Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Editorial control

The page I would like to edit is full of 'doubt' words such as purportedly and sentences which are so poorly constructed they don't make sense. The editor won't allow direct change, all change must be done through discussion on the talk page. The editor will sometimes agree to make a change but he/she will then rearrange the sentence or surrounding sentences so that the 'doubtful tone' is maintained. Not sure where to go with this?Jarc 21:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janet Brindley (talk • contribs)

(FYI: Janet is talking about Buteyko method Sarah (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC))

Janet, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry your first experiences aren't being the easiest. I haven't read the article in any depth but a quick scan of the talk page does suggest that there might be a case of Ownership here. At least there is discussion at the article talk page. My suggestion would be to raise you concerns fully there, explaining why you think some of the wording is dubious and what you would suggest for an alternative. See what response that gets and if you think the outcome is unreasonable there are other avenues you can take, these are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and include getting a third opinion up to mediation. Sorry I can't be more helpful but, fortunately for me, it's not a situation I've found myself in, in the same way. NtheP (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, apologies for not signing properly.Jarc 22:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janet Brindley (talk • contribs)

I am signing with 4~ but it doesn't seem to sign,I think I may have messed something up when I asked for a nickname? BTW that was because when I got to grips with the Talk page I realised that there was some aggressive stuff going on. any ideas ... Thanks Jarc 16:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janet Brindley (talk • contribs)

Hi there Janet. Don't worry about forgetting to sign - we have all been sent to the Sin Bin for that one! P^)

I have been reading, and it does seem that your concerns are valid as to language and citations. I do have one concern though. I noticed that someone asked on the Talk Page if you had a conflict of interest - so I Googled your name and added asthma and guess what was number 1 on Google?

If there is a conflict of interest it is not an obstacle, but it does need to be handled the right way. So, can you confirm if there is a conflict, so us Tea Drinkers don't give the wrong advice? Cheers - and I take Milk, 2 sugars - Fortnum's best orange pekoe. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I'm just having a nice cup of tea and some fruit cake. Yes, I do know about Buteyko, that why I want to try and bring the page up to date. Around twelve years ago I and a group of others (all health professionals - a doctor, three physiotherapists, two nurses, a speech therapist, a yoga teacher and me, a medical scientist) set up an organisation called the Buteyko Breathing Association to help to make good quality information on breathing exercises available for the public and medical personnel. (a bit like Wikipedia in a way!). I don't know how more info you would like but I'm happy to carry on with the story of Buteyko so far. The only thing is that I'm right at the bottom of the page and can hardly see what I'm doing so help.Jarc 15:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh sign bot fritz!

Well Janet, as there is a Conflict Of Interest (COI) it my be an idea to cut down on the fruit cake with the tea! P^) There are a whole set of guidelines and recommendations for dealing with COI. It's not always appropriate to declare a COI as it can lead to security issues - cyber stalking is a reality. But as that does not seem to be an issue here, it may be best to be open an honest. The Wiki pages dealing with COI can be read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Section 7.2 Declaring an interest has some great suggestions about how to deal with the issue. One is to not edit the actual page, but to deal with it exclusively on the talk page. It takes longer and can be frustrating - hence the need to avoid cake with your tea. Comfort Editing with tea and cake or doughnuts and coffee is a known issue. You can also create examples of what you believe to be good content in your own sandbox(s) and then point to those from the talk page. Editors can see, discuss and work on the issues. Often seeing a great example is more useful than being told what a great example would look like.

It has been noticed that some of the best Wiki editors have had COI issues, and by dealing with them pro-actively they have become a great resource to the Wiki World. As a declared medical scientist you have some very valuable skills when it comes to language. You represent quite an asset that it would be a pity to lose.

The big question is, what do "You" want to do next? We can share tea and chat, we can advise and guide, but it's up to you how you handle this whole issue. If you find an irresistible urge for cake, you can always call for help! .... and that Fruit Cake, is it Rich Fruit - Dundee - Iced ....? Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Assam tea with a little milk and light fruit cake today .. yum. I had somehow disabled my signature by adding a nickname, hopefully should be okay now. I have been working via Talk and I think the evidence is there, it's going to be a long process but I feel much better coming across this group and enjoying tea with you. Lemon drizzle cake with green tea tomorrow?Janet Brindley (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: "recruiting"our old Chinese subject professors and also think tank experts to contribute to the China project

I'm on a roll!

