Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

DYK has arrived!

My very first DYK, Incident at Hawk's Hill, is now on the front page, thanks to Fuhghettaboutit, (and Ryan for passing it) and everybody here at the Teahouse! I'm so excited -- it's just a tad like giving birth, LOL. Thanks to all of you for answering my sometimes dumb questions. You're the best!!! Tlqk56 (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 00:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a pleasure, Congrats.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

editing references

How do you edit the references? I have a typo to fix in Deborah Anapol wiki. I wrote 1885 instead of 1995.Melanie Grimes 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melapatella (talk • contribs)

Hello Melapatella, and welcome! That's actually very easy. You can edit it just as you edit text normally. Edit the section where the reference was added and make your change within the reference you used. For example, if your reference says:

<ref>{{cite web| title=My Dog Has Fleas| author=My Veterinarian| date=June 19, 1885}}</ref>

and you want to fix it, just edit it to where it reads:

<ref>{{cite web| title=My Dog Has Fleas| author=My Veterinarian| date=June 19, 1995}}</ref>

Let us know if you have any problems! --McDoobAU93 16:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

When I click to edit the REFERENCES section, Only this shows up, not the text I want to edit. The words REFLIST. Melanie Grimes 16:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Melanie! The references section just uses a template to list the references. You need to edit the reference in the body of the article. The easiest way to do this is to click edit at the top of the page to edit the entire thing. Then click ctrl+f on your keyboard to use your browser's find capability. Typing <ref will help find all of the refs on the page. Specifically type it without the ending arrow so it will find named references as well. You could type My Dog Has Fleas and it would bring you directly to that one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Melanie. When you are reading an article and see a references section near the bottom populated by a series of numbered citations, you might think that if you edit the page, you will see those citations typed in that section and be able to edit them. However, normally what you will see is code similar to this:

     ==References==

   {{Reflist}} or <references/>

The text of citations is actually in the body of the article, directly next to statements or paragraphs the citations support, using <ref>(citation)</ref> tags, which display as footnotes (e.g.^[1][2]) when you are reading an article. The template code shown above in the references section colates and displays all of the citations within the article in a numbered list in which the numbers correspond to the footnote numbers in the text. By clicking on the ^ symbol next to a citation display, you can easily find exactly where in the body of the article the citation text appears in order to edit it. For more, please see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

frustration

I have submitted an article twice and been rejected twice.

I don't know if the reviewers want more references or different types of references. And I'm afraid that maybe there just aren't any.

I'm frustrated.

Is there actually some guideline for these reviewers or are they just out to rain on my parade?

Yipper (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: reply on user's talk page.ʝunglejill 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Adequate References

I recently had an article rejected, which was referenced mostly by book reviews. If I am able to write another article in the future and reference it with things like news paper articles, press releases and 3rd party blogs/YouTube videos, would that be more acceptable?

I am ambitious in creating a new a fully referenced article. I am currently working on one that is majorly comprised of news sourced references.

Thanks! WriterChad203 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Writer Chad203. Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm kind of new here, myself, but I write mostly about kids books and authors, so I thought maybe I could help. You are on the right track with your article, as Kirkus is a VERY good source for establishing notability, and commonsense media is OK. The basic rule for a book is it has to have won a major award or be featured in multiple, non-trivial sources, not related to the book itself or publisher, author, etc. So you need to find a couple more references. The things is, you usually can't use blogs or YouTube or such for notability. You need to find a few more major newspapers or magazines that talk about the book. I know that can be hard, as a lot of them don't review books any more. But keep looking. Have you tried Publisher's Weekly? If you want to read more about book notability type WP:NB in the search bar and it will take you to a page that will tell you more than you probably wanted to know. :) Good luck, and in the mean time, look around for some other articles you can add to. Kids books need all the help they can get on WP! Tlqk56 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's some really great and really helpful information. I appreciate it a lot! WriterChad203 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

verification of facts

Hello ! I am new to the back end of Wikipedia but have enjoyed it as a reader for many years. I am wondering how facts editors put down are verified. If I write something inaccurate and a reader comes upon it, he or she will be mislead until the facts are corrected....How long would that take? What is that process?

