Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

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

Most recent archives
1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244

Is it possible to put my 'General Theory of Everything/DNA speed though time to a forum?

General theory of Everything or DNA speed through Time

The variable speed at which the DNA spiral travels through time and space results in several different effects:

a) Acceleration of gravity is proportionally slower from our point of view and presents a weakened force when compared to the rest of the lifeless universe. The diminished gravity experienced in water may be the reason behind the start of this process. Life is a watery business.

b) Galaxies, seeming to accelerate away from each other at the outer edges of space, don’t, it’s just that time is running slower for us compared to them.

c) We can actually see other planets with DNA cruising at the same rate and they appear to be dark, as light cannot travel through the shared timelines between us. It’s not slow enough. They look like black holes.

d) Approximately one sixth of the entire mass of the universe runs at our rate through time. The rest of it appears to be invisible as it runs at a faster rate and is commonly called dark matter.

e) Evolution. It is inevitable that creation should eventually come up with a being that is self-aware.

Conclusion As we can only see a sixth of the universe’s matter, we presumably get a sixth of the general gravity; chiefly because we spend a sixth of time in general space. I suppose it was always going to be that number.

Hope you enjoyed the theory Michael David Howells (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a box with broken lines around an article section

Dear Teahouse hosts,

I created a Wikipedia article on The Fralin Museum of Art, which was accepted and moved into the main article space. However, I went back to look at the article a couple of days ago, and noticed that one of the sections, "Audience and Outreach," isn't appearing properly after another user edited it. Most of the text is no longer visible and there is a broken line around the text that's actually there (like a "cut here" line). I went into the editing section to see what might be the problem, but couldn't figure it out. Can anyone help?

I'm a total beginner, so it could be something very obvious...thanks in advance for your help and patience!

SharpCrumbs SharpCrumbs (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! The box was there because there was a space before "A". I went ahead and fixed it. If you have any more problems feel free to ask. Thanks! — nerd fighter 20:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you start a newline in the edit window with a space

you get this, a text box that runs on indefinitely.

Sometimes that can be useful, more often, not. If you want to indent a line on a talkpage, use one or more colons,

::for example, this

results in this:

for example, this

More information on such wikioddness is available at this page, or its more digestible little brother. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short Text Upon Google Search underneath wikipedia link

Hello Wiki Friends,

Help required on how to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hii_King_Chiong so that when we google search it, it can appear the main titles.. like if we search https://www.google.com.my/search?q=najib+abdul+razak&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a .

The link like this.. Early life - Political career - Appointment as Prime Minister - 1Malaysia

Thank you so much. Denry.C (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Denry :) Welcome to the Teahouse! That's most likely an issue on Google's side, because we have no control over them using our content. I'm not sure if there's a Google employee or e-mail you can ask about it.. It's possible that the page is so news that it hasn't been put into Google's systems yet, if that's the case it'll happen soon hopefully! gwickwire^talk_editing 17:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Agawam editing

I have a question about video content, since I am a WikiNoob. Can I use videos as a reference, for the article Camp Agawam? If so, will the videos on the YouTube channel called 'Camp Agawam' work as a reliable source, though they are the official camp website's videos? Please help.Mfribbs (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

multiple sandbox creation

Hello Wiki Users !

1 main question as a WikiNoob.

I tried creating multiple sandboxes but after an effort of 1 whole day and reading different links and archives 38, 52 and 44 in Teahouse all i could see that there was already a hyper link created for the other users for second sandbox. Can someone please explain the process to create the sandbox 2 , 3 and or further ? Ghorpaapi(talk) 11:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghorpaapi. You can create such sandboxes by searching (as you would for an article) for User:Ghorpaapi/sandbox2, User:Ghorpaapi/sandbox3, User:Ghorpaapi/sandbox4 and so on, then clicking on the "Start the User:Ghorpaapi/sandbox2etc." link that results. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or just click on any of the redlinks above! Yunshui 雲‍水 11:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Your first sandbox can be accessed by clicking on the link at the top right side of the page. Your personal sandbox 1 is located here. If you want to created your second sandbox click on this link: User:Ghorpaapi/sandbox2 and just create the page as you do on other pages. If you want to create another sandbox just just replace the 2 with 3. If you want to create further sandboxes just repeat these steps while replacing the sandbox number. Hope this helps. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 11:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yunshui and User:Ushau97 ! Thanks a lot for help and spontaneous reply. To be precise I did the same method as you have mentioned above, but I thought I have done something wrong and my previous draft would be deleted. But, I really appreciate your help . thanks ^^. Ghorpaapi (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, creating new user subpages like this won't overwrite your previous sandbox. Incidentally, when I'm creating more than one article at once I usually use the format "User:Yunshui/Name of draft article" rather than "User:Yunshui/sandbox x", since it makes the various pages easier to keep track of - you may want to do the same sort of thing. Basically, to create any user subpage just use the format "User:Ghorpaapi/Name of subpage". If you no longer need a subpage (because you've moved the content to an article, or decided not to carry on with it), just write {{db-u1}} at the top and a passing admin will delete it for you. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove warning that a Wiki article relies largely on a single source?

Hi,

I'm part of a group of scholars updating the Constance Fenimore Woolson page. There's a warning at tthe top of the article that reads:

This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (September 2010)

Now that this warning no longer accurately depicts the article, how do I go about getting the warning removed?

Thanks!

LoreleiH LoreleiH (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lorelei! Welcome to the Teahouse! If you've added more sourcing to the article, you can remove the notice yourself. If you'd rather have someone else remove it, I'll be happy to take a look if you'd give us a link :) gwickwire^talk_editing 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ypnypn have removed the tag since many new references have been added by LoreleiH. Thanks for adding references to the article, which is in fact a pretty hard work. Before you started editing the article it had only 3 citations. At present, it have more than 70 citations . You can improve the style of the references, by using the Cite book template or the Rp template which are specialized templates for citing books. However it looks good with the way you referenced. If you are willing to make it better, feel free to do so. For more information see Help:References and page numbers and WP:REFB. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 05:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted edits

Dear editors: When I use the "Edit count" feature on my Contributions page, it says that a few of my edits have been deleted. Is there any way to find out which ones? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, only admins have access to deleted contributions.--ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, anything special you want to know, or is this just general curiosity? As an example, you made a few edits to the article Barnraisers, which has been deleted, so those edits are in that list. SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't know if there is a specific tool for this but "deleted contributions" are your edits on pages that have been deleted. If you have enabled the feature that automatically adds all the pages you edit to your watchlist, then you can just look for the redlinks on Special:EditWatchlist. Roger (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't realize that these were on deleted pages; I thought maybe they were rollbacks, etc. My curiosity is satisfied. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article and adding information help!!!

