Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 212

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 205

←

Archive 210

Charles Aubrey Eaton Wikipedia entry

Hi - I am new to editing entries on Wikipedia. I have recently edited the Wikipedia entry for my great-grandfather, Rep. Charles Aubrey Eaton (R-NJ), and I have added a reference and used an existing reference to back up all of my changes. The Wikipedia entry for Charles Aubrey Eaton is now pretty much complete, and it is about as long and informational as it should be. I have a problem, though. At the top of the page is a tag saying, "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2014)" I don't know who added this or what in the entry needs additional citations. I have received a message from Epeefleche, saying, "Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you." The article is well-sourced, in my view, and I cannot find what is not sourced. If someone could help explain to me what Epeefleche is saying or help me improve the the entry so the tag maybe removed, then I would be most appreciative. I have additional references in print form that have yet to be used. Can anyone tell me what needs "additional citations for verification"? All help is certainly appreciated. - All good wishes, Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nathaniel Albert Eaton. I removed the tag at the top of the page, since I see several solid sources. You could have done that yourself, as tags are removed by editors once the needed improvements have been made. Since you are new, I did it for you. As for your assertion that the article is pretty much done now, I have to disagree a bit. The lead of the article should summarize the whole article. A list of congregations and dates of service is inappropriate for the biography of a preacher who became a long-serving Congressman. That's trivial detail that belongs in the body, not in the lead, as his notability comes from service in Congress not as a preacher. The body starts by emphasizing an arrest for street preaching. Is this the main aspect of his career as a preacher? If not, we should have much more information that places this arrest in context. Your version emphasized his Canadian birth. Mentioning that is important but since he served as a U.S. Congressman for many years, his adult citizenship is more significant than the country of his birth. I added that he was an American, but when was he naturalized and under what circumstances? I saw unreferenced mentions of his connections to the Rockefellers. We need a reference for that. So that's a specific example of an assertion that needs to be referenced. There may be more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Cullen³²⁸. I have not been the sole author of the entry on Charles Aubrey Eaton, but I will consider all of your suggestions. I also believe the lead should better summarize the entire piece. I have better sources for the connection to the Rockefellers, although I do not want to overstate their importance. I agree completely about prioritizing the political over the preaching career. Your kind and thoughtful response and help is much appreciated. All good wishes, Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your ancestor was indisputably notable, Nathaniel Albert Eaton, and I thank you for improving his biography. I hope that you will stay around as an editor here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What should I do if one user removing speedy deletion banner?

I have nominated an article for speedy deletion as the article matches minimum 3 criteria for speeedy deletion (self advertisement, no significant contents, etc). The user just removed the banner itself without any talk page discussion. What should I do at this circumstances? - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome :). Do you know how to revert pages? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But the user tends to be remove the banner again. - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah ok. Have you warned them? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I talked him to put some significant contents in the page. But he ignored it. Now he again removed the banner. :( Abhilashkrishn (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a multi level warning system which works rather well. You start off with a level 1 warning, which is a gentle reminder not to repeat the act, up to a level 4 warning which says that the user will get blocked if disruptive behaviour continues. WP:UWUL explains more about it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I would try that one. Do you have anything special tip to guide me when encountering issues like that in future? The page I nominated is Bapi_Rahaman -Abhilashkrishn (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Abhilashkrishn: I've deleted the article. The specific tailored template series is {{uw-speedy1}} through {{uw-speedy4}} (see WP:WARN) and once you've given a final warning and the user acts again, report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: After repeated notices, he seems to be careless. He again created the page. I have nominated it and marked the option {{uw-speedy2}} in his talk page. Let's see if he follow it. - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

sub-article link redirecting to unrelated article.

While looking at this link "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Johnson_(author)", attempted to follow "Junkyard Dogs" link, and was redirected to a "Lady and the Tramp II" DVD Wiki.2605:6000:8041:E100:949B:364B:A508:D54D (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I have removed that wikilink which leads to to wrong place. There are characters in the DVD called "Junkyard Dogs" so that is why the redirect was created. Whoever wrote the biography of the novelist created wikilinks to his book titles without checking them. Not surprisingly, some are erroneous links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Hi. I was adding an entry for an album by Mike Heron, who was a member of The Incredible String Band, who were a popular and successful sixties band, who for example appeared at the Woodstock Festival.

How do I convince that this is notable? I have reference the Incredible String Band entry. What else should I do?

Thanks.

