Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Correcting copyright information on an uploaded pic

I uploaded some album covers for an artist article, they are from the 60s & 70s. I got the alert that there was probably a copyright infringement issue and wanted to go back and enter the copyright info correctly but can't figure out how. thanks, Kristi Schneider (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kristi, I think all the images were all uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? If so they have all now been deleted as actual or possible copyright violations or lacking permission. Unless you are the person who owns the copyright on the images then they cannot be uploaded to Commons as you don't have permission to release them into the public domain. It looks like some of them you had started down the road but didn't supply the written permission of the copyright holder to Wikimedia - note Ken Berry is not likely to be the copyright holder so if you were relying on him saying "yes you can use these photos" that's not going to be enough.

The only way otherwise that these images can be used is under the Non-free content policy but these are very precise and all 10 conditions have to be met for non free content to be used on Wikipedia. A lot of attempts to use non free content fail under criteria 8 - "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In essence the images must add to the text not just be decoration. Looking at the list of titles deleted from Commons, some of those are likely to have difficulties meeting criteria 8.

I'd suggest before trying to upload the images again you come back here with some information about where the images are from, what permission(s) you have and what you propose to use the images for and hopefully we can give you some advice on how best to use them. NtheP (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

<nitpicking> technically, putting images up on Commons doesn't necessarily release them into the public domain, it (usually) irrevocably licenses them under the CC-BY-SA copyleft license. Either way, the copyright holder is the one who has to do it, so NtheP's points are still perfectly valid.</nitpicking> Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand, however I see studio photos all over Wiki. Why can't I use an old studio photo? thanks, Kristi Schneider (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kristi. I actually teach my adoptees a lesson on copyright which you may find useful. Basically, whenever someone takes a photo or creates an image, they own the rights to it. They can produce copies, sell them or publish them however they like, whilst retaining the right to produce more. Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia, so we only use photos which are free. That means the creator has released the photo under a license such as WP:CC-BY-SA, which effectively means we can use it as long as we say where it came from. We have lots of these pictures on Wikipedia Commons.

Now, there are some exceptions where we can use non-free images, and only when they meet the Non-free content critera. Such as "There is not and cannot possibly be a free equivalent," "The original produce cannot lose out," and "We use the image as little as we possibly can." These may explain the "studio photos" you see all over Wikipedia. Does that make sense? Oh and by the way, you can use an "old" studio photo, assuming its copyright has expired - and that's quite complicated and depends on what country the image is from. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wonderfully horrible

Somewhere I had stumbled across something like "the best of the worst WP editing". One of the films on a list of films that I'm working on has a plot synopsis that it too precious to "fix" without memorializing it somehow. Re: Titanic:_The_Legend_Goes_On ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eric! So did you have a question about the editing related to the article? Sarah (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Not specifically related to ce -- but is there someplace to put this before I (attempt) editing? -- btw, my plate is quite full, so if anybody else wants to attempt this, please do. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty high quality film. ;-) You can always stop by WikiProject Animation, there might be some folks over there who might want to collaborate to help make mountains out of a tomato-hill. :) But, perhaps some other folks have other ideas. My to-do list is pretty high too, and sadly, film isn't an area I generally enjoy editing. But, wow, that film looks pretty...special. Heh! Sarah (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I kind of want to see it >.< I managed to avoid the other version. heather walls (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen the "other" version either. I'll take the cartoon over the "other," anytime! 3-D or NOT! Sarah (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw, that film currently has the distinction of being #1 on IMDB's worst films list (rating 1.3 of 10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It beat out the cartoon "Anus Magillicutty" (work safe). Sarah (talk)

Oh, it looks like we have another article for the article request department. Sarah (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My article keeps on getting rejected becaue of non reliable sources

Hello Everyone, I have tried to include reliable sources numerous times but it keeps on rejecting the article. Are online articles not considered notable sources? It would be great if anyone can help me get this article approved! Please help!

Thank you in advance!

Shawnmcmillanlaw (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The basic rule of thumb for reliable resources is if they have editorial review or not. What are the sources? Chico Venancio (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the sources found here. There are a couple of issues.

Sources need to be independent from the subject, and PRWeb is fails that criteria because it is a company devoted to publicity.

Sources should be focusing on the subject, the new stories seem to be focused on the cases, not on the lawyer.

Also, your username suggests you are trying to write an article about yourself (or about you boss). That is not a great idea, conflict of interest can generate a bad article because of the difficulty in being neutral, and once the article exists other people may put things you do not wish in it. Furthermore, other editors tend to be more stringent with criteria when they sense the creator has a motive.

Chico Venancio (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues stemming from Word-to-Wiki conversion

Greetings,

I drafted my article using Word and then used Word-to-Wiki to convert it to MediaWiki formatting, but it ended up with three issues:

1) Several of the titles are in giant, bold lettering in MediaWiki, even though they were not like this in Word. How do I fix this?

2) In Word, my article had dozens of in-text references, all of which were marked by a superscript number and corresponding reference at the bottom. These references did not translate to MediaWiki and I am being told that my article has "no in-text references." What is the easiest way to turn my superscript letters into Wikipedia-worthy in-text references?

