Wikipedia:Teahouse

GoingBatty, 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

To reply to a question, use the edit button across from the title ↓

Can Wikipedia Accept an Article that have been declined for 2 times if properly edited?

Hello teatHouse help me and review this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Varpal i have edited that article..what is the problemOkeke Jude (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Okeke Jude, and welcome to the TeaHouse. The criteria for notability in wikipedia is not dependent on the number of attempts it takes to get the article written, so there is still a chance it can be accepted. However, failing twice suggests that you may need to change tactics. I suggest two tactics that are likely to help. Firstly, I notice that English may not be your first language; you may start by writing an article in your first language. Secondly, currently you have three proper sources, [1] [2] and [3], the problem with these is that they aren't independent, although the Guardian one comes close (it fails because it's based on an interview). Look for more references, ideally written by professional journalists based on multiple non-interview sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Okeke! Yes... however please note that if someone repeatedly submits an article without making the required improvements, admins may delete the proposed article for not putting in good faith efforts to improve, and taking up the time of our volunteer reviewers. So first off I would encourage you not to re-submit the article until you are quite sure that you have met the concerns of the previous declining reviewers. I took a look at your page, and there are still some significant concerns:

• The article has major issues with copyediting, grammar, spelling, capitalisation etc. You either need to run it through a basic spelling/grammar check like found on most word-processing programs (and probably available on some free websites), and/or have it carefully reviewed by a friend who's a good proofreader.
• The article still has somewhat of a promotional tone
• The article makes a large number of claims for the business dealings of Varpal, but does not provide any sources. If you can't source it to a neutral, third-party, published source such claims can't be included.
• I would strongly advise you read Wikipedia:Notability (web), which lays out the standards for an article about a website to be published. The article will be judged by those standards, so you must know them.
• Of your sources, I'm not sure how "Worthofweb" and Alexa are used for citations, so those may be okay to get statistics, but not necessarily to prove Notability. The Guardian of Nigeria is a great source, so keep that and find more like it. The last two cites don't appear to meet WP:Reliable sources, as they're a forum and a news aggregator/blog, so I don't think those are citeable. And again you have a lot of uncited claims (like 50% of the students at a given university using the site) that absolutely need to be cited or removed.

At this point I wouldn't at all say that the article is a lost cause, but you need to do a proper cleanup, remove anything you can't source to a WP:Reliable source (another good guideline to read), and add a few more good sources from reputable newspapers like The Guardian. Please do not resubmit the article until someone experienced, like the editors here, has looked at the article and told you it's good, as resubmitting will just be a misuse of your time and the reviewer's if it's not really ready. But with some effort, this looks like a viable article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Inside an edit

how can you easiely see what is inside an edit, like when you have a reply on this help page, how can i see if it was for me or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In this case editors will leave you a talkback tag on your talk page if it is for you. Normally anything directed to you will be left on your talkpage.--Charles (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

what do i do if someone if saying i should edit the simple wiki but i want to edit the this wiki?

what do i do if someone if saying i should edit the simple wiki but i want to edit the this wiki?

they changed a few of my edits and they didnt explain why

the person says "I'm not "stalking you", I'm using a tool called Huggle which help me to revert vandalism. Your edits appear there, that's it. Tbhotch.™ "

i dont think that person should be changing my edits, but that person doesnt seem to be changing my recent edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Coginsys, welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like other editors think that your edits aren't constructive because they are over simplifying various articles. Sometimes definitions especially of mathematical or computing terms can appear to be complex but the changes you made are, in the opinion of others, making them too simple and not as accurate as they need to be.

Tbhotch happens to have spotted a number of your edits while using Huggle which looks at recent edits that might be vandalism, that is not stalking you. His comment that you maybe you ought to be editing the Simple English Wikipedia may be slightly less civil that perhaps it should have been but I suspect was expressing a frustration at your apparent ignoring of the warnings posted on your talk page. You believe that your edits are making articles clearer and easier to understand, others disagree. I would suggest that before you make any more edits of this type you discuss them on the relevant article talk page first and accept the outcome of the discussion. NtheP (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

it's one person or very few, and they arent doing anything to make them better. what should i do? this person is not discussing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coginsys (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Without speaking for any other user, it could be that they think the wording as it stands before your edits doesn't need improving. I notice that many of your edit summaries are along the lines of "made clearer" and when they are reverted the people making the reverts are basically saying that your edits do not make things clearer. As I said before, I really think you should discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page first rather than get into a cycle of edit, revert, edit etc - a cycle which could find you falling foul of the three revert rule.

As to them not responding to your messages left on talk pages, I'm not totally surprised they are not responding because you are making allegations of stalking without considering that their actions are made in good faith. If all, or at least a majority, of your edits are being reverted because other editors don't think them appropriate, isn't it time you stopped and discussed your edits before making them? Just try one of your edits, for example, Subroutine and explain at Talk:Subroutine why you think the current wording isn't clear and what you suggest it should be changed to. See what other editors think and then see if a consensus can be reached before making an edit to the article itself. NtheP (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

what cycle? i didnt change anything, they were just changing all my edits also they didnt respond from the beginning your msg is not helping

How do you cite something like this?

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5

under the above search, pages came out with the subject mentioned. This is a history collection of Guangdong Province with many volumes.

粤军史实纪要 - Page 205 books.google.com/books?id=RARyAAAAIAAJ

广东省政协. 文史资料硏究委员会 - 1990 - Snippet view - More editions 又着原驻淡水之熊略军、陈修爵师、练演雄师、罗献祥旅及翁辉腾所部作好应战准备, - Volume 54 - Page 107

books.google.com/books?id=KFRKAQAAIAAJ

孙道昌, 中央档案馆, 广东省档案馆 - Snippet view - More editions 何彤与罗献祥(一区清则司令)半年来到处奔波督 ...

文史資料選輯 - Issues 53-56 - Page 211 etc. Please advice. Thankx CHHistory (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi CHHistory, thanks for coming to The Teahouse. There's a great template for books that you can use under the "cite" tab in the editing window. Under the "Templates" menu, you can select "cite book" to get an interface to put all the information in. As for your citations, here they are:

<ref>{{cite book|title=粤军史实纪要|year=1990|publisher=广东人民出版社|isbn=9787218003245|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RARyAAAAIAAJ&q=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&dq=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&source=bl&ots=xnxG8QWB0L&sig=c-7VgVYBbOJ5BNsSy5VMx8mGc70&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YexxUPLtOoryyAH02YHoBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA|editor=广东省政协. 文史资料硏究委员会|accessdate=7 October 2012|page=205}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite book|title=广东革命历史文件彙集|publisher=中央党案馆|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KFRKAQAAIAAJ&q=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&dq=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&source=bl&ots=55V2qHM05-&sig=U9k0jcC7UyprkEfkl2Dugc8i2oE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YexxUPLtOoryyAH02YHoBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ|author=孙道昌|coauthors=中央档案馆, 广东省档案馆|page=211}}</ref>

So, just put the above citations where they are appropriate. What article are you planning on using them in? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

If a page has been created with a wrongly spelled title, can the title be corrected ?

Yorkshiresoul (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yorkshiresoul. Yes, a page is renamed by moving it to a new title (never by copying and pasting to a new title). This preserves the page history which is needed for copyright and other purposes. When you do so, a redirect will be created from the old title to the new so any links to the old title will not break and anyone making the same spelling error when searching for it will still reach the correctly-titled page. Note that you will not be able to move a page if the correct title already exists as a redirect and has more than one edit to it, or only has one but is not a redirect pointing to the current title. In that case, you can ask an administrator to make the move for you by listing it at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves or using the template {{Db-move}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summary

How much detail is required in an edit summary? FOX 52 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, FOX 52. That is actually a really great question. In a practical sense, it depends on the nature of the edit. If you are doing a small change that will not be controversial, a simple, but informative, edit summary will suffice. For example, if you are changing one word to another word you think fits better in the context (but does not change the meaning), you may just want to have the edit summary "Changed X to Y". But in more complicated edits, especially edits that you think may be controversial, it will reduce a lot of the tension if you provided an edit summary that explained your reasoning behind the change and ended with something like "see source" (because any controversial change should be backed up by a source that you have added as part of the edit). Ideally, controversial edits would have been discussed on the article's talk page beforehand, and your edit summary could then say "See consensus on talk page" (which is a really common edit summary).

