at the navigation links at the left side of the page. Under the 'Tools' section, the first link you see should be "What links here". That'll show you what pages link to the page you're viewing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, never noticed that. -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

posted a question here yesterday.. where is it?

hi everyone. excuse my ignorance. i am a new user. i posted a question here yesterday, but i dont know where to find the answer. i can't even find the question. thank you. Homeopathicstereo (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Homeopathicstereo: Looking at your list of contributions, I don't see any other instances of you posting a question here. Are you sure you posted a question? Perhaps you weren't logged in when you posted. Regardless, questions are archived after three days, so your question should still be here somewhere below. Do you remember what the question was about? We might be able to better assist you.

For future reference, you can view questions that have been archived after three days of inactivity by using the search box at the upper-right of this page. This lets you search through all the hundreds of pages of archived questions and answers. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a technical problem with the Teahouse question script for a couple of days, discussed on the Teahouse talk page, that prevented questions from posting properly. It was caused by an upgrade to the MediaWiki software. Apologies for the inconvenience, Homeopathicstereo, and I humbly request that you post your question again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all. I will repost under a new, more relevent heading. Homeopathicstereo (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Large edits

I made some edits to the page Laci Green. Some of them were considered biased by someone which might be true, but because of this they removed all of the changes I made instead of just removing the biased part. I am scared to edit on it again because it seems like it's a waste of time now. What should I do about it? TempletonU (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TempletonU. Since you conceded that some of your edits may have been biased, the best advice I can give is to refrain from making biased edits. In this particular case, I suggest that you discuss your proposed unbiased edits on the article's talk page. Please read about our bold, revert, discuss cycle, which is applicable here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But I made several edits and they were not controversial, Why did he revert them all? It should be be so much work to make such simple changed. TempletonU (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted with the edit summary "POV edits and undue emphasis on blogger reactions." So, your edits were controversial to the person who reverted. Discussion is ongoing on the article's talk page, and that is the proper place to reach consensus on your proposed changes. Sometimes, it takes "work" to implement changes. That is the nature of collaborative editing, TempletonU. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked over the talk page and given TempletonU's comment, suspected Ninja of bullying a new user who couldn't do much better. I instead found out that the affirmative consent criticism came from a self published blog, and that's the only part that was omitted. (Other than the section headers and the 'self proclaimed feminist' bit.) He even gave his assent to include those back in. Tutelary (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the Teahouse TempletonU. On Wikipedia I mostly create content in smaller chunks, to prevent someone from doing what has happened to you. Sometimes I add content just one sentence at a time. That way someone has a problem with that particular statement, that's all he will delete or change. I have the additional problem of not being able to discuss changes on the talk page because there are so few editors that are active in my area. So I do a lot of documentation of the changes.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Online links on category pages

In Category:Renewable energy in Algeria I have found two direct online links to web sites. (Renewable Energy Developement Center and Renewable Energy Portal). I was under the impression that category pages were meant to contain only other categories or wikilinks to articles. Are these entries an example of spam or is this a new practice or simply an error. It doesn't look right to me so I'd like to know whether it will be in order for me to remove them. If they are of use then surely the best place for them is in an articles as references. It seems that both these links were placed there by people without Wikipedia accounts. I just thought I would check here first before I remove them. Jodosma (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jodosma and welcome to the Teahouse you are quite correct they have no place on the category pages, feel free to remove them. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on overlinking

Hi there, I've read here on Wikipedia about the issue of overlinking and agree that it can be a problem. I think the article that I'm wanting to add to and edit has this problem and I'm wondering what others think.

Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Zukin

In the first couple paragraphs, the words "sociology," "real estate," "culture," "immigration," are all linked, as well as locations such as New York, U.S., and France. And then there are also the links to the colleges. This really seems excessively cluttered and very distracting to me. It's easy to look up those terms in Wikipedia if someone doesn't know them and I'd argue that most readers have a clear enough understanding of them so as not to require further info to understand the content of the article. I'd like to delink at least some of these as part of my editing. Thoughts?

174.6.90.182 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:OVERLINK is a link to the relevant part of the manual of style. It certainly justifies removal of the wikilinks for the USA and France here, and probably the word "culture" as well. Maybe "immigration" too, though I would keep it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and that link to the style manual. I'd read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overlink_crisis, but only after looking at the article and independently assessing it as overlinked.