3) In addition to my in-text references, I have many other sources (clinical trials, etc.) that should be listed even though they don't correspond to a specific in-text reference. How and where do I include these?

Thank you. Writer (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Wordcouture, thanks for dropping by.

To fix your titles, you will need to use Wiki markup, which is what we use to format text at Wikipedia. For main headings, surround the tex with two equals signs - ==Like this== - for lesser headings, use more equals signs.
You references require different code. When you want to add a reference in an article, you need to use ref tags directly after the text you want to reference. To reference type this:<ref>Reference name & details</ref>, of course replacing the content with your actual reference. Once you have done that, go to the bottom of the page and create a references section by adding ==References== to the bottom of the page. Under that heading, you need to insert the reflist; type {{Reflist}}. This will mean that, any references made with the ref tags will be listed at the bottom of the page.
As much as possible, you should use in-text citations - use your references to support specific facts. If you have references which serve as further reading for the entire topic, create a further reading section - place ==Further reading== at the bottom of the page (below your references section) - and list your additional references there.

I hope that helps; let us know if you have any other problems. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to submit an article and it is being rejected because of no notible sources

Hi! I am trying to submit an article about and author and expert in the field of Change Management. The article is being rejected because of my sources. The person has written two books about the topic, she speaks at conferences/companies worldwide on the subject, she has won some awards ans she has over 50 articles on the subject. How do I go about getting the article cited correctly?Gsschweppe (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, good to see you. I guess you are referring to this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kate Nelson? That was declined because there were no reliable sources. Wikipedia articles need sources which are reliable - this means that we can trust them to give accurate information and that they are good indicators of whether something is notable. The sources you have at the moment are not sufficient: Amazon cannot determine if something is notable because it's just trying to sell you the book; one source seems to be from the person themselves, which is no help, as someone cannot determine themselves whether they are notable (chances are, they're not going to be neutral about themselves); and the final source is a list of lots of authors, which doesn't mean any of them are notable. If you think the person is notable, I suggest you search places like Google News - if you can find reviews or articles about the person there, you can use those as reliable sources (provided they are from websites which are established critics, not just someone's blog). I hope that makes sense (I know that notability and sourcing can be daunting at first) - let us know if you have any further problems. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Grimm Fairy Tales (comics)

Hi! I'm working on a table at the bottom of my sandbox. I was wondering if someone could tell me if something like that would be helpful or just counter productive. I think it would be useful to let people know when there was more than 1 cover, and when it was published. Thoughts? Thepoodlechef (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chef! I think what you're looking for is Help:Wikitable (and maybe the more complex Help:Table). There is a special kind of wiki-markup for tables, which follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! header 1
! header 2
! header 3
|-
| row 1, cell 1
| row 1, cell 2
| row 1, cell 3
|-
| row 2, cell 1
| row 2, cell 2
| row 2, cell 3
|}

You can add more headers, rows and columns as required. For deeper insight, please refer to the help pages linked previously. Happy editing! benzband (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting More Traffic

Hi! I'm editing the Occupational segregation article for my class on Poverty, Gender and Development at Rice University. I'm really hoping to increase traffic to my page (and the pages of my class members) both to get more people to read about the issue in general, and to have more editors and therefore improve the quality of the page. Does anyone have suggestions for increasing page traffic/ getting more editors/ more readership? K Gagalis (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi K Gagalis, welcome to the Teahouse.

I must say I am a little confused by the question, it is not one I've seen commonly and frankly I don't know how to measure traffic on an article by article scale. The general idea of Wikipedia is to make a better encyclopedia, not to increase traffic. I'm assuming you want to increase traffic in order to reach the goals you mention, let me start by saying you have done a great job with that article.

One of the very important and oftentimes overlooked step of writing and article is to place wikilinks to the article in question on articles of related subjects. Though the article you mention does not seem to suffer from a lack of links (they can be found at the "What links here" link on the left bar).

Another way to get more editors to take a look at the article is to find a WikiProject that the article falls in its description and ask for help/input there, but you also have already done that in this case.

All that I can say now is to congratulate you for your edits in occupational segregation and to cheer you into keeping the work up. Chico Venancio (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Chicovenancio thanks so much for your input! I really appreciate it. K Gagalis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

Hi K Gagalis! I'll just add a little to this:

add relevant links to your article through Wikipedia; and check what links to an indicidual article at Special:WhatLinksHere.
you can also check individual article traffic with this very useful tool: stats.grok.se (just enter the article name and it displays a graph of page visits per day).

Some good ways of attracting attention:

getting you article highlighted in the Did You Know section of the Main Page, or…
…simply improving it. Once it reaches Featured Article status, you can submit it for display on the Main Page "Featured Article" section.