I think the China project is a very worthwhile project and due a lot of attention. China is rising in the world of nations. I have several professors that might remember me from my college days and some that don't but who would be softer if they knew I was one of their students. Why not try to contact them and see if they would like to help out with contributions or by reviewing articles for accuracy and fullness. Or they could give suggestions and offer good sources. I remember one professor whose specialty was "colonial policing in the international settlement of Shanghai" Circa early 1900's. She probably even wrote a book or periodical about it. Where else would such specialized experts be available? And professors are very used to the citing and article writing process. This could also spread to other parts of Wiki. And why not include undergrads and grads who are writing or who have written specialized articles on China? All the information would be fresh in their minds and they would have all their sources and cites from their papers. Please let me know what others think. I always wondered why wiki hasn't caught on more in the academic world or maybe it has I don't know. How can promoting wiki to people that we know or whose intelligence we respect be a bad thing? I'm new to wiki (5 days) but a long time reader so I hope I'm not stepping over some unspoken line here or wearing out my welcome.Whoisgalt (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right, I'd suggest that the place to raise this http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Village_pump] - Outreach is the arm of Wikimedia that is dedicated to promoting projects including academic involvement. NtheP (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Inviting new people to build the encyclopedia is never a bad thing! And we're always in short supply of subject-matter experts, especially for a topic like China. Just keep in mind, though, that the emphasis Wikipedia places on verifiability can sometimes cause conflict with professors and other subject-matter experts, who sometimes insist on being taken for their word without backing it up with a source. Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia may be helpful in this regard; it's written for scientists, but I imagine that its tips could be helpful to a history professor, as well. You might want to suggest they read that first before diving in. Great idea, though! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an awesome idea. You can also have them visit the Teahouse if they need help ;) Sarah (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Are these professors in the U.S. or where? In some countries, we have formal programs where Campus Ambassadors are made available to assist in incorporating improvement of Wikipedia into classwork. The professors of whom you speak may be on those campuses, or on others where Ambassadors might be found. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Trouble with citing book sources

Hello,

I tried to use the basic usage template for a book cite and it won't translate into the little number at the end. It just says "template:name and info of book" in red linked version. This is my first time could someone lend a hand and tell me what I'm doing wrong? It is at Pabst Brewing Company under "Foreign licensing agreements or joint venture operations outside of the United States" under the HISTORY section. Thanks Whoisgalt (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Figured it out..I should of tryed more before asking...They don't mention that you need the ref marks too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoisgalt (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Whoisgalt, I'm happy that you figured out how to cite a book. Looking at Template:Cite book#Parameters would help you fill in the information for the citation. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 22:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You have it entered as "authorlink = Leah A. Zeldes" - and that seems to be looking for a Wiki page. Try "author = Leah A. Zeldes" and that should fix it! Well that is my guess and I'm sticking to it! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The cite templates have options for entering the names of authors. You can use |last=Surname|first=Fore name(s) or |author=Name. Either is fine but you should aim for consistency within an article. The parameter |autholink= has a different use altogether, this is for linking to the wikipedia article about the author - if they don't have an article or you spell it wrongly then it will appear as a redlink when the article is viewed. As there isn't an article called Leah A. Zeldes the name appears as a redlink. It's a useful parameter because it allows for the name of the article to be different so I could have |last=Doe|first=John A.|authorlink=John Doe (note that you don't use [[ ]] in |authorlink= the software handles that for you) and this would display as John A. Doe but link to the article John Doe like this

Doe, John A. (2012). Diary of a American Nobody. p. 100.

Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Leah's a nice person; kind of weirded me out to see her name pop up here! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Misleading redirect prevents creation of new article

Hi,

I have a new article but the term for it presently has a misleading, incorrect redirect to another entry. How can that redirect be removed to allow the creation of my article? Please advice.

Filofil (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Filofil, what article are you seeking to write and what is the redirect? Perhaps we can provide some input with that information! Sarah (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah. The article would be on "Libertarian Paternalism" which currently redirects to Soft paternalism. Incidentally, this latter article is very poor and should ideally be removed, but for now I'll settle for the less ambitious goal of not having other terms redirect to it. Filofil (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Filofil, Sarah, here is a link to the first time you asked about redirects in case it helps at all. heather walls (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Heather! Most of what I got was a tip to use the talk page (of Soft paternalism I presume). I stated the problem there on Dec.20, 2011 and there has been no response or other talk since. User:Kumioko also suggested splitting the article (on Soft paternalism I presume) into three but I cannot see how this would help. Well I guess I could just accept the misleading redirect and have a section on Libertarian Paternalism (sort of like accepting that "fruit" redirects to "tree" and add a section on "fruit"). Filofil (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to go deep with this, I just put my suggested new entry in my sandbox. Btw, is that accessible to all or do I need to direct you to it somehow? Filofil (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We can find it, but you can also link it like this: Filofil/sandbox :) heather walls (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let everyone know that this is at least the second time this discussion was presented here. I commented on one form this user a week or so ago on the same topic. Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kumioko! As I try to explain above, I did not feel that your response addressed my question as well as it might have. Perhaps you have more ideas to share? Filofil (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The article Soft paternalism says that this theory is also known as libertarian paternalism. If you are saying that this is not the case and that they are different political philosophies then I think you are going to have to be very explicit about what the differences are. That is likely to be the only way initially to get over the hurdle. I suggest the way to do this is to draft an article on libertarian paternalism in a sandbox page and a redraft of soft paternalism on another sandbox page. Once you are happy with both and they include references etc then this is where you will have to be BOLD and replace both mainspace articles with your drafts. You can prepare the ground by posting a note about what you propose to do and where your drafts can be reviewed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libertarianism as well. That might stimulate debate but if it doesn't well go ahead and make your changes because it doesn't look like too many other people care. NtheP (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep!! This is the sort of strategy advice I needed! (I have indeed explained the differences in detail to both my reviewers, but got no response.) Some more question then on the technical side - how precisely do I replace articles? For an existing one, like soft paternalism - do I simply edit it very severely, or is there another procedure? For a non-existing one with a redirect, like libertarian paternalism - can I first break the redirect (this was actually my original question) so that (hasty) reviewers don't automatically reject the new article because there exists a redirect? Sorry if there are easily found answers to these questions somewhere (please say where!) that I haven't found... Filofil (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For the existing article, it's better to keep the edits within the article itself and work on it in place; it keeps the edit history intact. It's better if you don't break the redirect; for every one editor who will revert your addition of an article over a redirect, there will be ten (including myself) who will revert you for breaking a redirect. Until there's a real article in place, the redirect shouldn't be broken. I wouldn't worry about people reverting you because you're overwriting a redirect with an article: that kind of stuff happens not infrequently, so I doubt anyone would object purely on those grounds. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 10:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Writ Keeper! This answers all my remaining questions. Thank you all. I did have my new article rejected twice by different editors with the only explanation that there was an existing redirect, hence my obsession with this. And my article is not that poor, I am a professional researcher after all, so it still escapes me what other motives they may have had. But this is more of a sociological/anthropological question about editor behavior on Wikipedia. For another time perhaps. Filofil (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was the image removed ? I want to know so that I can fix my mistakes, if any