So confusing. All I want to do is add as small amount of information to a Wikipedia article> or post the information for others to read.> > > > help!> > > > > > Sorry, but even after all the reading to answer my question I still do not> > understand.> > > I was reading an article and I have information that is confirmed and need to> > post or add to the article.> > > I have an account ,clicked on edit and could not find a place to type what I wanted.> > > I clicked on Talk and could not find a place to write anything.> > > I need to find out where to type my comment. > > > I have read the site for answering questions and still do not understand what to do. I need step by step help. This information is important to the article or I would not bother so much 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.60.26 (talk)

Hi! I have an idea of what might have happened here, though I might be wrong. My guess is that you were trying to edit the information in the first part of the page (what we call the "lead section") and what you did was click on one of the [edit] links on the side of the page (which access the particular section of the page below it), instead of clicking "Edit" at the top of the article (which accesses the entire article). Does that help or am I off target?

Regarding the talk page, if you want to add a comment, once there, click on the button at the top of the page marked "new section". By the way, you might get some use out of taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. It clears up many common issues people face in editing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does a bibliography page need references?

Dear editors: I have been reading an article Orson Welles bibliography. Am I right in assuming that, since the whole article is a list of publications, no references are needed? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, welcome back to the Teahouse. As you state, bibliographies are a list of publications about a topic so there is no need for references. However, if you know of another substantial bibliography, particularly one published by say an academic journal, it would be helpful to add reference to it, to help future expansion. I should note, editors are divided as to whether bibliographies about a topic (as opposed to of an author's works) are a suitable subject for Wikipedia articles. Some people feel they should be moved to some other Wikimedia project. Hope this is helpful, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I can see the point. A list of every published work about every topic would be Google Books and Google News, wouldn't it? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created multiple bibliography articles, since I link ISBNs, I don't concentrate on references (to clarify it, clicking on those ISBN links take you to full details page). For example see Bibliography of Swami Vivekananda --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. Especially people involved with Wikipedia Education Program. We create bibs for students to do research with and thus expand Wikipedia. Bibliographies have been growing alot - since we are trying to get people to use scholarly publication over web site that will be a dead link in 6 months. Come join the scholars and historians at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies.Moxy (talk)

Hi Moxy, I very much want to be a part of the Bibliographies project, but I often go on sabbaticals from Wiki and then return with a passion only to fizzle again. Can I still be apart or is there a consistency / time commitment?Gray106 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you deal with vandalism?

Hi Teahouse. I edit a wikipedia page about the Legal Ombudsman and we have a disgruntled customer who persists in writing personal opinions about the service it provides, some of which is inaccurate. We have tried to edit the page to reflect his views in a more unbiased and objective, ultimately factual way to no avail.

Is there any thing that can be done? This is thepage if you want to see the editing history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Ombudsman

Thanks LeO_Admin LeO Admin (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Teahouse host, but after looking at the page I find myself somewhat in sympathy with the "vandal". While the text that he/she is trying to insert is not encyclopedic, I think the article does need some more information. It says what the ombudsman can't do, but it doesn't explain what types of "quality of service" issues it can help with. If this were added, perhaps the editor would be satisfied that the article was sufficiently informative. It also seems that LeO Admin has a conflict of interest in this article. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Teahouse host either, but I have left a message on the "vandal's" page. I have informed him that his contributions have not been helpful because they appear to be personal opinions and not information from reliable sources.

As to the asker of the question, you appear to be connected to the subject of the article and therefore in a conflict of interest. Please request a change of username and also read through Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above guideline says that users should be open about any conflict of interest, so I believe that LeO Admin has done this correctly with an appropriate user name, and should keep it. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct. There is another policy that explicitly prohibits usernames that suggest the editor represents an organisation or group. Yes the editor is correct to declare a COI but it should not be by way of a username that suggests representation of anything or anyone. The username also imlies that he/she is an Administrator here at WP. Roger (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your comments and suggestions. LeO Admin 193.41.96.78 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Kid in Town...

Happy Birthday Teahouse!!!! I'm the new kid in town, and the name's Mon, The Wikimon! It's been one day and it feels awesome to be here on Wikipedia. Now I know all that was unnecessary, but I thought I should introduce myself. A couple of quick questions and I'll be outta your hair...

1. Why is Wikipedia user interface so tough to use. Only some codes are like HTML, while others are new, and tough to learn...

Wikpedia has a certain level of complexity that could be seen as University level. That is on purpose in some ways and unintentional in others. The interface editing box should help most basic users and there are several ways, like here to ask questions.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. How can new editors' 1st articles be prevented from deletion in case they are good and potential articles but without the actual structure of a Wikipedia article???

There is no better way to prevent it than to have the strongest article you can with reliable sources and accurate information, but you could appeal to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron and perhaps it can be tagged for rescue.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. Are new editors allowed to join Wikiprojects???

Anyone can join a WikProject and I encourage it, but you don't have to join them to participate/collaborate.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the pleasure of meeting three awesome editors on my 1st day, Gerda Arendt and Ched and GG-J who have been helping me and so I had a few doubts...I won't bother you again... And once again Happy B'Day!!! The Wikimon (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2013

Well you have a great start then. Gerda and Ched I know are great editors and I am sure GG-J must be.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a Lot, Amadscientist!!! It sure does mean a lot!!! The Teahouse will be my new haunt!!!!The Wikimon (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mon! Welcome to Wikipedia. If your excellent friends are not already working with you on an article, there are plenty of other things you can do around Wikipedia other than write an article to gain experience with Wikicode! I might suggest that you just type a subject that you know something about in the search box, go read the article, and then decide if there is something missing that you can add with a proper reference. That way, you have examples of all the code you need in the other edits that are visible right there in the edit window you are working in! And Mad is exactly right! You have chosen some of the most experienced competent people around Wikiland to help you. Great job. One last thing. You are never going to be a bother here, come with as many questions as you wish. My Dad used to say, "The only stupid question is the one you don't ask!" Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting multiple instances of vandalism at once

Hello! I have noticed some users reverting multiple edits, all of which containing vandalism, in one edit of their own. This is presumably not only more efficient, but leads to clarity in the history page. Is it possible for a regular user to do this simply, or does it require other privileges/automation? Thank you! BertyRussell (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse!. A 'normal' user can do this. Go to the history of the page, choose the edit before the first edit you wish to delete, and the last edit..... create the diff(erence) between them. Select revert above the most recent edit -- the right column--, you will be asked if you intend to revert multiple edits - accept that. Wahla! Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thank you! BertyRussell (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to change an erroneous photo of a historic person ? The Bancroft is wrong !

This is in reference to the 'Darius Ogden Mills' page. The photo shown is of his brother Edgar Mills, not Darius Ogden Mills. I happen to own an original photo of him and know of many other websites which also have the correct image of him so his identity is not in question at all. Please advise the best means for correcting this error. He's an important figure in California and Gold Rush history. I've been attempting to get the Bancroft to correct their image for over a year to no avail. They acknowledge the error, but are stuck in bureaucratic soup insofar as effecting the change.