Hope this helps. Cheers, benzband (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

My first article was rejected. Is my current, pending version more appropriate

the article "Return on Social Business" is pending review. I've added more references --- and can add more. Do I need to be putting links for related Wikipedia articles? Advice is greatly appreciated. HalSchlenger (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hal! I looked over your article a bit just now, and did some searches through your sources, and through Google. I don't actually see the "Return on Social Business" metrics you're describing mentioned in any of them. And it doesn't seem to be a very widespread term on the internet as a whole. Could you point me to some reliable sources that describe this metric, which might prove its notability? Cheers, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

J-Mo, thanks for your time reviewing. "Social business" is a term that is replacing "Enterprise 2.0" and "Social collaboration." The Forbes article [1] from last week again speaks to this. There are various articles about the challenges for calculating the ROI for these efforts, and we wanted to share thoughts about it. So two thoughts: 1) Should we pursue an article on 'return on social business' or 'return on __?___', or 2) should we instead create an article on "social business," for which the current article is about "socially responsible business."

Thanks in advance for your advice, HalHalSchlenger (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HalSchlenger (talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hal, reading through your proposal again, it seems to me like you're making an argument for the adoption of this particular metric, RoSB, by social business companies. Your article proposal is well-written, but I'm concerned that it seems like what we call original research around here. Basically, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so Wikipedia articles should not make new arguments or present new research findings that aren't already published in other reliable sources (such as academic journals, magazines, newspapers, books, conference proceedings, etc). This article reads to me as though it is proposing this new metric and attempting to demonstrate its utility. That's a job for a research paper, not an encyclopedia article I think. Once the metric has been widely adopted, an article could be written that described its genesis, its history and its quality. Does that make sense? Am I reading things right?

There is an article on Social business, by the way. Perhaps you could give that article a look and see if any of the citations you've gathered would be appropriate there? Anyways, hopefully your next AfC reviewer will have some other specific ideas for you. Feel free to come back here if you have more questions, or to let us know how things are going! - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Pros and cons of using your real name as your UserID

The older guard seem to frown on using their real name as a UserID.

The new guard, thinking about authenticity, accountability, and transparency, seem to be using their real names.

I suspect the old guard knows something the rest of us have not yet perceived.

BruceCamber (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bruce! Thanks for visiting the Teahouse and welcome to Wikipedia. I actually started using my real name after I started to do more research and work with Wikipedia as part of my master's degree. I used to use pseudonyms, but, eventually it just made sense for me to be who I am with my real name. It seems to just be personal preference. I do know a lot of women (though I know you are just asking about this in general) who don't want to use their real names for safety reasons, which makes sense as well. I also know Wikipedians who have psuedonyms depending on what they like to edit (i.e. something more controversial or sexual content, perhaps they don't want associated with their real name). I'm "old guard" in regards to my participation online (BBSing anyone?), but, eventually went new school, I suppose :D Sarah (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of personal taste. Take a look, for instance, at WP:REALNAME. I appreciate editors who use their real name. At the same time, as a female, I find I don't like to use my real name on most internet forums. If I were male I would be more inclined to do so, depending on how vulnerable that would make me to random harassment for editing on controversial articles on Wikipedia (which I have in the past). Softlavender (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly informative answers. At this time, I'll just remain myself! -Bruce BruceCamber (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as another perspective, I'm probably in the "new guard"; I chose this username before I even decided to register because I was looking for a way to use it! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. I can talk a bit about this from experience. :) I use a pseudonym, but that's more habit than anything - I openly acknowledge who I am on my user page. This has been both good and bad. On the good side, I occasionally get emails from people asking for help or advice, and who choose to contact me directly. This has been great. I think having a real name has encouraged people to get in touch when they needed help. On the negative side, occasionally I have been in some heated disputes, and in a couple of instances that has led to the threat of real-world trouble. Once or twice I have been threatened with legal action, and in one situation a person contacted my employer directly. None of these were in regard to controversial issues - sometimes it is surprising how a person can get very, very angry over an incredibly minor issue, at least to an outsider's eyes.

Countering the bad, there is a reason why I chose to connect my real identity with my pseudonym. I don't believe we can ever trust anonymity online, and thus it creates a false sense of security. If my secret identity was revealed, my history - everything I've ever done under that alias - is open to inspection. Accordingly, I prefer to edit under the assumption that people can find me, and only do things that I'm willing to stand by under my real name. Sometimes that can be difficult, but I prefer to know I'm accountable than imagine that I'm not and suddenly discover otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bruce! I'm apart of the "new guard", use my real life nickname, and am learning that it doesn't matter what name you use as long as you're being authentic in this community. Initially I was hesitant to use my nickname but then the matter of transparency won me over; I want people to know what I'm doing. For safety purposes, I have my Dad ^_^ By the way - it's nice to meet you!!! GMHayes (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bruce! I haven't had problems using a portion of my name as my username, which identifies me as a female. Like the others, I believe in that transparency that's associated with this decision. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, you seem to have struck a chord here. As you can see, my username is Worm That Turned - which is quite an unusual internet handle. I've used it since 1998, so it was logical to bring it here when I came on to wikipedia. I have a very common name - indeed, my real name is actually registerred as a user account (by someone else!), so using my alias actually gives a lot more authenticity and accountability than that. It's not hard to find out all sorts of information about me, from this alias.
I'd actually go on to say that both the old guard and the new guard (I'm not sure which I fit in!) have multiple users who use their real names, and a large amount who don't. I don't think it makes a huge difference how long you've been here. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I use my real name, and in editing Wikipedia, always have. I do partly just because Wikipedia editing is closely tied to the real world for me - I first started editing for a class assignment, and am heavily involved in real world outreach type things. I've run in to few problems with using my name, including a situation a while ago where I annoyed a bunch of lunatics who started attempting to harass me in real life - but overall I'm still quite glad I edit under my real name. (Bilby's reasons above also resonate with me.) Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Importing a Photograph

