Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.84.12.29 (talk) at 05:08, 25 September 2013 (→geez wikipedia y u no have animeme: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the teahouse
Shortcuts

Shantavira, 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.


geez wikipedia y u no have animeme

put animeme on wikipedia 05:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've written an article that is almost ready for submission. In it is a link to a youtube video. I got the link to work, but the word (in this case MTB) is not highlighted (either by an underline or by being in blue). How can i make it stand out so people know that it is, in fact, a link. any comments on the article itself are greatly appreciated. GMarin 02:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Lrh246, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to the CNN video that is an external link, then it seems to be working fine and is blue when I view it. Your references are formatted in an unusual way, though, that displays raw URLs. Preferred practice is to display the article title instead of the URL. See referencing for beginners. Given that Oliver North is an opinion commentator rather than a reporter, I would recommend trying to find another source for those specific factual claims. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Hi Lrh246. Great start on the article. Regarding the video, I'm not sure why that would be. You had successfully made "MTB" into an external link and so it should have displayed for you as a blue link with a little arrow next to it, like this—that is what I was seeing when I looked at the article. At first I thought it might be a page cache issue but as you say the link was working for you, it should have been blue when working. Anyway, no matter, it was displaying successfully (maybe someone else can shed light; I can only chalk it up to something with your browser). However, we don't place external links in text (except in unusual circumstances not relevant here), and so I relocated it. What I did was make an external links section and highlight that video there with a description. I've made made other tweaks.

I also left a "commented out" note in the article (text you can only see when editing it) regarding the reference section's description that it incorporates public domain material. Can you advise which material you are referring to? If you are just referring to the image, which is in the public domain, this message should be removed as that's not what it refers to. If there is text, it should be specifically attributed with quotation marks and inline citations to its source. Public domain material can be used without worry about copyright, but good attribution is still needed to avoid plagiarism. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor articles written by possible only one person

Hello, I wanted to ask how to best handle articles as stated in my summary. I have come across this many times since I've started using wikipedia years ago. Mostly short, nonneutral, shitty articles that were most likely written by only one person.

For example I have found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_Suit_Zero The first paragraph alone seems non-wikipedia standard. " Strike Suit Zero seeks to revive the space combat genre by introducing[...]" It looks like the descreption from the devs themselves. I looked at the edit-page and there seemed to be lots of people involved so I'm not too sure. (Also I've looked at the metacritic page, lots of user reviews that look very fake)

Anyway how do I generally handle things like this? I don't know if I have time or will to actually edit bad articles but atleast I would like to be able to mark them as stubs so other people know what needs cleaning. How do I do that? (am i allowed to do that or do I need more experience?) QuoVadis101 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have options (and you are allowed to do them all, all editors, old and new, are encouraged to be bold in improving the encylopedia):
  • You can edit the article to make it better (this is the #1 option, though not everyone has the time to fix every poor-quality article they see). Removing unsourced and unwarranted content, even if it results in a drastic reduction in the length of an article, is generally a good thing.
  • You can add maintenance tags to the article (for a list of tags, they are legion, see here). "Stub" really only refers to article length, a long article, even if terrible, isn't a stub. If you feel an article is an advert, the {{advert}} tag might be best. If doing this, it's often useful to leave a message on the talk page explaining specifically the problems you found in the article.
  • If you feel the article is better off deleted entirely:
  • If an article is a blatant advert, a copyright violation, or otherwise absolute rubbish, you can request it be speedily deleted by tagging it accordingly.
  • If the article covers a topic you feel is probably non-notable, you may wish to begin deletion proceedings. Articles like the ones you describe are often forgotten about by all, so the most stress-free deletion method is to "PROD" it. This effectively sets a timer, such that if no-one contests the deletion for 7 days it is removed. It's great for articles you suspect no-one cares about.
  • If the above two methods are contested, or are otherwise not appropriate, you can bring the article to Articles for Deletion (AfD) where the community will discuss whether an article should stay or go.
Hope this is useful. Happy editing --LukeSurl t c 22:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who inserts the "Additional citations needed" tags?

Who decides which articles deserve the "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag/banner?

I occasionally run across an article with sparse - or no - inline citations, but which is sans the banner.

Whom do I notify about such articles (e.g. Coronary circulation, Helmholtz resonance)?

Thank you. Martian (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martian! The thing is, any Wikipedia editor can add that tag. If you want the big banner across the top it's {{unref}} or {{refimprove}} or {{no footnotes}} (if they claim a source at the bottom but don't footnote it) as the case may be. If you want to tag an issue in the body of the text, there's {{cn}} for "citation needed", and many other question words (who, when, why) also become tags when placed in double curly-brackets.
If you see a weakness anywhere on Wikipedia, WP:Be bold and go ahead and tag it! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Article Creation...

I deleted the submission thing from my article by mistake. Now I am unable to submit my article against for it to be accepted. What shall I do now. The articles is- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mahnad_Al-Zaab (Alhosniomani20 (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you intended to refer to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mahnad Al-Zaabi? I've undone your most recent edit; you could have done that yourself. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

old name of "RADISSION HOTEL"

What is the old name of "RADISSION HOTEL"?113.199.166.178 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC) HELP ME.[reply]

Hello. This page is for questions regarding editing Wikipedia. For general factual questions, please ask at the Reference Desk. --LukeSurl t c 16:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

having problems with merging pages

I tried merging the WIlderness Medical Institute page with the National Outdoor Leadership School page and I did steps 1 and 2 in merging instructions and the coding didn't work

Rachelizhoffman (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you are happy that all the relevant content of Wilderness Medicine Institute has been merged into National Outdoor Leadership School then go to Wilderness Medicine Institute, click "edit source" and replace the entire content of the page with
#REDIRECT [[National_Outdoor_Leadership_School#Wilderness_Medicine_Institute]] {{R from merge}} {{R to section}}
and leave the edit summary:
Merged content to [[National_Outdoor_Leadership_School#Wilderness_Medicine_Institute]]
You can then proceed with steps 3 onwards of the merging process (you won't need to do any work for step 4). Note that an article's talk page, i.e. Talk:National_Outdoor_Leadership_School is distinct from the main article. --LukeSurl t c 15:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to contribute the authenticate information to wikipedia, help is needed

Is there some one who can guide me how to add below information to B.R.Ambedkar article.


==Role in Economic Planning == ( to write this article as per wikipedia policy, expert administrator help is required)

“Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times.”[1][2][3][4]. He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country.[5]

Ambedkar contributed on post war economic development plan of India is considerably very high and profound particularly in field of humanity, equality, social justice along with economic planning, water resource and electric power development.[6]

Member of Planning commission and National advisory council asserted that, Ambedkar made special provision for the finance commission every five years in the Constitution. Finance commissions of India refer "Evolution of Provincial Finances in British India" for all the reports, which was Ambedkar's Ph.D Dissertation at Columbia University.[7][8][9]Premknutsford25 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


==Role in water resource and power planning ==( to write this article as per wikipedia policy, expert administrator help is required) “In 1942-46 he(Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. [10] Ambedkar, the then member-in charge of power and work in the Viceroy’s cabinet, and under his leadership water resource and power planning was formulated. He established two technical organization which were known as 1) Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation commission and 2) Central Technical power Board, today it is known as Central water commission and Central Electricity Authority respectively. [11][12] “Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” Under his leadership Government adopted a resolution to set up the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) which is based on Tennessee Valley Corporation (TVC) in march 1948. [13] Ambedkar hoped that “waged work in modern industry” [14] would help to liberate the depressed class from their rural poverty and his intent for promoting such irrigation, hydro-power, navigation and flood control project is to provide hydroelectricity to Indian Factories., This project set the foundation for other project such as Bhakra Nangal, Damodar Valley, Mahanadi, Sone and Tungabhadra river projects. [15] Contribution of these projects to Indian economy is considerably very high and gives strength to Indian economy. In recent ,National Water Policy (2001) draft is based on inter basin transfer of water which was suggested by Ambedkar around 50 yrs ago. [16][17]

Premknutsford25 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Premknutsford25 and welcome to the Teahouse! It seems you already have a good draft of what you want done. Go to the B.R. Ambekar page and click edit. Paste the raw wikitext of your draft under whatever section you want it to be under. Note that your changes and added sections are subject to reversion or edits. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 15:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to the Teahouse volunteers, the matter is already under discussion, and the user has already attempted to add the info and had it reverted several times; originally for potential copyright violations, later for WP:UNDUE concerns. The user's real question is probably either "how do I engage in dispute resolution" or "how do I override the current consensus" (translating what they want into Wikispeak, that is). Since I'm one of those objecting to the content, I don't know if my advice will help, so if another user could help explain those processes, I'd be appreciative. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it correct to place citations?