Please advise....

Thanks -

Michael Mercvapor (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Michael. Did you mean this image? Uploader collected the image from this page which states the same thing. You can start by proposing the change at article's talk page and WikiProject California noticeboard. If you can somehow show the image you are going to upload is actually the image of Mills (like any other reliable site, any book etc which mentions the image), that will be very helpful! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding and using my uploaded photos

I can't find my uploaded photos. I did once but can't remember how. After finding them I'd like to add them to a page. Can you help?

David Dcloydd (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia! You can find uploaded files by typing in the search bar [[File:Name of file.name of extension]]. And you add them to the article like this: [[File:Example.jpg]]. But it doesn't appear you've uploaded any files here.^King Jakob _C2 22:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow Dcloydd. I believe these are the files you are looking for. These are you WikimediaCommons uploads. And this is your Wikipdia account. They are on two different sites that you log into seperately. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding Tito. I'm new to Wiki editing and the image error is frustrating me to no end. I can certainly prove that the image shown is wrong (he appears on various web sources) as Mills' appearance didn't change much his entire life. I happen to own the earliest known daguerreotype of him (c.1852) and he looks the same as he did in 1900.

I'm assuming the vetting process at the 'talk' page starts with a particular individual (designated monitor, experienced editor, etc.)and they move forward with the change from there ? I'll attempt to start the correction there and see what transpires. Thanks for the direction.

Best,

MichaelMercvapor (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding New Pages Based on Autobiographical Articles

Hello, I am the online media editor at Annual Reviews in Palo Alto. I am trying to find out what the policy would be for me to add new articles on Wikipedia. As part of Women's History Month, we are posting articles written by pioneering women in science. As we began to research them to provide our readers with some context, we've noticed that, much to our dismay, about a third of these women do not have a Wikipedia page explaining their work and contributions (whereas of course, their male collaborators all do). What would be the policy if, as employees of AR, we created general profiles for these women and added at the bottom their articles, which all go into details about their careers? Would that be acceptable? Thanks for your help. Anna Rascouet (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anna, welcome to the Teahouse! In my opinion, it would probably be ok as long as all the articles clearly demonstrated that the women scientists meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (in this case, WP:PROF would be the most relevant). It would be better to use the Annual Reviews article as a reference to support some of the article's details, rather than an external link, as that would reduce the appearance of an advert for Annual Reviews which might cause problems. You might like to look at the Wikiproject on Women Scientists and sound people out on its talk page for advice on specific articles you'd propose to create. Another thing you should probably do is to start a talk page for each article you create and clearly identify yourself there as an employee of Annual Reviews, so that others can evaluate any possible conflict of interest. Hope this helps, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does! Thank you for your help with all this, I'll do exactly that. Rascouet (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the desert article not have an edit tab to make improvements?

Why does the desert article not have an edit tab to make improvements?[1] KatieBoundary (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KatieBoundary, welcome to the Teahouse! Desert is semi-protected, which means it cannot be edited by people without accounts, people logged out, or those whose accounts are very new. (This is usually because the article got a lot of vandalism from people without accounts.) As you have an account, if you were logged in, the lack of edit tab is probably because your account is less than four days old. You can request edits on the talk page but to be honest it might be easier just to wait till your account qualifies! Hope this helps, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Espresso. I will just wait it out. KatieBoundary (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of pictures and copyright.

What does it mean when a template under a posted image in an article says the following:

This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law. According to Wikipedia's policy for non-free content, the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible. In particular, non-free media on Wikipedia should not be usable as substitutes for the original work. A high-resolution non-free image is questionable fair use and may be deleted per Wikipedia's copyright policy.

The size of an image may be reduced in an image editing program or by saving and re-uploading a suitably sized thumbnail.

Once a reduced version of this file has been uploaded, please replace this template with

.

What if the poster of said image DOESN'T reduce the size of said image? What can you do or who can you appeal to?METOKNOWONLY (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses content that has as free a license as possible. Non Free images must be a small file, low resolution version of the image. If the uploader does not compy it is likely the image will eventually be deleted. There is a notice board for this issues to be brought up at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers

Is it Wikipedia policy to include minor edits, experimental edits and every single edit for research and author attribution purposes? 182.189.44.226 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, don't know about research purposes but for attribution every edit, large or small is recorded. NtheP (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proper attribution is in fact a condition of the Creative Commons copyright licence that is used for the vast majority of content (including all original text) on all WikiMedia Foundation projects. Take a look at the text immediately above the "Save page" button at the bottom of the edit window. Roger (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is okay to only list the authors of significant material throughout the history of an article for attribution purposes. The relevant policy is this one; in it, under the section titled "Re-use of text under Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike", you can see some options that satisfy the attribution requirement. The usual way to do it is to provide a link to the Wikipedia page itself, but one of the alternatives reads as follows: "a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions." So, yes, it's all right for you to do that. It's probably best to err on the side of caution when deciding whether a contribution is small or irrelevant, but in most cases, it should be pretty straightforward. Cheers! Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me.

Hi there

would you please do me a favor, would please help to fix the References on this page, i mean like removing the numbers that came on the top of the References, cause i have been trying to remove it, but it so hard. So would you please hlep????

Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etiennebaheza (talk • contribs) 10:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Etienne, and welcome to the Teahouse! I assume the article to which you're referring is A.T.M JEFF. There are a series of footnote numbers arrayed at the bottom of the Filmography section, and I think that's what you mean.

The footnote numbers appear there because that's where the <ref> tags are located. Rather than just removing them, those tags should be moved into the article proper, immediately following the statement to which they apply.

If you need help with referencing, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources, and of course you can always ask for clarification here. Thanks!

-- Powers ^T 15:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth reading WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book Cover Image & Copyright

I want to add a few books(with their individual wiki page) to an author's page that already exists on wiki. But then I realized it is almost impossible to get Book Cover image that meets Wiki's requirements. Most of the books are still in copy right. Then I looked around and saw some existing book wiki page that simply uses book cover image that's not-free, but with low resolution, and with explanation that such cover won't impact book sale. Is that the standard way to go? or are there other ways to get nice Book Cover image for a book page? Ossobuco (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Teahouse! Yes, you can use low resolution images (if possible, image of book cover of first edition), but, don't add multiple images in one book cover! Another way is, you can contact the publisher (through their website's "contact" link and etc and request content permission, theoretically it is better option, practically you'll almost never hear back anything)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, okay, low res image it is. I will try to find first edition ones. Thank you so much! Ossobuco (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember to provide permissions of license if you are providing one and uploading as anything but "fair use". Book covers would need to have a fair use upload using a rationale . You can use Template:Non-free use rationale along with {{Non-free fair use in|image has rationale=yes}} as the license.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that non-free book cover images are OK in articles about the books themselves, but should not be used in articles about authors. See the the wording of Template:Non-free book cover.--ukexpat (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

destructive revert

Hi there, I just had two weeks of edits to an article reverted based on a spurious claim that my sources did not meet Wikipedia standards. In fact all my edits have been sourced with from established scholarly sources, or primary sources in the occult literature. The article I have created has been a marked improvement over the article that was there before. In fact I began editing the article because the article called for attention from an EXPERT on the occult tarot, of which I am. The sources that I have added to the article include