I am in the final stages of preparing an article on my sandbox. How do I import a jpg photo into the article? May I do it first in the sandbox? How do I format it for size and placement? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.Jmolf (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jmolf, good to see you. Have you uploaded the image to Wikipedia yet? If you have not, use the File Upload Wizard to do so. Make sure you know the copyright status of the image - be sure not to upload anything which is under copyright. If you have further questions, please do ask. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as formatting it, once you've uploaded the picture, you can put it in your article by doing this: [[File:image_name.jpg]]. So, for this picture as an example, you would write [[File:Rainbow_trout_transparent.png]]. There are many different things you can do to influence the display of the images, like making it a thumbnail, change it to display on the left or right, etc. You can find a bunch of these at the picture tutorial. Naturally, if you have anything specific in mind, you can ask us, too! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

To add to what Zippy said, to upload a photo, just click the "Upload file" link on the left of any Wikipedia page. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

How are reviewers determined?

I am curious as to the process Wikipedia uses to determine who reviews articles. Do reviewers usually have some subject matter experience or expertise in an article's subject matter?18.36.0.62 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, 18.36, welcome to the Teahouse! There's not really any process that Wikipedia uses to determine who gets to review and who doesn't; it's basically anyone who wants to volunteer. Ideally, the reviewer would know about the subject, but it's ultimately up to to individual reviewers to decide if they have sufficient background or not on a specific article. Keep in mind that it's also not always bad to have a layman reviewer (so to speak). Since Wikipedia's reader audience isn't focused on experts, having a user who's unfamiliar with the subject review an article can provide some good outside perspective on the article's comprehensibility and accessibility. It can also be useful for determining what should be cited; something that's clear and obvious to an expert in the field might not be so obvious to someone who doesn't have that kind of background. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

On the flipside, as someone who is a researcher by trade, it's helpful for me to have reviewers who actually know about what I'm writing about. I've had articles nominated for deletion instantly because the reviewer doesn't understand the scholarly resources, the field the person worked in, etc. So, I think it just depends. I do notice that a lot of articles that deserve inclusion generally aren't accepted. Hopefully here at the Teahouse we can lend a hand at helping new editors improve their contributions so more articles get accepted. It seems like a tough battle for those on both sides of the AfC project. Sarah (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Howdy! Do you mean with Articles for Creation? If so, then it is usually, as Writ Keeper said, volunteers. Thanks, Nathan2055 ^talk 17:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

how do you move an article from sand box to page to share?

how do you move an article from sand box to share??Yuzenasjohnston (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yuzenasjohnston, to move a page from sandbox to mainspace you need to "Move" it. You'll find an option (titled 'Move') at the upper right side of your screen (for default vector skin, at least), click on it and follow the instruction. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Declined article

Hello, Can someone please point me in the correct direction so I can get an article submitted? ".Net_Gadgeteer" Sjj698 (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/.Net Gadgeteer the article has been reviewed and declined three times so far all with the same reason that the article lacks relaiable sources. Reliable in this instance meaning independent of the source. There aren't any sources quoted that aren't related to platforms developers and while they are non promotional there isn't an independant opinion being offered up. Are there any reviews in mainstream media i.e. not hobby blogs etc that comment about the platform, what it offers etc? if there are and you can add those and resubmit the outcome will hopefully be more positive. NtheP (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the reply. I am having trouble seeing what sort of reference is required. It is a Microsoft project, but there are 3 independent implementers and a book on amazon. Only a few citations are MS. It is a young project and there is not much out there except blogs, (I have a few peer reviewed projects/papers - but thery are part of my work - can I add them?) Sjj698 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sjj! If the papers are vetted peer reviewed scholarly resources you can use them. But, if it's your own research, you can't. Actually, after Googling a bit I found some sources you can use for the article, which hopefully can replace the Microsoft based sources: [2][3][4][5][6][7] All of those should help you flesh out something! Good luck! Sarah (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly declined by different reviewers for different reasons

A new article that I submitted has been repeatedly declined. The first time, the reviewer said that in-line references are required. Fair enough, and the references were put in place. The second reviewer felt that the "submission reads more like an essay" than an encyclopedia article. After re-working, on resubmission, the article was again declined, now by a third reviewer, because the "context" may not be clear to a reader not familiar with the subject. I don't quite agree, because: the article is on a Malayalam (a vernacular language of Kerala, South India) litterateur and only someone familiar with and interested in the subject will look it up. The article on the same person in Malayalam Wikipedia (not submitted by me) was accepted without hassles. Obviously, the reviewer must have been a Malayalee. I think the issue is that an article in queue is tossed to just any reviewer available at that moment. Is it not possible to have the same person reviewing an article every time? MC Narayanan 06:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC Narayanan (talk • contribs)

