This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
How to delete a wrongly named picture from wikimedia
I have uploaded a picture [[1]].I have wrongly named that picture because I uploaded many picture at that time.Now I want to rename it or delete or want to upload a new version with the correct name.How to solve this problem. Delince.samuel (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Delince.samuel. If you add the template {{rename|newname.ext|numeric reason|text reason}} to the description page of the image, filling in the reasons for the request, an admin or file mover will make the change. You can read the details here.--Charles (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
In the articles of wikipedia there is a line each below a top which ends below the edit option.How to put that line when editing wikipedia.Delince.samuel (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah. You have used a level 3 heading (for a sub-section) and not a level 2 heading (for a section). A level 2 heading is written ==Like this==, while a level 3 heading is ===Like this===. As the gallery is meant to be a separate section (and not a subsection of "medicinal uses") it should be a separate section (==Gallery==). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
anyone can however, nominate any page for a deletion discussion (AfD). And all users can nominate newer, very incomplete articles for speedy deletion (CSD) if it falls within some very limited categories usually having to do with notability. WP:CSD
Hi Ferrari Enzo 2! Only administrators are able to delete a page. As Gtwfan52 mentioned, the rest of us can nominate a page for deletion, but the final decision has to be made by an administrator. There are three methods of nominating a page - you can do what is called a "speedy deletion", where there is something seriously wrong (such as a page that has been created to attack someone or a page containing copyright violations); a "prod", where you place a message saying that the page should be deleted and, if no one disagrees, this happens in seven days; or you can nominate the page for a deletion discussion, in which case the community discusses the article and decides what to do about it. IN all cases there is an onus put on you, as the nominator, to make sure that the page doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements before nominating it.
Was there a page you had in mind, or were you concerned about a page that was recently deleted? We might be able to help more if it would be of value. - Bilby (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
A Ferrari EnzoOnce the image has been uploaded, you can add it using [[File:imagename|thumb|Description]] So if you wanted to add the picture of a File:RedEnzo.jpg to this page, you could use: [[File:RedEnzo.jpg|thumb|A Ferrari Enzo]] which would produce the image you should see here. :)
If you need to upload it as well, there is a really handy wizard to help you upload one. Presuming that it is an image that you took, and are willing to release for everyone to use, the page at Special:UploadWizard on Wikimedia Commons is great. If not, the "Upload file" option in the toolbox on the right side of every Wikipedia page will take you through the process for here, but there are strict rules for images that you don't own the copyright for that you will need to check. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! There are tons of ways to make articles interesting -- writing lots of content supported by reliable sources is an obvious way, but doing things like adding images and external links to relevant online sources is also fantastic. Wikipedia is your canvas -- I can't wait to see what you come up with! Theopolisme06:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
My argument against is that in the area of Wing Chun there is hardly any notable media attention (at least not by independant media) and therefore a review in the only known independent print magazine should suffice for a non commercial style to be notable. Any recommendations? GruberMatthias (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Welcome, Gruber. I think that the AFD has merit because the article does read like an advertisement. Notability can be established in a variety of ways as shown at WP:N. For this specific article, I would guess that none of our subtopics for notability would apply...WP:ORG would be the closest, I suppose. I know that this isn't what you wanted to here, but unless the article passes a sub-section of WP:N, it probably isn't notable. :( GoPhightins!02:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I have read these notability guidelines again and again. It seems to depend heavily on how one reads them. I know the sources for my article are thin (only one independent source) but other than that I can not find any reason why the page should be deleted. However, if the mere assumption of a lack of notability by an outsider to the topic is enough to justify deletion, then I may as well give it up right now. In this case there is no justification for ANY Wing Chun lineage to have its own wikipedia page, since the small ones do not have ANY press coverage and the big ones make their own press which is by no means independent. But with this principle in mind, almost any Martial Arts style, lineage, school or organization would have to be deleted from wikipedia. At the same time it is almost impossible to get a self-promotional, intentionally misleading page of a spyware engine deleted (for example) once the enterprise has been covered by the wallstreet journal (happened before the darker side of the business was known) and a few others. While the bad but rich can have the benefit of doubt concerning their criminal activities, the good but poor have to live with the doubt of benefit ;) Just like in the real world. If this is the future of wikipedia, I am happy if it goes on without me. I have learned my lesson, I now believe that it is usually not worth the effort to try to privately create a wikipedia page unless you can afford a marketing department and a handler network, except maybe if you have no other life or hobbies. Just finished setting up my own mediawiki, took me half a percent of the time I spent here, fortunately the rest of the internet is still more or less free. GruberMatthias (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've created several Wikipedia pages and I don't have a marketing department...see the link on my user page for the pages I've created. Sorry if this makes you want to leave. :( GoPhightins!03:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Matthias, and thanks for dropping by the teahouse with your question. I've done some poking around and it looks like you self-published a book on this topic using lulu.com. There aren't any reviews of the book that books.google.com knows about, the English version isn't listed at amazon.com, and the german version has no reviews there. I'm not finding any mention of the topic on scholar.google.com or books.google.com. I didn't bother checking any but a few of the 405 hits on regular google but I didn't see anything relevant there, either.