EGriffiths Egriffiths (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Egriffiths. To show that the album is notable, please find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. For an album, published reviews written by professional music journalists would be the most common form of coverage. Please read WP:NALBUM for more details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

Hi, is this YouTube video which has gone viral and been talked about worldwide notable? I have no idea over this sort of thing, so would like some advice please. Even Time has got into the act; [1]. Thanks, Mat ty.007 18:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history of the "journalist" who wrote that Time piece, I'd not be inclined to take Olivia Waxman mentioning something as a mark of anything, since her previous recent work includes such highlights as "You knew rabbits eat carrots but did you know they eat berries?" and "What would Morgan Freeman sound like on helium?". Mogism (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It may be considered notable after sometime but i don't feel its notable enough now.Abhinav0908 (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedure regarding redirect

Hello, new to Wikipedia for about a week, but am reading and editing and learning quickly. I took the direction to be bold and found it good to dive in and learn as I go.

One of the first pages I began editing had been dormant for years. I'm knowledgeable on the subject, so started adding info. As I went, I better understood the concepts of notability and inline citations from reliable sources. I jumped to other connected articles and added much to them.

The problem, while I was editing this article, it suddenly disappeared. It sat dormant for years, and at that moment, it was gone. It is a band member, and a redirect was put up to the band. The information in the article was not copied and moved.

I've read further about redirects and deletions. I understand the article was flagged to be removed without new info. As it is the band member who's done the least "notable" other projects outside the band, perhaps it should be redirected. But it seems to me that there might have been discussion on the Talk page first and/or the properly sourced info moved? I also understand from reading, that Talk should be about the process, not the topic. I understand staying detached and avoiding conflict. And I'm hesitant to question the process or motives of experienced editors, but it seemed…odd. I felt by the act of trying to add updated information, I'd caused it to be removed. WhiskeyWhisky (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello WhiskeyWhisky and welcome to the Teahouse. It is always helpful to mention the specific article or redirect in question if you want an informed opinion. My guess based on looking at your edit history is that you are talking about Huw Bunford, and that redirect was implemented by Sionk and that editor explained their reasoning to you. If you disagree, that editor should be the very first person you discuss it with. You are correct that editing a long dormant article may well attract attention to the state of that article. Various editors may have added the article to their watch lists years ago, and may have pretty much forgotten about it. But editing it alerts any such editors that action is taking place there. It is perfectly legitimate that a highly active editor like Sionk would then be motivated to take a 2014 look, and act in what that editor believes to be the best interest of the encyclopedia. There is nothing unusual about such an edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful reply.WhiskeyWhisky (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Article is ready and in my sandbox - how do I name the page

Hello My article is ready and in the sandbox, however I'm not sure if I'm supposed to create a subpage first and then submit the article for review? The reason is my article has a specific name, which of course is different from my username. Can someone please help me?BCRSPWiki (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, BCRSPWiki, welcome to the Teahouse. I noticed that you already created the article Canadian Registered Safety Professional, which has the same content as your sandbox. I suggest that you make any further improvements to the article instead of your sandbox.

I also recommend that you request a change in username; your current username seems to represent an organization, not an individual, which is not allowed. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Preview text uncontrolled length of lines.

After editing a new article the preview button displays each paragraph as one long line. How do I get lines to wrap around at the RH end of the box? Relativityman (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I glanced at your sandbox, so I can see the source of the problem. Avoid spaces at the beginning of the line. Compare:

Line with a leading space, and

Line with no leading space. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Relativityman. One of the quirks of our wikicode is that no line should begin with white space. If it does, the line won't wrap, and the display is bizarre. There should be a character at at beginning of every line of code. To indent, start the line with a colon ":" More colons indent more. But avoid any blank spaces at the beginning of lines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is everything locked for editing on my phone

When I try and edit on my phone it requires me to create an account but when I come here using my WiFi it doesn't. Does TMobile not allow Wikipedia to be edited from their network?

