Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Replying on their usersandbox talk page

If I reply on someone's user sandbox talk page do they get an automatic notification? Or should I let them know I answered there? Thanks to all you awesome people who help us out here. You save me time, frustration, and make me smarter at the same time! Tlqk56 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You should let them know; users only get notified when it's their main talk page that's been changed, not their user page nor any subpages. (And even then, only if the edit isn't marked minor.) Oh, and you're welcome! :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Writ Keeper. DocTree just tried a little experiment for me that proved it. So clever. Tlqk56 (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting tags on articles...

Hello! Back again!!

Is putting tags on articles something that newby editors can/should do? Although it seems generally pretty accurate, the article on Nervous Conditions names a couple of references but gives no in-line citations (and it's a pretty big article!). I'd like to have a go at improving it but probably won't get around to it straight away so I wondered if it should have a tag while it's waiting for me/someone else to get to it?

Also, if it does need a tag - would it be best to put an in-line citations tag, or an original research tag or both?

Thank you!!

Loriski (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Loriski, welcome back! Anyone can tag an article with maintenance tags, so go for it! Both tags would probably be best; I have a feeling that all the article's content couldn't have come from just the book and one other article about it. But do whatever you think is right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you WritKeeper :) Loriski (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing Incorrect Information

I was wondering what the process is for editing/changing incorrect information on a Wikipedia page?

Thanks! Aebiley (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Aebily, welcome to the Teahouse! The process is, in a phrase: go for it! BUT: keep in mind that others may see your edit and disagree with it. If they do so, they might revert your edit. If they do, try to resist the urge to reinsert your information; instead, you can go to the article's talk page (which is that "Talk" tab at the upper-left corner of any page on Wikipedia) and discuss what you'd like to add and why. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and it's kind of the standard operating procedure around here.

Also keep in mind that Wikipedia's minimum standard for inclusion of information is verifiability; basically, this means that you should be ready to back up your edit with a reference to a reliable source that supports it. (Ideally, you would add this source in a citation in your initial edit, but it's not always necessary.) Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Banners within Wizard

Hello, I am new, I am creating a page for an Australian Rules Football team. I am using the Collingwood Football Club wiki page as a guide and I notice their box on the right hand side has 3 banners but it looks like within the wizards for Aus Rules football only two are provided for - is it possible to increase the number of banners and is that easy to do? And also how does one change the name of the banners Tx FroggyFroggyPeterson (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there FroggyPeterson - sorry if it looks like we have been ignoring your question, but I had to do some digging to see what is going on. I had a look at the the page you have been working on - and it is clear you have been working on how to the solve the issues. I can see you have you have tried every trick you could think of! Good On Ya!

I also had to track down the template for Oz Rules Football teams - but it looks as if you have also been attempting to use the source code for generating the template. One trick for looking at templates is to just type a character for each entry - I use a ? - and this then fills in the template and also reveals any "Hidden" banners inside the template. The template for Oz Rules Football teams has two Banners which are always displayed - that is "Name" and "Club Details" - but there are two others which are hidden unless they are needed, and information in the template has been filled in which makes them appear. Those headings are "Club Details" and "Other Information". I'm not sure if those are the missing headings you need?

If there are other fields you believe need to be included, or other headings, can you let us know. I'm not sure that we can get the template changed, as it does work across all of Wiki Land as a sort of brand identity and logo for Oz Rules Football. We can help you to make sure missing information does end up in the right place on the page you are working on. All the best!
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverting multiple edits

On to the next question probably covered in some remote corner of the project pages - there must be a way to revert multiple edits, so what is it? Is it reserved for certain users? ʝunglejill 14:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Jill - you are a busy bee! P^) There is a page which deals with the issue Help:Reverting. It explains how to do it - but do please read all the details first. There are very powerful tools available, even from just the page history page, and it is important that when reverting multiple steps you don't re-introduce bad content and citations - references. Some pesky vandals love to do minor edits that don't get noticed - and when pages are changed no all editors make it clear what they have done and why.... so you do have to check over the page you revert to carefully. It's always a good idea to explain major reverts on the talk page - and if you have spotted issues to make them clear on the talk page. There is no special group with the Power to revert - anyone can do it. But it does have it's own logic and even risks, so be bold but know the risks and the right action to take! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just in addition to the above: if I need to revert back to a particular point, I normally use the article history to find the point which I wish to revert to, and view that version. Then if I select "edit", put in the reason and save, that version will become the new current one. This will effectively revert all edits, from all editors, back to the revision you are restoring. Problems arise if some of the intervening edits were good ones, of course. - Bilby (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