Why was the image removed ? I want to know so that I can fix my mistakes, if any http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Honda_CG_125

Thanks

Update: But its a free image on their website of a motorcycle which itself is copyrighted but not the image. How do I upload an image there? take a personal photo of this bike myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimzeeshan (talk • contribs) 11:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Asimzeeshan (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Asim, it was removed from the article because the picture in question, File:Atlas Honda CG 125 classic.jpg, was deleted from Wikipedia (because of copyright violation). benzband (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to present good evidence that it is Public domain or properly licensed so Wikipedia can make full use of it. This is so difficult, it is mostly done by specialists who make it their main Wiki-activity. My main Wiki-activity is to bike out there and take a photo myself. Easier and more pleasant, when weather is good. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember that the photographer who took the picture is the owner of the copyright in that particular photograph, not the company who owns the copyright in the bike's design. Just because it appears on a website somewhere does not mean that the photographer has waived her or his copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How do disambiguation pages get created?

I was looking up the National Tractor Pullers Association today and I tried to look it up via its initials, NTPA. If you follow the links, you see what happens. How would I go about changing the redirect page at NTPA to a disambiguation page? Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, disambiguation pages appear because someone decides there is a need for one, in fact there is a whole wikiproject - WikiProject Disambiguation - dedicated to the topic! Changing the page is easy but disambiguation pages have there own style manual which you can find at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. As NTPA is an acronym it's a very simple page and would look like this

NTPA may refer to: North Texas Philosophical Association, an organization dedicated to the quality of philosophy teaching in North Texas National Tractor Pullers Association, the US tractor pulling governing body

the borders are just added for effect here and wouldn't be used on the actual page

Hope this answers for you. NtheP (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It did and it is done. Thank you very much...You guys are wonderful. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about uploading logo?

Hello. I am planning to add the logo of a newspaper. I have two questions. Firstly, how can I upload it? Secondly, is there any copyright issue over it? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Egeymi and welcome to the Teahouse. On the left hand side of your screen in the menu of items you'll see one called Upload file if you click on that it'll take you to the File Upload Wizard where you can upload your logo. There is a copyright issue as it's the logo of (presumably) a current newspaper. Therefore the only way it can be used is under the non free content policy which means adding information about why you want to use the logo and where you will be using it. All these questions will be asked as you go through step 3 of the File Upload Wizard. Give it a go and if you have any problems and/or the result doesn't look right come back here and one of the hosts will have a look at it for you. NtheP (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nthep. I will come back here (with good news, I hope:))Egeymi (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I have uploaded the file. Now, how can I upload it to the article, thanks. Egeymi (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I could do it, thanks so much. I am so happy, because it is the first one. Egeymi (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear it worked for you. NtheP (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Internal link within external link: feature or bug?

This is a question about policy/etiquette/community norms, not a technical issue.

When authors place an internal link (double bracket) inside the title of an external link (single bracket), the Wikimedia software does funny things to try to clean it up. See theses examples, especially the last where it is most pronounced.

* [http://www.example.com External link title] [[Example]]
* [http://www.example.com External link title [[Example]] ]
* [http://www.example.com External link [[Example]] title]
* [http://www.example.com External [[Example]] link title]
* [http://www.example.com [[Example]] External link title]

Question: Is it acceptable for editors to use this pattern in articles, or should editors remove this from articles when they stumble upon it?

If you're curious, this is very rare: observed in 3 out of 633 articles. Blevintron (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blevintron! I think the correct format is [http://www.example.com External link title] and [[Example]], so it would be better to have the top line in your table. benzband (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.Blevintron (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Reads too much like an advertisement...

I am trying to write an overview article about my company, but I'm having trouble phrasing the content so it doesn't read like an advertisement.