^ Ronald Decker and Michael Dummett, History of the Occult Tarot, London: Duckworth, 2002 ISBN 978-0715631225
^ Paul Huson Mystical Origins of the Tarot: From Ancient Roots to Modern Usage, Vermont: Destiny Books, 2004 ISBN 978-0892811908
^ Robert Place, The Tarot: History, Symbolism, and Divination, New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 2005 ISBN 978-1585423491
Ronald Decker and Michael Dummett. A history of the occult tarot, 1870-1970. London: Duckworth, 2002. ISBN 0715610147.
a b c d Michael Dummett. The Game of Tarot. London: Duckworth, 1980. ISBN 0715631225
R. Steele. A notice of the Ludus Triumphorum and Some Early Italian Card Games: With Some Remarks on the Origin of the Game of Cards,' Archaelogia, vol LVII, 1900. pp. 185-200
^ P.D. Ouspensky. The Symbolism of the tarot: philosophy of occultism in pictures and numbers. Dover Publications. 1976
^ Inna Semetsky. Tarot images and spiritual education: the three I’s model. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality. 16(3): 249–260. 2011
^ Eliphas Levi. The Key of the Mysteries. Translated by Aleister Crowley. Red Wheel/Weiser. 2002 ISBN 0877280789
^ John Beeb. A Tarot Reading on the Possibility of Nuclear War. Psychological Perspectives: A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought. 16(1): 97-106. pp. 97
^ Sallie Nichols. The Wisdom of the Fool. Psychological Perspective: A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought. 5(2): 97-116. 1974
^ Inna Semetsky. When Cathy was a Little Girl: The Healing Praxis of Tarot Images. International Journal of Children's Spirituality. 15(1): 59-72. 2010. pp. 59

I am relying extensively on DUMMETT who is a respected authority in the field. Can I just go ahead and undo the revert? and can I get a better explanation from the fellow who did the revert on why he would do that? Mike Sosteric PhD 23:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

the current revert takes it back to a time when wiki officials were calling for attention from an expert, when it less scholarly than it was after my intervention, and when the actual citations came primarily from occult authors themselves, and NOT established historical experts (like Dummett).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinatory,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot. Seems to be posted by User:Dr.Sosteric talk at 23:09, 11 March 2013‎ (UTC) sign added by Tito Dutta (contact) 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you'll notice that I kept most of your edit to the introduction, but not this section: [2], which if anything, should probably just be a single well written short paragraph. Note that you are expected to discuss the issue on the article talk page, as is highlighted in WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Welcome to Teahouse! Have you tried to discuss it with the editor or at its talk page? --Tito Dutta (contact)~~ Editor in question is already replying! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NO, you took out a substantial portion of the history of the occult and divinatory tarot, a history that is both sourced in established historical work, and relevant to the title of the document. You have stripped out tons of historical detail, all properly sourced, all relevant to the article, and all deeply informative and interesting to a Sociologist like myself. I have been building a history of the the occult and cartomantic tarot, providing links to primary sources, building a comparison of occult and cartomantic decks, incorporating reference suggestions by other users, and generally improving the scholarly quality of the article. I am doing this as part of my own research program into the tarot, and as part of an article I am writing entitled The Sociology of the Western Tarot, which I will publish in an established scholarly journal. If the article is too long now it can certainly be shortened after completion but your reversion lowers the quality of the article.

I began editing this article because in an earlier version of that article there was a call for expert attention

I thought I could contribute my scholarly expertise, training, and the research I was currently doing to improving the article. I am doing this as part of my research at Athabasca University into the scholarly utility of the wiki (see my talk page "The Revolution that is" for a research note that hopefully be published in the International Review of Research into Open and Distance Education (currently under review). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.Sosteric#Dr.Sosteric.2C_you_are_invited_to_the_Teahouse.

You have reverted to a version of the article contemporaneous with that appeal, and removed that appeal to make it look as if the article is now an improvement over my contributions, which it is not. If you have a concern with article length you should have raised that on my talk page and asked me to deal with it, rather than stomping in an undoing clos to forty hours of research labour. You should also have identified the specific "self published" sources you refer to (there may be one, which I'm more than happy to take out). But again, a note on my talk page would have shown more respect for my work than you have shown.

You're not making a good case for the scholarly utility of the wiki when you stomp in like that and just erase the contributions of a scholar hard at work on the article. I am quite offended and put off by this.

Mike Sosteric PhD 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)\\

ok, i read the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and will move this into the talk page. I'm shacking my head though at the extra work this is creating for me just because you didn't bother to carefully check the citations I added to the document, or ask about the historical detail before you went ahead and reverted. The sections you deleted had the most authoritative sources in the entire article.

Please consider moving this content dispute to the article's talk page. If you can not reach consensus there, seek dispute resolution. Thanks — nerd fighter 01:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I think I would be a good rollbacker, using the function to help me patrol new pages more efficiently. However, I definitely don't think I've been around long enough to apply for rollback, seeing my account is 11 days old. What would be a good time to wait before I apply? Revolution1221 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoem to Teahouse! In my opinion, wait for 2 months and make 1000+ edits and 100+ reverts before applying. Now, use tool like WP:Twinkle. You can enrol at WP:CVUA --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Revolution1221, to add a little to that, there are no hard and fast requirements for rollback, although like Tito said you have a higher chance of getting it if you have more experience here. The rollback granting admin will be looking mostly at your ability to clearly distinguish vandalism from good faith edits. To allow that, the more experience you have at anti-vandalism, the better. Chamal ^T•C 00:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to add interwikis (after the launch of Wikidata)

I have not followed it properly. Can someone tell me how to add interwikis now for new articles? Should I edit the Wikidata page? --Tito Dutta (contact) 21:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Go to the Wikidata entry, scroll to "List of pages linked to this item", click "[add]" then enter the language (it will provide a dropdown list as you type and automatically provide the country code), then fill in the exact name of the article on the other language Wikipedia. As soon as you save, the entry here (and at all other language Wikipedias) should display the language you added. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! And how I'll add the Wikdata entry in the new article, for example this bn:হ্যানসেন ক্লার্ক, the English article has been updated, not the Bengali one! Good wishes!--Tito Dutta (contact) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're showing now after I purged the Bengali page's cache (I clicked edit, then change the end of the URL from &action=edit to &action=purge, and then clicked return). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of DYK credits

Is there any list somewhere (Toolserver) where list of DUK credits received by an editor is listed? (Searching in talk page is not very helpful!) --Tito Dutta (contact) 21:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe such a tool exists. However, if you looked through Toolserver or WM-Labs you might find one. §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 23:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any such tool, but a lot of regular DYK contributors keep their own lists. Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs lists many (though not all) of the contributors with at least 25 credits for creation/expansion or nomination, with links to their personal lists. Hope this is of use to you! Espresso Addict (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

original research

I read somewhere on WIKI that you can't include original research. I'm ok with that but does somebody know where the official policy statement is? Mike Sosteric PhD 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

Mike, the page you're after is Wikipedia:No original research or WP:OR as it's commonly abbreviated. NtheP (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK!! 198.53.88.157 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Houston article

Hello there,

I am wondering why this article was declined. I provided reference and links as requested. Not sure what the issue is?I have been working on this article for a while and I am very confused on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alexis_Houston

This the first page I have ever built and I thought it would much easier.

