Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 117

Archive 110

←

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

Cannot edit headline or first para of article I created.

Hi. I'm trying to make some changes to the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrita_Furman.

Although I created it and do most of the maintenance to keep it up to date, I cannot find a way to edit the headline or the first para of the article.

I know it's probably staring me in the face, but I can't see it. I'm completely stuck on this and I'd be grateful for any help.

Northstar7 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Northstar7, and welcome to the Teahouse. To edit the first section of an article, you can edit the entire article by clicking Edit at the top of the page (usually next to "View History"), instead of on the right or beside the section title. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If by "headline", you mean the title of the article, you should see a down arrow at the top, which when clicked allows you to move the page. To edit the top paragraph, you can either click edit in the top tabs and edit the whole page, or go to Special:Preferences and find the option that reads something like "add [edit] links to the lead section of articles".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, it is possible that due to 'preferences' settings you see a "plus sign" instead of the normal "edit", or that the choice is buried in a dropdown. Revent (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

How do you add pictures to an Article ? Jesus Lover0000 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The image needs to be uploaded either to Wikimedia Commons (for freely available images) or to Wikipedia (for fair use images). Then you link to the image file in your article. WP:IMAGES is a good introduction. You can open the edit window on an article that has an image to see the coding for that image. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank You So much. Jesus Lover0000 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk to another editor

Hi, i'm new to Wikipedia. I just added some comments which was removed by another editor. I would like to communicate with the person. Can you tell me how to do it. I checked the talk page tutorials and found it rather confusing and verbose. Thanks! Rajsundar0703 (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rajsundar, I see that you know that you should sign your posts on talk pages. On the editor's signature, there should be a link to his talk page. Just click that link. On his talk page, create a new section by clicking New section (beside the Edit button). From there, fill in your message as well as the title and save the page. Further discussion about the same issue/topic will continue in that section. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Arctic Kangaroo. Will look into this! Rajsundar0703 (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just feel free to ask here or on my talk page if you ever need any more help.
Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Does creating an account hide the IP address of old edits or only new edits?

Does creating an account hide the IP address of old edits or only new edits? I created an account but when I go to the edit history of pages I have edited, I still see my IP address. Cytokinetics (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cytokinetics, when you create an account, any edits you made as an I.P will remain visible. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, while edits made with an account are not publicly associated with an IP address, your IP address is still recorded in Wikipedia's datasets. However this information can only be accessed by a small number of users (currently about 40 people), and they would only ever use this power if there were grounds to believe your account was being used maliciously. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi,

I use Cluebot III to archive my talk page, but it made two separate June pages. Is there a reason for this, as opposed to having simply archive 1, archive 2, etc.

Thanks, Matty.007 08:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Matty.007! Between Cluebot III's 19 June and 21 June archivings, some people played around with your archiving settings. They were changed in this and this edit. I believe you want to change your |archiveprefix= value to end with a slash, i.e. |archiveprefix=User talk:Matty.007/Archives/. Plus I think you want |index=yes --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I had indexing on, but Cluebot put a list of random articles instead of the archives down the side. I asked for help, and Mdann52 disabled the indexing. Should I turn the indexing back on?

Thanks, Matty.007 09:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

oooh, I'm not sure about that. Mdann52 probably knows more than me so I'd trust him on that one. But your missing slash in |archiveprefix= is definitely the cause of your duplicate June archive. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks LukeSurl. I have fixed that, but there are still two archives. Will this be changed automatically? Thanks, Matty.007 09:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No. You'll have to merge them manually. You've got until 17:21 UTC until Cluebot archives your oldest talk page post, so that should be plenty of time to get everything sorted. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help LukeSurl! I have already merged them, and deleted the second page. However, it is still showing on the archive links. Will it go this evening? Matty.007 10:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. But with your current settings, Cluebot will try to archive things to User_talk:Matty.007/Archives/2013/June. If you want to get everything in one place, put it all there. Then get the other archive pages speedily deleted (reason U1, user request) as I see you've done before.

