Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, 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

Epimemetic Theory

Hello, I'm currently trying to create an article about Epimemetic theory, a theory based on the memetic theory and the selfish gene theory. What kind of citations do I need to use and which their nature should be? Does the wiki of the theory's creator count as a source? Teo Anastasiadis (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability for American artists

Are state galleries considered major galleries for notability purposes? I'm thinking of writing on an interesting artist / head of a university art department who exhibits regularly in Canada and Germany and who's in a series of state and university galleries. Thanks HeatherBlack (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome @HeatherBlack: When in doubt, fall back on the general notability guidelines. Also see This page. Don't worry about all the little rules and things along the way. A subject should have an article about it if and only if you have sufficient, reliable, independent source material to base the article on. The other notability guidelines can give you general clues as to the kinds of subjects that usually have that source material, but ultimately Wikipedia's core principles: verifiability and neutrality are king, and those core concepts require good sources. If you have good sources, write the article. If you don't have good sources, don't. I hope that clarifies things. --Jayron32 18:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed response. I'll go ahead with it. HeatherBlack (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Article declined - how to improve?

Hello Teahouse! I'd love some advice on an article I wrote about a public artist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ralph_Helmick Comparable artists are included in Wikipedia. Does anyone have specific recommendations on how to improve the article? Hpwiki55 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Change user name

An account was set up years ago for my daughter who is a professional singer. However we did not publish anything on the account until yesterday. We noticed that the user name has USER at the front of her name and I want to be able to remove that and change the user name to just her name.

Can someone help please as i don't want this to go live with that user name

Thank you (GeorgiaNapolitano (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GeorgiaNapolitano. The easiest way is to simply abandon the unused account and start a new one. This is perfectly acceptable. If you or your daughter plan on writing about her as a singer, please read our guideline which discourages writing autobiographies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, the userpage is currently submitted for review at Articles for Creation. If it is accepted by Articles for Creation and thereby becomes a Wikipedia article, the "User:" part will be removed as part of that process (and you won't need to do anything). If it is ultimately not accepted and you subsequently decide you don't want to work on it any longer, you could if you wished have the entire thing deleted just by blanking the page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It appears the user doesn't actually want a new username. They want the page currently at User:GeorgiaNapolitano to become a Wikipedia article without "User:" in front. I see the page has now been submitted for review.[1] If it's accepted then it will be moved to just be called "Georgia Napolitano", but it looks likely to be declined. The user name is only "GeorgiaNapolitano". User:GeorgiaNapolitano is the user page for that user. All user pages have "User:" in front. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all so much for your help. I am new to this and will now re write the article with the guidelines. I also understand that once the article is published the user will not display on the page title. (GeorgiaNapolitano (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Distances between settlements #2nd attempt

I have copied the below from a recent archive and added another comment

Distances between Settlements

Please could you look at the Talk for Ludlow where there is a discussion about distances. I have been unable to find the correct guidance.SovalValtos (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that places can sometimes be much closer geographically than by road so it could be quite misleading if the type of distance is not made clear. I would think a straight line distance should be the standard. If road distance is substantially different that can be added. Anybody else aware of any guidelines?Charles (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Charlesdrakew has given some useful advice, but could a host try to answer both our questions as to whether there are any guidelines, and if so where to find them? If there are not, where would be the place to discuss what would be best? I do not think the Talk page of one settlement is the place to try and achieve consensus for something involving many countries and circumstances. Please helpSovalValtos (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SovalValtos. I think that talk page discussion is excellent. I suggest that you discuss the broader issue with active members of WP:WikiProject Measurement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect move

An editor who seems to have been caught up in the spirit of moving articles to new pages has moved Trivandrum Rajdhani Express to Thiruvananthapuram Rajdhani Express Rajdhani Express instead of just Thiruvananthapuram Rajdhani Express. I have been unable to correct the mistake. Request more more experienced editors to help out. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorted, cheers. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the assistance but why was i unable to correct it? Is there a correct procedure for it? Superfast1111 (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving the page back to its previous title required that the redirect there be deleted - only admins can do that. WP:RM/TR is the place to request administrative moves like this, or you can stick a {{db-move}} template on it. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Article declined

Would there be someone willing to help me getting an article accepted on Wikipedia? As the system is quite complicated, I am looking for help. What should I be looking at?ChrisDecroix (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The article I am referring to is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:European_dairy_association ChrisDecroix (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The formatting needs a bit of work, but that's easy to fix. The main problem is that the article doesn't have any sources - you need to verify the information there by citing published sources that talk about the EDA (but that do not originate from the EDA; that's quite important). Here's a good example to start you off. Find yourself a number of such sources, add them to the article according to these instructions, and then add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. It's a decent start to an article, and will likely pass, but you need sources first! Yunshui ^雲_水 15:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will take into account your suggestions and re-submit the article in a couple of days. Is it better to have it reviewed before by the Teahouse Forum? ChrisDecroix (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not better, per se, but you're more than welcome to ask someone here to take a look at it for you, or to help you with the formatting (in fact, I've got a couple of minutes; I'll go and sort that out for you now). Yunshui ^雲_水 15:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits to a biography keep getting reverted back to the original

Hi Teahouse,

I am in consultation with the subject of a biography and have made changes to his entry. (I have always been transparent to say that)

My edits keep getting reverted back after a month (or so) by one particular editor. I have tried to understand why so that I can take on board the feedback, through the article's talk page and through WikiProject Saudi Arabia - but no one has reverted back.

I'd like to know either how I can contact someone to give me advise on the changes, or how to ensure my changes are permanent beyond a month, since I am relatively confident we have adhered to guidelines.

The page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_bin_Salman_Al_Saud

(talk) 11:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi LimelightME and welcome to the tea-house
Firstly, as you are "in consultation with the subject" you should read our guidelines on conflict of interest before making any further changes to that page
The principal problems with your changes appear to be:-

1. You are adding unsourced information
2. You are removing existing references
3. You are adding external links in the body text (Please read about external links here)
4. The references you are adding are bare URLs, not detailed references

Your last version of the page has about 3933 bytes of text and 5 references, whereas the current version has 2065 bytes of text and 9 references - so in rough terms, your version is twice as long and half as referenced.
Many of your statements, such as "he ranked among the top ten students", are the sort of claim that needs a reliable source to back them up, while some editors might see this as trivia.
Please read Help:Referencing for beginners on how to insert proper references, rather than bare URLs.
I would also suggest that you make your edits incrementally, rather than en-bloc, so that, if an editor disagrees with a pert of your changes, this can be reverted in isolation, rather than reverting everything en-masse. - Arjayay (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply and time. I have wanted to be completely transparent in terms of COI. I'll take on board your points in all regards. Again, many thanks.

posting a picture

how do i know whether the picture i want to upload is free license and allowed to be posted? 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your question. A good rule of thumb is that if you found it on the Internet, you probably can't use it. A good place to search for appropriate images is Flickr, where if you see that an image has been released under a Creative Commons license that allows for commercial use and modification, you can use it. They even have an advanced search feature to identify such images. Also, just to let you know, you do need to create an account to upload an image. Let me know if you need help with anything! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

its pretty clear now, i cant just put pictures randomly to an article. thank you for the respond, appreciate very much. also thank you for the recommendation to flickr. it was really helpful! 137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Add photo

I am trying to add a photo to an article but can't get it to show. I first uploaded the photo to wikimedia. Lactobacillus melitensis (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lactobacillus melitensis: Hi. The reason the photograph is not showing is that you added it in the middle of a template (a bit of code that starts with "{{" and ends with "}}"). You can see that you did this here. It's great that you have uploaded this photo, as we strive for free content and this can replace the fair use photo currently in the article. However, first you need to remove your credits placed in the photograph image. We cannot use a photograph in this form. The credit to you should and will remain but on the image's information page, not in the photograph itself. For some of the reasons, why, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Watermarks, credits, titles, and distortions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits and Commons:Watermarks. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyone I can talk to directly (online via chat) for help on making a page?

