Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 249

Archive 245

←

Archive 247

Archive 248

Archive 249

Archive 250

Archive 251

→

Archive 255

use sandbox to generate discussion?

I tried using "talk" to generate discussion about a specific article--to no avail. Can I use my sandbox to achieve that end? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, TBR-qed: can you be more specific about the problem? "to no avail" sounds like nobody answered you. If that is the case, how is working in your sandbox going to help? Or do you mean something else? --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted reasons for revision 4 times on a little-active topic "Instrumentalism," and got no response. Then I made some bold edits and got reverted because of technical errors. I'm still trying to get consideration of my suggestions for revising content. If sandbox is not a means to that end, what is? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello TBR-qed. I have looked at your sandbox and your edits at Instrumentalism and at Magioladitis comment when s(he) reverted your edits and wrote: "please use sandbox". You simply misunderstood that. The editor did not mean for you to continue the discussion in your sandbox. What s(he) meant was that you should take some time to familiarize yourself with how to use the Wikipedia "code" in the editing area, and use the sandbox to do so. I would suggest that, even if it may seem like "going back to school" for you, you took the time and Play the Wikipedia Adventure (look further up this page). It is a tutorial to learn how to edit. After that, go to your sandbox and experiment with your newfound knowledge. The sandbox is a place were you can (among other things) muck about with texts to get the format right before posting the text in an article. That is what the comment was all about. If you are have knowledge about the subject you want to edit but have trouble getting it formatted the right way, please ask one of the editors contributing to the subject in question, for help. Best, w.carter-Talk 14:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and when you refer to an article, say so, not just "topic". Also use brackets like this [[Instrumentalism]] to make it into a link Instrumentalism and more easy for readers to follow than just "Instrumentalism". Again, try The Adventure. w.carter-Talk 14:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi TBR-qed. I am sorry for my brief answers but I 've been busy doing other stuff. Yes, Meant that you use your sandbox to present a new version of the Instrumentalism page and then start a discussion at Talk:Instrumentalism to ask people help you further expand the new version before it replaces the old one. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My thanks to the two of you.TBR-qed (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I add my name to this web page as user:PhyllisAllen123

How do I add my name to this web page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_librarians (PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)) PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, PhyllisAllen123. Just place this code at the bottom of your userpage:

[[Category:Wikipedian librarians]]

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Photo of record sleeve

Would I be breaching copyright if I uploaded a photo I've taken of a record sleeve? Tony Holkham (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham: Hey Tony. Hmm, I think there may be no one size fits all answer; that it may depend on context – specifically whether there was original content on the sleeve that meets the doctrine of threshold of originality. Of course, there's other information that might or might not make it non-copyrighted in the first instance, such as the date of publication and so on. I think you really need to tell us the specifics for any kind of complete answer.

Nevertheless, if it is non-free, it would be a copyright violation if you uploaded it without using it in a specific article under a valid claim of fair use, requiring that its dedicated use meets each of the criteria set out at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, and that you place on the image's page, once uploaded, the proper fair use rationale and non-free file copyright tag(s) to substantiate that fair use claim.

Please note that there's a page dedicated to answering copyright questions like this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, where you might get a more informed answer from a specialist. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. It's a photo of the sleeve of a Manitas de Plata 1967 Columbia LP, which I thought would make a good illustration for the article. I will go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to check further. Cheers... Tony Holkham (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Preferences

Just went through them, there is one that tells you when you are about to post without an edit summary. Is there one like this for not signing a post? I did not see one but in case I missed it. I never forget (Did once or twice but then fixed it.) to but just in case. It would a great thing for new users too, who don't know to sign. Thank you once again Teahouse. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Hey again DangerousJXD! There isn't, though it would be a very useful feature. I think the reason this would be difficult is that the software would have to be made to understand that you were on a discussion page (easy), that tildes were not placed by you (maybe easy), and most importantly (very hard), that you were making a discrete post likely requiring a new signature event, and not adding/fixing a prior post you had already signed or just doing some other edit that you would not sign, like adding a talk page template and so on. I don't know about you but I am constantly tinkering with my posts usually in the minute or two after I post them (probably my most common talk page edit summary is "fix"; [yes, I know there is a show preview button, to all you smartasses out there thinking that]). Imagine if every time you tried to fix a post you got a warning you "had not signed" or something like that? I would need a rubber room very quickly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Nice answer. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch

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

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

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

moved for clarity— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Dear March July, You are so right, I decided to look at the history of Masks. The article has so much entertainment and interesting stories which cannot be shown on Wikipedia I was getting frustrated for the subject. The problem with the internet you feel human bonds. So thank you for your help. It is tricky to really start editing before you understand procedures, but I am trying to gain confidence on this one, as it was not a politician, where I could get killed.

