Wikipedia:Teahouse

Dbfirs, 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

Why Wikipedia:Lua instead of Javascript?

Hi, as part of my poking around, I came across a WP project that allows embedded code in WikiMedia pages (see Wikipedia:Lua and Lua (programming language)). I'm wondering what the purpose of the language is, and why Javascript wasn't used, instead, especially since Javascript is far more established and rich in the web world? I'm also interesting in learning more, if anyone can point me to more details. Thanks --FGuerino (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding a picture

If I want to upload any picture at all to Wikipedia, do I have to upload it first? If so, how do I upload one? Tambelon (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Posting an article

Hi - How do I link and post a profile created a short while ago? How does this become active? I have created a well linked profile at - User:David O Miller thanks, david dm (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

User:David O Miller should be your user page, with information about yourself. It looks as if it is trying to be an article about someone else, so I would suggest that you move it to a user subpage at (for example) User:David O Miller/Jeffrey Owen Miller. You need to read WP:Your first article, and also need to understand that we don't use in-line WP:external links in the article text. What you need instead are references, so try reading WP:Referencing for beginners. I've given you a few other useful links on your user talk page. May also be worth reading Wikipedia:Biography. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Why admins keep missing the source ?

Hello, I recently created an article for creation and submitted for review, there is a complete media/newspaper article set for authentication on each word written. and the same is mentioned in references. the Media set is uploaded on a website and link is given but the Admin missed that part and asked that there's no media/newspaper article to support the same and declined the article. and asked to add more info. But the info required is already there which he missed to see and now the status says "on wikibreak till 1st Oct"

So, now i added the newspaper articles on my article itself but they're not even 20% of total thats present on mentioned link.

So how to make the admin have a look at the sources ?? All info on the article is supported by evidence from newspaper articles. Link to article :

Coolvipcandy (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Other users will doubtless reply in due course, but I am worried that you seem to have uploaded copies of newspaper articles to Wikipedia. This looks at first glance to be a blatant copyright violation, and if so you must remove those files immediately. If you wish to use newspaper articles as references, you can cite them giving the relevant details in the cite news template, but you must not copy them to Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I should add that I have marked the files for deletion in seven days unless evidence of permission from the actual copyright holders is received. I find it pushing credibility that the press articles and screenshots of news items have actually been released into the public domain by the various news agencies and newspapers involved. There are also a couple of photographs where the uploader - who is also almost certainly the subject of the images - claims to be the author of the images, which seems highly dubious. BlackberrySorbet 08:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You should also take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines about autobiographies (We have biographies here, not autobiographies. Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact) and Wikipedia's Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. BlackberrySorbet 08:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@David Biddulph : Thank you for info. Images from newspaper articles removed and instead citation added. Coolvipcandy (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletionism?

I would like to understand more about what I can only assume is the deletionist philosophy which I have encountered in my short time on Wikipedia thus far. I first encountered this through an aberrant bot edit that was made on my own talk page, which I challenged and thereby learned about the culture surrounding hard redirects. Fair enough. However, I then followed the bot operator's talk page and came across this issue and the whole AfD process.

I'm curious about why there is such a push to delete content from Wikipedia? Is it getting too full? Is server space limited? Could someone explain the example I gave, in an effort to help me understand it all a bit better? It seems to me that, as a result of this particular AfD, there is now an unlinked entry on this page for "Onverse", the only unlinked entry I can see. Also, this bullet list now contains an unlinked entry. Why was all this necessary? This deletionist philosophy seems to me like a backward step for the encyclopedia as a whole. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 01:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, AugurNZ, welcome to Wikipedia! A lot of people have that reaction to what they term deletionism. But then, so-called deletionists would have a similar reaction to the opposite view; they would opine that having a bunch of barely-sourced articles on subjects nobody has ever heard of and about which nobody will ever care cheapens the encyclopedia by distracting from its true purpose as a reference work for "important" subjects. They say that having tiny, unwatched articles just provides more targets for people to sneak in vandalism, libel, pure spam, and the like, and creates an even greater burden on the volunteers, who must patrol that many more articles. They would prefer that the encyclopedia focus on what could be called quality over quantity.

Both sides have valid points, and neither side is entirely right or wrong. For that matter, no one person has to belong to only one camp, and nobody has to follow one side to its logical extreme. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response, Writ Keeper, and thanks for the welcome. In the table I linked to above, there are many examples showing redlinks to pages about, what could arguably be called peers or competitors of this "Onverse" game. Would it not have been appropriate to at least have left the link to the deleted Onverse page, giving the game equal standing with others in the list? Please understand, I have nothing at all to do with this game, I've never played it before, and only heard about it because I was following Salvidrim's talk page. The history of the page in question shows that Czar removed the link, citing the AfD in the edit summary. Why was that necessary? Now one of the entries listed in the table on that page seems, somehow, less than the others because it doesn't have a link, not even a redlink. How is that fair and neutral? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 02:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello AugurNZ and welcome to the Teahouse. I agree with pretty much all of what Writ Keeper said, and would like to offer some additional thoughts based on my own participation in 1645 Articles for Deletion debates in the last four years. I recommend that you (and any other new editor) read the Five Pillars, which describes the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia content ought to be verifiable, and should consist of summaries of what the range of reliable sources say about a topic. You could spend hours reading all the links on that page, and it would be time well spent for any serious, long-term editor.