If the same state of affairs existed for all other lineages then you might have enough daylight between you and the notability guidelines to make an argument for your article. However, I can pick up Kennedy and Guo's Chinese Martial Arts Training Manuals: A Historical Survey (2005) or Green's Martial Arts of the Modern World: An Encyclopedia (2001) and see that at least some lineages are documented in reliable sources.
As an aside, there are going to be conflict-of-interest issues to resolve as well. It's ok for experts to edit articles in their field of expertise, but this crosses the line into self-promotion (you're listed on four of the seven references).
We'd love to have your expertise here to help with other articles in this area. But it sounds like developing and promoting this particular field is your passion, and I wish you all the best with it. We'll still be here when you have gotten some mainstream press and we'll be happy to look at a resubmission of the article then. GaramondLethe04:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the ... well lets not call it help, but for the kind words. However, have you read and thought about your last sentence? "Once I've gotten some mainstream press"? Is this what wikipedia is about now? Digital encyclopedia waiting for print media? Sorry, but this means to me that wikipedia is dead. There was a time when you could find information here, now it's just history. There was a time when this was community driven. Now it is obviously policy driven self selection (super-elastic policies are interpreted and applied by an established micro-community assuming they were representing the rest, reminds me of modern pseudo-democracies like the US). Give my best to the dinosaurs :) As mentioned, once it has become easier to host my own wiki than to write or edit articles here, it makes no more sense to me to invest energy here.
Have fun with your hobby, I fortunately have less cumbersome projects for my spare time. GruberMatthias (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, despite those objections, which are not completely unreasonable, Wikipedia has become the 6th most popular website on the internet, so apparently we're doing something right. It's not necessarily "print" that's the driving factor, it's established, peer-reviewed materials. Purely-online articles by reputable news sources like Al Jazeera and BBC certainly qualify as sources, as do websites of some research organisations even if they don't put that article into print. What we don't allow though is (most) blogs, YouTube, etc. because they are not WP:Reliable sources. So it's not that we're waiting with bated breath for a book to come rolling off a press, we're waiting for someone with a proven reputation for accuracy to take notice of the subject.
Let me devil's advocate this for you: let's say I show up tomorrow claiming to have developed Twenty-Eight Pattern Wing Chung. I may have made a lot of YouTube clips about this new system, written about it on forums, maybe even have my own website promoting it. That looks like a lot of evidence, but does it really count if it's all made by me and friends of mine? Accordingly, until my "28 pattern" gets mentioned on the news, or by some recognised martial arts authority, gets highlighted at some formal top-level competition, appears in a book about martial arts, etc., we don't cover it.
If it weren't for the Notability policy, Wikipedia would be full of garage bands that formed last month and are recording an album "someday" but are just trying to get a gig now. So you can see why the policy is necessary. As you notice, there are plenty of fallback options for you like hosting your own wiki with the standards of your choice, or joining an existing martial arts wiki. I'm sorry you find this process "cumbersome", but no matter how enthused you are personally, if a topic doesn't meet WP:Notability we don't publish it until such point as it gets coverage in Reliable Sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I do get that. It doesn't surprise me that as an active community member, assumingly concordant with the current policies, you do not see the other side as I do. Your sentence If it weren't for the Notability policy, Wikipedia would be full of garage bands that formed last month is what in the earlier days we were hoping for wikipedia to become. A platform, where professionals have to compete with amateurs (who give away a lot for free) because suddenly the amateurs have a public voice as well, without having to invest massively in marketing and public relations. The actual value of an actual encyclopedia is that it is comprehensive, not that all covered topics are equally notable. Being a digital encyclopedia, wikipedia had a chance to do this without the limit of a book cover. There are many other ways to keep quality up; if after a year your garage band still has only one song, you could still propose it for deletion - nobody is harmed by a totally uninteresting article or site on the internet, if that were the case, we would have deleted facebook long ago. But if you delete their page right away, you might be accessory to its failing, without ever knowing it of course. Well, large communities and organizations always tend to bureaucratize after a certain threshold. And storage space sure is expensive. Being part of it, it may not concern any of you here. So just keep up your thing, but do it without my help. GruberMatthias (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to add, is there