174.6.90.182 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

looking for advice

Hi! this company wants to have a Wikipedia page: snaplearning.co

Do you consider that the page will be accepted? The owner sent me these secondary sources: edtechtimes.com - thejournal.com - nancybarthtutoring.com - momtrends.com - I looked for more info but did not find any other reliable source.

They are not major media, but they are important sites of education.

Can I upload the article? or you think that the company does not have enough notability? I have many doubts about it.

Thank you!Ane wiki (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ane wiki. In order to evaluate notability, we would need links to specific articles, not just the names of websites. When you say "this company wants to have a Wikipedia page", that raises red flags. In my experience, a "company" is incapable of "wanting" a Wikipedia article, as companies do not have emotions or desires. Instead, their executives have emotions and desires. It seems a company executive is asking you to create this article. I think your concerns may be justified.

Let me be clear that we should have an article about this company if it meets our notability guidelines. But that is a big "if". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ane wiki Welcome to the Teahouse, You are welcome to create articles if you have resources to prove the credibility/significance of the subject.However it's strongly discouraged if you are looking to create a page for your company (or for someone else you know).You can't involve in edits to Wikipedia that promotes your own interests.Wikipedia is not a place where people can promote their companies,business whatsoever.It's an encyclopedia not a directory, I hope you understand.Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ane wiki should also make it clear that she is a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Paid editors should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing before creating a new article or updating existing ones. I would also suggest to paid editors that they hone their Wikipedia skills before creating a paid article. Being a good writer is a good start, but there are many other skills involved in writing new articles.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize, I assumed it was understood that the article would be a paid contribution. It is not my intention to promote a company because I know that the article will be deleted. It is for this reason that before starting I came here to ask for advice. I have errors, as Theroadislong has marked in one of my articles, but every time I participated in a paid edition, I made a disclosure, as indicated in Terms of use, and my editions were in good faith. In this case, I see that "secondary sources" are recognized in education field, but I'm pretty sure it's not enough. DThomsen8 might be right and I must improve my Wikipedia skills before continue making paid editions, the good thing is that all these experiences are useful. Thank you!--Ane wiki (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ane wiki: While paid editing is deprecated, it is a fact of life. Wise paid editors use WP:AFC and do so patiently. The AFC review process does its best to remove unpalatable COI from drafts. You would also be wise to deploy {{Connected contributor}} with all parameters filled out on the draft talk page, and make a full declaration of your status on the talk page of each and every article you work in for cash or with any other form of COI. By our actions do you know us. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fiddle I will take your advice into account. --Ane wiki (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

Who are allowed to have their own Wikipedia page and who are not? I don't mean user page. -- Annonymus user (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If I answer your question literally, no-one. See WP:OWN.

If your question means "What are the criteria for a person to have an article about them on Wikipedia?" then the best and most general answer is that they must pass WP:BIO. Fiddle Faddle 22:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Annonymus user (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

It is so nice to hear from you fellow editors. Your words are so comforting to know help is available.

Yes, I understand the concern of the editor who reviewed my submission. Yes, I need to document the article further and provide more references. In fact, I do have ample documentation to list and link up the text to the references. I'm working on it will resubmit the page.

Thanks for your support.

Axshah95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by مرداد٩٣ (talk • contribs) 11:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for coming to the Teahouse. I went back to look at your contribution history and I have not found any indication that you have had an article reviewed on English Wikipedia. I did see that you have some activity on another Wikipedia, but I don't recognize the language. Unfortunately, I can't help you with the the problems that you may be having in the other Wikipedia. Something that may help the process along is to create your User page. I see that you have created a user talk page, so then on your new user page. You can tell people a little bit about yourself. Did you upload some photographs that there was a question about?

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Video referencing

Hello, I am currently working on the article, Thillana Mohanambal. I have posted some video references in the "Legacy" portion of the article. While searching on both Google and Wikipedia about how to post them on wikipedia, it said use "{{cite AV media...". I have used that style of referencing. Is it ok? If not can you tell me which style to use. Thank you. Thamizhan1994 (^{Appo Pesu}) 13:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Thamizhan1994: The format is fine. But using Youtube (and similar sites) as a reference is very rarely appropriate. Often copyright is breached there. It is also a user edited site. As a general rule you must avoid such things as references. I would expect Thillana Mohanambal to be inspected for such items and for an experienced editor to consider them carefully and probably remove them. Fiddle Faddle 08:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from the Teahouse Timtrent. I was fortunate at one time to be able to find the transcript of an interview online. I did not have to refer to a YouTube video (which I never do anyway) but could instead refer to the website where anyone could see the transcript. I hope this might be the case for you.

