Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 190

Archive 185

←

Archive 188

Archive 189

Archive 190

Archive 191

Archive 192

→

Archive 195

Suggestions about proposed new page "Acharya Kishori Das Vajpeyi"

I have just begun working on the article and seek suggestions to make it worthy of being a wiki article.Page will be found at User:Rkvajpeyi/sandbox. Rkvajpeyi (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rkvajpeyi. The most important thing is to add references to reliable sources that back up the claims in the article, and then expand the article, giving more information about his entire life and career. Please read Referencing for beginners, and you may also find A Primer for newcomers to be worth reading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

how can the average reader benefit educationally from the clutter on the wiki website portals?

Janus.Malone162.236.186.128 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Janus. Most of the main page is given over to highlighting recent excellent work that has been recognized by other editors. There's a lot of excellent work to highlight, so the information density of the front page is far higher than most web portals. There's no intent to make the front page particularly educational, nor do we go out of our way to target "average readers". The search bar is prominently displayed, so it should be relatively straightforward to get to the article you're looking for without having to navigate multiple links. Hope that helps! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Submitting user page draft for peer review

I would like peer review on a user page draft. I followed the instructions here Wikipedia:PRG that told me to enter :{{subst:PR}} at the top of the article's talk page and save the page. A link should appear to set up a peer review discussion, but only this "This template should be substituted on the article talk page." appeared in red letters on the page. The instructions previously referenced had a link (Template:PR) in step 2 to follow if no link appeared on the talk page after saving :{{subst:PR}}. However, this page just said the same things as the previous instructions. What should I do to submit my peer review correctly? Sam at LI-COR (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, Sam at LI-COR and welcome to the Teahouse! I've made some formatting adjustments to your questions to imporve readability. To answer your question, my understand of the "peer review" process is to have already established articles looked over and make sure that new contributions are neutral in cases where there may have been a conflict of interest. What you appear to be wanting is the review of a draft to be moved into article space and established for the first time. The proper project for dealing with those requests is Articles for creation, and to submit your draft for review there, all you need to do is put {{subst:submit}} anywhere on your draft page and click Save page. Good luck and happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sam, welcome to the teahouse. I think peer review is intended for articles, not for drafts.

If what you would like is for someone to review your draft and move it to the article space if appropriate, then put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft page (not its talk page) and it will be added to the queue of submissions for review under Articles for Creation. It can take several weeks to get reviewed though... Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fast replies! Is there a way to have a draft reviewed if it's in the actual draft space instead of as a user page draft? I read this wiki blog post that says drafts "can get constructive feedback from other editors". I assimilated that information with the peer review help documentation and it made me think there is some way to do this. If there really is no way to request peer review on a draft, should I just move my article to the draft space and wait for feedback? Would it help to request feedback by posting on the talk page of editors who have worked on similar articles? Sam at LI-COR (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Articles for creation doesn't care if your draft is in "User:...", "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/...", "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...", or "Draft:...", it uses the same {{subst:submit}} template on any of those pages. If you could give us a link to the draft you want reviewed, I'd be happy to submit it for you. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Even better, I found your draft at User:Sam at LI-COR/sandbox/Image Studio Lite Draft and notice that it is using the {{Userspace draft}} template at the top of the page. In that template is a blue link that says "Finished? Submit the page!" Clicking on that blue link then clicking the Save page button will submit it for you. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help, Technical 13. I'll submit this in the next couple weeks. Sam at LI-COR (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome to wikipedia. I looked at the article and I have concerns that it won't meet notability guidelines and won't be accepted because of that. Not everything in existence is considered proper for wikipedia articles, you have to demonstrate that Image Studio Lite is significant in some way. Is it a top seller? Is it used in important ways? Has it been covered in the news in any way? Also, I found it very frustrating when I first got here because the only feedback I got was "Just submit it and it'll be reviewed". Not helpful! The only thing the review got me was a stamp that it wasn't right for some reason. I wanted someone to tell me how to fix it! :-) Bali88 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

references...

I am working on my first ever article on a contemporary artist, which is pending publication on the ground of a lack of references. whilst there are plenty of general hyperlinks I had added to enrich the text (e.g. the art school he attended), I have nothing like the following: ^ Miller, Edward. The Sun. Academic Press, 2005, p. 1. ^ Brown, Rebecca. "Size of the Moon," Scientific American, 51(78):46. ^ Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005, p. 2.

Question: 1. are these academic / press references a must?

Thanks EdouardGris (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Edouard. Academic / press references are not necessarily required, but reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject absolutely are, and the requirement is all the more stringent in an article on a living person. Unfortunately, I have had to delete the draft article as a blatant copyright violation. I left a message about this on your talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Controlled redirects

I am trying to link the phrase "Xbox" to the page about the console. How do I control the redirect so it does that? When I do it currently, the redirect sends the viewer to the general Xbox page instead.

