 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page. |
| Archive 150 | ← | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | Archive 157 | Archive 158 | Archive 159 | Archive 160 |
Two questions
Can anyone with a reasonable level of experience (like a few thousand edits) start clerking at WP:CHU or do you need to apply for that?
Also, I believe I've removed close paraphrasing from here, but would someone else mind checking?
Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome to the teahouse Jakob! Answer to your first question, renames are carried out by bureaucrats so yes you need to apply for the position - The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin. As for part two...you have done a great job from what I can see fixing the paraphrasing. -- Moxy (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but maybe I should make myself clearer on the first question. I was talking about getting involved in Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance, not filing a WP:RFB. :-) --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am really not sure ..perhaps someone else will jump in here. That said its great to hear that your willing to help out with this specific task. Maybe you could post your willingness to help on User:MBisanz talk page - as they are familiar with that side of the project,,,see what they say? -- Moxy (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, but maybe I should make myself clearer on the first question. I was talking about getting involved in Wikipedia:Changing username/Assistance, not filing a WP:RFB. :-) --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there any way to add extra buttons linking to pages one regularly visits, in the top menu ?Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Teahouse, Vigyani. Maybe, but I am not sure. Many users place such links to frequently visited pages on their user page. It would be an easy matter to put those links in your sandbox, which is a bit more private. Either option requires just a single click to reach the list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello vigyani, rather than adding wikipedia-tabs to the top of your wikipedia-userpage, one alternative is to use your web-browser's tabs. Many browsers allow you to bookmark a specific set of tabs, and then open them all simultaneously (each in their own browser-tab) from the browser's bookmark menu. Would this sound like something you would be able to use? Or are you particularly wanting to have wikipedia-tabs, and if so, can you explain the reasons why in more detail. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- You can also add some code to your common.js page to make extra links appear in the sidebar. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks all for answering. I am aware of the option of putting the useful links in a single page such as Talk or sandbox and then use that to navigate or creating group tabs in browser. What I am really interested in is adding one click buttons as there is plenty of space at the top to add extra buttons. It was just academic questions. Right now I usually quickly type the shortcut in the search box. Or is there any shortcut to quickly navigate to the Wikipedia search box without using mouse/trackpad. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Got the shortcut. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's actually quite possible to add extra buttons to the top menu; Writ Keeper very kindly wrote a script for me that does exactly that (code is here, but it's specific to my selected pages and would need to be rewritten to direct anywhere else). If you have a word with him, I'm sure he'd be willing to do the same for you. Yunshui 雲水 14:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Got the shortcut. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks all for answering. I am aware of the option of putting the useful links in a single page such as Talk or sandbox and then use that to navigate or creating group tabs in browser. What I am really interested in is adding one click buttons as there is plenty of space at the top to add extra buttons. It was just academic questions. Right now I usually quickly type the shortcut in the search box. Or is there any shortcut to quickly navigate to the Wikipedia search box without using mouse/trackpad. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Proposed CP-6 Article has been Unjustly rejected?
I have submitted a new page describing the CP-6 computer operating system from the 1070s to the 2000s. This proposed page is 11,511 bytes long. Ritchie333 has rejected the page saying that it is covered under the UTS page, which is 2408 bytes in total. The CP-6 paragraph is only 707 bytes. Ritchie333 suggests that my submittal be included under UTS, and then, if it is substantial, it might bee spun off on its own. I think that my submittal is already suitable as an independent page. Is there some way that this can be done more directly than that suggested? 98.149.171.72 (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, 98.149.171.72, welcome to the Tea House. I'm a fairly new editor so this is just one person's opinion but I think 98.149.171.72 kind of has a point. Here is the article for submission on CP-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/CP-6 and here is the existing article on the Operating System Universal_Time-Sharing_System My original advice to 98.149.171.72 was going to be to fold the information in the CP-6 article into the existing article on UTSS. But as I look at the UTSS article it seems to me it will look weird to have all that info on CP-6 compared to the fairly sparce article on the bigger topic of UTSS. Also, based on my very quick look at the CP-6 article it looked quite good. I know nothing about early operating systems, these were before even my time, but I consider myself an expert on computer science both via work and education. Having said all that though I acknowledge this is from just a very quick look at the two articles so I quite possibly could be missing something that the original editor saw. RedDog (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, 98. Let me add to the above, with a cavet. I am nothing even faintly resembling an expert in computing. That being said, the article you submitted could be improved in a few ways. Firstly, instead of a general reference section, use inline citations, properly formatted. Reference each major fact to the specific source. I will leave instructions on how to do that on User talk:98.149.171.72. Secondly, all your sources share an author. It would help if you had some other authorities to reference. Third, your first two references appear to be papers presented at a couple of different conferences. These would be primary sources and are allowed only to reference indisputable facts (again, this is why inline citations would help.) The last reference seems to come from a journal, but not being very well versed in computers, I cannot say whether it is a journal we would consider a reliable source. It is a secondary source, which is what your sourcing needs to be. You see, articles do not get published in Wikipedia unless there is sufficient reliably sourced, independent, secondary references to show that the subject is notable. Notability is the criterion for inclusion here, and that simply means that reliable secondary sources are talking about the subject in detail. Lastly, please do not take things personally (I say this because "unjustly" is an emotionally charged word that implies you have been treated unfairly, which you haven't.) I personally disagree with the reviewers reason for declining the article, but as a reviewer i would have declined it too. It is on its way to showing the needed notability, but it isn't there yet. I hope this helps, and hang in there. With a little work, it should be just fine. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is excellent advise. To the OP if you need some help with that let me know. I know nothing about this OS but I find the topic interesting and may have some time to help with format stuff such as proper citations if needed. RedDog (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Gtwfan52 has given a good assessment of the situation. The reason I suggested improving the UTSS article is that rather than attempt a large article in one go, it might be easier to improve an existing article in small increments, tackling say a paragraph at a time. This allows more immediate feedback and possibly an easier introduction into the editing environment. If and when the balance of CP-6 versus other UTSS systems gets too lop-sided, the standalone article could be created at that point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- All the other points about needing better references, etc. about the article itself, those make sense to me. But the idea of incorporating the CP-6 article into the UTSS article absolutely does not make sense to me. Just look at the two articles the CP-6 article is far more detailed. Where as the UTSS article isn't that much more than a placeholder for a bunch of sections about the other OS's that it spawned. The TOC for the UTSS article has the following structure 1)CP-V, 2) CP-R 3) CP-6 4 Software 5) Refs 6) Ext Links. The proposed CP-6 article would replace section 3 but it would look very dispraportionate. That one section would be over half the whole article. Also, the CP-6 article has a lot of structure that would get embedded all into subsections, again it would look dispraportionate, all this substructure and detail on one OS that came later, with little info about the other OSs or the actual OS that is the topic of the UTSS article. Also, and here I don't know enough about these ancient operating systems to say for sure, but the idea that a successor operating system even has to be included as a sub-page of the OS that came before it makes no sense to me. At least not as a general rule. If we followed that the Windows OS would be a sub-page under DOS and Linux would be a sub-page under Unix, clearly that makes no sense. RedDog (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, you're misunderstanding. I meant take a small part of the CP-6 submission (with a source in hand), such as a paragraph containing the most pertinent points, and add it to UTSS. I don't mean take all of CP-6 and put it in UTSS en-masse, particularly when it has no inline cites. That would almost guarantee a "rv, unsourced OR" from another editor if you did. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- All the other points about needing better references, etc. about the article itself, those make sense to me. But the idea of incorporating the CP-6 article into the UTSS article absolutely does not make sense to me. Just look at the two articles the CP-6 article is far more detailed. Where as the UTSS article isn't that much more than a placeholder for a bunch of sections about the other OS's that it spawned. The TOC for the UTSS article has the following structure 1)CP-V, 2) CP-R 3) CP-6 4 Software 5) Refs 6) Ext Links. The proposed CP-6 article would replace section 3 but it would look very dispraportionate. That one section would be over half the whole article. Also, the CP-6 article has a lot of structure that would get embedded all into subsections, again it would look dispraportionate, all this substructure and detail on one OS that came later, with little info about the other OSs or the actual OS that is the topic of the UTSS article. Also, and here I don't know enough about these ancient operating systems to say for sure, but the idea that a successor operating system even has to be included as a sub-page of the OS that came before it makes no sense to me. At least not as a general rule. If we followed that the Windows OS would be a sub-page under DOS and Linux would be a sub-page under Unix, clearly that makes no sense. RedDog (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Gtwfan52 has given a good assessment of the situation. The reason I suggested improving the UTSS article is that rather than attempt a large article in one go, it might be easier to improve an existing article in small increments, tackling say a paragraph at a time. This allows more immediate feedback and possibly an easier introduction into the editing environment. If and when the balance of CP-6 versus other UTSS systems gets too lop-sided, the standalone article could be created at that point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. That is excellent advise. To the OP if you need some help with that let me know. I know nothing about this OS but I find the topic interesting and may have some time to help with format stuff such as proper citations if needed. RedDog (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, 98. Let me add to the above, with a cavet. I am nothing even faintly resembling an expert in computing. That being said, the article you submitted could be improved in a few ways. Firstly, instead of a general reference section, use inline citations, properly formatted. Reference each major fact to the specific source. I will leave instructions on how to do that on User talk:98.149.171.72. Secondly, all your sources share an author. It would help if you had some other authorities to reference. Third, your first two references appear to be papers presented at a couple of different conferences. These would be primary sources and are allowed only to reference indisputable facts (again, this is why inline citations would help.) The last reference seems to come from a journal, but not being very well versed in computers, I cannot say whether it is a journal we would consider a reliable source. It is a secondary source, which is what your sourcing needs to be. You see, articles do not get published in Wikipedia unless there is sufficient reliably sourced, independent, secondary references to show that the subject is notable. Notability is the criterion for inclusion here, and that simply means that reliable secondary sources are talking about the subject in detail. Lastly, please do not take things personally (I say this because "unjustly" is an emotionally charged word that implies you have been treated unfairly, which you haven't.) I personally disagree with the reviewers reason for declining the article, but as a reviewer i would have declined it too. It is on its way to showing the needed notability, but it isn't there yet. I hope this helps, and hang in there. With a little work, it should be just fine. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, again, 98.149.171.72. I think what I am seeing here is that due to your inexperience, Ritchie333 is urging you to take a safe approach and just improve the article already in the encyclopedia. And that is certainly fine advice; however, if you feel you are up to finding improved referencing, you are certainly welcomed and encouraged to be bold and go for the article. Or maybe an even better idea would be to go ahead and improve the existing article a bit now while continuing to work on the freestanding article. That's the great thing about Wikipedia--there is no editor-in-chief to answer to. So if you can, go ahead and add to the existing article while working on your inline citations and additional sources. Glad you are here, 98! You seem like the kind of editor we need more of. Have you ever considered joining a Wikiproject? Follow the link and perhaps you will find more things that interest you enough to edit them! Perhaps too, you might wish to register. It allows you to do some more things than an IP editor and is actually much more anonymous. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just want to add that as someone who hangs around the tea house once in a while I've seen many proposed articles and while there were still issues with the CP-6 article I thought it was quite good already and very close to being ready to go live. Whether you want to first move sections of the article into the UTSS article or if you just want to polish up the CP-6 article and resubmit it, either way I think it is really close to being ready to go live. To be honest I've seen some articles that are already live that are definitely in much worse shape and on topics that have less claim to be relevant, that OS was before my time but I do remember reading about it when I took a class on operating systems and remember it was one of the more important of the early operating systems. I am more than happy to help with those citations if you need it. Just leave a message on my talk page or reply here, I will keep monitoring this particular topic. I was almost tempted to just start working on the article but you clearly know far more about the topic and I'm not sure what the protocol is for articles like that, it seems as if it's still sort of in your private workspace even though I could edit it, I'm going to wait to hear from you, if you don't need my help that is totally fine of course. Good luck and thanks for contributing. RedDog (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have tried to follow the suggestion to move the CP-6 article into the UTS page. I got a few sections moved, but somehow I have managed to delete most of the originalCP-6 article. Is there some way to retrieve it from history files or other backups? I am sorry to be so fumble fingered. GEdwardBryan (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- To recover the article you should be able to just undo your changes. Go to the draft article page. Look at the tabs near the top of the page. One of them should say "View History". You should see a list of every change made to the article and you should be able to go and revert any changes and return to where you were. Also, fyi in these kinds of threads a convention (not obvious at all someone had to point this out to me before I got it) is that you put a colon ":" right at the beginning of your next comment. Every time you want another level of indentation you use one more colon, so this comment starts with ":::". That is what makes things look appropriately indented. I formatted your comment above that way to make it fit the thread. RedDog (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have tried to follow the suggestion to move the CP-6 article into the UTS page. I got a few sections moved, but somehow I have managed to delete most of the originalCP-6 article. Is there some way to retrieve it from history files or other backups? I am sorry to be so fumble fingered. GEdwardBryan (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I am looking for someone or a place who/which could help me translate english to International Phonetic Alphabets. So where can I? Sohambanerjee1998 07:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am working on the article Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!, the first five words translate into /ˈwʌns/ /əˈpɑːn/ /ˈaɪ/ /ˈtaɪm/ /ˈɪn/. Among the last two words, Mumbai is the name of a city and I have done it like this - /mʊmˈbaɪ/ and the other is a hindi one meaning again in english. I cannot do the last word {{IPA-hns|d̪|o|:|b|a|:|r|a|:|hi}}. Can someone help me here? Sohambanerjee1998 08:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- /ˈwʌns/ /əˈpɑːn/ /ˈaɪ/ /ˈtaɪm/ /ˈɪn/ /mʊmˈbaɪ/ Hindustani pronunciation: [d̪o:ba:ra:] - I have translated the entire bunch but how to add it to the article? Sohambanerjee1998 08:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually the first 6 words of the name - Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai are in english and in IPA - /ˈwʌns/ /əˈpɑːn/ /ˈaɪ/ /ˈtaɪm/ /ˈɪn/ /mʊmˈbaɪ/. The last one Dobaara! is a Hindi word and in IPA - Hindustani pronunciation: [d̪o:ba:ra:] and means again in english IPA - /əˈɡɛn/. I am confused as to how to add it? Sohambanerjee1998 08:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I added it to the article somehow but still I don't understand the concept. Help urgently requested and needed. Sohambanerjee1998 07:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Sohambanerjee1998, and welcome to The Teahouse. Try the language reference desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Vchimpanzee, I thought I was already a part of Teahouse but guess I was wrong, anyway it feels nice tobe welcomed again! Now to my question, thanks for I will try it. But I think I managed to solve it. Sohambanerjee1998 05:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad you found the answer. I never remember who is and who isn't "part" of The Teahouse. I figure welcoming you is welcoming you back if you've been here and welcoming you for the first time if you haven't. And I'm not really part of The Teahouse but I just look for unanswered questions since I've been finding them for years in archives, when it's too late.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Vchimpanzee Phew! so many welcomes! As for the unanswered question I along with you there too so if you ever feel lonely just look and somewhere front, back, above, upside-down you'll find me! Sohambanerjee1998 12:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad you found the answer. I never remember who is and who isn't "part" of The Teahouse. I figure welcoming you is welcoming you back if you've been here and welcoming you for the first time if you haven't. And I'm not really part of The Teahouse but I just look for unanswered questions since I've been finding them for years in archives, when it's too late.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Vchimpanzee, I thought I was already a part of Teahouse but guess I was wrong, anyway it feels nice tobe welcomed again! Now to my question, thanks for I will try it. But I think I managed to solve it. Sohambanerjee1998 05:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Sohambanerjee1998, and welcome to The Teahouse. Try the language reference desk.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also want to know how to use IPA for English, Can someone write the name of my school in IPA for English. Name of school is --- New R. S. J. Public School Senior Secondary. Pratham 06:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs)
How create an intersecting set of two categories?