Thank you for all your good advice, The Tea House is indeed helpful.

Anyway patience is a wonderful thing and the article has now I think been given a speedy keep, heaven knows what that really means, so you are right, take a breath of fresh air, and beat another dog so to speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikequeen (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

moved for clarity— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A "speedy keep" means that the deletion discussion doesn't need to extend for the full amount of time that is usually prescribed; the decision to keep is so obvious and clear that it would be pointless to extend the discussion. Powers ^T 02:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all your encouraging messages. Phew there is sanity out there, your advice is so helpful. Have taken a walk, gone to see some friends and now I am feeling better. Will not edit until, all calms down on the page for fear of pen brutality. All best wishes to you all. I will hopefully find some other interesting women to edit too.Spikequeen (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Moved for clarity - Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Error on sidebar

At the bottom of the sidebar there is a message in red: "Error: Page Does Not Exist". Does anyone know why this may be happening? For the life of me, I can't figure out what the problem is. Thanks for your help! Ecsayer

I don't know what I did, but it's gone now. TFM LI 14:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecsayer (talk • contribs)

Ecsayer I am glad you came back to update us on this problem solved. People visiting the Teahouse learn a lot by just reading the questions and how problems get solved. I can't tell how many times I've worked on something I just couldn't get right and then *POOF* somehow it gets fixed with no input from me. Did you know that there are Wikifaeries? Maybe that is the answer. bpage (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello! Does every new user get a welcome message? I got one after my first edit from I dream of horses, it encouraged me to start editing a lot more and got me excited about editing. If not every user gets a welcome, why not? DangerousJXD away! --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A new user is not guaranteed a welcome message. However, it is good because it encourages new users to edit. Some users did not get a welcome message simply because no one gave it to them. There are a lot of new users on Wikipedia. A welcome message was automatically given to you through a program called Wikipedia:Huggle by I dream of horses as she saw you make a good edit. There is also a Wikipedia:Welcoming committee for welcoming new users. TranquilHope (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I thought I dream of horses was a female... --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: She is. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Then Tranquilhope, can you fix that typo. (I would do it myself but I was given a friendly talking to about editing people's typos at talk pages.) --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

fixed TranquilHope (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Images on drafts waiting for review

Hello. I am done with my article and references, and was trying to upload a photo of the subject to my draft. The upload wizard is saying my article doesn't exist. Do I have to wait until my draft is reviewed and an official article before I can upload an image? Thanks, T11Tractatus11 (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tractatus11. You can add any freely licensed image from Wikimedia Commons to a draft article, without any restrictions. However, non-free images can be used only in very restrictive circumstances, and only in accepted encyclopedia articles in main space. Examples include low resolution non-replaceable images such as book covers, album covers, movie posters, portraits of people who have died, and the like. Normally, such images are approved for only one specified article, and not for general use. If such a non-free copyrighted image is appropriate for your draft article, it should be uploaded and added only after it becomes a main space encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The Freundlich equation

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC). I'm not actually sure whether the first paragraph below goes in this section or not.

Hello, I am a new user. I do not have much time to learn how to operate the wikipedia platform - nor do I have the energy at the moment to do so. Though I do like wikipedia and donate every so often.

I tried to contribute to a page:

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

I was saddened to see that my involvement was quickly swept under the rug. I am writing a thesis and probably should not be wasting time on wiki. I added some information to the page and it was all taken down. Its frustrating because its just a waste of my time... I dont think ill contribute again. Granted it my addition was rough and needed refining, though it was still information that was correct.

Is the wikipedia community this difficult to gain entry? EngineeringEnigma (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, EngineeringEnigma. I am sorry that your initial go at contributing was frustrating for you. I think Mogism was right to revert your changes, but they could have been clearer in explaining why. The whole of the content of Wikipedia articles is supposed to be drawn from reliable published sources (though summarised in original words, not just copied). Original research is never allowed in a Wikipedia article. Your contributions are mostly your own views, suggestions and observations on the content of the article. This is not to belittle your knowledge of the subject; but the problem is that a reader has no way of knowing whether you are an expert, a well-meaning but misguided aspirant, or a joker intent on vandalising the article. That is why we insist that all material be referenced to reliable published sources (and yes, we realise that many articles do not reach this ideal).

