Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 404

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 400

←

Archive 402

→

how to add a logo in the article I am writing?

I am writing an article about Babul Films Society NGO. I want to add the logo of Babulfilms. How do I do this? gangactor (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, gangactor and welcome to the Teahouse. Use the File Upload Wizard and follow the instructions - it gives specific guidance for uploading logos. But remember, do this only after your article is ready and it has been moved into article space from your sandbox. This is because we can only use fair-use files in actual articles, not drafts. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 02:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks Finnusertop for the inputs. will add logo at final stage as you suggested. meanwhile, waiting for the review/feedback/response on my article 'adding Babul Films....' thanks again. gangactor (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Improvements.

May I improve the English here on teahouse, as the bubble at top does not indicate 'Talk' and instead indicates 'Project page'. The response you have may be self-evident to you but I [will] make some queries like this - better than not asking. Corrections for the questioner and the respondent, some very small omissions, like an s for an a, for example. Other readers may only benefit as the reading is clearer to understand. Sudaama90 (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And [it was] deleted. Forgive me please, this is a 'join this discussion' bubble function test. How else will I know?Sudaama90 (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the way I look at it. If it is a signed comment from someone another editor should not be changing it (with certain exceptions). This is supported by the behavioral guideline Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The second paragraph from the top says "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." Then in the "Editing comments" section it says "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." The end result is no, you should not make any corrections to other's comments without their permission, even to change an s to an a. -- GB fan 12:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: Message understood. Thank you. I did realise but wouldn't really bother, that I could suggest something via the Join this discussion button. And I am more appreciative of other editors privacy now. Their lines, so their revisions or not. Sudaama90 (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "it" refers to in "[it was] deleted", or what your issue with "Join this discussion" is. The tab name "Project page" is automatically determined by the namespace (see Wikipedia:Namespace). Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines applies here and generally anywhere users sign their posts. The signature shows who wrote it and then things like spelling, grammar and word selection is their responsibility, even if it looks wrong to others. If an apparent error hides or changes the intended meaning like forgetting a "not" then you can point it out in a signed post below the original post. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be difficult to revert now, but these edits and these from yesterday morning involved Sudaama90 editing other users' posts. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry [talk] What you say may be true, but mostly to a newbie. I went in and reverted lead back to lede and etc. but clicked the wrong button next. I may resolve the issue but I have sworn off editing others' talk, so am in a spot. You see, I do have the time, it was my wrong edit and I recognise the changes as well as anyone viewing those changes. If the process was second nature, I could do it in a jiff, but I'm learning each step of the way, completely new to the terms written here and even how to follow some directions. Call it impacted attention span/brain damage/ stupidity or just unlearned. Anyone sending me to'how' to attend to this web site and so on should understand I've been told regardsSudaama90 (talk) my error and wont be doing it again. Sudaama90 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have manually reverted all of your edits to other editors' comments on this page. Best wishes. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't get redirect to a specific section to work correctly

I created a redirect, Oriental Order of Humility and Perfection which I am trying to get to redirect to the matching section within the Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans article I am presently working on. I've tried using both an anchor and just linking to section header itself, but It's not working quite the way it should: when I click on an Oriental Order of Humility and Perfection link it merely takes me to the top of the article. Only when I actually open up the redirect page and then click on the redirect link does it correctly take me to the right place in the middle of the article. I've looked through a bunch of the documentation and looked at some other people's implementations and I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. Any insight would be much appreciated Greenzeiger (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Greenzeiger, welcome. The redirect you created works great for me. By the way, headings and anchors cannot share the exact same name. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The code is correct but the result can be browser dependent when a page has collapsible content like the sidebar sections in {{Odd Fellowship}}. It works fine for me in Google Chrome but varies a little in Firefox. The same can happen for section links without redirection like Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans#The Oriental Order of Humility and Perfection. Your browser tries to place you at the right spot but if an earlier part of the page collapses or expands after the browser has chosen the spot then you can end up in the wrong place. Going to the top of the page does sound a little odd though. Apart from removing the collapsible content, there is no solution which works accurately in all browsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Checkingfax and PrimeHunter. I've been using the Safari browser which maybe is a bit quirky for this, but if its working for others I guess I'll just leave it as is! Greenzeiger (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

finding an image in an article's wikitext

Hi. This is a specific question about finding the reference to a specific image in a specific article. I see that the article for Syria includes a thumbnail for File:Syrian civil war.png, and that the caption for the thumbnail states "Current military situation in the Syrian Civil War." I had wanted to tag the wod 'current' in that caption with {{when}}; however, when I opened the article for editing, I could not find the wikitext for the image. I searched by the image name, by the caption text, by grepping for png, by manual scrolling, and by grepping for "File:". What is going on, and what am I missing? Please {{reply to}} —Boruch Baum (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll find a call to the template: {{Syrian Civil War map}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thanks. I changed the word 'current' to the date that the image was created which, BTW, turned out not to be too current at all - December 2011!

