Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 258

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 255Archive 256Archive 257Archive 258Archive 259Archive 260→Archive 265

Petition

I'm making a petition to shut down Cluebot and Bracketbot. Cluebot wont give others a turn to revert vandalism and Bracketbot just makes others look silly. Whos with me!Mirror Freak My Guestbook 14:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Make sure you stick this at the top, then, or there'll be hell to pay... Yunshui 雲水 14:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a joke, right? --Jakob (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course its a joke. Although it is annoying when I find vandalism, and then I see the "Next Edit" link when I go to revert it.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 14:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@MirrorFreak: Could you please add BracketBot to your petition? Far too clever for its own good. :)  Philg88 ♦talk 04:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hear, hear! BracketBot makes me look silly by pointing out all my mistakes; it just isn't right.  :-) --Gronk Oz (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Philg88 and Gronk Oz:  DoneMirror Freak Guestbook 13:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Files after Sandbox Use

How to delete a file (a photo, for example) after being used in the Sandbox? Ramones1986 (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean to remove the file from your sandbox? Or do you mean to delete it off of commons?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 13:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly; removing files like pictures from Commons.

Ramones1986 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, are you planning on using the picture in an article? You have to ask an Administrator on the commons to do it for you. But if you remove the picture you wont be able to use it in an article.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 13:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I came across as sounding rude in my last comment without meaning to.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 13:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That's OK; I'm just trying to grasp editing here in Wikipedia.

Ramones1986 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Ramones1986, welcome to the teahouse. I may not be understanding your question but I'm going to take a shot at it. If you have a photo or image in your sandbox that is just a pointer to the actual file in the Commons. So there really is no need to delete the file when you are done, just over-write your sandbox when you want to start working on a different article. The one caveat is that some files have limited use restrictions. So if you work for example on an album article and copy all the wiki code for the album into your sandbox including the image for the album cover you will get a warning from a bot after a short period of time and the file (i.e., the wiki code that points to the file) will be removed automatically by the bot. That is because the copyright laws are stupid... uhm I mean complex and for album art work and similar images we can only use them in the actual article. But otherwise your sandbox is meant to be a temporary work area where you can leave things as long as you want and just over-write when you want to work on something new. Hope that was useful, if I misunderstood the question perhaps you can reply back with a clarification. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't quite see why you'd need to do this.
If you want to edit with files in a sandbox, then just use a file that's already available on Commons. There are even a few "Wikipedia sample images" that the edit toolbars insert. You don't need to tidy this up afterwards.
If you want to practice uploading a file, then upload a valid file to Commons, with a suitable licence. That doesn't really involve the sandbox, although you can of course then use it in a sandbox.
It's not necessary to upload a sample file just to experiment in the sandbox (and this would be frowned upon a bit). We've already got loads of files, use one of them.
If you do have an uploaded file you want rid of, try tagging it for speedy deletion with {{db-author}} or {{db-test}}. On Commons, use {{speedydelete|reason=why you want it gone}}
Tips: Don't upload to Wikipedia (It probably belongs at Commons - if it doesn't belong there, it'll be complicated).
Start using your own sandbox at Special:MyPage/sandbox (top menu bar) or User:Ramones1986/Sandbox. That way it doesn't get cleared by other users.
Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Critique of my first Wiki page

Hello Wiki experts! I would so appreciate some critique before I submit my first Wiki article. I wrote it about one of my favorite musicians. He has won a national award, has played for national events and is considered one of the best in the nation on his rather eclectic instrument, so I believe his notability is confirmed, according to the Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles Guidelines. If anyone is interested in helping, my username is Stromata9 and the Draft is titled "Ted Yoder." Thanks in advance for your help! Stromata9 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

He, Stromata9. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid there's quite a bit of work to do on Draft:Ted Yoder to get it to an acceptable state. Minor things are that some of the language is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia; but the main problem is referencing. Every piece of information in a Wikipedia article is supposed to be sourced to a reliable published source, and most of them to a source unconnected with the subject: if you look at any featured or good article, you will find that after most sentences there is a reference (or more than one) to a published source. (Some older articles are not satisfactorily referenced, but the bar has been rising steadily, and new articles don't get accepted without it). There's also an issue of the quality of references: of the six links you list in your "references" section, two are independent and probably reliable (though not all local papers are known for their reliability), two are from Yoder's own website, so may be used to reference some kinds of information (uncontroversial factual data, like dates and places, but not anything evaluative or which might be challenged), one is a blog, which may hardly ever be used as a reference, because there's no way to tell whether it is reliable, and the Amazon link is just a catalogue, so is not a reference for anything (and shouldn't be linked anyway, as a commercial link). Please see referencing for beginners for an explanation of what to reference, where to reference it from, and how to format the references. You also need to consider notability (in Wikipedia's special sense - what is required in order for Wikipedia to have an article about a subject). From what your draft says, it looks as if he does meet this criterion, but the article needs to back this up, again, with references. --ColinFine (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you so much, Colin! When you say that some of the language is not appropriate, could you give an example? Stromata9 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Stromata9. I said that was a minor thing, and it is: it just reads a bit too chatty for an encyclopaedia sometimes: "one thing that bothered Ted from the beginning" is an example. And quoting him is fine as long as you cite the quotations to a published source, but it would be much better to cite somebody else writing (or talking) about him. (If the quotations you are producing have not been published, they should not be in the article: that would count as original research, which is always forbidden in Wikipedia articles.) Another minor thing is that WP:SURNAME says that after the first use the article should refer to him as Yoder, not Ted.
Writing a Wikipedia article is not an easy thing to do: there is a lot to get right. Well done for coming here and asking - come back if you've got further questions. --ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I needed to hear, Colin. Thank you. I'll get back to work on it. I appreciate your help. Stromata9 (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Transit Authority of River City