Do you have any suggestions on how to describe yourself without sounding like you're promoting??Aaron Huber (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Aaron, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. From the second paragraph it sounds like you have a connection to Diakont Advanced Technologies? If so then please read the Wikipedia policy of Conflict of interest and why it is suggested that you don't write about a company you are involved with although I think you've identified one of the reasons yourself, it can be very difficult to be neutral. Looking at the article, well apart from there not being any references to verify what you've written, there is nothing to say why the company is notable, there is just a list of dates and services operated - what is needed is information about the company that can be supported by sources from other people and organisations e.g. newspapers, other media organisations, trade journals. Ask yourself these questions. Why is this company different from others? What makes is stand out from the rest? If you can answer these positively and verify those answers from reliable, independent sources then you are some way towards an article. The other part is writing about in a prose style, endless lists are not the way to do it - hence the advert tag - it looks like you are trying to sell the company rather than report the company. NtheP (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Translated Sources

I am working on the Battle of Verdun Wikipedia article but many sources I have been finding are in French or German. Is it permissible to use an internet translator to turn the sources into English, or should I go about finding someone that can speak those languages that would be willing to translate relevant passages for the article? If so, how would I go about finding someone that would be willing to help? Is there a noticeboard? Timeweaver (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Timeweaver, it is generally preferred if somebody who knows the language translates it. You could check Category:Wikipedians by language and try to find an active user. Specifically, Category:User fr and Category:User de should help. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan! Wish there was a noticeboard for it though, going through every user on that huge list is going to take a lot of time, haha. Timeweaver (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I should've done more research. You can try Wikipedia:Translators available. Generally they translate articles, but it says they may translate sources too. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there time weaver. One trick I have found with foreign language sources is to use Google Translate (Other Online Translation Systems also exist) and then use phrases to search Google Books and Google Scholar. This can often uncover existing translations and sources. It's a step to left field, but it can be very useful. Also, if you have specific named sources and articles in French or German you can search for those too - and that can lead to yet more sources that can be ever so helpful. You never know who has done all the hard work already and it has been filed in some dusty corner of the Internet. Cheers Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that great advice, Media-Hound! Thank you also to Ryan again for the link to the Translators page. :) Timeweaver (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way Timeweaver - just so that it's clear, You don't need to have a source translated unless you are ""quoting"" it. If it is just being referenced as a citation, a translation is not mandatory - but it can be seen as polite to provide a footnote explaining the significance. Check out Non English Sources.

There is also a big debate raging about the issue over at the Citing Sources Talk Page. It's worth a look too. I can read a number of languages and work out if works are suitable for citation - but I'm not good enough to do formal translation. If you can read and understand you can cite - if you need to ""quote"" then go the translation route.

I keep encountering a special Wiki mark-up for translations in none English Wiki's - it allows you to provide both the original language and the translation and also embeds a source reference - but it does not seem to work in en.wikipedia.org. Here's an example from Wikipedia Italiano. If I can find the right mark-up and syntax, I'll give you a shout. The Manual of style is not very clear and has little to say! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Primary Source Issue

Based on the User Talk feedback to date, I wonder if the paragraph format of the awards section of this article Deborah Berke & Partners Architects is at issue with the primary sources (the article is following Wikipedia Rules for Primary Sources Wikipedia:No original research: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.").

If so, perhaps the paragraph could be restructured as such:

The practice has received numerous awards for its work including:

• American Institute of Architects KY Chapter Honor Award, 2011, 21c Museum Hotel, Louisville, Kentucky
• American Institute of Architects NYS Chapter Excellence for Historic Preservation/Adaptive Reuse, 2007, 21c Museum Hotel, Louisville, Kentucky
• Best of Year Award for Hospitality Design, Interior Design Magazine, 2006
• American Institute of Architects NYS Chapter Award of Merit, 2009, Marianne Boesky Gallery
• American Institute of Architects NYS Chapter Design Citation, 2009, Irwin Union Bank, Creekview Branch
• American Institute of Architects NY Chapter Merit Award for Architecture, 2009, Irwin Union Bank
• American Institute of Architects NYS Chapter Citation for Interiors 2007, the James Hotel Chicago
• Hospitality Design Award for Creative Achievement, Hotel Luxury Hospitality Design,2007, James Hotel Chicago
• American Institute of Architects NY Chapter Design Award, 2004, Box Studios,
• American Institute of Architects NY Chapter Design Award, 2001, Baron Loft
• American Institute of Architects NY Chapter Design Award, 1999, Howell Loft
• Society of American Registered Architects NY Council, Award of Excellence, 2012, 48 Bond Street .
• National Design Awards finalist for Interior Design, 2008

can someone please help?

thank you Meredith at DBA (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Meredith, yes the bulleted list looks much neater and easier to follow. However a note of caution, the article is tending to become a series of lists with very little prose and if it were an article about a person would be at risk of being tagged as a résumé. My advice would be to drop the further reading section. If those are notable articles about the firm then you should be able to include them in the text but ones like this are not about the firm but its founder - a different subject altogether. NtheP (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I also write a lot of articles about people who have won awards (including architects) and I usually only include the most important awards. If they've won multiple awards, for example the AIA awards for specific buildings, I'd just write in a paragraph "DBA has been honored with numerous awards including <insert how many here> from the American Institute of Architects for buildings such as <insert any notable buildings that might have Wikipedia articles but you don't have to list every building ever because most people don't know about those buildings nor are they going to go seek them out without citations>." and leave it at that. Then you can have a short bullet list of other awards. I hope this helps a bit. It's just not really encyclopedic when it becomes like a resume. Sarah (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah! I just saw your comment - I like it! I have just posted another question about where/how to make suggested edits to the article. Please let me know if I should make your suggested edit on the talk page or where? It's a good one and maybe it can help... thank you Meredith at DBA (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, If you disagree with an editor I understand you can ask for a third opinion. I've noticed in the past that the page I'm trying to update (Buteyko method) has a couple of people who always give the third opinion when this is requested. Can you request a different person, who might perhaps look at suggested changes with a new eye? Thanks. Spathi2 (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Spathi, and welcome back!