Thank you

tweissberg 14:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi tweissberg! You see, the reader may indeed be misled, but if the information is not verified, it will be removed pretty soon by somebody else. Some people may not believe it anyway if it looks dubious, but the number of cases where there is truly untrue content left there for more than a month, or even a few days, is very low. Our volunteers weed out false statements and/or request sources using . Seen that before? It's almost a trademark now. Rcsprinter (lecture) 15:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you !

tweissberg 15:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweissberg (talk • contribs)

Hey tweissberg! That is probably the most important concern for Wikipedia. I don't know how quickly incorrect information is removed on average, but for articles that receive thousands of daily views, errors can be damaging even if they only appear for a few minutes! Wikipedia has a stricter policy for biographies of living persons because of this. Hopefully, as culture progresses, people will learn to question and verify everything they read, and as the encyclopedia progresses, it will become more verifiable. That is just a balance we have to maintain between allowing anyone to edit and wishing for accurate content. ʝunglejill 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank You JungleJill...I am going to try sending messages to the users that have responded to my question...tweissberg 18:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweissberg (talk • contribs)

Report possible abuse

I was looking at the article Wop May, about the pilot, and discovered that a link in the information box was to a commercial travel site, with no bearing at all on Wop May. I deleted it (edit) and searched the page history for the author. It appears when this author added his/her edit: 31.53.165.89. That person does not have a talk page. Is this something that should be reported, and if so, to whom?BThomascall (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, BThomascall, and weclome to the Teahouse! the response here depends on how recent the addition was. If it had been pretty recent (as in a few hours ago, or like a day at most), then you could give the IP user a spam warning on their talk page. An easy way to do this is by putting {{subst:uw-spam1}} on the talk page. In this case, you'd have to create the talk page to do it, but that's no big deal. If the user had already had a talk page, and it already had previous recent warnings on it, you could give a more serious warning by putting a bigger number on that template (so, if they already have 1 warning, you'd write uw-spam2, and so on). If they've already received a level 4 warning (which has the text "this is your last warning") in it, then the next step would be to report it to the AIV board, which is where admins can see what needs to be handled.

All that said, the edit was not recent, it was almost two months ago. So, there's no other action to be taken, as we can't be sure that 31.53.165.89 is still being used by the same person (due to a thing called a dynamic IP address). So, you did the right thing; good call! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work, Writ Keeper. Also, when I find a spamming/ vandalizing IP, I check their contributions and see if they've damaged any other articles. You can access the user's contribution when you are on their talk/user page, by clicking on the link "User contributions" in the menu on the left, under the Wikipedia logo. ʝunglejill 14:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks both of you, for the answers. BThomascall (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

I was that IP who added the website http://www.wopmay.com/ to the infobox when I did this edit at 09:50, 21 April 2012. It is a website project established by the son of Wop May and has nothing, as I can possibly see to do with any commercial site? Or travel company? I am experienced IP editor who only wants to make serious contributions to Wikipedia so I usually know what I am doing and would not knowingly make such a mistake. After reviewing the site again, I can assure you its just a project site for this guy's grandfather.

However it should be noted that BThomascall created a page called Wopmay orogen, then vanished from Wikipedia in July 2012 after badgering for the article to be reviewed. So I don't know what the coincidence is but to remove a website from a similar named article claiming it was in violation of WP's rule on commercial websites seems both strange and odd. And too coincidental to sound vaguely conspiratorial. 86.149.181.6 (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Acceptable Jargon?

In the Japanese Spitz article, I at one point refer to the breed "blowing its coat," meaning a major coat shedding that occurs once a year, in contrast with more modest shedding that can occur more broadly. Is that an acceptable bit of jargon, or should it be switched to shedding instead? I feel like shedding would be unclear, but I'm not sure how many people know about the term blowing one's coat. It may be unfamiliar to people without heavy-shedding dogs. Reinana kyuu (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reinana kyuu, and thanks so much for your question. I've never actually heard the term before, so I wasn't sure what was best. Having done a little research, I think it should be fine, as long as you link the phrase through. Now, what I've done is set up an {{anchor}} on the page regarding dog coats Coat (dog)#blowing the coat. If you were to "pipe" the link through (so it looks like [[Coat (dog)#blowing the coat|blowing its coat]], anyone unsure about the meaning can go there. Of course, if you have time, I'm sure the Coat (dog) article and the Moulting articles could do with a little work! Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You can also try to add a footnote explaining the meaning of the term (see Wikipedia:Footnote for a how-to), or just explain it briefly in () parenthesis. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Reinana kyuu. Your question is certainly appropriate. Obscure jargon should be avoided, unless there's a Wikipedia article that explains the jargon. In that case, including the jargon may contribute to the reader's proficiency with the topic, and so I concur with the above suggestion. But in other cases, removing jargon can certainly be appropriate. :) ʝunglejill 12:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Image Alignment

I really should know this, but is there anyway of getting the lead DYK images to appear to the right of the relevant orange notification on my DYK page?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gilderien! I have taken a look and adjusted it with this edit. All you need to to is place [[File:Example.jpg|right]] (note that for centering you can use [[File:Example.jpg|center]]). Alternately, you can use [[File:Example.jpg|thumb]] to produce a thumbnail on the right, or [[File:Example.jpg|frame]] to produce a frame on the right. benzband (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyway of centering it vertically with respect to the boxes?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Family members (2)

Moved to Template talk:User shared IP address private#Family members

 – -- Trevj (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrote an article by cancalled by reviewer

I have written an article. This is regarding the Articles for creation/Vithiya- The Finance Club of DoMS NIT Trichy. I have read the notability guidelines and then wrote it will someone please kindly help me to figure things out. Anshumandutta (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vithiya- The Finance Club of DoMS NIT Trichy. As the original reviewer notes, notability is a problem here. The subject seems to be a university club, departmental level. We rarely have articles on university departments, many dispute their notability, and a club within one is really pushing it. It may be notable, but the sources do not support this; the article uses one source, reliable, but it simply mentions the club existence. This does not provide enough independent coverage. I suggest you ask the reviewer to comment here more, if you have more questions, and you may also want to link this discussion from Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard (create a thread there, and ask people to comment here, by linking this discussion from there). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleting an article I created.