Hello, I'm trying to make three pages on topics I believe should be included on Wikipedia. I'm still not accustomed to editing on Wikipedia, and I'm confused on how to code/type in the format to publish the page correctly. Can someone help me with me with more basic instructions? Also, I already requested all three pages to be published. I'm not sure how often requests actually get made, so I'm still trying to learn how to write, edit, and publish on Wikipedia myself. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Dorseyaddie (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dorseyaddie: Hey Dorsey. A common way of doing instant chat is through IRC in the #wikipedia-en-help ^connect channel. If you click on "connect" there, you can make a username (you can use your username here) and look for me (I'll be using I Jethrobot as my username) on there. I'll keep an eye out for you there! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Translating from other languages' Wikipedia articles

Hello Teahouse. I'm a new user who just joined two days ago. I intend to help out with some of the articles that are incomplete. However, I have ran into a slight problem. Is it alright to translate information from another language's corresponding Wikipedia article, which contains more information, to the English Wikipedia? And if so, must I say anything about the translation (e.g.: This is cited from another language's Wikipedia article.)? Thank you in advance.

PrismAira (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello @PrismAira: Welcome and thanks for asking this question! Absolutely it is OK to translate from another Wikipedia to English Wikipedia. We actually encourage that, Wikipedia's copyleft license is deliberately written to encourage this sort of copying (with proper attribution, of course). There's some pretty good guidelines at Wikipedia:Translation which explains how to properly go about translating other articles to English Wikipedia. Go ahead and read through that page, and feel free to ask any questions you may need for clarification. Good luck, and I hope this helped answer your question! --Jayron32 00:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply and guidance. I now understand the rules of translating. PrismAira (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

700 sun concentration

Hi, could you please assist me to identify and clarify what is 700suns concentration, and hoe to obtain it, what is the easy way to reach it??? Thanks,

Robert. 213.175.160.33 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Robert. Here at the Teahouse, we specialize in answering questions about editing Wikipedia. But I figured I would try to look into your question. I was not able to find anything about the phrase "700 sun concentration". If you are referring to concentrating sunlight, that can be done with a lens such as a magnifying glass. You may want to ask your question at our Reference desk, which specializes in answering general questions. If you do, please provide clarifying details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess this is about sun unit. If 1 sun is 1367 W/m² then 700 suns is 956,900 W/m² = 956.9 kW/m². You can ask further questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How to investigate a sudden spike of articles about X?

Hello again Teahouse! Today I've observed that several new editors (at least four) have created pages related to Rhetoric. They could be simply a team of academics who have decided to contribute to the encyclopedia and that would be a nice event! But how can I be sure that they are really different persons and not a case of sock puppetry? Articles seem good, I've not observed any misbehavior and I'm assuming good faith. LowLevel73^(talk) 22:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lowlevel73: Hi again lowlevel73. I think your question's premises contain the answer! Sockpuppetry is using multiple accounts for an improper purpose – like trying to give the impression at a discussion that multiple people agree with a side to unduly influence consensus; to avoid an active block or ban and so on. Since your question acknowledges that the people are creating articles that appear good, and no misbehavior is evident, the improper purpose requirement for sock puppetry to exist is missing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit, the definition of Sockpuppetry is now clear. :) LowLevel73^(talk) 00:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

how to stick to "encyclopedic style"

I am trying to learn more about how to contribute to Wikipedia articles. In doing so, I would like to understand why notices (e.g with the broom icon) may show up at the top of some articles. For example I came across the following article which is within my area of interest "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_relations_theory". I was hoping someone could give me some specific examples about how this article does not conform to "encyclopedic style" making it warrant this notice. I clicked on the links in the notice, but it would still be helpful if someone might use this article as an example to help me understand why this kind of notice would show up?PhilPsych (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, PhilPsych. You've raised an important question about encyclopedic style.First, checking the article's history, you can discern whether there have been many edits since the article was tagged in June 2012. Turns out there have been approximately 60 edits since then, so some of the concerns about the article's tone may have already been addressed. But there are still some issues related to the content, which is not thoroughly referenced, and in some places may be original research, as, for example, these unreferenced sentences: "The strong animosity in England between the school of Anna Freud and that of Melanie Klein was transplanted to the US, where the Anna Freud group dominated totally until the 1970s. Until the 1970s, few American psychoanalysts were influenced by the thinking of Melanie Klein." There are other unreferenced conclusions, which lead to questions about whether the origin of those conclusions have been published elsewhere in a reliable source, or were original to the editor writing them. Without references, other editors cannot verify the information. With your expertise, you can help by finding citations to each idea not referenced, or deleting the text that cannot be substantiated. Be BOLD. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

What to do when finding text that isn't supported by the cited source?

If I find a paragraph or sentence in an article, and then go look at the cited source, and the source doesn't support some of the information written in the article, what's the best course of action? I've seen those little blue warning things in articles. Is it better to just delete it? Or a way to contact the writer and see if they have more sources to back it up? Want to learn how to edit correctly and be fair to people, but also help accuracy. Antonina Markovic (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The little blue things are templates. In this case it might be appropriate to add the {{failed verification}} tag. In the wikitext, right after the closing </ref> of the cite you want to call attention to, do it like this: </ref>{{failed verification}} . That will display like this:

Talking it over with the editor who added the source is a good idea, just to let them know that you don't necessarily disagree with the point they are making but feel that we need a better source. They may not have one, but that's OK too. Someone else may see the tag and know of one. That's what we're doing, not criticizing but just asking for a better source.

Anyway, this is a good thing to do. If readers check the source and it doesn't support the point, they may start wondering whether other cites in the article can be trusted. We really want to avoid that. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

my own pictures

I took pictures around my downtown where I live. Our city has a wikipedia article. Is it allowed for me to upload my pictures? they're high quality, high-res. Antonina Markovic (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey there @Antonina Markovic: Yes, definitely! Wikipedia's sister project, the Wikimedia Commons, is Wikimedia's repository for free media. You're free and encouraged to upload your pictures there. Since Wikipedia and its sister projects aim to be a source of free-to-use information, most images should be freely licensed (the exceptions being things like movie covers, video game covers, logos, etc., which fall under our fair use guidelines). As long as you upload your pics under one of the free licensing options available on the Commons that allow anyone to use your images for any purpose, with attribution, you're good to go :) Feel free to ask any more questions regarding specifics, if needed. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Antonina Markovic, to add to the good advice from SuperHamster. You can upload files using the Upload Wizard, which you can also find on Commons by clicking on the left side on the "upload file" button. All the best, Taketa (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

My article was selected but much meaningful material was deleted

As a newcomer, wanting to reference everything I quoted so that it would be the description of others commenting about my achievements,I found that I ran afoul of copyright issues. However, now the material is "bare bones" with a reader learning little about me and my lifetime contributions to medicine and science unless they go to the references. How do I reverse this decision?

Should I delete the references and redo the narrative in my own words (not just paraphrasing)? What do I do about honors or award? Do I list them or describe in the text?

Also I was asked to include material or names that could be found in Wikipedia.

I WELCOME ANY AND ALL CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS!

Kurt J. Isselbacher KJI7258Kisselbacher (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kisselbacher,

Congratulations on creating an article. In terms of reversing a decision that has left the material as "bare bones", this may not be advisable given that you ran into copyright issues. Copyright violations would likely be removed by other editors. Reading Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use may help you better understand what can and cannot be incorporated into the article.

