Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 246

Archive 240

←

Archive 244

Archive 245

Archive 246

Archive 247

Archive 248

→

Archive 250

British TV sources

I've got a little argument that needs some resolution if someone can help me. I don't know if anybody here knows about the initiative by users like AldezD who curb episode guides for game shows and say WP:NOTSTATS. they keep the transmissions section but revert any unsourceable episode related info. There are a few people that do the same work as this editor.

There is an unregistered editor who follows AldezD with the IP starting with 81 or 86, who does delete alot of the episode guides on British game shows, but for some strange reason, chooses to keep the Episode Guide for a program called "Through the Keyhole". The sources he uses is British Comedy Guide, which other major editors on the British Side have told me in the past that is an unreliable site as it is fan edited. I've offered to change the listings for ones from the ITV press office or TV listings sites which many editors, including AldezD himself have approved of. But 81/86 continually shuts me down telling me they are unreliable, which tey aren't. I've suggested that we delete the episode guide as it is WP:NOTSTATS and is incomplete anyhow. I am awaiting his response.

I am just a bit aggravated at these times when so many people tell me one thing and then one person is a tad pigheaded and refusews to compromise. This is even when he is a proponent of WP:NOTSTATS and deletes a lot of episode grids himself. what makes Through the Keyhole so special? could someone help me with this matter and find the best possible solution? Thanks. 173.179.185.186 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally speaking you should try to discuss the content with the editors on the article talk page. If an editor is using a fan generated site to source facts, that is indeed unacceptable, however if the consenus of editors there is to keep an unreliable source you would have to report the situation to a noticeboard. Perhaps Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard or request assistance at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If all else fails and you feel strongly that our standards are not being kept up, you could request mediation from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, where a volunteer will help with the content dispute. Thanks and happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I set up the questions on the article's talk page yesterday and now am awaiting some response. We will see what happens. How long should I wait before doing something? I asked people's opinions on acceptable sources, listing what I was told throughout the years. I also asked about this new wave of people like AldezD who are a proponent of WP:NOTSTATS AND WP:OVERKILL asking why this particular programmes episode guide was allowed to stay, while the same editor was deleting other episode guides. Would someone be able to explain to me what falls under WP:NOTSTATS AND WP:OVERKILL? my assumption was that it entails programmes like game shows and certain other programmes. however, as soon as I had written my questions on the Through the Keyhole talk page, I noticed that the editor that I was having a problem with started deleting many episode guides, not just from game shows, but from travel series, entertainment series and other programmes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.172.40.147) I'm just really confused as to when to actively add in an episode guide and when not to and also worried what I need to do when I need to source and this person stops me. I do have to admit that I am starting to get a bit disenchanted with Wikipedia as everything that previous editors have taught me is at odds with these new editors. Can anyone help?173.179.185.186 (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)samusek2

Problem with infobox

I have added more details about Rosi Sextons accomplishments in music and in mathematics, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosi_Sexton The original version concentrated entirely on martial arts and so gave an unbalanced view. I hope to add some pictures once I've checked copyright.

I have a problem with the Infobox though. It's labelled {{Infobox martial artist

My attempts to add fields for her degrees do not seem to have worked, I have hunted through the online help to find a list of the sort of infobox specifications that are available, but without success.

My own, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Colquhoun, is labelled {{Infobox scientist

But with a person who has reached a high level in disparate fields, no single type of infobox is likely to suffice

Can someone help please?

David Colquhoun (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello David, you can always use the more general {{Infobox person}}. I hope that helps! --Jayron32 16:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Truth and Wikipedia

Hi, I'm new here and trying to learn more about Wikipedia. I was wondering, how do you know that anything on Wikipedia is *true*? Green Mountain 12:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Green Mountain: Welcome to the Teahouse. Most content in articles is supported by references to other websites or offline documents such as books. By clicking on the blue number in brackets and superscript next to any given statement, you'll be shown the reference that is the source for the statement. Hope that helps. --Jakob (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If you see "facts" that aren't referenced in the above way, but you think they should be, add the code {{cn}} to add in Wikipedia's famous tag. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a study done that showed that wiki is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica that is disputed, but overall I would say its largely believable. Think about it: these articles are constantly combed over by experienced people who fact check and correct. They are essentially (overall) peer reviewed on a regular basis. Tribute911 (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

wiki ambassadors for classes

Hello, My campus does not have a wiki ambassador. I am wondering if there were a way to have someone join us virtually? Or how does one go about recruiting for one? MarlaJaksch (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarlaJaksch: Hi Marla, thanks for your question. There is a list of Online Ambassadors here, if you don't have a Wikipedia editor who can help you on your campus. Also, it might be helpful to reference this page for educators on getting started with the Wikipedia Education Program. Let me know if you have any other questions! I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

adding biographical information to an existing article

I have written a biography for a deceased colleague and would like to ad it to the short existing story.Andytrusty (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we speaking of User:Andytrusty/sandbox? I've placed a template on it which will allow you to submit it for review. Before you do that please add references for the facts you assert in the draft. We require references from significant coverage about him, and independent of him, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Reading WP:REFB and WP:CITE will help you a great deal Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Andytrusty and welcome to the Teahouse. You should probably look at some other biographies of artists and see how they are written. For example you can look at Will Barnet, Edwin Austin Abbey or Esteban Vicente. There are many more to draw inspiration from here. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Resubmit article

Hi there,

I receievd a message from an editor saying that my edits could not be merged with my old piece. SHould I just resubmit the whole thing ?