Ultimately, are you sure you want to use automatic archiving? As you can see it generates quite a few headaches. Personally I just manually archive things when my talk page gets too big. You can use Template:Archive box without calling Cluebot. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

TFA

Hey, hello everyone. I need help to request TFA for One Tree Hill (song) Miss Bono ^(zootalk) 14:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Miss Bono. What, exactly, do you need in terms of help? EBY (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hi EBY. I wanted to know how to make a request for it. The WP:TFA is very confusing to me. Miss Bono ^(zootalk) 16:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this is the featured article request page. There is a process for making sure an article meets the requirements to be put into the queue.(talk) 16:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

EBY , How's that process? Miss Bono ^(zootalk) 16:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's on the page, but briefly: 1) Add up the points of the article, there is instruction how to do that on the page. 2) Let the major editors of the article know you are nominating it. (Look on the talk page and the article edit history to find the editors most often found) 3) Enter the article on the nomination chart (Date you recommend - should be pretty far out, Article link, points, and any notes.) 4) Create a blurb on that page (format it like the others). Watch the page, answer any questions that come up. Editors will vote but unlike the rest of Wikipedia, the Featured Article has a single editor who makes the final decisions. EBY (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Or maybe just ping User:Bencherlite saying you would want to request TFA? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Conversion between English and simple. Can I take advantage of writing articles for wikipedia?

Can I convert (Reword it to make it simpler) regular Wikipedia English articles/pages into Simple Wikipedia pages? Of course that would require me reference where I got my information from.

Can I put in my resume that I had (hopefully in the future) written Wikipedia pages? Omar Elgazzar (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Omar, welcome to the Teahouse. Our licensing allows you to reuse content from English Wikipedia to other sites like Simple English Wikipedia which have compatible licensing. But you must provide attribution to the original authors; you can do that by linking from the talk page to the English Wikipedia article.

If by resume you mean an autobiography in article space, no, Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. But you can have a user page in user space; see Wikipedia:User pages for what you can put there. —teb728 t c 04:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think what Omar means is that he would like to add his Wikipedia experience to his résumé. If, Omar, this is the case, that's really up to you; I don't see any reason why you couldn't.  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Omar. Of course, the folks who run Simple English Wikipedia would appreciate your work to simplify some of our articles for that site. That site has much more information on the process.

As for your resume, you are welcome to list your work here, as long as you are willing to abandon anonymity (as I have), and link your Wikipedia username to your real world identity. This website is open and transparent. All your productive work here is available for anyone to review. I direct your attention to User:Drmies, a highly experienced content creator and administrator here. In real life, my pal Drmies is a tenured professor of English literature in Alabama. He listed his outstanding work here on Wikipedia (among other things, I'm sure) when he applied for tenure, and it worked. He got tenure. So, yes you can. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple wikipedia?

I was reading an article that was linked from reddit http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moondyne_Joe and I noticed the writing was REALLY bad. I tried editing the article but noticed the "feel" of the site was "off" somehow. How is Simple Wikipedia related to Wikipedia?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's relation is that it is owned by the same group that owns the Wikipedia. It is written in Basic English. The article at Simple Wikipedia has detail on it. RudolfRed (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Two kinds of pork. I actually emulated your name earlier tonight, Korean style. Yum. We have an article on the Simple English Wikipedia (SEW). In short, the SEW is intended to provide content for those with a very basic understanding of English. It is related to this Wikipedia insofar as it is also a website run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and shares the same software, but it is a completely separate site. Many people have said in the past that the Simple Wikipedia is something of a failed project, at least so far, as it has simply not attracted enough people to make it run smoothly and get its content up to snuff. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Can one reference an interview?

I own an historic 19th century house that I have lived in for most of the last 42 years. Many of our guests have asked us to post its history on wikipedia, but most of my knowledge is based on discussions with my late father and with my living uncles. Can I reference interviews?DrJamesBaker (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dr Baker, welcome to the teahouse! Unfortunately personal recollections are not considered reliable sources; sources need to be published elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, DrJamesBaker. Although personal interviews aren't reliable sources, your living uncles may have kept newspaper clippings or may recall incidents which may have been reported in the news, leading you to find articles in the local news media or local history books. You may also consult the reference librarian at your local library, or ask at your local historical society to find written sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Doc! Another strategy for making the information you have verifiable and hence usable would be to contact a local newspaper and try to get someone there interested in writing about it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Question: style (encyclopedic format?) and avoid peacock terms?

Hello, I have received the following comment to my submission: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms, that are designed to promote or show-off the subject". Please, could you advise me on how to amend the article, I have no idea...:( Thanks a lot in advance for any help!!!! Miroslava Atan (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC) mira

Question moved to top of page. NtheP (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miroslava, and welcome to the teahouse! One phrase that stood out for me as being unduly promotional was "has been a reknowned(sic) teacher". To describe someone in this manner in Wikipedia, you need to cite sources that describe her that way.

In addition, I think your references need formatting (see WP:REFB for how to do this), and I don't think the comprehensive listing of everything she has ever published is really required.