Generally, you should avoid deleting appropriate references. If they are to reliable and independent sources, then leave them where they are. If they contain usable information, but a citation is not used in the article, it may be helpful to mention them on the "Talk" page so that other editors can more easily find good sources and use them to improve the article.

As a living person, it would be best to find sources that verify the awards and honors received. Listing them or describing them will likely depend on the number and significance of the awards. Some awards may merit additional discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "include material or names that could be found in Wikipedia". I'm guessing you're referring to internal links. The Manual of Style is a good place to start.

Lastly you should see Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Good luck, Becky Sayles (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kisselbacher. If the article you are referring to is Kurt Julius Isselbacher, then your choice or username makes it seem as if you are in some way connected to the subject. If that's the case, then I highly recommend that you read Wikipedia's "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide" and "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest". COI editing is not prohibited on Wikipedia, but there are some limitations placed upon the kinds of edits you can make. If there is no COI, then you might consider changing your username to avoid giving others that impression. Also, I noticed that a large number of edits to the article are being made by User Kji7258. Kji7258 is what is known as a "single purpose account", this in combination with the use of "KJI" in the username once again could lead others to question the neutrality of the edits being made and whether a conflict of interest exist. If this is by chance you as well, then you should read "Using multiple accounts" just to avoid any future problems. If it is not you, but someone you know who is also connected to "Kurt Julius Isselbacher", then Wikipedia's COI rules would still apply to that account as well. FWIW, the phrasing used in your original question really does make it seems as if you are "Kurt Julius Isselbacher". If that's true, then you really should avoid editing the page at all, except for certain minor edits, and instead make requests or suggestions on Talk:Kurt Julius Isselbacher. You should also probably declare your COI on both your user page as well as on the article's talk page (use the template "connected contributor". Doing so will make it easy for you to work together with other editors on improving the page. Just a suggestion. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Change User Name

Hello, I need to change my User name, how should I do? Thank you in advance Nobili Vitelleschi Camilla (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nobili Vitelleschi Camilla and welcome to The Teahouse. You start with reading this page: Wikipedia:Changing username At the bottom of that page there are two venues you choose from to go forward with your request. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nobili Vitelleschi Camilla, you have been renamed. All the best, Taketa (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing a section of an article

I have edited a section from an article titled Technology and Society, and some of the other sections needs citations. is there a chance for the article to be deleted ?WTFEL (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello WTFEL and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Technology and society has been around for quite some time now (9 years) so I don't think there is any danger of it getting deleted. There is a tag on it about improvements that needs to be done, and it is great if you can help edit it to that effect. Why do you ask? Your choice of word "chance for" indicates that you might want it to be deleted. Is that the case? Otherwise please continue your work on it, it is appreciated. :) I took a look at your edits, and you should read Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to write and insert the refs the right way. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Custom "mini-wiki"

Is There A Way I Can Create A Wiki In Wikipedia? Shadowvault (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Shadowvault, welcome to the Teahouse. If I'm understanding your question you are asking: "can I use the Wikipedia software to set up my own Wiki, e.g. for a software development or some other project?" Is that the question you are asking? If so the answer is Yes and No. It's "Yes" in the sense that all the Wikipedia software is open source which means it's freely available to anyone for just about any use. It's "No" in the sense that you can't use the Wikipedia servers or infrastructure for your own projects. So for example if you wanted to set up your own personal Wiki using wp:user pages for a project you are collaborating on with others that has nothing to do with Wikipedia that is not allowed. You can only use the Wikipedia infrastructure to edit and add to Wikipedia. For more about the Wikipedia software here are some things to look at: Wiki History_of_Wikipedia https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki Hope that answered your question, if not please reply back and say a bit more about what you are trying to do. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There's also Wikia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Trying to set up new page article declined

Hi, I am trying to set up a wikipedia page for an arts centre where I am employed. My first draft was declined. Could you tell me what was wrong with it aznd how I could improve on it. ThanksTriskel Christchurch (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

First and foremost, it was a copyright violation - the text was either directly copied or closely paraphrased from the arts centre's own website and a couple of others, none of which are not licenced for free reuse in accordance with Wikipedia's requirements. Secondly, the tone of the text was not particularly neutral - much of it read like an extract from a corporate website (which, of course, it was). Thirdly, the article did not cite any sources to indicate why it was notable enough for an article - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and is not intended to host articles about anything and everything.

If you want to resubmit the page, you'll need to start from scratch. Write it in your own words, using a neutral tone of voice and backing up everything you write with reliable sources. You could try using the Article Wizard to aid this process, and you may also want to read through this help page before trying again. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I was unaware I could not use material from our own website, my apologies. Is there any way I can re-access the article in order to edit it further?Triskel Christchurch (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to submit an amended page. I am new to this so not sure if I have done it correctly. Triskel Christchurch (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Triskel Christchurch. I see that Theroadislong has posted good advice on your talk page about editing with a conflict of interest. I would like to suggest that you are thinking about Wikipedia as something different from what it is. I am going by the phrase in your question: "set up". That is not a phrase I would use about an article (in an encyclopaedia, or, for that matter, in a magazine). It is a phrase I would use about a page on a proprietary website, or perhaps on social media. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: it has neutrally written and (ideally) well referenced articles about subjects: the articles absolutely do not belong to the subjects and indeed people affiliated with the subject of an article are strongly discouraged from editing the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Triskel Christchurch. It's not yet submitted, but I've added a box at the top that lets you submit it when you're ready. I don't recommend that you submit it right now: You still need to find sources as Yunshui mentioned, and cite them by following the instructions at the introduction to referencing. Please do reply if you have any more questions. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Page creation denied, sorry but i'm a newbie

Hello there, I have had my topic denied:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia.

But I used the Costa Del Mar page as my guide, so I could create a page like theirs. Please help me to understand why it could not be allowed and theirs could.

Kind regards PaulGoochgoochie002 (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings PaulGoochgoochie002, welcome to the teahouse. Regarding the Costa Del Mar page, you should understand that Wikipedia is a work in progress The policies and procedures are constantly changing. The result is that unfortunately there are at any point a lot of articles that aren't of the highest quality. Just because an article is published doesn't mean it is a model for future articles. One way to tell if an article might not be a good model is: any article with one or more issue templates (the boxes that have an exclamation mark icon) at the top probably is not something you want to use as a guide. As you can see the Costa Del Mar article is flagged in that way and is described as an advertisement. Regarding your article what the editor who decided not to publish yours means by notability can be better explained here: wikipedia:notability But in a nutshell notability means that the subject of an article must have some significant coverage in wikipedia:reliable sources So for a business typically that means things like newspaper articles, magazine articles, etc. Things from the companies own web site for example, while they can serve as a source for some basic facts can't establish notability. Not every topic merits a Wikipedia article. If there isn't significant coverage from independent sources then the topic isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Your draft article had no references at all. Here is an article about how to create references: wp:references for beginners One other thing you should be aware of is that if you work for Fortis eyeware that is considered a wp:conflict of interest Hope that was useful, feel free to reply back if you have additional questions. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why was article about CEO deleted?

I recently wrote an article about the CEO of PetSmart, David Lenhardt. I see many similar articles on Wikipedia with similarly sourced materials. I would like to understand why this particular one was deleted. And it was deleted so quickly that I didn't get a chance to contest it. ReachingtheStars (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ReachingtheStars. Only an administrator can view the text of your deleted article, so the two best people to comment are the administrators DGG who nominated the article, and Drmies, who deleted it. In my experience, both are reasonable administrators well versed in our policies and guidelines, and both are invited to comment here. It seems that the article did not show that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Please note that the English language Wikipedia has over 4.6 million articles, and experienced editors know that many of these really ought to be either deleted or improved. So your claim that your article is just as good as unnamed articles which may also be worthy of deletion is not a very convincing argument. We delete hundreds of articles here every day. Instead, you should be offering persuasive evidence that David Lenhardt is notable. Speedy deletion is the appropriate outcome when that evidence has not been provided. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328, and ReachingtheStars, thank you for your question. Yes, deletion was appropriate here: since there is no inherent notability for CEOs they have to pass the regular notability guidelines (WP:GNG), and in this case the article itself made no claim of importance (by our standards) for this person other than their job. If your subject is, say, a federal judge or a cabinet member of some country, that's different, but CEOs are not automatically notable by virtue of being a CEO. I suggest that if you wish to try again, you submit a version through WP:AFC. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why was Bobby Shmurda birth date changed?