Hey there. I wanted to inquire of different methods for deleting self created articles. Mahwishmir (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mahwishmir. You can delete your own article by blanking the content and adding {{db-author}} -Cntras (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mahwishmir, welcome to the Teahouse! You are talking about Mahwish Bokhari yes? Can you use db-author when others have contributed to an article, Cntras? heather walls (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whether other users have made significant contributions to the article. That seems to be the case, so the answer would probably be no. Mahwishmir cannot use db-author. -Cntras (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm on my way out

This isn't a question, so, if you have a mind to delete it, I'm not going to object. Just letting all of the helpful people here know that it looks very much like I'm going to end up getting banned someday. My one dispute with another editor so far has required a lot of careful reading and thinking in order to evaluate comprehensively, and so far maybe one person has done that. Those in positions of power have done what has been universally done with me on the internet: jumped on one tiny phrase in a long discourse and treated it as if it were the entire discourse. Because of this unjust treatment I've been forced to take the risk of perpetuating a dispute, and, given the tone of responses I've received from people in power, of course the ruling is automatically going to go against me. So I just wanted to say thank you again for all of you who have been helpful to me and sorry that your efforts are ultimately wasted. I'll still stay on Wikipedia until I am forced to leave and continue to uphold my own standards of editing and learn more about how to be a better editor, and I'm going to put my eventual ban totally out of my mind. Guyovski (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski. I do not know the specifics of your problem but it is not easy to get banned from Wikipedia unless there is sustained disruption. Try working on different pages. There are plenty of things an editor can do.--Charles (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Great point Charles about working else where. Some of the best advice I was ever given by an experienced editor was "step back, and edit something you know nothing about." It helped me calm down about getting all riled up about subjects that are close to my heart. My escape is to write content about places I'd like to visit. What's yours? Sarah (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guyovski. I see no indication that you are about to be banned. Perhaps you are making too much out of a relatively minor dispute? I suggest that you concentrate on being a productive contributor to the encyclopedia, and my guess is that the other stuff will take care of itself.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guyovski. I took a few minutes to read a few of the interactions between you and Joseph, so perhaps I can offer a bit more specific advice. To quote the philosopher John Wilkins: there are no bad positions, only bad arguments. You made an unpersuasive argument about the slug used to describe a Holocaust denier; not too surprising as you've only been doing this a few days and the person you were discussing this has been at it for several years. And that's where the matter should probably have been dropped.

The more important issue was how you read Joseph's comment "....I'd question your objectivity and neutrality and – along with it – the level of bias present in your edits...." In this context, bias and neutrality have specific, well-deliniated meanings. You weren't aware of how those words are used here (as you've only been here a few days) and so you read them as an accusation of dishonesty. That's not an interpretation any experienced editor would have made.

So I'm going to give you a slightly different bit of advice: I think you should stop editing for a while and lurk instead. When I first started out here I read the usual policy statements, but it was reading old cases in wp:ani that allowed me to understand how those policies were applied to real disputes. From there you might want to branch out to the wp:third board, not to participate but to see better and worse ways of handling conflict.

After having gotten a better handle on the jargon and how it is applied I think you'll be well on the road to becoming a valuable and effective editor. I hope you stick with it.

Garamond Lethe(talk) 00:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It actually seems that Guyovsky's assessment was quite accurate. ʝunglejill 13:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I think "accurate" is the kindest description that comes to mind. Garamond Lethe(talk) 17:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency in infobox fields running over onto two lines

In regard to infoboxes (tennis biographies in particular), I was just wondering why it was that half the time fields such as 'Australian Open', 'Highest Ranking', 'Current Ranking' etc run over onto two lines and sometimes they don't, regardless of how much info is filled in under these fields...? What can be done to make sure infoboxes look more like these: Magnus Larsson, Florian Mayer rather than these: Alejandro Falla, Onny Parun? Thanks. Asmazif (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2012 (GMT)