There are special cases where edit summaries do not need to be detailed at all. If you are undoing an edit by another user that you have determined to be vandalism, your edit summary can read "rv vandalism" ("rv" is a common abbreviation of "revert"; "rm" is a common abbreviation of "remove"). If you look through an article's history, you will see many examples of good and bad (and non-existent) edit summaries. But I think you will be able to tell which is which if you ask yourself, "Do I know what's going on here and why?" If you are looking for further information, you can check out Help:Edit summary or ask additional questions by replying to this thread. hajatvrc @ 04:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Creative Commons license compatibility

I would like to know where I can find a chart that indicates whether material from another web site that is licensed under a different Creative Commons license can be used on Wikipedia. In other words, if someone finds another website whose content is licensed under CC-BY, can they use it on Wikipedia? Or what if it's licensed under CC-BY-NC? (I believe the answers are Yes and No, respectively, but there ought to be, and probably is, somewhere on Wikipedia where one can look this up easily.) Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the Teahouse! The simple answer to your question is that pretty much any license can be used as a source, as long as it's an acceptable source. However, copy-pasting other content, no matter what license it is released under, is a debatable topic here, depending on the editors who see it first. I would suggest you write your own material, using quotes from the sources and referencing if neccesary. If you have more questions, feel free to ask me! gwickwire | Leave a message 01:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, but is there anywhere that that is documented? I would think that a Creative Commons license prohibiting commercial use like CC-BY-NC would be problematic for use here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, you are correct, and I finally found a decent place to start: Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#The short version. Thanks for being so fastidious! heather walls (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Heather, that is the kind of chart I was looking for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just remember that as long as the information isn't copy pasted here, it can be used as a source. Even ones with CCBYNC or other licenses. When you think about it, most of our sources here are from copyrighted academic sources. Thanks for looking out for yourself though! gwickwire | Leave a message 18:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't get a reference to work properly...

Hey hosts, I need a hand trying to get a weird reference to display properly using the ref tags on the page for Edundja. The source is from The Namibian and the URL includes [brackets like these] which really messes up the syntax so that the reference won't actually display properly (and so no one can reach it just by reading the article). I've tried a variety of methods to use <nowiki> tags in different parts of the ref and {{cite news}} templates, but with no success yet. Any help would be most appreciated. The source is [tt_news=51226&no_cache=1 here], but since it won't display, the raw URL is http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=51226&no_cache=1. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Try http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews%5btt_news%5d=51226&no_cache=1 It replaces [ with %5b and ] with %5d. See {{Cite news#URL}} for full details. NtheP (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good call. Thank you! I forgot about those. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

TeaHouse talkback user talkback tracking not functioning

All of a sudden, user talkback for me seems to have lost its tracking. For instance, when I go to Mytalk, it showed a list of my questions and answers from senior editors. Last recorded user talkback of a couple of weeks ago. How to reactivate? Thanks CHHistory 17:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHHistory (talk • contribs)

Don't worry, there's nothing deactivated. It's just some of us not putting a talkback template on your talk page every time we reply to a question. (I have placed one for this reply) NtheP (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I thought I unwittingly had decoded stuff :-) CHHistory (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks Seems like I now also know how to put Thanks in a box, unwittingly, of course.

Question

Do you enjoy editing Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashbeckjonathan (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashbeckjonathan, interesting question. Authors on wikipedia are almost entirely volunteers so if they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it. NtheP (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan-- I also think this is an excellent question. Sometimes editing on Wikipedia can be tense, and there are times when it can be hard for editors to keep cool when the editing gets hot, because many editors have strong opinions about article content or policy. But we are all contributing to a project to make knowledge more accessible to people around the world, or in the case of The Teahouse, to help others make effective contribution, and I think that is what drives many of us and at least makes my work very enjoyable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

My article is in pending for review

how much time it takes for review of an article ?? 2ndly how can make this review process fast?? ... thnkyew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farwah khan (talk • contribs) 14:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Farwah, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there are over 1200 articles awaiting review at Wikipedia:Articles for Creation and all reviewers are volunteers, like the hosts here. You'll just have to be patient but somebody will get round to it. NtheP (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Farwah, welcome to The Teahouse. Articles for Creation is very backlogged right now, and there are only so many people who are helping out with reviewing right now as well. However, many of us here at The Teahouse regularly review articles, so we can certainly help you if you need it. It looks like your article, Nadia Khan Show, was declined about two hours ago. The reason is because the article has a promotional tone, as it includes phrases like "the show is divided into entertaining and informative segments" and that it was "a huge success." It also contains statements that sound like original research, like "People look at stars for inspiration & follow the trends they set". You'll want to address these in your next revision of the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I add pictures to an article?

I can't seem to figure out how to post pictures. There have been a few articles that I have wanted to add pictures to and I can't. I've read through the Help information,but either it isn't there, or (much more likely) I'm missing it. Can someone help this newbie?Krueg (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Krueg! Welcome to the Teahouse! Yeah, pictures at Wikipedia are a bit tricky the first few times. Have you found Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial yet? The first gives details on how to get a picture from your computer to Wikipedia's servers, and the second covers how to put that picture into an article and format it after it has been uploaded. Do either of those help, or do you have more specific questions? --Jayron32 03:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

How to add citation? Any rule book regarding [[]] < > and the logic behind this?

Have been following Matthew's example, unsuccessful. Is there a method in developing a ref. list based on Matthew V. suggestions? For example, for ref 1 how should it be set up? for ref 10, how should it be set up?? I understand the hyperlink will be the content between those [ ] > < etc.,

Please explain logic, that should help tremendously. Also, in the edit area, I have the ==Name== section, however, when go into read, it does not show. Why? ThanksCHHistory (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You just need to add the citation at the end of the statement which it supports. The ref list automatically lists all the refs in the article in the order in which they appear. The {{Reflist}} under the references section will automatically do this. "[]" will display a bare url. It is advised to use the {{cite}} template. In either case use it betweeen <ref> and </ref>. For further help, please refer Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In every place where you have <sup>number</sup> replace that with <ref>Your reference text, URL, whatever</ref> and then all your references will appear at the bottom where you have added {{reflist}}. When you've done that you can delete all the number entries you made at the bottom. I've done number 46 for you as an example, you can see what I did by clicking here The reason that the Name section isn't showing is that before it you opened a reference with <ref> but didn't close it with </ref>. You do have a problem that a lot of the references you have used are not considered reliable by wikipedia standards and those will need to be addressed before the article will be accepted. NtheP (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi CH! You'll notice I also fixed footnotes #1,2,3 for you when I did that cleanup of the intro, so you have a few examples now to check out. Like NtheP mentioned, you always have to match <ref> with a closing </ref> at the end, or it throws the whole page off. In HTML and Wiki coding, "/" generally means "done" or "off", so it tells the program that you're done using whatever code you started earlier.

I would suggest that before you fix the URLs and screen the refs, that you first just focus on turning all the "sup" manual footnotes into "ref" automatic ones, and then we can advise you on the rest setp-by-step. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks for your time... Matthew, please also read my reply to you under "Reaching out to hajatvrc, Sarah and NtheP ..."... though some of the issues have been answered. I have researched and reviewed over 100 sources, don't know if I can do much improvement where I would be able to locate Luo Xian Xiang within modern history books, which aren't much. English or not... I understand there are standards to adhere, so I will send it out to a couple of historians/professors at Universities for their comment... meanwhile, might as well try to learn the mechanics ... Thx again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHHistory (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Where are the editing codes on the site?