His birth date is August 1,1994 not April 4,1994 please correct it! Bobby Shmurda Rapper Ackquille Jean Pollard, known by his stage name Bobby Shmurda, is an American rapper from Brooklyn, signed to Epic Records. Wikipedia Born: August 1, 1994 (age 20), Miami, FL Nationality: American Record label: Epic Records Albums: Bobby Bitch Siobhan516 (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Siobhan516! From the Article History, the date of birth for Bobby Shmurda was last changed on October 31[2]. And the user cited the source [3]. Information in most wikipedia articles can easily be changed by clicking "Edit" at the top of each article. But before changing information about a living person, you should become familiar with wikipedia policy. Information about living people must be verifiable using reliable sources, among other things. Becky Sayles (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Becky Sayles: note that the article is semi-protected, so Siobhan516 cannot edit it. An IP made an edit request earlier today on the page's talk, and I also asked for a source for the date chane there. Stickee (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That's Pretty Intresting Cosidering That's His Actuall Page For Wikipedia.

And Another Thing That Intrests Me Is That Wikipedia Is Using An Older Version Of OpenSQL (Open Secure Query Language) For These Items, For Safety On My Websites I Use OpenSSL 10.6.5 which is from a few months ago. Which Wikipedia Is Using OpenSQL 1.9.7 I Believe. Shadowvault (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Shadowvault. I'm not sure what you're trying to say in either of these comments. Either Wikipedia has a page on a subject, or it doesn't (or very occasionally, people have created two pages with slightly different names, not noticing that there is already one). If you mean that you think that any page on Wikipedia belongs to the person who is the subject of it, then you are wrong: nobody owns any page on Wikipedia.

As for your second point, OpenSQL and OpenSSL are completely different pieces of software which perform different functions. Any comparison between version numbers of these two is completely meaningless. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bfpage. Thank you for your message. I edited your article on "Butterfly House"--let me know what you think.

--jmm75093

Jmm75093 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Some articles that require simple editing

Hello,

I have just finished The Wikipedia Adventure, and I would like to get my feet wet by doing simple edits to some finished articles. Is there an easy way to find articles like that?

Thank You!Jmm75093 (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Heya @Jmm75093: Welcome! Wikipedia:Community portal contains lots of places where you can help out. If you look at the first section, where it says "Help out" you can find lists of articles that need various kinds of work. Some of these lists are as simple as fixing spelling and grammar. Perhaps you can find something there to help with? --Jayron32 03:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeahouseJmm75093. I wrote the following article: Butterfly house and you are welcome to practice editing that page. You won't be any trouble because I'll check back every once in a while and I'll probably see that you're doing a fine job. One thing to remember is that another editor may see your edits and could reverse them or change them. But if that happens it still an easy thing to correct and you won't cause Wikipedia to crash or something horrible.

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bfpage, thank you for your response. I edited your article on "Butterfly House," please let me know what you thnk.

--jmm75093

Jmm75093 (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hi again! I was going through the category of pages needing copy edits and found the article University of California Davis Graduate Studies. It's not a great article and the talk page confirms that it was written by a department press member. I wanted to combine the page with the page on UC Davis (since the graduate studies article only has extra sentence, and then just a list of rankings). I searched the teahouse archives and read that it's okay to do moves like this as long as they aren't controversial.

So... how do I know if this is controversial? An IP posted a "merger proposal" on the talk page, but that was in 2008 and no one had a relevant reply. kara❈talk 01:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Controversial means "giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement". So given the Merger proposal from 2008, and the paucity of responses, it would appear that either this would be uncontroversial or that not enough discussion has occurred. A good way to see if public disagreement is likely is to use a Request for comment. RfC has some good information on publicizing an RfC. In terms of gaging the potential disagreement, it may be helpful to look at the edit history. The article has had less than 250 edits since 2008. Also, there's less than 100 articles that link to it, despite being part of a template. Personally, I think the lack of additional content makes this a good candidate for merging, and he old proposal seems to have done the first steps for that. But I don't see that contributors were given notice, which may be a good next step. Recent contributors to the main page for UC Davis may be interested in this. Alternatively, you may want to make contributions to the article so that it could stand on its own.Becky Sayles (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Has Spaceship One been to space yet?

I have watched a video about it but do not know if it has been to space yet.114.142.230.7 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there - are you talking about SpaceShipOne? If so, our article specifies that it completed its first manned private spaceflight back in 2004. For future reference, the Teahouse is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. For general questions about non-Wikipedia things, you can check out our reference desk, or consider searching elsewhere (e.g. Google, Quora, etc.). Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement article in a non-English language

Hello Teahouse! A recent English article has been speedy-deleted because of its extremely promotional tone. The article was a translation of a corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia, which of course appears to be promotional as well. What do you do when you find questionable content in non-English pages? I had trouble at finding a template for the Spanish Wikipedia that was similar to WP:PEACOCK. LowLevel73^(talk) 23:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there @LowLevel73: Each language-version of Wikipedia, while similar in many ways, operate independently from each other - for instance, the Spanish equivalent of the Teahouse, I believe, is located at es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual. I'm not very knowledgeable with the Spanish Wikipedia, but I'll give it a go. If you wish to tag the article for speedy deletion, the Spanish Wikipedia does have a relatively similar speedy deletion system, viewable at es:Wikipedia:Criterios para el borrado rápido. Speedy deletion criteria G3 (Páginas promocionales) is for promotional pages. They also have es:Plantilla:Promocional, which allows for a 30-day grace period to improve a promotional article before it's deleted. If you want to simply tag the article with a maintenance template indicating that the article is promotional (but not enough to be deleted), you may consider es:Plantilla:Publicidad. Hope this helps, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello SuperHamster, thanks for the answer and for the links! The topic of the article seems notable and I think that I'll just add a simple promotional tag. Thanks again! LowLevel73^(talk) 00:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

where does my text go when I click "Join this discussion"?

I typed an answer to the woman about the credit unions below. I clicked the Join this discussion button, typed a large amount of text, then clicked Submit. But I don't see it - or any record of what I wrote. Is it in some type of approval queue or something? Eileen JA (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eileen JA! Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm personally not aware of any approval queue. It was most likely a bug in the response window. To prevent this, you may want to reply by clicking "Edit source" instead. --Biblioworm 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanking

I received a notification from another editor "thanking" me for my edit to an article. How can I do this for others? kara❈talk 22:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Satkara! Welcome to the Teahouse!

You can thank an editor by clicking the "thank" link in the page history. It is just to the right of the "undo" link. Here's a picture.

Please feel free to post here if you have any more questions. Regards, --Biblioworm 22:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The top right of a diff also has a "thank" link. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

seeking feedback on proposed edit.