Suggestions such as yours are better placed on the article's talk page Talk:Freundlich equation, where you can discuss with other editors what is sufficiently well sourced to go into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Law library

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello, Guyatri, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can see why it might have seemed appropriate to you to add a link to that library alongside the other ones that were there; but I have deleted the whole section. It is rarely appropriate for an article on a general subject to contain links to particular examples of that subject (especially when the criterion for inserting them seems to be just that somebody has thought of doing so). The policy on external links says, among much else, that links are to be avoided to "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." It is possible that Wikipedia could have a List of law libraries (red, because such an article doesn't exist), but even if somebody created it, that would likely list only libraries which Wikipedia already had articles about. In fact, we already have a category Category:law libraries, but by the nature of categories that can only contain existing articles.

So if the FSCCLLA library passes the Wikipedia criteria of notability, then somebody could write an article on it, and it would appear in that category; but it would still not be appropriate to link to it from Law library.

One more point: when Flyer22 reverted your change, the best thing to do was not just to apply it again (that is the start of edit warring), but to discuss it with Flyer22, either on their user talk page User talk:Flyer22 or on the article's talk page Talk:Law library. Disagreement about how to improve Wikipedia articles arises all the time, and we have a procedure to manage it, called the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold to make your change (which is encouraged), Flyer22 reverted it because they thought it was inappropriate; and the next stage if you stand by your change is to discuss the matter.

Happy editing. --ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Hi, Janvermont and welcome to The Teahouse. try asking at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Vchimpanzee, I followed your suggestion at VPT and I will await a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvermont (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How to initiate a new page, on a new subject (place,person,topic whatever)

Recently, I joined wikipedia group. I want to know,How to initiate a new page on a new subject (place,person,topic whatever) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrajarao (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard will tell you everything you need to know about creating a new article! TranquilHope (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

Hi All,

I am currently working on an article about the American artist Jamie Baldridge. I would like it to be sufficiently comprehensive and I seem to be having trouble uploading any sort of portrait images of him or samples of his works of art without them being immediately deleted from the Commons. All images which I have used are widely available on the internet and are derived from published interviews, gallery and museum releases, and/or articles about the artist. Other images were provided with his permission as I worked on my dissertation. Would these not fall under "Fair Use"? Is there a more appropriate way for me to acquire the needed visual references for the article without them being immediately deleted? I do apologize if this is a very naive question, but I am quite new to Wikipedia and I do wish for this article to be of high academic rigor.

Many Thanks!Doctor Interesting (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Doctor Interesting. Wikipedia has very strict policies regarding copyright in general, and image copyrights in particular. All images on Wikipedia Commons are either free of copyright or freely licensed by their copyright holders for reuse by anyone for any purpose. Accordingly, you can't upload anything there that is copyrighted unless it is freely licensed. See Creative Commons license for details. If the artist wants to upload one or more representative images of his work, that is fine as long as he understands that someone could make posters or t-shirts with those images. If you took a portrait of him yourself, you could upload that.

What you call "fair use" applies to images uploaded here to Wikipedia itself. We call these "non-free images", and their use is very tightly restricted. The image must be irreplaceable, the resolution must be low, the image can be used only in a designated main space encyclopedia article, and so on. Common examples include business logos, book and album covers, movie posters and the like. Portraits of people applies only to those who have died since in theory we can obtain a freely-licensed image of a living person. Representative samples of an artist's work are allowed.

Non-free images can't be used in draft articles. So, first finish your draft article, and when it is in main space, that is the time to add them in accordance with our non-free image policy, which you should read carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Cullen,

Thank you for the very helpful information. I believe that I am beginning to understand. Would it be appropriate by Wikipedia's standards to ask the artist to upload a picture of himself for use in the article (once it is not a draft) since he would be the copyright holder? Also, my understanding is that I could use one or two representative examples of his work in the main space of the article itself as long as they are low resolution? Would you indulge me a bit further and let me know exactly what is meant by "irreplaceable" in reference to said images?

