Wikipedia:Teahouse

Shantavira, a Teahouse host

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

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

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

Help Wikipedia

We like to create article about our open source software

We like to create article about our open source software , its opensource-socialnetwork.org we want to know that how to achieve goal, its about open source social networking software. 39.32.42.53 (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

They say it's best to ask.

What is The Signpost? --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Wikipedia's in-house newspaper. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. --Jayron32 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Should I fill one in for stuff like the teahouse and talkpages? I don't for that but I do always for editing articles. Another one, when did the teahouse start? --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do. It is always helpful for other user who want to know what's going on. The edit summery can sometimes be used for extra comments. This Teahouse page was started on 15 feb 2012, 06:54. There might have bee an earlier version of it. Some Wiki-historian will have to fill you in on that. You can follow the history of every page by clicking on the "View history" tag and then on to "External tools: Revision history statistics" a bit further down that page. w.carter-Talk 23:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Every edit? Okey dokes then. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Every edit, although I have found that the world keeps going even if I forget sometimes. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz:: → Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary → perfect recall:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the blank edit prompt info, a useful toolSovalValtos (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear, @Fuhghettaboutit:: great hint, and a really nice link to it. Thanks. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Watchlist, Flow, and Beta

Tell me what they are and everything to know about the 3 please. Human to human too, don't give me an article to read please. Thank you again Teahouse! --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the watchlist is basically a way to keep track of changes to pages. You add a page to your watchlist by clicking on the little star next to "view history". And you can access the watchlist by clicking on the link to it in the upper right of every page while you're logged in, which should take you here. It will show you changes to pages on your watchlist, with unvisited pages in green.

If you mean the Beta editor, also called Visual editor, it's a project intended to make a "what you see is what you get" editor for Wikipedia, with the intent of making it easier for new users to edit. The first release was a bit...buggy. Explaining everything about its features and how to use it would take far, far more time than I have :).

I'm afraid I don't know much about flow...some kinda new thing to replace talk pages? Someone else can probably explain more about that. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know "everything there is to know" about these three but the basics are:

• Watchlist is something you create yourself. Most pages has a small white star in the upper right corner. If you want to know when something happens on that page, you click on it and it turns blue and the name of the page appears on your watchlist. To remove a page from your watchlist, just click on the star again. Try it on a couple of pages and you'll see.
• Flow, is the new "look" for the Wikipedia. It's the new style and functions for the site. It is being tested and tweaked now. I have no idea when it will be up and running.
• Beta, are some new features/tools/"gadgets" for the Wikipedia that are being tested. You can try them out by checking the boxes for different things at your Preferences.

I'm sure I have missed some info, but I suspect that some other editor will add to this answer in that case. w.carter-Talk 23:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - Just to add a little to W.carter's usual excellent reply, once you have added some pages to your Watchlist, you can see them all by clicking on "Watchlist" at the top of any Wikipedia page. Pages with a green dot beside them have been changed since last time you visited them. IMhO, it is one of the most useful things here. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, DangerousJXD. I'll explain each of them for you, but I hope it's okay that I give you links for more information.

1. A watchlist is a private list of pages (articles, talk pages, or anything, really) that you want to monitor for changes. To watch a page, click the star on the right side of the "Edit" and "View history" links. Click again to unwatch. Changes to your watched pages will show up in Special:Watchlist (type that into the search box or just click the "Watchlist" link in the top-right). By default, only the most recent change to each page you're watching is shown, but you can change that in your preferences.
2. Flow is an experimental replacement for talk pages. (Right now it is being tested on a per-page basis, so you can't enable or disable it yourself.) It uses a more traditional comment thread system, with automatic notifications for replies and the ability to lock threads.
3. Beta features are new things you can try out. Two of the more popular ones are the new search engine (CirrusSearch) and VisualEditor (which lets you edit articles without using the code).

Hope this helps! Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All this for little old me? Seriously thanks a ton! I don't think I have ever been somewhere so friendly in my life. :D --DangerousJXD (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Logging on disables browser access to Wikipedia for 10 minutes

What might be the problem here, and how can it be fixed? I can edit WP without a problem when not logged on. However, when I log on and then try to edit an article or even just look at my Talk page the system locks and the browser (IE10) stops working for Wikipedia. I close the browser and try again, but for about 10 minutes I can't access Wikipedia at all. Then all of a sudden I can. Any thoughts? Thanks. 86.23.125.136 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

IE is excellent for downloading a better browser. Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, 86! Do you have any user scripts that you use in your account? It could be that those scripts are failing in IE (which, as Timtrent alluded, has many problems unique to itself when it comes to running scripts and the like), and they're failing in a way that causes the browser to freeze. You could try disabling Javascript in IE (Google suggests this as a way to do it) and then logging in, and see if that works. If it does, then it's probably one of your userscripts doing it; you could then try deleting the contents of your common.js page (or wherever your scripts are), and re-adding them, one by one, until you find the one that's causing the error. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks, thanks for the ideas. I don't run any scripts (not yet attained that level of sophistication :)). Also, I mainly use a company laptop and so I only have limited access to IE settings. Everything works ok on my own PC (IE8). 86.23.125.136 (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure what it would be then, particularly if it works on IE8; older versions of IE are usually much worse than newer versions. You might still want to try disabling Javascript if your company policy allows it; there are some gadgets and things that are loaded by default, even if you haven't added any on your own. I suppose they could cause problems in theory, though I doubt they're the issue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch

Okay, thanks for your help. you are right. Spikequeen (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeen.

Tea for all of us my hair ... I am trying to edit an article which seems to be continually vandalised Amanda Eliasch The article is about a prominent person on the British Art Scene, but it is continually being put up for deletion, by people who have not a clue who she is, because London is far from the Mid West, despite a huge amount of achievements which are now not mentioned in fear of being edited out. For instance there are three more books which are not written about , I tried to but the press was wrong? The article is accused now of being written like a magazine but it has been written by prominent editors. There is so much more that could be written yet it is not for fear that one of the millions of editors may or may not like it. She is very active, she does have some dodgy press but she is a "Peggy Guggenheim" type, who can also write and create. Why is there such hatred?. It looks like the latest suspect has a stick to grind who seems to have opened an account with the specific intention of deleting her yet again?. Perhaps it is the same person. I am new to Wikipedia, but why is this article being attacked when lesser articles are kept? She has had about 5 more exhibitions. I became interested as she seems to be the sort of woman I like to support. A worker and a reasonably successful award winning writer and filmmaker. Can't we get the other editors to feel the same? Any ideas to stop the continual problems of deletion? Spikequeen (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeenSpikequeen (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would encourage you to take a step back. You've encountered an editor with an axe to grind, and sometimes there is very little that can be done about that until everyone takes a breather. Powers ^T 19:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Spikequeen and I sense some real frustration here. When things get crazy with editing, I switch all my information, editing, and references to a Word document where I can keep track of things in my own space and wait for things to quiet down a bit. I agree with Powers and if it were me, I would step back for a while since no one is really going to listen to your opinion at this point in time. Carefully record why you think an edit is valid, and support this edit with as many good detailed references, apart from your own opinion, as you can. So at some time in the future, you can revisit the whole debate with a whole arsenal of 'reasonable-ness', logic and references. You will never loose your ability to ask for a review by other editors or administrators. It especially helps when you approach those who oppose you with courtesy, respect and patience. Assume good faith on their part. Perhaps you could distract yourself by working on another article for a short time. I admire your passion for the truth. Best Regards, bpage (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes as, Powers says, the best thing to do when Wikipedia starts to stress you out is to take the dog for a walk in order to keep your cool. When discussions get heated, its really easy to post something that you may come to regret later on: something that may in itself be a violation of Wikipedia policy. Sometimes it's really hard to assume good faith with some editors because they are always trying to bait you in an emotional discussion. You've got to try to keep your comments focused on the contents of edits and the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines involved and avoid commenting upon the behavior of others. Once again, that is sometimes really hard to do, especially when strongly disagree with the way someone is behaving. Articles get deleted all the time. Sometimes mistakes are made, but most of the time the reasoning is solid. Each article should be judged upon its individual merits, not in comparison to other articles. The fact that "lesser articles" are kept is irrelevant to the discussion, so other stuff exists is really not a good argument to try and make. Experienced editors who know how Wikipedia works will be more inclined to support your position if your arguments are based upon Wikipedia policy. So, it's best to simply state your case as clearly and concisely as possible, which relevant Wikipedia policies/guidelines apply and leave the emotional arguments to the other side. If the other side is trying to game the system, they will eventually get caught. We cannot use their actions as an excuse for not following Wikipedia policy ourselves. Wikipedia is not really about winning. Just some friendly advice. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing an article

Hi there!