Hi, how can I find out which articles exist about 19thC authors of novels in Spanish? Is there any tool that creates an intersecting set of articles between the two categories 19th-century novelists and Spanish novelists? Thanks, Jackentasche (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, such a tool does exist, as far as I can tell, namely CATScan. It can be accessed here, I think, but I might be wrong as I just discovered it a few seconds ago. Jinkinson talk to me 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Science lab.tech
My name is manasseh.i want 2 ask that i want 2 go & study science lab.tech in polytechnic ,plz help me what are the courses that they offer in poly.thank u as u help me cos i want 2 red ahead of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.248.56 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the teahouse. -- t numbermaniac c 06:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
How to create a Article
How to create a article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotabhaya (talk • contribs) 09:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think you'll find this guide useful: Wikipedia:Your first article. πr2 (t • c) 16:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Physicians of foreign origin
Hi, I am not new to the project, but never needed to use a Teahouse till another user referenced me here. My main questions are: 1. I need an admin who is fluent in either Chinese or Japanese (both will be prefered), and who specilieses in physicians as academics. 2. A person who knows any independent sources for such physicians as Fan Lu, Seiji Naito, Ronald Bukowski, Hideyuki Akaza, and also to make them verifiable (since I can't find any for most of physicians). I am thanking everyone in advance!--Mishae (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe it helps if you also ask this question at Portal:Asia/Projects? And a quick question: why does it have to be an admin? Yintan 16:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I won't say that I deny the expertise of other users, but the admins probably know more about various language links. Either way, thank you for a suggestion, will try that. Just tried it, but the talkpage is empty, makes me wonder if I should post it there or not?--Mishae (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Disputed-inline Template
The Disputed-inline template"inicates that at least one editor believes there is no question that the statement has a verifiability problem." Can anyone remove this template or just the editor who inserted it? How long should editors wait for outside input? Thanks. LesLein (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, LesLein, and thanks for asking. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody may edit, and it works by consensus. This means that any editor who thinks there is a problem may insert a maintenance template (if they are not going to fix the problem themselves) and any editor who thinks that a problem has been fixed may remove the template. Of course sometimes editors may disagree with each others' views, and then we have the "bold, revert discuss" cycle. --ColinFine (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Notability for radio stations
Hi, Does anyone know where I can find WP guideline information regarding the notability requirements for a radio station? I can find nothing at [[WP:NOTABIILTY (music) for radio. Would it fall under WP:CORP? Any help is appreciated. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Use of sfn footnote system when the citation has no author
Since it requires a last name, the only way I can make this work is to put the organization name in the "last =" field. Is there a better way to do this? HowardMorland (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Never mind. I figured it out. HowardMorland (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Userpage Design
Hi, In my user page, I want to create a heading PLANET HERALD with image File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17 with white background.jpg between the words. What is its code?? Herald talk with me 14:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have put a colon into the file link in your question, so that we see it as a link, not as an image. Did you mean that you want a heading coded like:
- == PLANET [[File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17 with white background.jpg|120px]] HERALD == ?
- - David Biddulph (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
(example) redirects here
Hello, I created the page Kay Robertson who is also called Miss Kay. When users type in "Miss Kay" I'd like it to bring them to Kay Robertson. I was wondering how to do that. I appreciate your help! --Lovecherry (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)lovecherry
Just search for Miss Kay, click on the phrase Miss Kay at the top of the page in red and type in #REDIRECT followed by Miss Kay in double brackets (i.e. wikilinked). See also WP:R. Jinkinson talk to me 20:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think you meant
#REDIRECT [[Kay Robertson]]? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Substitution
Can anyone create a substitution for this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Planet_Herald%27s_Guestbook_Barnstar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planet Herald (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Substitution using
{{subst}}can be done on any template. For instance,{{subst:Planet Herald's Guestbook Barnstar}}produces:
|
Planet Herald's Guestbook Barnstar | |
| Thank you for signing my guestbook |
. --LukeSurl t c 17:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
editing an article I created
I am having trouble with an article I have created William E Badgley. I created it and someone edited it to make a redirect page. And i went to add more information to the page and now it is giving me a ref error. All my refs are marked correctly and I made the reflist. I don't know what else to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogflyattack (talk • contribs) 19:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- The page you created is William E. Badgley, with a dot. I have made William E Badgley into a redirect for you. It seems User:Reddogsix has fixed the reflist error already. --LukeSurl t c 19:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Uploading images
(moving this up to the top as its being ignored down the bottom)
Hello.
Can someone please explain the quickest and most painless way to get legitimate images uploaded into an article? I've seen perfectly good images being removed because they infringed some policy or other. What are the shortest steps involved in legitimizing and uploading images? Thanks.
This is my first time here, I'd also like to say that I wish I'd known about this place when I first joined Wikipedia. It probably would have saved me a lot of stress in dealing with abusive editors who were too impatient to explain things to a "junior" editor. I'm still of the opinion that some kind of mentoring process should exist by default, not by choice, when a new user joins, because a lack of familiarity with policy will inevitably create conflicts that waste needless time and energy and would otherwise not exist had there been a proper training period of adjustment to both anticipate and avoid such conflicts.
Regards,
Jodon | Talk 17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jodon, the easiest way is to make sure the image is either in the public domain or that it is expressly released by the copyright holder. What makes it more complicated is that images need to be in the public domain in the US regardless of the country of origin, and copyright laws are myriad and confusing. Examples are that in the
UKCanada copyright lasts for 50 years after the authors death whereas it's 70 years in the US, so an image can be in the public domain (PD) inthe UKCanada 20 years before it becomes PD in the US. Another is Freedom of panorama where in the UK, images of 3D works like statues in public places are PD but the same is not true in the US. the there is the question of first publication, as a lot of the US copyright laws depend on when the image was published, not when it was created.