Thank You Again. Doctor Interesting (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Doctor Interesting, the artist can upload a portrait to Wikimedia Commons if he holds the copyright. By "irreplaceable", I mean no free image can substitute. I can't create a free image of a book cover, or a movie poster, or a company logo. Those items are copyrighted even if I photograph them. Similarly for a portrait photo of a person who has died. If no free image exists, none can be created now. In that sense, a copyrighted photo is "irreplaceable". Of course, we need to attribute it, and use a low resolution version so as to avoid infringing on the potential of the copyright holder to sell the high resolution image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't Thank people's edits

Know why? Using a phone. Used to work now does not. Last time it worked was probably 3 days ago. I tried thanking 2 or 3 people since then. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey @DangerousJXD: Interesting, do you think you could provide a few more details? Were you using Wikipedia's app, or a browser? Were you on the mobile site (en.m.wikipedia.org), or the desktop site (en.wikipedia.org)? Did the 'thank' link show up in the history, or not at all? I just tried out both on my phone in Chrome, and it was fine for me. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Deats got it. en.m.wikipedia.org is the one. I didn't download an app, just search up wiki in Google so a browser yes. This is an example of where you thank people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/624467264 Thank green button is at bottom left and and when I click it, it says, Thank action failed please try again. I only have a phone BTW. (No computer? Living in the past!) It's probably just because I am on a phone. That's my thinking. --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - Gotcha, thanks! I tried it myself on the mobile version of the site and I get the same error, "Thank action failed. Please try again." Couldn't find any bug reports on it, so I submitted one here.

For future reference, the technical village pump is a great place to talk about technical issues on Wikipedia. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - bug has been fixed, and should go live Monday. Thanks for bringing it up. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! I also have the same problem with wikilove. Can you "submit" this bug like you did for that last one? If you do here's the deatails. You already know I am on a phone and stuff. To do wikilove, I have to stroll to the bottom and press on deasktop, then I click love heart then when I press send it gives me similar messages to last prob. I would submit myself but you did it and it got fixed and it might not work for me. Thanks! :) --DangerousJXD (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - Done here, thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Turns out is was already reported here with more technical details - should be fixed soon. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

One-room, three-story guideline

Hello,

I'm in the middle of a review and am having a hard time finding the guideline of hyphenating compound words with numbers, like one-room and three-story.

Is it stated somewhere that I'm missing?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello CaroleHenson, can WP:HYPHEN be of help? It mentions "Correct: 9-millimetre gap" and "Correct: 12-hour shift", not with "written" numbers though... Maybe someone else knows. w.carter-Talk 22:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi W.carter, I found something clearer just now in an article (vs. MOS). It's in English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers. Thanks so much for chiming in! So, I guess I don't need to post the link (lol), but I'll have it for future guideline links.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh! That page looks like pure gold for me. Thanks! w.carter-Talk 22:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad it helps! I went ahead and put the link in the review just to have it documented in general / for others that might not be familiar with it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

does anybody check my edits?

I've made a few edits. Is there anyway for me to know if my edits are <approved> or moderated in some way? Also, I found some spam links in articles. What is the best way to report? Kiwiben (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kiwiben, welcome to the Teahouse! Feel free to ask lots of question! Your edit is "approved" as soon as you save it. If there is something wrong with it, someone might revert it, (example being if it is vandalism or something.) other than that you're good! I don't think anyone "moderates" your edits, but I do know people "patrol for vandalism" so your edit might be looked at there. For your second thing, I recommend you read about vandalism to find that out or you can just delete it on the spot when you see it. Let me know if this helped you! --DangerousJXD (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Only articles with a protection that force new and anonymous users to submit edits will have to be approved by a pending changes reviewer. You are autocomfirmed so you don't have to worry about that. If you see spam links, you can undo it and give them a warning message about it. If they continue, you can go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to report the person. TranquilHope (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In terms of reviewing article content, I have an additional comment. Each article often has people who "watch" it. For instance, if it falls within a groups of articles under a WikiProject of interest to that user. When updates are made to an article that a user is watching, they may check for the difference ([diff] in the Watchlist) between versions and make copyedits if they so choose.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:CaroleHenson, User:TranquilHope, Don't you rooks know how to indent properly? Only joking, although, you are doing it wrong. It's one more colon than the last person. So if there is none you reply with 1 colon same if there are 3 colons you reply with 4. Just letting you know. Also I think you should put a space as well. --DangerousJXD (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Funny! Posting using "Join this discussion" doesn't indent. Probably better to use "edit" instead going forward, which also allows for previews.--CaroleHenson (talk)