In order to best meet the goals described in the Five Pillars, we need deletion procedures, to get rid of inappropriate content in a consistent and fair way, while keeping and improving appropriate content. We remove copyright violations immediately when they are discovered, and this is non-negotiable. Our notability guidelines, including the General notability guideline and a wide range of subject specific guidelines, are essential tools for evaluating articles. Those of us who participate in deletion debates regularly should have good internet research skills, including the ability to sift the wheat from the chaff, and rapidly find solid sources (if available) among all the crap online.

I am not a "deletionist" and philosophically welcome new content to the encyclopedia, even on what many might consider obscure topics. What is obscure to many readers may be educational, informative and interesting to some readers. If the topic is notable and the information in the article is verifiable, I will recommend keeping the article. Over four years, I have recommended keeping 45.4% of the articles I've evaluated, and deleting 47.6%. The others were mostly recommendations to redirect. So, I tend to be right in the middle.

In my experience, editors with reputations as either strong deletionists or strong inclusionists often find that more mainstream editors give little respect to their predictable opinions. I respect editors who take a nuanced view, and explain their recommendations carefully, with consideration for other opinions, and a willingness to change their minds when new facts come to light. That's how I try to conduct myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As for the specific matter, the deletion debate was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onverse. Consensus was that this game is not notable by Wikipedia standards. The function of a Red link is to designate what an editor reasonably believes to be a notable and verifiable topic, as a signal that an article should be written on that topic. Since we have already agreed that this topic is not notable for a freestanding article based on currently available information, we shouldn't red link that topic. If someone uncovers significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources, then a new, acceptable version of the article could be written. And if properly written and referenced, it would almost certainly survive attempts to delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Cullen, I appreciate the information. As I said in my introduction on the Teahouse, I have plenty of technical experience with wiki's, but I'm a n00b when it comes to the culture and community here on Wikipedia, so I am seeking insights like yours above to help me understand more of what it means to be a "Wikipedian". I guess the concern I had with what I saw in the "Onverse" issue was that it seemed to single out a particular game from the list and place a value on its worth as an article on Wikipedia, which seemed kind of subjective to me. Especially considering the number of similar games in the list which might also fail the test of "notability", yet which still remain, un-altered, un-deleted. Shouldn't such AfD procedures take into consideration the pages that link from / to such an article that is intended for deletion? Had the people reviewing the "Onverse" AfD looked at that list, or similar pages, it would surely have been clear that the "Onverse" page is no more or less deserving of deletion than any of its competitors, would it not? I'm not pushing for a review of this decision or anything, I'm just trying to understand it, as a way of understanding Wikipedia culture. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 03:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How do I delete a page in my sand box that has been submitted for publishing?

I no longer wish to publish on this topic. Chinton521 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Chinton521, and welcome to the teahouse. To get your draft deleted from your sandbox simply replace the page with {{Db-u1}} to have an administrator delete it under CSD:U1 (user requests user page deleted). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

An article I created is flagged as an orphan, when I don't think it is

Hello! Thank you for inviting me into the Teahouse.

My question is that an article I created about "Hedgehog Street" has been flagged as an orphan, but I know there are links I made to it from the "People's Trust for Endangered Species" page and someone else recently linked to it from the "European hedgehog" page. Is there something wrong with it?

Thanks a trillion! Professor Hog (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

--    L o g  X   16:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, although another editor fixed it already, anyone can remove a maintenance template (which is what the "orphan" tag is) by simply editing it off the page, as long as the problem has been solved. To check to see if an article is an orphan, just use the link on the left hand side of the page, "What links here". As long as there are two or more articles (not talk pages or project pages) linked to an article, it is not an orphan. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actor or actress?

Hi, Is there a policy on the naming of females who act? Are they called actors, or actresses, or is it optional? Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to vary. For example Judi Dench is described as an actor, whilst Emma Thompson is described as an actress. I would consider whether the woman has been noted to express any preference as to her job description. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You can read an essay expounding on this topic at Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. In short, gender-specific nouns are acceptable as long as they're in common use (words that have fallen into disus, like Negress or aviatrix, are best avoided, except in direct quotations). Powers ^T 18:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, LukeSurl and Powers ^T, your replies are very helpful. Cheers Melbourne3163 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Review

I stumbled upon articles that have serious issues that I don't know whether to add cleanup tags or nominate for deletion. Can someone take a look and decide? Pooja Vaidyanath and D. Imman -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pooja Vaidyanath has no sources for any fact in the article, and it's a biography of a living person. This is a problem. I've "PROD'd" it, which means it will be erased 10 days from now if nothing is done about this. Thank you for noticing this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