Thanks so much Judy 2604:2000:C000:3E00:CA2:3491:6B52:16FE (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Judy. I suggest that you study WP:MUSICBIO, which is our guideline on notability of musical performers. It is important to have properly formatted references to reliable sources that give significant coverage to the performer. Almost all blogs, except those few with professional fact checking and editorial control are unacceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia, and should be removed. Sources that discuss unsubstantiated rumors are problematic, since they reflect poorly on other people, Matt Lauer in this case. Any claim likely to be challenged must be referenced to a reliable source. It may be that this person doesn't yet meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but I am withholding judgment on that for now. Good luck and feel free to ask for clarification if anything I have said isn't clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Judy. here you will find the Google News search for your subject. I am sorry to say I don't have the time right now to read any of the listings, but it is there that you will find reliable sources for your subject. It is of course, not the only place, but reliable sources are sources that are in some way fact checked, like newspapers (or their web equivalents), magazines or books. You can try a Google Book search, but for younger subjects, that will generally not get you many results. For the things in the websearch to be of use for showing notability, they have to be primarily about your subject, not just quoting her on another subject. And keep in mind, when we say notability here at Wikipedia, we are referring to the specific standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia (in this caseWP:MUSICBIO), not to the person's importance or fame. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, that is, we only write about what others have written about. So in order for an article to be included, you have to show that others are writing about it. I hope that simplifies this a bit for you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films:_numbers How do I undo it??

I discovered the following edit recently. Somebody had edited the list of movies and reversed the last two digits of the dates on several movies!! For example, a film made in 1907 became a film made in 1970!! Unfortunately several changes had been made on top of this change as people slowly fixed the damage. I tried to undo these changes so I could get rid of the vandalism change; however, I can't seem to undo the changes in a way I am allowed to change back the real damage. It keeps saying I need to do this manually!! Any suggestions????

23:55, 26 February 2013‎ 173.237.99.9 (talk)‎ . . (21,145 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (undo) Bobnuckolls (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted your message. The spaces at the start of lines stopped us from reading the message. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've simply reverted to the last good version before the vandalism, and reapplied the removal of the now-redundant inter-wiki language links, which was the edit done after the vandalism. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock Upike students

Hey--could somebody unblock the University of Pikeville IP address? My students in the global education program are not being allowed to create accounts. My courses are duly registered with the global education program and everything. Please unblock us. I'm going to copy this message as an unlogged in editor so that you can see what IP I'm talking about.70.159.38.3 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. The IP you're editing from isn't blocked, and as far as I can see never has been [3]. If it were blocked, you wouldn't be able to edit on this page. You might be able to get more clarification as to why your students are having problems by posting to the Education noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I see someone from the Education program has just responded on your talk page (User_talk:Georgiasouthernlynn#Wikipedia Education Program, Spring 2013). Did it help? Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

I want to know that why minor edit like commons delinker : File abc has been removed, it has been deleted from commons by xyz and other minor edits like this are used to kept in edit history. They are of no use to why? Please explain this to me.Farhajking (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Some minor edits may or may not seem obvious as to why they would kept in the history section, but all contributions, changes, alterations, additions and any work done on an article is copy protected with a Creative Commons atribution license. This requires that all contributers be attributed for their edits. The history of each article is that attribution and will contain every single edit that has not been permanently removed for any particular violation of policy or license requirements. I hope this helps. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about common delinker edits about copyrighted images, that is of no use. Farhajking (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No use to you perhaps, but if you are the one who uploaded the copyright violation in good faith, without realising it, it might be nice to see in the edit history what happened to the image. This way it also allows others the ability to see as well. Its called "transparancy". In this manner, everything can be traced back.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can disable minor and/or bot edits in your watchlist if you wish; use the "Hide" options at the top of the list or change the Watchlist settings in your Preferences. (They will still be visible in page histories, however.) Yunshui 雲‍水 11:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually, i've found it useful to track down images that were migrated to commons and deleted. so i migrate them back to wikipedia with a "fair use" where appropriate. without an electronic trail, you might never find them since they may have been deleted from the web. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in multiple refernces to the same footnote

Hello, I am trying to elaborate the references in my sandbox-article on Ilona Harima. Don't understand why it seems to be impossible to add footnote nr 1 to multiple places although I'm trying to obey the instructions! Please help me Marjarau (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite possible and is recommended practice! It can be accomplished by giving the reference a name in the tag, for example <ref name="NAME">REFERENCE</ref>, with NAME being a character string of your choice and REFERENCE being the reference itself. Then, to use the same citation again, simply type <ref name="NAME"/> on its own, with no ending </ref> tag but paying special attention to the "/" after the name you've given it.

—Strachkvas (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I succeeded! I was trying to attach the ref tag ending too, that was my mistake. One more question: I'd like to add page number in the footnote marker of two of the notes. Is there an uncomplicated way to add it in an easy form f.example p.xx , asks Marjarau (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! There is template which is specially designed for citing books: Cite book which you can use like this:

<ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |title= |url= |accessdate= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page= |pages=}}</ref>

There you can fill the parameters which you want and you can leave out which you don't want. For example if you want to write the page number as page 2 just fill the page field like this: |page= 2. Full documentation for this template is here .If you have any more questions just ask us again. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 09:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marjarau, if you are saying you want to add the page numbers to the footnote marker itself (the one that looks like this: ^[1]), you can do that by using the {{rp}} template. There are other ways to do this as well, and you can take a look at Help:References and page numbers for examples. However, most of our articles use an entirely different style, like the one used in USS Arizona (BB-39), one of our featured class articles. Of course, it's up to you to decide what style you want to use. Chamal ^T•C 09:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used the last suggestion rp template. It was very easy with a clear result. My article is a short one, at least at this stage with only 3 references used. I'll save the other suggestions too, they will surely be helpful for possible future use.

Thanks! Marjarau (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on how to write an article about a sensitive topic which would need other editors to read all the sources to judge it properly

Hi, I've come here to ask for some friendly advice on a difficult topic. I've never posted here before although i've made about 4,000 edits over 3 years.