Long-time editor looking for code for "out-of-date links" to add to a story. thanksAichikawa (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Aichikawa, old or new, all are welcome at the Teahouse. I think the template you are looking for is {{out of date}} or one of the related series. NtheP (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This and many other tags are shown at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. I see you posted feedback for Help:Wiki markup. That page is mainly for markup features built into the MediaWiki software which powers Wikipedia and thousands of other wikis. Most things in {{...}} are templates created by editors at the English Wikipedia. There are far too many (tens or hundreds of thousands) to show on one page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability issues

Hi,

I came through the Teahouse a few weeks ago when I was working on my first article - for the person Leila Gurruwiwi. At that time I had included 3 separate newspaper profiles of her, which seemed to me to satisfy the notability requirement of "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," and a host here confirmed that it looked good. I submitted it to Articles for Creation, but it just got rejected for lack of notability. I've just added several more sources, and I was wondering if someone could take another look at it and tell me if I've fixed the problem? It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Leila_Gurruwiwi

The other thing is, I want to link to an article in The City Weekly, but the article is not currently available on the newspaper's own website. So I've linked in the article to a copy of the article which is available at this website: http://kathrynkernohan.com/2012/09/27/life-goals/ Is this acceptable? Angelbird72 (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Angelbird72, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've looked over the article and, whilst none of the sources is exactly outstanding, there seems to be enough there to justify an article. I've therefore moved it into mainspace at Leila Gurruwiwi. Linking to a copy of an article is fine, but the original should be cited as well - I'm going to sort out the citations for you now. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia; I hope you'll continue to edit this and other articles. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, thanks very much for your help - I look forward to contributing more! Angelbird72 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Contribute to Wikipedia in two different languages

Hello, I've created my account on English Wikipedia, but I'm also interested in collaborating with the Spanish version. Is this possible? My user page appears as "non existent" in the latter. I've tried to merge my accounts... to no avail. Thanks, Cocolacoste 09:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocolacoste (talk • contribs)

Hi Cocolacoste, welcome to the Teahouse. I removed leading spaces in your post because they cause special formatting. You have already created your account at the Spanish Wikipedia simply by visiting http://es.wikipedia.org while being logged in. You are welcome to edit there and any other Wikipedia language. It's optional for editors to create a user page. See Wikipedia:User pages and es:Wikipedia:Página de usuario for what you can put on a user page. If a user page or any other page has not been created then it appears as a red link. The link turns blue if you save something on the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for your quick reply and apologies for the formatting mess-up (I'm a newbie on Wikipedia, so I still have to learn lots of things). cocolacoste (talk)Cocolacoste 10:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it's a common mistake, and easy to fix if you see an article/page that has that mistake.

if you see text like this...

... where it's clearly not the intent, it's because there's an extra space before that line. Sometimes new editors do that while trying to manually indent a line. Wikipedia doesn't generally indent for paragraphs (unlike what we learned in school), but if you need to indent for a specific reason, such as to separate your comments from someone elses (as PrimeHunter and I are doing here), just put a colon (:) before the start of a paragraph. If you want to indent further, add more colons. If you're making a list of things and want to bullet and indent the list, use an asterisk (*) for that. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

creating English version of an existing article in German

How do I do this?Williamodom (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Williamodom, welcome to the Teahouse. See Wikipedia:Translation. The English article can be written and edited independently without being a direct translation. Place the code [[de:foreigntitle]] at the bottom of the English article, where foreigntitle is the title of the German article. Wikipedia:Your first article shows a way to create a page. If you post the German title and wanted English title then we can perhaps help more. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

how to post pictures

sorry i'm asking so many questions but how do you post a picture in an article.i read the other question about posting pictures and i should meet those standards the problem is i don't know how to do it Zeroro (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem Zeroro, Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, and we understand some processes are complicated. The picture process is very complicated. Have you found Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial yet? The first gives details on how to get a picture from your computer to Wikipedia's servers, and the second covers how to put that picture into an article and format it after it has been uploaded. Do either of those help, or do you have more specific questions? --Jayron32 04:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

i'm not sure but think you i'll check it out Zeroro (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

what do these mean

what do "link rot" and "coord missing|Texas" mean, they showed up with the {} things around them on the editing of that same article Atems and I don't know what to do. Zeroro (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Put simply, link rot means that you used bare links for citations. Bare links are not preferred, because the URL could change, and then the source is not findable. I went ahead and fixed these for you. In the future, click on the "cite" button in the top of your editing window, then click under templates and follow the instructions. The coord missing message means that it is about an article that is a specific place, but does not have latitude and longitude coordinates. These can be found by simply going to Google Maps or your favorite maps program, and then addint them to the article with Template:coord. Thanks for your contributions! gwickwire | Leave a message 03:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroro (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is looking better and better! Nice work on the infobox, and you've already got a good habit of using Edit Summary so that we can see how the article is developing. One small habit that it'd be good to add: instead of making a small edit and Saving to see how it came out, use Preview instead. That way you don't have a bunch of saved versions with only tiny differences. We're all human, and sometimes don't notice a mistake until after Saving, but overall Preview helps avoid unnecessary Saves, and makes the article easier to track.

Looking great so far, the next priorities should probably be getting a photo, adding coordinates, and then the biggie is finding sources that are not from the school itself, but from outside, neutral sources. Of course, it's fine to quote the school about real basics like what district they're in, when founded, etc. But for any perspective on the school and how it functions, ideally you want newspaper articles, academic books, etc.

Not saying every article has to be a rockstar, but if you want to check out some very good articles on schools to get some ideas of how to make ATEMS stronger and stronger, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools#Featured_articles and see what articles have been recognised as exceptional. You can also check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines for the "checklist" of things to include and things to avoid. It's great to see you're so willing to learn how WP works and ask the questions, and the rapid improvement of your article is the benefit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

how to get the word out of new articles

hi.

I've created my first Wikipedia page and I'd like people to see it so I was wondering how to get the word out or if maybe the was some kind of list of all of the new Wikipedia pages. the page is the A.T.E.M.S. page if that helps at all.

Zeroro (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Zeroro (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Zeroro, one popular but very competitive method to get on the front page of Wikipedia is WP:Did you know?, but unfortunately that's only for articles created in the last 5 days. Some other ways to let folks know about your page are to drop in to introduce it to the WikiProjects listed on your article's talk page (Texas, Education, etc). Also, you could always share your article on social media, like post it on Facebook walls, etc.

Before you move on to the promotions, I'd suggest you get the article as polished as you can so people can see a really well-developed article by the time the word gets out. On the article's talkpage, I've suggested that it include a photograph, and a WP:Infobox. I've also put "tags" on the top of the article indicating what needs to be cleaned up or tweaked. I'd also strongly advise you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines, which will have the "winning formula" for making a strong and informative school article on Wikipedia. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I really appreciate that and thanks for responding so quickly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroro (talk • contribs) 03:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you post pictures in a article?

Hello.