D. Imman on the other hand looks like a better article, though still not good. I would suggest fixing what you can, and then adding cleanup tags. When adding tags, please consider describing in detail the problems in the article's talk page so that other editors can be better informed to help fix the issues. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that experienced. So can I request you to do the needful? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In D. Imman, except for the filmography part, there are no references. Also there are too many images. Even those images seems to be taken from the subject's official website. But they have been uploaded to commons. I think it could be copyvio. If so, please tag the images accordingly. Thanks -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there actually a necessity for these many images? Assuming I'm a notable person willing to share my photos, does wikipedia accept me filling my article page with umpteen images just because they are free? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There is an older version of the article that contains more citations. Unclear if the sources are reliable or if the information is correct. DPRoberts534 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A few of them are dead links. And other few are those that are in filmography now. They too have used multiple times. The subject is definitely notable and reliable independent sources can be found. But the section "musical credibility" is more like a resume. There are too many images without any significance -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to LogX. Its been cleaned up now. I just think a tag could be added for more citations. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

help with vandalism

Please look at the article on Margaret Thatcher. There is some vandalism going on, which I have tried to revert once, but when look at the history it's been made to look as if I'm doing the vandalistic edits. I don't know how to handle this. Gravuritas (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Can you give us a diff for where you think the vandalism is, & where you think the history is making it look as if you are responsible? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

[[1]]- hope I've formatted that correctly- is the vandalism diff in question. Apologies because I said the Thatcher page and I should have said the Thatcher talk page.

This diff [[2]] then makes it look as if I've done the vandalism, but I think I've now worked out that the problem stems from my making an edit after the vandalism, but without noticing that the page had been vandalized. I think that's OK, isn't it?

Gravuritas (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You have realised that though your name appears on the left hand side of this diff, it doesn't mean that you were responsible for what is there, merely (as you said) that you were the last person to edit before that diff. As you realised, you need to go further back to see who actually wrote the offending material. Nothing for you to worry about, and you now know a bit more about reading diffs. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, and sorry for any bother. Gravuritas (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No bother at all. That's what the Teahouse is here for. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how to separate mass from magnetic current

ok although I have issued several pages of what some might call theories, maybe?as an avid scientist with my discoverys ,I am finding it nessesary that the pages given should be kept complete and in order preferably. as the field of science that I tred in has a lot of words terms and phrases that simply aren't made up yet. as in the terminology of this said subject heading. if you as a scientist would like to learn how the ancients lifted huge blocks, cut stone with persision, and levitated crafts,then I simply find it nessesary to follow in order the pages previously sent, otherwise to follow along or to share becomes quite pointless. im hoping you will consider this request ,and put it all together and in order, everthing leading up to these final pages, this technology is the most advanced knowledge that mankind will know,it was here and used 20 000 years ago by the ancient civilizations. you can believe what you want but this is realRonald sykes (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This question was moved from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse/Host lounge. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ronald sykes, welcome to the Tea House. It is Wikipedia's policy that articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. You should instead submit your research and findings to a suitable peer-reviewed scientific journal - which Wikipedia is not. BlackberrySorbet 08:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Canning Porn Star

In the featured story about Elizabeth Canning the third sentence seems to have been lifted from some porn magazine.142.197.232.83 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That vandalism was removed at 02:23 (UTC). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how to upload artist page

Hi!

I want to add an artist (musician, composer, singer) page to Wikipedia. It is formatted on my sandbox (without picture since I do not know how to add the right hand square with picture) on page. What do I do to get the info on my sandbox on a wikipedia artist page? The singer/composer's name is Marisela Verena. Please help me! thanks! Georgina FernandezGeorgina Fernandez (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Georgina, thanks for your question. When the article in your sandbox is ready, it can be moved to the article space using the move instructions here. However, I notice that your article is in Spanish, and contains many inappropriate external links. I would suggest submitting your article to Articles for Creation so that an experienced editor can review your article. But before doing so, please write the article in English because otherwise, it will be difficult for many editors to review it properly. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can find the Spanish Wikipedia at es:, so (after checking on their policies on things like external links and references) you may wish to submit your draft for review there. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Making sure my article passes review...