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please judge your source against WP:42, and accept my good wishes. It was, however, not my question. Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

help editting a page, specifically photo insertion

Hello! I need an administrator to help me with inserting a photo and caption on someone's page. I was given permission by a recording artist/ actress to edit her page for her, since she told me she was not authorized to edit her own page. I was able to help her add some info. To her page and was sucessful. But when i try to upload her photo and caption, i do not have admin. Privileges. Can someone help me out? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlipet828 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Carlipet, welcome to the Teahouse. You can't upload images yet as your account isn't autoconfirmed. You need to make some more edits so that you have made at least 10. Once you have then your account will be confirmed and you can upload images. Nthep (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Calipet, Since Simone White is a living person, any photo of her on Wikipedia must be licensed under a free license. That means that you could upload it to Commons, where (unless they have changed the rules recently) you don't need to be autoconfirmed to upload a file. However, you need to understand that it is not enough for her to authorize use of the photo on Wikipedia: the copyright owner (generally the photographer) must grant permission for reuse of the photo by anyone, anywhere, for anything; that is what a free license means. Most professional photographers are not willing to grant that kind of permission. —teb728 t c 07:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Carlipet828. It is right that people are discouraged from editing articles about themselves; but people are also discouraged from editing articles about their friends and relatives, for the same reason: please read conflict of interest to understand the reasons, and for advice on how you, or she, should proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Change

I wonder why they have changed the "Tea House" page.
Now the old questions are at the top and new ones are at the bottom,
we all were used to the old layout.
Is there any logic or reason??
Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 15:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A script is broken. See Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Bottom posting. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear PrimeHunter

Thanks

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 16:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

invisible but searchable text

Hi Teahouse folks, I'm creating an article on an English Renaissance manuscript which uses many archaic spellings for titles of songs. I'd like to be able to preserve the archaic spellings, but would also like for users to be able to search for the titles using modern spellings (without displaying the modern version). Is this possible? kosboot (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! You could always redirect the modern spelling to the official original spelling article. For example the Sears Tower is the original name but the new name is the Willis Tower so I put: #REDIRECT Willis Tower on the Sears Tower page. Best, ///EuroCarGT 19:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello kosboot and welcome to the Teahouse. Having written some articles about persons and places with different spellings, I'm not so sure about having the alternative spellings hidden, since they may be a source for those readers who might want to search in other places/sites and they might be difficult to locate then. My advice is that you put all the alternatives in notes. This will make them searchable but not distracting the text itself. Look at article Puankhequa where ref #2 lists all the different ways to spell his name. That ref originates in the infobox where the name is spelled with Roman letters and Chinese characters. I have checked, and this way all the different spellings directs to the article when used in say a Google search. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kosboot: I also took a peek at your article (nice work btw!) and in the case of that article it might be neater to have the notes separate from the refs in a notelist, just like in this article which also contains tables and lists. Happy editing! w.carter-Talk 19:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very helpful comments, W.carter! kosboot (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking for feedback in Elaine King article

Hello, I´m the creator of this article (paid edition). Following the suggestion of an editor who is participating, I´m looking for feedback. Some lines of the article were deleted because the editor considered them promotional; in some of them it is ok, but I have doubts in two of them: 1 - about Elaine King´s role in her current job at WE Family Offices, the text was: "where she works with families to establish channels of communication, identify their specific needs, and create customized solutions that support and strengthen the family business." is this "promotional puffery"? 2 - "King also advises on retirement planning, saving for educational needs, estate planning, family meetings and financial competency programs focused on children and women."... is this "unreferenced promotion"? is this not a fact? .. And please check "About "Community" section deletion" in talk page, and tell me what you think. Thanks!--Ane wiki (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to me these are promotional. It's a matter of level of detail. The fact that her role includes advising families on financial and business matters is fair enough, provided this is supported by the sources, but the detail about the methods she uses is not unless there is substantial writing in independent sources which focusses on these methods or areas.