Finally, I don't think a Yahoo Groups message counts as a reliable source, and in addition many or all of your listed sources seem to be from the person herself or from organisations with which she was involved; so they are not independent. Articles should demonstrate significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources - see WP:42. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I upload an image to my sandbox article/how do I add a title??

Looking to finalize editing in my sandbox article and submit for consideration. I've added the image format but I'm not clear on how to actually upload the image.

Adding Title

I created my title as a Heading...however it is BELOW my table of contents and I want it above my table of contents. Please advise.

Thank you

Prey: The Beginning (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, and welcome to The Teahouse. To upload images, you can check out WP:UPLOAD or upload to Commons if you're uploading a free image (e.g. something in the public domain). However, I want express my concern that the article you're creating is a conflict of interest because you seem to have some involvement in the project. We generally advise against making articles on topics in which you have a invested interest, because it is difficult to be neutral when writing about your own work. I encourage you to get a change in username and try contributing to Wikipedia in some other way. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP and self-published sources

Hi all! I want to improve the article of an Indian politician, which is currently a stub. However, not much is available online, but I do have personal access to the politician, and can thus gather much more information via an interview. My question is whether such information will be accepted since it does not technically abide by the BLP guidelines and especially since we are advised to avoid self-published sources. Any help will be appreciated. Thank you. :) Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Avenue X, Sources do not need to be online; they are just easier to find if they are online. Sources need to be published reliable sources. An interview is not published, and (for the most part) a subject is not considered a reliable source about themself; so an interview cannot be used directly as a source. But the subject may be able to give you leads to published reliable sources. —teb728 t c 08:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. :) Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Although an interview or other direct communication with the subject of the article can't be used as a reference in an article, an experienced editor may find this form of communication useful. The interview subject may be able to provide photocopies of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not available online. Those who think that Google has been successful to date in digitizing more than a very small percentage of reliable sources are sadly mistaken. Talking with the subject will lead to a deeper understanding of the context of the topic, allowing an editor committed to the neutral point of view to better evaluate sources and place various points into a balanced presentation. Do not "believe" everything the subject says, but listen and hear. You can't use that conversation directly on Wikipedia, but you can often be informed by it in ways that will guide you to better sources and a deeper understanding of what the full range of sources say about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP shortcuts

I have come across this before but I can't locate it now when I need it. What is the shortcut that applies to an edit which places new information in front of an existing citation, but the citation doesn't support the edit? Flat Out let's discuss it 03:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:FAKE maybe? —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, unfortunately that's not the one I'm after. For example: Flat out supported the Hawthorn Football Club in season 2012 [1]. Then someone comes along and inserts "and 2013" in front of that reference which doesn't include that added information, when they should have edited; Flat out supported the Hawthorn Football Club in season 2012[1] and again in 2013[2]. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also the {{cn-span}} template which will highlight text that needs a citation specifically. For example, "Roses are red^[1] and violets are blue". {{Failed verification}} could be used to raise discussion on a talk page saying that a specific statement was not in the citation. {{Failed verification}} has a "talk" parameter which can be used to link to a talk page to discuss the issue. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Does this qualify for deletion?

File:Simon Raab.jpg does this qualify for deletion? I'm not sure what the specifics are regarding 'bad' language or signs. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aggie80. It does qualify for deletion, but not because the subject is flipping the bird. It is eligible for deletion solely because, when uploaded, the information about the source and licensing of the image is incomplete. --Jayron32 01:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipeia is actually not censored, so if the image is uploaded per Wikipedia's policies, such an image is allowed on Wikipedia. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 02:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The fingers are, however, not up to "Disney Standards" as I found out when I tried to buy my photo after riding Splash Mountain at Disneyland back in 1988  :) Flat Out let's discuss it 02:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that even if this image was properly licensed for fair use, it could never properly appear on this page. All non-free copyrighted images can only appear in the article(s) where the fair use is claimed to exist. I have accordingly turned the image into a link by prefixing a colon inside the markup.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That was more my newness in not putting the reference in correctly. I was surprised when the picture actually appeared. I'll never approve an article with a picture like that, I'll let someone with a higher tolerance for garbage do that. As far as I'm concerned, something like that detracts from the credibility and seriousness of Wikipedia and contributes to the overall decline of society.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

As well as WP:Wikipedia is not censored, we have the guideline Wikipedia:Offensive_material. To put it shortly, while potentially useful material isn't removed because it may offend some, Wikipedia has no interest in being transgressive. As such if more "vanilla" ways of getting the same content across are available, these will generally be preferred. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for such an image in the vast majority of our articles. On the other hand, we have a well referenced article on Finger (gesture) where a freely licensed image of the hand gesture is entirely appropriate. Let's not conflate licensing and copyright issues, which are legal ones, with issues of editorial judgment about which images are appropriate for which articles. That is not a legal issue, but more a debate about encyclopedic value in the context of serious discussion of a specific topic. In my view, images should be chosen to inform and educate, rather than to shock and alienate. But when we are dealing with socially taboo topics, these decisions can be difficult. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice

I have seen this this type of edit history quite a few times where an editor makes dozens of edits without explaining why - and often the edits are just inserting and deleting the same information over and over. Notices on the editors' talk pages were reverted by them (Two IPs, one editor) but my question is when this type of thing presents itself, is it best to reinstate an earlier version, or to pick through the edits and see if anything useful has been done? Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 09:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Flat Out - have you read the section on edit warring at wp:3RR? That might help. It seems like asking for others to be involved is one of the steps, so you are on the right track.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anne Delong, I am conversant with edit-warring and wp:3RR. My question is about editors making dozens of edits in a row without using any edit summaries and whether experienced editors would address this issue by restoring an earlier version and risk losing some good edits among the madness, or whether they would go through diffs one by one and decide how to proceed. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, annoying as it is when there are no edit summaries, I don't think that this is a reason for reverting to an earlier version. You may want to revert for another reason entirely, and I would probably remind the editors involved to please include edit summaries, but just the fact that there are no summaries isn't a reason to revert in my opinion. So I guess if it were me I'd be checking the diffs before doing anything drastic. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anne Delong , I eventually found the definitive answer at WP:VANDNOT and you are, unsurprisingly, right on the money. CheersFlat Out let's discuss it

And there is the aspect of time. When I am creating a new article, and haven't submitted it for review yet, I typically don't bother filling in the Edit Summary. It isn't going to add any value to anyone until it goes live and really needs the tracking and history. If I miss a comment on something that is 'live' it is an oversight rather than intentional. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I enable Twinkle?

I want to open and AfD for Storle machine gun, but I can't find the option. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Click the "preferences" tab at the top of the page and go to "gadgets" to tick the Twinkle entry. There is a save button at the bottom of that page.--Charles (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of stuff there, e.g. HotCat which is already checked, but there is no Twinkle entry in that list. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That may be because your account is not yet 4 days old. After 4 days you will become autoconfirmed if you have made 10 edits and more tools will be available.--Charles (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Someone. If you don't want to wait until 14:41 on June 27, 2013 (four days from account creation) you can follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. I personally believe that everyone is better off learning all these processes by doing them manually first, so they understand how all the parts actually work, and that reliance on Twinkle and other tools to automate AfD and other processes has in some respects caused an information gap in many users that translates to other areas of editing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Displayed Locations of Photos in an Article

Summit, New Jersey has a lot of displayed pictures. Why can't the 3 pictures, which were inserted for display on the left side, also be displayed in their inserted sections, as noted below. Can anything be done to correct this?

I can see why many of the pictures for the right side do not display in the article section where they were inserted because there are so many pictures inserted in the previous sections that need to be displayed before them.

The picture for "Springfield Avenue, the main shopping street" is correctly displayed on the left side under "Geography" where it was inserted.

It seems the problem for the 3 other left side pictures is caused by the fact that the location where a picture is displayed on the left side is directly linked to the preceding picture file, which is inserted in the article's Edit text, that is for display on the right side. The picture file for the left side is not displayed, even if there is room on the left side in its inserted section, until the previous inserted picture file for the right side is displayed, which can be several sections further down.

1. Post Office - Inserted under "Local Government, but displays between "Media" and "Employers". It is displayed opposite the picture on the right side for "City Hall at the intersection of Springfield Avenue and Broad Street", which is the previously inserted picture file.

2. Summit Diner - Inserted in "Landmarks", but displays under "Notable Natives". It is displayed opposite "Calvary Episcopal Church", which is the previously inserted picture file from "Real Estate" section.

3. Bicycle Shop - Inserted in "Transportation", but displays under "References". It is displayed opposite "Summit Station", which is the previously inserted picture file.

Wondering55 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wondering55. It's clear that this article has WAY too many pictures. I would encourage you to be BOLD and remove many of them. A Wikipedia article does not need to contain every available picture of a topic, only what is needed to be informative. A few that are particularly pretty could be added into the Gallery section. I have added a link to the relevant category on Commons which is a photo repository - tellingly however this appears several fathoms below the main body of the article due to all the pictures! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually galleries should only be used in special situations such as when a sequence of images can demonstrate a process. Settlement articles do not really need them. In addition to the category on Commons a display page for the article can be made using the best images and this page can be linked to the article.--Charles (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of irrelevant pictures. Display should be better now. My trimming of the article was quite coarse, I encourage you to substitute and re-arrange the media as you see fit. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Photo arrangements are much better. Thanks for the advice and for Lukesurl taking the initiative with well planned removal of non-essential photos.Wondering55 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

HMS Vestal DYK

Hi,

Please can someone/some people give me their opinion on my application at DYK?