MC, you need to follow the specific instructions given by each reviewer, including the latest one. Also, please read WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you've done a decent job on your current submission. I'd accept it, especially because no one is going to perfect their first article the first time around. But, I don't do Articles for Creation review, so sorry! Also, the two links that Soft shared about, I don't think you need to worry about those here (you aren't writing about yourself or a relative, from what I can tell). Anyway, the figure seems notable to me, and I'm not Malayalee. IMHO, if the article is on Malayalam, and after looking at the article history, it has had no problems, then I think it should be included on English Wikipedia. The context is obvious - he's a popular science writer and has won notable awards from India. I don't get a lot of hits since I only speak English. Any problems let me know MC, you can ping me on my talk page. Good luck, I hope it gets accepted this round!— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahStierch (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah here. Chico Venancio (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Accepted. Congratulations :) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Huzzah! Sarah (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

View History --- numbers in parentheses

Hi all,

I'm obviously a newbie at Wiki editing. In an edit log, what is the number in parentheses that comes after the bytes of an edit? It is usually preceded by a plus (or minus for vandalism)? Here's an example of an edit log:

(cur | prev) 05:14, 31 March 2012‎ All Hallow's Wraith (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,233 bytes) (+1)‎

What does the (+1) correspond to?

Thanks in advance!

TIWILY

PS I ask because I edited an entry and got a (+77)...not sure if that is good/great/possibly bad(???).

TIWILY (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Tiwily, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Those numbers are the difference in size that the edit in question. So, the +1 means that, overall, that edit increased the size of the article by one byte. For your edit, you added 77 bytes to the article. A negative number, of course, means that the size went down as a result of the edit; if it says -50, that means that 50 bytes were taken out of the article. Don't worry, it's not a grade or anything! (Nitpicky: I'm not actually sure if it's bytes or characters. They should usually be the same. Either way, it's the same idea.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question Tiwily! It took me way longer than I care to admit as an editor to finally figure this one out :) Sarah (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had this question too, but, if your interested Writ Keeper, it's measured in bytes. Dan653 (talk)

That's what I thought; thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So a follow-on question, in case others are thinking it, too, and just too bashful to ask... What's the difference between a byte and a character? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The number of bytes is roughly corresponding to the number of characters. A byte usually consists of eight bits, and "historically, a byte was the number of bits used to encode a single character of text in a computer" (from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia :)

You can find ways of customizing this feature at Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. benzband (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, well that's simple enough. A byte is a unit if digital information, which happens to be the equivalent of one ASCII character (letter or number). In fact, that's historically where a byte comes from, it was the number of bits that are required to encode one character. And if you're curious, a bit is a binary digit (a 1 or a 0), so a byte, made up of 8 bits, could be represented by a number between 0 and 255 - or allowed up to "256" letters. Woohoo! Worm^TT · (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, edit-conflicted twice. I give up. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC).

Thats because we all want to answer that question! Itching for someone to ask it... Worm^TT · (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia Etiquette / Oversight

An article, which I have been contributing to for two days, was just excessively edited by somebody. This removed 10 references from the article and destroyed work by previous editors. Is there an oversight for things like this? I am amazed how this self-appointed editor in chief commits a 'clear cut' and destroys other people's contributions. Any suggestions? see: "Copy edit" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:What_Must_Be_Said

Additionally, so far I found two occasions where facts misrepresented by this editor. [see edit history] Thetilo (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Thetilo. Thank you for coming here. I see on the link given a disagreement between yourself and one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. That is not to say that you are automatically wrong. It may be a matter of what can be found in reliable sources as opposed to what you yourself "know". Wikipedia goes with what can be verified above what is true. If you want to get wider involvement in looking at the issue go to the talkpages of the various WikiProjects to which the article belongs.--Charles (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

well, between the lines you are saying that I'm wrong, referring to reliability of sources, which is not even applicable here. So how comes that 10 reliable sources were deleted and facts were misrepresented? I think senior editors should act with seniority and respect for other people's contributions. It is extremely discouraging if somebody rewrites a complete article based on their personal choices as if it was their own personal project. Others have spent hours contributing to the article - their efforts deleted or changed beyond recognition. Makes it feel like wasted time. I don't think this encourages regular users to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Thetilo (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Thetilo, thanks for dropping by here. I am very sorry to hear that you've had difficulty with an editor. While Charles is right in saying that SlimVirgin is a very experienced editor, but that does not mean that his opinions should be valued more than yours. I have had a look at the talk page and it seems that you've been having a positive discussion with SlimVirgin - I can assure you that, just like you, he wants to improve the article. Being able to work with other editors is a great part of Wikipedia, so I would suggest that you continue the discussion with SlimVirgin on the talk page so that you can come to an agreement. Also, while your opinions are certainly as valid as his is, I do suggest you listen to what he says regarding policy - it may be that parts of your disagreement are down to different understandings of Wikipedia policy, so listen to what he has to say about that. On that note, if your discussion raises any policy issues that you don't understand (or even disagree with), please raise it here - we'd be delighted to talk with you about it. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

