Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 126

Archive 120

←

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

→

Archive 130

Need online access to Journals and libraries

Is there a way to set up a cooperative so that Wikipedians have online access to Journals and libraries? Graduation has some negative externalities . . . the Journals that I once accessed for free are now asking for membership fees.Stmullin (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Stmullin. See Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/header, which is a header used on other pages but gathers all of the links I might provide in answer to your question in one place. Some of the access requests linked through it are way past their enrollment numbers, unfortunately. In other words, I don't know if there's any use in signing up as the 287th person on a list of people seeking JSTOR access when the introduction says accounts are limited to 100, but it might not hurt either. WP:RX (which is linked through header) is great and always available. See also Wikipedia:Free English newspaper sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Stmullin:: The service you seek already exists. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. It's been active for years, though many Wikipedians often forget or don't know about it. --Jayron32 01:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I linked that (WP:RX), and it's in the header, but I believe the OP was seeking self-access, not piecemeal request fulfillment by others.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is why I still lurk here, this is great info. I have one other thing that worked for me, it probably sounds so obvious to some people I didn't even mention it at first, but here it is: don't forget that many libraries have a great un-tapped resource. I'm not talking about just the books but the librarians. Lots of libraries have people with advanced degrees in library sciences and a great desire to help someone out who is doing research. More than once I've gone to a library found the best person in the reference section and come away with some great stuff I never would have thought of otherwise. And in my experience they love a good challenge and a chance to really use their knowledge.(Oh btw this is Mdebellis, I decided on a name so from now on I don't broadcast my true identity -- it might interfere with my crime fighting) Mad Scientist (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally have access to almost any database out there, and if anyone ever needs access to an article for something I can provide it privately. Just shoot me an email through Wikipedia and I'll take a look. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Prod

I prodded the article Samara Chopra for deletion. However, I forgot to notify the creator. I realised this so late that the article was about to be deleted. I then removed the ambox. Can I reprod it, but remembering to notify the creator? George8211 (talk | mail) 19:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be acceptable. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. George8211 (talk | mail) 13:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you use Twinkle, these things are done automatically, so you cannot even forget about them. You can switch it on under the "gadgets" tab in your preferences. It's a great tool for nominating articles for deletion, adding maintenance tags,welcome or warn editors, etc. --Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just curious

As someone trying to learn the ins and outs of Wiki sometimes I just watch what people do and try to figure out why. Now why would an IP user be editing a blocked users user page? Is this something that might indicate a blocked user accessing wiki anyway? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It possibly could. or maybe not. Bottom line is if it isn't causing any disruption, I wouldn't get any grey hairs over it. But if you are truly concerned, you may wish to read up on WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, paying some attention to the essays listed at the bottom of the page. I have learned a lot from reading talk pages too. Happy editing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I shall do that and thank you very much. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What to do about unsubstantiated claims?

As a noob I'm loathe to go hacking at the words of others. But as an example, claims made on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumchapel stating that the area is famous for Table Tennis, Lawn Tennis, Gymnastics and Football with nothing to support such claims seem to me to be just asking to be removed or reworded - would I be justified in doing so immediately? I dropped a note on the talk page pointing out my thoughts but at what stage (how long does one leave it?) before getting pro-active and deleting the claims? Thanking you in advance for your response. Calamity Hill (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Calamity Hill, and welcome. The leade of the article should summarise the rest of the article, and as you rightly point out the claims are not referenced in the body of the article. My advice is to boldly make the edit and explain the reason for your edit in the edit summary. Flat Out let's discuss it

Mobiveil article

Hi, Thanks for offering to help. I'm trying to get the below link approved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Mobiveil

I have used Mindtree, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro sites as examples for referencing and content structuring. I'd like to know what needs to be done to get the article published. I have provided several authentic sources in External links and in history have traced back to how the company was created by its key executives. It's a technology company and hence services will be technical listings. Not sure how it can be rewritten for general audience to understand. Wherever required cross referencing has been added to help with understanding technical terms.

Appreciate your words of wisdom to help publish the article Regards Mg.chakravarthi Mg.chakravarthi (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your request. I don't have much more to add beyond Anne Delong's comments on the Article for Creation page here. Unfortunately, many sources for the company do not seem to be independent of the company, as they are press releases (made by the company). Others only mention the company and do not describe in much depth. It is also unimportant to describe the internal structure of the company (i.e. a list of its industries and associations), particularly if these are not described by independent sources. I've also done a quick search of sources to see if there are any others I can find, but I could not find too much. This might be because the company is so new (it was founded in 2012). Perhaps with some time, more coverage of the company will develop, at which time an article would be more appropriate. One option is that you can keep this article in your userspace for the time being, if you'd like. Does this sound reasonable to you? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