Also, as a side note, if all posts on talk pages have to be signed, why doesn't the software just do it for us? 208.54.35.229 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@208.54.35.229: What is the name of the page? OccultZone (Talk) 13:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 208.54.35.229. When people are adding to talk pages, sometimes they add to or fix spelling in sentences they've already posted, or just change the spacing of a discussion for clarity, etc. There would be signatures all over the place; it's better to have an editor decide where and when a signature should be placed. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, just forget it. My edits clearly aren't needed or wanted. Its not just talk pages, its everything. And now when I try and reply to your questions I can't because its being stopped by an "edit filter" saying it could be unconstructive and all I stated was "Its not just talk pages, its everything." So I had to create this account, just to let you know to just forget it. I just wanted to fix a couple things I noticed, typos and stuff, and the Encyclopedia "anyone" can edit, wasn't editable as the name suggests. You guys have more things in place to prevent editing than ways to edit. I'm not really interested in figuring out why you all don't want editors using their phones or why I have to create an account (even though I see a lot of edits being done by IP's). I just wanted to let you know that you were pushing editors away. I'm seriously disappointed in my Wikipedia experience. If there was another online I encyclopedia I would use it even if I had to pay for it. To comment at the teahouse (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope that you read this, To comment at the Teahouse. We welcome all editors, and want their contributions. I am sorry that you had a frustrating experience editing from a mobile phone. I edit often using Android devices, with few problems, but I have an account. The Wikimedia Foundation has people on their staff working to improve the mobile editing experience. There are technical challenges and bugs sometimes trying to get things to work on a wide variety of browsers and operating systems. I encourage you to reconsider. We need help from every volunteer. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Unable to edit part of an article

When I select the section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#Commentary I find that the first part of the section is not listed in the edit window, as if it has been partly locked. Surely this should not be the case in an article under dispute.

Why is this happening?PussBroad (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've never seen that in use before. Anyway, the text content exists in 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary within the <section begin=CommentaryOnAnnexation /> etc. As to why that is being used (since I've not been involved in that topic area), my off-hand guess is to keep material consistent across articles. Chris857 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I was saying. There is a section in the referenced article. When I click on "edit" for that section I get an edit window containing only the second half of the text from the section. So I am unable to edit any of the first part of the section (Commentary). How did some other editors prevent that particular content from being edited or even displayed in the window? and how can I edit it? I understand that the text might be duplicated in another article but that doesn't answer my question.PussBroad (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

When I edit that section, the top lines I see are:

=== Commentary ===

Is that what you see? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

How to handle disputes on articles with 1rr restriction?

Looking at the Bethlehem section in the Operation Defensive Shield article and I notice several problems with it. I make note of those problems on the talk page and then edit the article accordingly. Then someone reverts that edit citing an article in Hebrew about one of the people who was sought refuge in the church being deported from Cyprus to Mauritania. I've left a not on his talk page but I'm wondering what to do if the editor doesn't undo his change. ThanksTeeTylerToe (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello TeeTylerToe. My best advice to you is to try to seek consensus on the article's talk page. With any edit that may be questioned, my experience has been to seek outside voices to see what the proper way to go is. Just make sure the edit you have in mind is something that can be verified with a reference. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

How do I subvert the (seemingly) automatic infobox name value capitalization?

I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, but when I see either bad grammar, unclear wording, or wrong information on a Wikipedia page, I can't help but edit it. I was looking for a good OSX-compatible ePUB reader and came across the calibre page. The convention for the name of the program is to not capitalize the first letter, even at the beginning of a sentence, which is followed throughout most of the page. However, the name above the infobox is capitalized. When I tried editing it, I saw that the value in the name field of the infobox was "calibre", uncapitalized, and it must therefore be automatic. Is there a way to disable this automatic capitalization? ScottyAlmondjoy (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Be bold, make the edit (or I'll be happy to do it for you). However two things you should know, one that a major claim such as this needs a reliable source and so you'll need to provide one to prevent getting reverted and having your hard work undone. Second, know that there is a technical limitation of Wikipedia in which the first letter of every article is capitalized even if the subject is not, however you can display the name 'callibre' on the article page itself! :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 22:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's actually already in the article that the proper spelling used for the program is uncapitalized in all instances, with the rest of the article reflecting this. It's all over the program's website as well. I was asking mostly how to do the edit, since the infobox value on the edit page is uncapitalized, while the corresponding text on the page itself is capitalized. I was just asking how to do it. Other than the third-party programs based off of it, which do not follow this convention, I didn't notice any instances of the convention not being followed, save for the infobox. ScottyAlmondjoy (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi ScottyAlmondjoy. The Wikimedia framework is very flexible and calibre is an excellent piece of software. I've fixed the case issue for you, Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 07:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to how to start my own page, on wikipedia

I am a new user and I need to know how to start a new page, before that I need to know how I can verify my profile ?Dynamicdataconcepts (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Verified from the registered email. You checked your email? OccultZone (Talk) 14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You can find out some information about your account by checking your preferences, too. There's a link at the top of each page near your username. Is "Dynamic Data Concepts" the name of a company? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dynamicdataconcepts, and welcome to the Teahouse! To answer your firsst question, the only way you can create a page about yourself is do it on your user page here. But before you do so, please read over Wikipedia:User_page. And for your second question, you can verify your account via email but is not necessary. All you need to do is click preferences and enter your email. Then you just have to confirm it. Cheers, and happy editing. TheQ Editor (Talk) 14:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If Dynamic Data Concepts is the name of a company, it is not acceptable as a username. Please follow the advice at WP:CHU.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

How to cite an article if it is written from experience.