As a follow-up question, why create a template solely to display an image? —Boruch Baum (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't just display the image. If you look at the template you'll see that it adds the legend & extra test & wikilink to extra info. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Got it. Thanks, again. —Boruch Baum (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia appears to be overrun by Progressives

I dont know why I waste my time as the Progressive Dogma appears to the rule the roost here. In top of that, you require we quote Main Stream Media Sources who are overwhelmingly Progressive... But this attempted rewrite of history is outrageous. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressivism&action=edit Someone has posted here that Progressivism begain during the Age of Enlightenment. The commonly accepted time frame of the Enlightment aka Age of Reason is 1650AD-1800AD. My understanding is Progressivism started 1890AD-1905AD in response to the wider circulation of Darwin's Origin of Species aka Darwinism aka Evolution. Even Wikipedia's own posts on Progressivism put its origins 1890AD-1905AD, but it takes me to point this issue out to Wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States https://www.google.com/search?q=Beginning+of+Progressive+Movement&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Here is are 2 independent sources http://www.lib.utk.edu/arrowmont/Steve/The%20Origins%20of%20Progressivism,%20final.pdf https://quizlet.com/16738515/91-the-origins-of-progressivism-flash-cards/

Clearly Progressivism started nearly a century after the end of the Age of Reason aka The Enlightenment.

I can only extrapolate that the bunch of Progressives at Wikipedia want to back date Progressivism to the Enlightenment aka Age of Reason to appear as part of the great human awakening that occurred then. Progressives hate that Natural Law was reduced to writing during the Enlightenment and hope to confuse the issue by asserting the Great Minds of the Enlightenment created the BS Progressive Phiolosophy.

By the way, why does your documentation of Progressivism not include their assertion that White Protestant Men are the Superior Race or Progressive President Woodrow Wilson's Scientific Racism. IMHO Progressivism was the forerunner of the NAZI's

Please correct all of Wikipedia to reflect Progressivism started sometime 1890AD-1905AD and not during the Enlightenment 1650AD-1800AD.

Those were my thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

Don Mashak The Cynical Patriot CynicalPatriot (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi CynicalPatriot, welcome to the Teahouse. I guess you are American. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and Progressivism is an international article with focus on Europe, but it does say "In America, progressivism began as a social movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries". Progressive Era, Progressivism in the United States and your sources are all about USA. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CynicalPatriot. Please be aware that the Teahouse is a place to ask specific procedural questions about editing Wikipedia, not a place to spout off about political philosophy. You have a whole wide internet available for you with uncounted sites where you can expound your theories. Here on Wikipedia, we do not publish original research. So, when you state, "IMHO Progressivism was the forerunner of the NAZI's", we expect you to furnish a high quality, published reliable source that says so. Something written by a professional academic historian with widely recognized expertise in the origins of Hitler's political party. Not some foolishness you read on "Der Interwebben". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It also isn't a place to instruct other editors to "Please correct all of Wikipedia", CynicalPatriot. We are all volunteers, and people who help out here give up much of their editing time to answering Teahouse queries. If you have improvements that you want to make to articles, be bold and make them. If your edits are reverted, you should then discuss them on the talk pages of the relevant articles. That's how we build a better Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The article Progressivism describes it as "a movement away from barbarism towards civilization". So yes, a large majority of editors here are progressives. I wonder if the word means something different in the US? Maproom (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Off topic - Why am I reminded of Oscar Wilde's “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.” ? - Arjayay (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@CynicalPatriot: keep in mind that every article on Wikipedia has a talk page, including Talk:Progressivism, to discuss the contents of the article. Many articles are part of a WikiProject, each of which also provides a talk page for discussion. The article progressivism is in both the WikiProject Sociology and WikiProject Politics. Cheers. The Transhumanist 09:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

automatic numbering not given for the whole list, why is it so?