How can I connect with editors in philosophy topics? For three months I've posted talk questions on proposed revisions of the instrumentalism article and related topics, without a single content-related response. Same with a post on philosophy project. Many thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi TBR-qed. I was going to suggest you ask for someone to respond to you at WikiProject Philosophy but I notice you've already done that with no response which is a shame. The next best alternative I can think of is to find editors in the history of that article or who have posted on the talk page of it who appear to know what they're doing. Hope that helps. Sam Walton (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@TBR-qed: I think you should boldly make the changes you've previously suggested for a few reasons: It looks like there are few interested in the article; swaths of the existing text is unsourced; it looks like you are aiming to source your edits (which is great, and if not, please do); just going ahead by someone knowledgeable, interested and willing is the predominant way that real improvements come about here; and often, where talk page discussion remains unresponded to before bold edits are made, a reversion and then discussion taking place is not uncommon (see the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). I suggest you make your edits in discrete chunks, even if you've rewritten the entirety and could do it all in one edit. This allows someone to selectively revert you, i.e., avoids the problem of someone not agreeing with 10% of your change but feeling it necessary to revert the whole to protest the part.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

TBR-qed I've edited a few philosophy articles and am pretty well read in several areas of philosophy. I just took a quick look at your comments on that talk page and decided this wasn't something that could benefit from a quick look. I agree with Fuhghettaboutit (I usually do) it's fine to just be bold and edit... but I will take a closer look and add my 2 cents on the talk page either tonight or some time tomorrow. One minor comment, and this was after a very brief look so I apologize if I misunderstood but it seemed like you were proposing to branch off an additional article to the current one and to focus on a couple philosophers in that branch. My recommendation would be to not do that for now and to focus first on getting the current article in good shape and also expand the current article. The existing article is pretty short (and from the comments on the talk page and my quick look not in great shape) so I think better walk before you run. If the article gets a lot bigger it's always easy to branch out a new article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeahouseTBR-qed. I'm glad you are here and you have asked a very good question. I create articles and perform major edits like reorganizing sections, leaving posts on the talk page. And this is in the area of Lepidoptera. I have also solicited for comments and suggestions for improvement, and no one has responded. And then I go to other pages and other articles and I see the talk page just filled with comments and interest. Since this is happening to me, I also do the bold thing, I keep chugging along just waiting for someone to show a slight bit of interest.

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Big Z for Zillow

Hello,

There's a contributor who wants to add Zillow for "Big Z", as that's a phrase often used to describe Zillow by realtors (see this talk page post). I could not find it in mainstream news media or in a book - but it is used often in social media, including blogs on newspapers, albeit written by realtors or contributors, like this one from a Central Penn business journal.

I wouldn't normally consider this a reliable, secondary source, but I wonder if there's a different approach for terms often used in social media?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello CaroleHenson. It is interesting to take a look at the disambiguation page Big Z. None of the other listings are referenced. I find the various blogs and social media sites using "Big Z" as a nickname for Zillow to be very weak. But how strong is the sourcing for the other "Big Z" entries there? How likely is it that someone will search for "Big Z" with the intent of finding Zillow? The whole thing seems weak to me, but the standards for a disambiguation page about a nickname are lower than for an article about a discrete topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

How to give references

Hi, I have edited some pages and given certain references. But my reference shows just as a link while for others it shows in a better and more structured manner. How can I do the same?

Rgds Rupal 122.176.236.195 (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rupal, welcome to the Teahouse.

See Help:Referencing for beginners for an guide to referencing. Unfortunately I can't see your contribution; so it is hard to be more specific. (One of the advantages of creating an account and logging in is that it enables helpers to see what you have been working on.) —teb728 t c 09:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rupal, greetings from me as well. To cite a web url in a better/structured way you can use Template:Cite Web. Instead of providing a bare url within <ref></ref> tags you can provide information about the source using this template,

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author=|date= |website= |publisher= |accessdate=}}</ref>

Fill in the template using details about the source. Hope this helps--Chamith (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

About image uploading

I can not upload an image. Please tell me how can i upload image in a page?122.177.103.139 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse!

You cannot upload images because you do not have an account. Only registered users who are autoconfirmed may upload images on their own. However, you can always request that your file be uploaded on the files for upload page. You might also consider creating an account so that, in the future, you'll have the ability to upload files without having to file a request. Regards, --Biblioworm 04:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Internet user. To add to the good info that Biblioworm gave you: keep in mind that if you do get an account loading images on Wikipedia is not the same as on most web sites such as a Blog or Facebook. For legal reasons (see: Wikipedia:Basic_copyright_issues for more info) Wikipedia has to be a lot more rigorous about adhering to copyright restrictions. So most of the images you find on the Internet can not be loaded into Wikipedia. Only images that are in the public domain or where you have the legal right to use that image. The best way to add images to articles in my experience is to just look in the Wikimedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page That's a companion site to Wikipedia. All images on that site are freely available. There are even little code snippets already defined so you can incorporate each image into the Wikicode for an article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why have I been denied on changes I've made?

I have been trying to enhance the information on Lakeland, Florida's Dixieland Historic District webpage. I have submitted articles with references from Bay News 9 and The Lakeland Ledger. Can you please give me guidance on what I may be doing wrong? Thank you for your feedback.

Wileywanda (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)WileywandaWileywanda (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

GreetingsWileywanda, and welcome to the Teahouse. We are glad you have come here and hope to answer some of your questions. First of all I went to look at the article to which you refer. To me, it looks like you want to add valuable information on this topic. I have done some editing on the article and have moved some of your external links to the reference section. I referred to the links that you provided and was able to add information to the text of the article. Providing external links is not exactly the same as writing the article with information. I would suggest that you visit the webpages that you originally inserted as external links and grab some information off of those websites so that you can put the information into the article and instead of listing the website as an external link, it will then become an actual reference for the article. Because of my editing, I was able to remove the template that said that the article needed additional references. You have the right idea, and I'm not sure why the person who removed your edits didn't do the same thing that I did. Please come back to the Teahouse. If you have additional questions.

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bfpage: I'm not 100% sure what you mean Bfpage when you say "grab some information off of those websites so that you can put the information into the article", but I take this as intending to advise that the information should be verifiable in the sources used. That is, that when information is added to an article in a person's own words, the facts included should be corroborated by (reliable) sources and we ask that users cite those sources in accessible way so that anyone reading the article can follow the source cited to see for themselves. The reason I have written this as an intended point of clarification, is that the sentence I quoted, even if it was quite unintentional, can easily be read in my view as an instruction to copy and paste the source material. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit and I appreciate you bringing this up for discussion. I do think I wrote the above statement in a ambiguous way and I do want to be as clear as possible when I communicate. I would never recommend anyone to cut and paste from an article directly into Wikipedia because then that would be a copyright violation. One thing I do, though, I cut and I paste material from an online book, journal, or website into an off-line document program like Microsoft Word. From there, I am able to edit the information for brevity, clarity and style. I also make sure that I do not use any verbatim section of the original material unless I put it quotes or it is a phrase that is more than four words long. All of the content that I inserted into the article, Dixieland Historic District by me was created in this way.

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Unverifiable references

I work in the marketing department of a credit union and have been asked to write an article about the credit union for Wikipedia. I have submitted the article twice and have been denied twice wit the reasoning being notability and reference issues. I don't see why my article is any different than the one I am trying to follow. My article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Altana_Federal_Credit_Union and I am trying to follow the example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Country_Federal_Credit_Union. Their references do not even link to live web pages. What am I doing wrong?? Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks!AltanaFCU (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello AltanaFCU, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm glad you found us here at the Teahouse and we look forward to helping you as best we can. First of all, you should be glad that you did not follow the example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Country_Federal_Credit_Union because their article is being nominated for deletion. Fortunately for you, yours is not being nominated for deletion and you do have time to work on it to bring it up to the standards that other editors think you should meet. I have searched the web and cannot find any secondary sources that establish notability for your article. What this means is all the references that you cite are considered primary sources-it's kind of like endorsing yourself. I couldn't find any newspaper articles about your organization, either. Unfortunately, you have also chosen a username that suggests a possible conflict of interest. Wikipedia is really an encyclopedia that is written about notable subjects. Even though you can find other businesses and companies on Wikipedia, they have established their notability through secondary sources. Perhaps their CEO was interviewed on a television show, perhaps they were mentioned in a newspaper article, perhaps they were involved in a scandal… These are the things that demonstrate notability. I am sorry that I don't have good news for you, but please come back to the Teahouse. If you have more questions.