I joined Wiki last Friday and i was wondering how can you post a picture on a wiki page. I went to the upload page and i can't upload a picture so i was wondering can you give me a step by step on how to do it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helendixon1960 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Question moved to top of page. NtheP (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain what problem you are having with uploading it? Is it a copyright issue or file name already exists issue? –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@Anonymouse: I was just wondering how to post a picture in a article and when i try to upload a picture it wouldn't let me but after reading what other users told me i now understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helendixon1960 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Helen! Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. The more Wikipedia edits you make, the more "rights" you are given on Wikipedia to do cool things - like upload photographs. I could be wrong, but I don't think you're able to do that yet - you have to be what we call "autopatrolled." Perhaps another Teahouse host can confirm this for me. In theory, the more article content you edit, the more like you will become autopatrolled. Can I ask what image you want to upload? Perhaps you can link us to it. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

In order to upload files, you must be Autoconfirmed, which requires 4 days and 10 edits on Wikipedia. When you filed the request, you were not autoconfirmed, but you are now. The autoconfirmed permission is generally requested at WP: PERM/C, but non-autoconfirmed users can request a file to be uploaded for them at WP: FFU. The Autopatrolled flag is given out differently and is requested at WP: PERM/AP. Users should have created at least 50 decent articles before being given the autoreviewer flag. The autopatrolled flag marks the user's new pages (at Special: Newpages) as patrolled. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you guys!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Helendixon1960 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

How to Request a Revision to Company Page

Hello -

I'm in corporate communications at The Home Depot and would like to inquire about how to make factual edits to our page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Home_Depot

I understand given my position I have a conflict of interest and would appreciate your guidance on how best to handle. For example, we'd like to make sure Wikipedia users get correct information on our store number and International locations. Can you please advise?

Thanks, Meghan165.130.136.208 (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Meghan, welcome to the Teahouse! Thanks for being up-front about your COI; some people aren't always so straightforward, and it causes no end of drama whenever we find out about it. The best way to do it is to make an edit request to the article's talk page. Basically, what you'd do is this: go to the article's talk page (in this case, it's Talk:The Home Depot). Start a new section in the talk page, and in the new section, write out {{Request edit}} and then explain the edit that you'd like made. This makes the request; someone will come answer it and either enact the changes or explain to you why they shouldn't be enacted, and a conversation can go from there. Do keep in mind, though, that the information that's in our articles needs to be verifiable by having support from independent, reliable sources. If you link to those sources in your initial edit request, it makes it quite a bit easier for us to handle it. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

how do you create an article?

How do you create an article?82.69.121.214 (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unregistered users cannot create pages in article space - if you have a registered account (or if you create one, see this page for the perks it gives you and to sign up) you can simply type the name of the page you want into the search bar and (assuming nothing comes up) create the page. However, if you're editing from an IP address, your best bet is Articles for creation - this will help you create a page step-by-step using the Article Wizard. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Complaint About Image Use Policy

I am writing to complain about Wikipedia’s image use policy as enforced by your editors. I’m not sure I agree with or understand why you have chosen a policy so strict that it basically negates the power and potential of the Internet—if you want to have the image policy of a print encyclopedia, that’s your business. What I object to is the impossibility of figuring out what you want and the apparent inability of any of your editors to actually help me solve the problem. The several editors who so vigilantly monitor licenses were quick to detect some problem, what problem I still don’t understand, then instantly delete the picture, and refer me to the same thicket of dozens of articles explaining licenses and policies. What I want to do should be very simple—upload a picture that a friend took of another friend that we all want to be used freely. Why is it so complicated to figure out how to do something simple? I believed I had complied with your demands proving this each time—we’re on the sixth attempt now—only to have someone else come along and complain and give me the same instructions that I thought I’d already satisfied. If I hadn’t satisfied the policy, can you help me do so? We’ve emailed you the permissions of both the person who took the picture and who owns the picture. So what do you want now? I love Wikipedia, but the number of hours I have spent trying to figure out what you want for one simple picture and the frustration this produced has greatly soured me. I’m all for quality control, but all this time that everyone has spent could have been much better invested than in proving the license of an image whose use no one will ever object to. Sincerely, Odell Huff (Writing in reference to the article and image of Warren Coats).Odellhuff (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Odellhuff. I'm sorry that you've been having a problem like that with image licenses - they are difficult, and Wikipedia's policies on the issue are always hard to work through.

With images Wikipedia faces two problems. The first is a normal copyright one - with anonymous editors, it is hard to know if the person uploading an image has the right to do so, of if they are violating the photographer's copyright. The second is a bit more unique to Wikipedia. Because Wikipedia is released under a free license, people reusing Wikipedia's content may find themselves in trouble when if works were added that did allow the same level of reuse. So as a general rule, Wikipedia is limited to accepting photographs that are either public domain or released under a free license that allows full reuse of the photos by third parties, even commercially.

Anyway, it looks like you are mostly running into the first of these problems. I'm not quite sure what you have been told before, so I can't be as specific as I would like. You mention above that you've email the permissions, so this may be obsolete, but the two steps are:

• Have the copyright holder (Warren Coats, I presume?) email permissions-en@wikimedia.org saying that the image is being released into the public domain. There is a nice example of sample wording at: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries.
• Add to the photo page the code: {{OTRS pending}}. This will let other editors know that everything is under control, and that it is being taken care of. :)

Once permission has been received, someone else will edit the photo's page to let everyone know that they're received the permission to use the image. The one point that might be of some concern is that the copyright of the photo normally belongs to the photographer, rather than the subject, unless that was specifically allowed for, so the copyright holder might need to be clear on that in the email. It may be that no-one added the "OTRS pending" message, which might be causing some of the trouble

It is unfortunate that this is complex, but Wikipedia tends to be overly cautious. If you have any problems feel free to contact me or raise it here. I'd love to help. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bilby for your nice reply. I reforwarded an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from both the author and the subject (one contention has been that it was the subject's camera for the subjects computer but a friend snapped the picture--we had to track down the person who snapped the picture, the "author," to ask his permission to use it?). Then, in Wikimedia Commons on the file's description page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warren_Baghdad.JPG#.7B.7Bint:license-header.7D.7D) under the licensing heading I inserted: OTRS pending

Does that satisfy the requirements? Thank you for help. While I do understand the reasoning, my personal opinion is that licensing requirements this severe are consuming manpower in recreating the limitations of print. Surely a better balance could be struck between unleashing wiki potential, especially for content meant to be in the public domain, and Wikipedia's legal needs.Odellhuff (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That helps a lot. The only thing missing is information about the license it is being released under. Do you know what license was to be specified in the email? If that could be clarified then all should be good. I generally agree with you about the complexity - there have been a number of projects to try and make it easier, but it is very tricky to get the balance right. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bilby, but I'm confused again, "information about the license it is being released under"--the three of us just want it to be released in the public domain with no copyright protection or attribution necessary and the author's email reflected that?Odellhuff (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Odellhuff! The license requirement can be satisfied with either CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or the GFDL. Those are the same licences referenced on the edit page, which is telling you that you are releasing what you wrote under them. Hope that clears things up. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi GTWfan52, sorry if I'm being dense, but that actually does not tell me what to do. I went again to the pic description file and it is not clear to me where or how I'm supposed to alter the "information about the license it is being released under," whether it's to be a CC or GFDL, and how I'm supposed to designate it. Every time I thought I've done this, it turns out I've done it wrong. Can someone please point me to the exact location and which license to use for public domain and how to designate that? Why do we have to fret about this step if the permission for public domain by the author has already been submitted anyway?Odellhuff (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You have it perfect now. :) That was the correct thing to do with the article. The problem is that if I say "I'm willing to share this photo", I still have a right to choose how I will share that photo. So we need a bit more information. For example, I could say that I'm willing to share it so long as people acknowledge that the photo was taken by me, in which case it is great and we can use it. Or, as you have done, I could say that this is able to be used by anyone, for any reason, without them having to acknowledge who the photographer was. But I could mean something mor restrictive, like "this photo can be used by anyone, so long as it isn't used commercially", or "this photo can only be used on Wikipedia". I have every right to say that, but the last two can't be used here. So out of respect for the photographer's wishes, Wikipedia needs a clear statement on the photo's page about how the photographer is permitting it to be used.