I wrote an article on a difficult and sensitive topic, and it has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. It is now userfied at User:Oncenawhile/Definitions of Pogrom.

The two main questions raised in the AfD were whether it was notable enough as a standalone topic and whether there was any A+B=C synth. Most editors thought they knew the answer to these questions, perhaps due to the sensitivity of the topic, but few if any read the actual underlying sources on which the overall gist of the article was based. That of course leaves me unsatisfied, primarily because i was unable to convince editors to invest the time to read the scholarly works to allow them to come to a more considered view. In other words, because i feel almost noone bothered reading the main underlying sources, I have no idea whether the decision to delete was really right.

My question for the teahouse is, assuming for the sake of argument that my belief in the underlying veracity of the article was correct, what could i have done to convince editors and commentators to actually read the underlying sources before taking a view in the debate?

For the avoidance of doubt, my question for the teahouse is NOT whether you agree or disagree with the AfD - that bridge has been crossed and I have accepted it - and so i don't think it's worth anyone's time here going over it again. I just want to learn what to do differently next time so i end up with proper closure.

Thanks in advance for any advice or thoughts on on this.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe this is not of much help, but you could just ask them nicely to read them before taking part in the AfD! Cheers. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 04:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, everyone will have seen that Pogrom exists and is notable, so they'll already be wondering if another article in that area is needed. Then they'll have seen "Definition" in the title, and they'll have thought that "Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary", and wondered if this article is going in the wrong direction. I suppose that an article 'Teahouse' would easily be accepted; 'Teahouse discussions' would be accepted with more difficulty; and 'Definitions of teahouse discussions' would get short shrift. Hope this helps you a little. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One could just as easily ask for "Advice on how to get an editor to understand that the community has carefully considered the editor's proposals and have decided they are not improvements". I am one of the editors who !voted at that AFD and I read the sources. Fourteen fellow editors of the person asking this question agreed that the proposed article should not exist as a stand-alone article (!voted to delete or merge), and that list included: four admins, six editors with over 20,000 edits each, and at least five editors with GA or FA articles under their belts. That's a group of editors representing a lot of Wikipedia editing experience. It's a terrible assumption of bad faith to assume that the only reason the AFD result was delete was that nobody read the sources. It is probably time for the editor asking this question to drop the stick and back away from the horse. Zad68 20:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

external editing

I am making heavy duty chances and additions to an article on the divinatory tarot. I would like to make the changes in an external editor, collect them over a period of a few days, and then upload a large set rather then just adding too many edits. Is there an editor I can use for that? I tried windows notepad but it through in a bunch of line feeds or something that messed up the formatting of the pageMike Sosteric PhD 21:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

Hi Dr. Sosteric. Have you considered pasting the text into your sandbox and working on it there in semi-privacy? You can create a subpage in your userspace for it if you wish by typing User:Dr.Sosteric/page name into the search box and clicking the red link that this produces.--Charles (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did ont think of that, but what a great idea! I just don't want to bog the wiki down by adding data to an already big database. but maybe that's not a primary concern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space is not a problem. Using the preview button is a good way to avoid saving a lot of similar pages though and saves space. By working there you can use wiki formatting and see how the finished product will look. Happy editing.--Charles (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

updating statistics that change often

for example what is the etiquette about updating say a footballs amount of goals scored. what if two people decide to update a footballers goal tally and the end result is they add two goals between them when there should be one? Oliveriocastro (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! You could reference a reputable sports news website that keeps an up to date tally, and add it as a reference. — nerd fighter 19:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes published sources are indeed needed. You cannot sit in front of the telly making instant updates while watching a match. That would be original research which is not allowed.--Charles (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information that changes often should be specified using the "As of" template: "{{As of|13 March 2013}} John Doe had scored a total of 215 goals for the Super Slammers" which will display as "As of 13 March 2013 John Doe had scored a total of 215 goals for the Super Slammers". The "as of" should be written in lower case if it is not at the start of a sentence. The template will add the page to a category for articles with potentially outdated content - which alerts editors to check for updates. Roger (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users blanks my page

Hi all, yesterday I started to create an article about the now defunct company Inkworks, who was the world's leading manufacturer of non-sports trading cards until they ceased in 2009. Today I realized that an anonymous user (IP address 97.101.84.99) simply blanked my complete draft. I was shocked, but next thing I saw is that I luckily could undo this form of vandalism. My question is: how can I be prevent anonymous trolls like the one above simply blank my page and delete all it's content??? Would you suggest to copy the draft to my HD for security reasons? You can view my draft here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/_Inkworks,_Inc. Thanks in advance for your help! It's much appreciated :-)Estephano80 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse! Sometimes, articles do get protected, but only if the vandalism continues for a long time or is severe. If you wish, you can request protection of your article, but you will yourself be unable to edit then, as even with semi-protection, your account will need to be 4 days old to edit it.^King Jakob _C2 16:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your fast reply. So I guess I leave it at this for the moment, but if the vandalism continues, I'll take your advise regarding the protection. I couldn't upload the company's logo and certain scans of trading cards last night. I guess that's got also something to do with this 4 days limit after one's registration, isn't it???Estephano80 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you guessed, image uploading has similar restrictions (4 days old account and a minimum of 10 edits, to be specific). Also, we don't usually protect articles unless there is repeated severe vandalism. In most cases we just revert those edits. Regarding your previous question about backing up your draft to your local HD, you don't need to do that as Wikipedia keeps a record of all past versions of a page. Regarding the image uploads you wanted to do, please note that most such images are copyrighted. Wikipedia uses copyrighted images only in very particular circumstances, and even then are controlled by a strict set of requirements. Those are a little too detailed to describe here, but you can read the details here. Chamal ^T•C 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chamal, thanks for your reply. I don't mind if I can only upload photos after 4 days past my registration. There's still so much text I need to add to my draft that my article won't be finished within the next 1 or 2 weeks.

Regarding the copyright of company's logos, I already read into the requirements last night. The logo can be uploaded as "fair use" because it's an article about the history of a now defunct company. Thanks again for your help. If I need further assistance with my article, I will get back to you guys on here. Thanks :-) Estephano80 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that depends. If it is an actual logo it will have the circled "C" next to it. If there is a circled "R" it is a registered trademark and does not have the same protection. Inkworks has a trademark [4] and therefore does not have to be uploaded under "fair use", but as a {{trademark}}. For more detail see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Use of graphic logos. Happy editing!