Hi Teahouse! I don't know if this is something that Wiki editing veterans do, but I have written my first Wiki article and I wanted to make sure it passed the review process. Can anyone read and give me suggestions or critique it. I am most concerned about my neutrality. I became familiar with this company and was interested in them. I went to find more info and realized they had no wiki page so I wrote a small page...stub?? When I step back from the article I feel like it's neutral because it's truthful facts, and I have references to support the article. I have read the tips on neutrality....but I've also read wiki editing tips that encourage writers to stand up for their subject. I need an objective eye. I'm hoping to make edits now so it will be in great shape when it finally comes up in the queue. Wiki Page is called "Haute Face" Thank you,Cmhauteps11 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cmhauteps11, welcome back! I read through your article, and unfortunately I see one problem that will prevent the article from being accepted, and another that may mean Wikipedia cannot have an article about the company. First, reviewers are expected to determine if the article content is promotional, and in general they have read a lot of articles and can tell if one stands out as overly promotional. Your article is an excellent advertisement for your company, but it is not encyclopedic in tone. The language used must objectively describe the company, products, and people as documented by independent reliable sources. Second, Wikipedia has guidelines that determine whether the subject warrants an article. In general, the article must reference at least one, but preferably multiple sources that are independent, reliable (not blogs), and provide in-depth coverage of the subject. The requirements for articles about companies are a bit more strict, specifying that product announcements and articles about business deals are not counted. It is not clear to me if the sources you referenced will meet that guideline. If coverage of the company does not meet the guideline, then the article will not be accepted no matter how much work you or I put into it. And that would be unfortunate, because I think that Wikipedia would benefit from having more articles about topics like yours. For detailed information about notability, see the policy page WP:CORP. From the backlog, it looks like you have about two days before your article is reviewed. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much DPRoberts534! I understand. Thank you for the link. I'm going to read the information, edit the text, and look for more external sources...and pray. :) Cmhauteps11 (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi DPRoberts534. First -I saw your edits. I SO much appreciate the time and energy you have given to helping me. Thank you!!! One of the reasons I wanted to do this article on this company is because they absolutely fill a long standing need in the cosmetic world. As a woman of color and a consumer, I have found that Haute Face offers products that actually work instead of making promises that are never kept. This is gold to me, and I think it’s worth talking about. The little companies need to be written about while they are on their way to becoming the next Chanels and Revlons of the industry. I want Haute Face to stay around and thrive because, as a women of color who buys and wears makeup, I need Haute Face in the market place to answer a need that has never before been answered correctly for me. Currently, it’s as if my complexion doesn’t even exist, and that’s not fair to me and women all over the world who struggle with this, daily, just like me. So...they deserve a page. I guess truth and passion about a subject may sound...promotional. I get that, but it’s still the truth. In keeping with Wiki’s editing tip to stand up for my subject - I just want to write about the truth. You clearly have so much expertise and experience at this. Can you tell me how I can get this done with the same protections and image protections (because the next thing I want to submit are photos) that Chanel and Revlon have for their company? I read Wiki policies on free use and limitations and such of images and logos, but I see other companies on Wiki that have their protections in place. How can I do that for this company as well? What can I do to make sure this article passes review with all of its protections in place?Cmhauteps11 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how do I close my wikipedia account?

How do I close my wikipedia account? Has anyone ever managed it? 8paxrex (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello :) If you're referring to your Wikipedia login information, it is not possible to delete accounts. You can just stop using it. If you're referring to a page, please see our deletion policy for the reasons a page is deleted. Note that pages are not deleted just because their subject wishes it. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 23:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! As Charmle said you can't just delete a Wikipedia account, however you could stop using your account and place Template:Retired({ {retired} }) on your userpage to notify others that you no longer active. ///EuroCarGT 00:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

how do I remove italics...

I am an instructor editing my course Wikipage and cannot seem to remove italics from any of the text I am editing. It shows up correctly when I save changes, but then returns to italic when I click "return to mainpage." Any thoughts/suggestions would be greatly appreciated... Emilykayhanks (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried clearing your browser's cache? Eric Corbett 22:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Emily! Agreeing with Eric that that's likely the issue—your computer is storing a local version of parts of the page in cache memory to save processing and increase speed so what you are seeing is the old version—please see WP:BYPASS for a page that provides instruction, if needed, on clearing it. If that does not work, then it could be a cache issue on the other end – the cache of the Wikipedia page itself, though this is more rarely the issue when this type of matter comes up. One way to purge the page cache is to click "edit source" at the top of the page and then change the url at the end from &action=edit to &action=purge and hit return. See WP:PURGE for more information. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't give a link to the page and without seeing the page it was impossible to say what the problem was, so the above guess is wrong. I looked at your contributions and saw the italics were on Education Program:Texas State University/POSI 5336 (Fall 2013). It was because you accidentally removed an apostrophe in the "You made it!" heading in [3]. That meant the ending italics code '' in the heading instead became a start of italics. The heading is displayed in the table of contents at Education Program:Texas State University/POSI 5336 (Fall 2013) so everything after that became italics. I have fixed it.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

we should update people's careers

on soap characters wiki's we should update there careers to show people what company the chacaters work at and keep the public updated on there current careersDavonct (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Davonct! Here at Wikipedia, one of our core beliefs is being bold. If you think something should be changed, then go right ahead and change it! Of course, being bold means that other people can "revert" your changes, or get rid of them. If you disagree with that, you may gently ask about it on their talk page. Remember to always be polite and assume that the person who reverted your changes is trying to improve Wikipedia as much as you are. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Davonct. Make sure you have reliable sources and don't put too much trivia.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about linking other Wikis

How can I link something to the Spanish Wikipedia. I know I knew it but I forgot. Thanks. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 18:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

H:IW should get you your answer eventually! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to inline links or the inter wiki list in the sidebar? DPRoberts534 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This requires editing Wikidata. From your previous comments, I believe this is impossible given your restricted connection. If you list which articles need linking, we can do this for you. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I am responding to a Signpost interview and I need to link a quote to Wikiproyecto:U2 (at the Spanish Wikipedia) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to link to a page on another project, you do it in the following form [[:language code:Page]], In this case [[:es:Wikiproyecto:U2]] yields es:Wikiproyecto:U2. Make sure you have the initial colon. If by "quote" you mean you need to link to a diff, you do that the same way you do in english Wikipedia, by putting the URL of the diff in between brackets. Ryan Vesey 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What are some ways that I can contribute and integrate myself into Wikipedia culture and etiquette?