It is painful to go through it the first time. On the plus side, once you know what the hoops are, jumping through them is much, much easier the second time. It is a tricky process, but it is needed if Wikipedia is both to be released under a free license and properly respect the wishes of everyone involved. - Bilby (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

newbie question - how to change a title on an uploaded pic

I contributed a photo with an inappropriate title. I titled a photo of the FDR Memorial the FDR Monument. No one has linked to it yet. How can I change title? Thanks. Markdiaz (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Easily done:

1. Go to the file's page on Wikimedia Commons.
2. Next to the search bar in the top right is a little down arrow with a drop-down menu, under which you need to select "Move".
3. In the box that pops up, enter the new name and choose "Uploader request" as the reason.
4. Hit "Request renaming" and you're done.

Hope that helps. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

List of dog breeds

Hi, Sorry to bother you on here again! I noticed this morning that an IP has altered the List of dog breeds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds), which I don't think is correct? At the same time the IP also altered the List of donkey breeds (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_donkey_breeds&diff=515911050&oldid=510630109) but I don't know anything about donkeys, so can't comment on that. I do know how to revert edits but at the moment I am weary of doing anything on Wiki, particularly reverting stuff. This brings me to my second question (apologies if I shouldn't be asking it here, or perhaps at all but it's causing me a disproportionate amount of concern - silly, I know!). There is a sock puppet investigation that I have been accused as being part of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KoKingsmill); it seems to have been 'on hold' for a while although others have been resolved. I don't want to post anything on the page itself as I'm worried it will result in further problems with one of the editors involved. If I wanted to contact someone about it, what should I do? Sagaciousphil (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phil, thanks for visiting the Teahouse. The IP's edits appear to be clear-cut vandalism, so I've reverted them and placed warnings on their talkpage - well spotted! As for the SPI, I wouldn't worry - it looks very much like a frivolous report, given User:AinsworthAussie's contributions... Sooner or later an SPI clerk will file it away; I can't see that there's anything actionable against you there. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your very quick response, it's very much appreciated. ;-)

Re the SPI though, I appreciate my account has not been blocked or suspended while the matter is being checked and even if others don't realise it, I know I'm not a sock puppet! However, it's making me feel I shouldn't be doing any changes at all on Wiki until it's sorted out. I've been ferreting some item/references away in my sandbox that I feel will help improve articles but I'm now too reticent to put them in just in case it sets things off or causes upset to others. Sorry, the frustration is driving me to distraction!

Sagaciousphil (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless a checkuser showed you to be a sockpuppet (which seems extremely unlikely) I can see nothing in your pattern of edits that would suggest to me that you were. If I were the administrator clerking the case (although I'm an admin, I'm not an SPI clerk so can't actually do that for you), I would judge the report itself to be in bad faith and close it. SPI reports like this happen from time to time; you can ignore it and continue editing as normal. You don't need to wait for the case to be closed. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt help and advice; Wikipedia can be a very daunting place at times, so it's nice to know there is somewhere to get help! :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how to share my comments about deleting articles

Hi, I just received an email that someone wants to delete the article "List of DirecTV channels (United States...)".

If i read it correctly, some are proposing the complete deletion of the whole thing.

How do share my feelings that this should not be deleted? I can't figure it out because i think the WP page, which i've used for years, is the best anywhere.

Do i "EDIT" the article where it's proposed to have the article listed above, deleted? Is that where i put in my 2 cents?

I'm so lost. I'm sorry for the newbie question.

Thanks

TersterTerster (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Terster and welcome back to wikipedia. The discussion you're looking for appears to be the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination). Before you contribute, I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.

Hey, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed that the reason the editors are requesting delete on these articles based on the result of another Articles for Deletion submission. The basis for the old submission was basically that Wikipedia is not the place for electronic directories, including channel guides. Based on that AfD, the editor nominated other ones that fit the same category. I'm glad that you disagree with the editor, however, because that's how Wikipedia works! If you wish to publicise your disagreement, go to the article's AfD page and edit in a post at the bottom of the page with your opinion, following the format of other editors. Be careful not to disturb other editors opinions in the meantime though! It would also be a good idea to look at the above link to Arguments to avoid before posting, as you will get more support behind you if you provide a convincing argument. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! gwickwire | Leave a message 03:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No response from RFC is there another option?

A few months ago I wrote an article regarding a sporting/technological controversy. Since then there has been intense debate and disagreement regarding its inclusion, content and location within Wikipedia. It has also been subjected to a RfC without any additional outside comments. Views still remain polarized.

I have voiced concerns regarding the over-liberal interpretation of synthesis and the misuse of other rules in an attempt to remove the article. However, my view is that the root of the problem is nothing other than nationalistic biases, and unless we are allowed to address this issue no further progress will be made. I have suggested various solutions such as 3rd party mediation by a neutral party, and a disclosure of any national or sporting interests by all editors, but these have not been meet with much enthusiasm.

Has anyone any suggestions how to proceed?

PS Sorry I can't seem to get the question box to work, hope I have not posted multiple entries!--Andromedean (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics? A number of comments on the issue were received and most seemed to disagree with your addition, from what I can see. Sionk (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, that entire article seems like it stands in contravention of Wikipedia:Criticism, personally I'd be looking to disperse and integrate the content to appropriate specific pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There was an Articles for Deletion discussion which decided overwhelmingly to keep the article. It was a very busy article a few weeks ago at the height of the Olympics! I tend to agree with you that many 'controversies' will be seen as less important as time passes. Many have already been removed, from what I remember. Sionk (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought no new editors came on board after the RfC but if you spotted one I would like to know who. Myself and another editor agreed on a version, whilst another editor wanted the most controversial sentences taken out, or the article removed to another location. Another wanted it removed altogether.

Any suggestions on more balance would be welcome, but we have had the sentence regarding the bikes being legal from the start. We also included the view of the GB technical director, although he reinforces the text.

The controversy of differences in bike technology in championships has been running for 20 years so it is unlikely to go away, not least because it fundamentally contradicts the governing bodies principle. However, I think it was brought to a head in this Olympics due to the substantially improved performance of the team since the World Championships in April after which the bikes were changed (those details have been taken out).

The history is rather complicated due to the number of edits. So the criticisms may vary depending upon the version. Anyway, it has just been removed completely again, with a suggestion for dispute resolution! Doesn't it have to be viewable for dispute resolution noticeboard? Do you think that is the best course of action? --Andromedean (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I will instigate an Dispute Resolution then --Andromedean (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Reaching out to hajatvrc, Sarah and NtheP ...

Hi folks: From your encouragement, I have completed my draft of my first article. Still don't understand why the reference area where the hyperlinks are, come out in blue. I know they were black on my text ... how to fix that?

Thanks to hajatvrc, I know how to do superscript, will take care of that later after I have all your input.

Hope you enjoy this article as I have enjoyed in researching it, and learning much in the process. Sarah, thanks to you, this is totally different from the list that I first presented by doing a direct translation on dates and posts. Thank You all for your time and any feedback you may have for me. CHHistory (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

CHHistory's article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luo Xian Xiang>

Hello CHHistory, your draft is getting close! There are a few formatting issues that could make your life a lot easier though. Instead of using superscript for footnotes, you can footnote automatically like so (thanks to Yunshui for giving this example below):

Gledden started his tennis career relatively late, not picking up a racket until the age of 12 years old in 1986.<ref>Gledden Gets off to winning start / Gledden stars for Yorkshire'' 22nd May 1981 Sheffield Star & Sheffield Telegraph</ref>

Simply type <ref>(Footnote goes here)</ref> after the fact you're footnoting, and make sure you have {{Reflist}} at the end of the article, and your footnotes will automatically file themselves. To give you an example, I fixed the first footnote in your article as a demonstration. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi CHHistory. There is a more automated way to insert inline citations. Click the brackets icon at the top of the edit window and you get a drop down choice of cite templates such as cite web and cite journal. Click one of these and you get a form to fill in. Submit this and the citation is formatted and inserted into the text where the cursor is.--Charles (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew and Charles, will make a note of that. Learning continues ... easiest way is best for me as I am a doofus when it comes to coding Many thanks CHHistory (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, I do not understand what's happened. I will have to do this the hard way for now, by inserting superscript as I go along. Thanks for your advice though this is all Greek to me :-( -- the coding that is. CHHistory (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello CHHistory, if you're not clear on something, let us know what it is and we can clarify. You really do not want to keep using the superscript: it is way harder than using the "ref" tags, because every time you move text around you have to change all the numbers by hand. With ref, I could take Footnote #1 and move it to the middle of the page, and #2 will automatically become #1, and #1 will now be #17 because it's in the middle of the page. All you have to do for the moment is go down to the References where you put, for example #7, and go paste it in place of <sup>7</sup> up in the text, and put <ref> and </ref> tags around it. It will then automatically function as a footnote. Take a look at your page, I have fixed #1 for you as an example to follow. It will make more sense when you see the example.