notability for Stewart Hase

Would someone please remove the notability tag on the Dr. Stewart Hase article? Stmullin (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stmullin. Notability has not been shown and so the tag belongs. I have removed the bibliography. That might belong in a résumé or on the subject's own website but not in an encyclopedia article. A few selected works might be mentioned in prose but not a list like this. And if that was added to show notability, it does not and is not the way to do so. The way you show notability and write a substantive article through verifiable information is to expand the text about the person, citing to reliable, secondary sources—sources entirely unconnected to the subject—that have published material about him. Notability has a specific meaning here. It does not mean lacking in merit, that the subject is unimportant, or is not valuable. The reason for the notability reaquirement is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, that properly only has articles on topics that have already been significantly published about—that the world has taken "note" of, and from which published material an article can be written with verifiable information. Thus, if a subject has not been sufficiently recognized by mainstream, reliable sources (books, magazines, etc.) by their publication of significant content about that subject, Wikipedia should not have an article about the subject. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added some prose that can be expanded with articles about the researcher's who have cited Dr. Hase. This will take time and I need to proceed with the article in my free time or allow others to expand upon the article without being threatened. I was relieved to discover that the original work could be retrieved and edited. It takes a significant investment of time to develop these articles and when the work suddenly disappears it can be very frustrating. I look forward to completing the article with the help of other Wikipedians. How do I tag the article to invite others to work on its completion? Stmullin (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stmullin. Wikipedia is the encylopedia that anyone can edit. Everyone is automatically invited to edit pretty much any regular article at any time (sounds chaotic, sometimes is, but it's got us this far!). To send more targeted invitations, you may like to think about which wikiprojects might be interested in this subject. Have a looks through the directory of Wikiprojects and let other editors know about this article on those noticeboards! Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding Covers to Albums

Edit source didn't help, it did the same thing. Give some easier advice to me next time okay? See you later.

P.S. I'm 10 years old. That's why I need easier advice.IGotProof (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi IGotProof. I think you need to review what ColinFine said in the other thread, below. I'll say it also. An image has to already be uploaded to Wikipedia (or the Wikimedia Commons but that isn't likely relevant here) in order for the image to display here. The image that you tried to add to the article, File:If Music Were Real.jpg does not exist and has never existed on Wikipedia or the Commons. It will need to uploaded for the display code you added to work. What I think might be confusing you is that, that file name is the name of an image that is being used on Wikia (here). Wikia is not at all the same as Wikipedia, so an image you see there is not uploaded, and won't work here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Hi IGotProof. Welcome to the teahouse. I've been doing some editing of albums lately so I can give you a few more ideas. Are you trying to load the art work for some album? If you are you can use the Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard tool. That form takes you through some possible cases where you can upload a file just for very specific use. And one of them is for the art work for an album, I think for a DVD as well. One more thing, and I mention this because I'm also a new editor and this confused me and I see it confuse other new editors. If you've had a blog or Facebook account, etc. you are probably used to just uploading random images you find on the Internet. For personal use like that you can do that but not for a site like Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs to be very careful about not violating copyright. So that is why its best to stick with stuff that is in the wikipedia commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Anything in the commons is something Wikipedia already has rights to and is safe to use. Always start looking there before you think about uploading. Hope that was helpful. Mad Scientist (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can i ask for your help?

HI there,

I have written an article for a foundation I know about and i am wondering if i can have some feedback on it at all?

Thanks so much,

Bec Bec Madden 11:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becmadden (talk • contribs)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. The article (RUOK? Day‎) needs to explain why the RUOK foundation is notable, ie "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." To be accepted as notable, the foundation needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Has the foundation been discussed and written about in the media, for example? Has it received industry recognition or awards? There is a comprehensive guide available at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which goes into considerable depth on establishing notability for organizations. Keri (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

this question is about combustion

What are the ways to check environmental pollution caused due to combustion? astroAalapthi (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse. This is a place for questions regarding editing Wikipedia. You may ask your question at the Reference desk. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

lost information

Wikipedia allowed my late husband's BIO to be removed and his name redirected to someone else without authority. Is there any way to retrieve the original and put his name and BIO backLonyar (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lonyar, and welcome to the teahouse! I'm sorry to hear about this. It's difficult to see what happened without knowing what your husband's name was. Would you be able to tell us that? Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

some information about where to find particular deletion discussions

You don't control his Wikipedia article. It was originally deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination). It was redirected for a period of time to Judith Reisman, but that has been removed. If you can provide an article about Arnold Reisman based on independent, reliable sources, it can probably be kept, but it will still be subject to editing by others.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This question was already answered on the help desk. Wikipedia:Help_desk#redirecting_a_page. RudolfRed (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Lonyar. I would be happy to try and help you restore the article about your late husband. I apologize for Kww's BITEy behavior, as that is not how the hosts of the Teahouse tend to do things. Give me a couple of days to look things over and see what I can find (lets say until Tuesday or Wednesday due to the weekend), and then post a reminder on my talk page if you haven't heard back from me. :) Technical 13 (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

@Lonyar: and @Technical 13:, I just found an obituary in a major newspaper, another obituary in another major newspaper, and this, which might be reliable (but is not in English, so I can't say for certain). Just some stuff to get you started. ^King Jakob _C2 22:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

King jakob, those are obituaries of two different people with the same name. One died in January of 2011, and the other died in April of the same year. One lived in Cleveland, and the other lived in Chicago. Wives names are different. We always need to be careful of such things, and there is an essay called Don't build a Frankenstein, which warns about blending two people into a single biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had the previously deleted content moved to my user-draft space, semi-protected, and the article space location has also be salted for the time being. King jakob c 2 and Cullen328 feel free to continue to try and find valid resources to improve this article with and edit it at will. :) Technical 13 (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't add the cover to the Smosh albums "If Music Were Real" and "Smoshtastic".