any newspaper article about this subject in a foreign language newspaper (like Chinese newspaper) or something? English Wikipedia does allow sources in other languages. Also, the notability guidelines have nothing to do with whether Wikipedia has enough "storage space". These guidelines exists because it is an encyclopedia; have you seen any encyclopedia listing all the shops at your nearby market, or the personal details of all your neighbors? Encyclopedias are also not meant for marketing purposes. Websites like Facebook, MySpace or Official Websites cater to such a purpose. Moreover, imagine an good encyclopedia with perhaps just one bad article (like one advertising about the author's grandma's cookie). Would you still trust/buy that book? Lastly, if you are so sure that there is some evidence of marketing people interfering with the guidelines, please drop me a personal message. I promise that these cases would be thoroughly looked into and the offenders (where relevant) be duly punished. On a lighter note, there are many articles you could edit about this subject without getting into such problems. For example, "Wing Chun" itself is not really well-written. Perhaps you could improve it and help the millions of readers understand more about Wing Chun, which I myself is quite interested in after watching the IP Man film series. In the meanwhile, please continue to promote your Eight Pattern Wing Chun so that we can one day proudly feature this article in Wikipedia. Good luck.--Lionratz (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
1) 1ST LINE - Can i replace the word "GUITARMONK" (asking for wiki link) as a citation? in case not, then i guess its worthy to remove it.
Citation Link: http://www.guitarmonk.com
2) BACKGROUND SECTION - Can i replace the word "DUBAI RETURNS" (asking for wiki link) as a citation? in case not, then i guess its worthy to remove it.
Citation Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497611/
4) VIDEO/AUDIO SECION - Is it possible to add some his videos/audios as i thought it mayn't be allowed considering the citation link may be from social networking/video hosting website?
There are two issues here: how to handle pointing to external websites and how to establish notability. As to websites, my preference for "guitarmonk" would be creating an External Links section at the bottom (like this: ==External Links==) and putting the url there (like this: [http://guitarmonk.com/ Guitarmonk]). I don't think an external link to "Dubai Returns" is warranted (unless you can find one that discusses Kapil, of course). I'll let someone else chime in as to the use of images.
As to notability, it looks like you still need to track down a few sources where people are writing about Kapil, as that's the best way we have to judge whether or not he warrants an encyclopedia article. Are there any newspaper reviews of his concerts? Any magazine articles about him?
Good luck, and don't be shy about asking more questions here.
Following are 2 links from one of the worlds best newspapers in India but unfortunately i endeavored hard to retrive its e-paper edition but could't till yet viz.:
My request is to select and reject as per the wiki guidelines what can be considered for wiki and what not & if possible then put the links on your own (May be as a separate section as Press Coverage or Citation in the article by putting some lines about him) in that same article of him.
Hi,
Could you tell me if it's okay for me to add a couple of templates to this article, please? I think it would be appropriate to add the templates 'one source' and 'more footnotes'. I also feel it might be better if it was (eventually) just merged with this instead; it was mooted on the talk page a few years ago but didn't seem to be discussed. Even within the article itself, it states it is 'a strain' rather than a 'breed'. It's also not listed on the List of dog breeds.
I hope the formatting I've attempted here works; could I suggest looking at having a 'preview' facility to use prior to posting a question?
Sagaciousphil (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Sagaciousphil, and welcome to the Teahouse! I just added some tags to the article. You might want to post on the talk page about a proposed merge.
I think that the question is formatted OK, except you don't have to added underscores in the article wikilinks (I corrected that for you).
Hi Jack1144; welcome to the Teahouse. Assuming that the image you intend to use meets the requirements of the Image use policy (that is to say, it's available under a free reuse licence, is in the public domain or has no possible free equivalent), you can upload it using the File Upload Wizard. Once the image is uploaded, you can enter it into an infobox by filling in the | image = field - just put the file name and extension after the = sign, without square brackets or the File: or Image: namespace signifiers. Thus, if you've uploaded File:Picture_of_a_horse.jpg, you would enter it in the infobox as | image = Picture_of_a_horse.jpg. Yunshui雲水13:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I have written an article for the first time in my sandbox and clicked for it to be reviewed for publishing - is there anything I need to do now, or do I just wait? Who will get back to me about the review of the article?
I have written an article for the first time in my sandbox and clicked for it to be reviewed for publishing - is there anything I need to do now, or do I just wait? Who will get back to me about the review of the article?