I added a list of 5 urls. but the automatic numbering is given only for 3, leaving the other 2 without numbers. why is it so? gangactor (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi gangactor. I didn't find any automatic numbering in your edits and there are at least three ways to get it for different purposes so I'm not sure what you want. If you want to make inline references with numbers displayed in a reference section then see Help:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@gangactor If you are taking about urls within article space, it may be because there were actually only 3 urls and the other 2 were just copies of the 3 urls. In that case only 3 urls would be shown with a small "a" or "b" shown beside the reference number in the reference list. Hope that helps or you may specify the article here. JugniSQ (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

request to review my first article in subpage

I want to add the entry "about Babul Films Society NGO non-profit" I created a sub page for it. I wrote the article including the text and relevant links. I want feedback on the same before moving it into the main wiki. any guidance is of great help. gangactor (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, gangactor, and welcome back to the Teahouse. I took a look at your draft at User:Gangactor/subpage. There are a lot of formatting changes that would need to be made to conform to Wikipedia standards, but more importantly, you currently have only one reference to an independent, reliable source that has written about Babul Films Society. (Neither Facebook nor IMDb are reliable sources.) Wikipedia articles must be based on what uninvolved third parties say about the subject, not what it says about itself. If you can't find at least two other independent, reliable sources that have given Babul Films Society substantial coverage (more than just a mention), then that organization may not (yet — other articles could be written in the future) be eligible to have there be a Wikipedia article about it. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 11:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can the reference be repeated in use?

I came across an article in the news paper and was interested in writing an article about it. Then I found that there was no page. I decided to write a page and pulled out three sources. And it has all details I require to write a page. Can only three reference be used to write a page? And my main question is can I repeat the reference number as I state the content? Does it have to be place in an ascending order? Jammy ma (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jammy ma, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is possible to base an article on three sources, but you need to keep in mind Wikipedia's notability requirements. Put simply, these are that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If the three newspaper sources go into depth about the topic in question, rather than just mentioning it in passing, they probably do establish notability, but it is probably best to tell us what the topic is here, so that we can advise further. As for repeating references, the way to do this is explained at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I've been attempting to publish a page

Would anyone be interested in helping with this project for a fee?SocialProper (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, see WP:paid editing and if you are editing for payment, you MUST disclose that per the Terms of Use, preferably on your user page.

Also, SocialProper, please be aware that promotion of any kind is fiercely resisted in Wikipedia. The fact that you are looking to pay somebody to work on an article may suggest to some editors (it does to me) that you are here to promote a subject, and you should expect to have your work closely scrutinised. --ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

SocialProper, you wouldn't by chance have any connection with this organization, would you? John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reward board. The Transhumanist 08:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is the page you wish created? See also Wikipedia:Requested articles. The Transhumanist 08:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that it's Draft:Jeffrey Michelson which has been rejected three times.--ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Protection requests

What is "highly visible template" and why it needs to be fully protected? Every template is visible. What is generic full protection and generic semi protection request? These options are available in Twinkle.The Avengers (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello The Avengers, welcome to the Teahouse. A "highly visible template" is one that has been transcluded, or shown, on many pages. This means that a change to the template would affect all of the pages it appears on—if a user were to make disruptive edits to the template, it would have far-reaching consequences. For example, Template:Ref improve is transcluded on 237,254 pages. Imagine if an editor edited the template and replaced it with something inappropriate—every single one of those 237,254 pages would then be updated to reflect the change, and not to mention, that would put strain on the servers that run Wikipedia. Needless to say, Template:Ref improve is permanently fully protected to prevent this kind of abuse.

In Twinkle, the "generic" full protection and semi protection requests allow you to specify a reason for requesting protection that is not covered in the other options listed in the dropdown menu (state the reason in the reason box). Full protection prevents editing by all editors except for administrators, while semi protection only prevents editing by anonymous IP editors, and registered editors who have not made 4 edits and 10 days. For more information on when protection should appropriately be applied, I recommend giving the protection policy a read through. If you have any questions, feel free to let us know. Best, Mz7 (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"that would put strain on the servers that run Wikipedia". Can someone confirm if this is correct, please? It does not sound right to me. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur goes shopping: It is correct. Pages are not built each time somebody views them. For perfomance reasons, a page is built and cached one time when it's edited. Page views then read the already built page from the cache. Such a cache read is far easier on the servers than building the page from the wiki source. But if a used template is edited then the page is built again so the cached version can be updated. This can strain the servers if the template is used on a huge number of pages. See Help:Job queue. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Get help to rename

Hi Teahouse

Can I perhaps get some help to get in touch with global renamer. I would like to rename my username, I would still like to be able to edit the same pages as before. Thanks :-)

Best wishes Nahid Gaebler (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This should be fairly straightforward. Have a read of Wikipedia:Changing_username. Once you've read that and checked you'll have no complications with your rename request, Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple should be the place to go. --LukeSurl^{t c} 16:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

How does this page look?