Cmchatton (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page I am not at all sure what you are asking. May I suggest that your first port of call is the editor who said this to you, and see what they say? Nothing ion WIkipedia is urgent, so, if they are the busy one on your talk page, you may wait for them to reply. Fiddle Faddle 19:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back to The Teahouse, Cmchatton. This is apparently about this Teahouse topic. Grand'mere Eugene suggested a history merge, or what I assume was a history merge, of Youngme Moon and User:Cmchatton. I don't see why Cmchatton couldn't just copy and paste edits to the user page into the mainspace article. Incidentally, it has been submitted, which is surprising. Someone moved it "to get it out of limbo" according to the edit summary, when it wasn't really ready. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My first contribution was tagged for fast deletion, but it's my fault

I wrote an article about an important band from Spain, but the page was poorly written and bad implemented from my part and Wikipedia does not consider that band notable; when they were pioneers of an entire music style in a larga country such as Spain.

I want to learn more and become a good wikipedian!

I hope you are willing to help me in the future.

Many contributions are coming!

Thanks. Inmanuel Jünger 15:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhorer (talk • contribs)

Thanks so much for the responses.

I greatly appreciate the research and it has helped me tremendously. I will try to put in a reference for all the facts I show there.

2602:306:3793:9660:948C:BFF9:9D84:1CD (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Abhorer and welcome to The Teahouse. If the band really did pioneer an entire music style as you say, there must be a reliable source that says so. If you follow the advice given on your talk page, it may still be possible to resubmit the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Abhorer and Vchimpanzee: Technically, pioneering a music style is a legitimate claim of importance, and thus this article isn't eligible for speedy deletion, source or no. However, to convince people of the band's notability (Wikipedia shorthand for being discussed by some form of credible source), a source has to be found and added. Otherwise, the article might still get deleted at Articles for Deletion, a seven-day debate over whether any given article is notable. (In this case the article has already been deleted, though I personally don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion) --Jakob (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

unregistered user 86.172.40.147

Hi I was the person asking about Valid TV sources on british programmes downthread. After posing the question, a fellow editor and someon here advised me to write the problem on the Through the Keyhole talk page, which I did, however I don't know if anyone will answer. anyhow soon after I had posted the question, I noticed that 86.172.40.147 had started enforcing his rein on various British programme pages eliminating sources and episode guides citing WP:NOTSTATS and WP:OVERKILL, but, he has not only been targeting game shows, but documentary series and travel series and the like. I don't know what programmes WP:NOTSTATS entails. This user however, is now constantly deleting informations from various pages nightly and has gone on to many pages in the space of a few days and will continue to do so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.172.40.147). I did talk to a few of my British editor friends on the BBC side and they tell me that Press Office spoilers are fine as well as Radio Times are valid. (I've been using them for years), but 86.172.40.147 is totally against this. Even AldezD did not have problem with my use of ITV sources.

If this user is going to continue reverting and deleting program pages on a nightly basis, my enthusiasm for participating on Wikipedia will diminish for fear of getting chided and reverted by this user. I don't think there is any way that we can reason with him. He's already gotten warned on his talk page. I am thinking of starting a dispute against this user, but as he is unregistered, perhaps nothing will happen. Can anybody please help? 173.179.185.186 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, @173.179.185.186:, and Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you've found the wrong forum for this kind of problem. You probably want to try someplace like Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard instead. Hope you are able to work through the issue amicably. --Jayron32 20:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How long before new article is accepted for publication?

Hi Wikipedians,

Could someone tell me how long it is or when an article submitted becomes accepted for publication on the wiki site? I have created a document "Philip Howell" with proper citations. Someone (Orangeman) has suggested more citation which is fine, and now amended for these. The person in question is referred to on Wikipedia in other notable articles several times (more than ten). The person was a notable WW1 general, and therefore much of his career be verified in any case from the military records.

Also I need to know how to add photographs and about the process for this? Plus also who creates the summary table for an article?

With many thanks,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCFHowell (talk • contribs) 15:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC) 

Currently your work is just sitting in the draft space Draft:Philip Howell and will remain there unless further actions are taken. I have added a template to the top of the draft that you can use to "submit" the work to the review team's queue by clicking on the green button when you are ready.