Are both of the following acceptable or is one preferred over the other ("[Cx]" represents a citation)?

1) In sentence citations: "Some text,[C1] some more text.[C2]"

2) End of sentence citations: "Some text, some more text.[C1][C2]"

SunShines123 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SunShines123, I generally go with the second option. Sohambanerjee1998 14:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ever correct to go with the first option and, if not, if I run into the first option, should I just correct it? SunShines123 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No its not like that, it varies with usage. For eg. if you write something like this "Mr. X is a joker". Then you need suitable reliable sources to back it up, usually its an etiquette to include them at the end. If you add any content that can generate controversy or raise doubts on its authenticity then its best to place the citations nearer the claim, for that you may have to change the wording a bit also. Sohambanerjee1998 15:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I take flags down?

Hi, I recently edited the "Undergraduates" section on Miami University's (of Ohio) page that was flagged for needing clean up and was wondering if it was okay to take down the flag when I was done? Maneybe (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maneybe, and welcome. If you feel the issue has been addressed, then yes, this is a good thing to do :). The essay WP:BRD discusses how Wikipedia benefits from individuals making bold edits, and then having these edits reviewed and discussed by the wider community. Happy editing! --LukeSurl t c 14:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Article Issues

Hi,

I recently created a Wikipedia account because I wanted to create an article for the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis, since I am doing some research in the area, and it was listed as a requested article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences/Physics#Thermodynamics_and_statistical_mechanics

When I click on the link for the Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis , I either get a web page telling me the article does not exist (if I am not logged in), or a web page allowing me to create the article (if I am logged in). Since there was supposedly no such article, I took the liberty of creating one, and submitted it to articles for creation:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eigenstate_Thermalization_Hypothesis

However, while browsing around on Google, I became aware of this article, which was apparently accepted about two weeks ago:

Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis

Perhaps there was an issue with the case sensitive nature of the title, which is why I did not see it before?

In any event, my question is how I should approach this situation. With no disrespect to the original author, the article that already exists on the subject seems somewhat vague and not very clearly worded, and certainly contains much less information than mine (it does not appear to contain any mathematical details whatsoever). It appears from the history that it was originally declined several times due to a lack of sources, and I suspect the original author may not have a detailed knowledge of the subject.

I would proceed to just edit the existing article, but to be honest, I find the lack of capitalization of "thermalization" and "hypothesis" in the title to be somewhat heinous. Is there any way to change the title of an article after it has already been created? It appears that Wikipedia thinks that "Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis" and "Eigenstate Thermalization Hypothesis" are two separate articles, with the first one existing, and the second one not existing.

Would it perhaps be easier to just delete the original article if mine is accepted? Or could the original one be merged into mine?

Thanks for your help! I apologize for any newbie faux pas I commit, since I am certainly new to this.

EDIT: I took a closer look and am now indeed aware of the case sensitive nature of article titles. I suppose I could set up a redirect, but honestly, that mix-and-match capitalization just looks so awful to me. Is there any way to tweak this? 

KeithFratus (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KeithFratus, and welcome to the Teahouse. Congratulations on making such an impressive draft about this subject.
As an article already exists, the AfC process is superfluous. Technically I've "declined" your draft, but this is just a procedural thing due to the preexisting article, and not a comment on its relative quality.
Please make Eigenstate thermalization hypothesis as best as possible. If you feel this would be best achieved by completely overwriting the existing article with your draft, then go ahead. However there may be a few things in the current article you may wish to incorporate.
As for renaming, we call this moving. You can move the existing article to a different title (as long as that title is not already occupied). If you're using the default Wikipedia skin, this option is accessible via a small downwards pointing arrow to the left of the search box. A redirect from the old to the new title will be automatically created.
Hope all this helps, ask if there's anything that isn't clear. Cheers, --LukeSurl t c 14:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! I just found the article Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), and perhaps I shouldn't change the title after all, as much as it bothers me. I'm still somewhat unclear on the naming conventions, because it seems to me like something such as Riemann hypothesis should be a proper noun, but apparently Wikipedia does not think so.
I think the existing article reminded me of one or two points I had forgotten to mention more carefully, and so I will try to incorporate those into whatever the article ends up looking like. I also have plenty of additions and modifications to my own draft which I want to eventually incorporate into the article.
I guess in either case, I can make edits to the preexisting article, and then decide later whether or not it should be moved to the new title name, or whether the new title should redirect to the original title, due to capitalization conventions. Anyways, thanks again for the help! KeithFratus (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, KeithFratus. If you are going to use some of your material and some of the existing material, it's a good idea to improve rather than replace sections which are not too bad in the original, since someone has put a lot of thought into the wording and the references are likely already correctly placed, which saves time. Totally new bits or sections which you feel don't do the job are candidates for addition and replacement, respectively, but try to save the references if they are relevant and good quality. There are advantages to changing/adding sections rather than a whole draft in one edit, because others may disagree with your edits and revert them, and it's easier to discuss changes to a section of a large article than the whole thing at once. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, I will try to keep this in mind. At the moment though, it looks like the references in the original are actually a subset of mine, so I already have all of their references. They also don't seem to have any separate sections yet, so there aren't any for me to remove in the first place. The article is short enough and lacking sufficient structure that I'm not really sure how to merge mine into the original article without necessarily making large changes, but I will try to retain anything in the original article which seems to be useful. I'll also make sure to discuss the matter in the talk page, with a detailed list of what I kept and what I removed. KeithFratus (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing from a photo

Hi guys... it's just me... bothering again with this annoying stuff of a drawing from a picture... I finished a digital drawing based on a picture of Bono taken for the cover of a magazine. It doesn't look like exactly as the original. Is it ok if I upload it here? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but my guess would be no...it's a "derivative work" if the reproduced image can be seen to have a resemblance to the original, it's a copyright infringement.
Oh, I see-- So if I draw an image and it doesn't have a resemblance to any other... I can upload it, right? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, yes. I think a drawing of Bono that you made, as long as it's not explicitly traced/rotoscoped from a photo would be at your copyright disposal. A question though: what are you planning on using it for? We have a lot of free photos of Bono available, and I can't imagine that a drawn picture would ever be more useful for an article than one of these photos. However, if it's just for your user page, and you're willing to license it under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, then go ahead. --LukeSurl t c 13:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess I'll do that. Thanks. It is for something I am planning to do for WikiProject U2. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is a "notable" person defined?

