Open main menu
Archive 50 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 60


how to add comics portal with image of speech balloon

How do you add the small box with the image of speech balloon and comics portal, also how to adjust the location of the box. Townboxbell (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. By comics portal, are you referring to Portal:Comics? If so, the template linking to the portal can be inserted with {{portal|Comics}}. It's usually placed below the See Also heading.--xanchester (t) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons copyright images


I seem to be having a lot of Tea recently. Regardless this concept of non-free and free is confusing. So I'm just going to give the exact situation here and hope for good advice. I've read a few relevant pages but I'm not as yet decided. I am writing an article on which is safely parked on my userspace. It is far from complete and my first article so let's stay on point please :). I need to upload their logo to the wikimedia commons. They are a free mobile blogging platform. Anybody can register and host a blog similar to except they target mobile users. Now having said that, they are free. So (1)Can I upload the logo? (Source:there site) (2)If not can I source it somewhere else and upload it? Then deeper into the question... The internet archive has there versions from 2008 onwards. They changed there logo throughout time and I also want to upload those (for history).... (3)Is that source allowed? (4)And what about full screenshots of the site? (5)If I take them myself? And use of internet archive? (6)Lastly I saw a page on citations specifically for websites but can't remember where! I searched normal citations page and couldn't find it. (7)Plus is there a project related to this in any way? Maybe CMS, internet companies or something?

I know it is a lot of questions but please try to answer them as this is a major concern of mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airbender3 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Airbender, welcome back! No worries, we have lots of tea to go around. :) (Disclaimer for the following: I am not a lawyer! This is just my best understanding.)
Anyway, the answer to your first five questions is: no, the logo cannot be uploaded to Commons. While the service the website provides is free, they maintain copyrights for their branding and logos, as you can tell by the little disclaimer at the bottom of their site that says "Copyright © 2008 - 2012 All rights reserved." Things that are uploaded to Commons must be freely licensed under the terms of CC-BY-SA license, and this little disclaimer means that it is not freely licensed. (It might help here to remember that we're talking about "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer"; that the website is providing services for free as in beer, doesn't mean all their content is free as in speech.
These restrictions still apply to old versions of the logo; copyright doesn't expire for many decades. It would also apply to screenshots of the website you take in order to display the logo. Even if you source it elsewhere, the copyright is on the logo, not on any one depiction of it, so there's really no way of wriggling around it (and it's a bad idea to even try, really, even if there is a way; copyright is a good thing to respect).
You might still be able to upload one image to the English Wikipedia (not Commons) under what's called fair use, but there are some pretty strict and complicated restrictions on whether that's okay or not. (I'll forgo a long talk about fair use, because it'll be, well, long.) One of the restrictions (though not the only one) is that it must be used in a real article, so you wouldn't be able to do that while your draft is still a draft.
For your last question, were you perhaps thinking of the "cite web" template? It's useful for formatting citations to websites. Is that what you're looking for? Writ Keeper 21:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Writ Keeper.
Thanks for the "cite web" template link. I think I need to make a user subpage and add links to all my commonly used Templates and Guides. I think all new users should do that. :)

Airbender3 (Talk) 22:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

How to retrieve Question I asked in Teahouse forum?

Hello Jethrobot,

I am unable to see what has been answered by you at TEAHOUSE page for the below link. Nor now i could see the question I have asked which was answered by you.

I am looking forward to get the above link published.

Kindly assist!

RegardsMrnit (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse! His answer is located here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 48#Please make the changes and get it aprooved. Cheers,--xanchester (t) 17:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove USER:

How do I remove the User: off my heading. User:Nigel Petrie Thomas OwenNigel Petrie Thomas Owen (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nigel, your question was answered yesterday - please see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Can I remove USER: in the name of my page. Regards, PKT(alk)

Image Reduction

How do I reduce the size of image I have on my pageNigel Petrie Thomas Owen (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. To adjust the size of the infobox image, place the "| image_size = " parameter below the "| image = " parameter in the infobox, then fill in the desired size, like 100px, 200px, etc. To adjust the size of the images outside the infobox, set the image size like so (120px image as an example): [[File:Your image.jpg|thumb|120px]]. The default image size for thumbnails is 220px, so anything smaller than 220px should reduce the size. Hope that helps,--xanchester (t) 16:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Submission Inquiry. Horror Film Entry

Good morning. I am trying to create an article about a horror film , " One Last Sunset ".

Problem is , it keeps getting rejected. Please advise. The film is extremely noteable , has tie in's with the " Walking Dead " ( won the NC International Black Film Festival and various other awards). It has it's own Internet Movie DataBase listing ( ) , it's all over the internet. Can't figure out why this isn't being accpeted. Pleae advise as it may be the quality of referencing that's keeping the thumbs down on this wonderful entry. * I'm new at this :)

Many thanx and Mucho Gracias !!Speak4u (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Speak4u, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't speak on behalf of their editor who reviewed your article twice, Mephistophelian (talk · contribs), but I can make the following comments:
Personally, I think the film has sufficient notability, but I will ask the reviewing editor the comment here to explain his opinion further. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

──Thanks for notifying me of this discussion.