The "third opinion" your asking about is a little more formal than "another opinion". If you have a very specific disagreement with another editor and the two of you have reached a standstill with regard to solving it, you can formally start the process of asking for a informal "third opinion". Based on the talk page, I'm guessing you're not having a specific dispute as much as you'd like to stop butting heads with the same editor for a while. That's certainly understandable --- it's hard to learn from the same person over and over again. One way of dealing with this might be working on improving a few other articles for a while so you can interact with a broader range of editors. Once you've gotten a bit more experience, then come back to the Buteyko method article and I think you'll find things will go a bit easier. But do come back to it; I think you can make a valuable contribution there, I just don't want to see you get burned out in the first few weeks because that was (nearly) the only thing you focused on. Garamond Lethe(talk) 05:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

how to add to a talk page

I want to add a category to a talk page. How do I do this?

I was looking at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range to find some info.

One problem with this page is that for different animals sometimes the hearing range is listed in Hz (Hertz) and sometimes kHz (kilo Hertz = 1,000 Hertz). I am sure in the field that they swap backwards and forwards readily and it is so familiar that is not big deal. However, for the non-specialist reader this is at the best confusing and at the worst makes the discussion of hearing ranges incomprehensible.

Should the the page be edited to standardize it? Since this is not my field I was wondering whether Hz or KHz is better - or should the other term be listed in brackets. Happy to edit it according to the consensus. Also the term Hertz has no link.

From an education point of view: An aside - I think for science (and many other classes of)topics there should be a non-scientist/specialist introduction to topics on those pages. The Hertz page is a classic example of "preaching to the choir". If you are conversant with physics the intro is a "duh". For everybody else it is a "WTF". I would suggest that all science pages, at least, have a "lay" overview.Jaairey (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Jaairey, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not entirely sure why you're asking about categories; the rest of your question doesn't really indicate a need for it. What category are you trying to add to what talk page, and why? As far as whether to use kilohertz or just hertz, consistency sounds like a good thing to strive for; go ahead and change it to whichever one you think is better. If I had to guess, kHz is probably better, as long as the frequencies are high enough to warrant it, but do whatever, I'd say. If people disagree with your choice, they'll revert it, and then you can talk about it on the talk page if you like. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jaairey, and welcome!

As to adding a new category to the talk page, I think you want to click on the "New Section" tab that will be on the upper-right-hand corner of the page (in between "edit" and "view history", all of which are to the left of the search box).

As to Hz/kHz, I'm going to disagree with User:Writ Keeper and say it's probably best left as-is. I'm guessing that the experts in audiology have their own peculiar way of labeling values, just as computer scientists do. If someone edited a CompSci article and converted all of the processor speeds to MegaHertz or all of the DRAM speeds to GigaHertz I expect that would be met with vociferous resistance. It's a wholly arbitrary way of labeling the world, but it's what we're used to and, more important, people who want to learn about the field need to know that this quirk exists as well.

You finished up with a terrific Big Picture question: who should we write for? You have certainly identified a valid problem. For example, I can't make sense of the Coalescent Theory page, and I've had a graduate class in evolutionary biology (which is not to imply that I did well enough in that class that I would expect to understand the article.... ;-). But assume that I sit down with my old textbook and plow through the math until I feel competent to edit the article. Should I aim my introduction at undergraduate biologists who have had a genetics course? Undergraduates in general? High school students who have had a course in discrete mathematics?

I think a better way of handling the problem is to make sure scientific articles are in a specified hierarchy. Coalescent Theory links to both Population Genetics and a list of evolutionary biology topics. The latter has a link to evolutionary biology, which will in turn lead to the evolutionary biology portal. Somewhere along that chain I should be able to find a good reference that will speak to me at the level I'm at.

The hearing range article isn't currently in that kind of hierarchy; you might want to look into some of the biology web pages to see if it would be a good fit there.

Great questions, and happy editing!

Garamond Lethe(talk) 06:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentors

How do I choose a good mentor. My first 2 attempts were not gooddrt2012 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Dannyboy, welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you approach some of the people who are listed at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. Leave a message on their talk pages and discuss your needs with them. NtheP (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dannyboy! It might even be more helpful for you to ask you specific questions or concerns here - so do let us know if we can help you :) We've got a great group of people who can help collectively, too! Sarah (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Handling archaic spelling

In editing the article on Thomas Ady I came across a citation to the 1634 edition of a book called Hocus Pocus Junior. The site has a facsimile of the cover, and as expected (if you're familiar with texts from that time) the title reads "HOCVS POCVS IVNIOR" (as the letters 'i' and 'j' were interchangeable back then, as were 'u' and 'v').