If (i) you have red coloured links in other articles which give your name which prompt you to write an article and (ii) you are listed in UK directories such as Who's Who and Debretts does this make you a notable person?Jhennessy99 (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: No. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." A person may be red linked on Wikipedia and may even be listed in a social directory, but those alone are not sufficient evidence of notability. There is a guideline available here. BlackberrySorbet 11:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Jhennessy99. It depends very much on the coverage provided by Debrett's and Who's Who. A high percentage of the entries in both publications are little more than basic biographical entries: name, date of birth, honours and decorations, hereditary titles and so forth. That's not sufficient coverage for Wikipedia to regard them as notable. Wikipedia's standard of notability - and hence suitability for inclusion here - is in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. To define those terms a bit more precisely:
  • In depth: at least a couple of reasonably substantial paragraphs describing the subject. Passing mentions, directory entries or one-line descriptions are not sufficient.
  • Multiple: More than one unrelated source; multiple duplicates of a single source or sources derived directly from other sources don't count.
  • Reliable: Published by a company with a known reputation for checking facts, such as a mainstream newspaper or book publisher, and editorially oversighted.
  • Independent: unrelated to the subject; their own works, their employer's biographies or works they have commissioned won't suffice.
If the subject of your article is covered in sources that meet these requirements, then they should have an entry here. However, Who's Who and Debrett's alone probably won't, I'm afraid, cut it. The full guideline for notability, if you want to read through it, is here. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creat an article

I am trying to create the article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Trieb . For the second time my article got declined because independent references are missing. I do not understand how many references an articel neds. I already added a lot of literature references whichare not writen by Michael Trieb himself. Coul you help me with this concern? Thanks a lot.Leachim 1 (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leachim. You say that you added a lot of literature references which are not written by Michael Trieb himself. Where are they? Eight of your ten references are to papers where Trieb is an author, so they are not independent of him. It is possible that the two apparently independent references are adequate to establish his notability; but you adduce them to very specific aspects of his work. Furthermore, all ten are used to support items in one single section of the article ("Research"). Where are the references for information about him, his life and his work?
I am guessing that the books listed in your "literature" section are what you mean; but mentioning a whole book is not acceptable as a reference: you need to make clear what information about the subject is being supported, and where in the book is the text that supports it. Please see WP:Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

If an editor makes an edit that contradicts the conclusion of an RfC, will that editor be immediately blocked for making an edit against consensus? Pass a Method talk 04:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. There are usually warnings given before a user is blocked plus WP:AGF. If you have concerns about an edit, raise it on the article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We should be very slow to block editors acting in good faith, Pass a Method. Discussion comes first, with links to the AfC. That should include efforts to explain, reversions with detailed edit summaries, talk page discussion. escalating warnings, and only then blocks if disruptive editing continues. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of similar words

I'd like to add an article for SPAdes (the genome assembly software). There is already an article for Spades (the card suit). There is also a disambiguation page for Spade. Should I treat "spades" and "spade" as different forms of the same word, and simply add a link for SPAdes (genome assembly software) to the Spade (disambiguation) page? Thanks! Sloc melb (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and Welcome! I would recommend you add (software) after SPAdes or the other one you had. Make sure there's no pages currently with those names. Example: SPAdes (software) or the other one. Good luck! ///EuroCarGT 03:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with EuroCarGT, I would add that we often (but not always) ignore name stylizations like SPAdes unless a trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark, so it may be that the disambiguated name should be Spades (software). See WP:TITLETM and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the username

Hello, I'm wondering how I change my username. Currently it says Danielmee but I would prefer danielmee or Daniel Mee. It can be just for display purposes if Danielmee needs to stay as is. Daniel Mee 03:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmee (talk • contribs)

Oh, I think I worked it out Preferences > Signature :) Daniel Mee 03:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmee (talk • contribs)
If you want it to show up, remember to type ~~~~ after each post. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 03:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my section

I did the section Novels about Kievan Rus' (in the article Kievan Rus') long ago, and nobody had a protest. Then I change a format, supply other books and begin to make notes (Russian, with English titles). I attract the attention, and my section has been deleted as off-topic. Who is right? Анна Волкова (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I apologize that I am unable to type your user name, because it is not in Roman characters. This isssue regarding novels is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page, where a conversation had already begun. Some editors feel that a separate article should be spun off, while others have concerns about your additions and selection criteria. Please discuss the matter there, with respect for the opinions of other editors, and a sincere willingness to come up with a solution that is best for the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I haven't time to be here. Now I want to discuss. Анна Волкова (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

getting from sandbox to encyclopedia submisison

I am a novice user. I created a potential article in my sandbox but learned that this is just a trial writing area. I saved the material. I was directed to another sandbox for submission but can't see how to transfer my writing from the trial sandbox to the submission sandbox. Surely it is not necessary to start over. I tried cut and paste but it didn't turn out correctly in the submission sandbox.

This should be easy but appears obscure. Please help.

Alice1938 (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alice1938! Here's the trick: Type the following at the top of your article:{{subst:submit}} and then save the page. In a while a reviewer will come along and move it to the review section. There is a backlog for reviewing, so while you are waiting, please try to add some independent sources such as news articles, magazine or journal articles, books, etc., which have been written about the subject or her work by other writers. Most of the references you have are to her own work. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help reviewing a my first article

Could I get help reviewing my article: User:Andrewduty/JDCapra Andrewduty (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew, welcome to the teahouse. You should put {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Donald Capra so that it can be reviewed. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curate this Page

An option to "curate" pages has appeared in the toolbox for me a couple of times. It seems to be quite rare. I was wondering what it is used for and what decides which pages it appears on. Biggs Pliff (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Biggs. The Page Curation toolbar will appear (or the link to it will appear in your toolbox, as you note above, if you have it toggled off) for any page that is listed at new pages, whether you access the page from that feed or stumble upon it from elsewhere. For information on using it, please see the link I provides to the overview page, as well as Wikipedia:Page Curation/Tutorial. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :)Biggs Pliff (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does an "appear to be written like an advertisement" get re-reviewed?

I am adding new material to a company page that has been marked "This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (February 2013)". How and when will this page be reviewed and have the comment possibly be removed? Pauldtyler (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pauldtyler and welcome to the Teahouse! If any editor believes that the page has been improved enough that a tag is no longer necessary, he or she may remove it. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 21:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Pauldtyler and welcome to the Teahouse. I believe that the article in question is Fidelity & Guaranty Life. This article has no references. Please be aware that verifiability is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Without references, a reader has to trust you that all that information you have added is true. Why should anyone trust the information without references? Please read Referencing for beginners and follow its recommendations. Please also rewrite the article with the neutral point of view in mind. Many of the sentences read like marketing language, not an encyclopedia article. You are not writing a marketing brochure here, but a neutral encyclopedia article. Write this article exactly the way you would write encyclopedia articles about this company's leading competitors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pauldtyler. Looking at the article, I do not find any advertising language, so I have removed that tag. However, I have substituted the 'unreferenced' tag, because the article has no references at all. Please read the link Cullen gave you on referencing, and apply it to the article. --ColinFine (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

יhelp on an article

Hi, I was hoping to create an English version of the hebrew wiki item Researches' night. This is a major event in 300 cities all over Europe, but oddly enough does not appear in wikipedia. Googling it shows a lot of references and even some wiki articles refer to it (like Public and Science and Marie Curie Actions ). my article was rejected. how can I improve it? (I can't link but it's at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Researchers%27_Night

Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Golan's mom. What we are looking for is reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, which show that the world has taken note of the topic by writing about it substantively (see notability) and from which the information content of the article can be verified. For some topics, the sources to do this don't exist. Here, the issue is only providing those sources, which exist, it appears, in great abundance. Google Books is a very useful resource for concentrating reliable sources. What I suggest is that you take a look at the results of this search and add some detail to the article, citing to some of those sources for detail about the Researchers' night, that you find in them. You can also look at newspaper articles found through a Google News Archive search, here.

In your citations, try to provide, in between the <ref> </ref> tags, a good bit of information about the source. For example, for a book a fully-attributed citation would provide the title of the book, author(s), year of publication, publisher's name, location of publication, page number where you found the information, a link to the URL, and the book's ISBN number (for books which have one, i.e., those published after 1975). Just do your best; I and others can always help formatting the citations.