- If you have an image you want to upload and are unsure of what it's status is the best place to ask is at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and give as much detail as you have - the author (if known), where you found the image, when was it published (if ever), when was it created etc. Editors who watch that page will help you out in establishing if it's a photo that can be used. NtheP (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Correction of detail: it's 70 years after the author's death in the UK as well. List of countries' copyright length. --ColinFine (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Special:GettingStarted produces "502 Bad Gateway"
Clicking any of the 3 options in Special:GettingStarted currently produces "502 Bad Gateway". It worked a couple of days ago. I've tried flushing the cache, with no result. I'm using Firefox. Is there a problem with the Wikipedia server, or is this a problem at my end?
Thanks, PerlMonk Athanasius (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm running Firefox on a fairly old iMac desktop running OS 10.6.8 and all three of those options worked for me. It was a bit slow, I noticed Wikipedia seemed a bit slow last night as well but it definitely worked. RedDog (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- For the benefit of others with the same problem: I managed to fix it by deleting all the cookies in my browser. PerlMonk Athanasius (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
can i open a article about a 200 years temple
a temple in rural in about 200 years,very sacred in that parKalicharanshukla Kalicharanshukla 15:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- The answer is yes. Wikipedia supports articles of all kind as long as it helps to further the knowledge of other people. Before attempting to create the article however, please check to make sure it does not already exist. Today's Xtra (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just tagging onto Kalicharanshukla's question: Then why are so many removed. It seems as though some editors have such an extreme bias against someone or somethng that they work hard to remove information so systematically that the person or place is deemed no longer notable. Then we have pages obviously written as publicity for some people (and sans any citation) and they stay up for years. Why is some knowledge considered further-able and other knowledge is not? ThanksTaram (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Taram, Wikipedia has articles about notable topics, namely those that have significant coverage in several reliable, independent sources. Articles about topics that don't meet that standard ought to be deleted, and many are. With over 4.3 million articles, though, it is certain that we currently have many articles that should be deleted. And we lack many articles we ought to have. This encyclopedia is a work in progress, and we are constantly working to improve it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Taram, without specifics we cannot investigate any cases. But notability never depends on whether or not there is information about a subject in Wikipedia: by definition, it depends on whether there is material published in reliable sources (which Wikipedia is not) about the subject. If you find articles which are unreferenced or promotional, you are welcome to tag them, improve them, or (if you believe they cannot be made acceptable) nominate them for deletion. --ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, ColinFine. What I cannot figure out is, if citations from well respected sources have such as the Wall Street Journal have been placed in an article and another editor comes along and removes the citation. why can the article then be cited as not notable because there are no references to support it. I know Qworty did that alot and now another editor is doing that. I understand that nothing can probably be done about this person except sad edit wars, but it seems to me that flies in the face of "help(ing) to further the knowledge of other people." Thank you! Taram (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Taram, I agree that removing references is unconstructive, assuming that the links are valid, are to reliable sources, and are to sources that support the material in the article. If, as you say, an editor is doing that, this may well be WP:disruptive editing and that article may give you ideas of how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- ColinFine, Thank you againo, so much, for your help! I will look at the article which you suggested, WP:disruptive editing. I do appreciate your help! Taram (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Just tagging onto Kalicharanshukla's question: Then why are so many removed. It seems as though some editors have such an extreme bias against someone or somethng that they work hard to remove information so systematically that the person or place is deemed no longer notable. Then we have pages obviously written as publicity for some people (and sans any citation) and they stay up for years. Why is some knowledge considered further-able and other knowledge is not? ThanksTaram (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Article in Sandbox
I submitted an article I made and would like to start on another, but I submitted it while it was in my sandbox. How do I create another article in my sandbox, without deleting my previous one? Thanks-Here2HelpWiki3-to-talk 14:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- You can start a new sandbox by clicking a redlink at User:Here2HelpWiki/sandbox02 or User:Here2HelpWiki/whatever you want your new title to be or anything equivalent that you can type into the search box, but there are more flexible approaches described in a previous answer. At the moment you can't move your existing sandbox to a new title as you are not yet autoconfirmed, but someone else could do it for you. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! For further confrontation, press three. Here2HelpWiki3-to-talk 16:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion-Reason : Advertisement
I recently made an article about Warrior (an oil). It was selected for speedy deletion. I contested deletion by saying this. I also changed my article in multiple ways, making it seem much less like an advertisement. What else can I do? For further talk after answer press three. Here2HelpWiki3-to-talk 16:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- You have not shown that the topic of the article is notable in any way. The only references are to the company website. In its current state, the article is highly likely to be deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Removing Editing Request Feedback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Bole
I'd like to request that the editing feedback posted at the top of my accepted article be removed. I have shortened the article, and put in sub-headlines so the article is easier to navigate, as well as creating a link so the article is no longer an orphan.