I would like to know how to add covers to the albums pages here. I click edit, then I click the right box. than I hit cover. and type the image code but it doesn't work, why is that?IGotProof (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi IGotProof, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry you're having difficulty - if you're clicking the "edit" button, you are accessing the VisualEditor, which is still in beta testing and thus a little buggy. I recommend you click "edit source" instead and put the image code in "cover". If you need help doing that, we can help you here! I hope this helps. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IGotProof. You do realise that before images can be added to Wikipedia articles, they must first be uploaded (preferably to Wikimedia commons, but if their copyright status does not permit that, to Wikipedia under "fair use" rules)? Album covers are almost always copyright, so they usually can be used only in the latter way, strictly following Wikipedia's rules on non-free content. Wikipedia:Upload can give you more information. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this how you treat all newcomers?

Why ask someone to create at the very least a 'stub', only to reject it thereafter and in such a terse manner? This was the response I got to a not very good but at least a 'start article' -

Please read the guidelines (particularly Wikipedia:Notability (books)) being used by me and every other reviewer before resubmitting. This subject may well meet guidelines but you've not made that clear.. You are going to need more than a reference to the book itself and a fan site to demonstrate notability here. Reviewers, myself included, do not need a copy of the book to review the article, it is your responsibility as submitter to provide sufficient evidence of notability, not reviewers to go search it out in the book itself or elsewhere.--RadioFan (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I chose to help out at the wrong place? Calamity Hill (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Calamity Hill and welcome. Even stubs must convey notability to the reader. I am happy to help you get the draft article to a point where it is more likely to pass WP:AfC, please leave a message on my talk page if you are interested in collaborating. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have side stepped the issue by creating the stub Account of Corsica - the book and its context is notable, noting that even though wikipedia does not have corsican independence issues of the 1760s as a separate article... the issue is subsumed into the history of Corsica and Corsican Republic. sats 04:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sats and Flat Out - the fact it was written by James Boswell is notability indeed (for me anyway) - Had it been by Shakespeare or George Orwell then I doubt very much the reviewer would have thought twice about 'notability' - which kinda leaves me thinking the whole process may well turn out to be quite arbitrary and highly subjective as well as culturally bound. Sorry if I appear upset about it - I just wonder if the same response would have been given if the author had been Shakespeare or Emerson? Calamity Hill (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Calamity Hill. We all know that every single solitary work by Shakespeare has been the subject of coverage in reliable sources for centuries. These can be easily found and cited for all of his works, plus dozens or hundreds of his characters, associates and so on. That is what makes all of those topics notable. Much the same can be said of Emerson and Orwell and their works. Even those of us who are not experts can assume the same of the works of Boswell beyond his monumental biographical work on Johnson. But assumption alone doesn't fly on Wikipedia. Simply cite reliable sources discussing this specific Boswell work, and your article will be accepted. By the way, your draft article wasn't "rejected", instead, you were asked to provide citations bringing it up to Wikipedia's basic standards. It seems to me that this is not too much to ask of a newcomer, and is not mistreatment. As for me, I properly referenced my first article and all subsequent ones, as I knew that was expected of me. You should realize that as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen - I take on board what you are saying but would respectfully point out that 'rejected' seems a fair interpretation of "Unfortunately, it has not been accepted" or am I missing something there? Calamity Hill (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)::

If you read the full notification, Calamity Hill, you will see that the draft article is still there in its entirety, and that you have been invited, or even encouraged, to improve the draft, and to resubmit it once those issues have been addressed and resolved. To me, that doesn't amount to a flat rejection. Instead, it is an entirely appropriate editorial review intended to encourage you to improve your proposed article, primarily by adding appropriate citations as is expected of all Wikipedia articles. I regret that you misunderstood the intent of the review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I see that the article has been moved to main space by Satu Suro, perhaps by a cut and paste, with no proper attribution in the edit history to you as a contributor, and without any citation to reliable, independent sources which must surely be readily available for a topic such as this. If I was an administrator, I would try to fix up this mess, but I don't have the power to do so. Instead, it would have been far better to have heeded the advice of the reviewer, and resubmit through normal channels. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