By the way, the way to provide a link to almost any page on Wikipedia is to enclose the page's title in doubled brackets. So here, the link would have worked if you had typed [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Researchers' Night]] Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page not showing up in search

Hi, I just created my first page. But when I search for it, it's not coming up. The page is "Adam Klein (American writer and musician)" and there are two other Adam Kleins already listed in Wikipedia. Is it not showing up when I search because it's currently unreviewed? Or do I have to do something to get it to be available with a search? Thanks for your help! Lauren1970 (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page Adam Klein isn't updated automatically. Instead, Adam Klein (American writer and musician) needs to be added manually. Disambiguation pages, like regular articles, are edited and updated by the community. Why not give it a go yourself? :) --LukeSurl t c 19:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lauren. Though adding this to the disambiguation page is a very good idea, the search issue is, I think, mostly related to how recently you created the article. Wikipedia's internal search engine won't find entries until after the database's index is updated, which usually occurs every morning (GMT). Just wait a day or two. If the issue is about Google or another search engine finding the entry, that will happen after the page is spidered. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! This is very helpful.

Lauren1970 (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I please find documented policies for what types of links are or are not appropriate and how to correctly integrate them into articles? Thank you! SunShines123 (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL might help. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 18:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This seems to be what I was looking for.SunShines123 (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable thai Police Chiefs ....incorrect data. One Ex-Police Chief 's missing..SAWAT AMORNVIVAT. Please help update, thank you.

One Ex-Police Chief 's missing..SAWAT AMORNVIVAT. Please help get information and update, 

thank you.24.199.39.2 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 24.199. Generally, lists such as that (I take it you mean the section Royal Thai Police#Notable Thai Police Chiefs) are not exhaustive: they usually contain only people who have, or could have, Wikipedia articles about them; which in turn depends on whether they are 'notable' in Wikipedia's special sense: whether there have been substantial articles written about them in reliable newspapers, books etc. Simply being a chief of police is not enough. If you believe that there is enough writing about Amornvivat to establish notability, then there could be an article about him, and he could be added to that list. --ColinFine (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance better construct my article NAREIT

Hello everyone, I have recently constructed my first wiki article found here at NAREIT

I have made my citations, references, and also linked to the other wiki articles that the organization has been referenced in.

I have also created a talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Investment - in order to generate constructive feedback into producing further content for the article itself.

I feel that the two attempts to flag my article for deletion were unwarranted and am thankful that someone took my side that they were as such. I would like to better develop the article in order to avoid baseless accusations towards it in the future.Joethsmow (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joethsmow: Welcome to the Teahouse! As with every Wikipedia article, yours should have several references to independent sources such as news reports, product reviews, magazine articles, books, etc., that are written by authors not connected with the organization, to show that this is a notable organization and to verify the information. The article has very little in this regard, and so the "accusations" were not baseless. Those supporting you likely thought that given a little more time you would improve the referencing. The article will likely be nominated for deletion again unless the referencing improves. You seem confident that your subject is notable, so please find and add the independent sources, and then you won't have to worry. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user User:Ryulong keeps flagging my article and is even accusing me for using two accounts when I'm not. I have added the reference links as advised here and he is still flagging my article for deletion. I am not sure as to how to resolve this, I have made attempts to talk to the user regarding the article in what he finds not notable in it. He has deleted/archived my topic on his talk page and refuses to provide reason as to why he feels the need to flag my article for deletion. As I have stated, I am new to writing articles and if I need to make a change to make the article more noteworthy I shall do so.Joethsmow (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Joethsmow, but your comments indicate that you do not understand what is meant by "notable" in its special Wikipedia sense. It doesn't make sense to ask somebody "what he find not notable" in an article. "Notable" means that several reliable sources, independent of the subject, have published substantial writing about the subject; and to establish notability, the article needs to reference these. It looks to me as if none of the references you have put in the article meet these criteria: most are just passing mentions. The one that looks closest to it is PRNewswire, but that article begins "FTSE Group, NAREIT and the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) announced today that ... " which makes it look very much as if the article was based on a press release, and so is not truly independent of the subject. In order to contest the deletion, you need to find substantial articles about the association, published in reliable places (major newspapers or magazines, websites with a reputation for reliability), and reference them. If such articles do not exist, then I'm afraid that at present the association is simply not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I please be allowed time to do so in order to find the requested credible sources? I wish to at least have a chance to rectify the apparent lack of references as described before the article is completely deleted. I will spend the time and effort to do so, I am only requesting to not have deleted at this current time.Joethsmow (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to "be allowed time" to improve the article is to move it to your userspace. While it is there it won't be deleted, once you have added the reliable sources it needs you can request that it be reviewed and moved back into the encylopedia. I have moved the article to User:Joethsmow/National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts so that you can work on it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference for music soundtrack credited to "Alexander Courage" from 1938

I'd like to create a hyperlink for Alexander Courage, who is credited with having composed the soundtrack for Star Trek's theme. The Wikipedia article on Alexander Courage lists his earliest work as at MGM in 1951. However, there is a credit for an "Alexander Courage" as having arranged or created music for on a production of the "Columbia Workshop" in 1938. If this is the same Alexander Courage (born 1919), it would mark one of the earliest jobs that Courage ever had (he would have been 19 years old?), but it would give him additional honor and prestige for having been involved in arranging broadcast music from almost it's earliest inception. SO, DO I update the Columbia Workshop site and create reciprocal hyperlinks -- or is there any additional way to authenticate that this is indeed the same man with whom we associate Star Trek?

Thank you. TMR Sharyaffo (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sharyaffo, and welcome to the Teahouse! There is a user essay entitled Don't build the Frankenstein that advises you not to combine two different people. Unless you can provide a reliable source stating that this Alexander Courage of Columbia Workshop is the same as the one who worked at MGM, that information would be considered original research. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 16:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know if I have enough sources?

A couple months ago, I submitted an article for Objective Solutions International but it was rejected as there were no published sources besides the company's own website. Recently, several press releases have been published about the company. There has also been articles and a bio written about the company's CEO Steve Warren Wolfe. Ultimately, I would like to write two separate articles about the company and its CEO. I would like to know if I have substantial references in order to write these articles. I will attach the links to the press releases and published articles written. I hope that someone can let me know if I have enough references or if I need to continue in my search for published articles.

http://www.openpr.com/news/270401.html http://www.onenewspage.us/n/Press+Releases/74w12os3n/Steve-Warren-Wolfe-President-CEO-Objective-Solutions.htm http://www.i-newswire.com/steve-warren-wolfe-president-ceo/238884 http://www.pressbox.co.uk/cgi-bin/links/page.cgi?g=detailed/1309912.html http://www.exactrelease.com/steve-warren-wolfe-president--link-661617.html http://www.businessportal24.com/en/steve-warren-wolfe-president-ceo-of-osi.html http://www.pressbox.co.uk/cgi-bin/links/page.cgi?g=detailed/1317228.html http://recruitmentbuzz.co.uk/the-recruitment-industry-staying-ahead-of-the-curve/

Thanks! Lauren 14:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osilauren (talk • contribs)

Press releases are not considered reliable third party sources and it appears that you wrote these yourself, in which case you will need to read WP:COI Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for getting back to me. So, just so that I am clear, a reliable source would have to be written and published by someone other than myself about the company and/or CEO. It cannot be anything I have sent them to have published. Thanks again Lauren 14:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
That's right, Lauren. You can use non-independent sources (eg the company's own website) to support non-controversial factual data, but not for any kind of evaluative statement and (most relevant here) not to support notability. I would recommend not using a press-release as a source for anything, because it is a non-independent source that may be mistaken for an independent one. --ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review delay

I had nominated an article for GA review on Sept 1. An editor has said he has started reviewing it on Sept 11. But there are no comments on the talk page. The first reviewer seems to be in a break as his contribs page suggest. Can someone else takeover the review process? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sriram, and welcome to the Teahouse. Is the article in question Gemini (2002 Tamil film)? I might be able to pick it up if the other reviewer has been inactive. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. It is. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY I'll begin my review today or tomorrow. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted article rejected

I am very disappointed that an article I recently submitted has been rejected and, despite the feedback, don't understand what more I can do to improve it. The feedback is very general and I am at a loss to understand what is wrong with the submission. The article is a biography of Captain H.C. Tippet, a golf course architect responsible for creating many of the best known golf courses in America in the 1920s and 1930s. The article was meticulously researched, well written in good English and copiously referenced to the original sourse material.

