Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 28

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 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

feedback on draft of potential article

I'm working on a potential article for wikipedia about EBIPM. I have a draft completed in my sandbox and I'd really appreciate any feedback that can be offered. Thanks. Ryansteiny (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, and BRAVO for testing your article-writing skills in a userspace draft before creating a page in the main namespace!

The first things I looked at were your references, and I appreciate that practically all of them come from scientific journals, which is something we prize here at Wikipedia. I did notice, however, that you have both a "References" section and "Notes" section, the two of which can (and should) be merged if formatted properly. Your Notes section shows what ideas in the potential article came from which sources by providing a way to jump (the "^ a b ..." links) to those ideas. Usually, there is a single section called "References" that both documents the sources and shows where they are incorporated into the article. Just look at some featured articles and see how its done. I think if you see it in the context of older,more thoroughly scrutinized articles it will mean more than if I provide you with a link to the official documentation (but for the record, it's at Help:Footnotes).

Another thing I can critique is that the article lacks a lead section. Again, read the lead sections of some featured articles to get an idea of what goes on there, and maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. You'll notice that this link is a sub-page of the Manual of Style, a kind of Bible for Wikipedia editors. If you ever have questions relating to content creation, the answers can be found there.

You also use "*" symbols to denote new subsections where you should probably use "=..." symbols. "==Section header text==" (two on each side) is used to denote new sections, while "===Subsection header text===" (three on each side) is used to denote a section's new subsection.

Other than formatting issues and a missing lead section, the article looks excellent compared to most new articles. True, when you actually create the article other interested users will help you make incremental changes to the content, but if you fix some very fixable inconsistencies with the Manual of Style (see the above three suggestions), the article will be ready to create. Thank you for your contributions! Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 19:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback and suggestions Hajatvrc, I appreciate your expert opinions and help. Thank you. Ryansteiny (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few edits and added a lead to my draft of an EBIPM article currently in my sandbox. Any further feedback/comments are welcome before I create the actual article. Thank you. Ryansteiny (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I love it! Go ahead and create it. The next step will be to address the issue of article orphanage. This means that most new articles have few or no other articles that link to them through inline wikilinks, and therefore people are highly unlikely to actually find the article unless they search directly for it. There is a great project called WikiProject Orphanage which offers a lot of support in this endeavor. Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 19:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll get to the issue of orphanage in the coming days. Thanks again. Ryansteiny (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that I moved the article to its proper name, since EBIPM is just an acronym for the actual professional term. It looks like you're off to a good start! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What if

What if I believe that a user inadvertently changed (when using the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser ) a link that is in an article and I don't quite think the new link accurately explains the intent of the original link? I don't want to just revert it as I am rather new here and maybe my opinion about the change is bias or maybe I don't fully understand the definition/article at the new link. The article and edit in question is located here at Methadone maintenance and the original link was synthetic and is now chemical synthesis - located in the first paragraph of the article, although all the changes are in the history as you well know. This is a two part help question I guess because not only would I like someone to look at it and see if they agree with the change and how would you go about discussing the change? I didn't know if the articles talk page was the right place after reading some of the guidelines today. Thank you. Ț♥ttØØd Ẅ♥itre§ 03:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, TattooedWaitress! For this specific instance, I'd say that linking to chemical synthesis is probably better, since "synthetic" is a disambiguation page, and links to disambiguation pages are generally discouraged. The idea is that, a disambiguation page isn't really an article. So, for "synthetic", it's just a word, without anything for us to say about it beyond its dictionary definition. Common words don't require linking, and if all we have is the definition, there's no reason for us to be linking to it.

As for your more general question, the more discussion, the better! The article talk page is pretty much always an option to talk about issues relating to the article, and I don't see why this would be any exception. You can also ask the user directly on their talk page (indeed, you would probably want to leave a note there pointing to the article talk in any case, as the article probably isn't being watched). But yea, the talk pages are there for a reason; I don't think there should ever be a time that one should be hesitant to use them! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow thanks I didn't realize that the page I linked to was a disambiguation page and now it makes sense to me. Although I would rather remove the link all together since the other doesn't really make sense to me but maybe it does to other people. So I will just leave it. Thanks again. Ț♥ttØØd Ẅ♥itre§ 04:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahh just went to look at it again and the link has been removed. I like that better. Ț♥ttØØd Ẅ♥itre§ 04:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(Holy edit conflicts batman; wow, many) I came to post about this and see Writ Keeper has already done a fine job. Anyway, I boldly did this, with my edit summary explaining my reasoning. If I was going to make this a link, then I would make it a red link to [[synthetic drug|synthetic]] , but I don't know that that's warranted. I certainly agree with you that it doesn't fit well as a DAB choice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

my article was reviewed and rejected ???

I get it's all about the references - we have plenty - can you please explain to me which are good and which are not acceptible.