(and it was @Orangemike: who did some initial tidy work.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Accepted I took the liberty of moving it forwards. Fiddle Faddle 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy question: Different articles for same topic differentiated by tense

Over the past few months in a few different editing discussions related to possible merges and deletions I've seen a general issue come up several times and I was wondering if there are any Wiki policies related to it. The question is this: in general does it make sense to have different articles for a concept and the discipline that forms the basis for that concept? So for some specific examples there is currently an article for the concept meme and for memetics or for the concept frame and frame language and for the computer science concept object and object-oriented programming. To me this makes no sense. The concept meme can't be discussed without discussing memetics and the same for those two computer science examples. However, it seems to happen a lot and I was wondering if there is any official policy? MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, @MadScientistX11:, and thanks for stopping by! I don't know of any official policy. If a specific instance of this is bothering you, you can begin a merge discussion on the talk page of one of the articles you think need to be merged, you can read here for how to do that. In general, however, it is important to note that Wikipedia articles can be too long, and sometimes these sets of articles are intentionally split up to prevent one of them from being too long. See Wikipedia:Article size for an overview. Which is not to say that is the case in EVERY example you can find. But it could be with some; sometimes the split into two related topics is necessary for length or other considerations, sometimes it is instead more appropriate to merge the articles. It is different in every case, and each case should be taken on its own terms on a case-by-case basis. I hope this helps! --Jayron32 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Chatimity

Hi.

I wish to add up a wikipedia page for Chatimity, which is a Bangalore, India based social networking startup. It is available on android, windows phone and iOS with android being a major one. Chatimity also has a user base of more than 2 million users.

So I am just curious to know if it qualifies to be on Wikipedia?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratporetw (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to research that, and make the determination. Using the WP:AFC process will help you to achieve reviews on the way. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Fiddle Faddle 20:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

USING CITATION TEMPLATE

Please tell me what is wrong with the following citation. Thanks

In the 20th century, philosophers and the general public came to apply the name “instrumentalism” to one of a group of modern schools, movements, or doctrines, including pragmatism, logical positivism, operationalism, experimentalism, and behaviorism. {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)</ref> TBR-qed (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC) + cited the right way by w.carter

It lacks parameter names. Try again, above the item {{Reflist talk}}, with parameter names. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Clicking the help link reveals Help:CS1_errors#empty_citation which explains with precision what yo need to do. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still confused. I started with parameter {{cite book, then |author. then |first name, which all disappeared in preview. And I couldn't understand the ref list or help link. Please try me again.TBR-qed (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@TBR-qed:You simply forgot to specify what is what. The order has nothing to do with it, the specification for the parameter is the key. The ref should be written like this:

<ref>{{cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl |title=Conjectures and Refutations |date=1965 |pages=4-5}}</ref> . And you can't place two books in the same ref. You have to make two separate refs for them. Clearer? Best, w.carter-Talk 20:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I got it. Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

References

How do I delete my Wikipedia user account?

How do I delete my Wikipedia user account? LouiseLevergneux (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You can go to WP:RTV for instructions to vanish. TranquilHope (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Flame of the Forest

I have edited the title "Flame of the Forest" for Butea monosperma . The flower of it really resembles a flame by shape and by colour . The flowers of Delonix regia and Spathodea campanulata do not resemble a flame at all . Please answer me why you can not accept my editing . Thanks !

Kmobio - your edit to the Flame of the Forest disambiguation page was to remove all the other links to alternate meanings of "Flame of the Forest". There is plenty of well-documented evidence that the name is used at times for all of those different meanings, regardless of your personal opinion about how appropriate (or otherwise) they are. Stating that your edits are "the true knowledge" does not take carry the same weight in Wikipedia as evidence and references. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Motto

Hi All,

I was at Wiki-mania and listened to an interesting talk on disputes between editors and the problems of recruiting new editors.

Anyway, the talker (sorry can't remember his name) mentioned a Motto that should be adhered to by all editor on Wiki. It went something like this "Regard everyone has having good intent".

Can anyone tell me this exact Motto?

Thanks Alex2121a (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You are probably looking for Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I really need your help...

Hello! I made an article Jessel Mark Magsayo.. it is about a boxer.... actually he doesn't have a title yet.. but he is a professional boxer. what can I do for it not to be deleted? please help me.. this is the link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessel_Mark_Magsayo Graciana2314 (talk) 02:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Graciana2314. Please review our notability guideline for boxers. Unless the subject of your article meets that guideline, I am sorry to say that it is likely that the article will be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Footballbox collapsible

Hello. Im mostly creating and editing football articles. I create some of them in my mother language - bulgarian. The problem is there are quite inaccurate stuff about this template. For example, if someone scored an own goal you write {goal|minute|o.g.}. In bulgarian there aren't any template like this. There are many templates missing. My question is can I create them and how? IvanMilkov (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IvanMilkov. We only have information about editing English Wikipedia here. Each language Wikipedia is administered separately. I suggest that you contact an administrator or experienced editor on Bulgarian Wikipedia regarding how new templates are implemented there. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What should I put on my user page.