Header added by ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you all make sure no one edits out the work I've done on the Transit Authority of River City page I am a frequent reader of their website and they actually are upgrading their services and have added a couple of routes I will be editing the TARC page as TARC updates their fleet and routes thanks REMCNAIR87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remcnair87 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Remcnair87. I've added a header to your posting: I thought at first it was part of the same posting as the one above.
In answer to your question: No, nobody will "make sure no one edits out the work you've done". Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and nobody owns any article. If your contributions are improvements, and are in line with Wikipedia policies, then probably nobody will change them; but the heart of how Wikipedia works is what we call the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle: A makes a change, B disagrees with it and reverts it, and then A and B (and maybe others) discuss the question on the talk page and reach consensus. Looking at the article, I think the entire section on Fares should be deleted: Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and should not contain this level of detail. --ColinFine (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Dudes and Dudettes, I need some help with creating a Navbar for my WikiLodge. Its called the Dudes Lodge. The problem is that Nav bars are probably the most complex thing I've seen on the wiki. Can anyone help me out?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 13:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Does no one know what I'm talking about?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 14:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not clear what your page Dudes Lodge is for and how it helps to build an encyclopedia? Have you read Wikipedia:NOTSOCIALNETWORK Theroadislong (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, MirrorFreak. Unless I'm missing something, I cannot in the least see what User:MirrorFreak/Dudes Lodge has to do with creating Wikipedia. Perhaps you have something in mind, but there's nothing on the page to explain why it is relevant. Unless you add some text explaining convincingly what your lodge is and how it will help improve Wikipedia, I predict that it will very soon get deleted. Remember, Wikipedia is not a social networking service. Please see User pages for what is considered appropriate for user pages. --ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, what about the User:Jennavecia/Bathrobe Cabal?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 15:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff existsTheroadislong (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That is such bullshit. The bathrobe cabal has absolutely nothing to with Wikipedia. So what's the problem with the Dudes Lodge.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 15:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Neither has much to do with WP, IMO both should be deleted. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I have just proposed the Bathrobe Cabal for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jennavecia/Bathrobe Cabal. I won't propose the Lodge for deletion at present: give you a chance to see if there is something useful you want to do with it. --ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Theroadislong and ColinFine:Hey, I'm sorry for being a jerk to you guys. I sort of turned into a wikilawyer.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 17:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Trouble viewing editing comments

I am having the hardest time trying to find the revision notes from my editors (my article keeps getting declined and I'm not sure where to find the notes).

Thanks! AshleyMarcella (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft seems to be at Draft:Vertafore. That's where the reviewers' comments will go as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

trouble with my references

I get the error Missing or empty |title= (help) I do not know how to fix this198.228.235.155 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, person with an IP address and welcome to The Teahouse. This is your only edit. Did you not sign in when you posted the question? It would help if we knew which article and whether you had a different IP address.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
And now that I take a second look, the question is easy to answer. What is the title of the web page you used as a reference? That needs to be filled in after the word "title".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
"help" in the message is a link to a help page. If you still have problems then post the code here. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

Hi. I've successfully referenced amendments I've made in the past using the tool bar that appears above but I've noticed since an apparent upgrade to Wikipedia that the tool bar has gone an been replaced by a simplified tool bar which I can't get to work. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbourned (talk • contribs) 19:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Headbourned: I'm not sure I understand your query. What functions in the tool bar are missing for you? Sometimes when things go missing it is because javascript has been disable in your browser for whatever reason. I'd check your javascript settings as a start, but to help further, we'll probably need more info from you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Improving an article from C-Class to B-Class