Hello,

I am writing an article about Annular cutters. I have many years of experience with this product. Most of the information I am writing about this products comes from experience and not by reading somewehere.

How can I cite/ give reference to such article? Rohan von Indien (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rohan von Indien: Welcome to the Teahouse. What you're describing is original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. The only information that is allowed is information that is gotten by "reading somewhere" - and you still have to say where you got it (see User:Yunshui/References for beginners for referencing help). See this thread below or this policy page for more on why original research is not allowed. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 18:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Jakob (talk @Jakec and Jakob: Thank you Jakob! I have put referecnce to my article. one more questions. Can i just copy paste an article i see on some informative website and give it proper & exact reference, author name, etc.? is t allowed to copy paste?Rohan von Indien (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rohan von Indien: That's also not allowed unless it's under the CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license (or public domain). --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 14:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the text on a web site may not be worded in such a way that it meets Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A star without meaning

At the top of each page there is a star. What is it for and why doesn't it have an explanation? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi GeorgeLouis, welcome to the Teahouse. Do you mean a star like the one at the top of Angkor Wat? If you click it you'll go to Wikipedia:Featured_articles which explains why the star is there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, GeorgeLouis. The star on every page does have "meaning" as it is a part of the Watch list function. Most experienced editors maintain a watchlist, which allows them to monitor articles and other pages that interest them. If you click on the white star, it turns blue. It is then added to your personal watchlist, and when you look at that list, recent changes to all listed articles will be shown. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

But it is not obvious what the star means. How is a new editor to know about these things? (I am not new but rather a seasoned editor.) Where can I make a suggestion to at least put some words up there rather than a star without meaning? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen, I still haven't let go of the old MonoBook skin which has "watch" spelled out :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I was about to ask if your account (55k edits over 8 years) has been compromised. Do you not see the text "Add this page to your watchlist" when hovering over the star? - Arjayay (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't believe that this question comes from such an experienced editor. By the way i had no problems in understanding the purpose of that star. As Arjayay said it clearly says "add this page to your watchlist"Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Number of Edits Made

How can I tell how many edits I have made on my account? Thanks, --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Joseph, go to your contributions page (Special:Contributions/Joseph Yanchar) and at the bottom you'll find a link called "Edit count". Clicking on that will take you to a tool that will calculate the number of edits, what areas of Wikipedia you have edited and our monthly count. Nthep (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At least two ways: If you go to Special:Preferences, under the "User Profile" tab should be a "Number of edits" line. Also, [2] will give it and can give you monthly editing breakdowns. Caveat: the values each reports may not be identical, since I don't believe the count deleted edits and page moves quite the same. Another caveat: the supercount tool is running slowly for me at the moment.Chris857 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, if you have Navigation pop-ups enabled (Preferences > Gadgets > Browsing > Navigation popups) just hover over your (or anyone else's) signature - this uses the same figure as "Preferences". - Arjayay (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have two retired accounts and have a third: Okay?

