Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 135

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

←

→

Signature fonts

Hey, again,

Minor question. I found a user essay that explained how to create a more interesting signature (I put mine together by looking at other people's sigs). It had a great link to an article on Web Colors that details what names and codes to use to obtain particular colors.

But the Web Fonts article was less useful. Is there a page that lists fonts that are recognized by Wikipedia and can be used in signatures? It seems like there are a wider variety than the standard dozen or so MS fonts. Thanks for your help! NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. it isn't Wikipedia that recognizes the font. It is your browser. Computers come with a number of preloaded fonts. All of the basic fonts are recognized because your computer (and most computers) already has them. Don't attempt to use specialty fronts as only people that have that font loaded will see them.--Mark 20:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Also be careful that your signature doesn't become difficult to read - many users don't have perfect vision. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark and Roger (Dodger67). I thought there were more standards like for Web Colors. As for my own signature, I just saw someone else's I liked and saw what font it was but cursive might be hard to read. It's something I can work on. Now, I still need to find a list of fonts somewhere so I can check them out in Chrome. Thanks, again! ;-) NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 23:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This site lists and shows all of the basic fonts available to both Windows and Mac fonts. Any of these should be recognized by chrome. Come Halloween, I like to use a special font with a mark up that changes my User page name to display with Blood drip letters. I only use free or freely licensed fonts only to be careful, although I am told that regardless of the free license the markup only tells the user's computer what font to display and if anyone does not have it, it defaults to Times Roman I believe. But since I like to use this font as a Halloween "costume" I tell users where to load it to view. In doing that I feel obligated to make sure I am directing readers and editors to fonts that have the same licensing s Wikipedia. Not sure if that is necessary or not, but something to think about.--Mark 04:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and the Halloween idea, Mark ! Maybe I'll go red and green for Christmas. ;-) NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 20:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

People are always copying my signature style, but I don't mind... —Anne Delong (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I receive an alert?

Hi, Teahouse folks,

I've been more active since June so I might still be considered a newbie.

I have noticed several times that when I mentioned a user by name on a page, within minutes, they appear and respond to my comment. Sometimes the names are linked (like NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk}) and sometimes not (like NewJerseyLiz). These mentions have occurred on pages that are unrelated to any discussion I had been having with the user.

So, I'm wondering if there is some bot or some setting in Preferences so an editor gets an alert when they are mentioned by name and, somewhat related, when someone responds to a comment they made. I get notices if someone replies on my own Talk Page but not when these interactions happen on other pages.

Thanks! NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 15:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi NewJerseyLiz. Go to the Notifications tab in your Preferences Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo and you'll find various settings there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had already looked at that but I didn't have "Mention" checked. I still don't know how one editor found my mention of his username when it WASN'T linked (like NeilN, not NeilN) so all I can conclude is that they were following up on my contributions and checking out comments I made elsewhere. I've also tried finding people via Wiki Search but it's not a very accurate tool when you are searching for usernames (not in chronological order).

But I appreciate your prompt and polite response, NeilN! I'm glad I came to the Teahouse. ;-) NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 15:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help NewJerseyLiz. You got an alert, right? :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks! ;-) NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 18:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Liz! The person who found your comment might have had the page you ere editing on his or her watchlist. You can add a discussion page where you have left a comment to your watchlist by clicking on "Watch this page" before saving your comment. You can also find a user name on talk pages by typing "Wikipedia talk:User name here" in the search box, although as far as I know there is no way to sort the entries, so it's pretty useless after a while. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Or, rather than needing to add a page specifically to your watchlist, on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist you can enable the option for "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist". - David Biddulph (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Anne and David but I don't think that is it. Here's the scenario: I'm an inexperienced user and Anne just reverted a few of my edits. I go to David's talk page and say, "Hey, David, I had this bad experience with Anne Delong and I don't know how to react". Then, Anne pops in to David's Talk Page and replies to my comment to you which happened to mention her. Of course, she leaves a polite explanation. ;-)

But I didn't link her username and I doubt that Anne has David's Talk Page on her watchlist. Unless people can get alerts for keywords (like their name or a subject), I can only guess that this editor was following up on the inexperienced editor and tracking them to see if they did further damage.