Prutter79 (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Prutter79, welcome to the Teahouse. Aside from moving the submission to Articles for creation - which I've done for you - you don't need to do anything; a reviewer will look over your page and decied whether or not to create it as an article. Whether they create it or decline it, they'll leave a note on your talkpage to let you know. You can carry on working on the page whilst it's submitted, the new location is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reckless Abandon. Yunshui雲水09:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Sir,I think you are not understanding my question.there are few person who added a wrong information on my wiki page.Sir I want to protect my page from that types of stupid person,so please give me full protetionVivek Varshney 08:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek Varshney (talk • contribs)
Hi Vivek. I noticed the edits made to your user page by anonymous IPs: 223.225.35.37 (talk·contribs) and 27.60.52.241 (talk·contribs). Both came from roughly the same location, around the same time, and they both apparently they self-reverted themselves-- pretty strange behavior for a vandal. In any case, this infraction is insufficient for page protection at this time. Furthermore, I believe the below editor understood your original question just fine; allow me to also emphasize that Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself. Vandalism or not, your userpage will be removed unless you make appropriate changes per the userpage guidelines. We still welcome you to contribute based on your background in IT and other technology-based articles. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Want to save my page from other persons that change information
Sir,I want to save not only my page but also others page information from some other person,who change the information of wiki pages.how can you save thisVivek Varshney 06:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivek Varshney (talk • contribs)
Hello, Vivek Varshney, and thanks for stopping by. It can be frustrating to be a new editor on Wikipedia who is still trying to get used to the climate, and sometimes the experienced editors forget this. I have a few points to make that I hope will explain the situation.
First and foremost, Wikipedia is here to build an encyclopedia. This means that we have to have guidelines to reference so it doesn't turn out to be a total mess. We have to have content standards and community-driven ways of removing content that does not meet those standards.
Second, we try to be nuetral, meaning we do not promote groups or individuals.
Third, all content, even user pages, must be related to our goal in some way.
I see that thus far you have only editted pages in your own user space, and that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vivek Varshney. Please do not take that discussion personally. It can all be summed up in the three points I made above. Your user page is currently being used to promote yourself, and it is being made to look like an article in the process. Another point is that you have not done anything else with this account, and this leads to the concern that maybe you are not here to build an encyclopedia. We love it when new people come to help build the encyclopdia, but keep in mind that everything you do can be undone and there is no way to change that. I see that you are knowledgeable in information technology. If you would like to help us in this area, we at the Teahouse can guide you in making constructive edits. That's what we're here for! hajatvrc @07:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
How to ask for feedback on a proposed article.
Hi, I'm a first-time editor, and I've drafted an article which is currently in my sandbox. How do I go about soliciting feedback from other editors before I submit the article for publication? Thanks for any help you can give me. PublicanHealth (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for visiting the Teahouse. One way to make the article more visible is by working on it at Articles for creation where others are more likely to see it than in your sandbox. Once satisfied, you can submit the article for review where the article will either be posted, or declined with specific ways to improve it. GoPhightins!19:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right about things being complicated...you should see my first contributions! (If you actually want to, you can here. You're off to an outstanding start and are sure to be a great Wikipedian! GoPhightins!20:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Publican, I did a little cleanup formatting on your article, and left a few suggestions. Hope this helps! You're definitely off to a great start! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar, Phightins. Can I use it to negotiate a raise at work? Free drink at TGIFridays? Anything?
You're doing great so far! The style of the article is great as far as I can see, other than not having a lead (or as some call it a lede to distinguish it from the element, lead). If you need help writing the lead/lede, I would be glad to help you with it, just post here or on my talk page. You also may have noticed that two of the WikiLinks you have in your article are currently red text. That means the articles for those topics have not been created yet. If you want some help creating those articles too, just ask! Otherwise, it's perfectly fine to just leave the links there, it gives other editors something to create! The other suggestion about the citations is another thing that needs some work. Have you tried using the citation helper in the edit box? That really helps! Otherwise, just ask here and I will try my best to find time to help, and if I can't then I know someone will. I think that once you add a lead, and fix the citations, it will be accepted and moved to article space without delay! Thanks for the new article! gwickwire | Leave a message21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the suggestions, gwick. I've changed as many of the citations as are available in print formats somewhere, so as to remove the possibiilty of linkrot. A couple of them are only available online. What should I do about those?PublicanHealth (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The citation assistance tool has several choices: book, news, web, and something else. Anyway, if you select web, it'll generate a template similar to the others for you to use to fill out those web citations. GoPhightins!21:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Overriding article quality assessments
A few weeks ago I came across the article Ping Fu. The page is rated as having "Good Article" status. The article is quite good—maybe a B-class—but I'm not sure that it merits the Good Article rating. I noted my concern on the article's talk page some time ago, pointing out that there are very few inline citations, and that several of the references that are listed are not independent of the subject. I didn't get a response. Is there a better forum to raise this issue? Keihatsu (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing this. An article must go through an GA review process to attain GA class and will be listed at Wikipedia:Good_articles/all. This article has not gone through any such process and the article is not listed. I have changed it to C-Class. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for taking care of it. Who is allowed to assess article as GA, and what's the process like to get there? Keihatsu (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Can I get feedback on a draft article from more experienced wikipedians?