You read the headline. Doggy dogg. :)--DangerousJXD (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey DangerousJXD. It's really up to you. A lot of editors often talk about how the contribute or what they're interested in doing on Wikipedia. Some editors put a little info about themselves, some none at all. Some folks like userboxen, others don't. When I had this same question when I started editing, I just looked around at other people's user pages and took what I liked and left out what I didn't. Just avoid things that might come off as promotional. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --DangerousJXD (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How do I add pictures to my post?

I've read several tutorials, but still am unsuccessful in adding thumbnails to my post.Sgray538 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sgray538: Welcome to the Teahouse. You used the entire URL of the file where the title of the file goes. I've fixed that by removing the "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/" bit. --Jakob (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox help

Where can I find information on how Sandbox functions, right now I am stuck with a page that has my username as a title.

Also can I save my work in sandbox without going "live" or submitting it to the editors if I have not finished it yet? Juamari (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Juamari and welcome to the teahouse! I'm assuming you're referring to the User:Juamari page - this is your User Page and should be used to identify you as an editor; your interests, articles, and other relevant information. Your sandbox is located at User:Juamari/sandbox, where I've just added a template which contains a link to the button you'll eventually press to submit your article. You can write your article there, saving edits as you go, and it won't be facing editor scrutiny until you click the green 'Submit your draft for review' button! Hope this helps and happy editing. Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing help: Naming Wikipedia links protocol

If I am using the wikipedialink function in my document or edits, how can I abbreviate or slightly alter the name in my entry (for brevity or style) and still have it link to the correct page?Juamari (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Juamari, wikilinks can be linked directly as you did above, such as [[Earth]] giving Earth. If, however, you wanted that to say something else, you could do the following: [[Earth|The planet]] giving The planet. Hope that helps! Sam Walton (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Chronology of this page

The chronology of this page is currently out of order. New posts top and bottom. Can someone please sort this out? (I can't do large edits at my present location) Best, w.carter-Talk 11:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just rearranged the posts [1] -- benzband (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Help improving an article

Hi everyone.

Full disclosure: I'm being paid to edit a page. I would like to remove the boxes at the top of the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Rutka, regarding neutral point of view and neutrality.

Do I need to contact the person who flagged the page? Or are there other ways to remove these items? I'm not sure I'm the best person to make these changes.

I'd appreciate any advice.

Thanks! Varblues69 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Varblues69, in doing a quick read-through, I find nothing that appears to be non-neutral; however, I'm not exceptionally familiar with the norms for articles on people working in medicine. JamesBWatson was the last editor to make a major change, so I'll leave a note with him to see if he agrees. If you intend on adding information to the page, do note that you cannot add any material that appears to be promotional. You might like to have a conversation with CorporateM about how to add information to an article neutrally, despite the fact that you are being paid. Ryan Vesey 00:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Varblues69. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest here. Please do so on your user page as well. The tags on that article are the result of extensive editing by Deptofsurgery, an account which has been blocked for promotional editing to this and related articles. Do you have any connection to that blocked account? I recommend against removing these tags, until all concerns about promotional editing of this article have been resolved. Since you are a new editor and are paid to edit this article, you are in a very poor position to evaluate whether or not these tags are appropriate. Discuss with other editors instead. By the way, I wikilinked and copy edited the article a bit, to show good faith. I expect no paycheck for my work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed one of the two templates as there do not appear to be any outstanding issues with the article. Varblues69 might help us to remove the other by suggesting independent third party sources on the talk page of the article, Talk:James Rutka. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Proper Wikipedia articles are representative of what's beens said about the subject in credible, independent sources, however the current article relies exclusively on primary sources, such as press releases and bio pages. Our policies about living people require that we remove poorly-sourced information immediately, without discussion, which means currently most of the article needs to be deleted. Additionally, in order to qualify for an article he must be the subject of multiple, credible, independent sources that cover him in-depth - otherwise we just don't have enough quality source material to write it. It may be a good AfD candidate.

Before you accept a job for pay you need to verify whether you can ethically obtain the client's desired outcome in compliance with Wikipedia's rules. One lesson every paid editor learns eventually is how to be selective about which jobs you accept. If you are being paid to write an article, but Wikipedia's rules dictate the article be deleted, there is no way to resolve that conflict of interest. So I would start by seeing if you can find multiple, credible, independent sources such as press articles or other profiles. CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Thanks so much for the advice and feedback! I will be sure to mention that I am doing paid work on my user page.

I believe I can provide, or at least recommend, neutral third-party links for the article in question.