That was the kind of alert I meant. And as far as the damage I did (when I was inexperienced), it was applying the wrong categories to a set of articles on a subject so they were easily reverted. But I hadn't been reverted before (especially multiple times in a row) and I was puzzled. #ThatsMyStory Liz ^{Let's Talk} 21:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs)

Mark Sutton

Hi, would Mark Sutton be considered notable? I asked the question here, and got told by Buddy23Lee that he likely was. However, GiantSnowman redirected the article yesterday, so I am looking for other opinions. Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the 'Ask a Question' button asks questions at the bottom of the page? Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what happened,but just tested and it added to the top for me. Sutton appears to be notable, perhaps you could raise your concern with GiantSnowman. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

For me it goes into an edit window, and adds at the bottom. I saw your test. I think GiantSnowman will likely come here from his username, but I will give him TB as well. Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It was sensible to create the redirect, in the absence of an article, but if he is notable you can convert the redirect into an article. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That is partially what I am asking, is he notable enough to deserve an article? (My main points being here.) Thanks again, Mat ty.007 13:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@Matty.007: - apologies for the delay, have been away for a few days - I don't think he's notable, hence the redirect. It would be a case of WP:BLP1E as far as I can see. Giant Snowman 10:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Need specific examples to help someone understand why their article is being rejected?

I am helping someone who is providing content to me to wikify to create an article. This article has been rejected because it says it is "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." He has been trying very hard to get this published and has been basing his work on his friend's article on Franz–Keldysh effect. It would be extremely helpful if specific statements, sentences, etc. from his article could be given to him as an example with the correct written form as expected for Wikipedia. Thanks. KarlBoer (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse. Nearly half the references for the submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-field domain are academic papers written by Karl Boer. If you are not Karl Boer, then it's somewhat confusing for you to be using the username KarlBoer. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Karl. If you want specific examples from his article, it may be helpful if you tell us which article it is. Are you perhaps talking about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/High-field domain? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Karl Boer. The article reads like a research paper or a book chapter written for physicists to read rather than an encyclopedia article. It should be much briefer and not have so many references that are original research papers. Find book chapters or review articles as references. Notice that Franz–Keldysh effect is only a few paragraphs long and includes a paragraph talking about how the effect relates to the Stark effect and the effect's limitations. Leave out the equations and all the figures. This is much too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Explain why high field domains are significant. That's what an encyclopedia reader needs to see. Happy editing. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. If you think of anything else to help improve the chances for this to get accepted, please let me know.

KarlBoer (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Is 'teahouse' one word or should it be two?

Only in Wikipedia do I find "Tea House" as the lead set of words. The dictionary and thesaurus I most depend on has only the single word. I am content that "tea master" should always be two words but I think " teahouse" is and should be one. 70.95.176.133 (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Are you referring to the article on tea house? I'm actually not sure myself about what usage of the term is more common, but the reference desk is a more suitable forum for this kind of question. Dictionaries are one consideration for determining common use, but not the only one. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

When uploading photos from flickr, users are still deleting them

Ive uploaded several photos to several pages that are from flickr, which is allowed, and for them still to be removed and deleted. According to wikipedia, im allowed to use public flickr photos so im wondering why people are deleting them

Pk10534 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at your talk page at Commons it looks like you've been uploading images that are not copyright free. Just because something is on Flickr and available in public doesn't make it Public domain. We can only accept images that are either out of copyright or have been explicitly released into the public domain. The copyright rules can take some getting used to but in essence it's either needs to be old, have been published before or has express permisison to reuse for any purpose. NtheP (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not all photos that you find on Flickr are acceptable for upload to Wikipedia. They must be freely licensed - see WP:FLICKR for guidance in determining which licenses are acceptable.--ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with both user above, you might try this search (for images licensed under CC-By 2.0) and this search (for images licensed under CC-By-SA 2.0), which targets Flickr images that were uploaded under a free copyright license compatible with the free licenses for our content, and which will be acceptable for upload at the Commons (most of the time). The reason for the qualification is that, while the stated license for these Flickr images is fine, it is not uncommon for people at Flickr (or for that matter at the Commons) to upload non-free copyrighted images for which they do not own the copyright, and falsely state a license. In other words, there are times when you do everything right, and had no way of knowing, but the Flickr image license you see is false. You can also search for free images using Google:

Perform a Google Images search but place "-Wikimedia" in the search so you avoid Commons images;
Click on the gear icon on the top right hand side of the screen and select Advanced Search;
Scroll to usage rights and select "free to use, share, or modify even commercially";
Click the Advanced Search button.

There's also a free image search tool you might try called FIST. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a wikipedia page?