Can I remove these notes myself or request that someone here remove them? Marilyn Nix (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking, Marilyn Nix! If you are sure that you have addressed the issues, you can remove the tag. If you aren't sure, you can look at the page history and see which editor placed the tag, and see if that person agrees that the tag can go. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Anne; I always appreciate the TeaHouse! Best Marilyn Nix (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Marilyn Nix. The current version of the article has many external links in the body of the article. That is inappropriate. These should either be removed or converted into footnoted references if these links are to reliable sources. External links should be limited to a small number of those of the highest quality, and should be in a separate section at the very end of the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Anne; I always appreciate the TeaHouse! Best Marilyn Nix (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking, Marilyn Nix! If you are sure that you have addressed the issues, you can remove the tag. If you aren't sure, you can look at the page history and see which editor placed the tag, and see if that person agrees that the tag can go. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Adoption…
Do you think it is a good idea for me to have someone adopt me? Also if so, are there any hosts nice enough to adopt me? I HAVE PUT MYSELF UP FOR ADOPTION Today's Xtra (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am still under adoption by my wonderful mentor Cullen328, but I know a few things, I might help you from time to time though. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- You'll maximise your chances of finding a good mentor if you go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and post there. --LukeSurl t c 22:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind remarks, Miss Bono. I am always willing and happy to give you my advice, for what it's worth. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- You'll maximise your chances of finding a good mentor if you go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and post there. --LukeSurl t c 22:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
How do you Change an articles name?
I recently was doing some editing for An article that needs citations for a certain store. I found an article on the store, but one of the letters needs to be capitalized. How do I do so? Here2HelpWiki3-to-talk 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey again, Here2HelpWiki. If you're doing a fairly noncontroversial move, you can move the article to a new title. If you think folks might object to a move for some reason, it can be helpful to start a discussion on the talk page, but this one seems pretty noncontroversial. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Before making such a change to an article title, make sure that you have read Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format. Just like The New York Times, Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Also, I will read the MoS right now. Here2HelpWiki3-to-talk 19:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Changing display on lists
Is there a way to change the displayed names on a listing page? For example, if you check out the page for "Churches in Charleston, South Carolina" you will see that there are about 20 subpages listed. So far, so good. The thing I was hoping to fix on that the inconsistent formatting of the individual entries. A few of the churches have common names, and a different church by the same name had already been created. As a result, a few of the entries follow the format of something like this: St. John's Presbyterian (Charleston, South Carolina). Some of the entries where there have been no other entries on Wikipedia for like-named churches are just the name itself: Second Presbyterian. It is not a big deal, but just for nice formatting purposes, I'd like to have the displays of the names be consistent (without the (Charleston, South Carolina) tag). I know that there is a reason for that tag being part of the official name of the page, but once you are looking at a page about "Churches in Charleston, South Carolina" it hardly seems necessary and just results in a cluttered look. The problem is that the entire list is generated automatically based on the inclusion of a "category" tag on the individual entries. The resulting aggregation page does nothing but automatically collecting the official names. Is there a way to override what gets shown? Sort of like the same way that, within the text of an article, a person can insert something like "Second Presbyterian" to force a different display. Anything like that?ProfReader (talk)
- ProfReader, we're talking about Category:Churches in Charleston, South Carolina? As it says at Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Ease of use takes priority over appearance, hence the page names being shown without any option to amend the display. If you wanted to create a list article List of churches in Charleston, South Carolina then you can pipe the links to show them how you want them to show. NtheP (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Can't edit the header of an entry
There is an entry for Georgetown Visitation Convent. That is actually a historically incorrect name. Since its founding in the eighteenth century it has been Georgetown Visitation Monastery: http://gvmonastery.org/
The entry seems to be locked so that I can edit the text, but not the header of the entry itself. I put this on the talk page for the entry a while back, but heard nothing about it. Any thoughts about what I could/should do next? I am friends with the sisters at the monastery, and I attend mass there. I also volunteer in the archives. Someone may be calling it a convent because nuns are there, but it has been a monastery since 1799. It is frustrating to see it mis-named on Wikipedia without being able to edit. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortunaa (talk • contribs) 02:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you're referring to Visitation Convent, Georgetown, this article is not subject to any form of page protection, so anyone, including you, can edit it. If you want to change the page's title, click the arrow to the right of the star in the upper right hand corner and then click the word "Move". Then you can type in "Georgetown Visitation Monastery". Jinkinson talk to me 03:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Before making the change, please consider that the title, even if historically incorrect, might be right for Wikipedia anyway. Titles on WP should reflect what the subject generally is called in reliable sources, see WP:COMMONNAME. If you judge Georgetown Visitation Monastery to be proper title, go ahead. If someone disagrees, they might change it again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both so much. What wonderful and intellectually generous answers. I made the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortunaa (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Someone's article contains scientific misstatements with unsupportive references. Can I just substitute correct statements or am I required first to refute his erroneous statements?
Two interrelated articles make statements about a nutrient which are scientifically and medical correct. Can I just erase his errors and substitute well-referenced correct statements, or must I first refute his statements?Dickwurtman (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, Dickwurtman! I am presuming that you meant "incorrect". Before making changes to the article, you should be sure that you have a reliable published source to back up each change that you want to make. Then make the change and cite the source right next to it. Now, if someone objects and changes it back, then you must start discussing on the talk page, because just changing back and forth is pointless. Good luck! —Anne Delong (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome Dickwurtman! Everything Anne said is correct, but I will add something that comes up occasionally. Sometimes, there will be information included that had a source, and someone might find contradictory information, also with a source. In those rare cases, we generally present both views. This mean, you should check to see if the material you believe to be incorrect has a reliable source. If not, go ahead and replace, adding the reliable source. If the existing information does have a source, I urge you to report it here, and we can help you with next steps.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Forgot to press the 'Edit' button & pressed Save. New user.
Thank you for the scratchpad earlier. I came up here a while ago and went into Editorial without any hope of an idea of what to write. I'm not a writer. I try to write and when you see the mess I've done on one of your pages you wouldn't think I try to well. Can you take it out. It's rushed and I was in the wrong attention span. I can do better. Not trying to save credibility I don't have but if anyone reads it, well, if you can.