I would like to make changes to the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rutka. Can I make direct changes to the article even though I am a paid editor.

In particular, I would like to remove the "This article relies on references to primary sources" box. I think the simplest way to remove this box is by removing references 3,4,5 and 6. However, I don't want to get flagged for conflict of interest.

Any suggestions? Thanks for your help! Varblues69 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Varblues69, welcome back to the Teahouse! The answer is yes, but tread carefully. Being paid or having a conflict of interest does not forbid anyone from editing an article, but if you don't discuss changes on the talk page first, you risk having them undone or being blocked from editing. The exceptions are basic copyediting (fixing spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) and correcting obvious errors. (What counts as "obvious" may not itself be obvious, so, when in doubt, discuss first.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I have seen a few Userpages that look really cool! Complete with different colors, well maintained tables, userboxes and a few other things. I have been here since two years, but still haven't figured out how to edit my page to an interesting one! Where can I find the information? Thanks. King Cobra (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, King Cobra. I recommend you look at the User page design center. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How to change a page title

I just created an article but accidentally forgot to capitalize the second word. It's the name of a company, so I think it's pretty important. How do I fix that? SLPalmer55 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, SLPalmer55, welcome to the Teahouse! To fix an article's title, you move the article. Full instructions are at the link, but the short version is to go to the upper right of the article, find the "More" menu, and click "Move". If you need any more help, reply below. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Anon126! SLPalmer55 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser function appears not to work. Please advise.

I sent an email to a user who did not receive it. I did not receive a confirmation in my email. The user tried a reverse send to me and had a similar experience. About three weeks ago I had an identical experience with a Wikipedia editor. Is this capability currently down? Thank you.Janvermont (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion please

On my user page I have a bunch of stuff I like. Would it look better to you if I put links for stuff like Marvel or PlayStation. Wierd question I know. -DangerousJXD (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD, your user page should reflect you, your preferences and skills. How you choose to do that is entirely up to you. Make it your own. Like if you want to "promote" your interests to other curious readers, link them. If you are "just making conversation", links are not necessary. It's always fun/nice to read a very personal user page. Take your time, this does not have to be done all at once. Look at other user pages and borrow ideas or codes from them (everyone else does that^^). Best, w.carter-Talk 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But remember, DangerousJXD, that this is an encyclopaedia, not a web host or social networking site. There is a certain degree of latitude allowed on User pages, but really it should be about you as a Wikipedia editor. If there is too much material on it which is unrelated to Wikipedia, somebody may come along and ask you to trim it, or else it could get deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted an edit, but since the editor appears to directly represent the company

So I reverted an edit using Stiki regarding the Madame Alexander page due to its promotional nature, but as you can see from the revision history the editor is claiming that as they are official representatives of the company their edits should stand. They left a similar message on my talk page. I'm just not sure how to proceed and any help would be appreciated. Asdklf; (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Asdklf;. You might find the information at WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest to be helpful. In my opinion, the other editor does seem to have a conflict of interest and also does seems to be trying to claim a degree of ownership over the page. The best thing to do is keep assuming good faith and try to politely make them aware of Wikipedia's policy on COI editing, ownership of articles and even perhaps "What Wikipedia is not?. Most of the time COI editors are just unfamiliar with what they can or cannot do. The "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide" does a good job of explaining this so perhaps posting a link on the other editor's talk page will help clear things up. However, if they continue to edit the page in complete disregard of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then you can ask for help at WP:COIN. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Asdklf;. I agree completely with your edits, reverted the other editor, and left a message on their talk page. Well done! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Asdklf;: I was going to add a bland {{Welcome-coi}} template to the other editor's talk page, but Cullen328's message is shorter and much more to the point. The "ball" is now in the COI editor's court, so all we can do now is watch and wait to see how they respond. Hopefully, they'll look at the links posted on their page and decide to edit according to Wikipedia's rules. If they don't,Cullen328 or another an administrator will likely take stronger action.- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am not an administrator, but just an "old hand". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all, Marchjuly. I take your comment as a compliment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both very much! I appreciate the assistance! Asdklf; (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

ryan giggs

Does anyone know how many apps and goals he has actually got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hernandezabc (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the teahouse Hernandezabc. Are you asking for references relating to this athelete?bpage (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Replying

When I reply to someone I put : but there is no space between my reply and the message I am replying to. See my "Bot I have a question." question to see what I mean. The person who replied to me has a space between his/her and my posts. Mine doesn't. How do I do that? -DangerousJXD (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi DangerousJXD

The "dots" indents

the text

like this.

For a space between you have to leave

an extra space between the lines like here. Best, w.carter-Talk 23:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I did that but it was not working but now I see it is. Wierd. Probably cause I pressed enter after. Thanks for confirming that. -DangerousJXD (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello DangerousJXD and welcome to the Tea House

For space between post click the advance tab above, and then you will see Arrow, click it you will get line space.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 02:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusion about adding an updated image to existing article

A few weeks ago, Eddie Kramer, the subject of an article I had recently revised and updated, supplied me with a more current photo of himself, to replace the older photo then being displayed with the article. I uploaded the photo. I was subsequently asked to supply proof that permission was granted to use the photo. I supplied that information. Today I visited the article and discovered that the newer photo had been deleted. When I attempted to upload it again, the forms I was asked to complete indicated that an image cannot be uploaded if its purpose is simply to illustrate what the subject looks like. Is this a new policy? Especially since I simply updated an old image, why can I not get the new image uploaded. Your help is eagerly sought. Byron Laursen (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Byron Laursen: Hi Byron. We require verifiable evidence of a copyright release. You uploaded the image with the permission text "Evidence: Will be provided on request." The page was thus deleted under section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, under which "If an uploader has specified a license and has named a third party as the source/copyright holder without providing evidence that this third party has in fact agreed, the item may be deleted seven days after notification of the uploader. Acceptable evidence of licensing normally consists of either a link to the source website where the license is stated, or a statement by the copyright holder e-mailed or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org." You were notified over a week before the deletion on your talk page, at this post. More and better information about about meeting the standard is set forth in the notice at your talk page than in the summary from the criterion I quoted above. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I make a cool looking signature

Everyone seems to have a very cool signature. I sure would like one. It replaces the 4 tildes, right? Joan McHale (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joan McHale and welcome to the Teahouse. For customizing your signature you will find information here, there is also this page: Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial where you can also find examples of signatures. And no, it does not "replace" the four tildes, the four tildes will automatically create it. Nice, huh? Best, w.carter-Talk 23:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I need something easy and fun to do, I got beat up by a Bot today over one edit. Waaa Joan McHale (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been bitten by bots more times than I can count. You have the option to cancel some bot notifications on your talk page. The instructions for opting out of bot 'messages' is contained in the message itself. Bots can be pretty insensitive at times. bpage (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joan McHale and welcome to the Tea House

You can find some good examples of signatures here

you can customize them

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 03:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bot I have a question. Get it?