Thanks! Varblues69 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

hello i would like to know y is wiki deleting my information on this page

Chaltabagan Lohapatty Durgapuja? this information is a history and it is self edited both in wikipedia and on the website ,i have no copyright issues so i want wikipedia to publish it for the purpose of public information .i am new to wikipedia and it difficult to follow the rules and regulation.can a way be suggested to help me out with this editing .thanks!L c jais (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello L c jais. I understand Wikipedia rules are hard to grasp for newcomers. The article you are asking about is as I understand Chaltabagan Lohapatty Durgapuja . In addition to the copyright issue, we will also have to check whether this organization is notable, that is has the organization been covered in so-called independent reliable sources; like newspapers, magazines, books etc.? Organizations that are only described by the organization itself will not be notable for inclusion at Wikipedia. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

yes there are various newspaper edits on the net abou this L c jais (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The right approach if there is sufficient coverage in newspapers (that is in-depth coverage, not just mentions in passage) would be to write an article based on what newspapers etc. has said about the organization, rather than just copy the homepage. Newspaper articles etc. should be used as references in the article. The article must also be written neutrally; that is not being promotional in tone. Since you appear to have a Conflict of Interest, you ought to use the Articles for creation procedure, where some experienced Wikipedians will check the article before it is published to see if it is truly notable. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja can you please help me out with the publication of my article L c jais (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

L c jais If you start a new article in your sandbox based on relible sources (newspapers, magazines etc), I can look into it for you. But please read what I wrote above. I cannot tell you yet whether the organization is notable for Wikipedia; I first need to see how many sources and what kind of sources there are. Best, Iselilja (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja i have no clue how to write on wikipedia i wrote an article and now i can give you some reliable links to help m ein the editing to publish a new oneL c jais (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand it's difficult. If you have links to reliable sources, you can post them on my talk page, and I will look into it to see whether they are sufficient material for an article. If you know of other sources that are published in reliable media, books, but not on the internet, you can mention them to me, because they are valid sources too. Iselilja (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Entered article in Italian. Acceptable ? Title:La Colonna Gamucci. Needs lot of editing.

I believe the subject is very interesting. Unfortunately I dis the only original research (so I have to quote a source of which I am the author. Do you want to help with basic editing ? Thank you, 142SPlle 142SPlle (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 142SPlle, welcome to the Teahouse. Did you know there is a Wikipedia in Italian? You can write your article there. But for now, someone may come and translate this article for you. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Can a website be used as an independent source?

Can a website be used as an independent source for referencing a wiki article? (Ref: Jurgens Ci entry still in preparation)Kalamazoo54196.215.154.69 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a website can be used as a reference, but it must meet our standards as a reliable source. That means it should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Each source has to be judged in context. Some indications that a website is reliable will be that is affiliated with an organization or published with a good reputation, that the articles are signed by the authors, that it has professional editorial control, that it corrects its own mistakes, and that other reliable sources often cite its material. The same standards are applied to books, newspapers, magazines, journals and any other type of published source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kalamazoo 54, thanks for your question. Websites can sometimes be independent sources, but it depends on who owns the website. It's also important that the website be reliable and contain substantial information about the organization. Can you post the website here and I can give you a better idea if you're on the right track. Also, just wanted to inform you that in your above post, you weren't signed into your account, so just be sure to do that in the future before you post. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

proper format for using <ref> </ref> in citing a Reference

Am having trouble using the format <ref> </ref> in citing a reference. Have gone through the error message 4 times & still says same error. Would appreciate an experienced Wikipedia editor's help in walking this newby through the process.PLMaclay-Burns (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, PLMaclay-Burns, welcome to the Teahouse. The format is simply <ref>Source information here</ref> Pay close attention to the punctuation. I've already fixed the ones you added to William Maclay (Pennsylvania senator). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That was actually me.[2] I guess Anon126/R made the same change afterwards and it became a null edit. PLMaclay-Burns, I suspect you click a ref icon or link twice. Only click it once. This inserts both the starting and ending ref tag. See more at Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions about things.

Can you tell me about Barnstars and Kittens and Food and when and who should I give them to?I want to upload pictures for articles about people that don't have a picture. I read the article on how to but can you explain the process in a step by step explaination?I want to make an article about a childrens show. Step by step please?Is there anything else to do other than the obvious things like editing?How will I know when someone has answered this? --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - You have covered a range of topics, so I will try to give an overview, and please feel free to come back to the Teahouse and ask if you have more specific questions.

• Editing Wikipedia can sometimes be a thankless task. Barnstars and kittens and food and coffee etc are all informal ways that Wikipedia editors can show one another support, encouragement and thanks. I can't speak for anybody else, but I find a word of thanks lifts my spirits like little else. There are no hard-and-fast rules; if you think somebody deserves a pat on the back then take a look at Kindness Campaign for ideas about how to share the love.