While in the process of improving an article, what are some suggested ways in which I could reorganize the article so that it makes more sense to the average reader? Are there any common structures that are preferable? --Cw585 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cw585: Hi Cw585. What I would suggest is browsing Wikipedia:Featured articles (which lists articles we have identified as our best content, after a peer review process) for topics that are similarly situated and using them as examples. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Cw585, welcome to the teahouse. One other suggestion is to find an article on a similar topic that is likely to be very popular and hence likely to have a very good article. So for example when I was editing the discography of a blues rock guitar player I looked at the discography of Led Zeppelin as a guide, if you are editing the bio of a scientist check out the structure of existing articles on Darwin or Einstein. Or, actually this is a real example, I'm currently trying to reorganize the article on the book Coming of age in Samoa and one of my starting points was to look at the article for the book On the origin of species --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you guys so much for the suggestions! I'm editing the 3D Printing article, so hopefully I can find a comparable technology to use as a structural guide. --Cw585 (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Input on my Article

I have edited plenty of articles before but I have never created one from scratch. I would love to have the teahouse's input on my article to see how I can improve it before submitting it for review. It's on a popular record producer, for which an article hasn't yet been created. Let me know what you think and thank you in advance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peterstormer/WillPutneyDraft Peterstormer (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Peter, welcome to the Teahouse. My initial thoughts are firstly that Putney might not meet the Wikipedia:General notability guideline and thus it might not be possible for Wikipedia to have an article about him; and secondly that the formatting of the references needs some work. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners might be useful in improving that latter aspect. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

How to edit map/template?

There is a locator map in India's three-stage nuclear power programme titled 'Atomic Power Stations in India '. One of the place names is given wrongly and I tried changing it by editing Template:India nuke plant map. Change to the template got saved, but the locator map in the article remains unchanged. So how to update it? Jayakumar RG (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Jayakumar, there's nothing wrong with your edit but sometimes the edits don't get refelcted immediately when you look at the page the image in on. You need to go to India's three-stage nuclear power programme and purge the page to make the image render correctly your revised version. Nthep (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It has updated now, thanks! Jayakumar RG (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me know what I should do to improve this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._A._Sajidas

Sir. I am new to wikipedia. I posted an article and reported for deletion. How can I do this article a better one. Pls help me. Thanks in advance. And thanks for your time

(Maneshbabuk (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest two things:
  1. Never, not ever, copy material form elsewhere to insert into Wikipedia. This article was deleted for copyright infringement
  2. Use the process at WP:AFC by clicking the link to create an article there, and, when ready, submit it for review.
This will show you the right way to approach things. Fiddle Faddle 13:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

checking my draft - is it publishable?

Hello I have completed this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Insight_Consultancy_Solutions

and I want to know if it is now up to standard to publish in Wikipedia? If it is not up to standard, I would like to know how I can change it to make it work? And also how long it takes to get it published. Thank you very much RodeishaV (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, RodeishaV, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the answer is a very clear No. The problem is that, as far as I can see, not a single one of your references does anything to establish that the company is notable (in Wikipedia's special sense). All of them (except possible those to Insight's own website, which I haven't looked at) merely mention the company in passing, and in fact most of them are simply reporting something that Sarah Thrift has said, so they're not independent either. Each piece of information in a Wikipedia article is required to be sourced to a published reliable source, and apart from uncontroversial factual data such as addresses and dates, to a source independent of the subject. It follows that for it to be possible to write an acceptable article, the subject must have been written about at length in published reliable sources, independent of the subject. Before submitting it for review (which you can do by inserting the {{subst:submit}} at the top of the article) you need to find several such sources: as I say, I don't believe you have used even one such.
When you have found and references the sources necessary to demonstrate that the subject is notable, there are lesser issues that you need to address. Links within Wikipedia (called Wikilinks) you make by simply putting the name of the page between double square brackets thus: [[McKinsey & Company]] displays as McKinsey & Company; you are not using standard section headings; your references are not formatted properly (you have given them titles, which is better than some beginners manage!); and the mention that Ms Thrift got a Masters from Imperial should be followed by a reference to a reliable source that says she did so, not by a source about Imperial (Imperial College itself should be Wikilinked); and finally, some of the language is promotional (eg "is known as a strategist with a particular knack for problem solving, an entrepreneurial mindset and a passion for enhancing personal and business effectiveness" is completely out of place in an Encyclopaedia article, except possibly if a cited reliable source independent of the subject has said just that). Please look at your first article and referencing for beginners.
If this seems disheartening: don't give up! Writing a Wikipedia article that sticks is hard. But if in fact the company does not at present meet the requirements for notability, don't waste any more time trying to write the article, because it will never be accepted. (A lot of what you have written is about Thrift rather than about the company: it is possible that she meets the criteria and the company doesn't: if so, write an article about her, not about the company.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, RodeishaV In addition to the excellent feedback you got from ColinFine I would add one more point. The article as it is written seemed very wp:promotional to me. The article reads like a promotional brochure or web page for the consulting firm rather than an encyclopedia article. Phrases like "This group brings an innovative approach to strategy" and "A specialty of Insight is the design and facilitation of strategic problem solving and communication courses for organizations" I used to be a consultant myself and that is the language we would use in a proposal to describe our services to clients. A Wikipedia article needs to be more wp:neutral --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This is really great and practical feedback.