Oh puns. Is there a list of all the bots on wiki? I'd like to know how many there are and what they all do. I've seen Suggestbot and Cluebot among others. Thanks Teahouse. -DangerousJXD (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, DangerousJXD, I see what you did there. :) Yup, there sure is: check out Wikipedia:Bots/Status. You can also follow this link to see all the user accounts that have the "bot" flag set, but that may not be as accurate or up-to-date, as there are some bots that purposefully aren't flagged as such. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a lot of bots! :) -DangerousJXD (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I reopen saved drafts?

I'm doing an article draft and saved it but now I can't get back into it to keep working on it. How do I bring it up again? Dukey123 (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Click on this link Draft:Barry Moores You can also find it by clicking on your contributions link next to the log out link at the top of the page. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Total Confusion

Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia and was looking forward to being a good contributor. I've tried to learn all I can about the rules, and how-to's. I started out slow and made two separate (one sentence) additions to an existing page. Because my contributions were repeatedly deleted I simply put them back in. The messages to me indicated that my additions were not agreed with, and I was falsely accused of not being neutral. I can't figure out for the life of me what to click on so I can respond to these messages and work things out. Now a contributor has blocked me and accused me of edit wars. I'm shocked that my small contributions aren't considered as valid as someone else's. Where do I go from here?DeanieF (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes one can have a baptism of fire. Now, I am not going to look at your contributions, nor at the conflict. I don't care about who is correct, which may seem bizarre to you. I'm just going to suggest a survival guide.

1. When you have had an edit reverted, instead of just redoing it (the route to problems), discuss it on the article's talk page with the editor who reverted it. You need to read WP:BRD.
2. Recognise that Wikipedia is weird, and is based on consensus. Mostly consensus is a good thing. sometimes not so much. Even then it is our guiding principle. So influencing consensus is an excellent concept.
3. Consensus comes in two forms, nemine contradicet, and formed by discussion. Either is good.
4. There are loads of rules. Tread lightly until you know them. Even old hands don't know it all. The rules manage, mostly, to minimise conflict
5. Although blocking is not intended to be punitive it often feels as if it is. You got blocked, you say? Ok, that;s not the end of the world.
6. Your contributions are as valid as mine, or as his, or as hers, provided they are within the rules. Read WP:NPOV. Anso understand that anything we add to an article needs a reference if it is a fact we are adding.
7. WP:TRUTH will surprise you
8. User:Timtrent/A good article may help you.

The only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hello, DeanieF. Please don't lose heart - Wikipedia can be a difficult place to get adjusted to. What you have been doing - I'm sure without realising it - is edit warring. When Jgstokes reverted your first three edits to Joseph Smith, they said in the edit summary "(Undoing edits that were ill explained and not needed. As has been repeatedly emphasized, Smith is recognized as the founder of many religions, not just the LDS Church. Please discuss on talk page before reverting again." It sounds from your question as if you did not know where the talk page is: pick "Talk" at the top of the page. It is not that your edits aren't considered as valid: it's that Wikipedia works by consensus. Under what we call the bold, revert, discuss procedure, you are welcome to make any edit that you think is an improvement; but if somebody else disagrees with you, they may revert your change. The next stage if either of you wishes to continue the matter is to open a discussion on the talk page, to try and reach agreement on the wording. If you are unable to achieve agreement, then there are procedures for WP:dispute resolution. But simply applying your change again without discussing the matter is indeed regarded as edit warring.

You have not been blocked: the warning from Richwales is that if you don't stop edit warring, you risk being blocked. Your best bet is to follow the advice he gave to read the consensus about how to present LDS matters on Wikipedia, and then join in the discussion on Talk:Joseph Smith. --ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I can't see that you have been blocked from the logs available to me as an ordinary editor. You have been told it may happen if you plough the furrow you have ploughed hitherto. That is all. I see the article you have been having difficulty with is a religious one. I suggest religion is best left alone until you are experienced here. It doesn't matter how right you are, religion is always controversial. Fiddle Faddle 16:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You are not blockedS Philbrick(Talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• User:DeanieF, you seem to have stumbled onto one of the more controversial articles on Wikipedia, and I apologize for the experience you have had so far. It seems like almost every sentence in that article has been discussed or debated at some point, and much of the wording is the result of many pages of discussion. That doesn't mean that you can't edit it...you can...it does mean though that it's going to be harder to edit. On Wikipedia each article has a discussion page behind it (we call it a "Talk page") where contributors can discuss various edits they want to make. The talk page for the Joseph Smith article is at Talk:Joseph Smith, and you can go there to start a discussion about the edits you'd like to make. It might help to read through some of the previous discussions as well. When you're on the talk page, there should be a button or tab at the top that says something like "new section" that you can click to make a new section at the bottom of the talk page. I hope this helps. If you need any advice feel free to contact me on my "user talk page" (just click the "talk" after my name). ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please also note that the Talk:Joseph Smith page has archives — separate sub-pages with older stuff going back (in this case) to 2002! There is a search feature for the archives (see the box near the top of the talk page, on the right). And to confirm what others have said — you are not currently blocked from editing, and assuming you make a serious, good-faith effort to play by the rules and respect Wikipedia's policies regarding discussion and dispute resolution, I assume you won't be blocked. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am new and want to create good article in wikipedia

Hello,

I am new in wikipedia and want to create a good article in wikipedia can anyone please send me the basic format of article which will help me to create it. Also how i can upload picture on my articles. Looking forward for your response and help. Thank you all :)Mohdibu33 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

People have found User:Timtrent/A good article useful. Pictures should be the last thing you need to handle. After a certain number of edits and days your account allows you to upload pictures. They must be ones you are entitled to upload. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome to the Teahouse Mohdibu33
The best way to start an article, is to read Wikipedia:Your first article, then find and read articles on similar subjects, and then follow the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, which looking at your sandbox, you have already tried, but without understanding what an article should include.
If you are hoping to create an article about 3i Coaching Classes, I suspect you will be disappointed, as it does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, the draft in your sandbox is also a clear copyright violation, and should be deleted. - Arjayay (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind reply. This is what i want to understand what exactly i need to follow to create an article on wikipedia.

Arjayay 3icoachingclasses.com this is my own website and i want to create an article on it so that people know about our classes and what we teach and what is our aim to educate poor children at very low fee 13:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.92.47.195 (talk)

Keisaryhumni

Hi everyone! I was asking if you could upload the Finnish translation by Jaakko Juteini and Teemu Honkanen of the Kaiserhymne aka Deutsche Kaiser Hymne. Thank You Marzia151.76.100.118 (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Upload it where? Why? From where? Why should we want a Finnish translation of something on English Wikipedia? I'm afraid you'll have to clarify your request somewhat more. --ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Uuuuuuuum (it's a big um), don't we already have an article on this at Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser? Is that the same topic you're posting about?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC) 23:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding a 'sequel'

Although the Wikipedia info on PressEurop is accurate, I see no mention of its successor, Voxeurop. Perhaps I have missed this 'link,' or perhaps it needs to be added2601:7:A00:5B9:E50E:6BEB:C212:4B5B (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, person with an IPV6 address. Voxeurop is mentioned in the article Presseurop, but does not at present have its own article. This may just be because nobody has written one, or it may be that Voxeurop has not (yet) received the coverage in reliable sources, independent of it which are an absolute requirement for an article about it. On a quick look, there seem to be plenty of announcements of the launch of VoxEurop, but they mostly appear to be from press releases, and so not independent. --ColinFine (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

How to sign and edit?