I am currently drafting my first wikipedia article in my Sandbox, once this draft is complete is there a way I can go about getting feedback for improvements before sending my final article?
You can take it to Articles for creation where it'll be reviewed by an experienced Wikipedian prior to being published. Or, if you'd like, once your finished post a link to it on my talk page and I can take a quick look. GoPhightins!19:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering why you can't change some certain pages. Even if they aren't correct. There had been a few like that that I need to change. Such as some herbs. Please help me with this!
Mikayla GraceMikayla Grace (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mikayla. Sometimes, due to people persistently vandalising pages (by adding gibberish, or obscenities, or blatantly false information) it's necessary for administrators to protect certain articles. This basically locks them from editing for some users, usually users whose accounts are too new for them to be autoconfirmed. Such pages usually have a little padlock symbol at the top right. If you want to make changes to a protected page, the best way to do so is to post a request on the article's associated talkpage (use the "Talk" (or sometimes "Discussion") tab at the top left of the page). On that page, place the code {{edit request}} (including the curly brackets) and then write out the changes you'd like to make. An administrator or editor who can edit the page will then make the changes for you, assuming they agree with them. Yunshui雲水13:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
For a protected article I think it's easier to click the "View source" tab. This explains some things and gives you options. One of them is a link to submit an edit request. This all assumes we are really talking about a protected article. Your account is autoconfirmed so you can already edit semi-protected pages and I imagine there are very few or no fully protected articles about herbs, so maybe you are actually able to edit but don't know how. Can you give an example article and say what you want to edit? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
How to get the previous versions of an article on wikipedia?
Hi KRISTEEN65, welcome to the Teahouse. If you go to any page and click the "View history" tab in the top right (by the Search bar), you will see a list of all the past revisions of the page - clicking on "diff" by any one of these will show you the page as it appeared at the time of that edit. If the article you want has been deleted, the best approach is to ask the administrator who deleted it to restore the text for you. You can find out who deleted the page by searching for it by name and then attempting to recreate it; this will show you a large red box with the deleting administrator's details. They may or may not honour your request, it would depend very much on the original reason for deletion. If you let me know (either here or on my talkpage) which article you are interested in, I can take a look for you. Yunshui雲水11:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to add a bit, if you want to see the complete previous version of an article that's in its history, rather than the changes from the previous version, instead of clicking on "diff", click on the date of any prior version in the history.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I have 3 or 4 images on my home pc that I would like to add to the article I'm creating in my sandbox but i haven't got a clue how to insert them into the article. The photos do not breach copyright.
Hi Katzeaugen, welcome to the Teahouse. There are two ways to upload your pictures.
If you took them yourself, or they are available under a free licence or are in the public domain, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons, the free image repository. The Commons upload wizard, which will take you through the process step-by-step, is here.
If the images are not freely available, but can be used under fair use terms (that is to say, there could be no free equivalent), you can upload them to Wikipedia itself; the upload wizard for this is here.
Once the images have been uploaded, you can include them in your article by adding the following string of code:
[[File:name of your image file, including file extension|thumb|text of your caption]]
replacing the blue text with the appropriate information.
Hi Kenasom. I'm afraid that I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking here. Your recent edits to several airport articles are still present on the various pages. Some of your earlier edits, such as those to Prime Minister of Somalia, have been reverted by other editors because the changes you made introduced errors in the pages or added unsourced information. If you want to discuss this, you can use the "View history" tab at the top of every page to see who reverted your edits, and can contact them on their user talkpage (click the little blue "talk" link after their name) to ask them about it. I hope this is helpful. Yunshui雲水09:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
How Can Notices Be Removed
I am a novice at best; a new editor.
How can a notice or violation be removed if edits are made to a page to bring it in line with Wikipedia guidelines? For example, a page I visited had a "broom" icon for its use of external links and a ! for appearing like an advertisement.
Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! It's all right, we were all newbies at one point. If you feel you've addressed an issue for which a maintenance tag was added, you may boldly remove it. Thanks for your edits and feel free to come back with any future questions. GoPhightins!21:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello! For user talk pages, the guideline does not forbid the removal of messages from an editor's own talk page. There are, however, certain exceptions. For articles, maintenance and cleanup templates can be removed when problems have been addressed. But like talk pages messages, there are exceptions. The Articles for Deletion template, as an example, cannot be removed until the discussion has closed. Hope that helps.--xanchester(t)22:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Requesting a block/notifying an adminstrator of repeat vandalism
Hey folks, I've come across a repeat vandal who recently had a block expire, and has started vandalizing articles yet again, almost immediately. I'd like to notify an administrator as per WP:VANDAL, but I can't find what the actual procedure is. I just leave a note on an administrators talk page and explain it? Thanks. Radiodef (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Radiodef, welcome to the Teahouse! You can ask a specific administrator, but the usual place to report such things is called WP:AIV, or Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. You can leave a report there; admins regularly patrol that place and handle it. There are some instructions on that page on how to make a report; do note, though, that there are some rules on warnings and the like. Thanks for catching this! Writ Keeper⚇♔15:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Radiodef! Thanks for coming to Teahouse! May I offer a suggestion? There is a tool called Twinkle which is available to all confirmed editors. It automates the warning procedures when you revert vandalism and also has a tab that you can click that will automate the report to AIV. You enable it on the gadget tab on your preferences page. It takes the labor out of all anti-vandalism work. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Samantha, welcome to the Teahouse. A contents box will automatically appear on any page where there are three or more section headings unless you force a page to do otherwise. Section headings are the bits you create by using the = sign as in
== This is a level 2 heading ==, === This is a level 3 heading ===. If you want a contents box to appear no matter how many section headings you have you can do so by entering __FORCETOC__ (two _ underscore characters either side of the word) at the top of the page. NtheP (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Stub: How?
I want to create a stub for an article i am writing but i am not sure how to go about that and dont want to have my article deleted is it 2 of these type ( { ) of bracket either side of the text i wish to insert?
I am new and would appreciate any help that can be given
Hi NNNN, welcome to the Teahouse! If I understand you correctly, you're in the process of creating a short article in your 'sandbox'. To be honest, I wouldn't worry too much about adding the curly-brackets 'stub' template at this moment. It won't stop your article being deleted if it is improperly sourced or about a non-notable subject. Instead, I'd concentrate on making sure you have several decent sources to support your article, then submit it to Articles for Creation. That will mean a more experienced editor can review it for you before it is moved to Wikipedia's main article space. This is especially useful if it is your first article! Hope that helps. Sionk (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I am currently working on a page for the Metaverse Shakespeare Company but a page already exists for The SL Shakespeare Company which is their previous name. I have added information to that existing page, but I would like to ask what I need to include/add to the Metaverse Shakespeare Company page in order to redirect people to The SL Shakespeare Company page?
(edit conflict) Hi Jamiecarl1992, welcome to the Teahouse. Given that it's the same company, we really only need the one page - I would suggest the sensible thing to do would be to rename SL Shakespeare Company by moving it to Metaverse Shakespeare Company. To do this, go to the SL Shakespeare Company page. By the Search bar in the top right, you'll see a little arrow pointing down, which when clicked on, reveals a drop-down menu. One of the options there is "Move".
On the screen that appears, rename the page to "Metaverse Shakespeare Company" and give a reason ("moved to reflect current name of company" or something similar). Make sure the boxes marked "Move associated talk page" and "Leave a redirect behind" are ticked, and press the "Move page" button. The page will now appear as Metaverse Shakespeare Company, and visitors to the old page will be redirected to the new one. You can now add your information to the page at will.
I am a first time editor, drafting my article for a university assignment in my sandbox. I would like to get feedback on my article, how do I go about doing this? Also, is there any way that my fellow students/wikipedians can look at my draft article in my sandbox?
Thank You
Franbundey (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Franbundey, and welcome! Absolutely, everything at Wikipedia is publicly viewable and publicly editable. Just direct people to the specific link of your sandbox, inside Wikipedia, use a "wikilink" by encasing the page name in double brackets [[User:Franbundey/sandbox]] produces a link like User:Franbundey/sandbox. Outside of Wikipedia, just send them the URL of your sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Franbundey/sandbox . Either way, anyone can view and edit that page. It doesn't become indexed as an "article" until it is moved into the "article space" (given an unprefixed title), but in your "user space" it is still viewable and editable. You can read more about this at Wikipedia:Namespace. Does this help answer your question? --Jayron3211:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Franbundey! In response to the "feedback" part of your question, a few observations:
Your formatting is pretty good (though don't have a heading "==title==" before your introduction, and don't forget to bold the name of the subject the first time it appears. And you have a good technical grasp on how to code footnotes, so you're off to a good start already.