Okay, while I was typing this I just got the cookie you sent, so you obviously have this one in hand already! Thanks.

• The best way to upload a picture is to upload it to Wimimedia Commons, where it can be re-used by many projects. The first, vital thing is be sure you own the Copyright and are willing to release the picture for anybody to use however they want. Then on the left hand side of any Wikipedia page, under "Tools", click on "Upload file" then select "Commons Wizard". This is a step-by-step wizard to upload your photos. Once the file is uploaded, it is just a matter of editing the relevant article to tell it where to show the image by adding a line something like [[File:filename.jpg|thumb|right|Caption for the image]] at the appropriate place.
• If you want to create a new article, my best advice is to start by editing some existing articles to build up your experience first. Then when you feel ready to jump in to create a new article, the best guide is Wikipedia:Your first article; it might look a bit big, but it guides you through the whole process.
• If you're looking for things to do, Wikipedia:Community portal is a great place to start. Also, there may be a Wiki-project for a particular subject area which interests you such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Television perhaps.
• Finally, when somebody answers typically they will include a Ping at the start, which will notify you. In future, if you use the button to "Ask a Question" at the Teahouse, it will put your question at the TOP of the page, where it is more likely to catch people's eyes.

I think that's it for now; come back and ask again (I do!). --Gronk Oz (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Lots of help. While I am here can you tell me how to make those drop down menus that are everwhere? Rookie huh? --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Figured it out. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Glad you figured it out, DangerousJXD. Often the easiest way to see how something is done, is simply to click the Edit tab for a page which already has a good example, and copy the code from there. That may not be very sophisticated, but it works really well. Plus, once you know the name of the command or the template used, you can look up the help for it. --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly how I figured it out. :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

bot?

Why do I see a lot of people have bot in there user name? --DangerousJXD (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, DangerousJXD. Those aren't people, those are automated robot programs. See WP:BOT for details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If the account has bot in the name, it means it is a bot. A person with bot in their name would be violating Wikipedia:Username policy as it is misleading. TranquilHope (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Clarification! --DangerousJXD (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Counter?

Does each page have a visit counter sort of thing? As in a counter or something like it to say how many people or how many times a page has been visited. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to view the Wikipedia article traffic statistics of a page, press "View History" and "Page view statistics". TranquilHope (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - to access that information, go to the page in question. At the top left, under the Wikipedia logo, is a bunch of blue links. Towards the bottom of that list, under the heading "Tools", click on "Page information". You will see all the informaiton you could want about that page, including a link at the bottom to the counter. Enjoy! --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Why vandalism? Most edits?

Who has the most edits on Wikipedia out of all the people on here? Why do people vandalise Wikipedia? --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Koavf has the most edits on the English Wikipedia. People vandalize Wikipedia for many reasons and you can read a Wikipedia essay about that here. However, with the many people on Wikipedia to counter vandalism, I believe that it is pointless to vandalize. TranquilHope (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - For a more complete list, you might like to check out Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once more. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Sometimes what is considered vandalism can be an attempt to make things better. Usually, the word "vandalism" is reserved just for edits that are obviously detrimental and those are almost always jokes or trying to push some extreme point of view. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone reviewed my user page...

What does this mean? --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New pages patrol All new pages should be reviewed, and you can find them on Special:NewPages. TranquilHope (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This puzzled me when it happened to me, too. Basically, they are looking for serious mis-use such as attack pages or blatant hoaxes, which get deleted straight away. But there is such a backlog that currently it is about 30 days behind. New pages patrol has the details if you feel like some reading. I like the section "Be nice to the newbies". --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lovely place. --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Painting a welcome picture

I'm new here but I've been told there are discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict. Initially, I thought this was posted to discourage me from contributing, but now I wonder if this is a necessary concept. "This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies."[3]

I'm asking: Do "standards of behavior" include something against the act of shaming? I've just been painted as a character in this cartoon by the unsupported allegation that I cry/chant/siren 'antisemitism' at <insert fish story>.

"you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic (excuse for attack)" - link

Certainly, unsubstantiated slander is the wrong way to welcome new contributors. No wonder this editor (read: gate-keeper) goes on to complain about other editors destroying the way he feels the article should look like. Other than wishing to know what the discretionary sanctions say about this conduct, I wonder if this the first time this editor has done this and is it considered permissible under "standards of behavior"? (I sure hope not) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume Wikipedia shrugs off winks and grins such as the following "Israeli ministry.:)" stuff, but I'll note it anyway for posterity.[4] Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I'm replying to your message on my talk page. I understand that this bothers you. Please refer to WP:DR to understand what you can do about it (begin by discussing it directly with the user at issue). But, at a glance, I don't think that this edit, on its own, is so serious as to warrant administrative sanctions.  Sandstein  20:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein:,