To add to what ItsZippy said: it kind of looks like you're concerned about the propriety of general removal and editing of content by others, not this specific instance of it. Free editing is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. If you submit work to Wikipedia, you're explicitly allowing it to be modified or removed by other editors without warning; that's just how Wikipedia works. It's even legally enshrined; all the text you submit to Wikipedia is irrevocably licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL, which both affirm that others are able to remix and modify at will. Underneath every edit page, there's a disclaimer that reads, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I know it can seem discouraging at times, but trust me, it's one of the best things about Wikipedia. We couldn't have gotten this far without it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just passing through. I wanted to point out that SlimVirgin is female (wrong pronouns used above). Thanks. Valfontis (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thetilo. If you disagree with edits made by a good-faith editor, especially if they haven't been explained to your liking in the edit summary of each edit, it's best to start a conversation (or ask the question[s]) on the Talk page of the article. That way, the issues and concerns and opinions can be voiced in one place, with the ability of other interested editors to join in as well. If you still have concerns and you still feel strongly about something and it wasn't resolved after several days' discussion on the Talk page, you can click the link at the top of any Talk page box that says "dispute resolution". Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I talked to SlimVirgin. The process to discuss or talk in Wikipedia seems pretty cumbersome and "offline". This sort of slow communication process can add to conflicts and misunderstandings. IMHO Wikipedia as an editing tool, with the current processes and 'talk' capabilities, feels very "1990" to me - e.g. like archaic web technology. Would be nice if Wikipedia would upgrade to current day web technology. (I am knowledgeable in that subject) ;-) Thetilo (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there quite a few changes in the works on that direction (A WSIWYG editor being the biggest). The discussion part is definitely not ideal, but this Teahouse is certainly an improvement, maybe we can expand some of its functionality to other areas. Anyways, the project is very open on its technical side as well, your help will be appreciated. Chico Venancio (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use image

I am working on the existing article on the high school I graduated from oh, so long ago. I just installed an infobox on it and one of the fields is for an image of the mascot. Would it be "fair use" to use an image downloaded from the school city's website? If not, what do I have to do to get permission and transmit that forward to Wikipedia? I also need an image of the school, but live way to far away to go take one. The page in question is Hobart High School (Indiana).Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that specific parameter is probably not used for actual images - that just expects you to input the name. Obviously, you could include an image of the mascot anywhere else, but no, the image from the school's site would not be useable under the fair use criteria. One of those criteria is that the image be "non-replaceable", and since it would be very easy to take a picture of the mascot (and therefore have a free image), it is not non-replaceable. Does that sorta make sense? I'm sure someone more knowledgeable with image might have more info. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should have been clearer. The "mascot" IS an image. There isn't some dude dressed up in a suit. I am not sure, but I do believe the school city did copyright the image a few years back, but I don't see how using it in an encyclopedia article about the school would be any different than using say Simplot's logo in an encyclopedia article about them.Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, apologies then. In that case, since it is a copyright image and there's no way to get a free replacement, I imaging that it would be eligible under the fair use guidelines. Do you know how uploading works? Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded my own images, but I am pretty sure I can muddle my way thru it. Thank you for your help!Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What's the procedure for a Complete Revision?

I was disappointed in several Bird articles that were either incomplete, out of date or just plain wrong. I've done a bit of editing, patrolling and such, then posted a short article to eliminate a red link. Now I'm starting on my first major effort, completely rewriting the Chimney Swifts article. I'm working in my sandbox here.

When I'm finished, or nearly so... What then? Cut out the current contents of Chimney Swift and paste in my revision section by section? Or is there a better way?DocTree (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doctree! I'm so happy that you are writing about birds. I'm a birder myself, and while I don't write articles about birds, I generally write about ornithologists. Anyhoo, I also rewrite a lot of articles. Generally, if the article isn't that controversial, you can just paste over all of the content that you rewrote. I've never ran into any problems doing that, but, I often write about non-super-popular articles (I think chimney swift is one of those). Happy birding! Can't wait to see the article when its finished. Sarah (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. Back to my sandbox for a while.DocTree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC).

Ready To Go

I've just completed completed my first article. I wrote and formatted it in my Sandbox. I'm pleased with the way it looks and reads. I'm ready to move it to the English Wikipedia. How do I go about doing that?Jmolf (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Rcsprinter (yak) 17:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Now...how does Jmolf go about doing it in the future without needing help? :) Sarah (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hey, Jmolf, welcome back. You can move the article into mainspace by using the article move function. If you go to your sandbox, you'll see a little down-pointing triangle tab in the top-right corner of your screen, right next to the search bar. If you hover your mouse over this, a link that says "Move" will appear. Click on this, and it'll take you to the pagemove screen. Be sure to type in exactly the title you want in the "to new title" textbox, and (this is important) be sure to select (Article) from the pulldown menu next to it. Then, you can just click on move page, and you'll be good to go! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Writ said. :) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...Rcsprinter didn't actually move the page, if an admin wants to clean that up... Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

So that they'd still have a sandbox; if it was a regular userspace draft I would have moved. Rcsprinter (yak) 17:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. Just wondered since the OP specifically referenced moving in his question. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 17:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

How can I have my article published, it is rejected due to inline citation issues, how do I fix this?