1/ I've just done a small correction on the page "Yazidis" but I didn'nt know where to sign. So, I put it next to my edit (by worshipping Adam and Eve despite God's express command "not" (Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)) to do so.[15]), which does not seem to be the good thing to do?!

2/ A full point ends a sentence; so, it is very ackward to put it before references rather than after, as I see it systematically been done on the wiki?! Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Michel, welcome to the Teahouse. We sign our posts on talk page and noticeboards (like this Teahouse page) - we do not sign them on encyclopedia articles.

References are not part of sentences, they come after the sentence. So yes, the full stop comes before the references, with no space in between. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, you made me laugh of myself! :-)

About references, you must be wrong; indeed, in all scientific articles, references are just beside the very word or part of sentence they refer to. This rule is even applied in the wiki concerning parts of sentences. It is only not applied at the very end of sentences where the point is put afterwards in a very bizarre way, I'm afraid. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely fine to put a reference after a sentence or after a part of a sentence. This is not different to how scientific articles or other scholarly works are laid out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't place periods (full stops) after references because it looks awkward to have the punctuation just hanging out there with space on either side of it (the footnote is superscripted, so it has space beneath it, adjacent to the period). Powers ^T 17:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Spikequeen (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)How do you stop vandalism on an articleSpikequeen (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

Spikequeen (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Thank you for including me. I am happy to be here. I am trying to edit an Article on "Amanda Eliasch", every time I add things it get removed or I am told the page is up for deletion, yet there is so much on her that is not in the article. I want to do a good job. Can a lock be put on the page? Also if there are awards should they be put in a box like other film makers. I think the article is worth keeping as Eliasch seems to work all the time. Can you help you these three questions, vandalism, correct editing and boxes for awards.Spikequeen (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeenSpikequeen (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello spikequeen, welcome to the Teahouse. To me, Amanda Eliasch seems easily to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, because multiple independent reliable sources have written about her or her work in detail. Some people seem to disagree, but in that case it is their responsibility to make a case at Articles for Deletion that Eliasch is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. At present no such case has been made, so the article stays.

Anyway, just because someone disagrees with us about the notability of the topic, does not mean their edits are vandalism. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, so if there are disagreements then everyone should discuss them on the article's talk page Talk:Amanda Eliasch ... we do not respond by locking the article from editing ... otherwise you wouldn't be able to edit it either!

On the subject of correct editing, yes it is important for the article to be correct and accurate, because it is about a living person. And finally, if you think it is useful to add boxes for awards or similar enhancements, you may wish to take a look at some existing recognised Wikipedia Good Articles in the category Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Actors, directors, models, performers and celebrities to see what wiki markup is used to lay out such features in those articles. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Google images

Can I search up an image and use is in an article? Probably stupid but heh best to ask. Example: Can I take Family Fued 2014 Australia logo and put it on its wiki? The pic is [[1]] I think or search up what I said. At the results its the logo. I wrote this awfully. Soz. --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It would be useable, but do read up on the WP: NFC and WP:NFCC guidelines about using non-free images. Remember also to complete the fair use rationale when uploading. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 04:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi DangerousJXD. Yes and no. There are many free images you can find and use, but knowing what you can and can't use is key, and the area is thorny. For the specific image you posted, the answer is no, you would not be able to use it. Here's some rules of thumb:

1. All images are assumed to be under non-free copyrighted unless you have positive evidence they are under a free copyright license compatible with our licenses;
2. In practice this means that unless you find a copyright notice associated with an image that lists it as under a suitable license, the image cannot be used (except under a claim of fair use, see below), except that;
3. Some images (without a specific copyright license associated with them) we can determine to to be in the public domain and use them if we know certain information about them, such as, for an image of U.S. origin, that it was published before 1923, or is a U.S. federal government work;
4. We can use images under a claim of fair use in a particular article (and never outside of an article in the mainspace), if its use meets certain strict criteria set out at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (which can only be uploaded to Wikipedia — never to the Commons);
5. While you must meet every aspect, the most common reasons an image will not meet the criteria are replaceability and free equivalency; if it can reasonably be replaced with a free image or if a free image already is available even if it's not as good, fair use will not apply. So for example, if it's possible for someone to take a photo of the subject and then provide a free license to that image, a non-free image will not do, which in turn means that;
6. Images of living persons will very rarely meet fair use because a photograph can always be taken in the future if one is not available for free now.

All this is to say that the image you asked about cannot be used because it appears to be non-free copyrighted, not in the public domain, and would not meet fair use for a number of different reasons, including that it depicts multiple living persons. But you can search Google for compatibly freely-licensed images. See this search as an example. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, top notch stuff. --DangerousJXD (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there...

... a place to find pages that need editing? I have used Suggestbot, that is great. I went to a vandalism patrol place but I got confused and didn't understand it. And of course I have done on the spot editing where if I see a typo or think something needs more info then I do that. I love the feeling I get when I've made a page better in the smallest way or big ways. Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Heya again @DangerousJXD:. Try Wikipedia:Community portal. If you page down a bit, you can see a section titled "Help out". It lists various types of problems articles have, and gives suggestions for what needs done. For example, if you like to copyedit, you can grab some articles in the "Fix spelling and grammar" group. Does that help? --Jayron32 02:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I went there but nothing there intrests me. Great suggestion though. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello DangerousJXD and welcome back to the Teahouse. I don't know if you got a satisfactory answer or not but I can share my experience in finding new pages to help edit, and believe me, there are plenty of them. First of all, you can search for 'stubs', articles that are very short and need to be expanded with content and references. What kind of articles are you most comfortable with editing? Are there topics that interest you? We probably can find stubs related to your preferred topic. In addition, I have found one of the most needed areas that need editing is working with 'new page patroling'. This is where you see newly created articles by first time editors. You don't have to formally review a new article to edit it, you can help out the page creator with some helpful editing. If you would like the details on locating stubs and the new pages 'feed' (the place where new pages appear) then let me know.

Regards and Happy Editing!

bpage (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bpage, my user page has stuff I like. Tell me more about stubs. Are there any stubs about things on my user page? --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Most likely, yes, DangerousJXD. To find them, you could visit a WikiProject, where editors collaborate on specific areas. I will leave a list of WikiProjects you may be interested in on your talk page. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello DangerousJXD, I certainly like your enthusiasm about wanting to edit. Here are some lists of stubs that reflect the interests that you have on your user page:

Stubs you might like to work on:

Playstation stubs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Xbox_stubs

Australian stubs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australia_stubs

Hip Hop stubs can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hip_hop_stubs

I provided you with urls instead of Wikipedia link addresses/titles because I thought it would be faster.

Happy Editing, bpage (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I reference details of the South Australian government's Women's Information Service?

We want to put in an article on this valuable service but are unable to find published references. The majority of the information comes from annual reports, internal reviews and similar documents - the majority of which were written for internal government use and were not widely disseminated. There are also very few digital references on the web which provide details of the women, many of whom were and are volunteers, who staff the service.