Hello,

I've been a long time passionate user, and I recently decided to create an account. I want to find what I can do as a new editor to help the community achieve its goals, as well as to become familiarized with the nature of such goals. It's a vague objective, but WIkipedia is a very large project and I need somewhere to start. Thanks!--Qzply 16:27, 16 September 2013Qzply (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Qzply, welcome to the Teahouse! There are a lot of things you can do to get started. The Community portal has some good places to start (check out the "Help Out" section farther down the page). One thing that you might want to look in to is joining a Wikiproject, a group of editors working on a specific topic. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 14:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking that at the Teahouse Qzply! If you want to create or shape content, I suggest picking something you're interested in or something you're determined to help educate the world about. Recently I created a very very beginning draft at User:Biosthmors/Money and politics in the United States because I think it's an important topic. I want to learn more. And I want to teach the world about it. About 900 articles get created a day. And we have over 4.3 million so far. It is a gigantic project! Thanks for asking. =) Jackson Peebles was running a new page patrol school if I remember correctly. And he's listed at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. You could find someone to mentor you there! Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 15:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Qzply! There are plenty of articles out there that need more citations to reliable sources. If you have access to a source that others may not have, such as a book that's not on line, or a newspaper with a paywall, consider finding articles that are mentioned in it and adding references to the source, or improving the article with information from the source. Good luck! It's great to see new people becoming involved. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out with adoption! If you're interested, just shoot me a message on my talk page. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi all,

I'm also a new user, where do you find groupings of article that you can work on?

Money and politics isn't my cup of tea (jokes on jokes), but I'd like to find categories that do interest me.

Thanks!

HuronHal85 (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

How to cite newspaper references

I want to make a new article on a defunct marine engine factory. The references I have are old newspaper articles. How do I insert these as references. I know the name of the publications, but I do not know the excact date they were published. Allsidius (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you don't know the date they were published then it makes it virtually impossible for any reader to verify what you have included. Hence you may well have to delay your new article until you can find references that enable verification. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Allsidius You might try choosing a unique phrase and typing it into a search engine. Google scanned many newspapers, and while they stopped that project, you might get lucky. If so, it will identify the date, name of the newspaper and page numbers.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

References citing the whole book vs. using the sfn template

When I only need to cite 1-2 pages from a book, I use the full cite book template, specifying the pages. However, in some cases, I may use several pages from the same source, in which case I use the sfn or Harvcoltxt templates, and I put the full book citation after the reference list. Is that Ok? or should I use sfn in every citation (even if only used once) and put all the books in a list? Example: is this OK? Thanks!--Fauban 13:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Fauban, welcome to the Teahouse. Consistency is probably the best thing to achieve, personally I use sfn widely and use it for all books even if I only refer to a particular text only once, example North Staffordshire Regiment. There are times when it doesn't work as other templates are better, as an example quoting the London Gazette, where the template {{London Gazette}} is better than cite web or cite news. I aim to stick to one style as much as possible, not only for the benefit of readers but also for other editors as a mish-mash of styles gets very confusing for all. NtheP (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are Guestbooks spam??

A user deleted my guestbook because he/she thought it was spam? It is correct? If not, I want my book back, it is not spam, even JImbo has one. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 12:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a user added a spam link to your page just before it was deleted so maybe the deleting admin User:Legoktm made a mistake?Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. User:Miss Bono/Guestbook seems to be there. What was deleted? - David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what was deleted User talk:Miss Bono/Guestbook looks like someone created a fake guestbook on Miss bono's talk page, which was spotted and deleted by User:Legoktm very quickly Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Miss Bono. I'm confused. You have a guest book at User:Miss Bono/Guestbook that has not been deleted and it does not appear anyone has asked to be deleted. The page that was deleted was at User talk:Miss Bono/Guestbook (deletion log entry), was created by an IP that geolocates to Beijing China (making me think it was not you since If I remember, you are in Cuba), with an edit summary pointing to what looks like a "QVC" type website selling jewelry, and had content like "Buying a Motor:" "Comparison shopping:", "Consider buying a employed car", each followed by content on that subject, and had never been edited by anyone but the IP who created the page. i.e., not one sign-in by a guest. Can you clarify whether the page that was actually deleted is the one you think was deleted, or is it possible when you saw this deletion you thought your still functioning, untouched guestbook was gone?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I am so so so sorry, when I saw that someone deleted my page, I thought it was my real guestbook (I wasn't around since last Friday). And I tried to follow the link before noticing it was a duplicated talk page. But now I notice the talk thingy. Sorry guys! :D It was a misunderstanding. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Does Edit Warring 3RR apply to the original editor or to the account reverting original edits?