Hello,

I am currently attempting to resurrect a page that I found within the wikipedia draft archives. This is my first attempt at editing a wiki so I am relatively new to the entire editing process. The original article was ripe with errors regarding citations and content requirements. I have spent some time working on the article and I believe it is in much better shape. I was hoping someone could review the page in question, perhaps enlightening me in regards to any errors I may have overlooked. This is the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Magnatag_Visible_Systems

I appreciate all the help I can get.Mrp04730 (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mrp04730: hello and welcome to the teahouse!

In general, formatting is the least of the issues of draft articles. the key issue and the one that MUST be surmounted is to establish that the subject has been discussed in a significant manner by those not related to it who have a reputation for subject matter expertise, fact checking and accuracy; and editorial oversight. Several of the citations are unacceptable as being to Wikipedia or press release services. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Mrp04730, thanks for stopping in at Teahouse. The short version of what TRPoD said above is, your article at this point will certainly be denied. Inclusion for a subject is not determined by its usefulness, perceived importance, whether similar subjects have articles, or anything else directly related to the subject. What does determine whether a subject will be included is whether reliable sources, totally independent of the subject are writing about it. In short, if there are not any published articles on the company, it is not going to have an article at this time. That can change, of course. Further research is needed. If it produces nothing, then feel free to let the draft sit until it does. About once a year, you will be notified that it may be deleted. All you would have to do is say please don't and it will be held. John from Idegon (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you are connected with the company, and from your job title, it appears managing your company's online presence is part of your job. That means you are a "paid editor" and there are certain things you must do. See WP:COI and WP:TOS. John from Idegon (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Struggling with the vCard box Format

Hello,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wgsaccount/sandbox

I have prepared this draft in the Wiki sandbox but am struggling with the vCard box formatting. I am validating all content before publishing but want to get the format correct in the sandbox. I will appreciate help and suggestions on improvements or enhancements.

Thank you in advance.

Wgsaccount (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Wgsaccount, and welcome to the Teahouse. The main formatting issue I see is a complete lack of inline citations. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. All that you should manually enter in the References section of any article is the code {{reflist|30em}}; the details about each source should be inserted (in edit view) wherever in the text they're first cited, so that the ^[#] notations will be displayed automatically after the corresponding text to tell readers what the citation attests to. The details you enter in the body of the article (in edit view) are then displayed in the References section automatically when inline citations are used correctly. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 19:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is the conflict map for the Saudi led intervention protected

There's some wrong info on the map for the Saudi led intervention can someone unlock it so people can edit it freely— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.192.9.68 (talk • contribs)

Hello IP. The page won't be unlocked because of the disruptive editing involved. If you have spotted an error, please go to the talk page and provide the reliably published sources that support the change you wish to have made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Where to place reference, for a table/list

Hi there, I am trying to improve the Kansas State Treasurer article, but I don't know where I should put the reference for a table/list. If you scroll down to the list of Kansas State Treasurers, that's the specific table I am referring to. Thank you very much! TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, TheCaliforniaKansan! I looked at the table and I would say to put the ref in the table itself at the end of one of the headers. Since all of the ref that appears to the reader is a small number in brackets, it shouldn't be too disruptive or mess up your table. I haven't done any tables, but I have done pedigree templates, which are similar, and in those I always put the ref at the end of the horse's name at the top, as you can see here: Black Allan. Hope that helped!White Arabian mare (Neigh) 17:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Thank you very much! TheCaliforniaKansan (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Further to the reply above, I'm not sure that there is a rule or even a norm here, TheCaliforniaKansan. One way is to do as White Arabian mare suggests and add the reference to the end of one of the column headers. Another option is to give the table a title and add the reference to the end of that, as I did here. In cases where the table draws on multiple sources, it is sometimes necessary to include a reference for each column, row or cell. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

In a static paper version, a footnote in a column for all of the data in a table would be appropriate. Given the dynamic nature of Wikipedia's editing, a footnote for every row is often better for maintenance of WP:V. if someone inserts a new row of data in a table with a single footnote for the content of the whole table, the change may go unnoticed and unchecked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Is There A "In Today's Dollars" Function in Wikipedia?