If you can site a Wikipedia page is it the same as citing a website? (Marika.fraser (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No. WP:WPNOTRS. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marika and welcome to the Teahouse. You are certainly welcome to cite a Wikipedia page, and we actually make it very easy to do so. When you are looking at an article, Ben Revere for example, look in the "toolbox" on the left-hand sidebar and toward the bottom you will see "cite this page"; click it and you will have many options in how to cite it. That said, for academic work, citing Wikipedia is probably not a good idea. It is good for background information, but look to the inline citations we have, and cite them if you are extrapolate specific information. Hope this helps, Go Phightins! 19:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You cannot cite a Wikipedia article as a reference in another Wikipedia article - as user-generated content, Wikipedia does not meet its own requirements for reliable sources (see WP:RS). Wikipedia can, however, be cited elsewhere, see WP:Citing Wikipedia but note the cautions therein.--ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Also note a lot of teachers will tell you not to cite Wikipedia directly; not so much because Wikipedia is "bad", but because it's a reference "book" and not an source document or first layer of research. In technical terms, if you're writing about the History of Chicago, an old 1883 census report from Chicago is a WP:Primary source (the raw information), a book by Professor So-and-So called "The Bright 1880s in Chicago" is a WP:Secondary source (an expert has reviewed the raw data and drawn conclusions from it). Wikipedia, Britannica, etc. are WP:Tertiary sources, like our article History of Chicago, meaning we take the ideas of many experts and compile them here, drawing no new conclusions nor claiming expertise in the individual subject, but simply gathering ideas together. So if you're writing a paper about Chicago, don't cite Wikipedia, go to the article's footnotes and there pick out some good sources to check on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reinstatement of Jason Stadtlander

A while back a page I had created was deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Stadtlander). I completely understand why it was deleted, having insufficient evidence online for him (stadtlander) being a 'notable' figure. My question that I want to pose is; I have seen some other things popping up about him lately. Specifically he's writing for the Huffington Post and I saw a magazine article about a new book he put out. Does this change his notability or is there a set criteria for how notable someone must be for a person to be listed? Just curious.

On an unrelated (as far as I know) question... I had posted some images of the "Lovers of Valdaro" which was stricken though it was from the AP. Is AP not a public domain source if credited? Not trying to be a pain with all of this, just trying to get my feet wet and understand wikipedia better. Thanks! B4theword (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, B4theword. However much he writes will not make the slightest difference to his notability. But articles about him, may well do - as long as they are substantial treatments of him (and not just of a book of his). On your other question. "public domain" means that there is NO copyright on something - either because it has lapsed, or because the copyright owner has explicitly released it into the public domain. Assuming you mean Associated Press, their website says at the bottom "All contents © copyright 2013 Associated Press. All rights reserved." The only way you could use any images from that site would be either AP agreed to release it under one of the acceptable licences, or if your use met the very strict conditions for using non-free content. --ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense on both fronts. Thank you very much ColinFine. I appreciate the time. B4theword (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusingly, the third item of WP:NAUTHOR implies that if a person's book is reviewed enough in multiple independent reliable sources, that in itself may suffice to make the person notable. This rather goes against the principle that the sources would need to be about the person himself, not about his work. Of course, things like goodreads and Amazon and other booksellers don't count as independent sources in this context. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Userboxes.

How do I add a user box? The Red WikiBaron (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Have you read Wikipedia:Userboxes? If you have a specific question after that, please ask. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I figured it out by looking at your user boxes. I just wasn't clear on what to type. Thanks

The Red WikiBaron (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I upload a picture from wikimedia commons to wikipedia in an article

I just dont understant this I have no idea where to upload the picture Can some one Please help me? (Marika.fraser (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that you want to add the image to the infobox at Nicholas Anthony DiMarzio, then in the infobox source after "image =" you would add "File:BP DiMarzio formal2 (1).jpg". You do, however, need to address the problem identified on File:BP DiMarzio formal2 (1).jpg, that you haven't provided evidence of the permission to use it under the free licence. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank You so much David (Marika.fraser (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Page Edits are in different languages

I have been working on some suggested pages that need grammar fixes. I noticed that many of them are in different languages which trigger grammatical errors in English. Is there a way to adjust my settings to either translate the text or only show English pages that have errors that need fixed?

Neonbrandlv (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"preceding unsigned comment"

Why do I get a "Preceding unsigned comment.." note after I definitely added the four "~" after my comment?mickeyallen 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyallen (talk • contribs)

It's because your signature doesn't link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page, as required by Wikipedia:Signatures#Internal links. The easiest way to get a valid signature is to have no checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences, and leave the "Signature" field blank. If you prefer lower case then it's OK to have mickeyallen in the Signature field. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

am I referencing correctly?

Hello, I'm compiling my reference list before I write the body of the article, as it was my understanding that this is the correct protocol. I'm following the template, but I have no way of knowing if I'm actually doing it correctly, and I'm a bit nervous. Below, please find an example of what I've inputted so far:

{{cite journal}} | last= Drob| first= S.| title= Jung for Academics? Negotiating the Obstacles. Review of “The Handbook of Jungian Psychology: Theory, Practice and Applications.” By Renos K. Papadopoulos| journal= PsycCRITIQUES| volume= 51| issue= 51| year= 2007}}

The above reference appears below the ==References==/ {{reflist}} section.