Hello! I had two prior accounts on Wikipedia, and they are both retired. Now, I started a third, but people are accusing me of being a duck. I know my way around Wikipedia, mostly, but I'm confused. Since both my prior accounts are retired, should this pose any kind of problem? Johnny338 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It very much depends on what the previous accounts were. Did they have any active sanctions against them? Were they blocked or topic banned from any area which the current account is editing in? If that is the case the new account may be in violation of that. Even if that does not apply, you should follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Sock#Alternative_account_notification and clearly link to the two previous accounts, so that editors can judge if there are any issues. Valenciano (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Johnny338: To add to Valenciano's response, our policy on multiple accounts is Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Generally, under the condition that your previous accounts have no active blocks or sanctions and you cease to use those previous accounts entirely, you may continue to use your new account in accordance with the clean start policy. You should avoid areas where you edited before to avoid the same issues which led to your past retirements. If you follow this general advice, this shouldn't pose a problem. I'm sure Wikipedia has a lot of well-respected users who have made successful clean starts. In the future, I recommend just sticking to one account to avoid accusations like WP:DUCK. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, my IP address was blocked for "abused open proxy", but I was told that it was a local block, which meant that it could have been done by mistake. I am editing from Internet Explorer (Chrome is where the issues were) and there is no block for me. Is this in violation? If it is, I apologize and confess I wasn't aware of it. I have added the clean start template to my talk page as well, by the way. Johnny338 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have been using an open proxy to edit Wikipedia, you should stop right away. If not or if it was an accident, it may be an issue with someone else's editing on that open proxy. In any case, I don't see any major issues with your editing as to warrant any action. Best, Mz7 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I started using Ultrasurf, and that's when the problem started. I have, as I said, started using Internet Explorer since then, so I don't think it's an open proxy. If it is, could someone let me know (and help me figure out how to avoid it)? Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Johnny338. I am not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure that a "proxy" in this sense means a proxy server - that is, another computer or network, not a piece of software. Ultrasurf is not itself a proxy, but is designed to use anonymising proxies. But web browsers (such as IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera) are not themselves proxies, and will not use proxies unless you set them up to do so. I guess the question is why you were using Ultrasurf: it was apparently designed to help users in China get round imposed limitations, so unless you have such a need I don't know why you would be using it. --ColinFine (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to translate

Hi! I'm a very new editor to Wikipedia; and I wanted to try to help by translating things from/to Japanese. For Wikimedia, they have a nice translation interface, is there something like that for Wikipedia? Or do I just create a new article if it doesn't exist?? Or is there like a translate button like on wikimedia?

CaptainSakura (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CaptainSakura. You can learn about the process at WP:Translate. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A hi from me too, CaptainSakura. You might also like to have a look at WikiProject Japan, where you will find like-minded people and a wealth of information on Japanese topics. Enjoy! Philg88 ^♦talk 16:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@CaptainSakura: Hello CaptainSakura-san! I am not a teahouse host, but I started to translate for Wikipedia not so long ago, so I feel I can give you some advise. I started at the "wrong" end and it made things very complicated for me. Articles are written in very different ways in different countries. I started to just translate Swedish articles and created them as new articles on the English Wikipedia and it gave me a lot of extra work since the Swedish Wikipedia allows articles without references and this is a must on the English. I have no idea what differences there are between the English and Japanese versions. My advise is that you start by looking for something called "Category:Japan stubs" on Japanese subjects on the Japanese portal. These are just beginnings of articles. Many of these will have a sign either on the article or on the article's talk page that gives you directions on how to improve that article by translating the Japanese article, such as the article on Tsuruma Park. I could not find an article this quickly that had a "How to translate" sign on it but the technique is the same as for this Sweden related article Talk:Yngve Larsson. It lists very clearly how you should do if you want to translate. Once you have translated and improved some articles you will understand better what is required on the English Wikipedia and you can then start with new articles from the Japanese Wiki. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask them on my talk page. Kindly - W.carter (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"Origina research" question and image copyrights

I'm a new editor, and just submitted my second article for review-- it's on a business related to another article I worked on last week, on Ailene Fields. Since another editor had red-linked The Compleat Sculptor in that article, I decided to give it a shot since I found a few reliable sources.

I have a question about the "no original research" rule: there were a couple of items I would have included in the info box, like the number of employees and the net profits of the business, but there does not seem to be a published source that includes that data. So my question is about the ban on original research: is it ever okay to contact a source for that type of information, which seems to me to be aligned with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia?

There are many interesting photos of this business on the various web sources I consulted, but none on Wikimedia. Is there any shortcut to check the copyright status of photos posted online? I'm assuming copyright is held by the web source, and only explicit permission either on the web page or from the original owner will suffice?

Thanks for your help.

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Grand'mere Eugene. Assuming that the business is otherwise notable due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, then information such as the number of employees, revenues, profits, company officers and so on can be cited to the company website, an annual report, or other published sources even though those are not independent sources. But we would never use a source published by the company for a promotional claim such as "Company X is the world leader in widget technology innovation". If you contact the company by phone or email, and they tell you, "We have 300 employees", then that is original research since it is unpublished and can't be verified by a reader. Best to leave that information out until you find a reliable published source.