Thanks, Matty.007 18:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to. I'm working on it now. SL93 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Matty.007 19:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I responded. The only thing left to do now is to replace the forum reference with something reliable. Either that or can you remove the content and add relevant things with reliable sources until the writing is at least 1,500 characters. I'm not sure if you know this, but Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck is useful for counting the characters. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that another editor mentioned on the DYK page about one of their concerns. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed all of that. Thanks, Matty.007 19:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures.

How do I upload a picture (That I took) onto an article I am writing? Omar Elgazzar (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Omar! In the left hand column there should be a link in Tools labeled Upload file. It will walk you through the process of uploading an image and the appropriate permissions that are necessary. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are happy to license your image on a relatively free license (such as this one), please upload the image to the Wikimedia commons instead. This will allow the image to be easily accessed by all Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedias in languages other than English. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Posting an image

I recently posted an image to be approved for the page titled "Western Golf Association." The image was of the official Western Golf Association logo. However, ClueBot NG removed it from the page.

I got a message that says if ClueBot is wrong then I can report it to appeal the decision, but when I click on the "report" link it takes me to edits I made months ago, rather than my attempt to upload this logo last week.

How should I go about resubmitting this image to be displayed on the Western Golf Association page if I can't report ClueBot's mistake? Betsy Drazner (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Betsy, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! I think there's a bit of confusion here. From what it looks like, you've uploaded the file but haven't actually inserted the picture into the article. Looking at the article's history, it doesn't look like you've made any edits to it that would've brought the picture into the article. What actually happened is that a different bot, User:Hazard-Bot, tagged the image you uploaded for deletion, since it's a non-free file that's not currently being used. Cluebot wasn't involved; that notice on your page is very old, which is why it links to very old edits. :) All you really need to do is add the image into the article, so that it's being used, and everything should be okay. Let me know if you need help on how to do that. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to add on, the image will not be deleted as long as you add it into Western Golf Association before Sunday, 30 June 2013. Don't need to resubmit. I recommend adding the code [[File:Western Golf Association logo.jpg|thumb|The logo of the Western Golf Association.]] to the top of the page. cheers, ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 14:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That was quick! Thanks for helping me figure that out. I took your advice and now the image is showing up! Betsy Drazner (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral reliable sources

I'm thinking of starting a page on a new travel company but the only sources it has are from the websites of it's sister companies. Would these sources be acceptable or would it be better to wait for press articles etc before beginning an article? (89.191.36.33 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this sort of coverage doesn't yet exist for the company, then the article should wait for a while. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia voice/ citations/ comments

Where can I find information on Wikipedia voice, what is and is not appropriate for it? When should the actual quote be added onto the reference at the bottom of the page? How can I get comments on my proposed edit which is on the talk page, from editors (or would administrators be appropriate) who are not involved with that project area?Petefter (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Petefter: I am not sure exactly what you are asking about "Wikipedia voice", but there is a project to add spoken articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia that may be what you are looking for. You don't say which article you are wanting comment about, but from looking at your contributions I am guessing that it is Talk:Emotional Freedom Techniques. It seems that there is a lot of controversy about this topic. Have you posted a request for editor involvement at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology ? This may be in their area of expertise. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

May I make a correction? The article is Emotional Freedom Techniques. The talk page is just where you talk about possible contributions.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Vchimpanzee, I should have written more clearly that the proposal was on the talk page, and not used the word "article". —Anne Delong (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That is splitting hairs! Anne, thank you so much for that suggestion!Petefter (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

BIOTEC Thailand: My created,BIOTEC, page was deleted

My name is Kultira. Presently, I am working as International Relations Officer at Thailand National Center for Genetic Engineering (BIOTEC), the official organization under the control of Thailand Ministry of Science and Technology. My duty is to be responsible for international collaboration and also all BIOTEC public relation both on domestic and international media.

As we believe that Wikipedia is a channel to publish and distribute our works, recently I was assigned from my superior to upload BIOTEC information to Wikipedia in order to deliver our information to other international biotechnology organizations. However, after all information had been uploaded for a while, the page was deleted by "User:MadmanBot". This user claimed that I copied the content from this website, http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2465563, which was posted by our own researcher, and also this website is not relevant to BIOTEC at all.