Hi, I've been reading up on edit warring and the 3 revert rule (3RR). For clarification, does the 3 revert rule apply to the original editor that made the edits or to the user reverting the editor's original edits? For example...

1. Editor makes changes, with reasons in talk page and/or in history.
2. A reverter reverts/undoes changes.
3. Editor restores his/her own changes.
4. A reverter reverts/undoes changes.
5. Editor restores his/her own changes.
6. A reverter reverts/undoes changes.

Where and to whom would the official edit warring be assigned in the above example?

Also, does restoring reverts against anonymous IPs count towards any of the above, if the reverter is not logged into an account?

Thanks for the help. --FGuerino (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring, while commonly associated with the three revert rule, is actually defined as a pattern of editing that shows that someone is not discussing, but is simply reverting. Thus, someone could be blocked for one revert, or two, or three, or not be blocked for four. Anyone who looks to be edit warring, even if they're trying to discuss, can be blocked. Your best bet is to always take it to an appropriate noticeboard, not to edit war yourself counting on the other person blocked. When that happens, usually both editors are disappointed with the results. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In your scenario, FGuerino, edit #1 has nothing to do with edit warring. Neither does edit #2, as it is the bold way of indicating disagreemen with edit #1. However, best practice calls for an explanatory edit summary. The first clear sign of an impending edit war is at edit #3, if that editor failed to explain their thinking on the talk page, and especially, if they failed to leave an edit summary with a good explanation. The reverter broached the bright line at edit #6 and may get a block, but both are engaged in an edit war, and both should be warned to desist.

IP editors who aren't logged in are just as entitled to edit as anyone else, and also just as responsible for complying with policies and guidelnes.

3RR is a bright line that can't be crossed, but trying to "game the system" by waiting 24 hours and three minutes to revert, or conducting "slow motion" edit wars over longer periods of time, also constitutes edit warring.

Highly controversial topic areas like abortion, Israel/Palestine and the Tea Party movement may have restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee that include 1RR restrictions on edit warring.

The bottom line is that content disputes should be resolved by thoughtful, respectful discussion on talk pages involving compromise and leading to consensus, rather than aggressive behavior fueled by a battlefield mentality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

how do I add a picture to my wikipedia page?

I am an Olympic athlete and would like to add a picture with my medal to my Wikipedia page. How can I do this. thanksRotorswa (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rotorswa, and let me start by congratulating you on your medal. It must be very gratifying to be one of the three top athletes in your field. You can count on me, and also the other Teahouse hosts, to help you with this process.

First of all, you must be willing to donate your photos freely under a proper Creative Commons license, allowing the photos to be used for any purpose forever. For the sake of discussion, if you invest in a business in ten years and it goes bankrupt, a local newspaper can use the photos of you with your medal to illustrate an article about that. I hope that there is never any negative news about you, but you have to understand that you will not have any control over the photos in the future.

If that is acceptable to you, then take several photos of the medal and I also suggest you take several photos of yourself wearing the medal. If you use your camera and plan and set up the shots, and simply have a friend click the shutter and agree that the photos are 100% yours, then it will be OK. But a professional photographer may be unwilling to release their work under a Creative Commons license. Double check. Have copies of the best of the photos on your computer's hard drive, cropped and just how you want them to be seen.

Now, go to the Wikimedia Commons website, and log in using your Wikipedia username and password. Click "upload file", and follow the step-by-step instructions. Make it clear that the photos are your work. Upload using a distinctive, descriptive file name such as "Mary Smith Olympic Silver Medal 2012" or whatever.

Once you upload, Wikimedia Commons will show you the wikicode that can be pasted, using "edit source", into the wikicode for the Wikipedia article about you. I know that this can seem like a tricky process for newcomers, but it isn't really that bad. Please feel free to ask questions at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

reference material does not include information given in article

What is the proper action when an article that I am editing seems to give reasons for an action that are not listed in the original reference? I hope this makes sense. ThanksNorawashere (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Norawashere! Great question. If the article is making a statement that is not in the cited sources, this statement should be removed. If you think it would be better not to remove the statement entirely, you can also use the tag {{failed verification}} which produces . This operates much like the famous tag. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

exciting new wikiprojects

Hello, I have recently joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Containers after making an article on Glass jars and am delighted to find that there is such a think as Wikiprojects. Which ones are the best and most exciting? Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Horatio Snickers! What WikiProjects you would like depends on what you want to edit on Wikipedia. What are your editing interests? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

So I was editing a page that has not been edited for several years, and I've noticed that the talk pages for that article has been inactive for about 4 years and that the discussions are not really relevant to the article. I know that I should not delete the entire talk page without the permissions of the respective authors, but what can I do? The discussions are not really long. It's Talk: CheongShim International Academy for further reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkj11210 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. No problem with leaving the talk page as it is. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to get back to the summary window I was editing