Any contemporary photo that you find online must be assumed to be under copyright restrictions unless you have specific information that it is in the public domain, or has been released under an acceptable Creative Commons license. The easiest way to obtain a photograph for use in an article is to take it yourself and upload it to Wikimedia Commons properly. Photos published in the U.S. before 1923 are no longer covered by copyright. Photos that are works of the U.S. Federal government, taken by its employees, are in the public domain. And so on. Copyright is complex. But a large majority of photos found online are copyrighted, even if no specific copyright notice is visible. We allow very limited "fair use" of non-free images as described in detail at WP:NFCI. It is the responsibility of any editor uploading a photo or image to ensure that copyright and licensing issues are in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Grand'mere Eugene, welcome to the Teahouse. To answer your question about original research, I'm afraid the answer is no. There is no way for anyone to verify that this information about the business is accurate if you simply ask.

About images: You write, "I'm assuming copyright is held by the web source, and only explicit permission either on the web page or from the original owner will suffice?" Yes, that's exactly right. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anon126 and Cullen328.

Of the 7 resources I found, 2 are solid--NYT and WSJ. One is a mention in a CNN piece. One is a press release posted on the Berkshire Hathaway site by a 2nd-party business that has a contract with the subject of the article, so less credible. One is an interview posted by another company, clearly a friendly POV. The other 3 are from lesser-know arts publications, but not critical reviews. The question of notability (in my mind) hinges on whether the business is in fact "one of the largest" sculpture supply houses in the world. Two of the sources use that language, and one of the contractor pieces says "the largest in the world." So it would be helpful to find some comparative data published somewhere. I'll keep looking.

I appreciate your clarity on copyright, which is complex, and the sites explaining it I find mind-numbing. I will continue to take the more conservative route, using only media that are in compliance with the fair use guidelines.

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

How to avoid "written like an advertisement" or "written like a resume" flags?

Hi there, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and trying to learn the rules of the road. I have attempted to edit artist Ena Swansea's page in response to the flag "this article reads like an advertisement" and when I believed to make the article more neutral, I removed that flag. It was immediately replaced with the flag "this article reads like a resume" as well as edited to remove external links to the artist's galleries. My edits were made based upon other artist's Wikipedia pages that DID NOT have such flags, (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Rockburne or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Sundblad) but did list information such as exhibitions and awards. Is it necessary to remove a list of recent exhibitions in order to avoid such flags? Any recommendations or advice would be helpful. Critiqueofhistory (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Critiqueofhistory and welcome to The Teahouse. If you want to know exactly what is wrong you could try asking on User talk:SarahStierch. I see a couple of problems but I'm not sure whether fixing these would help. One is external links in the text, but there's not much you can do if there is not an English Wikipedia article about the topic to link to. You could change them to red links which would indicate someone thinks there should be an article on each topic. Another problem is that some of the information seems to be unsourced. And the sources there are don't appear to be the best sources, such as newspapers and magazines.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Tone and notablilty

Hello I recently changed the username, but now the tone/notability is in question. I have adjusted as requested by someone named Xeno? Items are referenced from the source website as I've seen on other such organizations within Wikipedia. Please advise if I am doing this correctly? New username is AdBCWi14AdBCWi14 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, AdBCWi14 and welcome to The Teahouse. The article Canadian Registered Safety Professional needs a lot of work. In the first place, the lead section uses what is called "marketing speak" to describe what the organization does. This is what companies do when they are trying to promote themselves, but it does not actually explain what the company does. That is what Wikipedia tries to do. What is "broad based safety knowledge"? What is "optimum control"? These are terms that need to be defined, but they shouldn't be in the article.

I removed the ^® symbol because we don't use it in Wikipedia. You also don't link to the article in the article itself.

We don't try to explain how to do things here. That is what the organization's web site is for. The goal of the article is to use independent reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines to explain with a neutral point of view why this organization is important, or what we call notable.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Where do licensors of photos specify how they want attribution?

Wikipedia images often say you can use the image, but,"You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor."