As a result of above incident, I do understand that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that everyone is able to access, edit or even delete some information. However, I would like to ask you for the suggestion because it is very significant for my organization. Do I have to put the references or fill in any information blanks on Wikipedia website?

I also sent you herewith a link to our website for your reference. http://www.biotec.or.th/. Please kindly note that most of information I posted is from my own organization website with correct authorization.

I am looking forward to seeing your reply soon.

Thank you, Kultira(Som) International Cooperation Section National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, BIOTEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by PomeloatBIOTEC (talk • contribs) 01:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it is strongly discouraged to write about something you are affiliated with. Wikipedia has a guideline regarding conflicts of interest. You can write about your company, but, again, it is discouraged. For a subject to have an article, it must have cite reliable sources and meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Wikipedia also has further criteria for companies and organizations. If you still want to write about your company, you can consider drafting an article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and submitting the article for review. You will have to remember that anyone can edit your article and you do not have ownership of the article. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kultira. In response to your question about text copied from a web site: Each editor who adds to Wikipedia must write as an individual (not a representative of an organization), and must use his or her own words, not text published elsewhere, even by others from your organization. I'm sure that you know Biotec well enough to write about it in your own words, so this shouldn't be a problem. You will have to be careful to write in a neutral, non-promotional fashion. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Kultira. You may be confusing Wikipedia with some other sites that allow organizations to create and control information about their organization. Wikipedia is not like that: Wikipedia is absolutely NOT a channel to publish and distribute your works. —teb728 t c 04:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that placing text that is found on another site verbatim is a violation of copyright laws. So unless you provide the appropriate documentation on permissions, you cannot copy the Ministry's web site or anything on it. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Kultira and weocome to The Teahouse. Another problem with copying text from your site verbatim is that it would likely not be written in the neutral style Wikipedia requires.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Red Links" in articles

I have been working on disambig links and came across an article that has a lot of these red links (going to non existent pages). I am wondering are these all articles someone plans on creating? And do they just get left like that? When I come across a page that is linked to the diambig page and there is nothing suitable to direct the link to I just remove the link rather than create a non existent article page because then it would just be a red link with a blank article just like the ones I am curious about in this article correct? TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 03:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tattoodwaitress and welcome to the teahouse. This link to redlink guidelines might help you as it has a section on dealing with existing redlinks as well as when they should and shouldn't be used. I hope this helps. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahhhh thank you for the link to the guide. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 04:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There isn't necessarily someone planning on making those articles; the link is put in because someone considered the subject notable enough to potentially have an article, even though they possibly never will. Red links are generally especially welcome in lists such as these, simply for consistency's sake (this is an unwritten rule). See the policy WP:REDYES for more information. I hope this answers your question.  — TORTOISEWRATH 04:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok well it kinda answers my question but leaves me confused, which coincidentally is not hard to do. For example I was working on disambig links. The link to the bicycle store named "pivot" went to the disambig page. There is no appropriate link to direct that link to so i removed it. The original writer of that list thought that "pivot" (same with the other two that I removed I think it was two) the bicycle store was notable hence the original link. Now since it it suggested even encouraged to create these red links (to topics of notable content) should i create a red link for the one I removed? Am I making sense?TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 04:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edit to remove the link from Pivot was correct. It happens reasonably often people create a wikilink without checking that it is going where they expect it to go. I don't think you need to create a redlink by changing it to say [[Pivot Bicycle Company]] but you could if you wanted to. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 04:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The key to understanding when to and when not to redlink is in understanding WP:N. A good example of an appropriate redlink might be the addition of someone who was a state senator at one time to an alumni list in a high school article. As a state senator, the person is automatically notable, so a redlink would be appropriate. However, you will more often find in a high school alumni list that some person has added their girlfriend, and that would not be an appropriate redlink, unless of course she was actually notable for something other than her high school adventures. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Got it. I understand that part. If i personally were going to create a red link I would use the knowledge at hand to do so. But I removed links that were already there. All the other stores in the lists on the page in question have links. Some red... quite a few red in fact....some not. The only ones without links now are the three that I removed so my question was since there were already links there because some other editor thought they should be linked and I quote TortoiseWrath above "simply for consistency's sake " was wondering if I should put red links in the spaces that I removed the disambig links from. No where in any of the articles/guidelines that I have been directed to does it state what to do in this particular case. I am fine with leaving them as I have left them but just wanted to do the right thing as far as wiki guidelines is concerned. Since I am not an expert in the topic of bicycles I have no idea if those bicycles stores are notable or not. Anyhow I do appreciate all the information regarding the redlinks as it was very helpful. I am sorry if I am over thinking this. Thanks again. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 04:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You could do that if you wanted to, by changing [[Pivot]] which as you said goes to that list, to [[Pivot Bicycle Company|Pivot]] but you are not under any obligation to do so and I would only do it if I knew absolutely that the company was notable. Hope that clarifies for you. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC))