Hi, I'm fairly new to making edits on Wikipedia. I wanted to help by browsing some articles that were flagged for needing spelling/grammar cleanup. I am working on one now, and in the course of doing this, realized that I would like a list of the most common tags used for editing. (I have switched to the 'edit source' page, as it's easier to get instructions this way.) For instance, I have learned about adding the tag. I probably won't use this one today; I really was looking for basic tags to add when I cannot simply cleanup spelling/grammar, because the whole sentence doesn't seem to make sense without more information. I have used the tag . That's probably the main one that I need. I suppose I could just use that, but I was wondering if there were other similar tags, like a tag implying that a specific word may be incorrect. (It seems the page I'm working on was translated from Portuguese into English, hence, there are some strange uses of language.) To give you an example, there's this sentence: "His name means "gobber" because of his gluttonous and lazy ways." Gobber? In this case, I can't rewrite and clarify. Should I add a tag, or is there another tag I can put after this word, "gobber," to imply that it needs to be looked into further? I have looked through a lot of help pages, and I have found lists of shortcuts and examples of wikitext, but I can't find a basic glossary of specific editing terms used to tag articles for further cleanup. BFSEsq (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi BFSEsq, welcome to the teahouse. I'd recommend you take a look at Template:Cleanup-rewrite, which is useful if a whole article or section needs rewriting. I don't know if there's something for the situation that you described besides {{what}}, but the "see also" section on the Cleanup page may have something. Howicus (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You can explore lots of related templates by browsing through Wikipedia:Template messages (shortcut: WP:TM). It looks to me like right now you would probably get the most out of two subpages linked from there: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. I think your use of the clarification tag in the Sesinho article was quite apt. By the way, when you want to link a template, rather than have it display, as in your post above, you can type {{tl|name of template}} ("tl" stands for template link). In other words, you would type {{tl|fact}}, which would then show as {{fact}}, instead of having the template's output as part of your post. This didn't matter much in your post above, but it would for many.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much to both of you for the help! I'll take a look at those template sections. And Fuhghettaboutit, thanks for that tidbit about how to stop the template from displaying. BFSEsq (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Searching multiple Wikipedias?

I've been a Wikipedia editor for over 7 years, but I don't know how to do a single search across multiple language Wikipedias. I don't even know if it's possible. If it is possible, how does one do it? Thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Kosboot. Try the Global Wikipeida Article Search tool. You can also just tap Google. Place in your search site:wikipedia.org You can exclude specific Wikipedias by excluding (using a munis sign) the language code that is at the beginning of any Wikipedia URL. For example, since the English Wikipedia's language code is "en" (and it's URL is thus en.wikipedia.org, to search all Wikipedia but for English, you would use in Google site:wikipedia.org -site:en.wikipedia.org. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Fuhghettaboutit! -- kosboot (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've added a second option to the above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding weasel words

I am trying to write an article related to plasma medicine and am afraid I may be using a "weasel word." I want to say how a group of scientists in the 70s developed a specific tool but there were certain risks associated with it (I am able to cite references for this), but I have no other way of saying that this risk is what hindered further development of the tool because I don't have a reference for this. Is it OK to say that this risk "may have hindered further development" without being ambiguous or proven as fact? MermaidWiki (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi MermaidWiki, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well, to be honest, I don't think that your article should include the phrase "may have hindered further development" without a citation. If there's no source that says that the risks may have hindered further development (or words to that effect), then adding that sentence would be original research, something that should be avoided on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. Howicus (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was afraid of. Thanks for the advice. I'll have to leave that part out. Thank you again. MermaidWiki (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Help!

Hi, my name is Piyali and I am new here on Wikipedia as a user but not as a reader :D, well I want to know how to add images to an already existing page as I am editing a page called Sukirti Kandpal, an Indian Television Actress. I want to put another image in that page. I have learned everything expect this. Secondly I am banned on Wikipedia help desk live chat because I had arguments with an admin called GorrillaWarfare. I have many questions which I can't post I need to have a live chat so that I can ask all the questions together as I am new here. So if you could Un-ban me it would be appreciatated. Thanks.

Piyalim2002 (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Piyali! Welcome to Wikipedia. I have a couple questions for you, before you add the image: What image do you want to add? And what is the copyright on that image? Howicus (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to add the image of Sukirti Kandpal on her Wikipedia page. Shes an Indian Television Actress and I do have the copyright.

Piyalim2002 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, there already seems to be an image of that actress in the article Sukirti Kandpal. Is there a reason to add another? Howicus (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I wanna change it. Can you tell me how to do it? Piyalim2002 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Piyali. I've removed the ban in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect, since you are here with legitimate questions. If you have questions about editing Wikipedia, feel free to join and ask. Do not continue trying to use the channel socially. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks GorillaWarfare. I am sorry I will never continue to use the channel socially but thanks alot. :)

Piyali Piyalim2002 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Social science collaboration oin "natural science" article

Hello,

I am apparently involved in an edit-war while contributing input sourced from professional philosophers of biology. Three editors do not want any philosophical content (context about the article topic-concept) on the article. How can I solicit other views that are not centered in the objectivist perspective, say from people familiar with anthropological, historical, or philosophical perspectives in order to reach a compromise or more inclusive consensus?Dylan Hunt (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Greeting Dylan and welcome to the teahouse. First if you are in an edit war stop. Don't keep redoing changes that others have undone. That isn't productive and won't make you look good and while Wikipedia has almost no rules that can't be broken the no edit warring rule is about as strong a guideline as we have. The first thing to do is to try and work things out on the talk page of the article in question. If you can't do that then the next step is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Also, remember that Wikipedia is all about collaboration and compromise. This page is not an official page of Wikipedia, its just kind of meant for a laugh but there is also some good stuff in here that IMO really captures the essence of the site: (it uses some off color language so don't link to it if that offends you) Wikipedia:Apathy On getting other users to take a look, I can offer my opinions if you link me to the page in question. I'm self educated in biology but I understand the basics pretty well, especially the issues related to altruism which is the reason I educated myself on it, I'm also very interested in ethical philosophy and am doing some work on my own for now on the boundaries between ethical philosophy and biology. If you are familiar with authors such as Marc Hauser, Sam Harris, or Scott Atran, people like that. If you are involved in a deep discussion of technical biological issues, things like say molecular biology that would be over my head but if its along the lines I mentioned above I would be interested to take part in the discussion. I know quite a bit about philosophy. Mad Scientist (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Mad Scientist-- you might consider moving the conversation to the user's talk page as Dylan won't be able to respond here for a few days. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the heads up. Mad Scientist (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This may be a good situation for WP:RfC, too. If the issue can be encapsulated to a clear statement of dispute - these kind of disagreements often benefit from blowing in a few non-involved editors to take a glance. EBY (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the Talk page discussion and just to document I'm in agreement with the other editors. I think there are two problems with the change Dylan was proposing: 1) the philosophical issues were not appropriate for a general article on the Human Genome. The nature of philosophy is you could have philosophical digressions on things like "what is a theory" or "what are the meaning of words" on just about any scientific topic. One of the other editors pointed out that "we don't start out an article on pins by discussing how many angels can dance on the head of one" which I think sums it up nicely and 2) Dylan was using references to support his change but those references don't seem to actually support the text he was proposing as a change. I just took a very quick look though. I would be happy to participate in future discussions if extra eyes would be useful. Mad Scientist (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Bios