"The film is extremely [notable]..."
"...won the NC International Black Film Festival and various other awards."
"'s all over the internet."

After reconsidering the references in the article, these assertions seem exaggerated and misrepresent the general coverage of the film, its popularity, critical reception, and accolades. Unless I am mistaken, the only reference that does realistically provide significant coverage in reliable media is the interview with the director on 21 October 2010. On the website for the Nashville International Black Film Festival, the references to One Last Sunset comprise a schedule for a screening in October 2011, and the brevity of the material entails a lack of contextual significance. Those regional festivals might suggest the notability of the film to some, but my interpretation is that the article does not demonstrate the subject’s critical reception, historical importance, or general distribution. Without additional references, the article cannot satisfy Wikipedia’s general principles on notability (GNG §1–5) or specific criteria regarding films (NF §1–8). Mephistophelian (contact) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

Help neded to sort out citations/references

Hi - I have gotten confused and in a bit of a mess trying to sort out my citations and references. I'm hoping someone can help.

This is the submission link

There are 2 things actually. 1. I cannot get citations for some of the awards as they have been taken off the websites which previously showed them. Is this ok - that I cannot now cite them? 2. I seem to have got a little muddled with the citations and references. Specifically for reference 5 - the john logie baird award. I cannot code it correctly into the reference for some reason.

Hope you can help. Thanks again. John Johnalex001 (talk) 09:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, John! I saw this setting here without an answer, so I thought I'd take a look. After a bit of a treasure hunt I found your article here. After matching up the references with the facts like the reviewers suggested, I would use a cite web template for your references. There is a radio button at the top of the edit screen labeled "cite". If you click on it, a pull down menu labeled "templates" will appear. Click on that and some citation template choices will appear. Click on "cite web", and fill out the form. It will automatically place the ref signs and give you a well formatted reference. Busy for the moment, but I will do your ref 5 for you so you can see what it shoould look like when you are done. Hope this helps and Happy Editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I remove USER: in the name of my page

Can I remove the USER: in the name of my page User:Nigel Petrie Thomas OwenNigel Petrie Thomas Owen (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nigel! Welcome to Teahouse. The short answer to your question is no. The various prefixes such as User:, Template:, Talk:, Wikipedia:, are kinda like domain designation on URL addresses. You can't get rid of .com, .net, .us, etc. Wikipedia is broken up into various "spaces". User: and User talk are in what we call the namespace, the place where accounts and personal talk pages are stored. Titles without prefixes are automatically assigned to "mainspace" or the actual encyclopedia. So if your User: was removed, your userpage would become an article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Its true that the actual page title cannot be changed. However, the appearance of the title of the page can be formatted by using Template:DISPLAYTITLE. This code {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="display:none;">User:</span><Username>}} can be used to remove the "User:" from appearing on the title. However the url and the wikilink to your user page will remain unchanged. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I think respondents are missing the point of the question. Nigel Petrie Thomas Owen has clearly written a user page as if it were an article, and almost certainly wants to know how to make it an article. The answer to that is that it can be moved to mainspace. However, it is not close to ready, so if that is the goal of the editor, then we should be providing advice for example, it has zero references, and all bios require at least one reference. In fact, we probably should move this to a user subpage, explain to the editor that the user page is intended for discussion about activity on Wikipedia (with minor personal interest accepted). Then the editor can optionally create a proper user page, and work on the user subpage as a draft article, which we can move to mainspace when it is ready.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


I don't need to do it now but i think i'm might need to soon or at least eventally, so how do i make an archive. Zeroro (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Zeroro, welcome to The Teahouse. I'll give you a simple answer and a more complicated answer to your question. The easy answer is that you can copy and paste this syntax at the top of your talk page:

{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 60K |counter = 6 |minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(15d) |archive = User talk:Zeroro/Archive %(counter)d }}

The more complicated answer is to read this how-to guide on archiving if you want to customize how often you want discussions to be archived, how large each page can get, etc. Check it out at your leisure. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

thank you, i think that will help a lot. Zeroro (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

how to cite a book

hello tea house friends.

(i'm just trying out the teahouse, but I do have a real question)

I'm trying to help out with an article at

It's flagged as lacking sources. I've found some good sources, and I've added them to the "references" section but...

1. how do I mark a source as related to the article, since the article has already been written? 2. what's the proper format for citing something like a book, document, etc.? (I'm used to MLA citation style)


Dylan k (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dylan, welcome to The Teahouse. There is a "Cite" toolbar at the top of the edit window which allows you to automatically generate the required wiki code.


You click one of the templates, e.g. "book", and fill in the details.