It seems to have been rejected because either a) a reviewer has subjectively decided that Tippet is insufficiently well known to warrent inclusion, or b) the article is original research. I cannot include references to any other sourse material as no-one has hitherto compiled a biography of this man. However, a UK national newspaper considered him and his wife of sufficient notability to divert no less that four full pages to articles about them. What more can I possibly do that I have not done already? Please read the article and let me have specific guidance. Duncanharrington (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks almost there to me. There is another reference here [1] I'll see what else I can find. Theroadislong (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was declined because it was felt that the subject did not meet the basic inclusion requirements; however a quick review of the sources shows that he has clearly received enough reliable, third-party coverage to have an entry in Wikipedia. I've therefore taken the step of moving the article into mainspace; it is now located at Herbert Charles Tippet. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui,

My grateful thanks.

DuncanharringtonDuncanharrington (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use sources that exist only in hardcopy?

I am writing an article on an Austrian non-profit organisation. It started as an initiative in 1987 and there's tons of newspaper articles about the creation. Unfortunately, all of these articles exist (as far as I know) only in hardcopy. Can you advise on how to use such sources in a wikipedia article?Christie16888 (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help With Conflict of Interest

Hi all, I've been asked to post an article about the company I am working for, since I have done some Wikipedia editing in the past. I understand that this is a COI, but would like your help with finding a reasonable way to write such an article, as I believe the company is noteworthy: its managing editor is well-known in the Australian news industry, and its chairman is a prominent Australian businessman.

Thank you in advance for any guidance or assistance you can offer here...

I have posted the text for it at my sandbox page: User:Wujitaiji/sandbox. Wujitaiji (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for asking the question. In your draft you have two references which make no mention of Broadbent Media, and the third reference is the company's own website. If you can't find significant coverage of the company in published reliable sources independent of the company, then it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, so in that case it doesn't get a Wikipedia article. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wujitaiji and welcome. I think my original response was lost in an edit conflict. You have done the right thing declaring your COI and working on the article in your userspace. It is possible to have another editor work with you and for them to move the article into main space when they agree it is ready, however in this instance I agree with David Biddulph and don't believe that Broadbent Media meets the guidelines for a notable company. Please read WP:CORP and I will follow up on your talk page. best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 06:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what David and Flat Out have said: please note that notability is not inherited: even if the editor and chair are notable (in Wikipedia's sense) it does not follow that the company is. That depends on whether there are articles etc on the company, as opposed to the people. --ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. They are on a major publisher's website, contracts signed, wors in progress of being witten.........

Zzebra138 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uppdating a page

Hi

In updating the wiki of an author cn I mention books not published yet but part of the trilogy as I've seen on other authors pages? Do Ineed to link to the publisher's websites to authenticate and correctly referenc the pubished books?

Zzebra138 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zzebra138 and welcome! Thanks for asking your questions here; the answers to both are "yes". I'd suggest clearly marking the unpublished books as such, perhaps with special formatting or a parenthetical future date. Powers T 12:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zzebra138. I'm afraid I don't entirely agree with LtPowers. If there are independent sources that discuss the not-yet-published books, you can certainly mention them; but if they are only on the publisher's website it's not so clear to me: an awful lot of things (books, events, albums) get trailed that never appear. I guess in the end it comes down to how reliable you judge the publisher as being. If it is a major publisher, probably yes; if it is a new publisher that's only got three books on their list, probably no. --ColinFine (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think that putting future works on the list is equivalent to saying "these works have been announced and are planned". I think it's okay to source that to a primary source. They should, of course, be removed if the works don't get published. Powers T 23:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

conflict of interest

Hi there,

I would like to update some information about my university page on wiki but i think i am in the "conflict of interest" category since i am the webmaster there. The information i want to update is already on our university website such as different campus we have, some recent publication and reference them at the bottom. I also have latest photo of the university and its logo.

my question is, can i not update anything on the wiki page due to this conflict of interest? PriteshChandra (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are the webmaster, PriteshChandra, I recommend that you post suggested changes on the article's talk page, along with solid references. I commend you for coming here to ask about this. If you mention the name of the article, I will add it to my watch list, and try to help. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cullen; but the situation with pictures is a bit different. If you own the copyright of the picture (eg you took it yourself), or you are in contact with the copyright owner, and can arrange for it to be licensed in a way compatible with Wikipedia (see WP:Donating copyright materials, then you would be welcome to upload it to Commons and add it to the article. I also think that nobody would object to your updating the logo, making sure that the way you describe and use it is consistent with the WP:Non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cullen328 thanks for your suggestion. The article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_the_South_Pacific and i will make use of the Article Talk section.

PriteshChandra (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ColinFine Thanks for your comments on the images. I will upload the USP logo and images. The images is owned by the university and we don't mind putting it up on wiki. I just need to figure out how to upload them on that page. I will first put up the logo there.

PriteshChandra (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pritesh. "Don't mind putting it up on wiki" sounds as if you haven't yet read the link I gave you about donating materials. It's not enough to give permission to put the picture up on Wikipedia: you (or the copyright holder) need to license it to allow it to be used for any purpose, including commercial use. --ColinFine (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colouring my Signature

I have a colleague on Wikipedia who has a coloured signature. I can't figure out a way to do this. Does anybody have some advice?

Padraigsingal (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Padraigsingal. Welcome to the Teahouse! If you go through User:Smurrayinchester/Tutorial/Signature you'll find a section on color. --NeilN talk to me 00:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! I would be happy to help you design and color your signature as I have done for other users upon request. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page telling me what you want it to look like, and I'll help you make it happen. Technical 13 (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated addition of nonexistent category

Hi there. An IP editor, 50.8.37.64, is adding a redlinked category to many articles. The category seems unlikely to me ever to exist, but I've been surprised about such things before. It's Category:The '90s Are All That. What's the best course of action? In similar cases, do people remove the links or let them stand, and so on? Thanks in advance. DoorsAjar (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone's reported the user to AIV, but I'd still love to get your input. DoorsAjar (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoorsAjar! Definitely remove any redlinked categories per our WP:CATEGORY guideline: "An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created, or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist." --NeilN talk to me 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I did read that guideline, but it left me uncertain. Should I wait in case the category is created soon? Ask the editor in question to create it? I don't even know that this is a good or necessary category, but it's in an area with which I'm unfamiliar. I didn't want to be in a situation where I removed all the links and then had the editor complain that s/he had been just about to create the category. Do you see what I mean? DoorsAjar (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In these cases, I use my judgment. If it's an experienced editor adding redlinked categories I ask them what's up. If it's a new/unregistered editor creating these cats I remove them and place a note asking them to create a category first if the category should exist (which is very rare). --NeilN talk to me 01:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That helps. Thanks very much! DoorsAjar (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How long is the review process?