I learned this am i can't point to wikipedia articles and have removed them - and i will add references that are not online links. i want to make sure i know how to include print article references that are not online Brian Alan Lane is the article Brevity is the soul of wit. (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rwaytz. I'm sorry you are running into such problems. Let my try to explain it as simply as I can. In order for an article to be written about something at Wikipedia, what has to have happened first is that there needs to be a lot of other things written about that subjet first. That is, if Brian Alan Lane is to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, he should first be the subject of someone else's writing. That is, the facts of his life need to be documented by reliable sources like books, magazines, journals, newspapers, etc, and those sources need to cover the facts of his life in some serious and scholarly depth, not just prove that he exists. Just to take another somewhat random example: George Washington is the subject of an article not just because he was the President of the U.S., but rather because there are lots of good reliable biographies about George Washington, and we can use the information from those biographies to write an article about George Washington at Wikipedia. That's the core of the problem: You need to show that Brian Alan Lane has been written about by other people (i.e. not himself) and show that the writing about him is extensive (i.e. it covers enough of his life to be useful) as well as both independent and reliable (i.e. so we can trust it). If such writing about Brian Alan Lane doesn't exist, then the Wikipedia article also won't exist. It is as simple as that. If the writing about him does exist, then you need to show it. --Jayron32 19:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing existing articles

Is there a way to load an existing article in my sandbox? I have some edits but they are more extensive than a word or two? It also may take some time to get it right. PhilD1000 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Phil. Welcome. Open the edit window and copy/paste the whole lot into your sandbox except for the categories at the bottom. Leaving out the categories prevents your sandbox appearing in those categories. You can make a new user page just for that article by typing User:PhilD1000/name of page into the search box. This will produce a red link which you can click to create the page.--Charles (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phil, one necessary addition to Charles' advice. When you make this edit you MUST provide copyright attribution by making a note in the edit summary stating where you took the material from with a link, e.g., "copying content from [[Name of Article]] to work on edits to the material". Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Also, any images that are in the article you are copying that are used under a claim of fair use must be removed or made into links. Best regard.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you get paid to edit for Wikipedia?

Is there a way to get paid for editing work you do on Wikipedia articles? Or is there some other way to remotely work for Wikipedia for some sort of compensation? 71.149.247.25 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, 17.149, welcome to Wikipedia! This is a misconception that many people have. The Wikimedia Foundation (which is the nonprofit organization that develops the software, runs the servers, etc.) is not at all responsible for content; the content of Wikipedia is written entirely by volunteers. This is actually a very important distinction, for copyright reasons. I am not a lawyer or anything, so this is just my understanding which may be flawed, so take this with a grain of salt: Wikipedia has something that's called "safe harbor" status. Basically, since the WMF has no editorial control over the content, if copyright-infringing content is submitted to the site, the WMF isn't responsible for it, as long as they make good-faith efforts to remove it (which they do).

Now, while you can't be paid by the Foundation for writing articles, there are reports of other people who are willing to pay for editors to write articles about them. It seems to me that the community is deeply divided over this, with some people vehemently against it, some tolerant of it as long as the contributions themselves aren't problematic and various other views. My own opinion aside, I would strongly recommend not trying to do this, given the obvious neutrality problems it raises. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Details of paid positions, including both full-time jobs and fellowships, are at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You can also view some proposals on paid editing on Wikipedia. -- Luke (Talk) 18:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Disappearing text

Several times, I added information from a PBS interview about Larry Silverstein's comment, "we decided to pull the building" in reference to WTC Building 7, and several times, my addition on the Larry Silverstein Wikipedia article was deleted.

Why?

There is a youtube interview documenting the fact I posted. 71.149.247.25 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this the edit (nearly a year ago) you are referring to? If so, then please note that Youtube videos like this are generally not considered reliable sources, and you need some extremely reliable sources for material like this. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 18:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remove a paragraph and replace with truth

on your "general physician" discussion on wikipedia, a paragraph starts with "The American Academy of General Physicians is ......" The contents of this paragrph are untrue. The paragraph should read as follows. There is an organization called the American Academy of General Physicians. The path to "board certification in general practice" through this group , The American College of General Medicine, and The American Board of General Practice is phony. It is all a scam. Go to aagpscam.com, acgmscam.com, or abgpscam.com for a meticulous review of the facts. These sites are continuosly updated by their author. my question - will you help me to insert this info? 69.183.253.6 (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia edits must be based on reliable, secondary sources. The web sites you've listed are primary sources and so will not be appropriate for inclusion. If you have newspaper or magazine coverage of this controversy, that would be a more appropriate source to use. Garamond Lethe 21:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What to do with page that is more marketing blurb than fact?

I have been actively editing a page on a property development that I am very familiar since last year but every time I correct the factual content of the page the owner of the development replaces the facts with marketing blurb and accusations. There are various "references" listed but they all lead back to the developers own press releases and nothing is independently verified. For the want of a better word the page is "unencyclopedic."