More information can be found in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or the citations tutorial (the below video will play best in Firefox or Chrome):

Hope this helps, I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh and also, different citation formats are acceptable here (e.g. MLA and APA are OK, among others), but it is important to remain consistent throughout a given article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hah, one last thing. Make sure to add this to the bottom of the page during or after you've finished putting in references:
This will create a reference section and a list of all the references you've added in. Let me know if you need any other help! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick question about a signature

I've recently updated my signature and would like to know if a few experienced editors could take a look at it and see whether there's too much code to make it viable. I've used orange, which can also be a troublesome color for vision impaired users, and it'd be great if I could get someone who HAS impaired color-blindness or a similar impairment to see whether the signature is visible enough. <small style="border: 2px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''''[[User:Khan Tiger|<font color="#FFA500">Khan</font>]][[User talk:Khan Tiger|<font color="#000000">Tiger</font>]]'''''</small> Is the code, for convenience.KhanTiger 23:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi Khan-- this is an interesting request! I do actually have color blindness. I'd say that the font color for "Khan" is a bit difficult for me to read-- it feels like a bit of a strain on the eyes. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look too long to me! However, if you're concerned, you could create a template page at User:Khan Tiger/signature with the code in it, and then for your signature in preferences include {{User:Kahn Tiger/signature}} with the curly brackets, that way it's shorter in the edit window, and it updates every time you change it! Thanks for the question! gwickwire | Leave a message 23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Are Political "groups" allowed to operate on Wikipedia? What about "WikiProject Conservatism"?

I came across "WikiProject Conservatism" on an article about Carly Fiorina (see

I do not have the chops to evaluate whether this group or its actions are appropriate or not, so could someone who knows how things really should work take a look at this matter and in particular see whether kinds of edits this group are making are mostly objective and appropriate? (name withheld for privacy reasons) (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your concerns. There was actually a lengthy discussion of whether the WikiProject should be outright deleted here, which may address some of the concerns you have mentioned above. Otherwise, I don't believe The Teahouse is the right venue for reviewing this. You might consider opening a Request for Comments on the matter or otherwise addressing the issue on the article's talk page. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)99.27, hi and welcome. I think your making an error in assuming that WikiProject Conservatism is a political grouping promoting conservatism. It's not, it is a group of editors interested in developing articles about Conservatism and that very much means ensuring that articles meet Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a Wikipedia:neutral point of view. This is identical to the aims of WikiProject Socialism who are interested in developing articles about socialism. The same can be said for any of the other wikiprojects dealing with political viewpoints such as Anarchism, Corporatism, Fascism, Oligarchy or Liberalism.
That isn't to say that individual members of either project may hold conservative or socialist views but on the whole it's the topic that interests them not the promotion of a particular political viewpoint. Whether either project achieves neutrality is a subjective decision and certainly there are discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism which suggest that the project may be leaning one way but it certainly isn't Conservapedia. NtheP (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming an Article

An article about an Ontario School that I am editing needs to be renamed. The name of the school has changed and I am trying to reflect this name change in the article. I have read through the documentation that suggests that having the page deleted and starting a new article is not the way to go.

It suggested that I include the topic on the talk page to have the article redirected. It has been up for a while now and no one seems to have anything to say about it. How do I proceed to having the article with the old name redirected to an article with the new name and have all of the content moved with it?

Daniel Kivari (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel Kivari. Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you want to rename Peterborough Collegiate and Vocational School. If you check the history, you are the recent major editor. Fewer than 30 watchers. You already left a note in talk and nobody objected. Looks like a non-controversial move and you, as an autoconfirmed user, can make that move.
With the article on the screen, look for the down-facing triangle at the top of the page to the left of the Search bar. The move button will appear in a drop-down when you hover your mouse cursor over it. Click Move and fill in the blanks. When you're ready, go for it!
Don't be surprised when the next thing you see is a Movepage-moved page. Just follow the directions to eliminate any double-redirects left by the move (there will only be a couple for the Peterborough article). If you want or need more detail, look at the move page.
Hope this is what you were looking for. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Rock and Roll! That worked perfectly well. I hope I cleaned everything up well enough. -Thanks again. Daniel Kivari (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

showing a trademark image like pepsi or starbucks

Hello, I want to include a trademark image on an article page. Can I do that as a non-public page? Thanks, Edit16180339 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Edit, and thanks for swinging by The Teahouse. Can I first ask what page you want to add your trademark to? The oversimplified answer to your question is "yes, probably", as long as there is no free equivalent that can be used, the trademark is only being used to illustrate the entity in question, and that the image is of low resolution, and a few other considerations. Many Wikipedia articles use logos or trademarks for these very reasons. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jethro. Thanks for responding. I'm new to all this. The page I want to add a trademark to is in my sandbox getting developed. Low resolution makes sense. Anyplace I could find the few other considerations you mention? Edit16180339 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the non-free content critera and this style page for trademarks on Wikipedia for some further information. Also, having looked at your article, you might also want to consider finding some independent sources to support information in the article, because presently, they all appear to be written by the subject. Otherwise, you article may be nominated for deletion once you move it out of your sandbox. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What matters to me is the trademark, the other information can be omitted. I'll read over your recommendations, and take it from there. Thanks. (PS I thought my sandbox was private, is it open to anyone, or do you have special privleges?) Edit16180339 (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Edit-- sandbox pages are actually not private, and as it turns out, you can view any user's list of contributions and see all of the changes, additions, and removals they have made with that particular account (with a few exceptions, such as sensitive edits that are removed by oversight). (Here are mine, for instance.) So no, I don't have any special privileges in being able to view your work. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to upload a photo and it immediately got shot down. Now I figure if I can just get the entry of the text, the image exists in the citation. Would you please look again and advise? TNX Edit16180339 (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Last Ditch Effort for film inclusion..