Secondly, can I save my work without publishing? I want to walk away from my post and work on it later, but I don't want to lose all I've done.

Thank you for the help,

Das9cb (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC) I have added nowiki tags to make your question readable. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The best starting point for reading about references is WP:Referencing for beginners. A few points:

You shouldn't have the }} after journal; the }} comes where you have it at the end after 2007.

The reference definition, with <ref>...</ref> tags around it, should come in the body of the article immediately after the text which you are using it to reference, before the References section with {{reflist}}, not after it.

Yes, you can save it and come back to it later, particularly as you are working in your user sandbox. The work won't normally be deleted unless it is totally unsuitable, such as being a copyright violation or libellous.

- David Biddulph (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify a little: everything on Wikipedia may be read by anybody, so in a sense you are publishing as soon as you save your work. But it may not show up on searches, and most people will recognise that it is a work in progress and not interfere with it except in the circumstances that David mentions. --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

..., and you do have the {{User sandbox}} tag at the top of User:Das9cb/sandbox, so it ought to be clear to any reader what the status is. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proper way to take part in a Afd debate?

If nominate an article for deletion, someone places a "vote" to keep. I want to respond to their thoughts. Do I post under their post or do I post on the talk page of the discussion (as I have done), or am I not suppose to respond because I already stated my reasons when nominating, wasn't sure this is why i put my thoughts on the talk page. This is new to me. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Normally you would post under their post on the AfD page itself. Don't feel the need to respond to everyone, cause that just ends up looking pushy. If your already stated comments cover what you think you need to say, you shouldn't have to respond. By all means, do feel free to respond to questions and new ideas though. --Onorem (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tattoodwaitress. Yes, keeping the discussion all on the AfD page is the right way to go about this. Responding to important points is good, however there's a widely-cited essay Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process which cautions against over-responding. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok, Onorem and LukeSurl, thanks for the link and I will remember not to be pushy or over respond. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tattodwaitress! We are told as hosts here not to rely too heavily on linking policies. But I think this is one place where I will make an exception. Please take a look at WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions for a complete guide as to style and etiquette for AfD discussions. AfD id a great place to come to a complete understanding of notability. Have fun! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

When you take an article to AFD, it's a good idea to FIRST become familiar with notability guidelines (there are several), and to check before you nominate at Google, Google Book, Google Scholar, and perhaps Google News archive (though they have stopped updating) for any sources which would support notability, even if they are not presently cited in the article. You should also look at the "common outcomes," where you would learn that tiny hamlets where a few people live, and obscure radio stations, and species, athletes who played for one minute in a professional league or competed in the Olympics, and high schools usually survive AFD, for whatever reason. Then make your case in the text in the nomination itself, indicating that you checked for evidence of notability and didn't find enough. If someone then gives a bogus "Keep" argument, such as citing something only loosely related to the subject, or they cite a discredited argument ("There are lots of other lame articles we would have to delete"), it is fair to respond, but you should avoid repeating the same argument over and over to each contributor who disagrees with you, and you should not get ego involved in trying to get your way. The AFD is not your baby, and if the consensus is to keep an article you thought should be deleted, it is not the end of the world. Edison (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Help for infobox

Hi, I wanted to know that how to edit an infobox on an article if i have more information about the topic.Param Mudgal (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Hit the "Edit source" link at the top of the article, and that will show you the infobox source. If in doubt, have a look at Template:infobox, or Template:infobox xxx for whichever type of infobox is in use in that article; that will tell you what parameters are available, what values it expects for the parameters, & what bubtleties there may be on the syntax. Remember that the parameter names are case sensitive. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Also be aware that Infoboxes can be very specific. For example, the Infobox Person is used for actors and you can list personal data like marriages and children. But the Infobox Musician does not allow mention of these aspect of a person's life. You can add them in but they won't appear when you save and then look at the page again. So, you have to be sure that the type of Infobox on the topic/person's page can utilize the information that you want to include. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 02:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I prevent other users from editing my user page?