What can be done?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to look at my query.Philfaebuckie (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Philfaebuckie! You mean Oxford Park, I take it? It looks like you were well within your rights to remove the commentary by the other author but, equally, you should avoid adding commentary about the sources yourself. The best place for that is the Talk page of the article. The other editor should know better - they say they have been editing Wikipedia for 10 years. If they persist, I expect the best thing to do would be to leave a polite request to desist on their Talk page. Generally if anything is contentious it needs to be very well sourced to reliable, journalistic coverage. Sionk (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Philfaebuckie (and Sionk). Just a note to say I've moved the article to Oxford Park, Estonia. Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

contribution numbers

Good day, everybody. I'm new, but I am receiving excellent coaching. Question to the forum, please: What do the red/green +/- numbers mean in regards to edited versions of a contribution? Thank you. Joannabookworm (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joanna! They refer to the difference in page size caused by the edit (see Wikipedia:Added or removed characters). A green number with a plus sign (+1,864) indicates that the edit added this number of bytes (roughly corresponding to characters) to the page, while a red number with a minus sign (-29) indicates removal. benzband (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Benzband. That makes sense! Well, everything makes sense, I suppose, when you know what it means :) Cheers! Joannabookworm (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Having trouble adding grave site photo to famous person

I'm new at this site, been member since April 2012 and still don't have permission to add. Bahorn (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bahorn! I think the problem is because you have not made enough edits on Wikipedia to become an 'autoconfirmed' user. Only autoconfirmed users can do things like uploading photos. You need to have made at least 10 edits to become autoconfirmed. Also (maybe I'm stating the obvious) remember to make sure you are the copyright holder of the photos you upload, or that the photos are made available under a free license. Sionk (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Letters with squares around them

I would like to know why some of the letters in my interface have squares around them. It looks like that's a clue for keyboard hotkeys, but if so, they don't work. I'd like to know where I can find out information about this feature and how to use, manage, and troubleshoot it. Thank you.

The Letter J (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've figured out that pressing the alt key kighlights the menu item associated with the key. OMG, where is the $@#@ help? I read articles about how Wikipedia is concerned about drop offs of edits and blah, blah, blah. A great change would be to put a Help button next to {user name}, my talk, . . . log out that explains WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE.

And I *still* have no idea where to look to find out about the toolbar.

Sorry for ranting. If anyone can point me in the direction of information about the toolbar I'd appreciate it.

The Letter J (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi The Letter J! Maybe you are looking for Help:Edit toolbar? And could you be more precise about these letters in boxes / menus you mention? Cheers, benzband (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

My page is marked for deletion.

I am working on starting the Wikipedia page for Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric. There have been several requests for deletion. I am looking for help understanding how to react to these requests. Would you or someone be able to look at the page and help us comply with the rules and guidelines set forth by Wikipedia? What would your advice be on where to go from here? I am interested in starting a conversation about this in order to further understand what is happening. I am trying to understand each comment and have made certain changes accordingly but I am not sure how these have been received or if this is helping the page.

I have copied the page to my sandbox but I am still not sure how the sandbox should be used.

Thatchers' Fine Timeless Fabric is an important business because it represents artists that once created an entire new genre of art in the 21st century. I want to comply with all rules and am looking for advice and guidance. If you are able to answer some of these questions or redirect me that would be much appreciated.

(99.126.53.15 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC))

Welcome to the teahouse! If you are the author of the article, you seem to be doing all you can. You've commented in the Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion and you've tried to improve your article to address the concerns. Unfortunately some articles simply aren't suitable for the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Unfortunately we can't just take your word that Thatchers is important, we need to see reliable proof.

Editors have a keen eye for articles that are overly promotional, or poorly sourced. Wikipedia is also sensitive about people using the encyclopedia to promote commercial organisations - the 'notability' guidance for companies asks for evidence of general news coverage in regional or national media, rather than only specialist or local magazines. I have to agree with the comments in the AfD discussion that your article is rather confusing and is still poorly sourced. After at least 7 days, an impartial administrator will decide, based on the comments in the AfD discussion, whether to delete or keep the article.

I can see the other editors are also concerned you have copied the current article in full to your sandbox. Each person that contributes to the article retains a copyright of their contribution, so you should not copy-paste the current article and claim it all as your own. Sionk (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! I copy and pasted what had been written on the Thatchers' page to my sandbox for personal reference. While I wrote nearly all of the text, I understand that others have contributed to the page. How do I properly attribute their work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwilkins93 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It will probably be best to only copy the version that you created on 10 July. If at some future point you recreate the article from your sandbox, the previous edit history will be lost. The edit history is the way readers know who wrote what. Sionk (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I will do that. Thank you for your continued help. (Lwilkins93 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC))

Pictures

How can I put a picture on a person's page, like the main first one on the rightKoneill96 (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Koneill96, Welcome. Some standard advice appears below about uploading and placing images. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to expand your question or ask for clarification about specifics:

If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. One more thing. If an image already uploaded here is being used under a claim of fair use, it cannot be used outside of the specific article it's fair use rationale was written for, and can never be displayed outside of the article mainspace. I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Will we create articles for everything we know?