Good morning. I have been working on an article over the last few days in humble efforts to get this title included on Wikipedia. I understand and respect your criteria for inclusion. Being a first time Wiki submitter , I am certain that the structure was horrible. The proposed article is in regard to an Award-Winning horror film " One Last Sunset ". I've sent it twice before and each time , I've made the suggested adjustments. Please advise as I strongly believe that it meets criteria , which isn't an easy feat , especially with an independent film. But I feel it has reliable sources , and merits inclusion worthiness. Whereas , I'm determined , I don't want to be a bother. If time avails, please check out the page link and advise if there is anything else that I can do to either improve or add. Thank you for your invalubale time and assistance , once again. The revised article page ( with additional and new references ) is listed below :) (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Speak4u, have you yet read the answer to your question lower on the page at #Submission_Inquiry._Horror_Film_Entry? It's pretty detailed and may answer your question. If it does not, can you let us know what you're still unclear on, or specifically how you think your film does indeed meet the requirements of WP:Notability (film) guidelines? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice on new article: Kevin Harrington (Marketing Strategist)

Hi there, I've had a first go at creating a new article regarding Kevin Harrington - I was wondering if you could give me an opinion as to whether it is ready for submission? G2003 (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. It's a good start, but going through the citations, I've noticed a few issues: First three citations qualify as trivial. Fourth isn't independent and doesn't seem to be reliable. The general notability guideline requires significant coverage. For example, an article in the New York Times profiling the person. Quotes usually aren't considered significant. There needs to be a source that features the subject. Hope that helps.--xanchester (t) 12:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - yes, I'm struggling on references and coverage for this one.G2003 (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi There how do you remove the USER: in the title of the page please to leave only the nameNigel Petrie Thomas Owen (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems like you have asked the question before here. By the way, do you mean move a page? If so, why would you want to turn a user page into an article? Anonymouse321 (talkcontribs) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... I just looked at your user page and realized you meant it to be an article. Would you mind moving (copying and pasting, I guess) into a new submission at Articles for Creation so that it can be moved to the article space after being reviewed? Anonymouse321 (talkcontribs) 08:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
No need to copy-paste; I'll perfrom the necessary moves for you. I'll also be declining the AFC submission, since the article has no references at all - all biographies of living people must contain at least one reference to a reliable source. Yunshui  08:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi. As previously suggested, this article draft should be moved to a subpage, e.g. User:Nigel Petrie Thomas Owen/Nigel Owen. User pages normally only contain limited personal information. If you have any reliable sources covering the work of the companies and yourself they certainly need to be included within the proposed article. You also need to note that such information about yourself needs to have been published in reliable sources elsewhere before being included in a Wikipedia article. If such sources aren't readily available then I think you'd be well advised to first contribute to biographies/entries of other topics with which you are familiar, in order to give you a firmer grasp of the basics of articles here. What do you think? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

conflict of interest question

Hi! I am an intern at a Washington, DC tech startup. I want to create a page for the company. Since I am associated (as a paid intern) I want to make sure to have an appropriately nonbiased article and meet Wikipedia's standards for neutral POV. Here is a link to my sandbox

I would appreciate any help or advice on getting this published.

thank you! Amj55 (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why it shouldn't be moved into the articlespace right now, aside from the features section being a little bit advertisementy. Remove the last two paragraphs in the features section, and combine the first two, and I think it wouldn't have much of a problem passing review. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 19:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The article probably needs some wikilinks to avoid becoming a dead end (an article that has no links to other articles), but otherwise (besides what gwickwire said), it's looking good! Anonymouse321 (talkcontribs) 19:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and okay'd it -- no major issues -- see Studyhall. —Theopolisme 21:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This looks OK at a glance but would benefit from more use of inline citations. I've tagged it as such. Otherwise, thanks for seeking advice here and for trying to be neutral. -- Trevj (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of article? please advise.

Can someone please tell me why this article is being considered for deletion?
Waterbeach F.C.

Or more important can somebody please save it from deletion as other teams in the same league are on wikipedia and do not seem to have this issue?