To revert multiple edits by one user, you can apply for rollback rights which save you pressing undo a number of times or taking it out manually. If you want to revert multiple users, I'd go with the suggestions above. Rcsprinter (constabulary) 15:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, that's a lot of useful information. ʝunglejill 16:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I move our article into Wikipedia?

Hi, I just wrote an article based on an author I enjoy, Billy Bob Buttons. How do I move it to Wikipedia so it can be discovered on a search? I moved it from my Sandbox to Wikipedia but still it will not come up on a search of Wikipedia. God, this site is complicated!Hickory Crowl (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It seems that you simply accidently moved it to the wrong place - I've moved it to Billy Bob Buttons, so all should be good now. - Bilby (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Hickory Crowl - Nice of you to drop by for a cup of tea. I see that whilst I was looking at the problem Bilby sorted it out. We do aim to please and be fast and efficient - we serve hot tea and quickly! P^)

I did look at the Billy Bob Buttons page, and spotted that we may be able to provide a few extra tips to improve it.

You have mentioned a number of books by Edward Hugh Trayer, but you haven't provided citations to show the books exist.

There is a great trick for that one - makes it so easy! I see that his books are listed on http://books.google.com. If you navigate to the Google Books page for a single book you can pull a Brilliant and Fast Trick for creating a book citation.

You copy the URL (that's the web address to the page you are looking at) and then you go to this web page Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books - you past in the URL - push the button - and it generates all the relevant Wiki code for the citation. You just copy and paste that generated code to the right place on the Billy Bob Buttons page.

It's a great trick for making citations for books easy - and saved me so much time as a newbie P^). I do it using three tabs in my web browser - one for the Wikipage - one for the book at http://books.google.com - and the last one for Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books. Makes it all so easy. Hope it helps.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Using different names for an article

Hello everybody! The name of the company my articles refers to has changed from "Eurex" to "Eurex Exchange". So im about to changing its name. Is it possible to redirect searches for "Eurex" to an article named "Eurex Exchange"? Can the search results display my article with the previous name ("Eurex") but redirect to the "new" name ("Eurex Exchange")? or is the article's name linked to the search results?Thank you! Eurex (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you may have a Conflict of interest, but that apart you can change the page name by using the move tab at the top of the page. You can then create a redirect page with the old name which will lead to the current page. Putting #REDIRECT [[target page name]] will do this.--Charles (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Eurex - glad you stopped by. We are here to help!

One thing though - Your username is Eurex and the page is Eurex - so I do have to ask if you have a "Conflict of interest. If you are not sure you can check the details at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

I do have to ask, as it affects the way us Teahouse Hosts have to work with that issue. It does not mean we can't help, it just means we have to help in different ways. All the best and hope we can help you move forward soon.

Oh - and I looked at your references - how they are laid out, We can help you clean those up too, and improve the page.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Media Hound 3rd, first of all thank you for your help.I considered the issue you raised and changes the information on my User page. Is this sufficient? Thank you. Eurex (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Eurex - thanks for clearing up and admitting to the Conflict of interest. It does help with a big issue here on Wikipedia WP:GOODFAITH.

I would also advise that you declare the Conflict of interest on the Eurex Talk Page - and also provide a link direct to your disclosure on your User Page as well.

You can if you wish also link to this dialogue at the Teahouse - here is the code to copy over:

[[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Using_different_names_for_an_article]] .

That will also show that you have been acting in WP:GOODFAITH and been both courteous and professional. It does help! P^) Once that is done we can start to deal with content the Wikipedia way.

And thanks for doing the right thing! It does make the lives of Hosts here at the Teahouse so much easier. After all we are here to help!
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

how do I retitle my "user-sandbox" page?