You mention "I do not understand what's happened". Is this about the changes to your page? I went and cleanup up the intro, but you came back and undid my changes. I understand this is a mistake, but please understand that other editors are trying to help on the page. If someone changes some code/format, it's likely because they are experienced with the standards, so please just trust us on these. :)

To see what other editors are doing to help you, read the "AFC Comments" added to the page, and click the "History" tab to see a list of all the changes made. When you make your own changes, be sure to fill out the "Edit Summary" below your editing window every time to explain what you changed, like "Changed to 1961 photo" or "added footnotes from Smith book". That way other folks helping out can follow changes over time. The article does need some work, but this is a great way for you to learn about the wiki process, and we're here to help. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I emphasise that overall this is an article worth keeping and improving on. However, your sourcing needs some work, and a read of WP:Reliable sources. A large number of your cites are to blogs, and both en.wiki and zh.wiki cites, none of which are authoritative. You should never cite to Wikipedia itself, but instead use WP:Wikilinks to link to other articles as appropriate. Have you checked GoogleBooks and similar sites for references? Ideally, your footnotes should come from established academic or journalistic sources. I've marked your suspect footnotes (as best as I can tell, since I don't speak Chinese). It will take some time to replace them with WP:RS cites, but again this is definitely an article worth having, and a great chance for you to develop the skills which lead to more and more great articles on Chinese history! MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew: Many thanks for taking the time with the explanation. Looks like I need a lot more help than I first thought. Modern Chinese history currently does not have a lot of references, especially in English. As noted, I am citing from official releases by the Chinese archives, general rosters, war telegrams and logs whenever I can. I understand that memoirs are still a good source of information, especially for those who participated in that time period are all dying or dead already. That is why I cut and paste portions of the Chinese texts where Law Hin-Cheung was mentioned, so that for those who don't read Chinese, at least could compare the Chinese characters and, as the dates are like ours, they are self evident.

Citation 1 was from a site hosted by a librarian in Denmark. He had been building content for this since 2000; though he was unable to gather much information regarding WWII Chinese Generals, except for the 4 or 5 stars, such as Chiang Kai Shek. The lesser generals or those who lost the struggle, such as, Chan Jiong ming,Governor of Guangdong, and those who were in the trenches fighting the wars, did not have much archived about them in English. Streen, the librarian, does not read Chinese either. It was from than point that I embarked on the journey to hopefully make a difference in that area. I do read, write and understand Chinese fluently.

Questions: • Could I cite from the citations from the same wiki article? • How to change the color from blue for some hyperlinks into black? When in text, the entire article including ref. was in black. Next, why some texts are in red, when colors were never used? How to change all to black to meet wiki standard? • Could I include pdf for citations? For example, with war telegrams, perhaps I can copy and make it into a pdf and included that in the article? Though uncertain what color it will come out. If ok, how should I approach that?

Why the subheading Name? Do i need to do anything?

In reference to below, just type that in at the beginning and the end? Type  ::

Article start to finish... and end with this? </ref>

The 4 dots mean something?

Gledden started his tennis career relatively late, not picking up a racket until the age of 12 years old in 1986.<ref>Gledden Gets off to winning start / Gledden stars for Yorkshire'' 22nd May 1981 Sheffield Star & Sheffield Telegraph</ref>

How about your following example? Do I have to change anything for the string below? Where do I place this? Under References? Footnote what does that refer to? all the citations?

Simply type <ref>(Footnote goes here)</ref> after the fact you're footnoting, and make sure you have {{Reflist}}

Sorry to have so many questions... bet I will have more … Memoirs can help and be an integral part of understanding what really went on ... I certainly don't know all the facts, but based on extensive reading of close to 100 sources, mainly in Chinese, I gained knowledge. For citation, I only select where Law Hin-Cheung's name was mentioned, because they will serve as proof or verifiable fact about him. From researching this article, I got some insight on a few of the major characters who got China to where it is today ... Thanks for your help, encouragement and patience. CHHistory (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, you asked that I do not revise your changes. But, Your revision actually took out Law Hin-Cheung's name. Law spoke Cantonese because he was from Guangdong Province. Guangzhou, the capital city, was formerly known as Canton (under British influence and colonization at the time).

The reason why Law or Luo (Last name Cantonese/Mandarin) Hin-Cheung or Xian-Xiang (his given name) is used now because all documents coming out from China, Taiwan use Mandarin Chinese for English phonics. So it is important that both Cantonese Chinese and Mandarin Chinese are used in the beginning.

Further, under the photo, you remove most of his name-- xiang alone does not mean anything. I have put it back. Wonder why you also remove the meaning of his name? Advice please. thx CHHistory (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Article to write about

I need to write an article but i have no clue on what to write since most of the articles are want to write about are already on Wikipedia. Please help PSHaikali 200724622 (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You could take a look here [4] at the large list of requested articles and see if anything takes your fancy.Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the whole "requested articles" list to be a bit big and vague. Many of the Wikiprojects have their own more specialised lists of requested articles. I often find myself looking at the shorter lists like this one:Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Requested Articles to find articles I'm more interested in.

Another tip is to write a missing article. Search for topics you're interested in, and see if there are some you can't find.

Yet another approach (how I mostly work) is to write articles about things I have good sources for. If I read a good book about a suitable topic, I might then write about that topic, while the subject is fresh and I have the sources to hand.

I think you're in Namibia? How about something on Namibian or African topics? en:WP has a big bias towards European and US topics, so it's good to work on balancing that out.

One thing I would suggest though is that, even if you're on a college course asking you to create an article, then don't create an article just yet! Start out (a couple of dozen edits) by learning to edit well first, through making edits to existing articles. It's hard to create a good article straightaway, so it'll be easier if you're already a bit more experienced.

Remember too that a user sandbox, like User:PSHaikali 200724622/My article, is a good place to start a new article. Get it roughly formatted there and list the source materials before you throw it to the wolves in main article space! It can be a bit bitey out there, if your article isn't thought to be well referenced or notable right from the start.

Good luck with it, and please post links to your work here, if you'd like some advice on how they're going. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello PSHaikali, one other possible way to find article ideas is to read about topics you already enjoy, and watch for "redlinks". That is, wikilinks that show up as red rather than blue, which means they don't have an article to go to. You can go to articles about topics you like, watch for redlinks, and create new articles to expand that topic further and further out, and connecting it to more and more articles. Just one more way of doing it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the above suggestion, I'll note that one of my favorite areas on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. It has a little bit of an advantage over WP:RA in that most if not all of the needed articles listed there are notable. That said, coincidentally, I created an article yesterday from WP:RA, so it can be done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Or, you could improve the articles that are already on Wikipedia. There are many articles that are stubs, meaning that they only have about one paragraph and are sometimes little more than a dictionary definition. Those articles aren't really complete articles, so I guess you could call it writing a new article :) –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Link to Wiktionary?

Stuck again. This time on polyphage. -- Is there some way to link directly to Wiktionary definition instead of "normal" link, which goes to inappropriate page (a bacteria). A redirect using polyphagy is actually a misdirect to oligophagy -- and relates to insects.