My article is on a professional speaker, professor, and business writer. I have many references, print/news/websites. The article is rejected due to citation, maybe I am not doing this correctly. What changes should I make to citations in order to have this article published?

Thank you!

Creativeliterature (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! I took a look at your talk page, and then at the article you have written. The best suggestion I could make would be to decrease the number of sources that are written by the subject; two of the five inline sources you use are books written by the article subject, while a third is from the subject's personal website. You'll need more third-party citations ... for example, you use one from the Houston Chronicle, which is a very good start. Can you find other news stories about the author? If you can, that will go a long way toward establishing the subject's notability, which would warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. Hope that helps a bit! --McDoob AU 93 15:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

To add to what McDoob has said, I think you need to look at whether the article is about the person or the agency that he founded. The section on Professional Achievements is all about the agency, which although creditable are not about Trevino himself and I'm afraid you can't piggyback the notability of one off the other. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) which explains the notability criteria for people as this is the standard that the article will have to pass. NtheP (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

How can I flag a past Diff in the Edit history for review?

is it possible to flag for Review a specific Diff in the Edit History of an article? e.g. if a user tries to removes or changes factual data? The user was banned for edit wars previously. Thetilo (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Thetilo, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm a little confused about your inquiry. If you want to see a past diff, click on "View history" on the top-right of the article, next to "Edit". You can check two radio buttons (the circles) to see a diff. You can check out Page history in its entirety at Help:Page history. Hope this helps. -- Luke (Talk) 02:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Luke, I know how to see the diff, but is there a way to flag malicious edits once they are part of the edit history?Thetilo (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't. If it's something really bad, you can ask an admin to delete the revision, which prevents non-admins from viewing it, but there are some criteria for what revdel can be used on. If it's something *REALLY* bad, the revision can be oversighted, which deletes it so that not even admins can see it; this is a very serious action, which cannot be easily reversed, so the criteria for its use is very strict; it's usually only used to remove the posting of sensitive, personal, private information. Beyond those two actions, a page's history is what it is; there's no way to modify it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Writ got it right, but I have a feeling you may be asking the wrong question here. Why do you want to flag a past diff for whose review? If all you want, and this is my feeling, is to get some specific editors to pay attention to a diff you should copy the link and show it to them with the reasoning. If it is a violation of a rule you could take the link to a administrators noticeboard for attention. To give you a more precise answer I need to know if I'm on the right track here. Chico Venancio (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Writ's answer is very informative (lots of processes :)), and Chico answered my question :) Thetilo (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Article as Advertisement?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Folkstreams - Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

My article keeps being rejected for reading too much like an advertisement, but I'm at a loss as to how I can solve this? I've submitted it for review several times and no one gives me much advice on how to move forward with my article. I could really use some help.Holl!12 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not the only thing the final review says. It says you also need WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Every paragraph should have at least one citation that proves the information claimed/contained in the paragraph or sentence -- a reliable, hopefully independent, third-party sourse. You also need to weed out all the WP:PEACOCK terms and phrases: "far-flung", "recognized standing", etc. And all the seemingly blatant advertising like "YouTube offers a space for users comments" -- all of the stuff that appears meant to attract business rather than to be encyclopedic information in an encyclopedia. You also need to trim all that repetitive and overlong information in the Awards section, and all the puffery that accompanies it. Delete the title of the first section -- that is sheer advertising. Also, only the first word in a heading should be capitalized; don't use ampersands; don't use the word "Folkstreams" in a heading. Remove capital letters from the body text in the "Features" section. Delete all the members of the board of directors who do not have Wikipedia articles on them. Just state the facts; stop saying how great it is. Anyway, that would be a start. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: right now only the NPR source would be considered both reliable and independent. I have had to decline your submission because you just don't have enough good sources (like I said, only that one). All of the others sources are organizations that help, publish or have something to do with Folkstreams, and so are considered "primary" sources. These are fine for basic facts, but they don't help you to establish notability. Again, you need independent sources for that. Hope this helps :) Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 10:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Any advice on accidentally having published an article?

Hello, I've been developing a first draft in my Sandbox on Production Paradise. However I apparently inadvertently published an old draft (lacking sources), which was quickly tagged for speedy deletion.

I addressed the speedy deletion tag explaining what happened on the article's talk page and then updated the published version with my up-to-date Sandbox version.

Is this what I should have done? Alternatively is there a way to "unpublish" the published article? The idea was to finish the draft in my Sandbox and request feedback here before publishing. Mav8 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a situation where my attitude is "Well, you can't break anything". You didn't actually publish it, someone else did, by moving it to the live space from the general sandbox, rather than your personal one. If you like, we can delete the article speedily under WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion), and you can publish it when you're ready. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, otherwise, I thought I should say I think you handled everything very well. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the improved article and removed the speedy tag, but it needs further editing to remove some writing that looks a little promotional. I'm working on it right now myself; I consider it worth the effort because it is probably notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for lending a hand DGG! Sarah (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you WTT, DGG and Sarah! Wikipedia is amazing. Mav8 (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My first edit.