So one question in regard to the sources: Is this one a notable source, http://mixergy.com/course-cheat-sheet-pick-the-right-idea/ (Video Posted on Oct 1, 2014) "Master Class: How To Pick The Right Idea - With Sarah Thrift" Mixergy Learn From Proven Entrepreneurs. Retrieved October 1, 2014.

I am just asking to be super clear, because it is an interview with a video channel. I see that it is comments from Sarah Thrift rather than about her, so that may rule it out. However, my question comes up because I thought that being interviewed by a channel like this may be seen as a statement from the producers that they consider her notable? Or does it need to be an article or television piece that is purely about the company and the founder? How can this be possible. Working as a journalist, I know I always get comments from the person whom I am writing about? I am just trying to understand the style. I do totally get the point about the language looking like marketing. That is really clear. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and efforts here. I will keep going in my efforts to create something that is more in style with Wikipedia. RodeishaV (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@RodeishaV: Interviews with a person tell you uncritically what that person says. The interview is capable of verifying that they said it, but they do not inherit notability from being interviewed, eg, by the BBC, itself a notable organisation. It is thus interesting to see an interview, but it is not something that imparts notability. I think from what you said that you expected this answer and simply needed your thinking to be validated. Fiddle Faddle 16:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I shoudl add, that, where (eg) a TV show goes on to comment about the person then those comments are grist to the mill. What you have to do is to differentiate between the interview portion (interesting) and the commentary (potentially conferring notability) in the way you deploy the reference.
In addition, (and I have not followed your link) where the channel is a user edited entity such as on Youtube, there are only very rare circumstances where we accept Youtube (and similar services) as reliable sources. I'm sure we have chapter and verse on this somewhere. My personal view is that an official channel of the video maker, where that maker is a recognised news outlet, is likely to be acceptable. My own channel, even though I made the video, is not. And a channel which infringes other people's copyright is a most definite no go area. I intended to post this with my prior answer, but was interrupted in my thought processes. Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Having given you a generic answer, I have followed http://mixergy.com/course-cheat-sheet-pick-the-right-idea/ and see an immediate challenge with it. It is a brochure and a selling page for Thrift's video. I view this link as a spam link. It is not a link which will enhance notability and will actually devalue your draft. Fiddle Faddle 16:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
This is so helpful. Thank you I really appreciate the time and effort to explain these basics to me - a total beginner.

RodeishaV (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

1D

Any other girls just wanna chat? Did anyone see the New Orleans 1D concert? Gandalfthegreyt (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You mistake Wikipedia for Facebook or a chat room. If you are not here to build an encyclopaedia you will find a chilly welcome here. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gandalfthegreyt: I know who I'm avoiding.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 18:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User page statement - public review

I'm finding myself having to deal with several allegations in my one month of contributing here that I have "intentions" to do something. As this appears to be a recurring theme, I've placed a notice on my user page[1] and would like community input if it is clear enough so that I may link to it upon future occurrences. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: Your statement isn't bad, but I don't think that it will solve your problems. If others think (rightly or wrongly) that you are acting in an antisemitic way, I don't think a link to a statement will appease them. You are editing in a very touchy area and I would recommend maximum civility and a close read of the discretionary sanctions linked on your talk page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Calliopejen1: actually, it was the opposite. Someone alleged I have intentions to portray Palestinians as antisemites and my explanation on why I wasn't happy with the allegation was somehow perceived as calling that someone an antisemite. Recently, another editor alleged the same thing, that I want to portray all Palestinians as antisemites -- obviously, there's a problem where editors lack deeper understanding of the subtler points in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and interpret things the worst way possible. The provided note on my suerpage[2] is a first draft and I am putting it out for review and suggestions. I'd hate for every mention of, e.g. Palestinian lies on media (like Battle of Jenin), to be accused of trying to portray them as antisemitic. Media propaganda actions are a natural part of the Muqawama. There must be room to mention these issues without immediately wasting a lot of time and effort deflecting allegations that I have racist intentions. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC) cl MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: Sorry for misunderstanding -- to be honest, I skimmed over your statement. But my point is the same, I don't think your statement will convince anyone if your other edits have not. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for owning up. I also hope the admin involved in accusing me of calling someone an antisemite will amend his allegation. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@MarciulionisHOF: The issue that anyone faces when being accused of being "Anti_Fooian" is that it is very hard to prove that one is not Anti-Fooian without appearing to prove that one is Fooian. Any statement made will inform and inflame other people's prejudices, whatever you write, simply because they have prejudices. I prefer the route of "By my actions shall you know me." I have edited in highly contentious areas and achieved absolute neutrality in these areas by demonstrating neutrality and impartiality, and, above all, absolute civility in the face of hostility. I demonstrated that I cared only about article quality. I commend this approach to you. Fiddle Faddle 20:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is it that you are always feeling that others are targeting you?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 12:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
No no. I have learned a few things in my one month on English Wikipedia. That said, I learned by this issue occurring twice now, that it is a matter of editors not understanding the subtleties of the subject matter and jumping to bad faith conclusions. I am not "targeted". But, a couple editors have alleged my intentions are to portray Palestinians as antisemitic/evil. I've only edited for a month and it appears to be difficult to explain matters such as Hamas being an antisemitic movement in relative stronghold on public opinions leaving Gaza through media, or that the Palestinian Muqawama is not about compromise but about claiming "Freedom" for the entire territory in dispute. Thus, I've opened a clarification segment on my userpage in hopes of quickly putting down fires, reducing drama, and improving collaboration. Now, edited with a small update. I am already collecting thoughts for another update -- external views are welcome.
p.s. an editor expressed displeasure with an RSN I opened, calling it "poisoning of the well". Since he insists on this, I suggested asking the community's views -- where would one do that? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a point when, whether you are in the right or in the wrong, the community will tire of you, and not in a good way. If you take advice, please take this advice. For the moment, and at least the medium term future, be wise enough to be silent about Hamas, Palestine, Israel, Gaza etc. Edit some articles in an entirely different area, perhaps gymnastics. The Middle East will still be in disarray when you come back to the subject. It will wait for you to learn more about this place and to mellow a little, or, if you have no need to mellow, to be perceived to have mellowed. I judge that you are very close to the tipping point for the community, not from what you have to say in the challenging topic area, but from your interactions and willingness to rush off on yet another quest. It would be a shame to earn formal disapproval from the community. This is just observation of how these things always go. I see no reason for them to go differently for you unless you go differently. Right or wrong, the community works on lunch law. It is very capable of having anyone for lunch. Fiddle Faddle 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Online ambassadors vs. campus ambassadors? What's the difference?