Thanks Rosiestep for inviting me to the Teahouse, I'm Lugbara by tribe en very willing to share my knowledge about Uganda and Lugbara. However, I want to know if you guys envision the infinity of articles that can be created about everything in our country's backyard and on earth. Will Wikipedia become the ultimate encyclopedia on earth cause anything I need to know, I have found here and those I know but haven't seen but are relevant content, I'm willing to add especially from an African context since I was invited by a fellow African in the WikiAfrica Project. Well, I have read some rules and am sure this project can be a very awesome human treasure of literature...Aikolugbara (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aikolugbara! Thanks for dropping by the Teahouse and sharing your knowledge with Wikipedia! Wikipedia tries to make articles about everything possible; however, we need to make sure the items are notable. This is so Wikipedia doesn't become the first place to publish information. In addition, we need to make sure that information is verifiable. This usually requires written records and it is desirable for them to be available online; however, our assume good faith guideline means that they don't need to be online. You are in a very special situation, in that your knowledge is on a region of the world that is poorly referenced on Wikipedia. You can be a great asset; however, it is also difficult, because notable African subjects are difficult to find sources for. I would suggest leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias to ask for advice on what to do when you can't find published sources for a notable topic. Finally, if I had a recommendation for where you could help, it would be in creating or improving articles on African towns and villages. As long as you can prove their existence, you can create the article. (Generally, if you can provide coordinates, you are golden) In any case, thank you so much for editing and continue to swing by the Teahouse when you have questions. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Ryan, I will try to follow your advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aikolugbara (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

editing Wikipedia

1. How do I make a suggestion that a part of an article needs editing (and specify the change) without actually performing the edit? If one edits an article with probably correct but uncertain information, that would need to be picked up by someone - which may not happen for some time.

2. Ref. "On Wikipedia, you should sign all of your posts by ending them with four tildes (Granisalo (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC))" Does "post" here mean a new article or an edit? [ok, got it] 3. how do I end this question session? - 'Return' just gives me a new line!Granisalo (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Granisalo, welcome to the Teahouse.

If you just want to discuss a proposed edit the place to do it is on the article's talk page, outlining what you propose to change and why.
"Post" means edit but only on talk pages. You don't need to sign edits on other pages.
I think you've sussed this out but you press the "Save Page" button to end your edit. It's nearly always worth adding an edit summary in the box provided as well. NtheP (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Depending what the content is, you could add it yourself and append it with a {{cn}} tag, i.e. {{cn|{{subst:DATE}}}} -- Trevj (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you easily build a Table?

Please see Table 2 in this study on chemo protective (anti cancer) properties in some vegetables: http://missclasses.com/mp3s/Prize%20CD%202010/Previous%20years/Antioxidants/Mindblower.pdf

How do I use that info into wiki table? Hate to just list because it would overwhelm. Anyone want to do it for Diet (nutrition)?

Where are wiki rules for adding links in See Also?32cllou (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a primary source and per WP:MEDRS is not really an appropriate source from which to create a table. First we do not use primary sources to refute secondary ones. The second issue is one of due weight. Would advice you to find secondary sources from which to work. Pubmed allows you to limit your search to reviews articles from the last 5 or 10 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Help using an image from Commons

Hi. I'd like to use this image from Commons in an article, File:Hornbook Mexican.png, but there are two problems. First, I've never used Commons before, and I don't see where the line is that I need to copy and paste. Second, there's a note that says it needs to be cleared for use in the US. As it comes from an 1896 book, I don't see the problem. Is it OK to use it? Thanks! Tlqk56 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tlqk56. Commons images work just the same as ones uploaded on here. No transfer is needed. You can copy the formatting used for placing other images.--Charles (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tlqk56! I added a US public domain tag to the image. You use the image in the same way that you would any other with the commons title. If you would like a thumb you would type [[File:Hornbook Mexican.png|thumb|Caption]] In addition, you can link to an image by adding a colon right before the word file like this. [[:File:Hornbook Mexican.png]] which produces File:Hornbook Mexican.png. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the quick answers. I didn't realize that the title of the page and the image name were the same -- DUH -- so the example helped there. And, I appreciate your going ahead and adding the US public domain tag. I'm sure I'll learn to navigate Commons -- but not today. :) The colon trick is clever. I'll add it to my list of useful tips I've picked up at the Teahouse. Thanks again to both of you. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Link opens in new window

I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:LINK and don't see how to have a link open in a new tab or window. How can I do that?
(forgot to sign in before asking question; added new sig) 216.119.215.193 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

cheezfri 18:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! I don't believe there is any way to force a link to open in a new tab or window; however, you can open one in an new tab on your own by using ctrl click or the scroll wheel on your mouse. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

title

Can you change the title of an entry? Vanessamterry (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vanessa! Welcome to the Teahouse. You absolutely can change the title of an article; all you have to do is hold your mouse over the drop down menu next to the star on the article's page, then click on "move". There will be a form prompting you to give the new title of the article and some options. It will also ask you for a reason. I hope this helps. Again, welcome! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Vanessa. Keilana is absolutely correct, except that you won't see or have the ability she describes until 14:07, July 19, 2012, which is when your account will become autoconfirmed – an editing threshold that prohibits certain types of actions that is passed when an account is four days old and has made at least ten edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fughettaboutit! Vanessa, for future reference, you can also request a move at the requested moves page, but it may take awhile. We may be able to help you out; what page do you want to move? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes ready for re-review...