I have a page that I have submitted, and I see it in the list of Articles For Creation, but it has my username and sandbox as the title, not what should be the proposed title of the page. I'm sure that whoever reviews it will catch that, but it looks silly i the list. How/where do I edit the title of the page? (such a basic question!!)Nko1212 (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nko1212! I have moved it for you but in the future you can change the title by moving the page. See Help:How to move a page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan!!Nko1212 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

huh, somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I think this bot moves pages like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshan220195 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

help on new article

i made countless efforts to write this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mehr liaqat hussain jalvi but each time for any minor reasons it is declined. may i have your help please?(15:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godissupreme (talk • contribs)

It reads like an article about a person who would not be considered of general interest or importance written by someone who knows them personally or is a member of their political party. There should be references from news stories, etc. showing why this person is of any importance meriting an encyclopedia article. Articles of this nature will consistently be declined or deleted. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Godissupreme, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I agree with Obotlig. One way to approach getting your article accepted is finding someone who you think has equivalent notability and who already has a wikipedia page, then using that as a template (especially in terms of what's considered to be reliable sources). If you aren't finding people of equivalent notability, then chances are the person in question isn't appropriate for a wikipedia article. Garamond Lethe(talk) 01:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Godissupreme. Nice to meet you. I have been looking for information on Mehr Liaqat Hussain Jalvi, to check out the notability.

This is interesting - I believe there is already a Wikipedia page for Mehr Liaqat Hussain Jalvi. Someone moved the page and "Capitalised" the name. I'm not sure if the New page title is correct.

It changed from Mehr liaqat hussain jalvi to Mehr Liaqat Hussain Jalvi. Can you please check to see if it is the correct person?

I think you have been working on a page and improving it, when all of your hard work could have been better used on the published page. I'm sorry of someone in Wikipedia has done the right thing and then not explained it to you correctly.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

Would a .gov website be considered a reliable source? And what is the policy for citing a book (that I have in my hand) that does not have an ISBN number? Or a book that has multiple authors or contributors? Thanks in advance for the help Tattoodwaitress (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tattoodwaitress! A .gov website will almost always be reliable. I would be surprised that the book doesn't have an isbn, but you should fill in as many fields of {{cite book}} as you can. It also has a coauthors parameter for citing a book with multiple authors. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Tattoodwaitress. Sometimes books don't have ISBNs printed in them but they have them asigned later. A good place to check for after-the-fact ISBNs is worldcat, and a link to there can be used as an identifier for a book. As for whether a .gov website is a reliable source, generally they're considered reliable for issues which aren't considered currently political (i.e. whether water boarding consititutes torture), in which case it's usually better to use foriegn sources to contrast/support US ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a bunch Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 22:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool signature TW! :D Sarah (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Tattoodwaitress - and I have to agree - that is a Rather Stylish Signature! P^) I have also had to track down missing ISBNs - and one place that relies on them heavily, and does tend to get them right is Amazon. They actually use ISBN as the coding reference for all books they sell directly and on behalf of other sellers. It's saved my bacon a number of times - especially if there is a conflict between the older ISBN-10 and the newer ISBN-13. Some books have been given "Multiple" ISBNs in both 10 and 13 format - Yikes! . Amazon seem to always use the latest awarded code. Also - Google Books tends to be a good place to check - and even if No ISBN is visible the citation tool for Google Books seems to be able to pull the correct and valid ISBN from the Net by magic. Hope it helps.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah and Media Hound, I am still trying to perfect the signature to be exactly what I want. Picking up the coding fairly quickly, thank you both for all the info too... very helpful Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 14:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