Hello, Asmazif, Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately I don't really understand infoboxes that well myself. I played around with the ones you linked to a bit and couldn't figure out the problem. I did, however, find a Wikiproject here: WikiProject Sports. If you go there and ask your question on the talk page somebody might be able to help you. Sorry I couldn't do more, I'm just a beginner here myself. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. But you can use the <br /> tag to force a line break, if that helps. Maybe there's a wiki markup equivalent, but I've certainly seen this used in such situations and it's even documented at {{Infobox company}}. -- Trevj (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Trevj - it's the field names themselves which sometimes run over, not the text entered to the right of each field (which is inevitable), so <br /> only works for making a new line when entering data. I'll look at the links you both sent though, thanks. I'm thinking it's a flaw with the actual design on the infobox, however, and it should possibly be proposed to englarge the length of the template, ala the golf infobox, which is noticeably bigger - compare Vijay Amritraj to Tiger Woods. Asmazif (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2012 (GMT)

I've written my article, but what next?

Hello there -- I wrote an article, added references, periodically have updated it (and edited other stuff on Wiki, so I know how that works) but I don't know the next step. How do I submit it for approval? And so importantly (because I'm sorry to ask this; I feel very ignorant): how do I change the title of the page to the actual title of the article? It presently has my user name (Mhsprecher) which doesn't help the actual article much.Thank you very much for your patience with me during this process.Mhsprecher (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mhsprecher, add {{subst:submit}} to the article. I'm sure one of the Teahouse Hosts will be happy to review it for you. I would, but I'm busy at the moment. I have also moved it for you (or will in about 10 seconds if you read this fast). Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan! You can now find the article here. heather walls (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Heather, I really should have provided that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi -- next question -- where on the article do I put the submit tag/code? And what should it look like? Mhsprecher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for note getting back to you earlier. You can add it directly to the top of the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Updating article

How do I stop the censoreship of recently discovered new knowledge ,100 percent verifiable,on a article that needs updating?And why would a article be censored if the information is 1000 percent verifiable,true and factual?paitalona p.s. why do u HAVE to use those 4 thingy's??17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)paita17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paitalona (talk • contribs)

Hey, Paitalona, welcome to the Teahouse. First off, it's not censorship. People are removing the material because it is unsourced, and material that is unsourced may be challenged and removed at any time. The burden of proof lies with the editor who adds or restores the material. This means that, since the material has been challenged, it must be directly supported by in-line citations to reliable sources before you can add it back into the article. If the material is verifiable, as you say it is, then citing these sources will be no big deal, so do it. And just so you know, the four tildes get replaced with your signature when you make a post on a talk page; this helps others understand who made a post, and when they made it. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Jetset Magazine Article for Creation

I have submitted an article for creation about "Jetset Magazine" currently a much lesser known magazine from Colombia entitled "Jet-Set Magazine" has a page, and yet is far less credible. I have attempted to submit Jetset Magazine because it is one of my favorite exclusive publications, however despite having references from Forbes and other sources, the page was declined. Can somebody assist me with this articles approval.

70.184.104.106 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like Wikipedians decided over at Articles for Deletion that your article does not have enough Secondary, reliable sources. Since I cannot view deleted pages (only administrators can do that), I can only give advice. Try to find independent sources that talk about the subject of the article. This could be The New York Times, CNN, BBC, or other news organizations. I hope this helps. -- Luke (Talk) 16:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Luke, I had sources from Forbes Magazine, Richdad.com, and Daymondjohn.com. Are those not viable enough sources? Also, how can I recover content that has been deleted, in order to make these changes?

70.184.104.106 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I spamming?

I receive the following message: "Welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are adding external links to many different Wikipedia pages in rapid succession. This is often a sign of people spamming Wikipedia. ..." It is true I'm adding external links in rapid succession, because I'm trying to add links from articles about Dutch parlamentarians to their personal websites. I think that kind of link could be useful. If it is considered a spam, I of course stop adding them. But if they aren't considered spam, is it possible to somehow switch of the message, which appears every time I'm trying to add a link? Kuuvalo (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kuuvalo. The links are directed towards the official website of the subject, so you should be in the clear. -Cntras (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Kuuvalo, and welcome to the Teahouse! What's happening here is that you're triggering the edit filter, which is an automated system that detects certain kinds of edits. It's a relatively naive system; I believe it runs mainly on regexes and the like. So, it can't determine the quality of the external link on its own; it will show that for any external link, no matter how germane. However, in this particular case, it only filters edits from unconfirmed accounts; once you hit autoconfirmed, which happens once your account is 4 days old and has 10 edits under its belt, you'll stop triggering the filter and getting the message. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

For future reference, see WP:PROMO. -Cntras (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers! Kuuvalo (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How to find a lost wiki book