Thanks for this great resource! I'm new and learning... albeit slowly! Two questions after reading through a number of posts here: 1) Once I have edited, re-edited an Article for Submission and addressed an editor's concerns, the best next step is? Send a notice to the most recent review editor? Or simply "resubmit"? Or? I'm not able to find resubmit on the page anywhere so I'm guessing it's best to specifically address the editor who reviewed. 2) I would love to have an article reviewed in my sandbox before saving to Articles for Creation. How? (Thought I'd read all the help pages but must have missed this.) Thanks, GatorGatorHalcon (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gator! I expect someone here would oblige to give a comment about your sandbox article(s) in the future. This draft, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anthony Wile, still looks like it could do with a bit more work before it is ready to be accepted. In particular, to prove that Wile is widely known and suitable for an encyclopedia entry, we will need to see evidence of sources that are reliable (usually of a jounalistic standard, not blogs or web forums or other Wikipedia articles) and independent of the subject (so citations to Wiles' own magazines, websites or writings don't count). His achievements in particular will need to be verifiable using reliable sources. Phrases like "The Daily Bell remains on the cutting edge of alternative news publishing" would need to be cited to an independent reliable source, for example. Best of luck! Sionk (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

total novice

Hi everyone. I'm fascinated by Wikipedia and its projects and want to get involved starting at a basic level but I don't know where to start. Can someone point me in one of the right directions? Thx to all. /CEC38.104.197.122 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome ... we love newcomers! One of the best suggestions I can make would be to look up articles on subjects in which you are interested. Then, start out by working on grammar and spelling errors; these are some of the easiest edits to make, yet some of the most important, as well. As you get familiar with the system, you can start adding new information (properly backed up with reliable sources, of course) and, when you're feeling really BOLD, starting an article yourself! What subjects are you interested in? --McDoob AU 93 16:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)CEC, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. As it says this is encyclopedia that anyone can edit. To start editing find an article you want to edit and towards the top right hand corner you will find a button that says edit, click that and the screen will open up for you to edit. When you've finished enter an Edit summary in the box at thee bottom and click on the button Save page to save your edit. There's a lot more guidance at Help:Editing or you can always come back here for more help. You might also want to create an account so your work will be attributed to you rather than the ip address you are using to access wikipedia currently. If you do want to create an account go to this page. Hope this helps NtheP (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you McDoob and NtheP. I'm a book dweeb - can anyone recommend a current/great/comprehensive "how to Wikipedia" book? /CEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.197.122 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about any published books, but you could try starting at Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello 38.104.197.122: May I recommend Wikipedia – The Missing Manual? It is availible in print form if you want it, or online at Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. The online version is updated and corrected regularly, so it may be of more use to you. Does that look helpful to you? --Jayron32 16:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ryan & Jayron - thanks for these "leads". fyi - I've created an account as Birdmom57. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.197.122 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, you should probably log in under that account. --Jayron32 17:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Handling allegation of copyright violation

A new user has alleged a copyright violation of the user's work here. I've read enough to know that these allegations are taken seriously but not enough to know how to handle them. What's the next step in the process? Thanks, Garamond Lethe 08:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Garamond. I guess his next step is to contact the Foundation; you can forward him the link Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright to give him information on how to do so. You can always ask MRG, too; she works for the Foundation and is a copyright specialist. I'll drop a note on her talk page, asking her to come look at this. That said, I'm pretty sure the image in the article is not a copyright infringement, at least according to the source he cites. It's not the same image; indeed, he even says that we should replace the image we have with the ones from his paper. So I'm not really sure how it's a copyright violation, unless it's from a paper other than the one he linked. I get the feeling the edit war has made him angry, and he's just saying whatever he can to try to "get back at the Wikipedia." Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, the original image came from www. humanthermodynamics .com/HT-history.html (without spaces... spam filter!), which states that all rights are reserved by "Institute of Human Thermodynamics and IoHT Publishing Ltd." It was created by a now banned user, who created at least two sockpuppets to push Fringe theories. I'd be very unhappy keeping that image, even if it has nothing to do with Dr. Roland. I'd suggest wandering over to Commons, tagging it as a copyright violation, and letting them sort it (oh look, my shoulders seem very slopey today) Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, good call. Personally, I think I'm gonna wait until we hear from the experts first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely. Tagged "npd" on Commons. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all. One more question: WTT, how did you go about tracking down where the image came from? Garamond Lethe 04:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The File description page gives it as the source. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Will draft be reviewed?