That is completely and totally wrong. The use of TM, (C), or (R) has no bearing on whether a logo is copyrighted or not. If it's copyrighted, it can only be uploaded as fair use, regardless of whether or not it's a registered or unregistered trademark. Powers ^T 01:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Helsinki-Vantaa Airport to Talk:Helsinki Airport merge

Hello. This is my first time posting a question here, as I have never faced a thing like this within my 6,400 edits. Helsinki-Vantaa Airport was moved to Helsinki Airport however, their talk pages seem to be different. What to do in this situation - should I just copy/paste the old talk page content to the new one and ask talk page to be deleted? Thank you. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Teahouse! I can see three options

The talk page can be kept as it is (if the topics are different and does not suit in the other talk page)
The content of the first talk page can be merged with the second talk page (as you have suggested, if all the discussions are on same topic, one can copy paste, another thing can be done- history merge)
The talk page cane be deleted (this is also an option as a part of housekeeping, but I don't think and suggest this one) --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 17:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dashed box?

Hi!

Whilst editing my user page, I have fond that in one of my sections I now have a light blue dashed box around some of my text and was wondering what it is and how I can get rid off it?

cheers Rachel L Fisher (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel, I think you have fixed it for yourself but what you had was a line of text that started with a space and the software interprets this Ada command to tray all following text as a simple string with no formatting, line breaks etc, just a box outline. If you do want to indent text then start the line with a colon or series of colons. Each one will indent your text one step. NtheP (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words when you spaced down you indented and that created:

this

To avoid that always remember that if you want an indent to appear like

this

always remember to add a colon like

:this

The more colons you add like

::this

the further indented it will be like

this

We add a colon to indent to make a first reply to a comment and add more each time another comment is made to see the flow of the discussion. Generally you stop indenting to start a fresh unrelated post within the same thread.

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cheers I did fix it by myself but seriously Thanks for the reason why it happens it helps better to understand the workings of Wikipedia Rachel L Fisher (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes

I had made many mistakes in the past when I was new to Wikipedia like leaving edit summary empty, experimental editing on articles , uploading copyrighted images that gets deleted after sometime by commons delinker. But now, I am well familiar with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Does these types of mistakes affect my account reputation. Farhajking (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Course not, everyone was a new editor at one point in time.

— -dainomite 08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With 50 edits and a few months of participation, most would still consider you new. What matters is the future. I suggest that you devote yourself to improving the encyclopedia in a genuine way, and minor errors of the past will be forgotten. When you have made significant contributions, you will be evaluated on those. Welcome, and I wish you luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance

As i am new comer in writing article on wikipedia. i just need some one to guide me in what structure article has to be created and how many references do i have submit for that article.. ?

Thanks Vishnuram7 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vishnuram and welcome to the Teahouse.

This is far to complicated an issue to answer in a single post. I suggest that you would benifit from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! For the structure of the article, WP:MOS will be of great help. WP:REFB is the best place for referencing. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 07:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -Amadscientist. I just try it out. That will be fine for me to learn. Vishnuram7 (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -Ushau97. For references which will be useful for me. Vishnuram7 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to remove ip address if you edited without logging in

How to remove ip address if you edited without logging inMaggieneal (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! Oversighters have the technical ability to suppress usernames and IP adresses from article histories. I cannot promise that this will work because oversighters have to be very careful what they suppress. — nerd fighter 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the oversighters privately, and they are required by their policy to oversight the IP address for you :) This means that nobody except the small (no more than 30ish) Oversight team can view the IP, and they're trusted with the tools because they won't release it to anyone. Don't worry, it happens to me too sometimes :) gwickwire^talk_editing 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying the relevant part of Wikipedia:Oversight/FAQ for your convenience

Q: How do I request oversight or suppression?

A: Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight which may be summarized:

Use this form if you have a Wikipedia account with Wikipedia email enabled (click here to enable account email);
Use your normal email and write to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org;
Contact an oversighter personally, ensuring you do not repeat any sensitive information on-wiki.

Q: I have a Wikipedia account, but I forgot to log into it before editing, and now my IP address is attached to my edits. Can you remove it?

A: Yes. The IPs of account-holders are considered private information. You may contact an oversighter to request suppression of your IP. Please note that this courtesy is not intended to allow registered editors to edit logged out to avoid scrutiny of their actions; it is intended only for accidental use of an IP rather than an account.

I hope this will help you. Thank you···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 18:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best principles when creating an article about a person

Hi wiki users,

What are the best principles to follow when creating an article about an author to ensure the article doesn't get deleted? MatthewBeech92 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! The first thing to do is to find enough reliable sources (newspapers, books, etc.) to support the subject's notability. If there at least a few of these sources, the article should be able to stand. If the subject of the article is still alive, it is especially important to use sources. There are one or two other guidelines to follow, like maintaining a neutral point of view. Good luck, ^King Jakob _C2 17:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guys (Gals?)

I'm brand spankin' new to this...hate to say I'm unsure how to reach an oversighter. Just went to the page and tried a few (hit talk). Advice on getting a message to one?75.84.246.254 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the above section #How to remove ip address if you edited without logging in would help you too.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 18:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the we are talking about a living person or anyone who has died within the last 115 years we have a policy page that covers the manner in which to deal with Biographies of living persons. There are many guidelines, not just one or two. No direspect to King jakob. Please take a minute to review our policies and guidelines. If you have any questions or concerns you may ask on my talk page. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution to article

Is there any way to convince the readers to improve a particular article?Farhajking (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose the most common way would to put a "complainer" template at the top of the page addressing a particular issue, such as Template:Expand article, Template:Copy edit, Template:Refimprove, etc. You could add a desperate plea to the talk page as well, but not many people read talk pages. The only real way to get things done, imo, is doing them yourself.

—Strachkvas (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually an interesting question. You see we seperate "reader" from "editors". There is really a conserted effort to keep that seperation. A reader is someone who comes to the encyclopedia to look for information contained in an article and an editor is one who creates that content. If you are interested in encouraging readers to become editors you may have a real uphill climb...but I encourage it myself. Good question. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On this subject I have a related question. A recent, and confirmed, news article has arisen which I believe is significant enough to be added to the Wikipedia article for Dennis Bergkamp. Within the talk page for this article I have asked the wider community for their thoughts on the development before any changes are made to the article. However, should no one respond am I able to make this change myself given I have links to credible, official and usable sources online too? Cmhardi1 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources for notability

CLOSED

The following discussions have been closed. Please do not modify it.

I submitted an AFC about a perfectly notable film with tons of google hits and plenty of reviews in The Guardian, The New York Times, etc., and existing mentions in other Wikipedia articles. I was surprised there was no article.

The AFC was declined because there was an insufficient number of sources.

I get sent to a link about notability that says nothing about the number of sources.

How many sources do I need? 5? 17? 29.5? It doesn't say anywhere, yet, here my article on a notable topic is rejected because I don't have the right number of sources.

I no longer care about the article.

I would like a number for future references though. 7? Is that enough? Is 16 too few?

How many sources, and, of course I would like a link to community consensus about the number.