use of blogs as sources

If anyone insist on putting a content from a blog to an article, can this lead to block? Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Egeymi, welcome back! I don't think it can lead to a block, and if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will let us know. I rarely use blogs in my Wikipedia writing because they aren't often considered a reliable source. There are some instances where I do though - perhaps getting a quote about a living person I wrote about (from a blog they wrote) or blogs from reliable websites, such as the New York Times, Smithsonian, or even the Wikimedia Foundation. Just like most primary sources - there can be a place and a time for them, just judge wisely. :) Sarah (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In my experience, this depends to some extent on local consensus on a per-article basis. Blogs themselves (unless hosted by reputable news publishers) are not considered as reliable sources. Therefore, they rarely contribute to establishing notability for topics. However, if the blog is written by an established expert then content can be included - although it's generally worth noting the source/author in the article prose, to qualify the opinions/comments. The relevant policy is at WP:BLOGS. -- Trevj (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC) To answer your specific question, if an editor repeatedly included info from a blog within an article against consensus, then that could be seen as being disruptive and could, I suppose, ultimately lead to a block. -- Trevj (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It also rather depends how the person insists. If the person insists on it by edit-warring, then yes it will definitely lead to a block. If the person's insistence devolves into personal attacks, then yes that can lead to a block too. If the person just says a couple of times on the article talk page "I insist that this article should have content based on this blog", then no that can't lead to a block. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist

So how does this watchlist thing work? I thought I would be getting messages when listed pages were changed, but this hasn't happened. I only get a message when my own talk page is edited. Also, I posted a message on someone's talk page, and didn't get a message when they responded. How do you know when someone responds on their talk page? Is there a way to get a message when an article/ talk page is edited? ʝunglejill 03:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Junglejill! Your watchlist is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist or by selecting the "My watchlist" link from the top of the page. Unfortunately, no, you won't be told when a change occurs - instead your watchlist will be updated when next you view it. I think most of us probably just keep our watchlist opened in a separate tab and refresh it every so often.

To catch responses on people's talk pages, you will need to add their talk to your watchlist and just keep an eye on it. As it is possible to miss this, many people have taken to leaving little messages on the talk page of the person they are responding to, using Template:Talkback, much like the Teahouse message I'll add to your talk page. That triggers the notification message, so you know that they responded. That, of course, is dependent on whether or not they choose to use it, and not all editors like them, so it isn't safe to assume that you will get such a message. - Bilby (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. The whole process seems rather cumbersome. ʝunglejill 03:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is. There have been a few attempts to build a better watchlist and there a big discussion at the moment about how best to highlight articles which have changed since your last visit. Part of the problem is one of scale - once you've been here for long enough, your watchlist gets huge (mine has 6000 pages, for example, and isn't anything like the largest), so any form of push notification is going to have problems. - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Jill! In addition to what Bilby said, now there is a choice to receive email for watchlist changes if you have it enabled. Click 'my preferences' in the upper right. If you scroll down under 'user profile' to email options, there should be a choice for 'E-mail me when a page on my watchlist is changed'. And yes, some things are quite cumbersome, I hear you. heather walls (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Heather! Who wants to receive all those emails, though? Especially not someone that has 6000+ pages on their watchlist! I'll keep doing it the same as the rest of you, then. ʝunglejill 03:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew about this option. Thanks Heather! Sarah (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Jill - The e-mail option is not as bad as it sounds - even with 6000 pages on a watch list P^). If you have email option enabled you will only receive an email when a pages is changed - but if you don't visit the page after that, you do not get any follow up emails about changes.

I use it as a way to monitor at risk pages ( and it does work ) and my email client is set to display the email messages about the pages I keep a close eye on, and not just filter them into folders. It paid dividends over the weekend when an orphaned page on a rather nasty subject was vandalised in a really nasty Religious and Sectarian manner. I knew about it as soon as I powered up in the morning. As for the less important emails and various pages that I have been monitoring - a number of them just get deleted on arrival.

My main way to monitor changes on my watch list is RSS to see what is happening in real time - but It is worth considering how to use the email option to spot real issues and know to act fast. It does work.

If you think that using RSS may be a better way for you to keep up with changes on your watch list, you can read all about it at Wikipedia:Syndication - It works for me, but it's up to you to decide if it's your thing. I use RSS and email as a "Belt and braces/Belt and suspenders" approach! I get updates the way that best works for me.