Thank you for giving some direction. I'd appreciate more input on (a) what the "standards of behavior" say about painting fellow editors as a crying Muslim (or Jew). And (b) the history of the user in question. For now, justification is the response-type I received.[5] To be honest, reading WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE from the DR link provided is just too much for me. Please help. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC) + MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My advice is to spend as little time as possible on, frankly, unproductive disputes about the pettiness of others, but rather to focus on improving our article content and discussing that instead of one another. I'm sorry, but that's all the advice I can give you. Our basic standards of behavior are linked to from WP:5P.  Sandstein  05:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Where/how do I create a title for my page

I wrote a new article in Sandbox, but I don't see where of how I can name it. I already pressed Send, so it is in the que. What now?Juamari (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. User:Juamari/sandbox will be renamed to an appropriate name if and when it is accepted as an article by an Articles for Creation reviewer. It is currently awaiting its first review; this can take from several weeks to over a month. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What makes a product notable?

I created an article about a software product, but it has been flagged for deletion as it is non-notable. Is simply adding independent 3rd party reviews enough to make it notable? I'm struggling to find a way to make it notable without it looking like an advertisement.Mikesheen (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, adding citations to detailed coverage in multiple independent sources (such as reviews by major financial magazines or daily newspapers) should be sufficient to prove notability. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My Wiki entry has been altered completely

I have only tried to put one entry on Wikipedia. The process is beyond my skill level. Each entry I have made (even though I cite references) is changed or removed completely. Do others have the same problem?Davidg58 (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very common problem. It gets easier with experience, but it is still difficult. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Help! How to change a main picture?

Hi, I'm wondering how I can change the main picture of a wiki page. I do own the rights to the picture so don't worry about that! Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsgirl84 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Helle Johnsgirl84. If you own the rights to the picture, then you may license it by following the procedure in donating copyright materials. Note that in dong so, you will be granting a non-exclusive but irrevocable licence for anybody to use the picture for any purpose: Wikipedia does not accept material with permission for only Wikipedia. If you do license it, please do so at Wikimedia commons, so that it can be used in any Wikipedia and not just the English language one. --ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I add PDF files to support the authenticity of the page published

Hi,

I have recently published the page 'Dr. Sitaram Ganesh Desai' I want to upload the Certificates and News Paper cuttings (as old as published in 1962)to support the authenticity of the statements made in the Page. News papers are of 1962 etc..and hence are not available on the Web to give the links. Hence I would like to add the scanned copies of them in PDF format...

Thanks

Msd1962 Msd1962 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Msd1962, welcome to the Teahouse. You do not need to upload scans of newspapers onto the internet in order for them to be useable as Wikipedia sources. Instead, cite the newspaper articles themselves. Some information on how to cite different sorts of sources can be found at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. You might find the "news article" examples at Wikipedia:Citation templates to be useful in getting more ideas on how to format these. Citing a newspaper article as a source is still acceptable even if the newspaper article is not available online.

Certificates are not really useful as sources. Material need to have been published by a reliable source so that other people can access it. Uploading scans of them to the internet does not solve this problem. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Msd1962: Hi there. I have moved your article to Draft:Sitaram Ganesh Desai because it requires additional work before it can be considered for the main Wikipedia article space. All articles must provide references to significant coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. I have also added a template so that you may submit your work for review once the necessary improvements have been made.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added News Paper Reporting references wherever available. and I have the news paper cuttings for the same. The Title 'Sanskrit Pandit' has been conferred by the Government of Maharashtra and has issued the Certificate for the same. Do I have to upload it? and if so how do I upload the same?? Can it be moved to th main Wikipedia article space now?? Good amount of references have been given now.

Msd1962 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Msd1962: Sorry, but in a word, "no", it isn't suitable for a move to Wikipedia mainspace. You need to address the issues flagged at the top of the article including the removal of bolded text. As I said above, references need to be more than passing mentions of the subject. You may also wish to remove the list of students who studied under him as these do nothing to help establish notabiity. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the text in Bold.

As regards the names of the Students...They all are Well-known personalities and I thought giving their names would add Notability

The Bombay Municipal Corporation has given Dr. Sitaram Ganesh Desai's name to one of the roads in Mumbai (The Google Map link is attached to the page) is also an important point to prove the Notability as No Civic body in India would give the name of the person to the road unless he is Notable..

Well...now I leave it you all...

Thanks...

Msd1962 (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Msd1962: Hello again! Your article is now in the queue and will be reviewed as soon as possible, although I'm afraid that there is a serious backlog at the current time. Please also note that notability on Wikipedia is not inherited from other people. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 12:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Uploading pictures

In the 3 articles I have made, which are Dusicyon avus, Dusicyon cultridens and Fuegian dog, I have wanted to add pictures. I know I have to draw the pictures myself and upload them, but when I do, they get deleted as they are considered "childish" and "unencyclopedic". Anyway, I have done the best I can to draw the pictures. What must I do? The pictures are childish because I am a child.