Where is the attribution you should use? For example, where is the attribution I should use if I want to use the Ektara player image (URL below), cropped? And why is that information (at least for me) impossible to find on the Wikipedia page, or a simple link from that page? I thought the point of this license experiment was to make things simple, but to me it the explanations sound technical and incomprehensible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ektara_player.jpg Wikiwonderwhy101 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly things are not always simpler because they are freer. Clicking on the image shows that is was created by User:StefanWesthoff and is a derivative work (in this case I think a simple crop) of File:Lalon Tomb0018.JPG - that was created by Md. Saiful Aziz Shamseer. I would say if you are cropping the image further you need only attribute Md. Saiful Aziz Shamseer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Welcome to the Teahouse, Wikiwonderwhy101. Our article Creative Commons license has a useful section on attribution. You are required to attribute accurately to the best of your ability. Clicking on any image on any Wikimedia project will bring up a file information page on that image. Another click brings you to the Wikimedia Commons file information page for that image. Those pages provide all the information you need for attribution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Reporting Users with Suggestive Usernames

Is it possible to report users for having quite suggestive or inappropriate usernames? Thanks, --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Joseph! Yes, it is possible; such reports can be made to this page, the Usernames for Admin Attention page. Feel free to make a report there (or ask any experienced editor for a second opinion, which might be better); keep in mind, though, that such a report is for flagrant violations of the username policy (which can be found here, if you're interested). Such reports can and do get refused from time to time, and what may seem suggestive or inappropriate to one person might not always be so for another. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Colored signature

Hi. Every time I try to color my signature, it says "invalid raw signature. check the HTML tags." Help? UserJDalek 23:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dalek: What did you put in? Your signature does appear to have color. --JustBerry (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that's someone else. Should I change my username? 'UserJDalek 22:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you should post the signature code giving the error so we can see what's wrong with it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This. UserJDalek 22:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.0.82 (talk)

Oops, 203.100.0.82 is my IP. UserJDalek 22:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It will be accepted if you write font with lower case f each time. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

BUT will be a violation of SIGAPP. Don't use deprecated tags (including font). Also, your gold color fails to meet the color contrast ratio for those with color blindness (the ratio for Gold on White is1.4:1 which is below the 3:1 minimum contrast for "large scale" text (18 pt or 14 pt bold, or larger) under WCAG 2.0 1.4.3 (Level AA)). Instead, you could use: '''[[User:UserJDalek|''User'']][[Special:Contributions/UserJDalek|J]][[User talk:UserJDalek|Dalek]]''' resulting in UserJ Dalek. If you don't like it, I would be happy to work with you on your talk page to find a happy balance and get it to meet the standards and policies on this wiki. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it's fine. Thanks! UserJ Dalek 00:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Adoptees

For any host with experience in the Adopt-a-User program, I was just wondering if there is any extant list providing the names of users seeking to be adopted. Thanks, --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joseph. Please see Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Senior Editors

Hi there,

I'd like to ask what "senior editor" means? Please answer this as soon as possible. Thank you! Emily EmilyREditor (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello EmilyREditor. You can find out by reading Wikipedia:Service awards. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: It was certainly a good suggestion, but we have those editors as well who have surpassed even the highest difficult requirement(edit count), but they don't have that huge duration on wikipedia. It can be some sort of clue, but 'senior editor' are considered subject-wise.

@EmilyREditor: Whoever has actively participated and largely contributed in the particular subject, no one has perfect knowledge about everything, so every one has their own value. It can be even a IP address. OccultZone (Talk) 03:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello EmilyREditor. I happen to be considered a senior editor, since I have been active for more than four years and have more than 24,000 edits. The idea is that long service and a high edit count are worthy of some kind of recognition, for perseverance if nothing else. These kinds of awards are nice but not a really big deal. Some editors gain experience and a deep understanding of how this project works rapidly, such as Anne Delong in my opinion. Others (only a handful) have been here many years and are still not the greatest contributors (but I won't mention any names). The most important attributes of "really useful editors" are a friendly, collaborative attitude, a commitment to studying and upholding our policies and guidelines, and most of all, a drive to improve this great free encyclopedia. All such editors are considered golden here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistencies, blocking, already been discussed, still inconsistent

Gah. I just have to link to explain it. I nominated the article Boxxy for an afd. I wish to notify users of the other discussion about this afd in a neutral and non-selective manner. However, due to being the nominator, among other factors, I have been advised for, against, and neutrally for doing it. I've asked on the IRC, and received no outright denial, but advising against. I asked on the AN, and the original admin who said to go for it is now expressing doubts. I don't wish to be blocked. I am an experienced editor but this is stumping me. See:

I need some guidance on this. Tutelary (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tutelary. First question: What other discussion? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Apologies for not giving more details. There was an older afd, the first one, in which I wish to notify the users of. Tutelary (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's what you can do: Write a brief neutral notice saying that the article is again at AdD, noting the user's previous interest. Do not even hint at lobbying for or against deletion. Send it to every participant in the first debate, along with a link to the current debate. Easy as pie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you look at some of the concerns I noted of at AN? Tutelary (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis Brown there. On the practical level, though, it is probably a big waste of time. Very few of those editors from 5+ years ago are still active. I read the debate and recognized only a handful, and I am quite active at AfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

So would you recommend me to notice them of the newer discussion? Maybe only the active ones? One year inactivity, don't notice? Or... Tutelary (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That is your decision to make, Tutelary, after considering all the advice you have been given. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Proper citation and posting photo etc. on sidebar.