Your advice and suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks Drkershaw (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Drkershaw and welcome to the Tearoom. You are certainly able to use annual reports and published internal reviews because they really are published references. I was told once, 'if you are holding it in your hand and reading it, then it can be used as a reference' (using common sense, of course). Even comics can be used as refernces because they can be cited! Many good sources of information are not widely disseminated. As a matter of fact, your access to these references gives you an advantage that other editors probably don't have. Would you like some help finding other references for your topic? I noticed that you called Wikipedia a 'valuable service'. You may want to read up on what some of the goals and purposes of Wikipedia are said to be. We aim to create an online encyclopedia by providing good articles with good references - and that is what it looks like you are trying to do. Happy editing and if this does not answer your question adequately, please come back to the Tearoom and we will get this figured out with possibly a more experienced Tearoom host. Regards and happy editing! bpage (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Drkershaw. The advice from Bfpage is not entirely correct. You can use those sources if they are published, but any article needs to be based primarily on sources which are independent of the subject, which those are not. In fact, to establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's special sense, and therefore may have an article at all, you need to find substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Such sources do not have to be available online - as long as the reference gives enough information that a reader can in principle obtain them, for example through a public library. But if independent sources do not exist, then there is nothing to base an article on, and such an article is not allowed. --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So sorry, Drkershaw, and thank you ColinFine,Teahouse host for correcting the information I presented. I assumed, that you were referring to references that you had access to, not references published by a company or organization you work for. Using your own references about yourself, and/or using references published by someone you work for is pretty much a big no-no. You could say that using information that you had a hand in creating might 'skew' the point of view of an article and make it not seem objective. It's like the rule about someone writing an article about their own 'discovery' or their own research - not good. I want to profusely apologize for passing the wrong 'answer' due to my misunderstanding of your question. bpage (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, bpage, for correcting you again (particularly after your gracious thanks on my talk page), but you're still not quite getting it. This isn't about whether Drkershaw is connected with the WIS or not (if they are, then there are additional restrictions they should observe because of their conflict of interest). My point is about whether the sources used are independent of the WIS or not. Sources which are not independent (which would include their annual report) may be used only to support uncontroversial factual data (such as their location, annual turnover, and number of employees). Any material that is either evaluative or potentially controversial (reports of their goals or their achievements, for example, or any criticism of their activities) must be sourced from organs independent of the service - such as major newspapers, or books from reputable publishers. And in order to meet the criteria of notability required for any article, the article must cite some such independent reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If I want to create a new article for the first time

should I just go for it and create it in the article namespace rather than using "articles for creation"? Although I already have some editing experience, this would be my first time creating a new article (I'd be using the article wizard of course). I've already got some sources for the article.

The reason I'd rather use this method is that I fear that it might take a while for the article to be reviewed if I submit it via "articles for creation".Lupine453 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely! Be bold! You've been around long enough to know the traits of a good article, and presumably to know whether or not your subject is notable enough for an entry. As long as your new article has references that demonstrate the subject's notability, new page patrollers should be kind.

If you'd like a middle option, you can try creating the new page in your Userspace. That will allow you to tweak and edit rough drafts before moving it into articlespace, without fear that a patroller will come by and tag it before it's ready.

-- Powers ^T 22:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks Powers.Lupine453 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

why my page is being deleted59.89.64.145 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

why my page is being deleted??59.89.64.145 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since you made this edit either after your IP address had changed, or while not logged in, the only edit we can see made by you, either live or deleted, is the one asking this question. Giving reasons for a page's deletion is highly contextual so there's not a lot we can offer without knowing what page this is about. Nevertheless, please see Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?, and please visit the links (words in blue, like those earlier in this sentence) in whatever notice is in the page stating it is up for deletion, or which appear in any notices posted to your talk page to inform you about the deletion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Article Entry Deleted

I added an entry to an existing page as recently as this morning and within an hour it apparently was deleted. In looking at the history of the page, the last modification was performed by a XLinkBot which is not an actual individual but a Wikipedia robot. My question is why was my entry deleted when I was trying to improve the page with additional content?Wthowerto (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wthowerto and welcome to the Teahouse. The bot didn't like your edit because it contained links to blogspot.com sites, which are proscribed under Wikipedia guidelines. I suggest that you re add your text without the links.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Phily88, thank you for your response. I will try your suggestion!Wthowerto (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi I added a link to the Florida State Courts and County Law Library Association's website but my edit was reverted. Can you help me as to what I did wrong and how to go about correcting this. Thanks so much. Guyatri (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I put those little blue numbers in brackets at the end of sentences?

When I'm reading something I always see little blue numbers in brackets at the end of sentences. I began editing Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric and Sonic Boom: Shattered Crystal and when I went to the part about those numbers, there were many words and brackets and stuff that I couldn't understand. Is there a shorter way of putting those numbers? JethroBT (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC) (TheRedBlur (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello TheRedBlur and welcome to the Teahouse. Those little blue numbers are called references. You can read all about them at Help:Referencing for beginners. No, there is no shorter way of writing them. The references are there so that the readers can see were you got your facts and that the facts are solid. In fact, the more info there is in a reference, the better for the article. Why don't you do The Wikipedia Adventure and learn even more about how to write an article. Look for it a bit further up this page. Best, w.carter-Talk 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How to redirect pages?

hi, my entry is currently up for review. I'll need to redirect searches to it. Is that something I can do during the review process? Or something I need to wait until the entry is approved?

Thanks, Vero VeroOvid1 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi VeroOvid1. You'll need to wait until your article is "live" before creating redirects to it, otherwise the redirect pages will be deleted as having no target (if you redirect them to the draft, it will cause problems when the draft is moved into mainspace). Wait until the review has been done and the article moved before creating redirects. When you get to that stage, actually creating them is very easy; just start a new page under the alternative title with the text #REDIRECT [[name of target article]]. There's more information at WP:REDIRECT. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vero and welcome to the Teahouse! Wait for a decision on your article for both; if it's accepted then you can set up redirects and upload images. Images won't help your article be accepted, and redirects should point to existing articles in article space rather than sandboxes. When your article has been accepted you can set up redirects by creating an article at the redirecting name with the following: #REDIRECT [[Your Article Name]]. Hope that helps. Sam Walton (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't move new article because of redirect page

I created a new article concerning the 18th century Native American chief Nemacolin, who blazed an important trail to the Ohio River Valley--and for whom a number of places are named, especially in Pennsylvania. I inserted wikilinks in a number of historical articles concerning the leader, including in Nemacolin's Path, but they all redirect to Nemacolin, Pennsylvania, a census designated location named for the chieftan. I don't think eliminating that redirect and adding the article would be controversial, and remaining the sandbox to something like Nemacolin (chief) seems silly. Still, I can't seem to figure out the requested move process. The "be bold" suggestion didn't work as it normally does from my sandbox. Adding the suggested template at the beginning also didn't work. Thanks for any help you can provide.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorted it for you. I've also added an {{About}} template to deal with searchers who are looking for the place in Pennsylvania. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed your question here in the tearoom and found it interesting since I am from Western Pennsylvania. I have looked at the Nemacolin's Path article and found it quite fasinating. You did a great job and your article has the potential of becoming even better. Would you like me to help find more references for you?

bpage (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Contributions

Hello Friends How one can see someones contributions? Usually we see his/her user page and talk page. Thanks and regards Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple - just go to that user's userpage or talkpage and select "User contributions" from the "Tools" menu on the left of your screen. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui

I am really very very grateful

You people are great

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 11:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. You can also access a user's contributions by putting their username into the Special:Contributions page, but personally I find doing it from the Tools menu to be quicker an easier. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui hello again

I tried both, you are right first method is easy

Thanks once again

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

?????