Conflict of Interest

Hello Teahouse - My first foray into wikipedia and I'm trying to find my way but the first thing I've done is tried to correct some minor inaccuracies on the page about my husband. I corrected the dates of my son's birth and have pointed out some other inaccuracies in the talk section but the only result I have had is a conflict of interest banner. This is rather frustrating. I haven't gone in and rewritten the parts that are inaccurate because I understand that to do so would be wrong but how do I get the information corrected or removed? Journalists turn to wikipedia for their 'facts' and it is tiresome to see the same mistakes repeated from wiki to newspaper. The incorrect sections have no citations (obviously, because they are not true and can't be found anywhere). Because my husband is a Dr Who there are a zillion people who think they are experts in him but if you look and see for instance, where his brother is wrongly given a dead twin, the information doesn't even correlate with his brother's wikipedia entry. I have also tried to point out that Liverpool is on Merseyside and not in Lancashire, that they have given the wrong place of birth and so on and so on. Is there anything I can do? Annie McGann 01:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)--Annie McGann 01:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reading. Annie McGann 01:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieMcGann (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AnnieMcGann. I suggest that you discuss your concerns at Talk:Paul McGann. Please provide links to coverage in reliable sources that support the changes or improvements you propose. Assertions that are uncited should be removed, unless a reliable source can be found. Bald faced factual errors should be removed. Discuss everything on the talk page. That is your best path to a good outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If I dive in there and start removing things the editors will be mad at me and no one is talking to me in Talk:Paul McGann I just get banners. It's against the rules for a spouse to write the biography so surely that means that I can't delete bits of the biography that are incorrect either? As you say, I'll just have to wait until one of the contributors to the page responds to what I've said in talk. Drives me nuts because a major newspaper obviously used the bio and reprinted it in their newspaper and it was wrong. Now, I guess, one of the wiki editors can use the misquote as a citation and the whole thing will go round like feedback on Jimi Hendrix guitar! Thanks for your advice Jim. Peace. Annie McGann 03:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)--Annie McGann 03:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieMcGann (talk • contribs)

Added indentation to make discussion easier to follow - Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AnnieMcGann, and please let me start by saying that I understand your frustration, and I thank you for the open, patient and co-operative way you have approached it. Biographies of living people (sometimes shortened to "BLP" in Wikipedia) are subjected to a different set of rules than most articles. In particular, it is paramount that BLP information is verifiable, because otherwise anybody could say that they are the person, or their spouse/child/parent/agent/etc, and insert any information they choose - as frustrating as it is, that is why your statements are not accepted on their own, even though you know first-hand they are right. It leaves two options to fix the errors, and as Cullen328 suggests it is best to put it on the Talk page first:

• Best, if somebody can find some reliable independent source that confirms the correct information.
• If that is not possible, then un-cited incorrect information must be removed.

It is important to be careful because of your close involvement, but it is also important to get the information correct, so if anybody objects to changes along these lines I suggest steering the discussion along the guidelines contained at WP:BLP. Beyond that, if difficulties persist you may post an explanation of your concern on the biographies of living persons noticeboard and request that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to make sure it is fairly written and properly sourced. I hope this helps to resolve your issues. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Amended indentation to make discussion easier to follow - Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi AnnieMcGann. In addition to the advice you've gotten from both Cullen328 and Gronk Oz, it might also be a good idea for you to take a look at "Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide", in particluar "What to do when something goes wrong", and "Best practices for editors with close associations". Although COI editing is highly discouraged on Wikipedia, there are certain cases when it is allowed. For more details on those cases, please check here "Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest". When you post requests/comments on an article's talk page, please try and remember that pretty much all Wikipedians are volunteers and the real world does occasionally get in the way. The page "Paul McGann" does fall under the scope of a number of different WikiProjects and you can see what these are by looking at the top of Talk:Paul McGann. So, you might try asking for help on the talk pages of those respective groups as well if people aren't responding to your posts on "Talk:Paul McGann". - Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC

Hello again AnnieMcGann. On the talk page, you are replying to five year old threads. Starting a fresh conversation is likely to get more of a current response. As for Liverpool and Lancashire, it seems that Liverpool was included in Lancashire until 1974, and as your husband was born in 1959, that seems accurate at the time of his birth. So, what you see as accurate in 2014 may not be supported by reliable sources in 1959. I am an American.so may not understand all the geographic implications. As for the exact date of your son's birth, why does that even belong in the article at all, unless that birth was extensively discussed in reliable sources? Isn't including that information in an encyclopedia article about his father a potential violation of your son's privacy? Why does that level of detail matter? So, I do not recommend that you edit the article yourself. Instead, I recommend that you make specific, cited edit requests on the talk page, with links to reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I am very impressed with the way the senior editors have sorted the page out and so quickly too. Faith in wikipedia restored :-) Thank you all so much.