This is the 1st time I have tried to edit a page. Although I have more information to add, I am wondering if anyone could take a look and give me a general view on whether it meets the wiki standards, and whether I am doing it right. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrewstimothy/sandbox Andrewstimothy (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. You have done a lot of good work there. The article is well researched with a good number of references and many links to other pages and an infobox. It would benefit from a photo or two. There are only two images I could find here on Wikimedia Commons but perhaps you will have photos of your own you can upload to Commons. The only other thing is that prose writing is preferred to a bullet point list of historical events. When the article is ready to become a mainspace article you might like to enter it for the "Did you know?" section of the front page of English Wikipedia which shows newly created or expanded articles, in which case you would recieve credit for creating it. This would have to be done within five days of it becoming a mainspace article.--Charles (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

why are the sections on occurence and toxcity on plutonium so bad and remain wrong for so long

Refering to the sections "toxcicity"and"occurence" There should be no doubt that plutonium is an man made toxic and radioactive element ;the featured article on plutonium in this worthy encyclopdia gives the impression that Pu is mainly natrually occuring and the toxic effects are minamal. There has been few occasions when people have been exposed to Pu without being exposed to other radioactive elements..The data is incomplete (remember the half life is 10000 years)and uncertain.Uncertainty is a fact in nuclear physics and should be included in a fact based encyclopedia. Something like 2000 tonnes of Pu now exists in the world ..it is no longer a military secret ,indeed it seems to be moving into the economic sphere ,this being the case it is essential that the information in wikipedia is comprehensive and when uncertainty exists it is reported. These two sections are anecdotal badly, sourced and misinformative,I am working on rewrites(see talk) but as a layperson with sporadic internet i may not be in the best position to do this.... jumblymambaSebastian barnes (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sebastian, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm afraid none of us here are experts on the matter, and this page is really for help with wikipedia itself. However, if I were you, and wanted to find the answer, I would ask at the article's talk page (Talk:Plutonium) or at the Science Reference Desk (WP:RD/S). You can also edit the pages yourself to correct information. Best of luck! Rcsprinter (chatter) 11:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

hi and hello thanks ive tried the talk ,i think due to the controvesal nature of the subject has been blocked..and my own lack of understanding.of how to work in wiki... no matter what worries me is that wiki pedia is continuing to show what anyone can see are far from complete balanced sections thanks again i will try the science desk 17:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Images copyright

Hi! I've recently submitted the article "Freak Morice" -- which is a band. I tried uploading a picture from the band's official site to Wikimedia Commons, it got deleted (copyright). I have a permission from the band to write the article but don't have one to use any image. I wonder if there is any way to find a copyright-wise suitable image of the band, or do I have to ask them for the copyright release? Abody97 (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abody97! First, welcome to Wikipedia! Copyright is a tricky thing - and even the most experienced Wikipedia editors can get confused by it, trust me (I'm one of them!). But, over the years I've learned a lot, too, so hopefully this will help you. First, you don't need permission to write an article about anyone or anything notable, as long as you aren't copying text from their website, or that would be a copyright violation, which could get Wikipedia in trouble for having it on our website. Second, as you said, yes, you have to have their permission if you can't find a free image of them to use. I searched on Flickr and was unable to find any "Creative Commons By A or Creative Commons By SA licensed images. These are two copyrights that we generally as a thumbs up for being able to use an image. I think you'll have to ask the band for permission. So when you do write them, you have to ask them to release an image (if they own the copyright, and usually when bands get promo photos taken, they do) they have to agree to releasing it "Creative Commons By SA" (and send them a link to the license I linked above so they know about what it means). You then can upload the image, and then add this template to the page: {{OTRS pending}} (when you hit save, it should appear on the page like this: commons:File:The Henry Girls.jpg) Then, email the agreement to this email address: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. And then voila! A volunteer will review the letter and approve it and it'll stay on Wikipedia and it can be placed in the article.

I know it's a lot of information, but, with copyright it's better to be safe than sorry. I hope this helps, feel free to re-visit us at the Teahouse for another cup o' tea if you have any other problems! Sarah (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Sarah! I'll sent the request to the band ASAP and follow your instructions :) Thanks again, and I hope this works out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abody97 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

[[File: |frameless|alt=]]

I get the above on a picture that has been added to a page I am working on. I had used the following: filename, thumb, right, caption

The filename is correct and the caption shows but the [[File: |frameless|alt=]] message does not seem to go away. I have tried to read up on the guidelines but still seem to be a bit lost on how to correct it! -- Can anyone help me on this please? Truealpha (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Truealpha! Nice to see you at the Teahouse. What happened at Bashir_A._Tahir was that your image had too much formatting info. You included [[File:Bashir_A._Tahir_Profile_Picture.jpg|thumb|right|Bashir Tahir]] when all you needed was Bashir_A._Tahir_Profile_Picture.jpg. In templates you often do not need to supply the extra format parameters, just the name of the image itself. If you want, reverse what I did and try it yourself. heather walls (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Heatherawalls, appreciate the prompt help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truealpha (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)