One more thing please. Writing on Wikipedia has simply got to be as true as it can be so What if its published and someone comes along and edits it? But that is what up here is about. Thanks. My grammar is not so good but we'll see. Thanks for your time.81.159.106.238 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry! There's very little harm done. Someone will probably come along and undo your edit shortly. To undo it yourself, just go back to the page you edited, click the history tab, find your edit, and then click undo. It'll be listed as an option to the right of your IP address, in the edit history.
- Also, please don't start your paragraphs with spaces. In Wikisyntax a space at the beginning of a line is a special formatting code, so the first line will end up looking
like this.
who had started speaking and interaction ?
i want to know how we are able to speak so many things today.....for what did we speak ? how did we speak ?101.63.127.50 (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. This is not really the right place for this kind of question, as this page is for questions about how to edit Wikipedia. But if I understand correctly what you are asking, you may find useful information in the article Origin of language. If that does not answer your questions, you might be able to get some help at the language section of our Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Wondering If This Fellow Now Seems Notable Enough
I honestly do "get it" when it comes to "notability" and my first version of this fellow's biography contained mostly references to his own writings. I'm wondering if I now have sufficient diverse secondary sources. I am not related to this guy, but am fascinated by the family from which he comes so am now perhaps addled in the head. I do believe him notable-- his writings are 100 years old and more, and still stand as the best sources of the subject matter. I believe his life to be of greater note than, say, some bimbo from a wealthy family who behaves in an obnoxious-enough manner to get her picture in People Magazine. I hope to stumble-upon a better photo of this man in the future.
Thanks much! Kathrynklos (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that I can answer your question; but if it was me I would add him. I have created five "redlinks"; VCB is being used as a reliable source; and I personally like to know who these authors are. I suggest you should add him asap, otherwise my edits might get reversed. I'm happy to vote Keep at any AFD. Tommy Pinball (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Notability means "having been noticed", and that means at the national level or by the field in which a person is involved. It has nothing to do with how good a person he was or how good his work was. He has written good books on genealogy, but how widely are they used? Has he or his work been written about in the genealogic field? It is may not seem fair, but people who are written about in the national newspapers for any reason have been "noticed". See Wikipedia:Notability (people). StarryGrandma (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I found a nice review of his book in The Nation in 1899 that should take care of the notability problem. I put the reference in a comment on the page. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and encouragement. I don't know how to put an article on line (or whatever it's called) myself, as the other one I did sat for a while in line with hundreds of others and then was accepted. I don't know how to do that myself. Kathrynklos (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Again I can only tell you what I would do: Cut Out This and paste it here Here. You may need also to delete some of the stuff {{in squiggles}} which is no longer relevant. (Hopefully) the collaborative element of Wikipedia will kick in and start sorting out any glitches. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- PS use "Show Preview" before you Save to see what it will look like. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Kathrynklos. I am sorry to say you have been given some improper advice by Tommy Pinball. Under no circumstances should you ever do a cut and paste to move an article. If you are an autoconfirmed user (which I am sure you are--it only takes 4 days and 10 edits), you can move it yourself using the page move button. It is in the same place you access the article's history. I will have to hunt up an administrator to delete the copy you posted to mainspace (thank you for not cutting it!) and I will move it for you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've fixed the cut-and-paste move, but although I've merged the history of the two pages, the current version of the article is now the same as the one left at AFC - so some of the subsequent edits have been undone; you might want to take a look at it again. Tommy, if that's what you would do, then please don't - cut-and-paste moves cause all sorts of issues with attribution, and are only appropriate in very specific circumstances. Yunshui 雲水 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Kathrynklos. I am sorry to say you have been given some improper advice by Tommy Pinball. Under no circumstances should you ever do a cut and paste to move an article. If you are an autoconfirmed user (which I am sure you are--it only takes 4 days and 10 edits), you can move it yourself using the page move button. It is in the same place you access the article's history. I will have to hunt up an administrator to delete the copy you posted to mainspace (thank you for not cutting it!) and I will move it for you. John from Idegon (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- PS use "Show Preview" before you Save to see what it will look like. Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Copyright Violation
I know wikipedia text is available under Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply but recently text that I wrote was copied in numerous sites including few reliable sources but I was nowhere credited. What should I do now? Sohambanerjee1998 11:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Sohambanerjee1988. You'll need to complain directly to the sites hosting the copied text - there are a number of standard letters you can use for this purpose. If they refuse to comply, you have the option of filing a DMCA takedown notice, but that's probably only worthwhile if you have a significant investment in maintaining the copyright yourself. The standard letter is probably your best first step. Yunshui 雲水 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yunshui I don't think I can pursue the case, plus those two sites are reliable sources and used in Indian articles a lot. One is 175 year old newspaper daily! Sohambanerjee1998 11:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is the site but I cannot find the email address to which I can send the email. Sohambanerjee1998 11:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Best starting place is probably one of the first four on this list. You could also send a paper letter to their Corporate Office at Times House, 7 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 103. Yunshui 雲水 11:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sohambanerjee1998 13:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- This happened to me once as well. (Sorry this is just a comment no helpful info) It's a weird feeling. I was looking for more info on a not very well known blues guitarist so I could expand the Wikipedia article about him and I thought I found a site with some good info. As I was reading I was thinking "wow, I really like the way this guy writes, we think a lot... hey WTF!" I was reading words I had typed about a month ago into a Wikipedia article about the guitarist, now showing up (with no attribution) on some other music web site. I didn't know there was anything one could do about it although in this case the site was so minor it isn't worth the effort. Besides, ego wise it kind of feels good :) RedDog (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah it do feels good. Plus there is this film article Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara! whose plot section I wrote and then I saw it in almost every site! Sohambanerjee1998 16:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Best starting place is probably one of the first four on this list. You could also send a paper letter to their Corporate Office at Times House, 7 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 103. Yunshui 雲水 11:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is the site but I cannot find the email address to which I can send the email. Sohambanerjee1998 11:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yunshui I don't think I can pursue the case, plus those two sites are reliable sources and used in Indian articles a lot. One is 175 year old newspaper daily! Sohambanerjee1998 11:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
(Redacted)
(Redacted) Lloyd Burgundy (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes you are free to edit articles. As Wikipedia is able to be edited anyone. Clarkcj12 (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- You are free to edit, and the way you have asked your question and expressed yourself so far leads me to believe you will do a good job. You might want to take a look at the page Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors before you begin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.