New Page

I have recently just created a page about a music producer but because he is not 'famous'or 'significant' it will be deleted?

This is surely unfair on the 'little guy' so to speak?

HardstyleIntegra (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@HardstyleIntegra: The "little guy" can get his own article once he is notable, having significant coverage. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@HardstyleIntegra:, the world is full of "little guys". We don't all get an article in the encyclopedia. The "fairness" comes from applying the same standards to everybody: see WP:NOTABILITY for guidelines about how to determine whether a person or a subject is "notable" enough to warrant having an article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello HardstyleIntegra. The "little guy" has full and complete access to Facebook, and LinkedIn, and Twitter and every other social media site. The "little guy" can blog to his heart's content. Maybe some day, the "little guy" will hit it big and become notable enough for an encyclopedia article. If this encyclopedia didn't have notability standards, then I could write an article about me. And then an article about my house. And about the pothole in front of my house. And about the pebble next to the pothole. And about that awesome ant walking on that pebble. That destroys the encyclopedia. We have notability standards for very good reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User sandboxes

I have been using my sandbox to work on articles. However, I only seem to have one sandbox. It seems that you should be able to create multiple sandboxes to work on different projects. Is it possible for a user to create multiple sandboxes with different titles? If so, how does one do this? ThanksOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's easy to do - just create pages named User:OnBeyondZebrax/sandbox1, User:OnBeyondZebrax/sandbox2 and so on. You can also use the draft namespace to create new pages without releasing them into the wild. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I should also add, just in case you don't know already - to create a new page, type the page name into the Search box at the top of the screen. You'll then be given an option to create it it (assuming it doesn't already exist). Yunshui ^雲_水 13:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding yourself to "Wikipedia librarians"

I am trying to figure out how to my username to the Wikipedia librarians page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_librarians however I do not see any place to do that. Does anyone have any ideas? Wthowerto (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wthowerto: Hi Wthowerto. Pages of all stripes are added to categories by placing category code on the page you wish to be added to the category – not the category page. Thus, you would add to User:Wthowerto the following code (usually placed at the bottom [and on its own line]): [[Category:Wikipedian librarians]]. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You could also add the code {{User librarian}}. It will display Template:User librarian and automatically add the category. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. James^x12345 15:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Bolding

If I want to bold something would I follow these steps 1) Type Word 2) follow word with this command ' ' 'bold' ' ' Basically I want to know if the command FOLLOWS the word that should be bolded or PRECEDES it. Liza.Morten (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Liza.Morten (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Liza.Morten: Hiya Liza. You're in the ballpark. You don't use the word "Bold" itself in any way as a command (but that misunderstanding is very logical, because many coding languages do use such word commands). All you need do is surround what you want bolded with tripled apostrophes.

So, if I wanted to bold the word apostrophes in the last sentence., I would type '''apostrophes''', and when I saved, that would format as apostrophes. Does that help? I think you might find taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial useful. Once you learn the gist of such formatting, the cheatsheet may come in useful. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

YES! I'm all clear! Thank you!Liza.Morten (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Awesome!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Liza.Morten: Namaste. You should checkout Help:Cheatsheet which has all kinds of basic formatting tips you may find useful. -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still not terribly straight forward to me even though I have the cheat sheet pulled up - I am having a few hangups. Now I am trying to link to another wikipedia page, do I simply put the word inside of the brackets like this [ [SoHo] ] and this will take you to the wikipedia page describing the neighborhood in NYC? It's clear it's the SoHo not London neighborhood due to the greater context of the article. My hangup is that you aren't plugging in a URL.?Liza.Morten (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You do indeed use the square brackets like that - however, SoHo (with a capital H) is what we call a redirect page - it automatically take the reader to SoHo, Manhattan, rather than Soho (disambiguation) or Soho (in London). You can change where the link goes like this: [[Soho, West Midlands|Soho]] will display as Soho but will take you to Soho, West Midlands. Does that help at all?