And don't forget - you can remove pages from your Watch list. Just use the star tab at the top of any page. Also you can get to you watch list for a clean out - click "My watchlist" and then just below the title select "View and edit watchlist ". I had a recent clean out and removed a couple of hundred pages that had crept in and really were not worth watching. I mean - who remembers to use the star tab to deselect a page after a quick edit as you move on to the next page and edit.Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Government hansard debates, bills and statutes not sufficient to establish notability?

I have posted an article for creation on a topic that someone has attempted to submit before me. My article is pending review. I noticed that the article before me was rejected because it was found to not meet notability requirements. The article referenced published provincial government legislature debates which address the topic of the article. I can't imagine a more reliable and independent reference. I'm hoping to avoid having my article rejected for the same reason that the earlier article was rejected. I was sent an invitation to the teahouse by the person that rejected the earlier article and since there are 650+ articles to be approved before mine, I thought I would get some information now to help ensure the article will meet notability requirements when it comes up for review. Thanks! Timothin (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's required or not but here's the link to the article: Alberta Municipal Government Board

Hi Timothin! Besides it's subject being notable, your article should be properly referenced (from third-party sources) so as to be verifiable, which can help assert notability.

Also, you can improve the existent article/section Alberta Municipal Affairs#Municipal Government Board (redirected from Alberta Municipal Government Board), which currently consists of barely two sentences and has been marked as needing references (using {{citation needed}}). benzband (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Benzband. I updated the subsection you mentioned with the opening paragraph of the article I am trying to create. I am concerned that if I place all of the content from the article into this subsection, it will become disproportionate to the main topic. Back to my primary question: My article cites statutes passed by a legislative body independent of the administrative board which is the topic of the page. My question is whether or not such a reference would be sufficient to satisfy notability and reference requirements; especially when this primary reference is supplemented by other references? Thanks for the help! Timothin (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Timothin - I see you have been working hard, so I've been digging and poking about, seeing where my nose takes me.

I think your falling fowl of a simple issue. Hansard is great and a most reliable source - I use the UK Hansard all the time, and some people do regret what they have said. P^) The problem is that Hansard, whilst public, is in fact an internal document for parliaments and other statutory bodies. So some people see it as almost an internal memo for a corporation. I see that the editor who reviewed your last submission has pointed to the Golden Rule - **Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.** - and it would seem that in many ways that is right. Whilst Hansard is public it is not 100% independent of the subject. It's sort of Government reporting on Government. That is how some people will see it.

I also see that you have stated at the bottom of the revised page that you do have a Conclict Of Interest. You have done the right thing in declaring it - just not in the right place. If you read the advice to another Teahouse Visitor you should be able to figure out how to sort that one out. You may even be able to help each other out.

being close to a subject can be an issue in more ways than one. Often you get tunnel vision and don't look outside the box - and then someone like me mixes up metaphors to make it more complex! Have you used all available sources for references? Are there any in newspapers that can be used independent of Hansard? If a news paper article says the Alberta Municipal Government Board started "Publication Date" - that is independent and supports the existing citation from Hansard - it works as a double reference. There is no real issue in using primary sources - provided there is an Independent sources the supports it.

You say "The Board was created in 1995 as a merger of the Alberta Assessment Appeal Board, the Local Authorities Board and the Planning Board." and point to Hansard and legal references, but is there any Independent source that says it too? I believe in referencing and I'm not shy in doubling up or even using triplets, if it verifies the point or subject. In working life some people would see that as labouring the point - but Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, so referencing is not labouring the point - it's clarifying and even proving the point.

You may well find independent sources by looking in Google Books, Google Scholar and also Google News (Put in a search and then Choose the archive option on the lower left side of the page). I was able to spot news references for Alberta and Municipal Boards going back to 1936 - so there may well be some history that is significant!

Also when referencing Hansard you need to treat it like a Book and not just point to the web resource at the queens publishers. Think of the bound volumes - the date - volume number - edition - "Page Number" etc and you can also embed the link to the queens published in the citation with all the other information. I would also look at how information is reported in the Alberta Gazette (Plain Text Format) - as it does give all the relevant details as if it was a book.

Hope those ideas help. Sometimes we all struggle and it's all about seeing the trees when we are getting lost in the forest.Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This was very helpful MediaHound, thanks for the ideas! Timothin (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How hard is DYK?