To show rather than tell, I need to change this "Xbox" but lead it to the page about the actual console. I am also having multiple issues with edit conflicts from stored versions, even when they are by me.AustralianPope (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK so my last few edits discombobulated the page but I think I fixed it. AustralianPope (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi AustralianPope. The piped link [[Xbox (console)|Xbox]] produces Xbox. See more at Help:Link#Piped link. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So it's a piped link then. No wonder I could not find any information! Thanks. AustralianPope (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about links and corrections

The first article that I have contributed is found here La_Marcha_Por_La_Humanidad_aka_The_Chicano_Mural_At_The_University_of_Houston

I got a bot edit saying that I had too few links, and that I was not linked to by any other article. I changed this, and I want to know if I should just wait for an editor to review and take down those edits, or if I just wait for a bot to correct it, or do I just take out the edits myself?Hectorchavanajr (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think an editor or yourself can take down the edits if you truly find it has enough links. Sleepinabanana (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Hectorchavanajr. Thank you for writing an article about a notable art topic. Well done! I see that there are plenty of wikilinks, and I have added some specific categories. Accordingly, I have removed the maintenance tags. Any editor who is confident that maintenance issues have been resolved is free to remove such tags. If there is doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

© template

Have never come across this type of template on a page before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentich_Disappearance

It's at the bottom of the article. Read it, don't get it. As to what is in © question that required the template.

This article & the Kinross Incident are likely getting some traffic lately with the disappearance of the Malaysian Airlines flight, which is how I came across it. So I'm just wondering what's in © dispute on this one, if anyone knows. Just curious, TYVM. ScarletRibbons (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@ScarlettRibbons: Hey Scarlett. That was a misuse of the template {{copyvio}}. It's for articles where the main textual content is questioned as a copyright violation and normally replaces the entire content of the article or more rarely just the section questioned. Here, if you clicked on the webpage that was flagged in the template as being infringed, you would have seen that it was the source of an image that was on display in the article, so it was that image (and two others) that was claimed to be infringing. What the user should have done (and I have done now) is simply remove the copyright infringing images. Meanwhile, the images are up for deletion at the Wikimedia Commons. Note that when you see a template in an article, if you click edit you can then usually locate the template's name, copy it, and then navigate to the template page itself, which usually will provide an explanation of its purpose and its proper use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, TYVM. There were inline citations after some of the inline citations (if that makes any sense) claiming some citations were © violations, which was why I was scratching my head, as I thought the sources seemed OK. Nice of you to tidy up the page :-D ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

can i go ahead and edit an article, when i haven't received any response to my post

I made a request last week for someone to take a look at an article that I feel has a US bias. It is about process-oriented psychology and it seems a fair article but the criticism section skews so strongly toward one US school and seems quite sensationalist. The article is supposed to be about process-oriented psychology and yet the criticism section goes in to one of 26 worldwide schools teaching process-oriented psychology and seems quite sensationalist and unbalanced. I know some about this type of psychology so I'm not sure if I should edit it because of being too close to the topic, it just seems quite out of balance and nobody has responded. Can anyone help?Snowsearch (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It seems that Process-oriented psychology was founded by an American Arnold Mindell and that he was directly involved in the Oregon incident described in the article. That being said, Snowsearch, you may well be right that the article now gives undue weight to that controversy. You have properly expressed your concerns on the article's talk page and I see that another editor has now commented there. Keep up the discussion and perhaps you should suggest how to summarize the matter in a more concise fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks Cullen I will try that to make it more accurate and concise after waiting to see if others contribute clarity here. much appreciated.Snowsearch (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, Snowsearch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

How to edit semi-protected articles

Hi,

I'm writing a paper on the speed of light and noticed there are few "citation needed" links next to some of the data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light .

I've found the original paper's written by the physicists' in question but don't know how to amend the Wikipedia article.

Can someone help? Tom.Matthewson (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Tom. In order to edit semi-protected articles your account need to be autoconfirmed – a threshold that is passed when your account is four days old and you have made at least ten edits. However, I have granted you autoconfirmed status early based on your stated intention. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey! there, another option you have that you can try your luck and request for confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. WOWIndian ^Talk 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@WOWIndian, Tom.Matthewson: Just to avoid any confusion, as stated in my post above, I already granted you the permission that WOWIndian is telling you where to request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:991joseph has created many article with same problem.