The first version of a drawing of Dusicyon cultridens, which I drew and called a "reconstruction", was deleted because it was "by no means of one". Then I uploaded the same picture, called it a drawing, and positioned the camera so the picture was straighter. That picture got deleted.

Then I drew a picture of a Fuegian dog, based on the detail that it resembled a fox, and I tried to make the picture as lifelike as possible. I hope that picture didn't get deleted. WHAT EXACTLY MUST I DO? Remember, I am only a child, so my pictures always come out childish.Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to draw the pictures yourself. You just need to find a picture online that will allow the picture to be used for other things.Mirror Freak 12:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Scottishwildcat12. I'm not sure where you are hearing that they were deleted for being "childish." The image that you uploaded for use in the first article you note was deleted because it was a copyright violation. If you could link to the names of some specific images, perhaps we can help you... --Jayron32 12:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32, I believe Scottishwildcat12 is referring to these images. Scottishwildcat12, while commendable that you took the time to draw these images, I don't think that we can use them in the article, what these articles need is taxonomic sketches done by professionals who have seen specimens. Because these animals are extinct (so taking a free photo is impossible), we can probably claim fair use on a copyrighted image from a book or website. This is a little tricky to get right. Scottishwildcat12, could you point us towards a book or (even better) a website with sketches of what professional biologists think these animals looked like when they were alive? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Scottishwildcat12, articles do not need pictures. For articles about extinct animals no-one really expects a picture. I suggest you don't worry about pictures for these articles. You're doing good work with the text! Cheers --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As I am only a child, I do not know what fair copyrighted images are. You cannot just stick any picture from the Internet onto Wikipedia, or it will be copyright violation. But if you mean to ask me to find books and Websites that contain taxonomic sketches, I can include them as external links in the articles. I have found some websites with really good taxonomic sketches of Dusicyon avus. :) Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions appearing at the bottom of the Teahouse

For some reason, questions from some users are appearing at the bottom of this page, instead of the top. See the question from DangerousJXD ‎for example. He is using the big blue "Ask a Question" button but they are going to the bottom, and others are apparently suffering from the same problem. This means that they are in danger of being missed by many of the readers here. Has anybody come across this sort of thing? Could it be related to using a mobile phone? Gronk Oz (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Predominant Use Study

I want to write a detailed article about Predominant Use Study. I'd like to know is it suitable for publishing on Wikipedia.org?Sumaira.haque (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sumaira.haque. If your article is entirely based on material published in reliable places, then it may be suitable. But it must be a neutral account of what the reliable sources say: it must not contain any original research, so it must have no argumentation, synthesis or conclusions which are not already present in at least one of the sources it cites. --ColinFine (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

how recover lost messages in user talk?

Had 2 messages this AM, but somehow lost them while reading the first. How recover? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TBR-qed and welcome back to The Teahouse. Nothing has happened to your talk page today. By clicking on "talk" beside your name above, you should be able to see everything.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I know what you may have done. You saw the message about "New messages" but once you clicked on that you couldn't see both messages. I think it works if you scroll down.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Start a second article while first still in Sandbox

Hello! My first article (Callawassie Island) just got accepted. I am working on improving it . . . editing, citations, photos, etc. Now I would like to start a second article, but my first article still appears in my sandbox. Am I doing something wrong? My first article was done mostly through 'trial and error'. I have a difficult time comprehending Wiki terminology so basic common words will help me to understand what I should do.

Thanks Much! Csboes (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Csboes and welcome to The Teahouse. You can improve the article in mainspace if you want. That's what we call it when it is a real article and not one of your user pages. To get it there you would move it, which you can do if you registered more than four days ago and have at least ten edits. Or one of us could do it for you. If you want to leave the article where it is, you can click User:Csboes/Second article and start a second article. You would change "second article" to what you want it to be called.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Since I'm still working on my first article, I'll leave well enough alone for now.

I'll use your suggestion to start the second article. Keeping my fingers crossed!

Another question, I'm currently logged-in and requested that I remain so for 30 days, but everytime I come back to do some work I'm logged-off. Any suggestions?

Appreciate your time! Csboes (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Csboes: Check your browser settings for cookies. Not accepting them for this site is likely to forget your logged in status. Fiddle Faddle 20:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

[Csboes to go back to your original question, you draft article was accepted and your sandbox page has been moved to Callawassie Island. What has happenned is that the move leaves what is called a redirect behind so when you try and go to your sandbox page User:Csboes/sandbox the software takes you to Callawassie Island automatically. You can tell this because under the title it will say "(Redirected from User:Csboes/sandbox)" Click on that link to your sandbox and this tells the software not to follow the redirect but leaves you at your sandbox page which you can then edit to remove the redirect code which will look something like #REDIRECT [[Callawassie Island]] {{R from move}}, you can just delete it all. Nthep (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)