Since it's supposed to be MY profile, how do I prevent others from editing and potentially vandalizing it?CodeCharming (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There are complicated ways to get protected, but these are generally only implemented in response to vandalism, rather than pre-emptively. Generally speaking, except for very high-profile editors, vandalism of user pages isn't a big problem. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. The guidelines are at Wikipedia:User pages#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi CodeCharming, thanks for your question. Looking at the edit history for your userpage, it seems like you are the only one who has edited it. Are you referring to some other page? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 14:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. And yes, I'm new here and I'm the only person who has edited it so far; I was wondering about pre-emptively protecting the page.CodeCharming (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't do pre-emptive protection. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone is vandalizing your userpage, you can remove the vandalism (click on the edit history at the top of your user page and you'll see what to do). If it continues, you could complain at WP:AIV or WP:ANI and administrators would look into it. Vandals have done some appalling things to other folks' userpages, such as adding a statement that the person is a pedophile, so it makes sense to keep track of changes to your userpage. If you stick around, you may find that other editors watch your userpage (you can see how many by starting at the history button). After almost 6 years and 44,000 edits, i have 93 users watching my user page. Those lurking watchers sometimes, on their own, might revert vandalism and warn or block the vandal. I will add your userpage to my watchlist. Edison (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender and Wikipedia

I'm just curious, are there any women on the ARBCOM? And do you know what percentage of Admins are women? Even a rough estimate would be useful. Thanks! ; ) NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 00:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Newjerseyliz.There are 13 active Arbcom members. Though some don't disclose their gender openly, those that do are all male. I suspect that all are male. We have some outstanding women administrators. SarahStierch is one, was involved in organizing the Teahouse, and works to improve women's participation here. She may have some insights for you, but she has been vacationing in Japan after Wikimania in Hong Kong. So she may be slow to answer. My hunch is that women are 10% to 15% of the active group of administrators. Personally, I wish that it was 51%. Confronting systemic bias is one of our biggest ongoing challenges. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen³²⁸. I appreciate your concern about fair representation but if your 10-15% figure is correct, I believe that is the same percentage of editors who are female. I just wondered if Admins had been surveyed as to gender and nationality.

From what I've seen, the RfA process can be grueling and it could be that competent, experienced female editors decline to go through the hazing process unless it looks like it will be a sure thing. Or they find other ways to assist Wikipedia like DRN or ANI. I know it is less likely, in general, for women to self-nominate.

Aside from gender, I'm concerned that I see a lot of Wikipedia statistics pages evaluating different aspects of the editing/user experience but they stopped tracking these trends years ago...many tables end in either 2006, 2009 or 2011. Maybe grants dried up at these points? It's unfortunate because it seems like currently, there is not much self-evaluation going on from WP or WMF and I think it's important to have an accurate portrait of volunteers.

But here I go off-tangent again. ;-) I appreciate you addressing my questions. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 02:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Glad you're interested in this subject. The best place to actually discuss it is the gender gap mailing list or meta gender gap, though the latter is rather outdated and will eventually undergo an overhaul, I hope.

Thank you, I'll check it out. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As the former gender gap fellow at the Wikimedia Foundation, I've learned from experience - I used to harp on WMF to fund research into this, and they refused. I did it myself, with a survey in 2011. However, I eventually turned the tide at "more action, less words," and focused on projects to engage a more diverse group of potential contributors than to dwell on "why women don't" at this point. The Foundation is seeking to fund activities that are actionable regarding Wikimedia projects and diversity, however, they are not funding research into it, except the yearly editor survey.

Hope that helps! SarahStierch (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Sarah, I'd love to read about your work..do you link to it from your User Page? You certainly sound like the voice of experience and I appreciate you addressing my question. Also, I didn't realize that there was an annual editor survey, I'll try to track that down. Thanks! NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

First, welcome to Wikipedia NewJerseyLiz. That is certainly one of the best questions I have seen on the Teahouse from a new editor in a very long time, and the Teahouse does get some good questions.

Much of what you say about the possible reaction of female editors to AN or AN/I is certainly a legitimate concern and one I have heard expressed before. Yes, DR/N and other such venues are always something that are great options. I highly recommend you add your name to the DR/N volunteer list. I also believe female editors have done a lot of impressive work through the Wikipedia WikiProjects.