I know there is a backlog and I'm grateful there is a review on my current article but how long can I expect to wait, currently 11 days with a reviewer. BethKub (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoever added that "under review" tag did so without actually reviewing your draft. I removed the tag. Your article is near the end of the backlog, so it should be reviewed fairly soon. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Howicus for the quick reply. I have written to the reviewer to ask for an explanation about what is happening from his end. I'm a little disappointed to be going backwards after watching and waiting for 11 days since the review tag popped up. I have a group of 30 13 year old children waiting to see what happened to their research! Peace BethKub (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BethKub. I did some copy editing, read the references, and moved the draft into the main space of the encyclopedia at Thomas and Mary Poynton. Tell the children that I think they did a very good job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for speedy reviewing and lovely editing Cullen! The news came through during while I was with the girls in class today. It was great news for them and for me. It was an excellent learning activity - creative and permanent, something they can always be proud of.BethKub (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tell your students that I am honored to have made a small contribution to their excellent research project. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding a job well done! I've tweaked the citations to list the sources with more clear attribution. Note that when you are citing, for example, a newspaper, the citation should provide information about that source, not the website hosting it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Huge Mistake

I was editing A Little Bit of Mambo and when I saved, the whole Infobox album was gone. Can someone fix it? IGotProof (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IGotProof. No worries. It has been fixed already.--Charles (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

What pictures can I use on wikipedia page, I know how to upload them to wiki commons, but am I allowed to just take a photo from google images, say, and upload it and then use it?Rachel Indomitus 19:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckplatypus (talk • contribs)

Hi, Chuckplatypus, and welcome. Generally, you can only upload free images to Commons. However, on Wikipedia, both free and non free content can be used in certain situations. Thanks. theonesean 20:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rachel. The general answer is no: most images you find on the Internet are copyrighted (or we have to assume they are copyrighted) and they cannot be used on Commons, and only under very tight restrictions on Wikipedia. For details about the restrictions, see WP:Non free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rachel. Images on Wikipedia that are used, should be personally created by you, unless you have the explicit consent of the image's creator. If you do choose to use an image made by a person other than yourself, make sure you make the original creator and the copyright info easily accessible for a reader. However, there are a few restrictions to what images you can use: they must permit derivative works and commercial use for it to be considered free on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:File copyright tags
Hope this helped!
Padraig Singal 21:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering adding a page for a plasma experiment...

I work on a plasma experiment at Columbia University that's been serving as a test-bed for a lot of diagnostic techniques which then move on to bigger machines like DIII-D_(fusion_reactor). Most of the citations about it, however, come from doctoral dissertations and other publications written by people working on the experiment, which might be considered a bias--and my own position might be seen as a conflict of interest. Any outside opinions on this?

Exacerangutan (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your question, dissertations are common as sources as long as they have been peer reviewed. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As far as any bias you may have, that is something we all have to deal with, but the main issue would be conflict of interest. It would be best to review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to see if there is reason to be concerned with how close you are to the subject itself. Thanks and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Exacerangutan, and welcome to the Teahouse. The experiment would only meet Wikipedia's notability standards if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources you describe are not independent, as they are written by the researchers themselves. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Creating a person page for oneself

Is it OK to create a page for oneself if other wiki pages or sites like IMDB already list me as an individual? It is somewhat frustrating not to be able to have my own entry when most of my colleagues have theirs. If it is unacceptable to create one's own entry, who should one ask?

Thanks for your help. SukeyP (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is stongly discouraged. See WP:AUTOBIO for guidance. If you are notable, then you should ask someone else to create the article for you at WP:RA. RudolfRed (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Creating articles about yourself is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. See WP:COISELF. The general rule of thumb has been, if a subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, someone else will create it eventually. However, there is also the BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) guidelines from WP:BLPEDIT that show some leniency. I would say it is best to follow these policies and guidelines as well as the one mentioned above (Wikipedia:Autobiography) in regards to creating the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. SukeyP (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editing and humor

I know we have some pages devoted to humor around here, but a WP:List of jokes used on Wikipedia that collects diffs might be nice. Or is there already an existing place? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biosthmors, and welcome to the always humorous Teahouse. I think WP:JOKE is what you are looking for. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding DYK

Why is my DYK - Template:Did you know nominations/O Heeriye not appearing where it should be Template:Did_you_know_nominations#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_September_22? Sohambanerjee1998 06:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Solved it. Thanks, forgot that you have to add it yourself. Sohambanerjee1998 06:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cant we create a page about a person or group of people ?

I have created the page for my training batch of company.

I received the following comment. Please advise me on this.

Speedy deletion nomination of TCS ILP TVM T33 Group[edit source]


""A tag has been placed on TCS ILP TVM T33 Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ...William 23:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)"" -- சிவா மூர்த்தி (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. In the message which you received there are a number of links. Have you followed them? If there is something specific that you don't understand, please feel free to ask another question. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

posting

My museum was listed on your museum listing but I noticed it was removed. I am trying to put it back.96.41.124.189 (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm Abigail and will be investigating your issue.
I reviewed this page which had the revision and could conclude that the posting you made was not very relevant to the article's original purpose, and it was a bit opinionated in itself.
Other Teahouse members may inquire about this, so feel free to take all of our findings into account. We apologize your addition was removed and we hope you continue to edit in the future.
--A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 22:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse. You added "it is fun and creative place to learn about how Asian history became part of American history", which is promotional language. This encyclopedia is written from the neutral point of view, so that's why that language was removed. You also included an external link within the body of the list, which is not accepted practice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The eclipsing binary Algol

The current version about the history of Algol states

"The association of Algol ... "STRONGLY SUGGESTS" ... [5] ... still NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE ... [6]. ... period of 2.850 day ... "CONJECTURED" [7]"

Paper [5, JAVSO] based on mythology "STRONGLY SUGGESTS", while paper [6, Sky & Telescope] based on culture and etymology gives "NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE". I can not understand, why, after all this, the papers based on statistical, astrophysical and astronomical tests [7, CAJ, 8 ApJ] are described with the word "CONJECTURED"82.181.158.39 (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 82.181. It is clear you are talking about the article Algol, but I have no idea what the point is that you are making: the word "conjectured" does not appear in the article as far as I can see. In any case, discussions about a particular article are usually best placed on the article's talk page, here Talk:Algol. --ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word conjectured was boldly removed by recent edit from the poster of the question: [2]. RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have some info on submarine ssn595 on board 69 to 72184.8.200.114 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

2 Westpacs 1 with seal team let off Vietnam184.8.200.114 (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia which anybody may edit, so if you can improve an article you are encouraged to do so. However, ideally everything in Wikipedia should be referenced to a reliable published source (so that any reader in a day or a month or a year or ten years) can verify that what is in the article is supported. For this reason, personal recollections and unpublished documents are not acceptable as sources for information. --ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is TeX so bad on wikipedia?

Hi, referring to Floating_point#Overview, I've noticed that mathematical formulas are so bad formatted. For instance: they appear on the left-side of the page, *not* in the middle --which would improve readability instead. Moreover there seems to be a general quality that is far behind what TeX can really do. Why is that? I'm looking for solutions --I'd like to edit the page above-- or if there's not any do you know if there's some active project for improving the TeX-support of the wiki-platform? Thank you in advance, Giuseppe Giuscri (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Giuseppe and welcome to the Teahouse! Template:TeX isn't necessarily bad, it's just less preferred due to loading time and it isn't supported well in all browsers. If it is possible to do it without Template:TeX, then that is better for everyone. There is a complete documentation available to help you create and configure how math displays for you which can be found at Help:Math. I hope that helps! If you need more specific help or information, just ask and I'll see what I can dig up. Technical 13 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! When you say that TeX is less preferred you mean rather than what ...? Than HTML math-like formulas? Hope not. I think we should expect more than that from Wikipedia. =) Probably I'm looking for some implementation of MathJax: it will ask the article *not* to load instantly, but we're talking of few seconds. Yet that looks beautiful. Giuscri (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Giuseppe Please note that there is an ability to use MathJax. It is not on for all, but you can choose it. See Preferences → Appearance, near the bottom. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ...thank you! I had not noticed that. Though there's no way of putting formulas in the middle yet; true story? Giuscri (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re- notification on my User & Talk pages