Is there any polls or discusions I can take part in? I did this manually because if I use blue ask a question button it is at the bottom of the page, Why? I already asked that 2nd one but nobody has answer it yet probably cause it hasn't been seen. --DangerousJXD (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @DangerousJXD: and thanks for stopping by. There are several places where you can find discussions related to Wikipedia going on. Wikipedia:Village pump is a place where Wikipedia business is discussed; you can find ongoing discussions about Wikipedia events, policies and procedures, etc. Wikipedia:Reference desk is a place where people can ask for, and get, help answering questions using references inside and outside of Wikipedia. If you'd like to get involved in other ways, Wikipedia:Community portal has a variety of other places you can help, both with article work, and behind the scenes. There are always lots of discussions going on, and the more perspectives, the better! Good luck! --Jayron32 18:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello DangerousJXD, yes, there seems to be a glitch in the way the questions appear here at the Teahouse. Others have noticed this as well and alerted people who can fix this. Let's hope it's done soon. Most of the discussions at the Wikipedia are about articles or groups of article. If you like to participate in a discussion you simply click on the "talk"-tab for the article in question. If you are interested in say Marvel Comics you find the discussion at Talk:Marvel Comics. On that talk page you can also see that the page is part of several projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics were you can find more discussions about all kind of comics. Happy hunting! w.carter-Talk 18:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32, Thanks heaps!

w.carter, Are you a mind reader? Do you have specials powers I should know about? Can someone let me know when that is fixed? I prefer the button at the top. Thank you both. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course DangerousJXD, you may call me "Charles Xavier"! No, seriously, I looked at your user page before answering. It's always easier to relate to and example one is interested in. And... since I'm a huge Marvel fan myself ...well... Cheers, w.carter-Talk 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit watchlist page proposal

I want to propose an extra facility on Edit watchlist pages which would allow me to put a comment there to remind me when and why I put a page there but what I've read at the Village Pump doesn't seem very helpful - too technical for me. Can anyone tell me where I should put such a proposal. Seems to me that such a change may require a modification to the wiki software. Jodosma (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jodosma: Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse. Here we answer questions about editing Wikipedia rather than potential changes to the software framework. I'm afraid Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is the relevant board for your proposal—just post your suggestion there—no one will bite you. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, I had looked at the Idea lab and Technical; neither seemed appropriate so that's why I came here. I just needed a nudge in the right direction! Jodosma (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

how to cite

Hi, what's the difference between cite web and ordinary ref tags, and which one should be used, and under which circumstance? I noticed that cite web will automatically place quotes around the reference. How do I use the cite web tag, and what program do I use? Dark Liberty (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dark Liberty, welcome to the Teahouse! Technically speaking, you put {{cite web}} and the others inside the <ref>...</ref> tags, like this: <ref>{{cite web|...}}</ref> The difference between using {{cite web}} and writing out the source information from scratch is that {{cite web}} formats everything automatically for you.

Wikipedia does not require you to use these in any case, as long as you keep the formatting consistent within an article. If you do want to use them, though, you can use the RefToolbar or enter them manually. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that the tool that administrators use? I find cite web quite burdensome and difficult to use, it's much easier to just put in a ref although I prefer to use the cite web interface because it allows for more information. Dark Liberty (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty:, admins are no different from the whole pool of editors and some do use the CS1 citation style which includes {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} etc and others don't. As Anon126 says as long as an article is consistent in the referencing style used that is all that is required. Personally I do use the CS1 templates and I enter them manually, perhaps because I'm sad enough and been around long enough to remember most of the common parameters so filling them in by hand is fairly easy for me. Other people find the RefToolbar to be a great tool and use that. Nthep (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I like to look at references in my sandbox before I use them in an article. There is a template that you can use in your sandbox editing window. At the top of the editing window, you will see the words  : "Advanced, Special Characters, Help, Cite". If you click on "Cite" you will get a drop-down menu. Click on the box at the far left called: "Templates". You will then get another drop down menu that will let you select the most common sources used in Wikipeia. You can select "cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal". When you select one of these options a 'fill-in-box-type' window pops up and lets you enter the relevant information to create the reference in the correct format. I never have to try and sort out the information and get it into the right places in the cite template in the body of an article when I use this tool available in my sandbox.

bpage (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

double photos

Last week, while in Petersburg, Virginia, I used a phone app to find places without pictures on wikipedia. Today on my laptop I uploaded the photos I took on that day. That for the Petersburg Courthouse historic district uploaded and posted just fine, ditto with the McKenney Building and Peabody School, all of which are on the National Register of Historic Places and thus show in the Summer of Monuments Maps of Monuments feature (I'm not vouching for my own artistic abilities nor computer expertise). But two seemingly identical images of the same building appeared in the preview and final infobox for the First Baptist Church (Petersburg, Virginia) (a Virginia historic site perhaps not on the NRHP), although the infobox only contains one link. Perhaps i made a mistake in copying the infobox and editing it for another pictureless article, for Gillfield Baptist Church, because the same doubling thing happened there. I'm sure I didn't upload the picture twice, especially the second time. Is part of the problem the huge infobox template? I edited out quite a few lines, but lots of blank lines remain.Jweaver28 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jweaver28, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've fixed one of the articles in this edit. What you want to do is leave out the brackets and the File: part of the file, and just put the file name and the extension. You can denote the image size in the imgsize section, and put the statement for the image in the caption section. You can see Template:Infobox church for instructions for each parameter. KJ ^Discuss? 02:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox to article transfer

I recently created an article about a notable person on Wikipedia. I wrote the article first in my own sandbox, and then polished it before I copied my work into the article namespace. I know that the correct way to move an article is not to simply copy and paste the text into a new title (as it erases the page history), but does that apply to my sandbox as well? Right now, there is a notice on my newly created article that says that the page history of my sandbox should be merged into the history of the article, but shouldn't my sandbox be my own personal workspace for articles? If it is, then why does its history matter in the article namespace? On top of that, the page history of my sandbox contains versions of it when I was working on a separate, completely unrelated article. So if the history was actually merged, it would bring unrelated content to the history of the article. Should the two revision histories actually be merged? Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 01:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Eventhorizon51: As long as no third-party makes any substantive edits, there's no problem with you copying and pasting the content you wrote, and there's no need for any history merge. On the other hand, if third parties did make any substantive edits then copying and pasting it would present a copyright problem. But where that occurs, we can merge just the edits that were involved and not prior ones for different content (though it's a bit of a pain). Looking at your sandbox's history there's no need for any history merge here. To avoid this issue in the future, though, just create dedicated sandboxes. Wikipedia provides a default sandbox when you click the link for "sandbox", at the on-the-nose title "User:name/sandbox", but sandboxes are just subpages of you user or user talk namespaces and you can create as many as you'd like, which can be at any title. Typically users create them specifically for one article, at the intuitive name: "User:name/title article is expected to be moved to" So, for example, for the most recent article you created, the way to start it with an intuitive title and with a dedicated history would be at User:Eventhorizon51/Rosanna Pansino. Done this way there's no issue of uninvolved edits, and you can just move it when its ready for the mainspace. By the way, once you move such sandboxes, it's a good idea to tag the resulting sandbox name redirect for speedy deletion with {{Db-g7}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Foreign words and phrases

I have been italicizing foreign words and phrases, using the Chicago Manual of Style convention that words that are not in an English language dictionary should be italicized "bachata" but Spanish language words that have made it into the dictionary--salsa for example or macho, are not. But before I go further, I thought it smart to ask. (Just to be clear, I am referring to Spanish (or other langauges) that appear in English language Wikipedia pages. Gracias! Juamari (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Juamari. In general, writing style in Wikipedia is outlined in the Manual of Style. In this particular case, the relevant section would be WP:ITAL. Under the foreign words section, it instructs to 'Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English. Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized.' KJ ^Discuss? 02:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding answers in Teahouse

I have really appreciated the helpfulness of teahouse hosts, however, if it takes me several days to check this site, I have trouble finding the answer to my question. The clickables seem to be the name of the person who answered, talk, and teahouse itself. Thanks!Juamari (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi !Juamari - If you look at the top right of the page you will see a menu that includes "Contributions" - that links to a log of everything you have ever done on this site (with very few exceptions) listed in chronological order. All the log entries link directly to each edit. So you can just look it up and click your way back to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

More specifically Juamari, it depends how long ago your question was asked.
If it was some time ago, you can put your name in the "Question Archived?" box, under the contents panel of this page, it will then come up with all the posts including your name in the Tea-house archive. Currently there are none, as all of your posts are recent and still on this page, whereas my name occurs 67 times, and the active teahouse hosts will have several hundred.
As your posts are recent, when I do a "Find" (Control F on most browsers) for your name, I see your name currently occurs 12 times on this page (It will be 13 when I save the page). You can do this and then reputedly click "next" on the find, to run through all the uses until you get to the one you want. - Arjayay (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright okay?