What I'm looking for is the common (general) usage, as in "many foods" -- or as on Wiktionary:

Noun

polyphage (plural polyphages)

  1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore.

~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC) 09:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/polyphage
P.s.: why is the definition (above) in a blue box? ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Try using namespaces [[:wikt:polyphage]] for wikt:polyphage

or even the "pipe trick" [[:wikt:polyphage|]] for polyphage

Your paragraph above is indented and boxed because you started its line with some space. If you want indents (and no box), then use a colon instead,like this:

1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore. gives:

  1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore.

: 1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore. gives:

1. Any animal which can eat a variety of food; an omnivore.

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew there had to be a way. (And I thought copy/pasting a hidden unicode character might have caused the box.) ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Point of despair...

Hi Sarah,

Thank you for this link...

I am aware you were one of the editors who looked at my submission for "John Gledden" Professional Tennis Coach.

I have spend nearly 4 months and approximately 6 submissions trying to get this article accepted and I am now at the point I wish I'd not started as I accept I don't know enough about Wikipedia or editing, to be qualified to get this article passed for submission.

That said, seeing your link gave me the inspiration for one last shot as I feel my subject is very important and relevant and in a lot of ways unique and inspiring.

My submission has been rejected for not enough information, too much information and many other reasons and I am now pretty much stuck as to where to go next.

Can you help ?

Kind Regards

Janet Knowles - Tennisbuff12345 Tennisbuff12345 (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Janet. Looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Gledden I can see that you're getting there; there are only a few things that need doing to fix the article up. The main and most important issue is the referencing. You have assembled an enormous slew of references, which is fantastic, but they need to be cited correctly. To do this, follow these steps:

1. Take a sentence that needs a reference, for example: "Gledden started his tennis career relatively late, not picking up a racket until the age of 12 years old in 1986."
2. Locate one of your sources that provides that information - let's assume that 1981's Gledden Gets off to winning start / Gledden stars for Yorkshire 22nd May 1981 Sheffield Star & Sheffield Telegraph reference tells us that he started playing at age 12.
3. In the body of the article, immediately after the text you want to verify, place the reference between two <ref></ref> tags, like this:

   Gledden started his tennis career relatively late, not picking up a racket until the age of 12 years old in 1986.<ref>Gledden Gets off to winning start / Gledden stars for Yorkshire'' 22nd May 1981 Sheffield Star & Sheffield Telegraph</ref>

4. Do this for as much as the article as possible.
5. Under the "References" header, where you currently have an enormous list of newspaper articles, delete everything (you've already turned them into inline citations). Replace them with the text {{Reflist}} (including the curly brackets). This will create a numbered list of references.

In an ideal world, you would also provide links to online versions of the articles you're referencing, and use a {{cite}} template to format them, but that's best practice rather than a baseline requirement. You also don't necessarily need all of those many references - as long as the information in the text can be verified, that's all that's needed.

Hope this helps, feel free to contact me here or on my talkpage if you need a hand. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The menu at the top of the editing window also has a "cite" option, which greatly simplifies the technical aspect of formatting references. --Jayron32 12:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Janet, getting started on Wiki can be frustrating if you hit some early friction, so I'm really glad you're coming by to refine your approach before submitting AFC again. Sometimes people re-submit AFC without getting a clear explanation of what needs to be fixed, and get another frustrating Decline. Now that you're here, a few more folks can give more detailed advice.

Yunshui has a great sum-up of how to do footnotes, and proper footnoting, instead of just a collection of articles, would go a long way towards helping the article. I also did a little format fixing for you, especially adding WP:Wikilinks to the first part of your article, so that people can follow those links to, say, the article on that specific 2012 tennis final. Another way to get a good feel for how your article should look is to take a look at a very well-developed article on another person in the field, like Andre Agassi or Serena Williams. Hit "edit" and don't make any changes, but just look at how their code is typed, and article laid out.

One other small thing to check out: since one moves text around a lot trying to get the right wording, you can end up with broken sentences, sentences that repeat themself, etc. So it's good every so often while working on the draft to just sit down and read a section out-loud all the way through, so you can catch the bits that are broken or lose track of sense. Or sometimes it helps just to have someone who hasn't worked on the article (like a non-Wikipedia friend) read over a section and make sure it reads smoothly for the casual reader. Having a smooth copyedit, along with proper sourcing, will also really help your article.

It certainly looks publishable, but just check back in with folks as you move forward to make sure it's ready before submitting. Looking better and better! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my page

Why? Why do some people on here help me, then another say he/she wants to delete it. Why? Just leave it alone. RomfordReject (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello RomfordReject. Welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. I am an administrator, and according to the logs, not a single thing you have done here under this account has been deleted. Have you edited under another account? I'd like to help you out here, but I can't find any evidence of any work done under this account being deleted. --Jayron32 05:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32, I think RomfordReject is talking about this article which was marked for speedy deletion due to notability concerns. Romford, do I have that right? GaramondLethe 05:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. It was marked for speedy deletion at the very outset, but declined by an administator. However it is now marked with Proposed deletion. I have left some advice for RomfordReject on his talk page (I'm not a host here). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A question about censorship

Hi Everyone, I am a new editor and I tried to update the page on Satanic Ritual Abuse (dark place to start, I know. It's one of the things I am studying in school). I found that I was not able to cite some webpages that had a lot of information about Satanic Ritual Abuse. I looked into it further and found out that any perspectives on SRA other than that it was a moral panic based on false memories, are censored from wikipedia. My understanding is that wikipedia is not supposed to censor information, but that as an encyclopedia it is supposed to stay neutral and present all facts and perspectives without adopting language that takes one side of the controversy. If this is true, why are some subjects being censored to present only one perspective? Thank you, LiaJB (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, LiaJB, welcome to the Teahouse! If you're referring to this edit, it got removed because (among other things) it's not cited to a reliable source. The website you cited it to is a blog, and thus not reliable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it does not do original research, and certainly not based on blogs. In fact, none of the websites that the article about Wikipedia's "censorship" are reliable sources; this is not because of their stance on Satanic ritual abuse, but because they are all blogs, and blogs are almost never reliable sources, and even when they are, they only count in extremely narrow circumstances. I'm not privy to the rationale behind blacklisting them, but usually this happens because someone is posting inappropriate links to them continuously or in bizarre places, which is a tactic we call linkspamming.

At the end of the day, this is not censorship; this is removing unreliable sources and original research from the encyclopedia, which is one of our tasks. You should also keep in mind that neutral point-of-view does not mean all points of view. Not all points of view get (or should get) equal billing, and some shouldn't get coverage at all, depending on the situation. This is something we call undue weight; we do not put undue emphasis on minority viewpoints by giving them equal attention, or presenting them as equivalent in acceptance to the mainstream. I hope this helps you understand what's going on. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Lia! Thanks for coming to the Teahouse! To expand a bit on what Writ Keeper said, the reason blogs are not considered reliable sources is because they are not fact-checked like newspapers, magazines and books generally are. Hope that helps understand a bit about the policy and also what kind of weight to assign to materials you may read.Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52 and Writ Keeper, Thank you for clearing up why I couldn't cite the page, I will only cite fact checked sources from now on.

I am concerned about the idea that some view points don't get any coverage and I am hoping that doesn't apply to victims of abuse. The SRA page has a clear narrative that it has been proven that SRA does not exist and that no one was/is ever victimized by it. There are a lot of issues with this viewpoint. Beyond the fact that the only 'evidence' that survivors stories are false is that they couldn't be proven true, that ideology reinforces the cultural myth that victims make up stories about abuse. If I expand the page with legitimately sourced information that offers an expanded perspective that does not corroborate the current narrative, will the additions be deleted?