I have been using Wikipedia assignments with my classes for several semesters now, and want to use the new resources from Wiki Education Foundation. I have started a course page, and want to take advantage of your expertise. First of all, who would be best to contact to help me and my students with Wikipedia editing, an online ambassador or a campus ambassador? I'd like someone who could stay connected over the semester. Is there another type of volunteer I should consider? Thanks!J.R. Council (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @James Council: I think you'll find this page to be of use. The main difference is that campus ambassadors provide on-site physical support, while online ambassadors provide online support (e.g. communication via Wikipedia talk pages, Skype, IRC, email, etc.). I'm not too experienced with the program myself, so hopefully another editor can elaborate on options and specifics on who to reach out to :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Cool link. This isn't in response to the OP but just wanted to notify other tea house hosts that user @Skylerd23: posted a query down below that didn't get a response. He is part of a team from Cornell that is doing work for a class project. They are working on the Ray Charles page. They have posted their proposal on the Ray Charles talk page. They reached out to me because I've edited a few pages on similar usic but I'm more of a Chicago Blues guy so couldn't give them much feedback. From what I've seen they are doing outstanding work so they probably are fine without our help anyway but more feedback is always good. I encourage anyone interested to check out their proposal on the Ray Charles talk page or to reach out directly to Skylerd23. Also, I already forwarded that link to Skyler. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello James Council. I have served as an online ambassador and have also visited a classroom at the University of San Francisco (my alma mater) to support editing Wikipedia. In my opinion, the most important factors in utilizing an "ambassador" are whether or not the person has deep, well-rounded Wikipedia editing experience, a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and cultural quirks, and willingness and skill in conveying good advice to new editors. A few years ago, I had the perception that many (though not all) campus ambassadors had a weak skill set, though I hope there has been improvement of late. I also perceived that the skills of online ambassadors were underutilized, as I got far fewer questions than I expected. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Providing access to info available only from source deemed problematic

Hi. I added to a few W entries brief passages reflecting documented information from an article I recently got published on a university's history-news site. My additions were quickly removed -- I admire the efficiency! -- on grounds essentially that they (1) cited an op-ed, and (2) were made by someone who isn't disinterested (me). What is the proper way to give W's users access to significant and interesting information available only in a documented synthesis that also includes analytical matter?173.228.104.130 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi backatcha @173.228.104.130:! Can you perhaps link us to the article in question where you've run into trouble? Checking the contribution history of the IP address you have posted under, this question is your first edit at Wikipedia. (as an aside, the ability to keep track of all of your work in one place is one of the reasons why we recommend creating an account.) I (and many others here) would like to help you, but it can be hard to comment intelligently on a situation where we cannot see all of the facts out in the open. If you could just show us where you are specifically having a problem, we can offer some help and advice. --Jayron32 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_organization

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_to_Defend_America_by_Aiding_the_Allies