Your concerns about the outdated data is also the concern of Project Editor Retention but much of their effort has fallen off a bit to the side, however the main page still shows the links to the relevant discussions on these and other retention concerns as late as last summer I believe. They were retained hoping that some of these discussions could be revived and further editor research could be undertaken as a community effort. WER had a link to Sarah's 2011 research I believe. I hope some of this didn't sound too pamphlet like.--Mark 04:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL! No, Mark, you gave me more information than my initial query! I think I've come across WP:WER and didn't realize it was inactive. It's interesting because my initial concern was why ARBCOM was all male (and I'm guessing all white) and I'm wondering if there have been female committee members in the past (there must have been a couple). I do see lots of female participation at earlier levels of dispute resolution. NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom isn't all male; user:Risker is female for instance, and for all I know others are as well. As for whether they're all white I have no idea. Eric Corbett 16:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that, Eric, that was my original question. Thanks for telling me that. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 22:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Eric is correct. Risker is female though that is not readily evident on her user page, I apologize for my incorrect assumption, Newjerseyliz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am joining the discussion to note that user Acalamari is a female Administrator whose good at work plus helped not only me but other Users who were new to this revolution. You can consult her if you need any help. Coincidentally I to had the same question in my - How many female editors are there since in my field of work I found all of them to be male. Is Wikipedia getting male dominated day by day or women are not interested in Wikipedia? $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 08:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, $oHƎM, I've met a few awesome Admins (both female and male) but it always helps to know about others. As for your experience, except for dispute cases I've been reading, the only female editors I've come into personal contact with are engaged in more procedural aspects of Wikipedia (like AfDs, CfDs, SPs, SPIs, AfCs, DRNs and the like). I think the strangest gender imbalance I've seen is voting in RfA, I see very few users with identifiable female names casting votes supporting or opposing Admin candidates. Not sure why this is so.NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 16:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons you don't see a lot of people who are obviously women commenting is because we tend to go incognito and use gender-neutral names. (And sometimes people assume we're male anyways - I've been called "he" and "him" despite the feminine username and picture of myself on my user page.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, and perhaps reassurance to others, have you experienced any harassment on Wikipedia since identifying yourself as female? Eric Corbett 19:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I can report one incident in which, since I edit under my own name, a user tracked me down through Google (I have my own web site) and made a lot of nasty and sexist comments because I declined to write an article for him about his favourite singer. I just kept being polite and eventually he got bored and quit. Nobody has called me "him", but I wouldn't care about that, since English has no graceful way to refer to someone in a gender neutral way. I have had a few patronizing comments thrown my way, but it's hard to say how much of that is gender related. In general, I have been treated very well. I think there may be more women than one might think among the "gender undisclosed" crowd. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think so too. Eric Corbett 20:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been an on and off editor for years, Eric, and I think that unless you are editing in some male-dominated areas (like Gaming, for example), gender plays a very subtle role. My comments are sometimes dismissed when I think they were valid criticism. But I've also had some male editors who were pretty rude to others be less abrasive to me and the only reason I can see they'd be polite is because I'm a woman. So, it's got it's pluses and minuses. But I can definitely say that other editors notice your gender if you are female. It makes a difference, but it's not blatant sexism (as far as I have experienced). And because editors here respect people who do good work, regardless of their gender, orientation or nationality, I think it's much less of an issue on WP than on unruly message boards and social media....where I can't repeat the names I've been called! Liz ^{Let's Talk} 22:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There's the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force if anyone is interested in joining. It is more concerned with the gender coverage of Wikipedia articles, though the current bias must surely correlate directly with the gender imbalance amongst Wikipedia editors. Sionk (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why you would say that. I'm male but I've worked on loads of articles on female subjects, including Margaret Thatcher. Or are you suggesting that Wikipedia's paucity of decent articles on knitting, for instance, is a result of this unproven gender bias? Eric Corbett 21:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Eric Corbett, my wife is an occasional editor who has been working on Lion Brand, about the oldest craft yarn company in the U.S. I've helped a bit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

My wife would be much more likely to have written the article on phenytoin. I just don't get this gender worry at all. What is it we're missing because so many editors choose not to reveal their gender? Of those editors I've worked with recently I know to be female the subjects we've collaborated on include industrial archaeology, mining, and medieval English history. Not too much girlie stuff there. Perhaps we ought to be wondering why so many editors opt not to reveal their gender, rather than drawing unsupportable conclusions from the number who do. Eric Corbett 04:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@NewJerseyLiz - Hey! Just a quick message as I'm just getting home from vacation and pretty tired. You can find some of my projects on meta - here and info on the Teahouse here. My own personal website has most information about the work I've done - here. I actually was interviewed in the International Business Journal today, you can read the article about the gender gap here. Hope that provides a bit of insight for you! Facebook is a good place too, you can find a link to the WikiWomen's Collaborative group via the meta link I provided. See ya! SarahStierch (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, SarahStierch, I'll check them out. I'm aware of the WikiWomen blog, I think I posted on its Talk Page. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 02:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse in other languages?