I need to find some category which includes articles about biographical books, like this one... Thanks! Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 14:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono, there is Category:Autobiographies, where you can work down to the thing you are looking for. Alternatively, there is Category:Biographies (books), if that is what you are looking for. Hope this helps... Matty.007 14:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :D Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 14:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Images, Copyrights, and BLP

Good morning teahouse, My adopter has gone on vacation so am asking more questions here (lucky you). I finally created and published a first article Joe "Tiger" Patrick II and I am wanting to add images to it. I want to confirm what I know (or think I know), about adding images specifically to BLP. Wikipedia allows for non-free images. Commons is for free images. Images with people in them cannot qualify for the free use clause because there is always a way to get an image of a LP. OK now I finally tracked down a photographer willing to allow the use of an image of Joe. I also tracked down Joe and he has suggested a photo that he would like to use as the main photo (and he is working on getting permission from a second news photographer.) To make it easier (on photographers) I am going to see if they will upload any photo's using the upload file option.

1. When they do this will is it still necessary to fill out the form and email it to wiki or is filling the form out at time of upload enough? ç

2. Do I need to get permission from Joe as well for each photo? Or is it just needing permission from the person who took the photo.

3. Is it possible to specify on the upload form for use on wikipedia only?

4. And which share license should be chosen (again I am trying to make it as easy as possible for the photographer) and I already know that at least one of the photographers will agree to allow wiki to use the image but he wants to restrict the use and it will not be a free image. If I do need to get permission from Joe too this makes it kind of tricky as that needs to come before the photographers permission so its not deleted in the first 5 minutes of upload.

5. Best way to proceed?

Thank you in advance for your help. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 13:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Good morning Tattoodwaitress! Thanks for your question on copyright, easily one of the trickiest subjects on the 'pedia here. Let me address your claims (and I'll just put a Y when you've made an accurate description):

Wikipedia allows for non-free images. Commons is for free images. -- Y

Images with people in them cannot qualify for the free use clause because there is always a way to get an image of a LP. -- Y per unacceptable use of non-free images

1. When they do this will is it still necessary to fill out the form and email it to wiki or is filling the form out at time of upload enough? -- I'm not sure what form you are referring to here-- are you referring to the consent form, the image upload form, or something else?

2. Do I need to get permission from Joe as well for each photo? Or is it just needing permission from the person who took the photo. -- You do not need Joe's permission unless he is the copyright holder. This situation is uncommon though, as copyright is retained by the person who took the photo (and requires some statement from the photographer releasing the copyright or transferring it to Patrick).

3. Is it possible to specify on the upload form for use on wikipedia only? -- Wikipedia-only permission is an insufficient statement for use. (I emphasize this not as yelling, but because it's important). This is basically because The Wikimedia Foundation needs to cover its hide from lawsuits by allowing content that can be freely reused, remixed, and even used for commercial purposes. Please see WP:CONSENT for appropriate licensing options and a statement of permission.

4. And which share license should be chosen? -- This is up to the copyright holder, though the one listed at WP:CONSENT is perhaps the easiest as it is already there. There is also a list of usable licenses for free images on Commons here.

5. Best way to proceed? After uploading the image, have the photographer e-mail permissions@wikimedia.org referencing the image's URL (or attaching it) with a statement of consent. The image will be tagged by an OTRS volunteer (maybe me!) and you'll be all set.

Sorry this is all complicated and stuff, but it's the way it's gotta be to ensure that Wikipedia stays away from legal issues. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you thank and yes I was talking about the consent form. Ok so there is no such thing as a wiki only use consent. Hmmm alright. I will just refer the photographer to the upload page and the consent form page so they will have all the knowledge they need. Thanks so much!! TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 16:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How do I make a wiki page ?

How do I make a wiki page ?206.210.161.13 (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi 206.210.161.13 and welcome. When you have made some edits to wikipedia and they have gone well, you can try the new article wizard for your first try. Let me know if you need any help. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate text in source of page but not reading screen - how to fix?