I assume the sensible thing to do is normalize both the spelling and capitalization, but I don't see any notes to that effect on the WP:Spelling page. Is there guidance for handling archaic spelling (or if the obvious solution is correct, does there need to be)?

Thanks,

Garamond Lethe(talk) 11:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Garamond Lethe, nice to meet you. Hmmm an interesting problem. So you have a source that is at that cusp of language - Early Modern English. So do you use the Original spelling or transliterate into Modern English? I had a look at Google Books and Google Scholar and it seems that it's normal practice to use the "Original" spelling for the title, which is in Early Modern English, and give the subtitle which is in Modern English as well - so "Hocvs pocvs ivnior: The anatomie of legerdemain - Printed by T.H. for R.M., 1634".

If the title is to be used in the main body, you use the original title ""Hocvs pocvs ivnior". If you think it helps you can provide a modern English spelling, marked as Modern English - "Hocvs pocvs ivnior ("Hocus Pocus Junior")<ref group="note">Link To Footnote: The spelling issue explained.</ref>". You point to a footnote where further details can be found about the changes of The English Language over time. NO easy fix I'm afraid! P^) The instructions on how to get a footnote to work are at WP:CITELABEL. It looks tricky but I'm sure you can work it out. But really it's a rule issue where there is no rule, so you can do what is best for the reader and wiki user - but as the book title is "Hocvs pocvs ivnior" that should be used. Hope that helps! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Garamond, I checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling and it said that "Older sources use many archaic variants (such as shew for show), which are not to be used outside quotations except in special circumstances (for example, quire may be used instead of choir in architectural contexts)." It was within a section about when to use British vs American variants of spelling but I believe it applies here. Having read that, I believe "Hocvs pocvs ivnior" should be used if you are quoting from the book, but not otherwise. If you would like to add notes to your article I would advise you to use {{#tag:ref|This is your note|group=Note}} It is also necessary for you to have a section that says {{Reflist|group=Note}} There are other ways to do this, but this is the only one that allows you to have a reference inside your note since there are times where the material in the note needs sourcing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I was on the right page, but I was skimming and didn't expect to find the answer tucked away in that section.

Let me give you a specific example to make sure I understand this. If I'm referring to the Demonology of King James I in the text of the article I should modernize the spelling, but in the citation I should spell out the title and use the archaic spelling: Daemonologie, In Forme of a Dialogie, Diuided into three Bookes. By James Rx. The rationale being that within the text (but outside of a quotation) I'm making the reader's job as easy as possible, but if the reader want to look up the original source material then then reader needs to know the spelling under which the work may be cataloged. Likewise, if I'm creating an article for the text the name of the article should use the original spelling (as the Daemonologie article does), potentially adding redirects to cover modern spellings as well.

Did I understand your summary correctly?

Garamond Lethe(talk) 15:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you that i'm not entirely sure. When I reviewed the statement I gave you early, it seems like it certainly applies to things like "The fearefull aboundinge at this time in this countrie". I'm not entirely sure how it would affect something like Daemonologie because it is a proper noun. I wouldn't be opposed to the examples you provided though. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As Ryan says there is no easy way round this. The only other suggestion I would make is if you are using an archaic spelling in the text to add a hidden comment in as well using <!-- Comment --> just to point out that your spelling is correct, it reduces the risk that some well meaning editor corrects your apparent typo. NtheP (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I've summarized this conversation on the talk page of WP:Spelling, along with a couple of additional comments regarding the long s and Typographic ligatures. Thanks to all for the input. Garamond Lethe(talk) 21:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Uploading image under fair use

I've been doing some work with the article We Shall Overcome (film). I would like to have the image http://elholms.dk/formmail/filmaftalen/img/4458_poster_droemmen.jpg uploaded under fair use and displayed in the infobox in the article. I don't think I am able to upload the picture. I hope that somebody please will help me? --Moviedk (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

New question moved to top of page. NtheP (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried the File Upload Wizard? --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 13:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The File Upload Wizard does not work for me because I am not a registered user. The File Upload Wizard says: "Your account has not become confirmed yet. Sorry, in order to upload files on the English Wikipedia, you need to have a confirmed account. Normally, your account will become confirmed automatically once you have made 10 edits and four days have passed since you created it. You may already be able to upload files on the Wikimedia Commons, but you can't do it on the English Wikipedia just yet. You can still use this script to prepare an upload to Commons. If you don't want to wait until you are autoconfirmed, you may ask somebody else to upload a file for you at Wikipedia:Files for upload. Or you might ask an administrator to make your account confirmed manually at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed." --Moviedk (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Moviedk, welcome to the Teahouse! It's not that you're not a registered editor, it's that your account hasn't been confirmed yet. Only confirmed editors can upload files. You'll automatically gain this permission once you've made ten edits and been around for four days; the easiest way to be able to do this is just to wait. You can also request that an admin grant you the confirmed permission early. You can make this request by clicking on this link and following the instructions in the box. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