In answer to your other question on the talk page: the article is an orphan because there are no other articles which link to it: it's not something which can be solved in the article itself. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your answer. I understand. I will look for this sources. As for the second question, I understand that the article is an orphan, I was talking about the discussion in "About "Community" section deletion", at the end of the talk page.--Ane wiki (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ane wiki for asking this question. I think you're going to help a lot of people by bringing this up since so many will have the same question. I do a lot of editing for brevity. My goal is to say things with the fewest words possible and to remove puffery, weasel words and things that express a point of view. For example, here is your version of the text:

"where she works with families to establish channels of communication, identify their specific needs, and create customized solutions that support and strengthen the family business...King also advises on retirement planning, saving for educational needs, estate planning, family meetings and financial competency programs focused on children and women."

Now here is my version of the text: "X facilitates the improvement of family communications by identifying specific needs. Customized solutions are provided to support the economic goals of the family."

  Bfpage |leave a message  20:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

I face problem in upload figure onto the article that I wrote. It say I need to wait 4 days. I create my account 2 days ago....

Is it true? Or I saw the wrong lines : -) Is there any other way out?

Tks Ben Fang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Fang (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse Ben Fang! The notice you've seen was probably stating you needed to be autoconfirmed to proceed with the action. Once you get 10 edits and 4 days of Wikipedia activity, your account will be autoconfirmed and you may be able to upload the file, move pages or edit semi-protected pages. If you want to upload an image you could use Wikipedia:Files for upload, a place where volunteers upload requested image under policies or you may request your account to get confirmed. Best, ///EuroCarGT 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

questions by user Comp-heur-intel

Hi there. 2 questions 1.I recently put myself up as a host. I was removed. Maybe I didn't understand the process. If someone could explain, great. 2.I recently made a new page, then a couple of days later added some references, as requested. The new page is still invisible. I cleared caches. Should I just wait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp-heur-intel (talk • contribs) 01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Comp-heur-intel. With regards to your first question, you only have made 69 edits in the two weeks since you established your account, so you clearly do not have the experience necessary to be an effective host. For example, you did not sign your question with four tildes, and SineBot came along and did it for you. Teahouse hosts should have broad experience with editing, and familiarity with our most important policies and guidelines. You are welcome to ask questions here at any time, but I suggest waiting a few months before asking to become a host.

As for your second question, I assume that you are talking about Heterostasis(Computational). That article is live and not invisible. However, the article has significant shortcomings. The three references you have provided do not establish that this is a discrete and notable topic in computer science. Much of the article discusses the origins of the word and uses outside of computation. Please read our policy on articles about neologisms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

work

How to know which articles need helps? I mean how to get works to do?Jojolpa (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Jojolpa to Teahouse! Thanks for your desire to dive right in! You could start out by helping over at the Community portal, a page listing some pages that may require work. You could also try out Wikipedia:GettingStarted a feature which allows users to improve Wikipedia, you could enable it by heading to the Main page and on your browser URL bar, add ?gettingStartedReturn=true right beside the URL link and load the page. It should suggest you some pages for improvements. Best, ///EuroCarGT 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

ACCESSIBLE

I think this website should be designed so that it is easily accessible with any internet device. It should easily be approachable by many people can edit it.Jojolpa (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, Jojolpa. Please read Help:Mobile access for information on reading and editing Wikipedia with a variety of devices. Personally, much of my editing (including writing this answer) is done with an Android smart phone. Currently, I use an HTC One, accessing the desktop site rather than the mobile site. That's my preference. The Wikimedia Foundation works hard to make all its websites as accessible as possible to the widest variety of users. This is a challenge for many technical reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with what Cullen328 said above. I often edit with my Nexus 5 and use the desktop site. The mobile site is designed to work with many devices with web browsers. Wikimedia Foundation has a variety of mobile applications such as Wikipedia Mobile to be well suited to your device that are available to the popular operating systems. Another application from the WMF is Wikipedia Beta which you could test now and report comments, suggestions, problems or concerns to developers to assist you and others to build a better browsing and editing experience for everyone. ///EuroCarGT 03:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

UPLOAD

Hello everyone ,I'm again here to ask a question .Can we upload articles instead of creating them?Jojolpa (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jojolpa nice to see you again on Teahouse.If you are looking for a way to upload a document from your computer to Wikipedia then I'm sorry to say that it isn't possible, But you can always use your sandbox to do test editings and other experimental edits.And remember, you shouldn't copy-paste details/content from other copyrighted documents to Wikipedia articles.--Chamith (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL

Can this wikipedia be downloaded and installed as like as other browsers can be?Jojolpa (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Wikipedia is a website and could be access on any web browser with an established network connection. ///EuroCarGT 03:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

IMAGE

Can information icons, warning icon and hand stop icons can be used by me on other's talk pages to inform them or I need some special permission to do that?Would anyone like to answer this question please?Jojolpa (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about warnings and notices, right? If so, you don't need any "special permission" to place such warnings/notices. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But you shouldn't misuse these warnings/notice.Civility is an important factor on Wikipedia. Misuse of warning templates to harass/attack other editors is not accepted and you will be blocked if you continue to do so.--Chamith (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jojolpa: Hi again! :) And when we are on the subject of civility: Please don't use all capitals in the headings for your questions, that is considered equal to shouting here. We know that you are new, so no-one is offended now. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 10:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

NOTIFICATION

If I type {{ping|someone}}, will this notify someone ? I mean, will he/she get notification or not? would anyone like to reply,please?Jojolpa (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone would be notified by doing so. You can also notify someone by typing [[User:Someone]], if you want to link to one's userpage without notifying them, you can use {{noping|Someone}}. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 04:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jojolpa and welcome to the Teahouse. I have left you a small guide on how to ping and alert others at your talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Converting a family tree from Template:Family tree to Template:Chart

Hello

I'm trying to convert this family tree to chart by writing chart instead of familytree. I tried it manualy, or using familytree.js. The unwanted result is this. The last two columns are disappearing, with the exception of the last three boxes. I don't know how to fix this. Can someone, please, help me. What should I do for my chart to appear in a normal, complete, way? Thank you. Daduxing (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Daduxing and welcome to the Teahouse. Having wrestled with family trees I know how difficult they can be. I have not looked in detail at your examples, but I know that they are very sensitive to having the right number of "|-|-|-|" between the different names. If you fall short by even one "|-|" the chart can't produce the last box (it can't "reach far enough" to put in the box). Try adding and subtracting these spaces first and see what happens. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I tried, but is not working. I realized that when I change it back to Template:familytree it's displaying properly. Only in the chart format the boxes are disappearing. Daduxing (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this is beyond my knowledge then. I have looked at it properly, but cannot find the "missing part". Best, w.carter-Talk 13:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Is it legal to put one or two pictures found on Wikipedia into my essay? -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Annonymus user. If the images in question are made freely available under a Creative Commons license, then you can use them in any way you choose. However, some images on Wikipedia are used under our policy on use of non-free images. Common examples are movie posters, book and album covers, corporate logos, and the like. Those images can't be re-used in essays, or anywhere else other than the specific authorized article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Blank the page

So, is the teahouse page being blanked once in a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymus user (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Annonymus user. The Teahouse has had some technical challenges in recent days, related to an upgrade of the MediaWiki software. Hopefully, things will settle down soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I mean. -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can clarify, then. Detailed questions are better than vague ones. My second attempt at an answer is that older questions and answers get archived. Is that what you mean, Annonymus user? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, this question isn't important anyway. -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone help me delete this question? -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Annonymus user. The answer to your question is no, the Teahouse page is never (intentionally) blanked. Instead conversations are archived for future references. You can see the archive a bit further up this page to the right where it says "Question archived?". The archiving is an automatic and continuing process, so in a while this question/tread will also be archived. The only way to really delete something at the Wikipedia is to make a request for deletion. Read about it here: Wikipedia:Deletion process. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

newly created articles

Is there a page that says "XXX just created a new article YYY" or "XXX just edited article YYY" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymus user (talk • contribs) 07:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Annonymus user (talk · contribs), yes there is. it's called Recent changes and it's another useful link you'll find in the interaction section on the left hand side of the screen. If there is one particular user's edits you want to know about then your need to look at their contribution list. It's another toolbox link called User contributions that is only seen when you are looking at that user's userpage or talk page. Otherwise you can type Special:Contributions/XXX to see XXX's contributions. All contribution logs are public so anyone can view any user's log including those of unregistered (IP) accounts. Nthep (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on Nthep's excellent answer, Special:NewPagesFeed provides a feed of all the recently created pages and articles. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to Annonymus user. I can see from your question that you may be thinking that the WP could perform like Twitter or some other social media, where you get updates on activities all the time in small notifications. Well, the WP is not like any of those sites. This is one of the most common misunderstandings about the WP. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)