Hi, I wrote a draft of an article yesterday and posted it (I think) for review by an editor. Do I just wait and see if it is reviewed? How can I tell if I posted it correctly? I'm a little confused. MonsieurSpikus (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi MonsieurSpikus, welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, your submission is currently on the list of articles waiting for review. The page is currently backlogged with numerous requests so please bear with us. -CTS talk 07:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi CTS! I'm new to wikipedia too..feeling a little lost here. Wrote an article in my sandbox and it's ready for publishing (might need to add a few extra references). But I don't want to risk speedy deletion, is there any chance I can get it reviewed before posting? What should I do? Thanks for your help! Giulialap —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guilialap, welcome to Wikipedia. Yes, you can get your article reviewed at the Articles for Creation page. To request a review, simply click here and save the page. -CTS talk 10:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpCTS! I think the article is under review now. I will wait and see what comes of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulialap (talk • contribs) 10:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Listening to Sound Files for Pronunciation Help

I frequently see a small speaker icon at the beginning of Wiki articles, which appears to symbolize a sound file that I can listen to in order to hear the correct pronunciation of the title of the article. However, it is not a link, and I am at a loss as to how to hear the sound. Can anyone help me? (I am using Chrome browser). An example of this symbol can be found at the start of the Wiki article on "Bokeh" (the photography term).Atticusfinch80 (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Atticusfinch80! Compare the speaker icons at Bokeh and Linus Torvalds. The speaker icon itself does not indicate a sound file, but the written IPA pronunciation. At Linus Torvalds, the icon is followed by a "listen" link, which links to a sound file. Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 03:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hajatvrc! I understand your response, and thank you for the explanation and example.Atticusfinch80 (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Social networking images license

What is the copyright status for photos posted in social networking sites as facebook and twitter? I'd like to use photos of some celebrities posted by said celebrities through their twitter accounts or public facebook pages for wikipedia articles, but I'm not sure if that's allowed. I tried reading all the rules and guidelines in WP:IMAGE but still have no idea if they are copyrighted or not.--Krystaleen 13:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Krystaleen. All photographs are subject to copyright unless the owner has released them into the public domain. So, generally you cannot use photos from social networking sites on Wikipedia. Sometimes, it is possible to contact a celebrity and ask them if they can release a photo from copyright for use on Wikipedia. Moswento ^talky 14:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah that's too bad. Thank you. I don't know about contacting celebrities, it's so hard to get a reply let alone a proper reply ;) But thanks.--Krystaleen 17:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Image size limit, manipulation, and content

Is there a limit on the size of an image (e.g. photo) included in a Wiki article? Or a range - such as between 1MB and 4MB? How about resolution - any max or min? Is an image allowed to be manipulated by, say, Photoshop, such as cropped, color-adjusted? If an image is about a place, say, White House, can people be seen in the image? In case I miss something, is there a place in the Wikipedia guidelines that covers everything about images? 97.90.129.156 (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC) M K Lai 97.90.129.156 (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 97.90.129.156. Welcome to the Teahouse! You can find everything you need to know about images at Wikipedia:IMAGES. It should be able to answer all your questions but if it doesn't, please come back and ask again! Thank you, Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy explains better. When I read its Privacy rights section, I recall that I often see photos of minors in newspapers in some places in Asia that pixelizes/pixellates (blurs) the faces of the minors. I don't know whether it is a local legal requirement. Let's say I take a photo of someone, who is the subject of a Wiki article, surrounded by children, should I blur their faces? 97.90.129.156 (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)M K Lai97.90.129.156 (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the country, and the situation. See the guideline Photographs of identifiable people. Notice that under the table column "Commercial use of a published picture" almost all countries require clear permission from the subjects photographed, but there are exceptions. The talk page of that guideline includes an example of blurring the face of a child. -84user (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

1. I wonder whether I can get Wikipedia into trouble in some countries if I do not blur the face of a child in a Wiki article, 2. Publication on a newspaper probably qualifies as commercial use. But I doubt the accuracy of that table, which gives a categorical Yes for France. We all know about Princess Diana and the paparazzi. How come Diana didn't sue their pants off? 3. Does publication in Wikipedia qualify as commercial use? 4. I cannot find the talk page of that article. Do I need to log in? There is a short talk page, whose link is at the upper left corner, of the table, but it does not say anything about child. 97.90.129.156 (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)MLai97.90.129.156 (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

1. It really depends on the country and the particular case. 2. That table is of necessity a summary, below the table is a link to Commons:Commons:Country specific consent requirements containing details including exceptions. 3. No, but images used on wikipedia are expected to have a license that permits commercial use (for exceptions see Wikipedia:Non-free content). 4. You want Commons:Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people; that small "talk" link at the top left corner is really only for discussing details of the table layout (which being in a template can cause confusion). -84user (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving part of a sandbox to a new sandbox