I was putting in a notation in an article about a late 1970s / early 1980s TV series (Barney Miller, to be exact) as to how a character had lost a $320,000 judgment. I was curious if there was a Wikipedia function that would, for historical context, show an an amount from the past in "today's dollars" and would regenerate the amount every time the article was viewed. Thanks in advance for any responses to this. PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PoughkeepsieNative, welcome to the Teahouse. {{Inflation}} does this (when the page is rebuilt and not on each view), but I don't think it's a good idea to use it on a fictional amount. Does the show even say when it takes place or is it just presumed to be when it was produced? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PrimeHunter. Barney Miller was a present-day show when it was made. So, this would have been $320,000 in 1980/1981. I agree with your point that doing a translation to today's dollars for a fictional amount that was a minor plot point doesn't really add anything...so I'm not going to put it in the article, but it was cool to learn that function. Thanks. PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have gotten two notices about problems with articles the software thinks I created. But I didn't create them

I have been making small edits for at least 10 years and probably more. Recently I have gotten two notices about problems with articles the software thinks I created. But I didn't create them. When I look at the page history of those articles, I cannot find my name on them anywhere and definitely not as creator. The actual creator of the page is shown in red which I think means a deleted account. Could an old account somehow be confused with my account?

Thank you. Dratman (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Which notices are you referring to? To which articles did the notices refer? --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dratman, welcome to the Teahouse. Accounts cannot be deleted. A red link on a username just means the user hasn't created a user page. If you see the notices at Special:Notifications or when clicking the bell icon at top then others cannot see them so you will have to quote them, including the exact page names. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get the notices about articles that it thinks you created? You haven't gotten any notices on your talk page for a few months. There is a notice on the talk page of an editor to whose user page your user page links. Are you confusing yourself and the bot by using two user accounts? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I received an email about this! "A page you created was linked on Wikipedia" is the title of the email message. The sender is Wikipedia no-reply-notifications@wikipedia.org via wikimedia.org . The text of the email is "Townsend Prize for Fiction was linked from Celestine Sibley." So evidently the software thinks I created one of those articles -- either Celestine Sibley or more likely Townsend Prize -- but I don't remember doing so, and my user id is not shown as creator on either page! So you suggest I place this question at another page? Please clarify where it ought to go -- thanks much. Dratman (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have only one user account! But i certainly am somewhat confused by this! I received the notice by email. Thank you. Dratman (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dratman: I moved your earlier post to this secion. The page history [1] of Townsend Prize for Fiction says you created it 18 February 2012‎. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now I see that. I guess I did create it. Sorry for the bother. Dratman (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dratman - If you are not User:Will Beback, why do you have a link at the top of your talk page to his user page? In view of the interesting history of that account, I suggest that you might want to delete it to avoid any thoughts that you might be engaged in sock-puppetry or ban evasion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears to just be the remnants of a welcome message left by that user, Robert McClenon. Cordless Larry (talk)

I suggest deleting it, because of the controversial history of that user. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to Robert McClenon. I did delete that link. I have never had more than one account and have nothing to do with anyone else on Wikipedia. Dratman (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am truly confused.

I have written an Article About Phoenix The Creative Studio following all the guidelines, put references, and stated facts mentioned about us but 3rd reliable parties. I am also in the process of editing it as I do not fully understand everything. I do not have promotional content and I read the guidelines and still do not understand what I should change, if it's a simple link ? please help me.

How is it different that this article for instance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Lee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix3000 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 21 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Phoenix3000. The article Phoenix The Creative Studio is entirely unreferenced. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. That means that the article should summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic, and references to those sources must be provided. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As for the comparison to Sid Lee, that article has references though they are poorly formatted. It seems that company has 550 employees, while yours has less than ten. That company has won four national awards. So, the comparison is weak. That being said, the Sid Lee article has problems and should be improved. We have nearly five million articles and millions need improvement. That is no surprise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be sure to read the section on your talk page called "Managing a conflict of interest". This has very important information about your legal obligations as a paid editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Phoenix3000. We are so surrounded by marketing content that it is possible you've lost the ear to distinguish fact writing from marketing writing, but I must say the content was as close to pure promotion as I've seen – overflowing with blatant marketing speak; it was not a close call. Encyclopedia articles don't try to sell a topic, they report on facts without thrusting [glowing] opinion on the reader. It is possible, after a fashion, to say something is great by reporting on core facts without opinion where they are true and imply greatness "X won seventeen Oscars", as opposed to opinion: "he is the best actor ever!". This, among much more from the article, is all empty, buzz word, evaluative, hawking language: "earned global recognition for it’s innovative, creative and open minded approach... With open and fresh approaches ... Phoenix has its finger on the pulse of the zeitgeist... they continue to push what is possible" etc. You might get something out of reading Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article was deleted before I had the chance to read down deep into it. Thanks to Fuhghettaboutit for providing the quotes that show quite clearly that the article was overtly promotional and that it was correct to delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Phoenix The Creative Studio

A tag has been placed on Phoenix The Creative Studio, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Phoenix3000 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have written an Article About Phoenix The Creative Studio following all the guidelines, put references, and stated facts mentioned about us but 3rd reliable parties. I am also in the process of editing it as I do not fully understand everything. I do not have promotional content and I read the guidelines and still do not understand what I should change, if it's a simple link ? please help me.