I was summarising what I changed in an article but accidentally left it before completing it. How can I get back to it to complete what I left unfinished. Ngchakngoon (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you didn't save it, I'm afraid there isn't much you can do other than do it again. If you saved your edits then you can just edit the article again and finish what you were doing. Sorry! Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Template

I want to create a template by bypassing the AFC procedure. What am I supposed to provide in the documentation template? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! "Templates" covers a huge number of rather different things. It will depend on the nature of the template that you are creating (if you could describe the template you are creating we may be able to offer some more specific advice). In general, if you have user options/inputs within the template (for example, if you are designing an infobox), you should describe in the documentation what each of the options are are and how they should be filled. Ideally the documentation should be such that a competent user should be able to fully use your template without studying the source code. Hope that helps. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I am creating a template for a footer. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool. You probably need very little, if any, documentation then as the template should be quite simple. If the footer is collapsible, you may like to add <noinclude>{{collapsible option}}</noinclude> to add some basic documentation on how to implement the template. Template:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_in_Maryland is a random footer I just found that seems a good example. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Sriram. Without the specifics of what the template does, where it is intended to be used and its purpose, I can only be general but the documentation should provide: a short statement about just those things: what it does, where it should be used and why and significantly how it is to be used. For example, what parameters it takes and whether they are optional, maybe provide a specific example of usage, and show how the output will appear. Such documentation pages are also used for placing categories, and often usefully state whether the template should be substituted or not (or whether it depends or is optional [rare]). What I would do is look at a bunch of high use templates that are somewhat similar in usage and see what their documentation says. Regarding AfC, though Wikipedia:Article wizard/Template exists, I don't think templates are a very good fit for the process. I would do just what you suggest and create it directly. However, depending on what it is, you might want to state your proposal and/or work out the functionality, feasibility and language of the template on the talk page of a relevant process/policy/guideline/Wikiproject that is relevant to the area that the template will be used for. See also {{Documentation}} and Wikipedia:Template documentation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I am ready with the contents of the template. But why does it show, 'Creating Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template name'? If I post it, will it be in mainspace or will it go to AFC? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are creating it directly, just type the name you want into doubled brackets anywhere on Wikipedia, click "show preview" click on the red link you see in the preview, and then create that page. for example [[Template:Footer name you provide]] when save (or preview) results in the red-linked Template:Footer name you provide. If you click on the direct name you type, you can then create it. Using the Article Wizard's template creation method forces it into the "articles for creation" talk page title mode which is unwanted here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah. i just forgot that completely. Thank you very much. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Does a statement of fact have to be stated elsewhere first before being published on wikipedia?

I was looking at information regarding Jiroemon Kimura, and came to the conclusion that he was the last living man born in the 19th century prior to his death. I came to this conclusion based on the fact that Salustiano Sanchez is listed as his successor of oldest living man. Would it be unacceptable to add that information to the page without it being stated elsewhere first? Derfman1963 (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Derfmam and welcome. Yes that is very definitely so. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. All our material should come from reliable published sources, mostly from secondary sources although primary source material is used to a limited extent. Many people born at that time were not accurately recorded and many in remote parts of the world, eg Amazonia are still not recorded at all so the gentleman you refer to would only be the last known.--Charles (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I feel this could be a failing of Wikipedia then. In this case for example, if no "reliable" source mentions this fact, then it will be lost to the readers of Wikipedia. I would suggest there be allowances for such things by clearly stating that it is original research based on information gleamed from Wikipedia. Unfortunately the reporter from the Mirror failed to notice this significant fact. Derfman1963 (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately I was able to find a good source, but still, if I had not been able to it would have been nice to be able to add it with the previously mentioned caveat. Derfman1963 (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is what someone thinks is fact to them may be blatantly wrong, and there's no way for Wikipedia editors nor readers to reliably determine who's telling the truth. Furthermore, anyone can edit Wikipedia, so it's possible that original research done from Wikipedia articles is wrong as well. Thus, we do not allow original research. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't particularly apply to your situation but there is WP:CALC, which in a sense is an exception to "every fact must be sourced". Vzaak (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Extra column error

After my last edit (i.e. addition of a new row), the table is broken. An extra column is appearing. I tried fixing it, but, could not. Tito☸Dutta 05:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

After your entry no. 24 you have introduced a line containing only a pipe ('|'). The effect of this is to add an column to the end of the current row, and hence to the whole table. --ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Thank you. Superb observation. --Tito☸Dutta 09:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Stuck with Wikipedia (en) in my Google browser search window

My Firefox page is set to open to Google. Earlier today, I consulted a number of Wikipedia articles. Sometime during that process the search window in my Firefox toolbar got "stuck" with a Wikipedia identity, so whatever I want to search for on Google is now referred to Wikipedia with somewhat startling results. How can I reset my Google search window so it's not just for Wiki questions? 99.121.59.66 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello and Welcome! You may want to check your browser's setting, your search setting may be on Wikipedia and not Google. You also may want to check some of your browser's add-ons, plug-ins and extensions. ///EuroCarGT 03:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Try clicking a small triangle in the Firefox search box. That should give you options including Google. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Way to delete a certain kind of article