I have concern that the User:991joseph have created several articles about movie(s) which is not even released or not satisfying WP:NF. One of his contribution about future movie release I have proposed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhan Chirikkunnu) but still this user have many article with the same issue. In this as a contributor on Wikipedia what I can do? WOWIndian ^Talk 09:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You could start by discussing it with him on his talkpage; that tends to be the first port of call when one has an issue with another editor. You might also want to review the basic inclusion criteria; unreleased films can meet this requirement without meeting the sub-requirements of WP:NF, and it looks as though Buddhan Chirikkunnu has sufficient sourcing to do so. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleting a Wikipedia Page

Several years ago our office created a Wikipedia page for promotional purposes but we are no longer promoting our office in this manner. Can someone please advise: 1) how to delete the page, and 2) how to recover our password since the employees responsible for the posting no longer work in our office. Thank you.216.157.112.16 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If the page was obviously promotional, it ought to have been deleted at the time. Pages can be deleted for the reasons, and by the processes, described at Wikipedia:Deletion process. If you know the name of the account, and have access to the email address declared against that account, then you can get a Reset password sent to that address. If you give us a wikilink to the article in question, we may be able to give you further advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you link to the page? Since it was created for "promotional purposes" several years ago, it's probably been deleted already. I'm afraid that you won't be allowed to recover another person's password due to copyright reasons: every edit must be attributable to one single person according to our licensing guidelines. --Jakob (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If the "promotional" article was about a truly notable company, then the proper course of action in my opinion is to strip out promotional language and transform it into a neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia article. Clearly, if we know the name of the article, we can comment in a more informed fashion. I encourage the IP editor to read about conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Links to other wikipedias

Hi, I'm just preparing my first wiki article and have noted from google that there is an entry with my title in Italian wiki. How can I link mine to that one in the manner of "see also" ? And should I ? Diana Bassplayer (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This used to require a manual link - but these days the software should sort it out automatically - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I will wait and see --Diana Bassplayer (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arjayay: are you sure of this? There's no mention of such an automatic process on Interlanguage links. Diana Bassplayer, if Arjayay is right, you don't need to do anything. But you can link them up by looking for the heading "Languages" at the side of the page (probably the left side, unless you've changed the skin), and beneath it an icon labelled "Add links". Picking that will let you link it to articles in other language Wikipedias that cover the same scope. --ColinFine (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi ColinFine, Thanks for this. At the moment there is no Links heading under "Languages", only Settings, but that may be because the article is not live yet; I've submitted it as an Article under Creation. I was hoping to improve it while I waited for approval.... so I may just have to be patient to try either of these solutions. Diana Bassplayer (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I know I read something about automation when a bot started removing the manual links from the edit page, perhaps it was only a proposal at WP:VP(T) which hasn't been implemented. As ColinFine has said, you will need to access Wikidata by clicking on the "Add links" under "Languages". You may need to expand "Languages" by clicking on it, and turning the right pointing arrow to a down pointing arrow, before "Add links" appears. Apologies again. - Arjayay (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Diana Bassplayer, there are also a couple of templates you may find useful. If you think the italian page may have more information, and you're not feeling up to translating it, you could add Template:Expand language to the top of your page. If you're finding there are interesting related articles in the italian space that you want to link to from your article, you can use the Template:ill (for inter-language link) to have a redlink for the english version of the page and a link to the italian page side by side. I recently wound up doing both on a page I created at Guy XVI de Laval if you'd like to look at examples. Incidentally, I've encountered permission issues when trying the Add links under Languages (as suggested by ColinFine) on the left bar for that particular page, I'm not sure if this is widespread or just me. 1bandsaw (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I did it again.

I foolishly thought I was capable of simultaneously editing on both the Japanese and English versions of Wikipedia. I carelessly hit submit in a draft I am working on in my sandbox completely forgetting that I had only logged out of Japanese Wiki just a few seconds before. Very stupid for sure. Any advice? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) In the future, if you accidentally log out and make an edit and want to hide your IP data, contact the Wikipedia Oversight team directly, rather than posting a request on an open forum such as this one. This is because you are actually drawing attention to the private information, and that's clearly not what we want. Also, the Teahouse isn't normally used to process administrative requests. Contacting either an administrator or the Oversight team directly may prove to be faster. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC), revised 02:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Mz7. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Page Rejection

This is my first time creating a page on Wikipedia. I recently submitted a page to be approved, and it was rejected due to 'copyrighted' material. Since it is for our company, I can't tell if it's something to do with the logo that was uploaded (many companies have their logos on their Wikipedia pages, so I don't understand why this would be a problem) or due to the actual content. How do I know exactly why it was rejected? Insigma Hengtian (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Insigma Hengtian and thanks for your question. It could have been the logo, or other information that was copied from a coyrighted source, such as the company's website. For articles on companies to be acceptable, they need to meet WP:CORP to indicate they are notable enough for inclusion. Please also read WP:COI. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 05:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you copied any material from a copyrighted website, even your own, then that is a copyright violation, Insigma Hengtian, which we are obligated to remove immediately upon discovery for legal reasons. We do allow fair use of a company logo only in a Wikipedia article about a notable company, per our non free content policy. I hope that you didn't upload your logo to Wikimedia Commons under a free license. That would amount to giving up almost all control of your logo, which is unwise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I change my page name from User:Susie9 to Umaidpur, Bihar

Note: Transferred from the Teahouse talk page; consider using a ping to alert the editor when answering given age.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am a first time creator of a page. I wanted to create page with a title - Umaidpur, Bihar. The page is appearing as User:Susie9. How do I change to - Umaidpur, Bihar Susie9 (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Susie9, could you please explain why you want to change the name to Umaidpur, Bihar. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it started out as a sandbox page, Flat Out, but is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Umaidpur, Bihar. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I edit my NetDev Ltd page so that it accepted?