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AltanaFCU. The first thing you must do is change your username. Usernames that indicate that they represent an organization are simply not allowed on Wikipedia. Every account must represent an individual person, not a group or an organization. This is not negotiable. Once you establish your new account, you must declare your conflict of interest. I was once the board president of a federally-chartered credit union, so I am sympathetic in general to your efforts. But you are obligated to show that your credit union is notable by Wikipedia's standards, and not just another run-of-the-mill credit union. That requires citation of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Independent means sources that have nothing to do with the credit union or press releases that they have issued. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AltanaFCU. One thing I'd add to the good advice from Bfpage and Cullen328: Bfpage said: "they have established their notability". I think this might mislead you into thinking that there is something that your CU can do to establish notability. There isn't (except indirectly, by doing things that get written about): it is measure of whether other organs, such as major newspapers, have found your CU important or interesting enough to have written about it. --ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How to correct an existing entry error?

Re: your entry for “Bat Bomb”. I am the sole surviving crew member of this World War II effort and the author of the only factual book on the subject. I note an inappropriate statement in your piece that should be corrected.

At the end of your description of the project is the statement: “Lovell also mentioned that bats during testing were dropping to the ground like stones.” This is misleading as it implies that the weight carrying tests were negative. In fact, in order to determine the weight carrying capacity of the bats in flight, it was necessary to find just how much they couldn’t carry--a basic factor in such an investigation. Further tests showed the weight they could carry.

Lovell’s negative view at the beginning was not a deterrent, as the project was authorized and went on to a successful conclusion and was stopped only by the invention of the atomic bomb.75.82.165.59 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, your question has been answered at the Help desk, here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 21:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Three-strikes law - NPOV-oriented revisions

Hi there, I am a relatively new editor and I just made my largest edit to date on an article that has NPOV issues: Three-strikes law. I would be reassured if an experienced editor could review my edit, and let me know if there are any points where I should have done something differently. There are a lot of issues that I am only beginning to tackle, so any sort of advice to do with this article would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, --Sennsationalist (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sennsationalist thank you for coming to the Teahouse. I have to admit that I have not seen such tactful, sensitive and accommodating editing on Wikipedia . You are doing a phenomenal job in editing by making small changes, one at a time because this provides good documentation to support your editing. At this point it doesn't even look like anyone has a problem with your editing. I went to the talk page and found plenty of drama. The talk page isn't really discussing the article, but instead contains lots of editorials about the subject. If I have any suggestions at all, it is just to include any information you can in your edit summary and cite any Wikipedia policies to support your edits. Wow! For a new editor you really have a knack for editing. I really admire how you're handling the situation.

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sennsationalist, I'm new too. I went and looked at your edit. Not knowing much about Wikipedia yet, just from the standpoint of someone who has written lots of research papers and reports, that was good stuff. I'm assuming that political issues attract people who try to delete and mess with articles, but seeing your objective edits was really nice. I also like Bfpage's kind response. I'm glad that people are helpful on here. Eileen JA (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bfpage and Eileen JA for the encouragement. I will try to continue to make good edits to this, and other articles in the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I love the core concepts of the Wikipedia ideal, and hope that I can help make them a reality :) --Sennsationalist (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay?

Is it generally acceptable on Wikipedia to place a sentence in an article for the mere reason of letting there be some record of the event, and then ask someone in the description of your edit to expand upon it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoruila (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Zoruila, welcome to the Teahouse. These days, this is generally not OK. After all, how do you know about the event? You must have a source. So cite your source when adding the information. See WP:REFB for an introduction to citing sources. If you do not have a reliable source for the information, for example if the information is from personal experience or hearsay, then the information should not be added to Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Chamith How You Change The Color Of Your Name?

How!? Shadowvault (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Shadowvault

You will find useful information here

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 16:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Citation to More than one website reproducing a journal article or blog entry

I am writing an article about an author. I am trying to cite reviews of his books. In a few cases, a review is reproduced on more than one website. At this point I am including these as separate journal citations. But I expect this is not the correct approach. Is there some way to include more than one url for a single journal citation?PhilPsych (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Simple, Use The reference tags on each link. Shadowvault (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello PhilPsych, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a little bit confused. If you are citing the same source why use two different links leading to the same review/source?. You can use the same reference once again. If you are asking how to source the same reference multiple time then Actually we have answered a similar question like that one before. So I'm snipping some parts of that question on behalf of Fuhghettaboutit.

To cite a single source multiple times, the first time when you cite it, give it a name, like so:

        <ref name="intuitive name">details about source</ref>

For all further cites to that reference, just use the first part with a forward slash like so:

        <ref name="intuitive name" />

For more about this, see Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once.--Chamith (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:PhilPsych. Where the same review is published in more than one place on the internet, you only need give one url. In general you should use the url most closely associated with the original author of the material. So for example, the website of the publication in which the material was first published, or the website where the material was first published. In general you would avoid any url associated with the subject; for example in your draft User:PhilPsych/Jon Mills (Philosopher, Psychoanalyst, Psychologist), the url at rowman.com would be the one to be avoided, if the same material can be found on a more independent website.

In general it is entirely unnecessary, in a reference, to provide two different urls for identical material. The only exception would be for an archiveurl. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

PhilPsych I agree with everything said above. The one thing I would add is that when Demiurge1000 said it's best to use the URL for the source closest to the original publication; that is definitely true but I think there is an important exception. In my experience many of the most prestigious journals haven't gotten to the point where they put all their content freely available online yet. So it's possible that the original journal where an article was published may only provide an abstract of the paper and require you be a member of their site to see the whole thing. In that case I think it's better to go with another URL that provides the entire paper with no login required. In my editing I often find that, that a paper is only available in the original journal in an abstract but some university somewhere has put up the complete paper on their site. You are still going to reference the original source anyway because the journal is what gets recorded in the citation, independent of the URL for the actual paper. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the responses to my question. Here is some more information to clarify the motivation of my question: I thought it might be helpful to include a link to the original book review and also a link to an online reference website that also reproduces the same review. I thought it might lend more credibility to the content, but if that is not necessary, I won't include the link to the secondary source for the review. I was not trying to cite the same source multiple times, just trying to show that the same source was also referred to in multiple websites.

In the case of some reviews that appear on the website for the publisher of the author's book, the complete review is not published independently of the book publisher's website, but was just submitted to the author's book publisher who took excerpts to use as endorsements on the book publisher's website but I still thought it was helpful to include these even though they are on the website of the publisher of the author's book.PhilPsych (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

PhilPsych Just to close the loop on your follow up question, so no it's not necessary to post two different URL's for the same review. If I understood what you wrote above then one of those sites didn't have the complete review anyway. If that is the case I would use the one that did have the complete review as the URL and not worry about the other one but in either case no need to have two, one is fine. BTW, note that doesn't necessarily mean that the one review established wp:notability for the book or the author, just that having the same review from two different sites doesn't really add to notability. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Templates

Im Going To Update My User Page Soon And Im Wandering If You Can Give Me A List Of Good Templates To Use :) Shadowvault (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shadowvault, welcome to the Teahouse, If you are looking for an infobox for your userpage then Template:Infobox user is the best solution. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chamith How Do You Change The Font Of Your Name Like Yours? Shadowvault (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Shadowvault: It's all done using HTML and some CSS. To change the font simply add,

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font-family:"font-family and size";color:"color code";"text formatting">"your user name"</b>}} to your {{DISPLAYTITLE}}

For example mine is {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">User:ChamithN</b>}}

For color codes--List of colors: A–F#Colors in alphabetical order A-F

For font families--Wikipedia:User_page_design_center/Style#Font_Families

For more information about text formatting--WP:TYPESET--Chamith (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

edit

There is a article about Muhammad wikipedia.I have to edit the title please help meBhootrina (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bhootrina, welcome to the Teahouse. It appears you ignored Template:Editnotices/Page/Muhammad when you edited the article. I have reverted your edits per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and Q5 at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Titles are changed by moving the page but the article Muhammad can only be moved by administrators due to issues like this. There is consensus against the move you want. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh!thank you very much for the valuable feedback:)--Bhootrina (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Thank youBhootrina (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How many redirects is too many?