Hello everyone! I just found this place. I've edited a bit but a long time ago though I sometimes do spelling corrections without going into my account. I have a question, if that's okay. If an article is a "redirect" but it was was an encyclopedia article for a really long time before it became a redirect (and now has been a redirect for a long time too), and you think it should be deleted, do you try to do that at the articles for deletion page or the redirects for deletion page? (those pages are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.) Lady in polka dot (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lady in polka dot. There must be a reason why the article that existed for a long time was deleted and turned into a redirect a long time ago. There may be an Articles for Deletion debate that would shed light on the reasons. We have a saying that "redirects are cheap" which is slightly misleading since everything is cheap or almost free on this volunteer created online encyclopedia that doesn't have to purchase boxcars full of paper or tankcars full of ink. What that slogan really means is that a redirect term doesn't have to meet notability standards like a full-fledged article topic. Instead, it just has to be a plausible search term that someone might enter, and that we have an article that is relevant to that search term. That's a relatively low bar. So, my question is, why spend time trying to delete redirects? Some people may get satisfaction from this activity, but I find many other more interesting things to do on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen Thank you for welcoming me. It's not something I do or would get idle satisfaction from doing. I think there's a good reason. The article was never deleted and it was never considered by articles for deletion. What happened is that someone one day came and modified it to become a redirect to another article that mentions her and it stayed that way. It is a character assassination write up made to mislead and smear her name. Anyone can still read it by going to its history, so I think it should not be available at all. I am only looking for which page it would be considered at if I wanted to ask that it be deleted. Lady in polka dot (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is truly "character assassination" involved, Lady in polka dot, then this is a serious policy matter requiring immediate protective action by experienced editors. Please provide full details here or at the Biographies of living people noticeboard as soon as possible. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not germane as she has been dead for over 100 years. I guess the answer to what I asked is not well known. I am going to ask at the discussion board of articles for deletion. Lady in polka dot (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you could just tell us what the article is called we could check it for neutrality and edit accordingly, but if you keep it a secret nothing can happen! Theroadislong (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not true. If my question is answered, something will happen. I will be carefully writing a discussion for its deletion. My question is only about which page is the right one to post that discussion. Lady in polka dot (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You can list it here for deletion Wikipedia:RfD Theroadislong (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Lady in polka dot. It sounds to me like you are not looking to delete the redirect per se, but actually would be fine if the redirect remained but its history was deleted. I have not found anything directly on point in instruction, policy or guideline that provides a definitive answer, but it seems to me that since this really regards article content—whether the revisions of the article should be available for retrieval because (as you provide without giving us the specifics), it is a "character assassination write up made to mislead and smear" and not whether a redirect title should exist—I think this belongs, if at all, at articles for deletion.

There, I would state that issue is deletion of the page's history, and why that page history is a problem, citing to reliable sources showing it is an unwarranted attack on the subject. In that same regard, note that if the preexisting page did not cite to reliable sources for its content (or did so poorly), it very well may be that section G10 of the criterion for speedy deletion may be applicable; that you need go neither to AfD or RfD.

Because of the unusual way this is presented, though, I would not use the direct, generic template used to nominate pages under that criterion, which is ({{db-attack}}, but rather I would tailor a message using {{db}}, maybe with content like {{db|Please delete under CSD G10. Feel free to recreate the redirect once deleted. The issue here is the content sitting in the page history which is an attack because...}}. To use something like that you would go to the redirect page, click "edit source", then place that content at the top and save. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

How to fix double redirects? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Double redirects in the sense? What do you mean? Can you give a sample? --    L o g  X   18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I recently moved a page that was already moved from another name. So when I search with the old name, it shows the redirect page instead of the article. Kaathiruntha Kangal -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry abt that. It just took some time for the page move to happen. So now its fixed!! -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Great! --    L o g  X   19:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sriram Vikram and welcome to The Teahouse. A bot does what you needed done.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It was AvicBot. Here is where you can see what happened.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee:It was already been solved. Thanks --    L o g  X   21:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sriram. Even though the specific issue has been addressed, for future reference, instructions on fixing double redirects are at Wikipedia:Double redirects#How to fix a double redirect. There is also a lot of useful instruction about best practice cleanup procedures upon page moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

How to turn-off Article feedback tool

Hey, I accidently turned on the article feedback tool on the Senthil Kumar page. I want to turn it off. Can anyone help on this? Thanks -- L o g X 19:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@LogX: It seems to have already been done by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes he did it for me. Can you tell me how to perform it manually. (ie. by non-admins) Thanks -- L o g X 21:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible for non-admins , but if there's someone who knows otherwise, they could correct me. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks for your help! Let's wait and see anyone has the answers! -- L o g X 21:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Help desk#Article Feedback Tool, where I answered your cross-posting there. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you @Fuhghettaboutit: -- L o g X 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Same?

Are editing rules on Wikia the same as on wikipedia? Pass a Method talk 03:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a "wikia". Our guidelines and policies are set by the editing community.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)