Yes, thank you that's better. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 16:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm just a user hanging out in the Teahouse because I learn things from some of the comments so I hope its OK to throw in my 2 cents but I disagree with some of what's been said. There is another policy that is relevant here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Write_the_article_first IMHO the days when making red links was a good idea has come and gone. Wikipedia needs to worry as much these days about quality control as just growth and having lots of links that go nowhere makes the site look less professional and reliable. Mdebellis (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC

Hi, Mdebellis. You are more than welcome to hang out here. This is where I learned most of what I know about Wikipedia! Although I couldn't agree with you more about the subject of redlinks and quality in general, I should point out to you that WP:WTAF is an essay, not a policy. Essays are kind of akin to the editorial page in the newspaper. It is the opinion of one or a group of editors on how existing policies should be interpreted, and not policy itself. I agree with it wholeheartedly, but their are editors that don't and their opinion is valid too. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the difference, I didn't know that. But I still disagree about the red links. To me its simple math. Its a lot easeir to make a red link then to make an article. Human nature being what it is eventually the red links will overwhelm the system. Besides although I'm just getting familiar with them its clear to me that there are now much better ways to document an article that needs to be created than putting a dead link that will confuse users. There are many different working groups with queues of articles to create. The appropriate thing IMO is to add new articles to those queues not to just create dead links. And if an artcile isn't important enough to go into one of those queues then that is a good indication the article will not and probably should not be written any time soon. Mdebellis (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Couldn't have said it any better myself! I am glad you are a Wikipedian! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I gotta admit that I am pretty excited that my question has generated so much interaction here. I totally agree with Mdebellis and grateful for your thoughts. Cheers to all and Thanks TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 02:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Just one editor's opinion, but I'm a fan of the rule "is this article likely to ever exist?" There are millions of people who are incidentally mentioned in a larger topic, who are not themselves notable and will probably never have an article, so no need to link those. But there are many people, locations, objects which credibly should have articles, or in some cases already have articles under a different name or spelling (which require a WP:Redirect to bridge that gap), so those are worth redlinking. So far as lists, for many lists of people (which are often horribly clusters of just random names), at least for lists of Indian castes, our convention is not to add a name to a list unless it is a bluelink, so that lists don't just become every business owner, adjunct professor, etc. that happens to be descended from a given community. So a few ways to look at it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Titles

I know I'm being really stupid but I have a total blank on how to do something. I've got an article written on my sandbox "User:Ned1966/sandbox" which I have just submitted to go live but I want the title to be "Hugh Murphy" (Level 1) but there is no where for me to specify that. If the article is accepted how will it be titled? How do I name the file? Ned1966 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ned. What you are looking for is how to move the page: that is how page titles are changed. When it has been accepted, you pick "Move" from the toolbar at the top of the page (in my case it's hidden under a down-arrow, but I think that may depend on your preferences) and move it to "Hugh Murphy".

However, while I'm not doing a full review, I can see two major problems right at the start of your article: first, it doesn't have a "lede" or introductory section, before the first heading, to give some context to a reader who happens on the article and has never heard of Hugh Murphy. It will probably start "Hugh Murphy was a record producer who worked with ...". Secondly, the second sentence describes him as a "talented and clever record producer". This is an example of what we call peacock language: rather than being neutral, as fits an encyclopaedia, it is slanting the text in his favour and telling the reader what to think. In general, evaluative words like "talented" and "clever" should be used in Wikipedia articles only if they are directly from a cited reliable source: you can say that "Melody Maker called him a talented and clever producer" for example, but the article should not itself say it.