I created a wiki book(apx 85 pp)and was using it regularly. When I wanted to use it I would click on Create a book and go through the laborious process to get to my book. Cumbersome as the process is it would always take me to my book. Now I can no longer find my book. All I get is the opportunity to start a new book. Can someone help me find my book and hopefully explain a less complex way to call it up? Thanks, Art 98.230.173.64 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I've not really used the Book feature of wikipedia that much, but I thought I'd help you out with what I do know. Books are saved in one of two places, your userspace if you've got an account and are autoconfirmed (been around a few days), or under the Book: namespace. Now, assuming you used an account to save the book, it should still be in your userspace. There's certainly not anything under The list of books. If it's been deleted, and you know it's name, I could possibly help you find it, but it wasn't saved, I'm not sure if I can. Worm^TT(talk) 13:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user

What's the relationship between this and Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user? ··gracefool☺ 02:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi gracefool! Welcome to the Teahouse. We actually don't have a relationship, per se, with the Adopt-a-user program. The Teahouse is based around a many-to-many support system, unlike the Adopt-a-User program which focuses on a one-to-one support system. You can learn about our methodology on our research space on Meta here. I hope that helps, and if you'd like to learn more, feel free to let us know. Sarah (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding to Sarah's very good answer, I would say that though there is no direct relationship, that both projects are efforts to assist and support relatively new editors. In that sense, they are related. However, Wikipedia is an an enormous project, and John Muir observed that everything in the universe is linked to everything else. And he never heard of the Internet or wikilinks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added cross-pollinating links to Teahouse at Adopt-a-user. ··gracefool☺ 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you :) And you might see some cross-over, I have had many a Teahouse guest ask about the adopt-a-user program! Would you be a good person to perhaps put new editor's in touch with about it? Sarah (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to the project, so I don't really know how effective it is. People wanting to be adopted can contact one of the adopters, I don't know that I can do much else apart from adopt a few people myself. So feel free to send one my way :) ··gracefool☺ 07:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd possibly suggest I'd be the person to get in touch about it (personally adopted the most people, my version adoption program has spawned another half dozen or so etc). However, Adopt-A-User's currently fairly defunct there's only one or two editors who are actively adopting - I am planning to reboot it this year, I'm just lacking the impetus to actually do it. At the moment, the Teahouse model is working very well for new users and I believe it's a better place to focus our resources. Worm^TT(talk) 07:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Contacting the author of an article

Beginner's question: where,on the page, does the authors' user name appear?

Thanks

tweissberg 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweissberg (talk • contribs)

Hello Twissberg, at the top of the page you can see a button that says view history. There, you will see all of the authors. The earliest revision will generally be the article creator except for some of the oldest articles on the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hey, Tweissberg, welcome back! That's actually a more interesting question than you might think. As Ryan says, the "easy" answer is to click on the "View history" tab at top of any page; it will provide to you a list of all the changes made to the page, along with the username for each edit.

But to the question within your question, there's not always a straightforward answer to "who is the author of a page?". Some pages are written mostly by a single user, so they could be said to be the author. Others are written by a whole bunch of people, or created by one and hugely expanded by another; in either of these cases, I'm not sure I would call any one person the "author".

Moreover, we have a policy here where nobody "owns" an article; and the copyright of the text is automatically and irrevocably released for anyone to use and edit, so it could also be said that there is no "author" per se.

Anyway, I hope that answers your question; don't mind my ramblings! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, I hope you don't mind but I think it is important to say that it is "automatically and irrevocably released for anyone to use" if attribution is provided under the terms of our licenses. All material remains copyrighted, with the history providing the list of authors who owns the copyright, it's just that the copyright is a free copyright license.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, don't mind at all. I considered mentioning the attribution/share-alike clause, but figured, "Eh, TMI". You're 100% right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right that it is delving into complexity but the problem of infringing reuse off Wikipedia is huge. I've personally sent at least 20 compliance notices and I wasn't even looking for it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. I am looking for anyone with any interest in Apert Syndrome. Since the "Apert Syndrome" page is the page I made a correction on, I wanted to get in touch with the page's writers, to connect and see what their experience with or interest in the syndrome stems from. TMI: no such thing....

tweissberg 22:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweissberg (talk • contribs)

In response to your post on my talk page, I have made this edit. Please advise if this deals with the incidence rate issue to your satisfaction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How long for an article to be linkable?