As seen here:
Cambridgeshire Football Association County League#Member clubs 2012–13

Thank you for your time and help. MattyMaltby (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Matty, I did leave a note on your talk page about this a fews days ago. That there are articles about other teams in the same league isn't an arguement for keeping the one on Waterbeach. If anything all that does is raise the spectre that they to are nominated for deletion. Notability of football clubs can be established partly on where they are or where they have been in the footall structure. For example, at any time in their history have the club entered the FA Cup - even if they only ever played one game in a first qualifying round then they meet the notability critiera for football clubs. The person nominating the article for deletion also appears to be making two other points. One about membershp of the Easdtern Counties League. This can be verified from Blakeman's book? Two, that the club's history on the webiste has been copied to create this article. I know your connection to the club and why the two resemble each other but ideally there needs to be clear cut difference or the website needs to carry a copyleft notice releasing the text on the website into the public domain. NtheP (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I've corrected the broken links above - David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I can leave a copy left sign on the website but will this be enough to secure the Waterbeach F.C. article on wikipedia?
The articles are simular because i wrote both. thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyMaltby (talkcontribs) 16:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Matty, the copyleft will deal with the copy violation issue but not the notability, hence my question about the FA cup. NtheP (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Matty, since you asked why it's being deleted, have you yet gone to the linked page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterbeach F.C. to see the full nomination and discussion? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to enter a protest?

Hello. I am not sure that this is a good place for asking elementary questions, so in case that this is not proper here, please just redirect me to the right place.

I want to ask the following. Suppose I am reading an article in Wikipedia, and I see that what the author writes is doubtful. For example, there are no evidences that his conclusions indeed follow from his sources. Or it is clear that the article is preconceived, the author mentiones only some part of sources and ignores the others...

I suppose there must be a standard procedure to enter a protest in this situation, so that one could either verify that the author is right, or persuade him to accept the necessary corrections. Is it indeed possible? Or what can be done? Eozhik (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eozhik. The generally accepted approach is described here: basically, if you disagree, change it! Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; your edits are just as valid as anyone else's. If you think that sources have been misinterpreted or misrepresented, you are free to change the article accordingly.
It may be that your edits are subsequently reverted; if that happens, the next stage of the process is to discuss the situation with the other editors involved. All articles have talkpages (reached via the Talk/Discuss tab at the top of the page) where you can raise your concerns and explain how you think the sources should be handled. Once a consensus is reached, the article can then be edited to reflect this.
Should you be unable to come to an agreement, there are dispute resolution processes that can be invoked; however, the vast majority of problems here can be resolved just by talking to the other parties involved. Yunshui  10:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yunshui, thank you very much. As far as I understand, it is not in custom to ask the previous editors to give exact quotations from the sources they give... If so, then this actually means that for showing disagreement I have to delete some phrases which I find to be doubtful, and this can be considered as an offensive action... There is no other way to start the discussion, is it?

Well, if you want to be more cautious you can start by contacting the other editor on their user talkpage; just drop them a note saying that you disagree with some of their edits and would like to discuss them. The response you get there may well indicate how they'd react to you changing their work. Yunshui  11:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, this is the best way... OK, thank you again, Yunshui, I'll start with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eozhik (talkcontribs) 11:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be better to start the discussion on the article talk page, and then invite the editor(s) to contribute there. Then it'll be in an obvious place for others to read and contribute to. If potentiall contentious, you could also invite members of any relevant WikiProjects, e.g. by using the {{Pls}} template. -- Trevj (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My submission -- confused re issues

Hi there, I'm confused about the reasons for my submission being rejected. I was careful to write from a neutral point of view and refer to a wide range of published reputable sources. In addition, because my subject, Jon Cohen (entrepreneur) is partners with Rob Stone (entrepreneur), who has had a Wiki page for years, they share a lot of the same background and references. I tried to play it safe by lifting some of the exact wording since they work as partners. So I'm wondering why what was approved for Rob Stone was not acceptable for Jon Cohen. Any specifics that were particularly objectionable to too "self-serving" that you could point me to would be much appreciated.

"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

Thank you very much for your time on this!

cklenfnerCklenfner (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! Having your submission rejected at AfC can be disappointing. My suggestion would be that you ask the reviewer (whoever rejected the submission) on their talk page why they rejected the submission. I believe the reviewer in question was Legoktm, so I would ask him at his talk page (which is the link above). Thanks again for dropping by and feel free to ask should you have further questions. Go Phightins! 17:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Cklenfner, and welcome to the teahouse! I am glad to tell you that your article was not rejected. It is in the encyclopedia. It does have some tags applied to it, but the promo tag is not one of them. It needs to have some wikilinks and an infobox, and some copyediting. If you don't feel up to those tasks, fear not! Someone will come alomg and do them for you at some point in time. Congratulations on getting your article in the encyclopedia! We're glad you've joined the army of Wikipedia Editors! Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
There may be some confusion as to whether you are referring to the existing article Jon Cohen (entrepreneur) or the AFC submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jon Cohen. It isn't clear why there's an AFC when an article already exists. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The article seems to have made it. I just added a bunch of wikilinks, cleaned up some typos and now I'm trying to add an infobox -- so far unsuccessfully. cklenfner207.237.186.227 (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 207. I am assuming you are Cklenfner. Please don't forget to sign in when editing! Also, it might help if you copy and paste the blank infobox into your sandbox and work on it and then cut and paste it into the article when you are done. I would also suggest NOT taking out the fields you are not using, because with infobox templates, if you don't put data in a blank, the entire field just won't show up in the live version. You (or someone else) might find use for one of those fields later. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse people! You have all been so helpful and I've managed to put in an infobox and photo! One other question: There's a tab on top of the page that says "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Copy and paste erros. (October 2012)" Darned if I can locate the "copy and paste errors" they're talking about. Any suggestions? Many thanks!! cklenfnerCklenfner (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Best bet is to ask the editor who placed the tag. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Asking another editor to approve your changes