How is it different that this article for instance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Lee

This matter has been discussed in the section immediately above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Questionable reference

On the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelopathy page... References 2, 3 & 4 point to a website http://www.myelopathyweb.com/ that is currently just a bunch of web ads. It may have once been a legitimate source, but now it is a poor substitute for a reference. Being a new user here, I don't know what the protocol is for cleaning up this kind of thing. Please tell me what you would do with this questionable reference. Thanks! SVCDuval (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, SVCDuval. Thank you for bringing a significant problem with an article to our attention. I see that an experienced editor, Fuhghettaboutit, is working on the article, which is a good thing. The problem you have detected here (and solutions to that problem) is discussed at the shortcut WP:LINKROT, and our strict standards for sources used in articles on medical topics can be found at WP:MEDRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask for an advice

Hello, I have submitted an article about lizardfs, open source distributed file system which has been deleted. Could you provide me with some clues why was this article deleted? I would be glad to rewrite it in a fashion that meets wikipedia demands.

Thank you! Kalemusz (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you click on the link LizardFS the deletion log says: "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of various like https://lizardfs.com/architecture-of-the-system/ G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)". If you click on the various links they will give you further information. There are also useful links in the message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kalemusz As far as I can tell, every single word in the article was copied and pasted from existing writing. From here, here and here. If this is a notable topic, i.e., one being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that can be cited in an article, then it can be written in a person's own words but citing to those reliable, secondary, independent sources for the information. What you cannot do is copy and paste copyrighted content. But I do not believe sources exist to sustain an encyclopedia article at this time. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

difficulty with adding references

1. what is the right way to add old newspapers as references? I have only a paper copies. I added them as photos to wiki commons and linked to there, and I guess that they were removed due to copyright breach. (I did go through wiki citation rules and copyright rules, but didn't understand it. ) 2. I'm writing about an architect, is being mentioned in the newspapers several times enough to pass the "notability" test? Thanks for the help. Ghbeeri (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ghbeeri. There is no need to create an online link to an old newspaper article, and this may well be a copyright violation. Fully cite the article with the article title, author if credited, date, newspaper name, and city of publication (unless part of the newspaper name). See Referencing for beginners.for details. As far as the notability of an architect, "mentions" in local newspapers are not enough, as that is routine for any working architect who sends out press releases. We are looking for significant coverage of the architect as a person, and serious critical attention to their work. Emphasize the highest quality sources in your article. Four solid references are far better than 15 dubious ones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ghbeeri: also take a close look at WP:NOTADVERT and WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK as Draft:Joseph S. Goodstein is definite fail of those criteria and potentially a candidate for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Seeing as he is deceased, and his firm long gone, this is definitely not a commercial article. However, it might still not be notable enough to justify an article.

Cullen328 thanks for great feedback. I'll see if I can come up with better refs. Ghbeeri (talk) 15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because someone is dead does not exempt the subject from being presented in an inappropriate overly laudatory and advertorial manner. and this one is right up there amongst the worst I have seen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Article for review

I have just tried to submit an article for review.It says click Save Page and I did so but nothing happened. How do I submit an article for reviewJamesalty (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Near the top of User:Jamesalty/sandbox is a blue button reading "Submit your draft fo review!". But please note that Wikipedia strongly disapproves of autobiographies. Maproom (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason that the 3 attempts at submission failed is that there was an unterminated <references> tag, so the {{subst:submit}} string was not parsed. I hope I have corrected that, and allowed the submission. At the time of submission, the process reported an error in that {{cite journal}} was being used with more than one value for the |first parameter. All but one will therefore have been ignored. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit Filter

in WP:AIV some users were reported by bots as triggered edit filter 477. There must be other edit filter with different numbers. What is this edit filter, triggering of that can result in block? The Avengers (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey The Avengers. As far as I know, no edit filters actually result in a block (what your words seemed to imply) – only administrators can block, based on reporting to them. Supposing that the question is, which edit filters are used to report a user for a block by the bot, well, there's a number of different bots that contribute. User:Mr.Z-bot, for example, has a page at User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js, that lists the filters it uses (it makes sense not all filters are used, because some edits that trip filters are quite benign). As you can see there are two types, those that the bot reports immediately, and those it reports if triggered ten times within a five minute span. For any number you see on that list, you can try to enter it into the Special:AbuseLog in the field for "Filter IDs", but many of them are private and cannot be viewed by most people. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is what I saw. Bot reported for tripped filter 466. And you can't view that filter as it is hidden from public view.The Avengers (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Avengers: as you can imagine, many edit filters are not made public so that people don't have an opportunity to try and work their way round the filter. However from the description and a comparison of the edit made you can probably work out what tripped this particular filter. Nthep (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixing markup on new user page