For URLs outside Wikipedia, you just need one set of square brackets: [http://www.visitlondon.com/discover-london/london-areas/central/soho-london Soho] creates Soho. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Liza.Morten: Another idea to avoid all of the coding issues entirely is to enable the "visual editor" which makes editing Wikipedia somewhat like editing in Microsoft Word. If you go to the "Beta" link at the top right corner of any Wikipedia page, check the box to enable the visual editor, save your preferences, and then reload whatever page you'd like to edit, you'll see an "edit beta" tab at the top of the page, and you can edit without worrying about coding issues. Some new editors prefer the visual editor over the code editor. Might be worth giving it a try! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

citation templates

The section on templates say to copy a blank version to use. I find a multitude of blank versions, but don't know how to find the appropriate one to copy for use. Once a template is copied, is it inserted at the end of the section to be cited? I know how to cite a book. But how does one cite an article by one author in a book edited by someone else? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again TBR-qed! I'm not 100% percent sure what you mean by "a multitude of blank versions" so I'll try to cover several in my answer. Yes there are many kinds of citation templates. The most common ones are Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web, Template:Cite journal and Template:Cite news. Each of these contain a number of parameters. You can pick as many or as few of these parameters to describe your source as you like. At each of these aforementioned pages there are a number of examples of what set of parameters to use. For a book with several authors or edited by someone else you just pick the parameters you think are appropriate. Here's an example of a fiction book with many of these features:

<ref>{{cite book |last1=Wales |first1=Jimbo |last2=Smith |first2=Jane |date=2001 |chapter=42 (section: On mistakes) |editor1-last=Jones |editor1-first=Jack |editor2-last=User |editor2-first=Any |title=How to edit the Wikipedia |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article |series=16 |volume=4 |publisher=Wikimedia Foundation |location=Earth |pages=42–88 |accessdate=7 September 2014}}</ref>

Resulting in this ref:

As you can see, I have chosen the parameters needed from the very long list at Template:Cite book. When the template is copied to the article and inserted in a ref, it is called a citation. These are put after the text they cover, preferably after a comma or some other punctuation, but can be put where it is appropriate (this is an ongoing debate). I hope this explains some. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm learning--I can now locate the templates, but can't make them work. My first footnote appears straightforward--author Karl Popper, title Conjectures and Refutations, 1965, pp.4-5,62--doesn't convert in preview. My second is complex--author John Dewey, article title "American Pragmatism," date 1925, book editor Jo Ann Boydston, book title John Dewey The Later Works vol. 2, book date 1984, p.3. With or without template I'm unable to insert this info. Thanks for your guidance and patience.TBR-qed (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello TBR-qed, I will fix these for you and leave comments at your talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I add my name to the Wikipedian Librarians cite? (PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC))

How do I add my name to the Wikipedian Librarians cite? (PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)) PhyllisAllen123 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

PhyllisAllen123, welcome to The Teahouse. Please make your question clearer as this is not an idea that I recognize.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings PhyllisAllen123. Thank for the question. Is it possible that you mean the Librarians site? Wikipedia has this article for information on WP:Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries and here: Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/People. Are you intersted in helping out in this project? Regards, bpage (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This question may have what you are looking for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

What licence do I need for a record label logo?

Hello, I have submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edition_Records for review but have a problem with the licence for the logo I uploaded. What licence do I need for a UK record label? Thank you.

Marycjames-Marycjames (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mary. Having looked at the logo used on Edition Records' website, I am going to go out on a limb ... I am not a copyright expert... and say I think it has sufficient originality that it is not a public domain image due to its simplicity, and thus copyright in the image presumably belongs to Edition Records.

On that basis, you probably should wait until the Draft article is accepted ... that is, until it appears at Edition Records instead of Draft:Edition Records. At that point, you could then upload a copy of the logo under the fair use criteria, similarly to how for example this logo for 4AD records was uploaded. You could do this by going to Wikipedia:Upload/old and selecting "It is the logo of an organization", but there is no point in doing so until the Draft is accepted.

So, it would be best to concentrate on getting the draft accepted first, before worrying about the logo. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Seeking help with challenging entry: Kirkland Lake - Notable People: Nadine Antoniazzi

(Redacted) Obvious WP:BLP violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking for help with this and other editors who feel it would be appropriately included under the Notable People section of the Kirkland Lake page.