Hi there, I've made changes to the article Morning Runner which includes an external link to a website. The change was stopped by XLinkBot and I can now see looking at the external link policy that it's not good practice to include an external link to a website that you maintain (which is the case here). The external link is relevant though so I wonder if I can ask another editor to look at the changes and see if they think the changes are acceptable. I've tried looking for information on how to ask another editor to look at your changes but I get redirected to the Wikipedia Help Desk and can't see where to go from there. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks!Ipska (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind going ahead and posting the link here for us to look at? Also, is this the article you are referring to? gwickwire | Leave a message 01:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. Yes, that's the article. The changes I made are here - hope you can see this link okay. Thanks again! Ipska (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been reverted again. The message you received on your talk page last time round told you that you shouldn't link to Facebook pages. Furthermore Wikipedia's guidance on external links says that you shouldn't include external links in the body text of an article. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks, that's really helpful. Have made the necessary changes and resaved. Thanks. Ipska (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

adding citations

Hi, I am trying to add a citation which is on a web link. can you help me out with the code for this please. It want to be by the wording:-

Dust Bowl Circuit

and the link is:-

Nigel Petrie Thomas Owen (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nigel. Welcome back. Facebook is not considered a reliable source, as anybody can pretty much put whatever they want on Facebook. It isn't fact-checked in any way. So, you would add it as a citation in the same way you would any web reference, but a bot will come along and remove it in no time at all. For further information, see WP:RS. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How to restore a map file

I refer to page:,_New_South_Wales

The page contains an ugly error message which apparently appeared between 7th and 9th Sept 2012. It seems to want to show a map of NSW with the location of Campbelltown, as shown in the 7th Sept version.

I don't seem to be able to fix this because no text appears at that postion, leading me to think this is some kind of automatic reference. Can anyone please help?

Ggreybeard (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ggreybeard. Thanks for flagging up the problem. It occurred because of this well-intentioned edit - the infobox uses the template {{Location map Australia}}, which can't parse the wikilinked formatting that User:Sj96 used.
I realise that's a whole load of jargon - basically, an earlier edit broke the map. I've fixed it now so that it displays correctly. Yunshui  14:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it, Yunshui! Ggreybeard (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

how do you make a category?

hey sorry about all the questions but how do you make a category? thank you. Zeroro (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zeroro. Basically, you make a category the same way you make any other page - just put it in the Category namespace. So, for example, if you want a category of people with beards, create a page called Category:People with beards. You can then populate the category by visiting the pages you want to include and adding the text [[Category:People with beards]] to the bottom of the page. More information is available at Help:Categories, but that's the basic mechanic. Yunshui  09:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks. I'll check that out.Zeroro (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Customising signatures

Sure, I have tried reading up on how to customise one's Wiki signature on relevant pages, but after a while, I get lost. How confusing! Can anyone sum up, in simple English, the steps to customising your siganture? Thanks. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Hey Bonkers (can I call you Bonkers?), thanks for stopping by. For starters, how do you want to customize your signature? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, what should you call me, if not Bonkers (note the Capital B, that's important)? Call me Crazy? Haha. :) Anyway, coming back to that, I'm not sure, just maybe a colour/font change? Thanks! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. So, here's the scoop: First, you might know this already, but you can make changes to your sig under My preferences. Second, pretty much all signatures should have a link to your user and talk page. The plain signature in wiki markup looks like this for your sig:
[[User:Bonkers The Clown|Bonkers The Clown]] ([[User talk:Bonkers The Clown|talk]]
Which results in this: Bonkers The Clown (talk)
So, you should work from the above code when making changes to your signature. For font color and type, you can use HTML. Here's the code for your sig in Times News Roman and in purple:
<font color="purple" face="Times New Roman">[[User:Bonkers The Clown|Bonkers The Clown]] ([[User talk:Bonkers The Clown|talk</font>]]
Which results in this: Bonkers The Clown (talk)
Hopefully that above code will make it easy for you to start customizing. There are lots of other things you can do, like bold or italicize your signature. To find more of these modifications, you can check out The valid HTML tags on Wikipedia. You also don't need to stick to HTML-- you can use wiki markup like using ''insert word here'' to italicize it. However, be sure that your signature is not overly flashy and that it does not disrupt the formatting of discussions. Have fun! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Ohh. Okie. Real thanks for simplifying it for me! :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a reputable study? Input on policy for commercial pages appreciated.