I'm creating some articles on various places of geographical and/or historical significance in my region. One recent article seems to be live, but when creating internal links to it within another article, it says the page does not exist. Am I missing something or does it take some time for the article to appear as live within the system? wasrtsWasrts (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be immediately linkable. Which article are you referring to in particular? -Cntras (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Wasrts! If the links don't work, there's probably an error in their title. If you supply the link, we can point out the exact problem. ʝunglejill 13:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The article is Chrome Island Chrome Island. I notice that the title doesn't capitalize "Island" - perhaps that's an issue? But this is one of my first articles and I haven't figured out how to change that. ==wasrts== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasrts (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a problem, yes; wikilinks are case-sensitive. So, Chrome island will return a result, but Chrome Island will not. I take it that "Chrome Island" is what the title should be? If that's true, then you can move the page to the correct title. The way you would do this is by going to Chrome island and hovering your mouse over the down-pointing triangle tab in the upper-right corner. A menu with an option called "Move" should appear; click it. It'll bring you to a new page called "Move Chrome island". Here, you can change the title of the article to whatever you want by typing it into the "to new title:" field; in this case, change "Chrome island" to "Chrome Island". (Be sure not to touch the "(Article)" part!) Once you've done this, you should fill out a short summary of why you're changing the title in the box below it (probably something like "fixing capitalization".) Finally, hit the "Move page" button, and you're done! Once you move the page, both Chrome island and Chrome Island will become functional links to the same article. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I made that change. I'll track down the articles that should link it and try again. It's no fun being The Noob. ==wasrts== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasrts (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A helpful link for that is the "What links here" feature, which is in the toolbox to the left of the window. Special:WhatLinksHere/Chrome_Island and Special:WhatLinksHere/Chrome_island will tell you what's linking to them already. Good luck!

PS: Yeah, being a noob sucks, but it gets better! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And to correctly sign, that should be Wasrts (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Easy photo question if you know what you are doing.

Hello.

I'm trying to get this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Randolph_Street_Market_Festival.jpeg

inserted into this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Randolph_Street_Market

and it just gives me red type. Obviously I'm doing something wrong.

How can I fix this?

Thanks. Marilyn Nix (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Marilyn. I've gone ahead and fixed the problem. There was an extra period at the end of .jpeg. One thing I noticed is that you use a section heading for the article title, and subsections from there. You will want to have the introduction to the article start without a section heading, and what are now subsections be sections. (two equal signs rather than three). Hope that helps. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 04:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Obotlig, have taken your good advice and fixed the sectioning, and will check my other pages to make sure it's right too. Really appreciate your assistance with the picture. Marilyn Nix (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Cartoon Character

I am trying to find out the name of a cartoon character that says...I WILL LOVE HIM AND KISS HIM AND KEEP HIM AS MY OWN. I don't know where to look or who to ask...Can someone HELP ME PLEASE? Thanks you, Maxwell50.53.56.90 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Maxwell! Here at the Teahouse we answer questions about editing Wikipedia. But I'll give you a hint, that line was borrowed from a character in 'Of Mice and Men', a book by John Steinbeck. (You can also try asking at the reference desk, maybe in the entertainment section.

Hah! In fact, Wikipedia's article Of Mice and Men already answers it here. heather walls (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am aware it is from the book but I am looking for the cartoon character that said it. If you can advise me as to where to look....I would appreciate it! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.56.90 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat: Hah! In fact, Wikipedia's article Of Mice and Men already answers it here Also here heather walls (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I FINALLY FOUND IT! THANKS...It is tough being new and not know how to navigate. THANKS AGAIN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.56.90 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

approval for new pages

My new page has been up for approval for several days now - but I get no sense of how long I will need to wait. How can I find out?Oakbell (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Oakbell, welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, there's no way to gauge these things; it's all volunteer-driven, so reviews only go as fast as people can get to them. Articles for creation is also one of the most notoriously-backlogged places on Wikipedia; the sheer volume of articles to review is staggering, and new entries are being added constantly. So, I'm afraid all we can tell you is to be patient; it'll get there eventually. It sucks, but them's the breaks sometimes. Good luck! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

My "Notes" section became part of the "References" section

Hello, A few days ago I proudly completed my first Wikipedia article about "Rudy Buttignol."

At the bottom, I had "References" and then "Notes". Dividing up the sources in this way seemed to be appropriate.

Today I noticed that the info from the "Notes" section has been merged into the "References". Is this a better way of doing things?

Many thanks again.

sofiabrampton

Sofiabrampton (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey there sofiabrampton. Welcome back. First of all, I must say that the article is great. And now, coming to your question, I don't see a reason to have a "notes" section seperately. If the information in those notes is truly notable, then the info goes right in the article itself with the sources/links in the references section(I think that is the case here). If the information is not notable, there is no point in having it here in the first place. But its just my opinion. :) Roshan220195 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Coming to think of it, the issue may have been raised before and consensus achieved. The more experienced hosts who have been here a long time may be able to reply better. Roshan220195 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

_____ Thanks for the input and for the commpliment, Roshan. I get your point and it makes total sense. When writing the article on "Rudy Buttignol" I had help from some Wikipedia editors like Theo, Benzband,David, Uzma Gamal and most lately Fuhghettaboutit. I really appreciate all of the help that I get so thanks again, Roshan, for yours. Let's wait to see if anyone else weighs in re the "Notes/Ref" issue. sofiabrampton Sofiabrampton (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Where do you see your question and answers?