A second matter is that on the source of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease, I noticed the following: This article is in Commonwealth English (which is spoken by a SMALL percentage of English speakers world wide) - so, even though it is incorrect and looks stupid, please do not change foetus to fetus (with some formatting things around it) in the first part below the infobox, which I doubt should say that.

(It only shows up in the source, not the reading version of the page, so I assume it has something to do with formatting, which is why I hesitate to change things and break the page)

(Cut-and-paste from post below, seemed more fitting to have it as a question of its own) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm interested to know why you think it is inappropriate. It is included as a message to editors of the page - rather than readers (as it only displays when the page is opened for editing) - informing them that the article was written using British English and so uses BE spellings of some words, in this case, "foetus". It was likely placed there because people got fed up with it being changed to "fetus", which to BE writers looks incorrect and stupid =) I expect somewhere along the way a vandal modified the original message to make a point. Keri (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The culprit: User talk:ElfNathan. Says it all, really. Keri (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Because of the stating as though fact that 'foetus' IS incorrect (which it isn't, considering the article is in Commonwealth English) and "looks stupid", which again is not fact.

All in all, however, I believe I felt that the message was inappropriate because it comes across as extremely hostile to people who use Commonwealth English. It would be a bit akin to posting on the German wiki that even though German spelling and grammar are weird and look ugly and are wrong, it's a German article and thus needs to follow the German spelling and grammar rules.

Not a huge issue, no, but not exactly friendly either.

It would be different if the message stated something like "which you may feel is incorrect or looks stupid". That's, however, not what it says. What it says is that it's fact that it's incorrect and looks stupid.

I felt that if I was around the Teahouse anyway, I figured I could as well mention it.

(Neutral point of view on the different variations of English here, though. English is not my primary language anyway, and I use British, American and Canadian spelling as appropriate in context)

AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked because I wondered if it was the tone of the message ("incorrect" "stupid") or the original intent of the message ("please use BritEng") that you thought inappropriate =) I fixed the tone, btw. Keri (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why you were asking. No, I have no problems with the original intent of the message; I can see a need to keep articles in one variation of the English language, and I'd assume it's easier to keep articles mainly in one form or another in the dominant form than to change everything back and forth and ultimately result in a dispute over the use of one variation over another, and in certain cases, one variation simply might be more appropriate than another, I suppose? (Like, say, an article about Britain would look strange in American English and the other way around)

Thank you for fixing the tone, I appreciate your help. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

New User Template

Could someone be so kind to drop the new-user template/help-thing I've seen around on new users' pages a lot (before I created an account myself) on my talk page?

Thank you in advance, AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I added some junk to your user talk page. Checkingfax (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your speedy help. I am uncertain if you have seen the second matter I mentioned, or if we missed each other by a few moments there? EDIT: Said matter has been moved to a question header of its own as it was wholly unrelated to the point above. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How to Contribute to Wikipedia?

I have knowledge on English grammar and basic HTML. I have knowledge about my country. The University information is also available to me. But, I don't know how to contribute in these sectors. Please help me to understand the procedures.Tc.guho (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, for starters, click the edit button at the top of the page. Then add or remove some information. The worst that can happen is your edit gets reverted, or removed. What's your question? What specific article did you want to edit? ~~JHUbal27 05:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Tc.guho, and thanks a bunch for your question. Getting started on Wikipedia can be a bit overwhelming, there's no doubt about it. If you're interested in figuring out how to contribute, it's sometimes good to start by doing a search to see what kinds of articles are out there based on your interests (maybe one has already been written, or maybe not!) This way, you can decide whether to start your own or to improve an existing article. As for procedures, I'd recommend this primer to get yourself started on the specifics on editing. You are welcome to ask any questions you have here as you're getting started, so feel free to come back anytime. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a cheat-sheet for Wiki Markup Checkingfax (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings TC, welcome to the teahouse. I'm also a new editor. Here are some things I recommend to get started: 1) Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia basics: Wikipedia:Five_pillars and Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page 2) Start small. I strongly recommend you don't start by trying to create a new page instead look for small changes you can make to existing articles. Look for pages that have messages already indicating that they need work. The most common one is "This article does not site any sources" as on this page Career_Opportunities_(song) 3) Get familiar with how to do references. Since you know HTML Wiki markup should be a breeze. Although to create references I still like using the cite tool (click on Cite at the right side of the widgets and then select a template (book, news, etc) you will be prompted with a form. Most of the fields are optional, fill in what you know and the form will generate the code for you 4) Stick to conventional editing at first. Wikipedia is in the process of rolling out a new editor. That is why you see two options now "Edit" or "Edit Source" I think most editors like me are mostly sticking to the original editor for now (Edit Source). The Visual Editor is still in beta and there are a few bugs. But also since you know HTML I think it would be good for you to pick up Wiki markup language and you can do that easier via the traditional editor. 5) Try Suggestbot. Its a bot that will give you suggestions for editing. It works best after you have done some edits because it uses those edits to suggest others but I think it can even work with no previous edits, here is the page on how to request it pay you a visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuggestBot/Requests#Suggestions_based_on_the_pages_you.27ve_edited Good luck! Mad Scientist (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Some mobile Qs

I always use the mobile version, and I had a few questions. The first one:

How do I edit these things? I have the ability to go in and edt things I surround with two = signs on each side, but not with one on each side. How do you edit those on mobile?