Hello, I'm preparing for my first major edit of a page: "Sexual abuse of people with developmental disabilities". I am going to request a renaming of the page to "Sexual abuse and intellecual disability", to make it more accurate and concise ('Developmental disability' includes some people with no intellectual impairment). There are many terms for intellectual disability, and even the term 'sexual abuse' is controversial, with some preferring the term 'sexual violence', or specific terms such as 'rape'. I realise I'll have to create redirects to the new page (if they don't exist already), but I'm not sure how many of the combinations of the different terms I should create as redirect pages, as they are potentially very numerous, not to mention all the capitalisation options etc. Any thoughts? Crinoline (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Crinoline, welcome to the Teahouse. There's an essay on this, Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Meanwhile, over at the official guideline page Wikipedia:Redirect, the only item that seems relevant is "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself". So for example if Wikipedia could plausibly have an article "Rape and intellectual disability" in addition to your proposed article "Sexual abuse and intellectual disability" (I assume this is what you intend, your message above has a typo), then you should not create a redirect at "Rape and intellectual disability". (Although personally I don't see that we need a separate article on each, but that's an example.)

Don't go wildly over the top; a few different capitalisations might make sense for redirects, but every conceivable possible typo would be excessive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Demiurge1000! Clearly I need to hone my proof-reading skills. It sounds like I can pretty much go for it with the redirects. To do all the combinations I can think of would require up to 48 redirects, not including any alternative capitalisations etc. It seems like a lot to me. I'm wondering if the search facility on Wikipedia might still be able to find the article without me putting in every possible combination. For example, if someone searches for 'people with developmental disabilities and rape', would a redirect from 'rape and developmental disability' allow the original article to appear in the results? Crinoline (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Crinoline. About the search function, yes! It's not exactly like Google, but it's pretty close. To use your example, if someone searches for "people with developmental disabilities and rape", your article comes up as the first suggestion. That's almost as good as a redirect. I also tried searching simply for "Sexual abuse disabilities", and your article was on the first page of suggestions. So even if there isn't an exact redirect, people can find it pretty quickly by using search + keywords.

Instead of lots of redirects, what I would suggest is, while improving the article itself, explore other related articles. Look for places in those articles where it's appropriate to mention the topic of your article. For example, we have an article on Disability abuse, and that article has a section on Sexual abuse. You could consider adding a sentence to that section on intellectual disabilities, with a link to your article. And the reverse. Consider whether your article could benefit by mentioning those other articles. The more links we have between articles, the richer the matrix of connections becomes, which is one of the best things about Wikipedia. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks Margin1522. I wasn't looking foward to creating that swarm of redirects - this looks like a much more sensible approach, so I will follow your advice. Crinoline (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards of presentation

I'm a very long-term editor but I am what they'd call a wikignome - I fix redirects, misspellings, format errors or deprecated formatting, fix and check cites, etc. and as such I rarely run into conflict. Recently I've run into a few conflicts and I realised I don't know where to turn to learn Wikipedia's standards of presentation for specific articles. My specific question is regarding the romanisation of Bengali words: rather than use the most common format, another user insists on using the Bengali romanisation. As a scholar in the field in question, and a long-term editor, I know this is not correct and most decidedly not common usage, but I don't know how to look for the Wikipedia meta-articles discussing formatting standards. Can you point me? I need to be able to find the indices of Wikipedia meta-articles... Ogress _smash! 19:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ogress. A search with wp: in front will often give results by searching the Wikipedia namespace. The search wp:romanization of bengali (with 'z' and not 's') finds the guideline Wikipedia:Indic transliteration which says: "See Romanization of Bengali for the transliteration scheme set for Bengali on Wikipedia." PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The other user is now engaged in a possessive edit war. *sigh* What do I do now? I've tried going to talk; his response was to tell me to take it to talk and revert me. He's reverted me repeatedly, and mass-reverts everything I do, not just the issue he has with me. Ogress _smash! 05:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ogress: at this point, Dispute resolution may be called for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Excessive number of edits

Hello, i have been noticing that a few editors on wikipedia have been using the save page repeatedly instead of show preview which allows an editor to cross check any mistakes on the article. While editing more than 3 times (since its your own edit) does not violate any policy, it puts user's like me who use the show preview button before the save page button at a great disadvantage. The result is i get only 1 edit to my name whereas others get far more and race ahead in the number of edits.

Take a look at Gandhidham Junction railway station. For example, on 7 Aug 2013, Praveenkumarchrg made 3 edits between 1717 & 1732 (1 edit every 5 mins) then 20 edits in 1hr 14 mins (1 every 3.7 mins) then 3 edits in 4 mins then 4 edits in 10 mins then 41 edits in 3 hrs 53 mins (1 every 5 and half mins) then a staggering 73 edits on 11 August, the list goes on and it is not just him there are others also as Kochuveli Yesvantpur Garib Rath Express shows.

Ofcourse people do make mistakes at times but this shows only how careless the person is. Is it possible to disable the save page button until the editor has atleast clicked the show preview button atleast once. I feel at a disadvantage for doing things correctly.Superfast1111 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Superfast1111. There is no requirement that an editor use the "show preview" function and I almost never use it myself. Some editors prefer many small edits, while others prefer to make fewer but larger and more complex edits. There is nothing wrong with making 20 edits to a single article in one hour 14 minutes. What matters far more is the quality of the edits. If the article is better when that editor moves on, then that is all that matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello Superfast1111 and welcome to the Teahouse. The Wikipedia (as a whole) is not a contest between editors, the only one you are "competing" with is yourself. For the encyclopedia, it is not the quantity of the edits that counts but the quality. People do their work here in very different ways, each after their own fashion. Let the end result in the article be your guide instead of trying to do as many edits as possible. If you are ever to apply for something I'm sure other editors will evaluate the total quality of your work rather than just the number of edits. Myself I like to work a very long time with very many previews before I hit save. My happiness lies in watching the "green numbers" increase rather than the edit count. Just my two cents, w.carter-Talk 17:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Superfast1111 welcome to the Teahouse, like w.carter said there shouldn't be competition between editors to increase their edit count. Some editors use automated tools like bots, they can do vast number of small edits within a small period of time. When considering edits made by a particular user it's quality that really matters, not quantity. This essay might cheer you up.--Chamith (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not all Editcountitis. Some editors are on poor internet connections, which regularly crash, so repeated saves may be the only way to prevent their contributions being lost. Arjayay (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Arjayay for a very relevant additional explanation. Also, users who edit on some smart phones can not open large sections of text and therefore have to edit smaller sections and save in between. It only emphasizes that we all edit in different ways for a number of reasons. But the only thing that really matters is that we get the job done. w.carter-Talk 19:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with most of you that quantity is supreme although at times and i say this with personal experience that thought does get shaken badly. As for Arjayay's views, i'm sorry but i might be inclined to believe it if it would have happened once or twice but over a hundred makes that difficult but hey that my opinion. But part of the question remains open - Is it possible to introduce measures to ensure that the show preview button is used before the save page ?? Thanks for your assist guys. Superfast1111 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically, probably yes. Is it ever likely to happen? No. Forcing use of show preview doesn't achieve anything as you've no guarantee that the editor looks at the preview. All you do is introduce a two click save process where people will just click through the first one, let alone the effect it would have on semi-automated tools like Twinkle, AWB etc. Nthep (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up this topic Superfast1111 because I have struggled with it myself! I know you've been advised by the other Teahouse hosts that the number of edits doesn't matter, but I don't believe that's actually true. When someone applies to be an administrator, the number of edits that they have performed is certainly taken into account. Even if you were to apply here in the Teahouse to be a host, the number of edits that you have performed would certainly be taken into account. The number of edits can be linked to the number of articles that you create. If you create a certain number of articles on Wikipedia, your new article creations are automatically considered patrolled, partly based upon your high edit count. A high edit count can also influence how one editor interacts with another creating some type of pseudo-hierarchy where one editor feels as if they must defer to an other editor who may have an incredibly high edit count. I think you bring up a good point. (I am using my preview button!)