Thanks so much everyone. Keep up the great work! Scotthoughauthor (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Before you do anything else, I would recommend reading WP:RGW, about how Wikipedia is not the place to expose plots etc etc. I don't think it would be appropriate to include her in the list. As a general matter, people should not be included in notable resident lists unless they have a Wikipedia article already. This prevents such lists from being overrun with spam, self-promotion, people's neighbors, etc. Nadine Antoniazzi does not merit a Wikipedia article because there is not sufficient coverage of her in reliable secondary sources (see WP:N for the standard). Right now, it appears that there are essentially no reliable sources about Nadine Antoniazzi -- maybe a local obituary, but not much of anything else. Because there is not sufficient coverage, she doesn't merit an article, and because she doesn't merit an article, she shouldn't be included in the list of notable residents. Newspapers and other similar sources would have to write about her before she can be included here -- unpublished theories, whatever their merit, are not sufficient. (See WP:OR.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Calliopejen1. I appreciate your input here. Kirkland Lake is quite remote and isolated. I feel this is so important because close relatives of the Antoniazzis own CJKL, the local radio station, and would have quite a bit of influence over what is reported in the town's newspaper, The Northern News. In my experience, and I'm sure others would agree, the media in Kirkland Lake, who should be covering this, has failed miserably. I do understand however, that a lack of coverage, even by news organizations that are owned by family members of possible perpetrators of crime, is not in itself, a basis for an article. Any advice on this? How could I motivate news organizations to report on this? I have sent tips to major Canadian dailies, however, they may have the same line of thinking that you do. This is a Kirkland Lake issue that should be covered by Kirkland Lake media. Thanks. Scotthoughauthor (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You may very well be correct that the media in Kirkland Lake is very biased. Unfortunately, that is not something Wikipedia can help with.

Major Canadian daily newspapers do not have the same line of thinking as Wikipedia, because they are newspapers whereas Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Newspapers will always report (and indeed research) something if it looks likely to be a newsworthy and attention-grabbing story for their particular market. Wikipedia, by contrast, does not do any original reporting or research at all. Sadly this makes Wikipedia almost the worst possible place for you to try to deal with the perceived partiality of coverage that you mention. Time spent trying to investigate, research or promote awareness of this issue via Wikipedia, would be time much more effectively spent doing so via other channels. Sorry. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Major Canadian daily newspapers do not have the same line of thinking as Wikipedia" From my limited experience it appears that Wikipedia has the identical line of thinking as the Canadian dailies: who's give a hoot about an innocent lady dying in Kirkland Lake. It's not our problem. Sorry Arthur goes shopping. I will respect your rules, but I still think you're cowards. Take a stand. Scotthoughauthor (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A list of all articles I have edited

Can I do a database search on my user id or something else to get a list of the articles I've edited?AgAustin (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AgAustin and welcome to The Teahouse. At this point it is very simple for you to get this list. Click on "contributions" in the upper right corner of your screen, or simply click here. Someone else may know a better answer for people who, like me, have thousands of contributions and might like to know how to get a list of the different articles.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello AgAustin, and if you take Vchimpanzee's excellent advice one step further and look at the bottom of the page s(he) linked to, you'll see a long box with some text. Click on "Edit Counts", and you'll get list and charts of everything you have done here. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 21:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you.AgAustin (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Can YOU answer this?

(I changed the name of this from bugginess to what it is now.) Hi. I have this bug, using mobile, no app, yes browser. OK on certain occations, (I think it's when one section of an article has lots of words.) I try to edit something, (Right at the bottom.) and it won't let me. I can backspace, but can't type. It's only for article that have long sections. Examples! On Deadpool, Mystique and Deal or No Deal Australian game show pages, I'm trying to, change Deadpool will be getting married to got married in publication section, change appeared in Lego Marvel to is a playable character, thats in video game section, and add a fantastic four part in the featured section of those articles respectively. It's like on phone the character limit is shorter than on an actual computer. And is there a place where I can ask someone to do stuff like this that I can't do? If you wan't you can change the first 2 yourself for me. (I dought anyone would know about the third one.) Thanks everyone. Soz for typos. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

G'day again, DangerousJXD. No, I can't answer the problem, sorry. But it might help our more technically minded colleagues to know a bit more about your equipment. Is it an iPhone, or Android, or something else? Make and model could be relevant. Are you connecting over a Wireless LAN, or a 3G or 4G data connection? Which ISP? --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Details: 3G, android, Samsung Galaxy Gio, (I'm not sure what you mean by ISP but I'll assume your talking about what company I am with.) Optus. Can you report the bug? I know you can but I'm not sure how. Thanks Gronk Oz. --DangerousJXD (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousJXD - I did a bit of digging, and apparently bugs should be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I have not used it myself, but I expect that if you pull all the relevant details from the discussion above into a single list for easy reference and post it there, and then we all keep our fingers crossed ... we'll see! --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks matey mate. --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)