frustrated newbie

Please see my talkpage. My first interaction on this website with a real person was negative. Apparently they didn't think I was legitimate and by some bureaucratic wikipedia rule which they refused to alter, they refused my edit. Since then, more often than not my experience with wikipedia has been negative. I put up a page - it gets deleted. The person who deletes it finally admits they shouldn't have but refuses to do anything about it and I'm supposed to go to another bureaucratic place on the website to get it fixed when it wasn't me that broke it in the first place. Finally today I make a couple of good suggestions and someone deletes my template and fobs me off. I won't be trying to contribute here if this is how I am going to be treated. If you can fix these problems, by all means please do so, but please do not ask me to go through another bureaucratic process. Just fix the problems and let me know on my talkpage when they are fixed. This will be my last desperate effort with you guys. My friends told me not to waste my time and I hoped to prove them wrong. Kelly222 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Kelly222. Glad you stopped by. Frustration and newbie seem to be synonyms. I can't wait for the folks who write the dictionaries, lexicographers, to play catch up with reality. P^)

I have had a look at your talk page and contributions and I can see your concerns - Frustrations - and quite a few good suggestions that you have made. You have asked for someone to sort things out for you. Well, we could, but the teahouse is here to help editors find out how to do that themselves. We are here to help "You". So, if we can, let is know where You want to start.

We aint scaredy-cats, and it does not look like you are one to run from a challenge, so tell us the biggest frustration and let us help you get it out of the way. All the best - and the kettle is always on! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelly, what types of things can we help you with? I'm sure a few hosts here are happy to lend a direct hand at things. Let us know how we can help :) Sarah (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to say I am also new and have had the same experience. Especially that editors make decisions and then cannot be bothered to either explain or correct when mistaken. My guess is some editors do a lot of things and do it too quickly, instead of going for quality, not realizing people put a lot of work into their contributions. The interface could certainly be more user-friendly too, but then they always can... Filofil (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Filofil - boy can I hear your frustration. I'm a relative Novice to Wiki, and I still remember my first edit. It was undone and came with a note that said I evidently don't speak English. Bleeping Rude! P^) I have been looking at your edits and you have been working hard. I don't understand all the intricacies of Philosophy or the fine distinctions so I realy can't make comment on quality and content. You can put a note on the talk page for the wiki page and also request for explanation in the talk page of the fellow editor - directing them to the talk page for the article. If they don't repond and reach concensus you can then Undo - Or re-edit. You are in a slightly different position to Kelly222 because there the page has been deleted. I know that you have worked round that issue and are still looking for a best fix. Good On You - Working the problem and seeking a solution. Working the system to find a best outcome. It's just knowing the system that is often the issue. I agree that wiki editing could be easier with a better interface, and I understand that there is ongoing work to provide a WYSIWG editor. Everything in life could be easier, but what do you do with the easier? That's Philosophy for you. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Guys, you've said you want to help but no one has yet fixed a problem. Sorry to sound negative but PLEASE pick any problem you like of all the ones I've had and PLEASE let me know on my talk page when the problem has solved. Here they are: 1. It would be nice if I got an apology from the first person who wouldn't let me edit AND that that person promised to stop being a bureaucrat AND that that person was monitored so they didn't throw dirt into newbie's faces. 2. If the guy who deleted the emogay page fixed up the problem or anyone who wants to can fix it. 3. If the guy who dissed by suggestions about TIME did something about it to help or anyone who wants to can act on it. Don't get me wrong. I'm obviously keen to help but NOT if I keep getting faced with this sort of experience. I don't want to criticise the kind people who have tried to be kind above, but please ask yourself, if you really wanted to help wikipedia wouldn't we just start solving the problems instead of talking? Sorry again but this is really making me sad. Kelly222 (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelly222 Hi there again. The Teahouse is about solving problems. One of the biggest problems is how Wikepedia has grown and how that disadvantages new editors. It can be a highly technical environment - legal - complex, so the Teahouse was set up to help solve that problem. It's no Talking Shop - it's a real world problem solving shop. Personally I was very impressed with your suggestion of a Bot to seek out and deal with time dependent language. It's an issue I have spotted and was wondering how it could be solved. You beat me to it. Brava! That's why I gave a barnstar. I'm a relative newbie myself, so I'm not sure how to help you take such a brilliant idea and make it reality. I believe it should be made reality, as I can see it helping Copy-editors and other editors improve Wiki Land. Many times people adapt to problems and work round them. You saw a problem and came up with a solution. Talk about seeing The Wood and the Forest! I've floated the idea over at The Village pump (idea lab). I'm not sure if it's the right place - so I will wait and see what comes as feedback. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Gifts for users?