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nthep, the probability that it may not work should not be a deterrent to trying it out although there is a very famous saying artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity which supports your theory & my apologies if i sound too sarcastic.

Bfpage you have hit the nail right on the head. The main reason multiple edits annoy me is that i consider it to be cheating to get a larger number of edits for poor or substandard work because hey at the end of the day its the number of edits which count. As far as quality is concerned, last year i ran into a editor who thought Mumbai central image & http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Surat_railway_station&diff=562828261&oldid=562347791] represent two different places. The result of that discussion was i got a block for edit warring, the other editor got a pep talk, presently has reviewer and rollback privileges and i am not talking about someone who has just joined here, it is a Veteran Editor III. So while individual editor's may consider quality is supreme, trust me it is not so. Besides if an individual makes the same mistake over a hundred times, i really wouldn't know what else to say. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Superfast1111: Just to shine a light from another direction: Since we currently do not have a tool to minimize excessive number of edits, would you recommend that editors who normally use preview a lot should save more often to "keep up with the competition"? - Just curious, w.carter-Talk 16:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@W.carter: No even if it feels unfair which is why i have written about it here. I do admit that at times i am sorely tempted, i don't use save page unless i have previewed it first. I just don't feel like doing it. But there is a way around the show preview button, an editor may not be allowed to edit the same page more than say 3 times a day. By the way, i have just crossed the 4000 edits mark. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not being allowed to edit the same page more than 3 times a day! Sorry, but are you serious? Sometimes when I have a day off I dedicate that day to create or expand an article, and that takes a whole lot more than 3 edits! Would you call this excessive editing, or this? I would never have been able to promote that article to GA on 3 edits/day. Or should I have to apply for a dispensation from the 3e/d to improve articles significantly. As has been mentioned so many times before: We all edit in very different ways. I also made a quick search on the WP and found 7308 entries where editors are adviced to "save document frequently to prevent losing information" or facilitate if another editor might want to revert or alter a specific part of the text. Congratulations on your 4000. I have no idea what my count is, but I'm still happy. :) w.carter-Talk 16:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you feel three imperfect edits are better than one perfect edit ? Take all the time you want but do a perfect job. Anyway it was just a thought but certainly you would agree that 73 edits is a tad too much. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either is "better", they are just different ways of editing. Most of us do not have your Superfast, Superhuman ability (yes, the recruiters from X-Men will have noticed you by now ^^) to see everything clearly the first time we edit, certainly not those of us who do not have English as our native language. I'm sure you are doing excellent edits, and you might feel wronged in some way when a not so Superfast editor makes lots of edits, but it would be better if you had this conversation with that editor instead of trying to implement rules that would be impossible to enforce or have unforeseeable consequences for editing on the WP. It would also be better if you aired this concern in a RfC where you might get more enlightened feedback, instead of prolonging this thread here. You might also want to point out that you consider that the "ranking" (or whatever it is called) system for some things here on the WP should be altered since the present system with edit counting may be flawed. If that system was altered, then everyone could edit the way they want at their own leisure. (All done in one edit. >Phew!<) - w.carter-Talk 15:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Old pages

Is there a way of viewing old Wikipedia pages that have been deleted, or do they get wiped from the system? Thank you very much. AlexR24 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi AlexR24, deleted information can be seen by admins. If you have a good reason, and wish to get deleted information, you can ask an admin for help. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello AlexR24. If you think that you can transform a deleted article into an acceptable article, then you should read about userfication, and ask an administrator for help. Basically, the text of a deleted article could be restored to your userspace, where you could improve it. This does not apply to the small percentage of articles deleted as copyright violations, or as personal attacks, or for other serious policy violations. Be sure to find out as much as possible about why the article was deleted, so that you can focus on correcting those shortcomings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Does Deletionpedia still exist?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes Google caches pages before they get deleted. You can also try wikia:speedydeletion. --Jakob (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft Elizabeth Martin Artist

I have had my draft declined. I have been in and edited correcting the way I cite references. I really don't know what to do next I saved the page does my editing automatically mean that you will re-look at my submission or do I have to do something else. Also I am dyslexic, not so bad but I often cant see things, there is an error in my editing and I just cant see where it is. I would also like someone to tell me how my editing is and what I need to do further. Plus sorry for so many questions but when I log in to my user name Karasaba it says that it may not exist so the only way I can find my draft id by using emails from you. Thansk Karasaba 21:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karasaba (talk • contribs)

Hello Karasaba, please ask us as many questions as you like! We enjoy answering questions.

Editing does not resubmit the page, so to resubmit the page, please add {{subst:submit}} to the top of it. Draft:Elizabeth Martin is the page in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Karasaba (talk · contribs), Looking at the draft article, the problem is that the artist is known only regionally, and apparently does not have work in major museums. I've just read the McBride thesis; from it, I think that some others of the group (Beeton & Sutherland & possibly Richards) would more easily meet the notability standard. The criterion for acceptance of an afc, is likely to be kept at afd, and I think Martin will be borderline. I will accept it if you like, but it may not stay in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I really think her work deserves a Wikipedia page. She did extraordinarily well as an artist and made a living she sold quite widely I saw her ceramics on Gardening Australia once when the showed someones garden, and I am looking for the art book where she is listed as an Australian artist. I would like to add a photo of her but dont kow how.Karasaba (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Emmanuel Lungu aka Eight Digits

Emmanuel is a Zambian rapper born 1995. And the name Eight Digits came off his eight letter nane Emmanuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:2050:1FF1:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have a question about how to use or edit Wikipedia? If you are asking whether Emmanuel Lungu would be a good subject for an encyclopedic biography, probably not: Most people are not import enough to have an article in an encyclopedia, and you haven’t indicated why he would be remarkable. Sorry —teb728 t c 08:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Userbox Help

Hello! I am asking about userboxes. I have a slew of them on my user page, but I do not know how to organise them. Currently, they are a jumbled mess. Thanks! Savissivik (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Savissivik! Welcome to the Teahouse!

There are multiple ways to organize userboxes. One common way is enclose them in a container. You can do that by adding this:

{{userboxtop|align=left/center/right|toptext=(Your header here)}}

...userbox code here...

{{userboxbottom}}

You can see an example of this container on the right side of my userpage. Regards, --Biblioworm 01:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Savissivik (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Background

How to do a background

Welcome TetrahedronX7 to Teahouse! Would you mind expanding and clarifying your question so we could help you? Thanks, ///EuroCarGT 04:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by TetrahedronX7 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi TetrahedronX7, we can help you if you tell us what your problem is. What do you mean by how to do a background? What background? Please clarify your question--Chamith (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)