Last week I started a wiki page for my aunt. Because she is still living and the information I added was from her I didn't really know how to "reference" it. Therefore, it is scheduled to be deleted. I asked how to "reference" information from the living person, and since I can't see my previous question or any possible answers I still don't know what to do. Lmayart (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Ok, sure now it's right at the top, but it wasn't last week! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmayart (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Lmayart, welcome back! Sorry about your question before; it was probably archived due to inactivity. If your question didn't show up at the top before, it's probably because it was posted at the bottom of the list, rather than the top, which is the way the other talk pages on Wikipedia work; there are some technical issues that can cause this (it's a cause of contention amongst the Teahouse members, so forgive me if I don't elaborate). Anyway, if I've understood your question correctly, you're asking how to use a private conversation with your aunt as a reference on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that we can't really use that kind of information as a reference. The thing is, if something hasn't been published, we can't be sure that it happened, so we can be sure that it's reliable. Our policy on verifiability requires the content of articles to be backed by published sources, because unpublished sources (like your conversation with your aunt), can't be verified by anyone else. I'm sorry if that's a bit of a disappointment, but you have to keep in mind that our information is only as good as the sources that back it up; we just can't take anyone's word for it. Thanks, though! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lmayart. I had a look for sources using Google Books and News Archive seeking to find significant coverage in reliable sources on your aunt, the touchstone for determining topic inclusion. I was able to confirm some of the sketched details but did not find the significant coverage I was looking for. The simple fact is that the biographies of the vast majority of people on the Earth now and throughout human history are not "encyclopedic"; they are not notable as we use that word here to mean something very specific, and not quite as it's used in the vernacular. There are, however, alternative outlets where you can write about your aunt. See for example wikibios. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox questions: archive and new s-box?

Hi there, I've created my first article after working on it in my sandbox (The article's live.). Can I delete all that info from my sandbox now? If I do, will it affect the number of edits connected to my account? Second question, can I create several sandboxes? I'm a bit of a dipper. I work on several things at the same time, and I think this might make it easier.

Would appreciate any help you could provide. Cheers, --Charlie Inks (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charlie, thanks for your question. I'll deal with the second one first - mostly because it's an easier answer... You can create as many sandboxes as you like. To do this, just go to any subpage that doesn't yet exist, under your userspace. User:Charlie Inks/Sandbox 2, User:Charlie Inks/My second article or User:Charlie Inks/A sandbox name which doesn't really matter but can be anything I want would all work. I've actually got hundreds of subpages for my adoption school, they just keep piling up.

As for your first question, yes, you can delete the information. Generally, when you put a new article live, it's preferable to use the move command to put it live. This keeps all the article history in tact, which is necessary for the attribution. If you're the only editor it's not a massive deal (though it will affect your edit count if you don't), but when there are multiple editors it becomes very necessary. To delete it, you can either blank the page and carry on, or put "{{db-user}}" at the top, which will mean a nice admin (like me) will come and delete the page. Worm^TT(talk) 11:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Worm, Wow - that was fast! Thank you! A followup question here. So if I delete all the work on the first article in sandbox and that affects my edit numbers, can I do it backwards? (I'm partly dyslexic so I'm trying to figure out how to explain what I mean here... :D ) Can I now, retroactively, cut and paste the edits from sandbox to the actual article so my edit numbers don't get lost in space? Thanks again, Worm. Cheers --Charlie Inks (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll need a friendly admin to help you out with that. Oh look, I can do it! If you let me know the article title and the sandbox title, I can merge the two histories, leaving the sandbox blank and the article with all your edits on it. Worm^TT(talk) 12:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Worm, Thanks so much for this! I did leave you a thank you on your talk page too :D Re merging the two histories, would you? That would be very much appreciated! The name of the article is Council for the Arts in Ottawa and the sandbox is Charlie Ink's. If you would give me a bit of time - say an hour? I'll switch the next thing I'm working on (It's already in the same sandbox) over to a new sandbox and you can do your magic! I really appreciate this, Worm. :D A Big Thank You --Charlie Inks (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All tidied up for you. In future, don't forget to move your articles to the article space - let me (or anyone at the teahouse) know if you're unsure how to do that. Worm^TT(talk) 16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Save an article?

Is there a way to save an article, or add it to a list of "Watch Later"s or something? I have a few looooong articles I'm planning on reading, so I'm just wondering Raeraekat (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There's two ways. First, if you would like to see the changes that occur on an article, you can add it to your watchlist by clicking the star on the top of the page. Help:Watching pages will give you more information on that. If you just want to create a list of articles to read, you can create a list on your user page. Just copy the title of the page and put it in links. Do it like [[Page name]] Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And of course, you could always just bookmark the page in your browser! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

doo dads?