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. I appreciate it. LiaJB (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey LiaJB. Unfortunately, we cannot answer that question for sure without knowing what sources you are going to use. I understand the concern about a cultural stance that victims of abuse (in any category) are making it up. In that article we discuss numerous times that these stories were made up because that is what the reliable sources discuss. It is much more common for academics to show that abuse did not occur in a particular case than to show that it did occur in another. This is not Wikipedia's fault, it is just the way things work. If you could link us to sources that you have in mind, we could help you determine whether they are considered reliable on Wikipedia. Maybe try Google Books and Google Scholar and get back to us. hajatvrc @ 02:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi hajatvrc,

Thanks for the reply. You are right and unfortunately victim blaming and rape excusing are the default in our society right now, but there are some good studies out there. The first that comes to mind is: Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Bottoms, B. L., Qin, J., & Shaver, P. R. (November 01, 1997). Children's Religious Knowledge: Implications for Understanding Satanic Ritual Abuse Allegations. Child Abuse & Neglect: the International Journal, 21, 11, 1111-28.

I am confident that peer reviewed studies are considered reliable sources. My question is more about whether the view point will be censored, even when it comes from a reliable source.

Thank you, LiaJB (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Lisa, I would urge you to, as the Wiki saying goes "Assume good faith". That is, understand that the vast majority of peoples on Wikipedia are not out to deliberately censor, defame, vandalise, etc. For such reasons, we strongly discourage anyone from making accusations of such unless ill intent is blatantly evident, like someone dismissing edits with no explanation, clearly being dishonest, etc. It is rather unlikely that there are numerous people out to censor the article, but more likely that for such a sensitive topic people are being real sticklers for the rules, requiring strong sourcing, etc.

So far as your sources, we on this page aren't necessarily here to judge individual arguments so much as give broad advice, but here are a few suggestions:

• "AGF" (assume good faith) and make it a default estimate that most people are generally trying to help each article
• Visit the "Talk" page of the article in question (including any pages linked as "Archives"). On controversial articles, it is very, very common that the same issues are brought up repeatedly over time, so you will be better equipped to make a case if you are familiar with past arguments. Maybe you want to bring up "John Smith"'s book, but in 2010 the editors on that page conceded that Smith's book was self-published and not peer-reviewed, so not admissible. Then again, maybe it was picked up by a major university press and republished in 2012; by being familiar with the past argument and saying "folks, notice a chance since the last time this was discussed, here's new information", you're better equipped to state a case.
• Make statements on talk clear, concise, unemotional, and where possible provide links or clear sourcing details.
• In the end, realise that not every argument can be won here on Wikipedia; there's a classic guideline warning of the desire for "Righting Great Wrongs. Fundamentally, if the great majority of published material by professional academics from recognised institutions says Claim X, then Wikipedia will have to reflect Claim X. It is always entirely possible that Claim Y is totally accurate, but since Wikipedia is a compiler of data, not a decider of data, until Claim Y has risen up to become the primary professional/academic belief, it can't be the focus of an article. Those are fights that have to be fought in the public square, courts, and the media, and only after Claim Y achieves mainstream acceptance would it become the primary narrative on Wiki.

A bit of a complicated situation, and I understand it's a difficult and emotional topic, but hope this helps clarify our rigid focus on maintaining neutrality and using the most (currently) reputable published sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi LiaJB. Let me commend you for going to the primary literature. That will give you a much more nuanced understanding of any topic, but like most things here there are nuances involved in using them well. The best resources to cite are secondary and tertiary sources: in this case, review articles and textbooks. That extra distance (hopefully) means that a competent editor has gathered together several ideas that have stood the test of time. Primary sources, in this case the original peer-reviewed literature, will contain several ideas that won't end up standing the test of time. For newer work it's hard to tell which is which; for older work citation counts are a rough guide. Google Scholar has only 9 citations to the Goodman article. Compare that to Young 1991 (82 cites) or Victor 1998 (46 cites).

This isn't to say that you can't cite Goodman, but the prominence given to Goodman in the article needs to be proportional to Goodman's prominence in this area (see WP:UNDUE for the gory details). Is the work that Goodman cites better known, perhaps? (By the way, if you are having trouble tracking down obscure or paywalled material, check out WP:RX.)

Best,

GaramondLethe 06:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, for all the feedback. I appreciate all the patient effort in explaining wikipedia policies. I have a better understanding now of how this whole thing works. I'm looking forward to contributing more. Best, LiaJB (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a PR professional wishing to suggest changes to a client page. Can someone advise

Hello

My names is Paul Smith, I am the content director of an independent PR agency in the UK.

In line with CIPR guidelines I wish to suggest amends to a client page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_(company)

Could an editor advise? The current content is a stub so what I wish to suggest should enhance it. It has been written in an independent fashion, not as marketing material.

Paul PaulSmith77 (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Paul! Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse! We definitely appreciate that you wish to help improve any articles here. You're taking the correct approach in declaring your conflict-of-interest here (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and it looks like you wish to go about this the correct way. The thing Wikipedia needs is references so that any information in the article can be verified. So, if you have suggestions you'd like to make about changes or additions to the article, the absolute best thing you can do is provide links to source material so we can verify the sorts of additions or changes you'd like to make. The best sort of sources are reliable and independent sources; that is sources which have a long-standing reputation for reliability (Well respected newspapers, journals, magazines, books written by recognized experts, websites of equivalent standing) and sources which aren't written by someone affiliated with the subject. Some basic information (such as basic data, like where they are located, the number of employees, who the CEO is, etc.) can probably be cited to the company's own press releases and documentation, but for any of the really in-depth writing that makes a quality encyclopedia article, it should come from truly independent sources. Does this all help answer your questions? --Jayron32 16:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Definitely. Thank you. I will get independent sources. Where do I then submit text and sources? PaulSmith77 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

When will I get a response?

I entered a site called Ziff Properties Inc. about a month ago and was told then that my site was #603 to be reviewed. Should I wait, or have I not entered the material correctly? sghoffius Sghoffius (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Sghoffius, welcome to the Teahouse! I don't see anything in your contributions list related to an article named that (and no deleted contributions, either); did you perhaps create it while you were logged out, or under a different username? It'll be hard for us to help without being able to track down and look at the article itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You also asked at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 September 5#Has my submission been accepted? There is still no sign you saved the page. Maybe you only clicked "Preview", or maybe you clicked "Save page" but didn't perform a second step you are asked for in some circumstances. You can see your saved edits by clicking "My contributions" at top of any page. It doesn't show edits to deleted pages but as an administrator I can see you don't have any. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page-centric editors

G'day everyone, I've not been here before, I've been aware that the Teahouse exists but have been merrily editing my little heart out elsewhere until I recently ran into a brick wall. I've been on WP since November last year. Recently I've struck an editor that seems to be keen on identifying what they consider to be deficiencies in an article I recently co-promoted to FA. I feel a level of stewardship towards the article partly because I helped get it there, but also because it is in a space where particular points of view are pretty vociferous. In any case, I hope I am not at the stage of WP:OWN. This particular editor has been on WP a lot longer than me, and they make a lot of criticisms on the talk page, but then essentially refuse to edit in the article space at all. I'm finding this very disruptive, and it is really impacting on my enjoyment of WP. Do you have any suggestions as to how I might deal with this situation? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are the criticisms helpful, i.e. is the other user pointing out valid flaws? If so, then perhaps take is as a friendly (but annoying) bit of criticism and use them as a tool to improve your article. :) If the other user is not pointing out valid flaws, then try just ignoring him. Eventually the other user will likely get bored and go away. Sometimes people have difficulty communicating online, since other online people can't see body language -- sometimes a terse message is all that a given user has time to post. There's no rule against someone pointing out a problem (or problems) then not joining in to fix those problems, Wikipedia takes help where it can get it and if a person only points out problems without fixing them, well, hopefully they're contributing in their own way to making articles better, since there's always room for improvement. I hope this helps. :) Please let me know on my user talk page if you'd like more help from me. Banaticus (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)