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_the_Present_Danger

I'd appreciate any help173.228.104.130 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. @173.228.104.130: I have reviewed the situation, and have a few questions before I can offer advice. It appears that you, 173.228.104.130 is the same person who is operating the account User:LTrager, who is also the same Louis Trager that wrote this article. Is all that correct? --Jayron32 00:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes. (I'm not clear why, since I mentioned at the outset having cited my own article, my name needs to be published here.) 173.228.104.130 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@173.228.104.130: I just wanted to make sure I wasn't making any presumptions before I offered my advice. Some things to consider 1) Wikipedia frowns upon editing under a conflict of interest. What that means is that we don't do anything to Wikipedia articles that has the appearance of advancing our own professional lives. In this case, by citing your own article, and putting the conclusion of your own work into Wikipedia articles, it gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. Instead, it would be best to present your work on the talk pages of the articles in question: allow others to assess them, and decide what to incorporate. That way it doesn't look like you are putting the exposure of your own work as the motivation for your additions to the article. 2) The additions you are making seem to be making some extraordinary claims, insofar as it isn't the sort of material one encounters in depth in most mainstream, well respected sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if you are going to insert the text you are, citing to a single article published on a single website (and not, say, a peer reviewed journal or a well-cited book published by a well-known academic press) is a bit thin, even if you weren't the author. As you seem to be an expert in this area, you should have access to the published works of other experts, especially where it appears in sources well respected and widely cited, and you should be citing text to THOSE sources. I don't specifically doubt the academic respect of George Mason University (the owners of the cite where your article is published), but the website itself isn't a peer reviewed journal, it doesn't have the sort of editorial and academic oversight one would need of a source for the information you are trying to add. Also, the information becomes stronger when you can find multiple, unrelated sources which you can cite. Try to get together those sources, use the article talk pages to present your sources and discuss how to incorporate the information with other editors, and see if some sort of consensus can be reached. I hope that advice helps! --Jayron32 01:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely, I'm afraid. The government connections of many citizens committees are documented -- one by one -- by reputable scholars and journalists, as reflected in the links embedded in the HNN article. The material I added to the W entries summarizes a telling -- and, yes, extraordinary -- conclusion logically necessitated by the accumulated, transparent evidence. There is no source to cite for the pattern other than my documented article, because no single work has connected more than a few of these (documented) dots previously. And citing dozens of sources, each concerning one or at most a few of the committees, for a few sentences in a W entry isn't practicable, is it?173.228.104.130 (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Louis, welcome to the teahouse. Are you familiar with the wikipedia concept of wp:original research? From my reading of the above what you are saying really comes under the classification of original research. You say that "There is no source to cite for the pattern other than my documented article, because no single work has connected more than a few... dots " that essentially means the conclusions are original research and not yet appropriate for Wikipedia. Your one article (besides the wp:COI issues) isn't going to be anywhere near as authoritative as say articles in refereed journals. BTW, saying it's original research doesn't mean it isn't true. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This reasoning appears a bit suddenly after all this discussion. It's not mentioned by the editors who removed the material, I don't believe, and it seems misplaced. The prohibition is against putting the product of original research ON Wikipedia itself, isn't it? It doesn't mean a ban on CITING original research. It can't.

"To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." If someone without a conflict cited original research deemed reliable, that would comply with the rule, right? Setting aside the conflict, it's not clear to me how my original, documented research could not suffice for a citation. There are all kinds of perfectly good citations on Wikipedia to works that aren't peer-reviewed, aren't there? Probably the vast majority?

I really don't mean to keep this going any longer than necessary for clarity. But the answers keep shifting, and in any event aren't consistent with what I read in W entries. 173.228.104.130 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends. How reliable? A single article in an unreviewed website? Or a juried article in a peer-reviewed journal? The reliability of a source depends also on what claims it is being used to support, and the less well-established the claims, the greater burden on the reliability of the source they are published in. If something is readily and repeatedly known through many sources, we can generally trust most of them, so our standards for referencing are a bit different for novel claims or new interpretations of existing facts. When new information, heretofore unavailable in any other source, shows up in an article, it by necessity raises the need for additional scrutiny. The claim that Ronald Reagan was born in Illinois in 1911 is pretty well documented all over the place. We probably don't need to dig through journals to find peer-reviewed research into the status of his birth. However, if I claimed that new data suggested that he had a twin sister which had, as yet, been undiscovered, well, the sources, by necessity, better be of pretty high quality. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --Jayron32 03:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Again: How, please, should dozens of instances involved in a pattern -- each reliably documented, but separately -- be documented for a passage of a few sentences in a Wikipedia entry?173.228.104.130 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The fundamental point is that the article in question is explicitly described as an op-ed on the web page where it is published. I found the article personally interesting and worthwhile. However, here on Wikipedia, an op-ed can be used only to cite the opinions of its author. Op-eds are not considered reliable sources for statements of fact. Accordingly, this piece is not appropriate for use in the listed articles. As for citing "a passage of a few sentences", there should be one or two truly reliable sources backing up those sentences unless they are synthesis or original research, which we don't allow. As for mentioning your name, we operate on the basis of transparency, so if you choose to try to cite yourself, we will discuss that openly here.
When you mention "W", I keep thinking you are talking about the US president who served from 2001 to 2009. This is Wikipedia.
On the matter of getting a variety of answers, please be aware that we are a group of volunteers of varying levels of experience and familiarity with our full range of policies and guidelines, trying to maintain 4.6 million articles. Your particular situation is problematic on several levels, so it should be no surprise that several editors would raise a variety of legitimate concerns. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The answer is that, given the fact that we require exceptional sourcing for exceptional claims, you would need multiple reliable sources that were intellectually independent of you before anything similar to the content of those edits would be permitted in an article. You may wish to review our guideline on fringe theories to get a broader background of what is expected. VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I finally have it. I have entirely reputable, uncontroversial published sources -- with zero connection to me -- for each of dozens of cases of ostensibly independent and private citizens committees that in fact were working closely behind the scenes with the government. (The sources aren't hard to find. A large number are linked in my article.)