Note: Transferred from the Teahouse talk page; consider using a ping to alert the editor when answering given age.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I have recently submitted an article on NetDev Ltd however it was reviewed and rejected by Samwalton9.

Could you please provide some guidance or help to get the page accepted? Thanks for your help Laurence Laurence Drum (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Laurence Drum and welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that much the material in your article was copied from [1], which is a copyrighted website. We can't host copies of copyrighted content on Wikipedia, as this is illegal. In addition, the promotional language on a company website is in almost all cases inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. You must write original, neutral content, cited to reliable sources that are independent of the company itself. Please familiarize yourself with our guideline on conflict of interest as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

getting warning and broom icon removed from the top of a page

This was at the top of a page: "This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (January 2013)", plus a picture of a broom.

I removed trivial links and I moved all the external links from the main body of the text to the bottom (into an external links section), but the warning has not disappeared. What do I need to do to have it removed? 2.30.44.159 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. There are at least 9 external links in the body of the article, so of course the warning hasn't been removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming, of course, that the article in question is International Pharmaceutical Federation. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey. Good job cleaning that up. When you see a message like that it's normally placed by a (transcluded) template, which will look like this when you are in edit mode: {{Some name|maybe a date here}} Here, the message you were seeing, the display of Template:external links, is placed by this code in the article: {{external links|date=January 2013}}. I should mention, because it might not be true here but I've seen it trip up many people in similar situations, is that the top section of an article does not normally have one of the side [edit] link, as later sections of an article do – you have to click the edit button at the top of the page, which places the entire article into edit mode (there are other ways to access it but I don't want to go too far afield). Such maintenance templates have to be removed manually, so go ahead and do so (but you should leave in the other template, as the problem it flags is unaddressed). Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Since I see none, David, following this person's edits, I am assuming you somehow landed on a cached version.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a cached version, but the version which was current when I replied. The current version has 5 external links in International Pharmaceutical Federation#Resources. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I'm looking forward to addressing the other template at some point!2.30.44.159 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

how to make a new wiki page

hey i want to know how can one create a new page on wikipedia. My grandfather was a famous indian writer. A lot of people search about him on internet but get a few information. It would be good if i can make a page about him.59.160.104.254 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a number of useful links in a welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Rejected

Hi all, i had submitted the following article (all my words and my content) nothing copy or pasted, and all authentic and well researched. However the article got rejected any help guys? Im new here, maybe some formatting issues? Any1 willing to lend a helping hand?

Here my article:

This isn't the place for a proposed article

Gerald Wickremesooriya was born in 1920 at Ambalangoda. After an early career in the Plantation sector, he ventured into his own business, the now legendary “The Children’s’ Bookshop” where after dealing in the sale & distribution of Children’s books, he went on to sell vinyl records, which eventually led him to his next venture: The Sooriya Record label. Mr Wickremesooriya , being an avid reader and autodidact, gained a profound understanding of music in terms of its evolution, influences as well musicology. This helped him to develop his natural talent he had for the genre, and with it he had the knack to recognize & pick talents and transform them into stars of the Sinhala Pop scene, and went on to produce the countless hit songs for which Sooriya is so well known today. Next to being an outstanding producer, he always was somewhat a “rebel with a cause”. When popular songs were banned by the then Radio Ceylon considering this music “Thuppahi music” he lobbied and wrote articles in the newspapers supporting the artiste’s and their creations. Another notable fact is that , with Sooriya, he set a new benchmark in Intellectual Property in Sri Lanka’s music industry, by offering royalties for music creators, when it was almost an unheard of the time. Mr Wickremesooriya was a real trendsetter. He created many a new trend in the Sri Lankan entertainment industry from the late 1960’s to the early 1980’s with his Lable. Not only did he produce a large number of evergreen hits, he also constantly broke new ground, but he popularized Singhala pop music amongst a widely western speaking audience, and also was bold enough to take the initative to produce Tamil pop music when it was not in vogue. Also he synthesized the sounds of local Drum Rhythms with that of a Symphony written by the late Winston Jayawardena. Also pioneering firsts that go to the credit of Gerald Wickremesooriya, are revolutionary new innovative concepts, such as those used for his SOORIYA radio show and concerts. He produced a pop show on a floating stage at the St. Joseph’s pool. He used shadow dancing basing dancers on the diving boards of the pool. He recorded and produced Nurthi Gee and brought to life Tower Hall music in an era when this music was unheard amongst the public. A well-kept secret in his life was that GW was blind in one eye, due to a sports incident that took place in his mid-teens. Whilst most knew that his sight was affected, he never let this affect his personal or work life. As an avid nature lover, every weekend, he driven by his wife in the sturdy Austin A 40, would travel south to supervise his estates and on Sunday’s sell vegetables grown in his back yard at Colpetty at the Jathika Pola, then held at Bullers Road. After GW lost his vision in 1981 to a failed cataract operation, he contributed his time and energy to the Sri Lanka Council for the Blind, whilst his wife Dulcie continued to look after the interests of Sooriya. After a well lived life, Gerald Wickremesooriya passed away on 9th January 2006 at the age of 89.