how do i add the cool doodads(don't know what else to call them) to my personal page/site; as example; (This user is a fan of This Team); etc Longhorndaniel (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes? Go to Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports, and paste the code onto your userpage.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Longhorndaniel! I'm pretty sure you're talking about userboxes. To add them to your userpage, simply copy any of the templates and paste (you can find an extensive list here). Userbox templates include the curly brackets (for example, {{User wikipedia}}). Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 14:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You can also make your own userbox, either by using the {{userbox}} template (instructions) directly, or creating a subpage in your user space with the template as the article text of that page. You also can make a similar box without the Userbox template at all. In other words, you can make whatever userbox you like, within the guidelines laid out (that it not be offensive or disruptive and states your view in a positive way). Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 00:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

My first article

I did my first article on a rather obscure topic in Egyptology and I want to make sure that It is all it should be. I had a great deal of difficulty making some of the references show up the way I wanted. Also when I tried to put it in a category, it didn't take. Any suggestions would be useful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf lupeson (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wolf, welcome to the Teahouse and congratulations on your first article, Scorpion papyrus. To add the article to categories, edit your article and at the bottom add [[Category:category name]]. This will add the article to the named category. Even easier is to enable the HotCat gadget on the gadgets tab of your preferences page, then you just click on the category + button at the bottom of the article page and type the category name (no wiki markup needed) and click save. NtheP (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wolf, I have done a copyedit of the text and the article's formatting, added various categories, separated out the note from the references and made other tweaks. I'm sure it could be expanded but it's a really good start and a great first effort.-Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my article was rejected?

I submitted my article for approval and was told to add citations, which I did, then I was told it wasn't neutral, I've gone over it and cannot see why it is not. Now I have been told it's because the author I am writing about is not notable enough.

Any help would be appreciated

Panthera2012 (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Panthera, welcome to the Teahouse. We're talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jane Bernard, right? There's two things to look at, the notability of the subject and then the style of the article.

For notability the test is this "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

For authors this is supported by the guidelines at WP:AUTHOR which are:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

At first glance I'm not seeing much that meets the notability guidelines, her work doesn't appear to have attracted much mainstream (not blogs) reviews and although she is a "writing professor" (I think you need to explain what this is) at three institutions there she doesn't appear in any academic journals either.

If you can get over this hurdle by finding references, either online or written, that meet the guidelines then you need to look at the style of the article. I can see why it was tagged as not neutral as to me it reads more a promo piece than an encyclopedia article. The opening sentence for one "Jane Bernard is a best selling author and reknowned intuition expert" - says who? It's a subjective sentence, "Jane Bernard is a writer on intuition" might sound more boring but is neutral in tone. The rest of the article contains a lot more phrases like this. I'd suggest that you go through it and remove all the "gloss" unless you can back it up with reliable references.

The references you use for to support both notability and style need to be more independent of the subject, for example you use an article from Bank Street College but this was written by Jane herself so it's not really independent. You should also be try and more specific, the references from Manhattanville College and SUNY are just to the main pages not to a specific page containing information about Jane.

Sorry if this sounds somewhat negative, notability isn't too high a bar to leap but it does need to be leaped. NtheP (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get article approved!

Hello, I've been trying to upload this article a few times but have been unsuccessful. Can you edit this article so that it can be approved. I've been receiving comments about how the article is not in a formal, neutral tone and uses peacock terms. So, any assistant is gladly accepted! Thank you!

Joshualee38 (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Have you had a look at any articles on similar organisations? You may find some within Category:Immigration-related organizations, which may give some ideas on structure and content. -- Trevj (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Link spam?

Recently I edited a page because it had a dead link. I am new and thought I could put my own link in its place. I realize that is not how its done here. But, only after some reading. I do aplogiize for this. But, now I'm afraid my website is going to be on some kind of black list. How can I handle this? bobbyLangdon81 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Langdon, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your website is probably blocked from being an external link because it has been added to the MediaWiki spam blacklist because someone thought it didn't follow the rules on being an acceptable external link. You can learn more about delisting your website from the blacklist here. Be aware, you should not add your own website because it is a conflict of interest. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 22:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bobby, welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for recognizing your link did not fit within our guidelines and removing it. Links rarely go on blacklists (they have to be added many, many, many times) and someone has to specifically request modification of the blacklist. So you're definitely fine and there's no need to worry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bobby, I checked the blacklist and your site is not on it. All that list means is that you can't link to it from a Wikimedia project. Since you now realize you can't use external links in this manner, there should not be a problem. If you need more clarity, this section talks about what can be linked. If you do run into a problem, come back and see us. heather walls (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Luke and Heather, please check Bobby's contributions. He removed the link himself. It wasn't blocked or automatically removed. Just making sure he understands that Wikipedia is not targeting his link. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup! I did, even cleaned it up a little afterward. Thanks for adding clarifying info, it's an important distinction. heather walls (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, didn't see that he removed it. -- Luke (Talk) 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Commas?

Hey guys! Does Wikipedia have a proscription for the use/non-use of oxford commas?” heather walls (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Answered on twitter of all places, MOS:SERIAL#Serial_commas. heather walls (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)