But under the rules, no one is supposed to be able get the bottom line of this evidence to your users -- no matter how indisputably it follows from the mechanical accumulation of the documented cases -- in succinct passages to add valuable context to relevant articles, even with an unwieldy laundry list of citations for all the cases. That would be what you call original research, even though it boils down to a summary of documented secondary sources in established media by reliable scholars and journalists.

So in the end we can set aside all the stuff about COI and op-eds. Just ain't gonna happen on Wikipedia. At least until someone publishes a peer-reviewed article covering the full scope of the material (even with sourcing that isn't necessarily qualitatively better than the sourcing of the article I've done) or maybe a book, at least one put out by a name publisher? Do I have it?

P.S. I registered under my name and cited my article in the knowledge that your system makes my edits transparent. (If I could have identified myself in the text as the source of the edits, I would have gladly done that.) The point about my name was that I couldn't see why it wasn't gratuitous to identify me in this discussion, for purposes of helping me sort this out. 173.228.104.130 (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't really seem to get it yet. You can add content summarizing what reliable sources say, as long as you cite the sources. YOU say your op-ed has excellent sources, and maybe it does, but how is the reader supposed to know? Based on your words and claims? No, we need editorial oversight, and a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. That's what academic journals provide. Op-eds by definition don't have that. Concerns about COI and op-eds can NOT be set aside. These are the standards that make Wikipedia the #6 website in the world, and #1 in terms of original content. And when you talk about "your users" instead of "our readers", that seems to indicate that you are not fully on the team. This is a collaborative project. Please join the team. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it all right for one to ask questions here if one is an experienced editor?

I mean not to be greedy or selfish, but sometimes I have a simple question relating to something that is discussable here, and prefer to ask it here due to the amiable nature of this area of the Encyclopedia.

Forgive me if this is verboten, but I simply wished to know. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tharthan: Welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your question, it is perfectly okay. I myself ask questions here once in a while. --Jakob (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's good to hear. Thanks for the swift response! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@Tharthan: By all means! Everyone's here to help - and no doubt that other editors will also learn from your question and its answers. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

How can I move a page (name and wikipedia link of this person's page are misspelled)?

I cannot find how to move a page. All guides I have read mention a drop down arrow to the left of the search bar, but no page has this drop down arrow. The page I am trying to edit says that moving the page is open to all users. Thanks.

Mathais (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mathais and welcome,
There is a tab named as "More"" click on it, it has drop down menu, click on "Move"
It will ask you for correct new name.
Please remember that tab is not visible on some pages, like this "Tea House" page.
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 06:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Mattm7. Only autoconfirmed users with an account can move pages, as opposed to all users. Normally, this requires an account more than four days old with more than ten edits. Your account is older but only has four edits currently. If you want a page moved right away, please see WP:REQUESTED MOVES. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I do not see a 'More' tab. The particular page only has 'Read,' 'Edit,' and 'More History' on the right side, and 'Article' and 'Talk' on the left side. Nothing else.

Mathais (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok, that makes sense. Thank you!

Mathais (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mathais, Now you need just 4 more edits, as you have six edits now
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 06:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
And I have moved the article in question to Bruno Gerzeli. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Bored

Is there anything fun to do here?Kid President 14:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kid President: Welcome back to the teahouse. There are a lot of funny things that you can read here. Just don't let fun things be all you do here. We are building an encyclopedia after all, so be sure to work on articles as well. If you can't think of anything good to improve, you can always try adding {{User:SuggestBot/suggest}} to your user talk page to get a list of articles to work on. Happy editing, --Jakob (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I was going to be my normal curmudgeonly self and lecture about how Wikipedia isn't for fun damn it it's for making an encyclopedia so lets's all get back to work! But then I remembered that I needed to not give a fuck which is one of my favorite (unofficial) policies and also kind of fun: Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11:So, am I the only Rodney McKay here, thinking that building an encyclopedia actually is fun? w.carter-Talk 08:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The Department of Fun might interest you, Kid President. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Submitted Redirect Status

Hello!

I submitted a redirect suggestion that has not yet been put in to effect. Is there a way to see the status of my redirect? If it's been denied or just not yet addressed?