- Lots of kids edit Wikipedia, including kids much younger than you are. (Some people think they shouldn't. Some people think kids shouldn't watch TV or drive cars or own guns. Some or all of these people may be right. Some younger kids get blocked from editing Wikipedia. Some ten-year-old editors go on to produce huge amounts of high quality content on Wikipedia by the time they are thirteen or fourteen. Some don't.)
- I suggest you read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, then if you would enjoy editing Wikipedia,
you may wish to consider completely abandoning your existing account (never use it again), and create a new account where slightly less information will be found about you. For example, being on the slightly paranoid side, mentioning the U.S. county where you are based, is best avoided.
- Also, don't start lines with spaces to format them... it makes a mess.
- Have fun! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Although I agree that it's better not to mention your place of residence, I think abandoning your account altogether is a bit much. Demiurge, the bit about owning guns strikes me as pretty irrelevant and not useful here. Lloyd Burgundy, happy editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Brad, and welcome to the Teahouse! The part about TV, guns, and cars is between parentheses for a reason. I live in the UK, where gun ownership is a non-issue, and the age at which kids can drive cars (17 for now? or is it 18 already?) rather more of an issue. The point of the comparison is that lots of people have lots of different opinions about different things. And thus, if the original poster should happen to run into someone who firmly believes kids should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia, the original poster would not need to be overly dismayed, just regard it as an opinion like those about cars and TVs and guns.
- Everyone is welcome to take their own approach to their own privacy, and I know you disclose your own identity publicly, but younger people should understand the risks in doing so. Or even in giving out information about themselves. I've had to discuss a particularly unpleasant case related to this recently with Jimbo, and the more I learn about it, the more it seems it's a serious issue. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I removed part of my comment that now isn't really necessary. Go right ahead... except you might still wish to create a completely new and unlinked account if your last name is mentioned in your username. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for this response, it was very helpful. I am currently 13, and though I think of myself as intelligent and well spoken, I was wondering what the age bias would be like.
Also: everyone here is overreacting to the the drinking, driving, and gun restriction comment. It's a relevant analogy, especially to the current American politics. Children, especially teens, are often given terrible reputations for the things their immature peers are doing, not specifically them. this bias is something i fight every day, and I'm glad wikipedia has a limited level of such discrimination. I would expect nothing less from a website of such popularity and dignity. Lena O'Brien (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thats odd, there is a comment that looks like it should be from me, but I didn't write it. I remember to always sign my messages. ????Lloyd Burgundy (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for helping with this. Hope I haven't made things more difficult. Kathrynklos (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- User:Lloyd Burgundy is a sockpuppet of User:Here2HelpWiki Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Red Links
If I was to create an article that was an answer to red link, would it make all red links with that name show up as blue…? Just wondering.Today's Xtra (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- But it can take a long time before the color automatically changes. A purge of a page would change the color on that page immediately. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus can change ... (There actually are some reliable sources that the sky is blue.)
I was involved a discussion of a merger proposal here. I disagree with the consensus reached, and I'd like to propose changing it. However, I want to do this in the least disruptive way possible.
I can see two things I did wrong in the original discussion: 1) since the editor proposing the merger was unwilling to contact people who previously worked on the article, I should have contacted them 2) I should have formally registered my position in the discussion as "oppose" rather than just "comment".
As far as I can tell, the best way to do this is to start a new discussion on the talk page, and post a notice on the relevant project's notice board, which should have happened last time. I'm an inexperienced editor, and I'd like some feedback on how to best go about this.
(Note: I have no personal involvement with this topic, and I'm not mad at anybody.)
Thanks, Namnagar (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Correction: The person who proposed the merger did request clarification about the issue on project's talk page, and received no response. If the project is inactive and there is no one knowledgeable about the topic to discuss this with, there may be nothing to do about this. Namnagar (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I left a comment protesting the decision on the article's talk page, and another at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I'll leave it at that, unless there seems to be a way I can contribute constructively to the discussion.
- I'd still appreciate any advice, guidance or feedback you could give me, if anyone's willing to do that. Namnagar (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would recommend accepting the consensus for the time being. You may want to try to find additional reliable sources that back your opinion, and use those to win people over. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- When ignorance and bigotry rule, I don't think 60 rather than 6 citations will ever counteract that. I'll just get sanctioned if I continue arguing that (East-European) Roma people actually exist. But thank you, Cullen, for acknowledging my question and responding to it. Namnagar (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would recommend accepting the consensus for the time being. You may want to try to find additional reliable sources that back your opinion, and use those to win people over. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)