I have found a source of information that I can use. It appears to allow verbatim copying. Here it is:

© Copyright 1995 Christopher Tipping. This chapter may be freely reproduced and distributed for noncommercial purposes. For more information on copyright, see Copyright & Permitted Uses.

Copyright & Permitted Uses

As provided by copyright law, each chapter in this book is copyrighted by the author as of the date of first publication. Notice of copyright is at the end of each chapter.

For noncommercial use, the chapters in this book may be freely reproduced and distributed in part or in whole provided the source is cited. The suggested citation for a chapter is:http://www.entnemdept.ufl.edu/walker/ufbir/contribute_copyright.shtml

Is this copyright valid so that I can copy the source verbatim?

bpage (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope! Wikipedia's licensing (CC-BY-SA) also requires that content also be allowed for commercial use. For future reference, WP:COPYOTHERS is the official policy on this, and also describes how to properly copy and attribute copied content. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer!

bpage (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bpage: Hey bpage. Please be aware that if you do find a source that bears a free copyright license compatible with ours (or is in the public domain) you still must provide attribution to that source to avoid plagiarism.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How long does it take for a review for a draft?

Hi y'all I submitted a draft for review yesterday, and was just wondering how long it would take for a response. I'm not expecting it to be fast, but I would just like an idea about how long it would take. Thanks so much Ireallyliketrains (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Ireallyliketrains and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that the topic of your article is already covered in a section of Doctor Who (series 8). Sorry to disappoint.  Philg88 ^♦talk 18:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Philg88. I made the page because we know that Missy will be a prominent character in the future of series 8 and also it may be difficult for people to find who the character is or what we know about. Ireallyliketrains (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ireallyliketrains: You're welcome. At the moment Missy (Doctor Who) is a redirect to Doctor Who (series 8). Wikipedia does not need an article about every single character in every single TV series on the planet and unless Missy becomes a major phenomenon in her own right there is no need for her to have her own stub article. We don't know what will happen in the future and Wikipedia does not use a crystal ball to decide. I suggest that you start a discussion on the talk page of Doctor Who (series 8) article and see what other editors think. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

just wrote my first article in sandbox, how do I submit it for review?

hi,

I just wrote my first article and want to submit it for review, I don't see the move tool.

Any thoughts would be helpful. Oh, I've only been a user of wikipedia for 2 days now.

Thanks, Vero VeroOvid1 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vero!

After you save your changes and return to the page you have created, there should be a message that says "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work in progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable." with a blue triangle picture on the left. Below this text box should have a green button that says "submit draft for review". just click on this button and you should be fine. I'm not really sure how long it could take for a response (i'm new too and i submitted an article) Hope this helps! Ireallyliketrains (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@VeroOvid1: Hi there. I've added the requisite template to your sandbox draft. All you have to do now is click the big button that says "Submit your draft ..." Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 18:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new to editing here at Wikipedia. I can't really say that I have any clear idea on how things work here, but I'm trying my best to observe the way they do, and apply them as guidelines to guide my own involvement here. I was wondering if anybody could tell me whether drafts that you post in the sandbox will be visible to everyone on Wikipedia, or only visible to you until you "submit them for peer review." Thanks. --Aleydis Sinclaire (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aleydis, and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts, in the sandbox or anywhere else, are visible to everyone, even people who don't have Wikipedia accounts. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Arthur goes shopping. (: Personally think the lack of privacy here sucks a little bit, but I guess I'll just have to get over that. Thanks again for answering. --Aleydis Sinclaire (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Arthur goes shopping,first please excuse me my poor English is not my first language. I made a draft(you can say something about it if you want https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_de_Andrade ,I know I have a lot of work to do on it).My question is: what is the steps for an article before to appear on the search engine on the web (google, yahoo, etc), even in Wikipedia engine? I mean: first step is to write in sandbox, after that to submit the draft, etc. I want to understand the procedure standard. Thank you very much.Leedskalnin (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

about a draft

I have a draft " Draft: Andrea de Andrade Wikipedia, samba dancer"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_de_Andrade) and I have an opinion from an administrator(he say that article don't have any kind of notability-after I revised and try to put a lot of reliable sources).I need other opinion. Can anybody take a look on the draft? I need more opinion about draft. Thank you very much. Leedskalnin (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leedskalnin and welcome to the Teahouse. I looked at your draft and it needs a lot of work if it is going to be considered. First, this is an encyclopedia and not a fashion magazine, no need to start with the measurements of the person or her dresses. You have much to trim away. You can look at this article about another samba dancer to see how it can be done: Luma de Oliveira. Also take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Carter, thank you very very much for your information and for the link to Luma de Oliveira, I was trying to find some samba dancer article but I found it.You give me very serious clue about what to do with my article. Thank you again.Leedskalnin (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Leedskalnin, it appears English is not your first language. You are having problems with spelling and verb tense. These are not serious problems because they can be corrected, but you (or someone) do need to make the article easy for us to read. The more serious problems are the type information included and how it is described.

And the references should show a title and possibly a publisher and date. This way if the information cannot be found later using your links, new links can be found.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Vchimpanzee,I apologize for my poor English (I'm from Romania), I know, when I talk I don't stay very much to correct the spelling>Thank you for obs.about references,indeed I miss to put the date and publisher.But tell me about references itself, they are reliable or not.And about the problem linked with the information in the article.Give me a clue.Thank you very much!Leedskalnin (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How to summon an admin

There is an ongoing disputed in an article between me and another person, and I want other peoples opinion on that. And an admin of course. Which templates can I use or How can I call for an admin ? Denizyildirim (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Denizyildirim and welcome to the Teahouse. I'll take a look and get back to you.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Denizyildirim: Ok, I've left a note on the relevant talk page. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it isn't the case that of course you want an admin. If you are having a dispute, it is wise to get the opinion of an experienced editor, but there's no particular reason to ask for an admin. Any editor can help, but an editor with experience is more likely to know how to help. There are many, many highly experienced editors who are not admins.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

COI: Moving section into its own article space

There is a section in an existing article that I feel merits an article in its own right. The original article is John Travis (physician) and the section is the Illness-Wellness Continuum. This is a model that has been (and still is) widely used in relation to wellbeing and I feel it is sufficiently notable to move into its own space. I have expanded the original section - currently residing in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fbell74/sandbox

As I have a connection to the creator of this concept I wanted to get the views of editors on this to see if it maintains neutrality.

Any help would be gratefully received. Fbell74 (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fbell74, I'd like to strongly recommend that you discuss this issue with the subject specialists at WP:WikiProject Medicine - they will know how best to deal with it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roger (Dodger67) I'll check it out 112.205.139.48 (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly Arbitrary Editing

I edited this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians

There were several problems:

1. Notable members of this community (it's an ethnic group) are not mentioned- such as supreme court justices, and chief ministers, and central government ministers. 2. Unknown and unimportant minor celebrities are listed. 3. None of it is cited as often is difficult in list pages. 4. Isn't structured well.

A more experienced editor, with mysterious motives decided to revert my version: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=622563030

He argued that not everyone listed was given citations.

This is absurd because the new one had as many citations as the old one if not more. Many of the people I added have wikipedia entries which show that they are members of this ethnic group. The new version in all ways was better organised and more encyclopedic than the old version.

Further many of the people listed are famous and are well-known to be from this particular ethnic group.