Kayzeecee (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. When and where do you think that the submission of that material was rejected? The only rejection which I can see was when you submitted a blank page at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerald Wickremesooriya. If you now have material, add it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerald Wickremesooriya and resubmit, but make sure that before you resubmit you include references to published reliable sources to support the content and allow verifiability, and to demonstrate that the subject is notable under Wikipedia's definition. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will resubmit the content then

Kayzeecee (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You placed your reply in the section above, but I guess that you intended it to be here so I have moved it. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help adding a link?

I would like to add a link to Dylan Murray (from 'others' on List of Emmerdale characters 2011). I'm not sure how though - I'm new here? Anzukiller (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anzukiller. You add links to other pages on Wikipedia by using double square brackets, like this [[Dylan Murray]]. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's article on Dylan Murray is about the squash player, so you'd need to create a piped redlink, like this: [[Dylan Murray (Emmerdale character)|Dylan Murray]], which will create a link to a non-existent page so that someone can, at some point, add an article about the character. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AFAIK you can't link to it directly, as it does not have its own subsection. [[List of Emmerdale characters (2011)#Others|Dylan Murray]] will appear as Dylan Murray and, if clicked on, will take the reader directly to the "Others" section in which he appears. Arjayay (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood - I thought you wanted to create a link from the list to a page about the character. In which case, there is a way to link to that exact line of the table, but it's rather complicated; you'll need to edit the table itself to include anchors and then link to those. Not something to try if you're new to linking altogether; I'd suggest following Arjayay's suggestion instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

Anzukiller (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

How can I make an article less technical?

As part of my university course I, alongside other students, have been given the task of editing a Wikipedia article. The specific page which I have chosen states that 'the article may be too technical for some readers to understand'. I'd like to make the article more accessible however I'm unsure of how to proceed as I am struggling to define between too technical and not technical enough. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions on how this could be achieved?

thanks RosieGoundrill (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RosieGoundrill. In general, the lead section of an article on a technical subject should summarize the topic and entire article in less technical language. That may be a good place to start. If you give us the name of the article, we may be able to make more specific recommendations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is Machinima: Virtual Filmmaking. --Jakob (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is Anxiety/Uncertainty Management. I can understand why the article has been marked as possibly too technical but feel stuck on how to rectify an article without diluting necessary information. Any suggestions would be appreciated. RosieGoundrill (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jakob (talk) but the machinima article was for a previous module in 2013, the current one is Anxiety/Uncertainty Management RosieGoundrill (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me a bit more clear, RosieGoundrill. Please read what the Manual of Style has to say about the lead section of an article. To quote a couple of sentences: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". The current lead section of this article is glaringly inadequate. If you can write a concise overview in relatively non-technical language, you will have improved the article dramatically, and will then have the understanding of the topic necessary to improve the clarity of the prose without diluting the content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is really helpful, I'll get to work. Thank you for your help. RosieGoundrill (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

what is The neutrality of this article is disputed.

what is The neutrality of this article is disputed. Mohan times (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are referring to V. Srinivas Goud? In the error message "The neutrality of this article is disputed" the words "neutrality" and "disputed" are in blue, indicating that they are wikilinks to pages which give you further information. When you have read those pages, if there is anything specific that you don't understand, please feel free to ask. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I now see that another editor has removed the relevant tag, so it looks as if the problem has gone away. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And to clarify, I see that when the {{pov}} tag was places, the first sentence included the wording "... is a good administrator and political activist playing active role in struggle for Telangana state formation", so the tag was justified. The wording has subsequently been changed, hence the removal of the tag. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Youtube a reliable source?

If the company itself uploaded the video? AustralianPope (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi AustralianPope, that would depend on what you are trying to reference. Can you please give more detail? Flat Out let's discuss it 22:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Southern Comfort article. There is an edit I did that needs one of their videos for their slogan. Than I was going to make a new section showing links to their commercials since they uploaded them to youtube for archiving. AustralianPope (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC) So i did not receive an answer, but another user has helped me out again. AustralianPope (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

So, urm... I wanted to write an article about stanwix school, would i be allowed?