You've made a good start at the article, but like many people's first attempt, its referencing is inadequate. Really, every incident, fact or claim about him should be cited to a specific reliable source; for example the bit about David Bailey. Some of your references are to other Wikipedia articles, which is not allowed as a reference (Wikipedia is not a reliable source) but is very much encouraged as a wikilink. So rather than saying Shel Talmy with a reference, write [[Shel Talmy]], which will appear in the text as Shel Talmy. Youtube is usually not regarded as a reliable reference either. On the other hand, some of your references do look like good ones, but you can improve them by formatting them better, with author, date, and link to the specific page. See WP:Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ned: There is another way to move your page. In the large yellow submission box there is a line of text which says "Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox (move).". Click on the word "(move)", and you will be taken to another page which will warn you that the page already exists. In the "Move Page" box below, change the name from "Articles for creation/sandbox" to "Articles for creation/Your page name here". (substitute the name you want) Then click on the "Move page" box. Your page will be moved to the new name. The "Articles for creation" part has to stay until the article is accepted, then it will be removed. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Referencing unpublished quotes

Many thanks for your help on this, much appreciated. I have a question about references though. Quite a lot of the quotes I've used have been sent to me by e-mail from associates of Hugh's. Is it OK to use them as I have done or do I need to reference them? And if so - how do I do that?

I have left the Youtube refs in place as they are pictorial and I have the license to use stills from the video. Ned1966 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ned1966. No, all citations must be to published reliable sources, and all quotations must be cited. Please see Wikipedia:Verification. This means that you cannot use such quotes at all, unless and until they have been published. As for how to cite, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. If you have any specific questions about citing after reading that page, please ask. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to keep on about this but is there any way that I can use some of these quotes? Hugh is dead but his wife has contributed her comments about him and some of his well known friends have also contributed. Can they confirm to you by e-mail that these are genuine thoughts? There are many people who have expressed their interest in seeing this wiki take shape.

Ned1966 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. It properly only contains information previously published in reliable sources and should never contain any information that is not verifiable through those previously published secondary (and to some extent, primary) sources; it should never be used to discuss, reveal or treat new information. Moreover, by core policy, every quotation must be cited using an inline citation to on of those reliable sources. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for some a list of possible other sites where this material, unsuitable here, might find a home. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

OK - I accept I can't use the supplied quotes !! Back to the drawing board - I need to do even more research. Thanks you for all your help.

Ned1966 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to jump on to the last bit about quotes: as we've noted on similar questions, please don't take this policy to mean that quotes or research are bad or anything, just that they need to be collected/filtered/published by a reliable source prior to use on Wikipedia. So it's not a policy deriding raw data, just a policy recognising that raw data should reach a "completed publication" stage prior to being used in a tertiary source such as Wikipedia. To try a silly metaphor: a pie stand sells pies, not a stack of apples and flour. Apples and flour are excellent, and baker who has skill and reputation can turn them into a proper pie, and only then can a pie stand present it to the world. Otherwise we'd be forcing every reader to "be his own baker" and getting all kinds of burned and undercooked pies resulting rather than happy folks eating a complete dessert. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

how to improve an article to be published

Hi, I just received my article rejected and I would love to be helped in improve it and to publish it. Thanks, Erasmus Solutions in Cooperation (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Erasmus Solutions in Cooperation, you have a lovely name! Welcome to the teahouse! The most important thing to do is to add sources to the submission. See WP:42 for what sort of sources are needed, and WP:REFB for how to add them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Food serenity, you have written that food serenity is a concept devised by an organisation called Erasmus Solutions in Cooperation. I am assuming from your username that you are connected to this organisation. Writing on Wikipedia about an organisation you are part of (such as one's employer) is considered a conflict of interest. Because Wikipedia tries to maintain a neutral point-of-view such editing is discouraged. Sorry. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Another problem that you may have with "food serenity" is that if your organization has made up the term themselves, it may not yet be in general use. Wikipedia doesn't include articles about terms that are new and haven't been written about in independent sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Teahouse, Erasmus Solutions. I was going to say this but it is already on your talk page. The username you chose is not allowed and should be changed. I'm just documenting this here for those who might have wondered.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

I have one more question. How do I use shortened footnotes like the ones on the Tang Dynasty page?--Taiping Tulip (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tricky question, Taiping Tulip! I've never done it myself; it looks complicated. Maybe this page will help: Help:Footnotes.

A quick look at the edits indicates that a short form notation is used {{sfn|Ebrey|Walthall|Palais|2006|pp=90–91}}. See WP:SFN for more information. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Shortened footnotes. In short though, you place in the text the {{sfn}} template next to what you are sourcing, supplying a last name (or names sometimes) year and page numbers. That will appear as a footnote in the body of the text when you save, provide the shortened citation in a references/citations section, which in turn will link to a full citation in a bibliography (or sometimes other named section). The full citations must be placed using a citation templates such as {{cite book}}, and the bibliography section containing the full citations must be prepended by {{refbegin}} and terminated by {{refend}} (and of course, you need a reflist template in the citations section). Thus, boiling down what you need:

text text text text text text text text  
text text text text text text text text