Why this is absurd:

-A more organised article was reverted to an absurd one. - Instead of improving the list by providing citations etc. it was blanket reverted. - The burden of citations is far excessive. I am not sure any other list page has the level of citations or evidence that the editor demands.

Since I am new to wikipedia editing, I would like to ask what can I do regarding this case?

I am persuaded my contribution was a positive one, and if this is the nature of editing in wikipediawho wish to destroy articles using pretexts than constructively improving them,then I susppose I have reason to leave this community. What should one do?

Jutsis (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed by looking at the history of this article the same user Sitush has done the same thing before: he has reverted a much more decent list to an absurd useless one: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=589127793

It seems to me that this editor has an axe to grind regarding this page, since there are many lists on wikipedia which doesn't have citations for every entry.

Further the same user has edited another related list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Christians

Jutsis (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jutsis. Welcome to the Teahouse. Please do not presume that a difference of opinion over content is vandalism. It is a failure to assume good faith and assuming good faith is important to this community.

Wikipedia is not a directory of people in general and only people with their own Wikipedia article should be listed as notable. The burden of adding reliable sources lies with the person adding material. It is not reasonable to expect others to do it. If you have further queries about editing that page you should raise them on the talk page for that article.Charles (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jutsis. The editor you have criticized, Sitush, is one of our most respected editors in the highly contentious area of the castes and ethnic groups of India. Your first step is to discuss the matter with Sitush, in a friendly, collaborative fashion, not in a confrontational way. If approached this way, I am confident that Sitush will explain his reasoning. By the way, you should never, ever use the word "vandalism" in this way. That word refers to deliberate, unambiguous efforts to damage the encyclopedia. Sitush is not a vandal. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jutsis, I am sorry if I didn't not make my reasoning clear. Wikipedia requires that almost everything we say in an article is verifiable by reference to reliable sources, which is why citations are necessary. In the case of articles that are biographies of living people (we often call these "BLPs"), when the statement being made is particularly personal in nature - religious belief, sexuality, caste affiliation, etc - the consensus of the community is that the reliable source(s) must demonstrate that the person being written about self-identifies with the claim. A newspaper might say that a famous actor is a Hindu, for example, but unless the newspaper is quoting the actor it will almost certainly not be acceptable as a source for the statement on Wikipedia; similarly, although many newspapers have mentioned the caste of Amitabh Bachchan, we know from interviews with him that he rejects the very idea of caste and refuses to be identified with one.

The problem with your contributions, and with those of many other people who add names to India-related caste and religious lists, is that they didn't even satisfy the general verifiability requirement, let alone the more stringent BLP one. I understand that you meant well but you simply cannot do this, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not understand why list of Indian groups need to have a more stringent criteria than nearly every other page of lists of people other groups such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_European_Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_West_European_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Americans

and many many others.

By above criteria most of the above lists and many many others should be deleted completely. This all seems very arbitrary and dubiously so. The reason why I edited the St Thomas Christian list was because I thought such lists were of some value.

Anyway I intent to create a new page of something of the nature: List of prominent people of Kerala with christian heritage or ancestry, and by-pass self-identification and other problems. Jutsis (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not fix the problems that you say exist in those other articles? I can assure you that the India stuff follows policy, even if some other lists may not. I'd also advise you against creating the new page that you propose: not only would it fail to avoid the issues as you hope but it would probably fall foul of WP:POINT and might well just end up being pruned of poor content and then merged. As with categories, we don't create lists for just any old thing, although I can't remember what bit of policy says this - perhaps @Cullen328: can. If you must have a go, I suggest that you draft something in your WP:Sandbox first or, perhaps better, use our Articles for Creation process. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Covered in Notability of stand-alone lists and Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations in What Wikipedia is Not.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Philg88. There are times when even a fairly experienced contributor like me just gets lost amidst the proliferation of policy pages. A timely reminder, I guess, of just what sort of hurdles newcomers face. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestbot help.

I am trying to do the one time suggestbot thing on my talk page. Where I have to paste this {{User:SuggestBot/suggest}} there. I just can't do it. It is the phone I am using. I don't have a computer. Can someone do it for me or do I have to do it? If someone does do this for me I only want the one time one. Thank you in advance. --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I did it for you. You just have to wait for a bit. TranquilHope (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm the operator of SuggestBot. Adding the template to another user's talk page won't work, the bot requires the owner of a page to make the edit. This check is done to prevent abuse.

There is a shortcut available. Go to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions, click "Get suggestions", then ignore the instructions and click "Save page". Adding WikiProject categories is only necessary if one wants suggestions related to a given WikiProject (or set of WikiProjects). Hope this helps, let me know if there are any questions! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox.

Tell me everything. Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: The sandboxes allow you to experiment without harming anything in the content of the encyclopedia. Go wild. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Can you help with my suggestbot question? --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Where? --Gryllida (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

On here but it's answered now. -DangerousJXD (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeking for help.

I'm new at wikipedia. So with which kind of articles I should start writing? Buddhi Prakash Meena (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Buddhi Prakash Meena: Welcome to Wikipedia! That is quite a broad question, actually. In addition to writing articles, there are a ton of things to do. You can improve existing articles, discuss changes to articles, and more. Can I recommend the Wikipedia Adventure as a starting point to discovering how to edit Wikipedia? If you did have a particular article subject in mind that you wish to write about, I'd recommend checking out Wikipedia's help guide to your first article. Feel free to ask about anything else! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions bottom.

Why are my questions appearing at the bottom when they are supposed to be at the top? I use the blue button for every question I have asked. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD:. Not sure; I just tested the button out in this edit here, and it posted to the top of the page for me. Can anyone with more technical knowledge than myself address this? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether it makes a difference, but @DangerousJXD: is using a mobile phone. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

With this page, mobile edits shouldn't make a difference. It posts to the bottom, which looks fine to me. Did it work differently here before? (Flow will replace talk pages soon, so feel free to test if you're into beta things. Dunno whether it's mobile though.) --Gryllida (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I make an article??

I wanted to make an article about a Technical Death core band called Suffokate they're not ophiliated with me... so this isn't for personal gain it's a famous band the only article for them on Wikipedia is in a different language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Merrick (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I think I can help you with that!

So search up what you would call the article, in this case the band name, then it will say there is no article with this title, you can then make one by clicking what is says. (Something like, would you like to make one?) Then away you go! Let me know if you get started. Also sign your posts by writing four of these: ~--DangerousJXD (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brian Merrick. "Being famous" is subjective concept whose meaning varies from person to person. "Being famous" and "being notable" are not necessarily one and the same, and notability matters more on Wikipedia. So, before you start writing the article, I suggest that you carefully read through Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. Suffokate needs to satisfy the basic criteria contained in those guidelines, particularly the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", in order to have an article about them added to Wikipedia. The fact that there exists an article about the band on the German language version of Wikipedia is helpful, but that's still no guarantee. Different Wikipedia's sometimes follow slightly different rules. Not sure if you already know this, but an article about the band did previously exist on English Wikipedia. It was, however, deleted due to notability concerns as shown in this AfD discussion. That was more than two years ago, and maybe things have changed. If you still really want to give it a go, then my suggestion is to ask for help on the talk page for WikiProject Musicians or the talk page for WikiProject Metal. The members in those projects work on these kinds of articles all the time and they might be able to find the sources your need to help establish the band's notability. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Notifications and Watchlist

Please take a look at this RfC about watchlist and notifications. Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Emailing a user

I have the syntax that brings up the email box. I'm on the mobile version and I don't know where to put the Special: statement. Thank you for offering help. Jan Janvermont.Janvermont (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

About half an hour later I truncated the form I was given that contained the username and went directly to the email box. Now I have a way to do it and I don't require an answer. I appreciate the teahouse generous offer of help.Janvermont (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)