Hello, I wondered if there might be a friendly Administrator hanging around this evening? I've been working on a new section called "Awards" for Jimi Hendrix's wiki. Basically, I'd like to have it moved to another sandbox (away from the other stuff I'm working on) so that I can post a link to it on Jimi's wiki's talk page for other editors to take a look see and comment/edit. The sandbox it's in is here (it's called Awards - a table and some text w/ references): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charlie_Inks/sandbox/hendrix#Awards The place I'd like it moved is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charlie_Inks/sandbox/hendrix/awards No rush on this, but I'd be grateful if an administrator does manage to take care of this, if s/he could let me know on my talk page. Mouchos gracias :)

Charlie Inks (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Charlie Inks. No admin help is needed. You can create your own sub-pages. Just type the page you want into the search box at the top of every wikipage, in this case User:Charlie_Inks/sandbox/hendrix/awards. That will take you to a page that says:

Wikipedia does not have a WP:User_page with this exact name. Before creating this page, please see Wikipedia:Subpages.

Start the User:Charlie_Inks/sandbox/hendrix/awards page
(other stuff you can ignore)

Just click on that first link and it will take you to a blank page. Actually, you can click on the link I created here as an example. Put a letter or something in the blank page and save it. Bingo, your new page is created. Just cut-and-paste from one page to another. Open two browser windows, one for each version, to make that really easy. You can create as many subpages to your userspace as you want or need to help you edit. Hope this helps, DocTree (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this! I wasn't sure if I could just do a cut and paste, but now I know, that's what I'll do. :) Cheers,

--Charlie Inks (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding info to text?

I looked up "if wishes were horses" and saw the text. However, the way I heard it went at the end was"and if ifs and ands were pots and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers."98.246.155.228 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! You can find the whole text here. If you want to add the rest of the verse you are welcome to do so; just make sure you cite the source. Happy editing, hajat vrc with WikiLove @ 05:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Soliciting Review of a Proposed Major Change to an Existing Article

On my User talk:Atticusfinch80 page, I have proposed some changes to an existing article. How do I draw the attention of previous editors to my changes before I edit them into the article, (since I assume they care the most about the current article)? Atticusfinch80 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Howdy, Atticus. The best spot is on the article's talk page. Reading your talk page, I foresee a couple of problems. Wikipedia prohibits original research. You're not supposed to write what you know without providing published reliable sources. The sources don't need to be readily available. You can use sources at Fort Sill, whether the base library or even descriptions displayed on pieces in the cannon park. Next, if you click on What links here under Toolbox on the left side of the article page, you'll see that a couple dozen pages link to the XM2001 Crusader article. Changing the name would break those links. A redirect could help fix that but I recommend that the title remain the same. In the lead paragraph, start with "The XM2001 Crusader field artillery system was to..." Then continue with the proposed new lead. Be BOLD and make the changes if you believe that they will improve the article. Include citations of reliable sources or the changes may be questioned or reverted.

You might also want to join WikiProject Military history or/and the US Military history task force to meet and get advice from Wikipedians with similar interests.Hope this helps, DocTree (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC) (who remembers when the M109 was the Army's NEW SP howitzer)

How to report for vandalism?

Recently one of the articles I just edited has been vandalised, how is it possible to edit it and mark it as valdalism?

Sebi608 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this? If so, then you did the right thing by undoing their edits. :) I have also warned them since they were doing this to multiple pages, and if a vandal is really hitting a lot of articles hard, we have a page called WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism where you can report vandals to admins who will block them. Hope this was what you are looking for. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want Sebi, you can look over Wikipedia's policy on vandalism and see some types of vandalism and what is not vandalism. -- Luke (Talk) 01:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

National Team Caps for editing football players

I know they have to play for the national team for their national team to be updated, however does it have to be an official match or can it be a friendly?

Sebi608 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A friendly is an official match and would be included, as long as it is between two official senior national sides and is supported by reliable sources - but we don't include training/exhibition matchs and the like. Giant Snowman 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are unsure whether a match is "official", this part of FIFA's website lists all "A" internationals. (originally posted here by Jogurney). benzband (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How best to help?

Hi there, I was listening to NPR last night and heard that wikipedia has seen a severe decline in volunteers. I have edited articles on wikipedia in the past (though not recently) and am very interested in helping however I can. So, my question is, where is the most help needed? Are ther particular sections of wikipedia that have the fewest contributors/editors/admin and where my help would be most appreciated?

Thanks!