Hiya. I noticed that in addition to barnstars, which seem more official, I've seen users leaving other users "gifts" on their talk pages in the form of a banner to thank them for some contribution. I've seen beer, coffee, baklava, etc. What are those and is there a repository for those templates, or are they custom-created? Thanks! Avory (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Avory, welcome to the Teahouse, the gifts you mention mostly come under the general topic of WikiLove. You can find most of the templates either in Category:WikiLove templates of one of its subcategories. NtheP (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikilove an aspect of Twinkle or does every editor have a heart button at the top of the screen? If you see the heart icon on the top of your screen when you are on user talk pages you can use that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's set to on by default for all users. Can be disabled in Special:Preferences on the editing tab (bottom entry). NtheP (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Avory! When you are visiting your own or another editor's talk page you'll see a red heart in the upper left corner - not where your username is, but, below that next to a star. If you click it, a menu will come up and you can follow the directions and drop off wikilove to people. I hope this helps..and inspires you to share wikilove for those who have done a great job at contributing to Wikipedia or helping you out :D Sarah (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Help for an article

Hi, I've helped to create article about Mehran Tavakoli Keshe, but it was declined third time - reviewer said that there are not reliable sorces provided. I wonder - is it a patent published at European Patent Office not a reliable source? I need an independent point of view about what should I correct. Maybe any advice from more experienced members about what should I do that article will be accepted. Any advice is welcomed. I'm a new member and also not native English speaker, so please forgive me for any gramatical mistakes.Jakec10 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jakec, welcome to the Teahouse. Don't worry about not being a native English speaker, you're doing more than well enough to be understood and when the article is ready, someone who is fluent in English can tidy it up. I think there are a few problems with the article as it is at the moment. A lot of the references you have used don't refer to Keshe and I must admit I can't see the connection between his work and the shooting down of an American drone. The two patent applications several years for confirmation you refer to are both marked as withdrawn and I don't think a failed patent application is an indication of notability. There also seems to be quite a lot about the Keshe Foundation which might have been founded by him but doesn't really help in establishing the notability of Keshe as a person. When you take these bits away I'm afraid you haven't got much that verifies any information about Keshe at all. Sorry but you need to find more references that talk about him and his work. NtheP (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for answer. The problem is that technology discoverd by Keshe is so new, that nobody has disovered it yet. For example - if somebody discover a new medicine wich is not known, how could you put reference for it. Person has been cured, but you can wait several years for confirmation from pharmaceutical industry and if there is not in their interest, you will never get a confirmation. You can check story about Benveniste Emile who's work haven't been confirmed by science world eventhough today homeopaty is recognized in several 'west' countrys. Why I put references for capturing American drone - not shooting down. Becouse that is a fact. And, please tell me wich is the technology wich can capture the most sofisticated plane that is equipted with all encryptioned tools without any damege an bring it to the ground? With that article I offered people on Wikipedia the answer for such action and for such technology. Maybe this is difficult to understand and even harder to accept by patriotic American people. That is why you won't hear about thechnology of Keshe in main-stream media and you can't get direct references about it. But you can be shore that goverments know about it, but obviously it is not for public release. However, this technology is peace keeper in the world. You can get evidence of this technology only indirectly as you follow the news in the back. Anyway, don't take my coment personaly. Any advice how to cover new discovery on Wiki?Jakec10 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can't verify what you're claiming then it has no place in Wikipedia as that constitutes original research. You are trying to link his work to an event without giving any references that back up what you're saying. I don't deny that Iran captured an American drone but you aren't showing that this has anything to do with Keshe (to add at this point I'm not American). You're supposing that his work has something to do with the drone capture - that's very different from establishing that he definitely did. Until you can come with with sources that can verify what you say, the work will not appear on Wikipedia. NtheP (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

how do I "verify" references in my page posts?

I am trying to create a page for the author Brandon Jones. I finding that the references I site keep being dubbed "unverifiable" by Wikipedia. I am SO frustrated by this and can find no information on how to solve the matter, meanwhile under constant threat of the page being deleted. I need help. Thank you!

please see the page "Brandon Jones (author)"

Yogimam (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It helps to provide a link, like so Brandon Jones (author) so we can see your article. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Greenmaven! Perhaps Yogimam doesn't know how to add a link to a Wikipedia article in their text, just yet! We frequently see that here at the Teahouse most new editors don't know how to add wikilinks early on in their editing! It looks like Yogimam is working on the article in their sandbox, here. -- Sarah (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yogimam! Welcome to the Teahouse, we're glad you came by! I understand it can be quite frustrating to know what a reliable source is when first contributing to Wikipedia. I'm glad you're interested in contributing. Perhaps one of the problems you are finding might have to do with how "notable" Brandon Jones the author is. While many people can publish books and have famous and non-famous authors say that their writing is great, without citations from legit sources or publicity from major news sources like the New York Times, for example, then that person might not be notable enough yet :( We actually have notability guidelines to maintain that not everyone is warranted a Wikipedia article. We even have specific guidelines for authors. Think hard...does Mr. Jones deserve an article yet? Does he qualify for any of these reasons?

1. He is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. He is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. He has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. His work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

If his book or his contributions as an author aren't quite matching any one of these criteria in regards to public reception or publicity then he might not be eligible to have an article at this time, unfortunately. How about you take a break from him and think about who else you might want to write about? We have millions of articles on Wikipedia that desperately need improvement, and we're happy to help you find what suits you best :) Sarah (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yogimam, What you could try is building up the article in your sandbox or also try making it on an "Article for creation" page that way it won't get deleted. Sadly, I don't know if you can 'verify' sites, perhaps try finding some other sources or reading up on verifiability and reliable sources. I hope some of this helps you. Lunashy_{Friendship letters.}^{write a friendship letter} 05:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Lunashy! We're also here to help as much as we can here at the Teahouse. So feel free to ask away if you have concerns or questions! Sarah (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)