MatthewMatty77XD (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, welcome to the teahouse. If Stanwix School is the one in Cumbria, it seems to be a primary school. Wikipedia does not normally have separate articles about primary schools; instead information about local education would be put in the article about the town or village.

The article Stanwix does seem to be lacking information about the school, so you could try adding it there. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been lost!

I noticed that the primary menu (User | Talk Page | Watchlist | Contributions, etc) has moved from the left to the right of the screen and at the same time all my wiki user data has been lost/is no longer linked. No user page, no talk page, no watchlist, no contributions. Something seems to be going on but evidently it's not widespread as no one else is reporting the same thing, here. Anyone got any ideas Prl42 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Prl42. This is your only recorded edit to English Wikipedia with this account although I see 31 edits to Wikimedia Commons. Is it possible that you accidentally set up two accounts with very similar names? The account names are case sensitive. You could check the edit history of articles you are sure that you have edited, and that would provide a link to any other account. I am guessing here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Prl42: (e/c) I am not sure if your post refers only to display of links to your contribution etc., or if you're saying the actual contributions themselves are missing. If the former, please note that I am not the most technically advanced user; someone else may have more targeted advice, but it sounds to me like a problem that may be on your end – that's my experience whenever I encounter such a large bug that seem to be affecting no one else. 3/4 of the time this is fixed for me by restarting (first my browser, and if that has no affect, my computer). By the way, have you checked whether this is happening regardless of what browser you are using? Also, can you pinpoint any recent changes you've made to your computer coinciding with the weird display, or any changes you've made here, such as adding scripts or gadgets? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Special:Log/Prl42 shows the account was created automatically at the English Wikipedia today. "automatically" indicates you were logged in to a unified account at another Wikimedia wiki when you visited Wikipedia. Usernames are case sensitive (except for the first letter). Maybe you are User:PRL42. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Help

If I uploaded a picture....and that picture is a postcard, which copyright does that fall under. Being that it was a postcard that was publicly sold. It is also from the 1930's. Any help in the right direction would be appreciated. Anetek3D (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Anetek3D: Hi Anetk3D. Unless you had some positive information that the postcard is actually public domain (the context of your post indicates you do not), or it's a U.S. postcard and you can confirm it was issued prior to 1923, it is assumed fully copyrighted and cannot be used except under a valid claim of fair use, which is not likely for a postcard. You can read about Wikipedia's stringent criteria for fair use works here. Please note that whether some work is in the public domain has little to do with whether it was publicly sold. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please help me from a user and save my page

Please save my page, Street children in Bangladesh from speedy deletion. It was put by an irregular user, User:70.39.185.41 he made most of his edits on my page and saying to delete it. See this for more clear information: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Street_children_in_Bangladesh&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.39.185.41 . Please make him understand about it in his talk page, User talk:70.39.185.41. If he does not listen block him (this line for blocking is only for administrators).

Please mention me while answering or directly post the answer on my talk page. Thank you. Sakib14 (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sakib14, welcome to the Teahouse. That user has been warned, and the speedy deletion tag has been removed. I will watch this page for any more of this tagging. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources

Greetings Wikipedia,

For major sources like Fox News, New York Times and IMDB, I'm wondering if there is an existing forum for discussing the reliability of these sources for writing articles on other topics. I've looked at a few talk pages and seen the same discussions popping up about WP:Reliable Sources. The reason I bring that question here is Talk:Asa_Akira has users questioning the validity of IMDB as a source. It seems like every other Wikipedia page about a celebrity from TV and movies uses IMDB as a reliable source.

Thanks for your consideration, KonigProbst (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, there is a forum for discussing the reliability of sources, called the reliable sources noticeboard. I'd like to note that IMDb is generally not regarded as a reliable source, and it is usually included in "External links" rather than "References". Anon126 (talk - contribs) 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@KonigProbst: Please note also Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb and the many previous conversations about IMDb's reliability as a source at the RS noticeboard through this search. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