I have been receiving messages of "Thanks" recently for various editors following some revisions that I have made to articles of a common interest.
How do I activate this feature for my own use?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 11:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post script: Sorry... should read "... from various editors ..."
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 11:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you mean Wikipedia:WikiLove? If you're using the default Wikipedia skin, when you go onto another user's talk page you should see a red heart up around the top right of your screen. Click it, and you'll get lots of options to send a friendly template. --LukeSurl t c 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean "thanks" notifications, you can send these by looking at a page's history (for example this page's history). Every edit by a logged-in user will have an option to "thank" the user for his or her edit. --LukeSurl t c 15:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just clicked on Luke's link, the one that says "this page's history", and I do see the word "thank". Personally, I prefer to write my own thanking messages, but many people seem to enjoy this facebook-like feature. I'm not sure why you aren't seeing it. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still as above. Thank you, Anne Delong, I shall continue — as you do — to post personalised messages of thanks as appropriate
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 20:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find the Thanks option very useful when I am a little bit busy with other stuffs and I really want to thank somebody for some edit, and I have no time to personalize a message. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 16:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure i did something wrong!

Hi, I have posted two questions in the past and gotten good feed back and information so I am posting again.

My problem is that I wrote and article on James Hancock, the developer of the Mobile Trauma Bay. However that was rejected. Based on the feedback i realized it would be better to make the article about the MTB rather than Hancock. So rather than started a new article from scratch, I changed the title from JL Hancock to MTB. I then rewrote the text in the same box.

So the problems are 1-that I can't get to my article when I click on my sandbox. and 2-that I am worried my article is not where i want it to be (i just want to create a draft, keep editing until its in better form.

the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mobile_Trauma_Bay

Anything you can say to help me better organize the way I am going about this article would be great. Thanks in advance, GMarin 04:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrh246 (talk • contribs)

Hello, Lrh246. I've changed your sandbox so that you can reach your article from there. About the draft article, it's okay to put a draft on the Articles for Creation space. You can keep improving the article, and submit when you are ready (It's not submitted for review yet, and you can still edit it while it's being reviewed). Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 05:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lilyriva/sandbox is a redirect. See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for how to edit it, for example to replace the redirect with another draft. You can also create multiple sandboxes. They are just a form of user subpages. See Wikipedia:Subpages. Click "Contributions" at top of any page to see the pages you have edited. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion?

Hello, Teahouse-

I created an article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lit_Camp that was flagged for speedy deletion.

First let me say that I would not have volunteered my time to deal with wiki syntax, gather the links/content, and put this page together if I weren't convinced that what I was working on is important/has historical significance/belongs in the encyclopedia.

I have responded to the deletion message on the talk page, per the instructions, but I also wanted to check in here to ask for advice, as I realize that (as a relative newcomer), I may have inadvertently violated some standard. If you have a moment to clarify this (to me) confusing situation, I would appreciate it.

Thank you. MildredTheGrey (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mildred, welcome (back) to the Teahouse! Tagging it for speedy deletion might have been a little over-harsh, but I do see where the tagger is coming from. As far as the promotional tag goes, there is some language that could be considered promotional in tone, but the bigger problem with that is probably the external links scattered throughout the article; according to Wikipedia's policy on such things, external links should almost never appear in the body of the article, only in the external links and references sections. Such linking to people's private websites is usually a good indicator that the article is spam.

As for the notability concerns, well, this conference probably meets the low standard set by the A7 speedy deletion criterion, but I don share Cindamuse's concern about overall notability. While I know that you believe that the event is historically significant, and it certainly might be, you have to keep in mind that Wikipedia uses different factors to decide whether a subject is notable or not. For the most part, subjects are deemed notable based on the extent of their coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Since the organization's website is not independent, it doesn't count as a reliable source for notability considerations, which just leaves you with the HuffPost article. I'm not sure what the general consensus on the reliability of Huffington Post; my general idea is that it is favorable. But, the piece you use as a source comes from their blog section, rather than their actual main site; that changes things, as blogs are usually not considered reliable, even when it's a blog on an otherwise-reliable news site. A quick search on my part (which I imagine Cindamuse also performed) turns up nothing else that's reliable, so I have a feeling that Lit Camp might not be notable after all. Keep in mind, of course, that that's not a permanent judgement; if Lit Camp receives more coverage in major newspapers in the future, it could certainly become notable. We just have to wait until that happens before we can start writing their article. And of course, that is in no way a judgement of Lit Camp's worth or significance; it's more a function of Wikipedia's reliance on its principle of verifiability, which requires extensive prior coverage of a subject in sources for an article to be written, since otherwise, we have nothign verifiable to write about. I'm sorry if that's not the answer you were hoping for, but does that help at all? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MildredTheGrey and welcome to the Teahouse. Let me first disclose that I live in the Napa Valley, where this event is held, but have no connection to it or knowledge of it. No one is questioning your good faith or integrity here, or your sincere belief that the topic is worthy of a Wikipedia article. The issue is whether the topic meets Wikipedia's specific Notability guidelines for a freestanding article, which require significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent sources. When I look at the sources, I see references to the event's own website, and one Huffington Post blog entry, which appears to be a rephrasing of a press release. Has it been covered in the Napa Valley Register or any prestigious literary journals? If not, the event probably isn't yet notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Writ Keeper and Cullen. I really appreciate the time you took to address my question. There are a number of pages that I'd like to make/that I believe need to be made, and I will be informed by this conversation going forward. Lit Camp? I'll return to it in the future. Looking forward to seeing you online. MildredTheGrey (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutiny on new articles while bad, older articles are nurtured

I read through the interesting discussion (below) prompted by AugurNZ's question and the thread is so long, I'll just post my thought as a separate question.

I've been very active on Wikipedia (daily editing) for about two months now, before that I sporadically edited. But now that I'm on here so much and see so many pages, I can't count the number of articles I've placed {{refimprove}} on because they have few or no references at all. At this point, it's probably reached at least 100 articles because I do it, daily. This is especially the case with articles about TV episodes or other "fan topics" which are often unsourced and border on original research.

So my question is, why, when Editors (including me) see a poorly written article with major problems, we put tag on it so it can be improved while if the article has been newly created, it typically faces a speedy delete? Why do we give 10 year-old articles, that haven't been worked on for years, a chance to improve (even with "multiple issues") but if there are problems with a new article (which is inevitable with new editors), it's just deleted? I've seen articles with tags that date back to 2009 and, four years later, the article still exists with no improvement at all. I'm not familiar with AfC but do they offer suggestions to new editors on how they can improve their article and resubmit it or does it just get a swift delete?