Tim Moritz Hector and Lydia Pintscher of WMDE talked at Wikimania about porting the Teahouse to other languages. They want to try to do it for de.wp in 2014. I will present the idea to my fellow board members at the board retreat two weeks from now. We want to learn from your experiences and we need your help. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ad Huikeshoven, and I hope you are enjoying Hong Kong. I visited there 21 years ago. Please note that SarahStierch is attending Wikimania and was instrumental in the early days of the Teahouse. Please discuss the idea with her. You can ask me any questions you want about being a host, but I kniw little about the "back office" or technical aspects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. I'm back in Europe now. I have talked to SarahStierch before Wikimania aboout this subject. At Wikimania I attended the Fun is Serious Business talk by Heather and Siko which included a huge section about Teahouse research. Thanks for your kind words. I'll do my best to become a nice host. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ad Huikeshoven I suggested a Spanish Teahouse at the Spanish Wikipedia but they disagreed. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 18:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish don't really drink a lot of tea. Suggest a tequila bar instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Tequila is particularly Mexican, not Spanish nor from Spain....Skookum1 (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How about a sangria bar?--ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Where to complaint about BLP issue

Hi. I am wondering where i can complaint about other editor adding controversial section in BLP Nidhi_Razdan without adding reliable authentic source? RouLong (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That you would do at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Valenciano (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

replacing a photo in an existing article

Someone replaced the photo in the article 'Alexander_Men' by photo taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ksenia_Pokrovsky. This is an action of hooliganism. How one can remove current wrong picture and put in its place another photo with sole Fr. Alexander Men in it as it used to be before? Lpokrov (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lpokrov and welcome to the Teahouse. For several years, the lead image in the article was a photo of a memorial cross dedicated to Alexander Men. Now, an editor has added a photo of Men with some other people. The memorial cross photo remains in the article. I am sorry, but this is not "hooliganism", but is instead an improvement to the article. What is wrong with the picture? Are you claiming that the person is not Alexander Men? Precisely what is your complaint, please? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

why don't some pages show the Book creator bar at the top of page when creating a book?

The summary says it all. 78.148.81.214 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Source Citations Question

Hi, I was just wondering about citing copies of third-party documents that are contained on a personal site. In particular, I was wondering about official scanned documents from a Korean court and a translation of the document contained here and here respectively. I know that generally Wikipedia frowns upon including content from personal sites because there is no guarantee of reliable information, however, when these are just uploaded, scanned, official judicial documents my gut instinct is that they are treated differently than say, citing to a blog. Just want to make sure that it's fine to cite to these, thanks! 63.225.159.78 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem with use of court documents is that they are primary sources, which should be used only with caution on Wikipedia. In this situation, the documents concern a fairly recent lawsuit between a religious group and a publisher. Because we must assume that most of the parties are still alive, then we have a policy restricting use of court documents in articles concerning living people. It would be far better to use secondary sources, such as newspaper articles about the court case, and even then, great care must be taken to comply with BLP policy and to maintain the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Just wondering particularly how the restrictions on primary source citations are applied when it comes to an organization in particular. Here the court case particularly addresses the life and history of a man who died in 1985 and the statements that the religious organization founded by him reports as history. Because the documents would be used in articles concerning either individuals who are dead or organizations... would the policy still be a problem? Unfortunately not many secondary sources exist with regard to this organization, as it is relatively new. I definitely agree that the use of secondary sources would be preferable, but guess I don't quite see how, outside of being a primary source, the fact-finding (not legal interpretation) of neutral, detached magistrates would be considered a violation of the policy on neutral points of view. Thanks again for taking the time to help and for clarifying my questions! 63.225.159.78 (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule, reliable, independent secondary sources are preferred to primary sources because professional writers and reporters have evaluated and weighed the significance of a matter. As the courts of many countries issue a large number of rulings every day, which are strictly limited to the admissible evidence and the formal ruling, assessing the significance of a court document by a Wikipedia editor is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. The vast majority of court documents are of no encyclopedic significance whatsoever, and we determine whether a court case is worthy of discussion in this encyclopedia based entirely on how independent, reliable secondary sources report the matter. If they don't cover it, neither do we.

The date of death of the founder of the religious group is completely irrelevant as he was not a party to the court case. But many living people on both sides were involved in the case, and so the policy applies because of them.

You state that "not many" secondary sources exist about this religious group. If secondary sources are lacking, then the topic is not notable and therefore, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If enough secondary sources exist but don't discuss this court case, then neither should Wikipedia. We are not a publisher of original research. Instead, we summarize what independent, reliable, secondary sources say about a given topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Submitting article for approval?