2: Can I access this page without switcing to desktop?

Desktop version slows down my device.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justaguy120 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

(Can someone who uses Wikipedia on a mobile device take this one? I'm still stuck in the dark ages with ma flip phone, guh.) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Mobile editing is not yet available for most users (you can do it in desktop mode or if you enable beta and "danger/alpha" mode if I remember correctly).
• You are having difficulties getting to the Teahouse Questions page from mobile? What make/model/browser are you using? That is certainly something myself and other Teahouse Tech people (Writ Keeper—Ocaasi—Heatherawalls—Jtmorgan—SarahStierch) will want to look into. Technical 13 (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes when I try to edit a page, it takes me straight to the desktop version, which usually crashes my Kindle. This happened when I clicked on Ask A Question or whatever it says up at the top. Now I just add a Q by clicking edit and adding it above the last one, because it doesn't crash that way.Justaguy120 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

UltraViolet (System)

Hello everyone,

I am editing the article UltraViolet (system) and want to add a picutre of the logo, like this one. Should I use an infobox, if so which infobox, I cannot use the one used in Bluray since it's not a storage medium but a system.

Any help would be most appreciated

Regards

---$oHaM ❊  আড্ডা  07:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sohambanerjee1998 and welcome to the Teahouse. This question is best posed on the articles talk page to get the opinion of involved editors there. The question of whether or not to use an info box is a content issue and is local to that page. If you are given the suggestion to use the info box, but others there object, having it suggested here would ad no additional weight to the suggestion, but having the suggestion come from involved editors gains a consensus of editors. Please try that and engage other editors that may have strong interest in the subject. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary to have an infobox in order to add the logo to the article. Feel free to upload a lower resolution version of the logo using the appropriate fair use rationale, and add it to the upper right hand corner of the article. The infobox can come later. Thanks for asking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you but I am going to go with single low-resolution poster.

---$oHƎM ❊  আড্ডা  14:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing Titles

Hi I just created the page A Hereford Beefstow but I missed a letter in the title. How can I fix this?Kuba.greenland (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kuba.greenland and welcome. At the top right of each page after "View History" is a down arrow. If you hover your mouse over the down arrow a drop down menu appears and gives you to "move" option. You can move the article to the correct spelling if you wish, or I can do it for you if you need a hand. I hope this is of help to you. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Could you do this for me. And by the way the page which I created is proposed for speedy deletion, but I don't understand why. Could you or someone else help?Kuba.greenland (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok have fixed the title, but I need help as the page is proposed for deletion. Kuba.greenland (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Kuba.greenland, I have left a message for you on your talk page. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes FYISupranit5 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Report(answered)

How do you report a user or IP adress for vandalism or being rude? I use the mobile version with beta turned on. If you cant answer about mobile, answer about desktop.Justaguy120 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Justaguy. There are various noticeboards where you can alert administrators, but in nearly all cases, the first thing to do is to engage with the person on their talk page. If it is clear vandalism, you can use a template such as Template:warn. Have a look at WP:VANDAL for more information on how to proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much. What if someone is being rude?Justaguy120 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Justaguy. Unfortunately being rude is not against policy or guidelines. We do have civility behavioral guidelines but just being rude in itself is something we will sometimes have to face at Wikipedia. If you are personally attacked or feel threatened that is entirely different but, for the must part, incivility is an administration intervention issue or an more formal mediation if it rises to that level. As Colin says, try to engage the editor and let them know you felt that perhaps there is a way for you two to work together. Perhaps you can emphasis the work and not the insult you felt.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks much to both of you!Justaguy120 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

One last thing, I would not feel right if I didn't address the template suggestion. Yes, that is an option, however many editors feel that such templates come across too authoritarian and there are some essays (the opinions of one or more editors) about templates to regulars on Wikipedia. Many won't read them for many reasons and many editors feel that a personal hand typed message relevant to that particular situation (as I said above about engaging the editor and emphasizing the work and not the insult) is far less likely to be taken the wrong way. Good luck and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Source

I was editing an article and I was told that the American Cancer Society is a poor source for the definition of a particular cancer treatment called an antineoplaston (http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/antineoplaston-therapy) I would think that this is a great source. Could you please give me your opinion? Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This kind of question is best asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but since you are here let me see if I can answer your question for you. The website you show seems to have been published reliably and does seem to have a history of fact checking with editorial over site, but the articles may be tertiary in nature and not secondary. In other words this is not a primary source and is not a reliable secondary source, but is similar to Wikipedia itself and contains tertiary information compiled from other sources. Like a dictionary or an encyclopedia. Tertiary sources should not be used alone and would certainly need further referencing with secondary sources. I hope this helps you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Docia49. Maybe not in the clearest terms, but you were not told the American Cancer Society (ACS) was a poor source for all purposes, but that in sum and substance, since ACS's definition of antineoplaston does not appear to contain the latest findings and is missing information on what the specific chemical is, a different, more up to date and expansive source would be better. More importantly please note the other part of the conversation, which is that the information might be suitable for mention in the article, but would appear to be undue weight in the lead section of the article, or at least that's how I would summarize what was being said. I agree with that sentiment. Please also note that you recently tagged a sentence with {{fact}} about there being little evidence of effectiveness of the therapy, when the self-same ACS source you cited for the definition says pretty much just that. I am not jumping to conclusions but please know that we see a trend on Wikipedia of people who are apologists/true believers and cherry pickers for pseudoscience, untested healing therapies, fringe theories and the like, and who push an agenda. Accordingly, people (like me) are often on high alert in the general subject area (the same thing is true of ethnic, religious and political divides/disputes). So just be aware when your editing in this area of that sensitivity. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Docia49, Let me start by saying that I have lots of respect for the American Cancer Society and have donated tens of thousands of dollars to them in memory of my father who died of cancer. That being said, we have a very high standard for sourcing of articles on medical topics as described at WP:MEDRS. Information on the ACS website is intended to be a useful summary for lay people. Our medical articles should be cited to the highest quality secondary review articles published in peer-reviewed medical journals. In other words, articles that systematically review and summarize many published primary articles, thereby describing scientific consensus. ACS may well fund some of this research, but it doesn't publish it directly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