Thanks. Fangelosmangelos (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Fangelosmangelos. Your request was denied the next day, with the reason: "This page already redirects to Manđelos". See Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2014-09#Redirect request: Mangelos --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it OK to recreate a deleted article?

Hi, I would like to recreate the deleted page about Movavi, a software developer and vendor, and keep it strictly informative due to the reason of the initial article deletion. I think this company deserves an article because its software products have been reviewed by major IT magazines and websites like Macworld, Software Informer, TopTenReviews, and such. Do you think it's OK assuming there will be no advertising or promotion in the new article? Olegbv (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Olegbv. Certainly you can recreate it, provided the company meets the criteria in WP:CORP. Reviews in those places may establish notability, but only if they talk about the company, not just about its products (notability is not inherited). I suggest using the article wizard. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Can someone check over this GA review, and make sure it looks all right? It is for the GA Cup. Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MrWooHoo. I'm afraid that your review is very skimpy. It could have been written by someone who had not even looked at the article. A lot of your comments just repeat the review criteria (e.g., A. Major aspects: Most aspects covered). It's o.k. to simply check off the item if you don't have anything new to say. More importantly, you don't provide any examples of the bias that is your reason for failing the article. You mention the "other side" - other side of what?
Someone submitting an article for GA review has probably done a lot of work, and they deserve a high-quality review. I'm not sure you're ready for this challenge. Sentences like Only bad thing "not so good" about this article (the "not so good" is redundant) leave me with little confidence that you can judge the quality of the writing. Also, to judge items like the broadness of the coverage, you need to know something about the subject. Do you? You haven't made significant contributions to any articles on China. If you don't know the subject, how can you know if anything important has been left out? RockMagnetist(talk) 14:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
As an example of how a GA review should look, see Talk:China/GA3. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

"More" buton seems to do nothing

At the top of the page after I login, near the search bar there is a button with a menu drop down arrow. When I click on it, it increases in size and a border appears, but nothing else seems to happen. When I entered this screen it disappeared. Can anyone tell me what it's doing there? I have 5 different browsers and it's the same on all of them. Jodosma (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Jodosma
That button is called "Twinkle"
You have to enable it before use.
It uses Java, and gives additional functions to auto confirmed users
In your "Preferences" page go to "Gadgets" and enable "Twinkle"
You will find more information about it here
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 12:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I already have the twinkle (TW) button near the "More" button and it is enabled; I have used it a number of times. This "More" button is additional to that. Jodosma (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

"More" button has only one function that is page move, If you want to rename or move the page
Aftab Banoori (Talk) 12:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The "Page" button has a drop down which has "move page" as an option; the "More" button doesn't allow me to do anything. Perhaps it's just a relic from old software versions. It doesn't bother me really, I was just curious; however, it would be nice to see it gone if it serves me no purpose. Perhaps I should ask at the Village pump, they seem to have a lot of techies there. Jodosma (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that at Commons there is the same button - it is used there to request a file move if you're not a filemover, somehow it has crept into Wikipedia where, in my case, it serves no purpose. Putting this to bed now. Jodosma (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

template inheritance

I would like to make an infobox template for "cyber threat actor" based on the STIX ontology from US DHS.

Such a template has fields in common with other templates, such as Template:Infobox_criminal

Is the best practice to just copy all those fields, or is there something like template inheritance?

jrf (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

template inheritance

I would like to make an infobox template for "cyber threat actor" based on the STIX ontology from US DHS.

Such a template has fields in common with other templates, such as Template:Infobox_criminal

Is the best practice to just copy all those fields, or is there something like template inheritance?

jrf (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Jrf: and welcome to the Teahouse! You may create an infobox. Since you're new, I recommend you start at the template wizard first. And you may copy the layout found at Template:Infobox criminal. In fact, we encourage you too so that the infoboxes all look the same. Cheers,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't that lead to like 53 different variations on the format for birthday?

Seems like it should not be that hard to have an inheritance model, like... hey wait a second, I see that the top of the "criminal" template says this:

{{Infobox person | honorific_prefix = ....

Does that mean that it is inheriting from "person"?

jrf (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Image insertion question

Hello i m editing the article about the senegalese rapper PPS the Writah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPS_the_Writah. I tried numerous time to insert a photo by the new beta editor and there is no photo relative to him. When i tried by the normal way link external gallery, etc it appears a rectangle with the name of the photo but not the photo itself. There is no way i can upload one from my lap top either. Could you help me? The other rappers Daara J they make it to put some 19:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lila Karakas (talk • contribs)

Hi @Lila Karakas: and welcome to the teahouse! I'm using a computer that doesn't support beta so I may be wrong. You can't just find any images on google and use it on Wikipedia. It has to be free use, so that anyone could use the picture. So you first have ti upload it to commons and there should be a page called File:Picture Name. You link it by putting [[File:Picture Name]] on the article and voila! You have your picture. Cheers,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you it was awesome i ve done it :) Lila Karakas (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_258&oldid=1072192197"