I think this is what frustrates new article creators because I know I come across at least a dozen articles every day that would never pass today's AfC standards. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC drafts are only ever deleted for a few narrow reasons, the main ones being copyright violation, blatant advertising, and abandoned drafts with no edits in six months. Other than that, the drafts that aren't accepted are declined with a message giving suggestions for improvement. I don't really know what to say with regards to the rest of your question, other than to say that a lot of editors monitor recent changes, and it's altogether easier to find and deal with new bad articles than old ones. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz and thanks for asking a great question. The first thing that I want to say is that deletion policy does not discriminate in any way based on the age of the article. Any article is subject to a speedy, a prod, or an AfD nomination, whether it is ten minutes old or ten years old. That being said, new articles, which flow in to Wikipedia in a constant and somewhat predicable fashion, are subject to more scrutiny than older articles. Since we have over 4.2 million existing articles, those editors interested in keeping garbage off the encyclopedia often gravitate toward evaluating new articles, since the percentage of problematic material there is so high. I am quite active at AfD, where careful analysis of borderline cases is common. It is common there to look at articles of all ages, and we evaluate them all by the same standards. I encourage you and other editors to participate in those debates whenever you have time and interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen has hit the point exactly; there are a number of gatekeepers that systematically scrutinise new articles, at New Page Review and Articles for Creation. Older articles get spotted purely by chance and, often, by editors that have other priorities. Personally I make a judgement on the best solution for an unsourced/non-notable subject - either tag it (if I think someone with more time and expertise may be able to improve it), or propose for speedy deletion (if it meets one of the criteria), or PROD it (if there's no hope, but it doesn't meet an SD criteria), or propose a merger to another article (or be bold and redirect it) ...or at last resort, raise at Articles for Deletion discussion. So there's a number of options, if you fancy doing some housekeeping.
Unfortunately with the 'fancruft' there are often a lot of fans who will fight to keep an article regardless of its merits. Wikipedia and its rules are made up by its participants so with these I often have to hold up my hands and walk away very slowly ;) Sionk (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Liz. That is a great question. May I suggest that if you find old articles that shouldn't really exist, you use PROD templates? These put a notice on the page that say effectively "if no-one objects, this article will be deleted in 7 days". It's a drama-free way to eliminate bad articles that, quite simply, nobody cares about any more. --LukeSurl t c 10:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which can be reliable sources for big retail company?

Dear Editor,

Hope you are well ,

could you please help us with some issue. I'm brand manager of company Z&A Ltd in Armenia,which is in the sphere of fashion and representative of many brands in Armenia and its outside. We have sent request to wikipedia team to add our company and have received this kind of answer below.So as i understood we must have referances from the famous mdeia drives in Armenia,for example from independent magazines or sites,and we can't refer any information to wikipedia. For example i wrote that "Z&A Ltd is representative of Burberry in Armenia and put refer BURBERRY to wikipedia's Burberry"

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Z%26A_stores es sitey mti tes.95.140.195.155 (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your understanding is accurate, but your example does does not represent what is considered a reliable source. Burberry has a financial relationship with the company, and it cannot be considered reliable because a partnership, contract, or agreement between companies is not indicative of notability. Please try to find in-depth coverage of the company in reliable sources, such as magazines, news articles, books, or interviews. I would also advise removing the many external links to company pages on the article and removing the company's Facebook page per our guidelines on external links. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that JethroBT may have intended to say "... does not represent ..." - David Biddulph (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, corrected. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So as i undesrtood as referance i must add some links to independent magazines,news articles and other info sources instead of putting refernace to official web sites of companies?

Must i also remove refers to wikipedia? for example if under the "Represented brands description" i have wrote "BURBERRY-is a British luxury fashion house, distributing clothing and fashion accessories and licensing fragrances" i must remove refer to wikipedia's Burberry article from name "BURBERRY"? and instead of it must i put refer to any magazine to showing info about Burberry? Can i do not refer to any source at all in this case and add only independent sources for company Z&A ?95.140.195.155 (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change Username

Hi everyone, I just wanted to know what's the process to change my username and if my contributions will be still under my new username or under the former? Thanks... Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Miss Bono! To change your username, it depends on if the name is already taken or if it isn't. If it isn't, you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and fill out the form. If you're taking the name of an old editor, you can go to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. As long as the new name isn't appropriate, you should be allowed to change it, and all your contributions from your old account name will stay. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miss Bono, can I add that WP:RENAME might be of some use, though I hope you decide to keep your username :) Flat Out let's discuss it 13:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As long as the new name isn't appropriate", öBrambleberry, I think you meant "inappropriate". By the way, Miss Bono, the advice above is right. I changed my name last month and it took about a week. My username had been "taken" but never used (zero edits) so a notice was put on the User Page, no one contested the name change and my account was switched over. Of course, it's much simpler if you are choosing a username which is freely available. Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Liz. I was doing about 80 other things when I wrote that. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 13:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page appearing in search

Hi, I just created my first page. But when I search for it, it's not coming up. The page is "Adam Klein (American writer and musician)" and there are two other Adam Kleins already listed in Wikipedia. Is it not showing up when I search because it's currently unreviewed? Or do I have to do something to get it to be available with a search? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren1970 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It showed up fine for me, did you search for "Adam Klein (American writer and musician)" or just Adam Klein? If you just searched for Adam Klein, I imagine it wouldn't have appeared because it hasn't been added to the disambiguation page yet. Hope that helps. Biggs Pliff (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/words-that-were/article4750471.ece
  2. ^ http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/1320520/report-ambedkar-was-most-educated-economist-of-india-narendra-jadhav
  3. ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/txt_zelliot1991.html
  4. ^ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_education_degrees_are_there_with_dr_B_R_Ambedkar
  5. ^ http://indianeconomicassociation.com/mwginternal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=8qf1fwi4xe page=10
  6. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=N2XLE22ZizYC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=the+contribution+of+Ambedkar+on+post+war+economic+development+plan+of+India&source=bl&ots=rE-jG87hdH&sig=4JRU_C0-n6sfc9gRSgDoietEPEU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2x1AUrSoF4i80QWhtoDwDg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=the%20contribution%20of%20Ambedkar%20on%20post%20war%20economic%20development%20plan%20of%20India&f=false page=174
  7. ^ http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/constituent/vol9p9.html
  8. ^ http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/timeline/graphics/txt_zelliot1991.html
  9. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/books/books-authors/words-that-were/article4750471.ece
  10. ^ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444
  11. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fermnQunyX4C&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=Dr.+Ambedkar+was+member+of+Labour+and+Irrigation+and+Electric+Power+Department+in+the+Executive+council+of+the+Viceroy+during+1942-46.&source=bl&ots=JhJAH5TYHg&sig=kL7YhIRyBklMn9KkkBtoh1k5Yj8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SBM4UsKUDemL7AaGioGIBA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Dr.%20Ambedkar%20was%20member%20of%20Labour%20and%20Irrigation%20and%20Electric%20Power%20Department%20in%20the%20Executive%20council%20of%20the%20Viceroy%20during%201942-46.&f=false page =328
  12. ^ https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=damming-the-mahanadi-river-the-emergence-of-multi-purpose-river-valley-development-in-india-dsouza.pdf&site=253 page=88
  13. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fermnQunyX4C&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=Ambedkar+advocated,+the+concept+of+%27River+Valley+Authority%27+to+manage+the+Inter-state+river+valley+projects.&source=bl&ots=JhJAM8RWIh&sig=GzSCgo81WePf_08dbzTYxvINiVM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CiFAUsnDOaO60QWVmoBo&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Ambedkar%20advocated%2C%20the%20concept%20of%20%27River%20Valley%20Authority%27%20to%20manage%20the%20Inter-state%20river%20valley%20projects.&f=false page=328
  14. ^ http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/8.2/br_laichas.html
  15. ^ https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=damming-the-mahanadi-river-the-emergence-of-multi-purpose-river-valley-development-in-india-dsouza.pdf&site=253
  16. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fermnQunyX4C&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=Dr.+Ambedkar+was+member+of+Labour+and+Irrigation+and+Electric+Power+Department+in+the+Executive+council+of+the+Viceroy+during+1942-46.&source=bl&ots=JhJAH5TYHg&sig=kL7YhIRyBklMn9KkkBtoh1k5Yj8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SBM4UsKUDemL7AaGioGIBA&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Dr.%20Ambedkar%20was%20member%20of%20Labour%20and%20Irrigation%20and%20Electric%20Power%20Department%20in%20the%20Executive%20council%20of%20the%20Viceroy%20during%201942-46.&f=false
  17. ^ http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=14444
  18. ^ www.en.wikipedia.org
  19. ^ www.en.wikipedia.org
  20. ^ www.en.wikipedia.org
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&oldid=574418571"