use of my Sandbox

I am wondering about how to use my Sandbox. When (if ever) should I remove material from my Sandbox page? Transcendentalist01 (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your sandbox is your personal development area, where you can make test edits and build draft articles. When building draft articles, you should make sure you are actively improving it. The userspace is not an indefinite hosting site. Drafts that are not suitable for the main article space and have been inactive for a long time (usually when the editor themselves hasn't edited for a while) may be subject to deletion. Never post libelous or copyrighted content into your sandbox (or anywhere else on Wikipedia). Otherwise, there should not necessarily be any reason to remove material from your sandbox. You are given a lot more freedom in what you can write and keep in your sandbox than in other places on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:About the Sandbox for more info. If I am unclear or you are still confused, leave a note below and I'll be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am still confused about the use of my sandbox. In particular, I am wondering if I delete a draft article from my sandbox, will it be deleted from Wikipedia completely? Also, can I write or create multiple articles in my sandbox? If so, are these created on separate tabs or some other way? Transcendentalist01 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Transcendentalist01. You can have as many user sandboxes (also called user subpages) as you want; there is one (called User:Transcendentalist01/Sandbox) which you can get to by a link at the top of your screen; but you can use any other name instead of "Sandbox" - it just won't have that link (but once you've created it, you'll be able to get back to it from your "User contributions" among other way). So, say if you are developing an article on "Martian spiders", you could use a sandbox called User:Transcendentalist01/Martian spider. When your article is ready to be moved to main space, you (or someone else) will move it, and this will leave the sandbox behind as a redirect. If you try to go to it, Wikipedia will take you to the new page; but there will be a small note just under the title "Redirected from User:Transcendentalist01/Sandbox" (or whatever your sandbox was called), and if you pick that, it will take you to the actual redirect page - your sandbox - which you can edit. If you want to reuse if for a different purpose, you can just remove all the contents. If you want to get rid of the page entirely, edit it to place {{db-userreq}} at the top, and an admin will come along and delete it for you.

If what you are doing in the sandbox is creating a new article, I suggest you use the Articles for creation process instead of working in your sandbox. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Based on your help, I managed to create a subpage in my Sandbox. Transcendentalist01 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Help on topic

I am currently doing a University assignment using wikipedia and will be editing a page on Internet Addiction Disorder. There are 5 criteria that make you an addict that are presented on the page already, but we have studied a sixth in class. Would it be ok or even necessary for me to add the sixth one in? (talk) to Sarah McKinley Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. If you can support the addition with a reliable source that indicates six criteria, then please do feel free to add the information. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Psychology of Internet behaviour - Internet addition HELP!

Hello,

I, (as part of a group) am looking at making a change to the page Internet addiction disorder. My chosen topic is to add a section relating to pornography and internet addiction (as it is mentioned in the top paragraph but not discussed further) taking from and linking to: Pornography addiction.

When using sources I will be using well referenced material from accredited journals that I have access to as part of my university degree.

I appreciate any suggestions as to how I should proceed and if you have any alternative ideas, then please get in touch!

Amosjfrancis (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Amosjfrancis. if you're planning on reusing content that already exists at Pornography addiction, you will need to indicate its source; see Copying within Wikipedia. The easiest way to do this is via an edit summary saying something like, "text copied from [[Pornography addiction]]", but you can also use the template {{copied}} on the article talkpage for better attribution.

You might also find the template {{Main}} worth using as well.

It's great that you're already planning which sources to use; peer-reviewed journals are an excellent source. Have a look at this short essay for some tips on how to create citations. Happy editing! Yunshui 雲‍水 12:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Educational Assignment- Internet Addiction Disorder- Cyber Relationships

Hey ,

I am currently looking into the Internet addiction disorder page and am looking to edit or add to this page.

I have read a little into the page and i am interested on adding a section about Internet relationship or cyber relationships. I am asking if other people think that this would be a good idea as relationships are a relation to Internet addiction disorder.

I would be grateful for any advice and suggestions within relation to adding this to the page as a sub heading.

many thanks , JLM003 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi JML003. Ultimately - as with everything in Wikipedia - it comes down to what the sources say. If you can locate a couple of reliable sources that state internet relationships are an aspect of IAD, then by all means go ahead (note my response to your classmate below regarding using text that's already present in the Internet relationship article). Yunshui 雲‍水 12:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Education Assignment- Internet addiction disorder- Problematic internet use.

Hi. I am looking at adding to the section call Problematic internet use, on the page Internet addiction disorder. I have read up on the page itself and what could be added to the page. I believe that more could be said about problematic internet use, and i am just interested in what others think towards this section. I would appreciate peoples comments

Thanks ClaraRoper (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi ClaraRoper. The best place to ask this question would be at the article's talkpage - this is where editors can discuss the content of an article. The Teahouse is primarily concerned with general Wikipedia use rather than content, whereas the article's talkpage will be watched by editors who have a particular interest in the topic. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui. Thank You for getting back to me, I will do that! ClaraRoper (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking Sandbox

Hi, i want to link my sandbox onto another page, which will allow others to view my sandbox. How do I link it? Thanks ClaraRoper (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Clara, welcome to the teahouse. You would type [[User:ClaraRoper/sandbox]], which would produce a wikilink looking like this: User:ClaraRoper/sandbox.