Something isn't working in the markup welcoming new user User talk:Gialeo1798, could someone take a look? -Djembayz (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The first editor of the page had left an unclosed div and 2 unclosed tables. See this edit for correction. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

My article was rejected because of copyright....

Wikipedia said I used copyrighted text from a poetry website I have never even been to! What is the process for asking for a re-review of an article? (Mjavajunky73 (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mjavajunky73. It looks to me like the original source of the section in question is this copyrighted website. Perhaps the poetry website quoted that website as well. We cannot include copyrighted content from another website in Wikipedia, except for brief quotes used appropriately, and clearly indicated as quotations, cited to the original source. All the prose you contribute must be your own original writing, which summarizes your sources, but does not copy or closely paraphrase them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mirror Image

Is it possible to reverse an image on Wikipedia? I looked at Help:Visual file markup but I couldn't find anything about it. Paleo cemoski 14:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you mean flipping the image horizontally (or vertically), that would have to be done using an image-editing program, and the resulting flipped image uploaded separately and linked in whatever article you think it should appear in. If you mean reversing the colors or light/dark values, that would also have to be done in image software and uploaded to Commons as a separate image. Which image (and in which article) is it that you think should be reversed?—GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 14:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Paleocemoski: I don't think there's an easy way to do this with existing images. It's technically doable with CSS, but not, as far as I know, using inline CSS on Wikipedia. The most straightforward way to do this would be to download the image, flip it yourself using photo editing software (GIMP, for example), and reupload it to the Commons, being sure to note the connection to the original (and crediting the original author). For more on the procedure to do so see Commons:Overwriting existing files. (edit conflict) @GrammarFascist: Just a heads up that there is an invert template for negative images on Commons: commons:Template:Invert. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of those are generally not processes that should be done for encyclopedic photos - we present them "as is"/"as was". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If this is about, say, File:Paraburnetia DB.jpg, just say here and I can mirror it for you. As that is an imagined image of a creature which probably had mirror symmetry anyway, I can see no harm in mirroring it. But I would upload it as a new image, giving due link and credits to the existing one. Maproom (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked this question because I thought that flipping the image horizontally would be easy as positioning it on a different side of the article but I see that it's more difficult than I imagine. And no, I'm not going to mirror an image. Paleo cemoski 17:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Make my own page because I have done things on International Levels

Can i write an article on wikipedia about myself because I am the youngest Pakistani chamber of Commerce member and i made 4 companies in the age of 10 years so if you are kind enough please tell me that can i write a letter about 'me' and will it get approved Saadallahwala (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Saadallahwala: and welcome to the teahouse!

Thank you for asking, but in general, No. As a person with a conflict of interest it will be hard for you to maintain the appropriate neutral point of view, discussing the subject in a detached manner and covering the negative views with the same weight at the positive views.

If you do meet the criteria for a stand alone article, you can suggest that someone else create the article at the page here for requested articles. And if you provide the links to the reliably published sources that discuss you, it is likely that someone will take up the request.

the content at WP:AUTOBIO may also be helpful for you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In theory, there is no reason for anyone having to write an autobiography (whilst there are many not to; see above) because if indeed someone is notable, it is only a matter of time before someone will write that biography about you. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

CSS!

What css file am I supposed to create, common.css or skin.css? If I do create those files, will they be applied to all pages under my page? Frank (User Page) (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Imfrankliu: Welcome to the Teahouse! Custom CSS files aren't for styling your userpage - rather, they're used to style the way you view Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a variety of skins. By default, you use the Vector skin. If you want to customize the CSS of all of Wikipedia's skins, you'd edit User:Imfrankliu/common.css. If you want to customize the CSS of only the Vector skin, you'd edit User:Imfrankliu/vector.css. This allows you to change how Wikipedia looks to you through changing things such as colors, removing links, changing fonts, etc.