While Fuhghettaboutit does bring up important and critical issues I think Cullen328 really hits this on the head.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone review my draft?

Hello again,

This is my very first contribution to Wikipedia, so I would appreciate someone's pointing out its most serious mistakes and problems so I could fix them before submitting the draft. Is this the right place for such a request? Ant 222 (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

First question when I landed on the page was (before a full reading of the article) is, I have never seen this: «Star Heritage: Black Corbra» in an article. Usually you either bold or italicize the subject in the lead.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You made a number of common mistakes. Your references are all bare url references and that creates work for others to fix. Please review Help:Referencing for beginners. Next are the references themselves. You have used non English references. This can only be done on the English Wikipedia if no English sources of the same or higher quality are available. For this subject I would say that there are certainly English sources of the same or higher, however, the references themselves are not reliable sources. They must be reliably published with a editorial over site and a history of fact checking. No personal blogs may be used to reference facts and under no circumstance do we allow the use of message board or social networking discussions as reference sourcing. It looks as though none of these references pass any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The sourcing is the main issue and must be dealt with before it can go to the article space. I am also going to mention notability. I am not sure this will pass on notability of the subject. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Notability to be sure.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand most of your remarks will try to fix my draft accordingly. What do you mean by "bare URL's"? I have references to a paper magazine and to an e-zine.

I hope you won't mind my coming to your talk page to discuss my edits (because this entry may sink incoveniently deep by that time... Thanks again :-) Ant 222 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A bare url is a link to an off wiki site that contains no reference formatting. The reference should be formatted to show in the reference section in a correct style for the ease of verification and to meet sourcing standards etc.. Feel frre to ask on my talk page any concerns you may have.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Uploading a non-free image for a draft article

Hello all. The upload wizard requires that I specify the article wherein the image is to be used, and that the article exist, but currently it is a draft. Should I submit my draft for review before uploading the image? I thought that without the image it would be incomplete... Ant 222 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You ask a good question. Images are not required for an article and therefore would not be incomplete, and as all articles on Wikipedia are works in progress no article is actually ever truly complete in those exact terms.

The use of non free images is limited. An article must exist before its use will pass the Non free Content Criteria and guidelines as well as the Non free Content Rationale guidelines. These images must never be used in draft articles in your sandbox, user space etc. They can only be used in articles that they have significant context to and are being discussed within the body of the article. There are some exceptions to critical discussion but, for the most part non free images must be discussed to be used. If you have further questions feel free to ask here or on my talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Amadscientist, understood. I may need to ask more questions if the image will be found to upset the Non-free use rationale, though...Ant 222 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Help with Page

Yes, I created a page for an application development company to highlight their founding, history and trademarks. The page here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elliottgbrown/Matmon_Internet)

I am having trouble understanding why the page is linked to my user account and why my user account isn't showing as valid? I added their trademarks but I am not sure how to add the image to show the trademarks. Can someone please help me? Elliottgbrown (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. It is because you created a subpage instead of a page in the main space. You should create this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matmon_Internet. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 18:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Miss Bono Is the proper technique to remove the content from the subpage and add it to the new user page? Also, under the trademarks section, I tried to link the individual trademarks to the images associated with them? If I provide the links, is there anyway to have them added? Elliottgbrown (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is ok to remove the content and add it to the new page, not to any user page. Cut the code in the subpage and paste it into the link I gave you. Also, if you want to ping some user (me or not me), you should use this:

• [[User:Name_Of_The_User]] or this
• {{U|Name_Of_The_User}}.

Another thing is, for adding images to the article you should use this:

• [[File:Bono_i_motljus.jpg| 100px]] (The 100px is the size you give to the image, and the the name of the file has to be replaced for the name of the file you want to place), you can only add an image that is at Commons, nothing else. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, to expand on what Miss Bono said, please don't move that article to Matmon Internet yet. Your article is completely unreferenced. Every Wikipedia article needs significant coverage in reliable sources for it to be acceptable. Also, take a look at the referencing guide for beginners for details on how to format citations. Howicus (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Howicus, I guess I missed that in my response. Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well can it not be deleted so I can go through and reference everything. I do not want to start all over again. Please, don't delete the article. Elliottgbrown (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)