You have several "in-line external links", that is, links to places outside Wiki like Upstage's website. This is generally discouraged, so instead use a wikilink if, for example, UpStage has its own article (and it appears it does). If a term has no Wiki article, just leave it as a redlink for now. Generally links to outside Wikipedia should mainly be just in the footnotes and the specific "External links" section.
Last and biggest issue: WP:Sourcing. You have a good number of footnotes, but I'm not sure how many of them are technically WP:Reliable sources. I'd definitely read the RS policy; the key is whether the websites have editorial review and a reputation for accuracy, or if they're more hobbyist or blog sites. That said, in whatever case you can also make your sourcing stronger by adding a wider variety of sources, such as mainstream (not just drama-community) news articles and books. I looked up "Helen Varley Jamieson" on GoogleBooks and got 61 hits, so take a look through those and see what books support facts you state in the article, and/or have new and interesting facts you can add and source. Note you can automatically turn gBooks URLs into Wikipedia footnotes using http://reftag.appspot.com Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Policies On Articles For Educational Purposes
Hey there Wikipedians. At the moment I am working on an article as an Educational Assignment for my University. I've added the tag on the talk page to clarify this, but I thought I'd best double-check what that tag actually means? Are the policies for deletion or editing by other Wikipedians altered at all by this tag, or is it simply left there for the sake of being informative? Just want to know, so as not to step on any toes with my current ignorance of the systems and such here. Thanks in advance for any responses! --Dregan Phillips (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Dregan, hi and welcome the Teahouse. It's an informative tag nothing more. It doesn't give you any additional rights and it doesn't take any away. What it might do is, if there are issues with any edits you make, is make people more likely to discuss them with you (but don't hold your breath). If you were working as part of larger number of people doing an assignment then it's also a way on knowing where to direct comments to, for example, to the lead tutor, but as you're working on a solo assignment, it's not in the same league. NtheP (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the quick response Nthep! Well, hopefully things should run smoothly enough to avoid issues being taken up like that. Once again, thank you for the feedback! --Dregan Phillips (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
How to read templates or pages of deleted articles ?
I want to ask about how can I see templates or pages of articles which have been deleted due to copyright problems. I just want to read it ? The deleted article which I want to read is Zee Gold Awards.KRISTEEN65 (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi KRISTEEN65 and welcome to the Teahouse! There is no way to read an article that has been deleted. However, you can request for the page to be undeleted at at the Requests for undeletion. Also, GorillaWarfare, one of the Teahouse hosts and an administrator, has indicated that she will consider reasonable requests to provide copies of deleted articles. You might want to talk to her. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Number of sources and GA
I have a question about requirements of a good article. If we use a highly reliable source, is it necessary to add other sources just to increase number of sources? If somebody says that # of sources is not enough, without mentioning its reason is this an acceptable opposition to a GA niminee? Scholarphil (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse. What article are you talking about? I just want to know before I commit to anything in particular. GoPhightins!01:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Its highly unlikely that an article with a single source could adequately meet GA criteria #3 Broad in its coverage: and #4 Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom02:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Kind of what I thought, but I suppose there could be some extenuating circumstances such as if the source already covers all of them...but TRPoD is probably right that several sources would be needed for GA. GoPhightins!02:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you guys. I am talking about a hypothetical case. Consider it to have not only one, but 4-5 sources (which are scholarly encyclopedias) but core of the article is based on one of them and others support it and add to it.--Scholarphil (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Expanding on what has already been said, using a single source too extensively can lead to a higher chance of close paraphrasing, and close paraphrasing violates Wikipedia's guidelines and copyright policy. It's best to use multiple reliable secondary sources, even when you're not aiming for GA. It's all right to use a source extensively, but just remember to be careful! Cheers.--xanchester(t)02:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Not only is that rather common, but generally fine. We don't want sources to be the exact same: they'll end up being essentially the same source. If you look at any featured article, none of the sources include all of the information. Bits and pieces, woven together to form a narrative — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
It might help you to take a look at a couple of the GA nomination discussions
Thank you guys. Since the criteria are kind of general, discussions seem to be helpful showing the real implementation of the policy. I just want to know what we should do if volume of content from that one source is more than just "a bit"! A paragraoh e.g. That waving would be hard when you try not to do primary research, won't it? Scholarphil (talk) 03:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Unbelievable!!!
How am i supposed to update anyting on the Wiki if it keeps getting removed. I am the ORIGINGAL owner of the content. I have new information and I ave been told by WIKI that some of it NEEDS to be changed. I thought this was a site that ANYONE could change? What is going on? What am i supposed to do?