Note that we don't link to sandboxes (or, usually, other user pages) from encyclopedia articles, so for example you would not wikilink to your sandbox from the article Internet addiction disorder. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, thank you for getting back to me. ClaraRoper (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Fonts

I am creating a diagram for the page Internet Addiction Disorder and would like to make it uniform with wikipedia. What font is used? Thanks, Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. The software that renders images in Wikipedia only recognises certain SVG fonts - as long as you use one of these, you shouldn't have any problems. I'm not aware of any style guideline that prefers a specific font in diagrams, although legibility is of course a primary concern. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yunshui, thank you for your response, I will consider this! Sarahmckinley4 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Educational Assignment- Social Penetration Theory- Breadth and Depth Section

Hello,

I am doing editing on the Social Penetration Theory page for my 3rd year university assignment. In particular the section about the breadth and depth of social penetration. Could I update that section with the updated information from the 8th edition of the Communication Theory Book?

I would be grateful of the feedback, advice and responses to this query. And thanks for your help. Rosiesievers20 (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rosiesievers20. I'm not aware (nor is Google) of a publication called the Communication Theory Book, but there are a number of books titled "Communication Theory" and I assume it is one of these that you're referring to. Chances are the answer is yes, but check who the publisher of the book is first - if it's the author, or a small fringe publishing house, then the book probably isn't a suitable source. You can ask for advice at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you're unsure. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey Yunshui, thanks for the response, the Communication Theory Book I mentioned was by Em Griffin. I'll take this on board if I'm not sure. Thanks for your help.--Rosiesievers20 (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you mean Emory A. Griffin (2012). A First Look at Communication Theory. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 978-0-07-108642-4., then I should think that constitutes a reliable source; McGraw-Hill is a fairly prestigious and well-known academic publisher. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Can anyone please tell me how to insert pictures into the pageRahulvitta (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rahulvitta. Use the format [[File:name of file|thumb|alt=description of image|caption]]. I've written a simple intro to inserting pictures which you might find helpful. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Yunshui very much for your reply.I'm gratefulRahulvitta (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Rejection of suggestions

Hello everybody, I am new at Wikipedia and the first experience has not been good. I have made a few corrections to improve the writing style of two articles about TV shows but, although I remained polite, the author rejected the suggestions on the grounds that I was revealing too many plot details - which is a laugh, since I merely corrected her prose without adding spoilers and said TV shows have been all over the media for more than a year.

Other contributors have tried to make corrections and were equally rejected. My best guess is that author takes offence whenever someones dares to tell her that her writings could benefit from a second opinion; that's too bad, considering Wikipedia actually encourages contributors to improve articles.

My question is: are articles the 'private property' of their authors so they are entitled to reject any suggestion/comment/clarification coming from third parties, or are improvements really welcome?

Bianca8castafiore (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bianca8castafiore. The answer to your last question is, no, articles are certainly not "private property". Nobody owns an article, and anybody can - and is encouraged to make improvements. Equally, if somebody disagrees that somebody else's edits are improvements, they may revert them. If the person who made the edits does not accept that reversion, the right thing to do is to engage with the second editor on the article's talk page, or on the second editor's user talk page, to try to reach agreement. This is referred to as the bold cycle, and is a cornerstone of the cooperative project that Wikipedia is. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, or if one of the editors will not engage, then there is a process for dispute resolution which they should follow. (Having glanced at the history of Broadchurch, it does not look to me as if MarnetteD is treating the article as private property; but in any case you should engage with them on the article's talk page.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have not treated that article as private property and I resent this improper accusation. You must not have looked very closely at the seven edits that I have made to the article. Only two of them involved B and the rest were dealing with the American adaptation. In my edit summaries I gave B the link to WP:PLOT but I can't tell whether the editor read it or not. Plots are difficult things to deal with as details that are important to one person aren't to others. In the edits in question I could find no improvement to the article only an addition of details that lengthened the plot without improving it. However I am just one editor so your suggestion to B about using the talk page is quite correct. B editing here at WikiP is a learning process. We have several places that can aid in learning how things are done including Help:Getting started and WP:TUTORIAL. One other item that might help is to understand that when an editors edits are reverted it is not an attack on you. Most of us have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. Cheers and best wishes to your future editing. MarnetteD | Talk 02:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, MarnetteD. Unless your earlier remarks were addressed to Bianca8castafiore, you must have misread my comment, where I said "it does not look to me as if MarnetteD is treating the article as private property" (emphasis added). --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ack, D'oh and a trout slap for me. Many apologies ColinFine. Missing the word "not" makes me worry about my aging eyesight. I will try and be more careful in the future. Again my apologies. Have a good weekend in spite of this. MarnetteD | Talk 15:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not me

I noticed that a few edits were made using explicit language that I do not use. I do not believe it was me for this reason, even though I have researched this article. What should I do? Thank you. King sorks (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome (back?) to the teahouse.

Do you mean edits listed as being from your account, or from your IP address? Edits from your account are listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/King_sorks

Edits from your IP address may have been made by a different person to whom it may have been assigned previously, or in some circumstances by a different person with whom you share an IP address. This is very common and not a concern. If you are logged in to your account then you won't see messages left for your IP address. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)