Hi. I've created an article and wanted to submit it to an editor. I feel foolish, but I can't figure out how to do that! Help! Thanks.Kseldman (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello [[User:Kseldman|Kseldman]! Just paste the code {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft and save. Then you should see a big yellow "submitted" box at the top of bottom of your draft. There should be a link at the lower part of the box which allows you to move your article into the Article For Creation space, and also choose what title it is listed under. Let us know if you have any trouble with this. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Kseldman (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't add the submit code to my draft, because I think I moved my article into article space too soon, and now I can't move it back. It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Cusumano

Can you help me with this? Kseldman (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. You moved your draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James A. Cusumano to James A. Cusumano yourself, rather than submitting it for review through the WP:AFC process. If you want, someone could move it back to the AFC space and then you could submit it for review. I have corrected one manual of style point, & moved References to before External links. I do notice that you've got a number of in-line external links (which aren't allowed) in places where I guess you may have intended references. You need, therefore, to read WP:Referencing for beginners and WP:External links. There are also a number of other useful links in the welcome message on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes! I would love it if someone could move it back to the AFC space for me. Thanks for your comments. I'll change the in-line external links to references. Kseldman (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to request that the page be moved? Kseldman (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Done I've moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/James A. Cusumano (3). The "3" is there because there were already slots there for your first and second drafts as separate entries. So you can paste the "submit" code in whenever you're ready to have this reviewed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

a quick editing question.

I'm new to Wikipedia and want to become a normal editor, but some people I know want me to edit on behalf of them. Is this against Wikipedia's rules? ZeroShift2004 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi ZeroShift2004. Generally speaking, yes. If people want you to create articles for them, edit articles about their companies to make them seem better, or otherwise advance some agenda that would be undesirable here. As you will have discovered, registering an account is easy. Please encourage your friends to do the same. Happy editing! --LukeSurl^{t c} 19:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why my pages were flagged for deletion

Two of my pages were flagged for deletion.

I was told that they were "unambiguous Advertisements"

I have "sand boxed" my page here as the originals were deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tsunamie/Chinese_Community The other one was one I created in 2009 and after 4 years it got deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Chinese_Society&action=edit&redlink=1

The talk with the person who flagged my pages is here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSK

I just want to put up a page that states that the organizations I volunteer for exist. How can I rewrite this so someone just doesn't delete it. when I question about why they were deleted I got linked here.

this is starting to get frustrating.

Tsunamie (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The page was deleted because it seemed the subject of the article was not notable. The article contained only the Chinese Community website (and social media presence) as sources. With no sources which suggested significant coverage of the subject from reliable sources independent of the subject (see WP:42), this was a fairly typical deletion due to a lack of notability. Furthermore the article read as if it were authored by the organisation, rather than a neutral, external perspective. --LukeSurl^{t c} 19:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh so your saying if I collected links like this from the all the news websites.

http://www.myasianplanet.com/news/spotlight-on-the-british-chinese-society/

And placed this as reference material that would mean it wouldn't get deleted?

I have one on here from the BBC new website as well from like 2004 is that more valid than the one above?

I am from a volunteer for the two organizations perspective. So I am not sure how un-baised I can be as I can't tell how to unbias the content? How would I reformat it? I already tried to copy what oxfam did. Do you have an more way for me to change the format of the pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsunamie (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. So we are beginning to get towards reliable sources. Yes, the BBC would be an good one. Note that what is required is extensive coverage, so the occasional glancing mention is insufficient. However the source that you link to there appears to be a republishing of a Chinese Community press release, which is not really adequate.

The other issue at hand is your conflict of interest. Wikipedia strongly discourages editors writing about subjects they have a close personal connection to, for exactly the reasons we are encountering above.

To be honest, for the combination of these two points, I would suggest not writing this article. If you wish to provide information for people interested in these organisations, it would be better to improve the organisations' own webpages, rather than try and develop an article on Wikipedia. --LukeSurl^{t c} 20:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

Let's say that I want to be part of the OTRS team. What should I do? Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono. I think you should go here. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono, just to let you know, you should probably wait a good while before applying to OTRS. Usually only people who have been around for several years or who are admins get access, so I don't think you're quite experienced enough yet. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Keilana, anyways I wasn't thinking about it for the time being. Just a remote chance. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I should have guees that I had tp go to an external website. My wish of heloping in the OTRS are slowly fading :'( d*** lack of internet permissions. Thanks Arthur goes shopping. Miss Bono^[zootalk] 17:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox page and uploading an image

My page that i recently created only appears as the sandbox, bit confused. Also, how do I upload an image and generally develop my page. Regards, Moray.Moray Hillary 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moray hillary (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 August 2013‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what your question is. You have created two sandbox pages User:Moray hillary/Sandbox and User:Moray hillary/sandbox. You appear to be trying to use one of these to write an autobiography. You ought, therefore, to read Wikipedia:Autobiography and WP:COI. Perhaps you didn't read the answers to your question a few days ago at WP:HD#Setting up page.? As far as the more general points of setting up pages are concerned, did you read the links in the welcome message on your user talk page? Was there something in there that you didn't understand? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)