ECLSS101 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the site anyone can edit and that means that once you add something it is open to any other editor to change anything in the article. You don't have a right of ownership over any article, whether you started it or not. In the case of the article on Jane Poynter then I have removed repeated external links to her personal website, one is enough, and sections that relate to the work of Paragon in general not to Poynter specifically. I also toned down some of the writing. As you are an employee of Poynter you do need to be careful that what you write is neutral in tone and not read like publishers blurb, for example repeated use of ellipsis like this She has flown experiments in space… worked on projects to mitigate climate change… dived with sharks… raced motorcycles… and flown in zero gravity is not encyclopedic in tone. NtheP (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Just slow down a bit and try to read through some of the documentation you've been linked to. It is not meant for new editors to jump in immediately and start writing whole articles on their own. There is just too much to learn. Maybe try to make some smaller edits first and see how they go over. One of the things we dislike the most is when we try to notify someone about inappropriate edits and they just keep doing the same thing. hajatvrc @22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and your patience. Trust that I do understand how an encyclopedia works and I know that anyone can update wiki (which was why I couldn't understand why my updates would be removed and others wouldn't) and know that I was simply modeling off of other Wiki pages that are currently online. I hope that from here on when I make a small change that it isn't immediately removed simply because someone thinks I don't know what I'm doing. ECLSS101 (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
People are not always going to check to see how experienced you are. If they see that you are not writing in a neutral tone or copying information directly from other sources, they are going to remove it and tell you about it. It is not something to stress over, it is something to learn from. hajatvrc @22:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Creating a Wiki Bio page
I am creating a page for the president of my company. Every time I post a picture or link to a website or have verbiage from her personal site, I get comments back that I am in violation of all wiki laws. :-)
I have never used wiki, the lingo makes absolutely no sense to me. All i want to do is take information that is currently in the public domain and put it here.
Can anyone help me? Is there anyone I can actually speak to or is it only message based help?
I don't mean to come across short, but I am just exhausted and frustrated.
ECSL, sorry you are having problems. In a nutshell wikipedia needs to see proof that the picture of Jane Poynter is in the public domain, appearing on another website does not make the image public domain. You uploaded the photo to Commons (& Wikipedia) saying that it was taken by Brett Williams, what is needed is a statement from Brett Williams that he is releasing the image into the public domain. An email to that effect (the text for such an email can be found at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If you forward that to Brett and ask him to forward it to permissions-commonswikimedia.org then the licence on the image can be checked out and updated accordingly. In the meantime I will add the relevant template to the commons image file to prevent its imminent deletion but you need to get the permission email from Brett fairly rapidly. NtheP (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, ECLSS101. I also wanted to note that at least two editors have brought up conflict of interest concerns. While it is possible to write about someone with whom are affiliated in a neutral tone, it is generally not advised to try to write the entire article yourself. Some of the content you are adding is overly promotional, which goes against our goal of neutrality. I also see that you are taking information from primary sources, specifically blogs or websites that are directly comnnected with the subject. On Wikipedia we try to use secondary sources as much as possible, such as news articles or books by third parties. Lastly, you stated that you are trying to bring public domain information to Wikipedia. It is very rare for recently-published information to be in the public domain. If something is there, it needs to be stated clearly by the author so that can be verified. But no matter what, copying-and-pasting text (even if you change it a little after you do so) from other sources is not permitted unless you are clearly using a quote that is relevant. We understand that lingo can be confusing, and I hope that you will continue to ask questions here until we can help you understand everything. hajatvrc @19:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings ECSL, regarding other points of your post, verbiage from her personal site: again, just because something is "public" doesn't mean it's Public Domain. So if you copy directly from your boss's site the Wiki 'bots may indicate a possible copyright violation of your boss's site. That said, you don't really want to use your boss' site anyway except for very basic claims like where she was born, etc. For anything more, like schools graduated, awards, career accomplishments, you need sources independent of the subject. Anyone can say whatever they want on their own website, but a citation to the LA Times or The Economist is clearly a lot more credible. Since you know the subject, make sure to employ the Template:Connected contributor template once you publish, for the sake of transparency so there's no accusation that you're covertly trying to do PR for a company. Hope all this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lady%27s_finger%28Okra-Abelmoschus_esculentus%29.JPG){kind=link}
I think Theopolisme's advice is great! Take it and see what you can think of. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
wikimedia.org then the licence on the image can be checked out and updated accordingly. In the meantime I will add the relevant template to the commons image file to prevent its imminent deletion but you need to get the permission email from Brett fairly rapidly. NtheP (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)