Thanks, -68.99.89.234 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse :) There's no set number of references. It's however many it takes to prove to us that it deserves an article. A general rule of thumb is longer articles need longer reference lists, i.e. more references. Hope this helps! gwickwire^talk_editing 03:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

If there is no set number, stop telling me there is. And, since you don't want to talk to IPs, please don't continue participating in this discussion. It's rude. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "general number" is not a set number. Stop making accusations about my communication or this conversation will be stopped. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not having a conversation with you; your hostility is obvious, and I asked you twice to stop contributing and let someone else help me out in this. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome! I am confused by the article in question; if I were the reviewer, I probably would have accepted it as it seems reasonably well cited to me... especially compared to some other articles, but that's beside the point. Perhaps you could ask the reviewer on his/her talk page why he/she rejected it or did not feel the topic was notable. As for a general number, I think four independent, reputable sources that dedicate non-routine coverage to the topic is plenty, though that can definitely vary on a case-by-case basis. Thanks for the question, and sorry for your disappointment! Go Phightins! 03:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I can't ask the reviewer anything on his talk page because the reviewer does not allow IPs to post on his talk page--so, he should not be doing AFC. The film is quite notable, extensively reviewed by major newspapers, and the article was a fine stub on the topic. I will just crowd the director's article instead. Random number, 4? No set number elsewhere? Two is okay in one policy page? Again, just hostile to non-members, imo. And now The Guardian and The New York Times are questionable sources? You don't want to work with IPs, then please don't. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a notice at the very top with a link to a page you can post on if you'd like to. I will respond there as if it were my own talkpage. They didn't cover it in the depth and as many sources as I felt was needed. You blanking the page angrily and walking away in a huff didn't help either. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't walk away in a huff. I am still sitting at the same computer. I also didn't blank the article angrily; I blanked it with purpose. I didn't see any notice on your talk page, and is that just to keep IPs separate? It doesn't change the issue; you don't want conversations with IPs, you won't allow another letter to assist me with this matter. You won't say what number is required, and it's not your decision anyhow, it's supposed to be community consensus. And, as for blanking the page, it took me longer than it took you to speedy it. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm supposed to edit the red link to post a question to you? I'm an IP, I can't edit red links. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article only had two, questionable sources before I declined it the first time, added tons more, then blanked the article. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I blanked the article. That's all I was interested in was including an article on a notable topic that is missing. You want a relationship, with someone you won't allow to speak to you on your talk page. I can't win. I have to blank the article now that you're involved, because the article is off the table with you. You sure got that speedy up mighty quickly, too, didn't you? -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit heated. 68.99.89.234 please don't take offense, we are all just volunteers trying our best. There are "several" options available to you please see WP:AFTERDELETE.Moxy (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been deleted, so I don't know what this post is about, but at least it was to a subheading. Thanks. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Go Phightins! for the answer. I would like to know the number here. This is supposed to be a friendly place to ask questions, and User:qwickwire is anything but friendly and cannot take me to community consensus to support anything he says.

I asked quickwire not to respond, because he is curt and is citing pages that do not offer the information I am seeking. I know we are all volunteers here; in spite of the way I am being treated by qwickwire, I am a volunteer here also. And I was trying my best to create an article about a topic with hundreds of thousands of google hits, being surprised none of them were the Wikipedia article, a useful place to go for quick general information.

I would appreciate response from anyone besides qwickwire so I don't run into this again. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(restored post) Have you tried talking to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film about this? They are a group of editors that have an interests in this topic overall. Give them a shout out - tell them about the movie. I will join you there and help with references and lets see what they think. May get a few involved and have a great new article if they believe its notable.Moxy (talk) 11:32 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Moxy, thanks for the idea. I don't know why you deleted it, but I did post there. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misunderstood what was going on. Will meet you there.Moxy (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't argue here. The Teahouse is not a place for disagreements. It is rather a friendly place for new or (experienced) users to ask questions. As for the AfC submission, I don't think it should have been declined with Needs more sources to establish notability. The submission have got enough reliable sources. And I don't think it have got a notability issue. And once again, please stop the arguments here. Thanks. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 04:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's arguing? Moxy posted a great idea, I took him up on it, qwickwire finally stopped posting. A bit of a dead horse overall. But, yes, the film is completely notable and should not have been declined in the state I submitted it. The film folk, however, have offered, through Moxy, to take care of it. done. 68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's great that you have moved the issue to WT:FILM. And I see that User:Floquenbeam have also declined the speedy. That means you have got good chances to submit it back and move it to article space. Maybe I might think of reviewing it, if you submit it back with good faith. Regards. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I think the film folks are already on top of it. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

FWIW, I made the link at the top of glickwire's page for IP's to use live. I am sure that his intention was not to avoid talking to legit IP editors especially those creating articles at AfC. He has had some persistent vandalism on his talk page from IP editors, so it is semi protected so IP editors cannot post there. As I am sure you know, blocking is not a very effective tool to use on IP editors who commit persistent vandalism; changing your IP is as simple as unplugging your modem and plugging it back in! so when a page is hit with persistent vandalism from IP editors, it is semi protected, which stops all editing from IP editors. To date, no-one has found a better solution, and talk pages are only semi protected in extreme cases, so I am sure someone had been vandalizing glickwire pretty heavily. You could have actually made that link live too, but no-one is knocking you for not knowing that. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately because it is redlinked on his page, it was not obvious that I could have edited it. A lot of editors include somewhat rude jokes on their pages; I have seen fake "You have a new message" signs, and encountered a joke redirect from an editor, etc., etc., so I didn't bother to click. Blue-linking it might help. It is something to consider when an editor has so much vandalism from IPs that they have to block IPs from editing their talk page, maybe they should take a break from AFCs for IPs until the vandalism quiets down. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up, though. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks, if this offends anyone, but this needs to be carried on elsewhere if more needs to be discussed. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taken where, where it was already taken five hours ago? Why did you call stuff extended content that wasn't and hide it? Friendly often means respectful. I am offended to be told to carry this on elsewhere after it had obviously been ended here and taken elsewhere. It seems unfriendly and unnecessary.

I created a fine article, I got told randomly to read one long page, directed to an unrelated page, told I could edit a red link, then told, no, I should have read another long page that isn't relevant to the problems with the article that don't exist, now I'm being criticized for my judgement on another page, for my judgement about an article that I read and the critique didn't read, you close my comments as "extended comments," and now you tell me that I need to carry on a conversation elsewhere, when the conversation ended hours ago, because it was moved elsewhere on on the solid advice of a helpful editor, which it clearly states here.

If this is not a friendly place, don't claim it is. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am done here, now, officially, no need for anyone else to criticize me about anything here. The criticism has been moved. And I stopped participating in it in its new place. -68.99.89.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe no further discussion should take place about this issue here at the Teahouse and hence I have closed it. 68.99.89.234, your article have been created and no need to talk about it further if you don't want to. If anyone wants to further discuss this issue, discuss it at the appropriate place. If you don't want further discussion, fine, then stop. Once again, if there is anyone who wants to discuss about this issue, please do not continue it here. Thanks. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]