I want to add the following recognized media sources to the draft bio of Elizabeth Dougherty and make sure the existing ones are cited properly:

http://www.wusf.usf.edu/news/program/florida_stories/episode/2011-06/eat_st._petefood_nation_radio_network_-_elizabeth_dough

http://www.myfoodu.com/tag/elizabeth-dougherty

http://barrettlawgroup.com/november-19-2012-food-nation-radio-network-interview/

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20110526/ARCHIVES/

http://www.ticketsarasota.com/2011/05/24/local-beats-radio-roundup-2/

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-11-30/news/myword30dougherty_1_hiv-dying-of-aids-aids-pati

The draft is located at: Articles for creation: Draft:Elizabeth Ann Dougherty

I didn't intend for her middle name to be in it, either.

Many thanks in advance... Michael Mlserio (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mlserio and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the article for you to Draft:Elizabeth Dougherty. As for the references, I recommend that you read Referencing for beginners or Yunshui's excellent guide. In particular, you need to change the references to inline (i.e. directly linked from the article text) wherever possible. Good luck and come back if you have any more questions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Templates

Where can I find templates to design my user page, etc? I'm new here.Ahmed Mateo (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ahmed Mateo. I think that you will find the User page design center to be of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

internal link

My user name is giorgos1979 and i would like to tell me analytically how to make an internal link in an article. I give you an example:

LIFE BUSINESS CAREER etc

LIFE The son of Greek parents who hail from Paphos in Cyprus. His father having served in nine countries as a soldier in the British Army.

How do i connect the two lifes in the article ? ( the "life" above is the link of the "life" below)

Tell me analytically all the syntax of the commands in order to make a link of the two lives.Giorgos1979 (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Giorgios1979. When you mention "Life, Business Career, etc", that seems like a Table of contents to me. Wikipedia's software creates a table of contents automatically in any article or talk page that has four or more sections. You create a section by typing two equal signs at the beginning of a line, followed by the section title, followed by two more equal signs. There are ways to force a Table of contents in an article with fewer than four sections, but the easiest way is to expand the article to have four sections or more. I hope I understood your question properly. If not, please clarify. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I will try to be more specific. Lets look at muhammad ali's wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali#Professional_boxing) below his contens( probably table of contents) are sections which are connected at his contents. For instance his table of contents have a section with title "Early life and amateur career" which is connected with another section with the same title below the table. This is an internal link which links the two sections.

In my case i have a table of contents with a section with title "life" and i want to connect it with another section below the table of contents with the same title. How can analyticaly achieve this internal link ? I want the analytical syntax of the internal link command.Giorgos1979 (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Giorgos1979. I've looked at the draft you created and I can see what the problem is. As Cullen says above, the Wikimedia framework software will automatically generate a Table of Contents for you as long as you have four section headers marked with equals signs like this, ==Life==. In other words you do not need to enter your own Table of Contents. I hope that makes it clear but if it doesn't then please feel free to come back with further questions. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 10:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I posted a simple example on your user page. Please feel to delete it, though I hope it helps you to understand the coding concepts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Hi, I have a page on Alex Stuart-Menteth sitting in my sandbox, but there are only a few references. These are the only RS I could get, but could the article pass as a GA with them? Thanks, Mat ty.007 10:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It happens that your sandbox article is under the auspice of the Military history Project, and I am one the Coordinators for that project, so I can say with a very high degree of probability that if you were to move it out at this point it would pass a GA review from a citations standpoint. I caution though that the review process looks at more than just citations, so be prepared to address the other issues brought up. If you would like further feedback on your article you can drop a line over at WT:MILHIST, or leave me a message and I will do my best to help. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for the detailed help and offer of assistance, which I may take you up on... Best, Mat ty.007 11:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is my question of May 23, 2014 and its answer from Anne DeLong?

Hi - I posted a question, asking how to create titles and categories for articles, last week on May 23, and I got a notice that Anne DeLong answered it over the weekend, but I can't find my question or the reply anywhere. I looked in archives also. KXF (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Here you go. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)