I noticed a study added to the Electronic cigarette page that is hosted on a highly commercial website. The study (more like a survey) seems well-thought out and legitimate but the website itself says at the bottom that it is an affiliate website that pays for reviews.

Here is the edit:

"In an online survey from November 2009 among 303 smokers, it was found that e-cigarette substitution for tobacco cigarettes resulted in reduced perceived health problems, when compared to smoking conventional cigarettes (less cough, improved ability to exercise, improved sense of taste and smell).[46] Another online survey from October 2012 among e-cigarette owners confirms such findings. About 90% of participants that are using an e-cigarette feel better and 92% have the support of their friends and family.[47]"

And here is the link:

I'm very interested in the policy on these things so I know how to approach similar situations in the future. I did not remove the quoted text or the study link yet.

Thank you for any help. Wieldthespade (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. An online survey conducted by a site called "", which reviews brands of electronic cigarettes, is not an objective source for electronic cigarettes. The citation is unreliable. Wikipedia requires independent, published secondary sources that meet the guideline for medical sources, like reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. The content should be removed.--xanchester (t) 01:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the contested content.--xanchester (t) 01:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much Xanchester, for removing the study/links and for showing me the guidelines for medical sources. Next time I'll go with my gut feeling and boldly remove such things. Have a great day and thanks again for the super speedy response. Wieldthespade (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the change you made was reverted by the original editor. I just wanted to let you know because I'd like to see how these sorts of things are handled. Please let me know if I am out of line by bringing this to your attention. Thanks again for your help, Wieldthespade (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me. I've brought the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/ (t) 17:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-free pictures

Are non-free pictures such as emblems or logos aloud, and if so do they get uploaded here or on wikicommons? FOX 52 (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, FOX 52. non-free pictures are allowed under the strong restrictions of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. Logos are often more acceptable than most other non-free pictures. If acceptable they are uploaded here not on commons. —teb728 t c 00:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
One logo is generally acceptable in the infobox in the upper right of an article. For a logo use the {{non-free logo}} tag, and for the required non-free use rationale you can use {{non-free use rationale logo}}. (Click on that link for the required and optional parameters). —teb728 t c 00:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, very helpfulFOX 52 (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Developers. I am trying to create a website to help open source developers start and work on open-source projects in a more community setting. Would you use it?

I am creating a website with some fellow developers. I’d like to get the opinion of the open-source community. The problem were trying to solve is how to make open-source development more centralized, social and open to new comers, but also how to create a useful tool to senior developers.

I’d like to develop a centralized recruitment and development community for open source volunteers. Anyone can start a project and have other developers collaborate with ease. I’d like to get your feedback. Would you use this? What features would you like to see? (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi 24.97. The Teahouse is actually for questions about editing Wikipedia — however, if you'd like, you could 'advertise' this at one of our Village Pumps, where it will probably get more reception. —Theopolisme 22:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an editor, it's just...

....that I came to Wikipedia looking for info after getting an emai from the National Association for Gun Rights. I found a great looking very professional page, but reading between the lines, the place is a scam. It just writes to gun folks with excellent pleas for money. The almost got me right before the election. The article in Wikipedia on NAGR is clearly there to gve credibility to the scam. The page probably needs to be removed and something put in lace so that it isn't created again. It certainly lacks notability if nothing else. I hope someone reads this and takes care of it. It's way above my pay grade to remove a page and there's no way I'd be able to keep it deleted. The scammer is clearly expert at Wiki. Please deck and see if he has been deleting messages in TALK calling him out on this. (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at that article out of curiosity. I ended up nominating it for deletion because it doesn't currently meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability; it may or may not be deleted in this process, that is up to other editors. I wanted to add that my actions have nothing to do with whether there might be a "scam" involved, that is not for me or Wikipedia to determine. heather walls (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, can also look at the wiki the author made for himself? Dudley Brown. It has the same notability issue. But what's to prevent him from recreating these articles? (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, if you have concerns about multiple articles, I suggest you jump in and as we say, "SOFIXIT" which means everyone is encouraged to work on Wikipedia! You can read more about deletions at Articles for Deletion. If you need other advice you can come back and ask at the Teahouse. If you feel like you're not ready for confrontation, create an account and make some small edits, you'll learn a lot and be ready to take on bigger challenges. I hope you do! heather walls (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the confrontation. I tried to add it to the deletion list, but it didn't work. Tell u what, ill report the scam to the FTC and someone else can do the wiki stuff. (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikify - Not yet created relevant pages


Okay so when adding wikilinks to existing articles (whether they have multiple issues or not) should we add links that are for pages that don't exist (red links) even though they are relevant. Here's a prime example Cemetery_of_Punta_Arenas. It was in my dashboard and now and then I edit a few of those for experience sake. I added wikilinks I thought relevant including names of people, names of places and general knowledge links. Then I removed the tag. I know the article has many other issues but my part was wikify.