If you're looking to customize the CSS of your userpage, I'm fairly certain you can't link to an external stylesheet :( You'll need to define CSS styles within your userpage's HTML elements. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @SuperHamster:. So I will use <rel stylesheet></rel> tag right? I do know that I will need to link to an external file, but can I link to a css in wikipedia? (For example, User:Imfrankliu/style.css). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imfrankliu (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Greetings @Imfrankliu and SuperHamster: From your discussion above, I updated the Tip-Of-The-Day (TOTD) for Tip of the day/December 29 Troubleshooting Wikipedia's look and feel with skins to include a link to skins mentioned above as well as Manual:Gallery of user styles. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Imfrankliu: Not quite! I'm afraid you cannot link to external stylesheets on Wikipedia. You'll have to define CSS styling within tags themselves. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@JoeHebda: Very nice, thanks for the heads up! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@JoeHebda:@SuperHamster: So <style></style> right? Frank (User Page) (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Imfrankliu: I'm afraid style tags won't work either. I mean defining styling within tags themselves. For example, if I wanted a div with a red background, I'd have to write out <div style="background-color: red;"> Content </div>. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Thanks so much! Frank (User Page) (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Imfrankliu: No problem! If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page or shoot me an email. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Thanks! Oshwah has a nice bold red title, how is that achieved? Frank (User Page) (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Imfrankliu: With DISPLAYTITLE in User:Oshwah/mainpage. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Woo! Found it. {{DISPLAYTITLE:<b>Hey</b>}} can change the title to Hey right? Anyway, I will try in my sandbox. Frank (User Page) (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: WORKED!!! But it didn't work in my sandbox. :(

@Imfrankliu: The link DISPLAYTITLE describes the very limited changes you can make to characters. You can go crazy with styling. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi. I would like to semi-protect my user page, but I am not an autoconfirmed user yet. (4 days 10 edits right? I have 10 edits, but still need to wait). If I request now (I shared it with friends, and everyone spammed on it, sometimes swearing in Chinese, and thus bots didn't detect the spams. They are all using my school's IP.), can I still edit my user page? I kinda know how to request now. Frank (User Page) (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My page was just patrolled! (here) But I do not want to do major changes to it. (Patrolling means to be tagged for major changes, right? Patrolled_pages) Frank (User Page) (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frank. I believe you can request that your user page be protected by asking for help at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, since you're quite new to Wikipedia, I think it might a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:User pages because it explains all about user pages and what kind of things are allowed to be posted on them. Wikipedia editors are allowed some leeway when it comes to their user pages, but it seems that you might trying to use yours as a personal website of some kind, which is not really what they are intended to be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the, Imfrankliu. Please keep in mind that this is a project to build and maintain an encyclopedia. It is not a social networking website. Your user page should describe your interests and goals as an encyclopedia editor. I do not see any evidence in your edit history that you are improving any encyclopedia articles. Please try to focus on the purpose of this project. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

auto-captioning an image upon update

There are a group of Wikipedians keeping File:Syrian civil war.png up-to-date on a weekly +/- basis. The image is used by a number of pages, and each should want a caption reflecting the date for which the image is accurate. Is there a way to auto-magically update the captions on all linking pages whenever a new version of the image is uploaded. The closest I got in my own research was magic words, but I don't see how I could use them for this purpose. If it can be done at all, it would great for about a dozen pages. (refer to thread: Template talk:Syrian Civil War map#What date the image and Talk:Syrian Civil War#Duplication of work on image intemplate; more up-to-date version available elsewhere on Wikipedia —Boruch Baum (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the link you wanted for the usage was Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Syrian civil war.png. I don't see it as practicable or necessary to put a date on the caption every time the page is updated. It is, as you say, being updated regularly, so the previous caption at {{Syrian Civil War map}} was not inappropriate. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And File:Syrian civil war.png#globalusage for usage on other Wikipedias. David Biddulph (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. —Boruch Baum (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

finding details from a Deleted Article

How can I access the History of a deleted article to extract some of the references from it ? I wish to add to an article for Perth Glory FC by adding some details and references about a Cup/Trophy called the Iron Ore Cup. There used to be an article for this Iron Ore Cup, but it has since been deleted due to failing notability guidelines (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Ore Cup (2nd nomination)). I'm only interested in getting some of the details and references that were in this article, for use in a separate article, I'm NOT looking at resurrecting the article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Matilda Maniac, and welcome to the Teahouse. You could ask the administrator who closed the AfD discussion, Davewild, though they don't seem to have edited for more than a month. Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles lists other administrators who will be able to help you access the deleted text. I suggest contacting one of those. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)