Gonyere (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Emily

Hi Gonyere! First of all, welcome back to Wikipedia! It's always fantastic to get new people willing and ready to help, and we're happy to have you. There really are tons of ways for you to get involved, and it all depends on what you're into. Going back to your question, the most help, at least in my opinion, can be donated by writing/contributing to/editing articles - Wikimedia (the mother organization of Wikipedia) has a goal of 15 million articles by 2015, and we're still another 10 million off! But if that's not your style, we - and note that by "we" I don't claim to be an "official" representative of Wikipedia, just another volunteer like you! - also need help with tasks like counter-vandalism and article maintenance. There are really so many paths you can take - it all depends on what interests you! You can also check out the Job Center, for a list of some needed help, if that's your style. Happy editing! :) Theopolisme _TALK 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gonyere. In my mind, the short answer is - help is needed everywhere on Wikipedia, so help out in whatever way you enjoy most! Theopolisme's suggestions are a good starting point of exploring where you might find yourself contributing. Moswento ^talky 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gonyere and the rest of the gang - if you want to stop by and say hi to the guy who was interviewed yesterday, drop by Fuzheado and tell him you replied to his call to action :) Sarah (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend you try a little bit of everything. Wikipedia is incredibly simple and incredibly complex at the same time. I've made almost 8000 edits and I'm still learning new stuff every day! If you have an area of interest/expertise why not check out the existing articles and see whether there's anything you can easily correct/improve. Sionk (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

starting a personal information article

I am a Canadian musician who would like to ease some of the market confusion over my Pro name I have trademarked my name "TONES" in Canada and USA and I am wondering right now Is it right to use wikipedia as an info source to list myself as a music or entertainment industry individual Unlike some in the industry I am a writer for the love of the craft I will write and release music as I can over time I don't do it with making money as the prime directive And it is not about fame to me either I just need to be able to carry on and keep my path as clear as possible

I trademarked because I did not want some one to try and make me remove my content from the www because they own the name This name I have used for over 30 years in the music Biz So Is Wiki a place to set my story into the www for any one looking up the name TONES to be able to clue in They could see The name is already taken Its because there are copy cats or unknowing dupliKATS out there Some of them are publishing questionable material with the TONES name And also confusing the market place

Should I do a BIO type page and list the trademarks etc? It is likely best to be represented everywhere possible

I would think if I were COKE It would state where I first began who owns me and since what date It aught to be the same for little old TONES? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonesTM (talk • contribs) 13:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! We're glad to have you here! In answer to your questions, generally autobiographies are frowned upon in Wikipedia - take a look at this page for some more info. Never fear - there are still plenty of ways for you to get into Wikipedia! The first option is just simply waiting until someone else writes an article about you - which may take some time. An alternative is to use this page to submit yourself, and other Wikipedians will eventually, if you are notable enough, write an article about you! Again, welcome, and thanks for getting in touch! Theopolisme _TALK 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tones! You might want to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy regarding autobiographies like Theopolisme said above. Have fun! -- Luke (Talk) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

where has the Persian gone?

There is this bloke User:Maahmaah who has been adding Persian translations of titles to many pages I edit but they don't show up in the page. Am I missing something here? Here's an example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India%E2%80%93United_States_relations&diff=prev&oldid=502940757 Sesamevoila (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sesamevoila! that's a link to the Persian-language Wikipedia, so it appears in the side bar under "Languages". It is a bit odd, as you place it at the bottom of the page and it isn't visible except on the side, but that's generally how the links to the equivalent other language articles work. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response Bilby(talk), now I went to the Perisan site and that particular page has been deleted(and I dare say, that's the case with all the other articles where User:Maahmaah has added the link). So, should the link to the Persian article in the English language page also be deleted? - Sesamevoila (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sesamevoila I like your username, by the way. There are "bots" that should do that sort of thing automatically (or at least they add inter-wiki links, so I assume they remove them too?) but you're also welcome to remove the link, and any others that you notice. Moswento ^talky 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Moswento, it's a relief to know that bots will do the needful, especially since these human doesn't speak Persian and the Google translation version was pretty mangled up. Sesamevoila (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Universal login?

Hello everyone. I have an account on the French wikipedia site. My login information doesn't work on the English version. Do I need to create separate accounts for each international site of Wikipedia? Thanks for your help. 83.156.207.185 (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! It might be that the username is already registered on the English Wikipedia, before I go further, could you let me know the username in question? Worm^TT(talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! On the French site, I'm "4eyes". I think you're right. In fact, I thought that might be the problem because when I clicked "resend password", the message got sent, but I never got it.83.156.207.185 (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.207.185 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it doesn't look like anyone else has used that name, so that should make things easier. There's a lot about "unified logins" which I don't really understand, but this page m:Help:Unified login implies that you just need to go to "Special:MergeAccount" after logging in on the French wikipedia (copy and paste into your search bar on the French wikipedia)! I hope it works! Worm^TT(talk) 11:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Thanks again. However, the unification process did identify a EN.wiki user with my ID (4eyes). So I guess I'm stuck now. The other 4eyes doesn't appear to be active, though. Last post in 2006. I unified anyway, but it looks like I need to create a new account in the EN.wiki, which defeates the purpose. Any ideas what to do now? 83.156.207.185 (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

By my count, he's never posted ([1]). All you need to do is go to WP:USURP (you might need to register another name first), and follow the instructions there... and you should be able to get the account. I think they're a little backlogged there though, so it might take a while. Worm^TT(talk) 11:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Worm, you are wonderful! Thanks again. I followed the procedure to usurp. Now it's "wait and see". Thanks again for your advice and help. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.207.185 (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)