So did I do the right thing? Or... What should I do in future? Airbender3 (Talk) 08:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Red links are allowed. In fact, there's an entire guideline on Wikipedia that encourages the use of red links. Red links encourage article creation, and aid in attracting newcomers.--xanchester (t) 09:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

citation template

Hello, When I first edited a wiki page there was a template that allowed me to easily enter a citation. Now when I go to edit, this citation template doesnt display. Can anyone help me to get the template option back please? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98wlk (talkcontribs) 02:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Have you disabled javascript? The cite toolbar should be right below the bold and italic buttons, labeled with the term "template".--xanchester (t) 09:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking through the Wikipedia:Help desk#November 9 entries, it appears that other editors are having similar problems right now. So you're not alone.--xanchester (t) 17:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Help me make the Ira Cook page better?

I can't seem to get a grip on putting the information I have gathered into a decent and informative page for Ira Cook. I had originally tried to edit the full information I saw on the links into the page, but ended up taking it too verbatim and broke copyright.

If someone could talk me through what you think would look good on the page I'd appreciate it!

--ErikVKing (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eric and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you possibly paste the links for the information here so I can take a look. To do this simply type a "[" then paste the URL and type a "]". Seeing the information will help me to give you some better feedback. Wikipedia's full policy on citing sources is here, if you would like to read it and the policy on copyright is here. You don't have to read them, they're kind of written in legalese. I can answer questions if you'd like, but first things first, paste the info you'd like to add so I can take a look. Thanks--Go Phightins! 20:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I was typing this quick before I ran out the door and missed 2 []'s on the page name. I figured people could go to the page and see the references. Here you go: [1] & [2]. --ErikVKing (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

review and suggestions for declined article

Hi, I would like a bit of help regarding an article that was declined. The article in question is here-

I am open to any suggestions for improvement. I will be adding some scholarly references that show the problems addressed by this working group are global in nature. This article is not much different topically than this accepted one-

Thanks, mejbp Mejbp (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mejbp. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse! As the reviewer told you, you only have minimal 3rd party sourcing. It is an essential of any article on Wikipedia that they show 3rd party references, because the standard for what appears on Wikipedia (WP:GNG) is based on your subject being noted in 3rd party reliable sources. This means write ups in newspapers, magazines or books independent of the article's subject. With the exception of the textbook you listed in your general references, there are no sources independent of the subject. The other article you compared to has three academic sources listed, which is enough to show notability. If you cannot find more 3rd party sources, the sad truth is you don't yet have an article. I am assuming you have some association with law enforcement. Keep in mind when you write for Wikipedia that there should be some similarity in the way you write reports for the PD. Nothing but facts, no embellishments or promotional language. So find more independent sources, and rewrite in a less promotional tone, and you should be good to go. Come back after you've worked on it and one of us will be happy to take a look at it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning that, as well as newspapers, magazines or books, there are other forms of acceptable sources - for example online news reports from publishers with a strong editorial policy, or academic journals. Even TV and radio programmes can be used as sources, although that is a great deal more difficult because of their more transient nature (linking to recordings of them held by third parties is not normally acceptable). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks- I have several scholarly articles and published works that mention VQIPS in their white papers and research. I will work those in and make the article less "promotional".

Mejbp (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Contacting an Admin

I need admin assistence for La Luz del Mundo article. None of the notice boards seem to be applicable since there is an extraordinary situation involved.

Long story short: a 3O editor (Robertrosen) came to provide an opinion. They made a strange request that all the page's editors be involved. One editor did not comment. After my comment and the comment of another, Robertrosen made a very odd accusation of WP:SPA and then proceeded to delete vast swaths of content from the article using odd claims, one of them was declaring an entire section backed backed by sources as "puffery."

When I contacted the editor that did not comment, they defended Robertrosen's actions and claimed that Robertrosen was a good admin and indirectly threatened me with banning if I add "puffery" to the article.

I haven't the slightest clue of what to do. I contacted an editor who edited the talk page twice before with this situation, but that was a knee jerk reaction and may not be helpful...what do I do? Should I directly contact an admin? Fordx12 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! First of all, Robertrosen is not an administrator here on Wikipedia, just to clear that up. Secondly, I don't really see any major issues with your edits.. And I'm not sure what kinds of policies he is trying to cite. I will go ahead and restore your version. Make sure you do include sourcing inline, and it wouldn't hurt to just proofread everything for tone. Thanks for your contributions! gwickwire | Leave a message 02:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance. However, RidjalA has just reverted you. I have done some research in wiki policy and decided to use a template on my talk page that requests Admin assistance. Fordx12 (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay! I'm sorry, I'd normally watch the page to catch that, but I didn't. If you'd like another formal way to get your conflict resolved, check out our Dispute Resolution. There, you'll find editors who are willing to help you resolve your issues peacefully with a compromise both of you can agree to. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)