I've decided to chip away at the Newbery Award books and authors that still don't have articles, and I have two under construction. I've toyed with the idea of nominating them for Did You Know when they're ready, but I'm wondering how picky the process is. I'd be happy to have input in the articles, but I'm not interested in opening myself up to being called names or attacked as an idiot, as I've seen happen elsewhere. How tough is the process? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It isn't too bad. The reviewers will take the time to ensure that it doesn't have any significant problems - they will look to make sure that the text is sufficiently different from the original sources so as not to raise any close paraphrasing concerns, they will confirm that the sources are used properly and that the claims in the article are fully supported by them, and they will look generally at prose and whether it is written from a specific point of view. Your hook also needs to be of some interest, but there is normally some help there if needed. Generally, if it is a good, well referenced article of the appropriate minimum length and with ok writing it will make it through DYK without any concerns. You are also always welcome to ask for help from someone with DYK experience before nominating, and that should help cover any potential issues. I've only nominated a few of my articles for DYK, but I didn't find it to be a difficult process at the time.

There are some requirements spelt out at Wikipedia:Did you know, but I assume you've probably looked at them already. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Tlqk56, I don't think DYK is that hard but there are a few things to remember before nominating: 1. Everything needs to be sourced and verifiable. (Outside the lead and plot summaries.) 2. The article needs to be new enough and long enough to be eligible. 3. The nomination needs to be properly formatted. These are the three big things to remember. If you can get something through DYK, you can probably get something through DYK at the end. If you can get these three things done, the other issues should resolve themselves if they exist. I'm willing to help or nominate if you let me know which article. --LauraHale (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me your input, Bilby and LauraHale. I think maybe I will try it and see how it goes. I sometimes wish the DYKs had more literary and art-related facts, personally. If someone wouldn't mind taking a look at User:Tlqk56/sandbox2 and giving me an opinion, I'd really appreciate it. I seem to have about reached the limits of the info I can find on this book right now. I was thinking that the fact that it won the major US children's book award but was originally published for adults might make a good hook, but there's also the fact that the author claimed it was based on a true story. What do you think? Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The clock starts ticking when you move an article to the main space. I've had articles sit on my user space for several months before moving to the main space and nominating for DYK. Article would pass length test once moved over as it is completely cited and appears to be neutral enough. --LauraHale (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit of your subpage on Incident at Hawk's Hill – some minor formatting and stylistic/syntax changes, and added categories and replaced one reference with a more reliable source (yes, believe it or not, there is a category for Fictional badgers). Good job. I see nothing here that would make anyone call you any names or attack you! and I think it's a fine candidate for DYK. Once you move it to the mainspace, if you need help with the DYK, please feel free to drop by my talk page for any help, or if you'd like, I would be willing to do the nomination for you (I've done many). Also, once moved I can add the book's cover, but I can't do that until it's in the article space, because it's going to have to be a fair use images upload, and fair use images cannot be placed in subpages. By the way, you might note that I placed "nowiki" tags around the categories (<nowiki>something</nowiki>). You should remove those, but only after it's moved. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Momma badger should probably be added to List of fictional badgers once the article goes live.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for looking at it, and especially for taking care of the categories. I usually skip them or copy them from a similar article. I have tried reading up on them, but there are SO MANY it's ridiculous, (to me, anyway). It makes my head spin. So it's awesome that you did it for me. I see you changed the ref dates to month/day/year. I thought they were supposed to be year/day/month, so I've been trying hard to do it that way, though I find it awkward. LOL While I have your attention, I'd like to understand isbns better. I know the info box says use the first edition one if possible, but if the first edition didn't have one because it was published too long ago, do you add it if it's received one since, or leave it out? I've seen it both ways.

I'd love for the article to go to DYK, if you or LauraHale don't mind nominating it. I'm having computer probs and I'm worried it will die in the middle. But I have several more in the workds so I'd like to move this one out. Thanks! Tlqk56 (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do you have a DYK hook in mind? (under 200 characters of text including spaces, must be cited with an inline citation in the article). Regarding dates, generally we follow the formatting of the country of the topic, so a British topic for example would be 11 June 2012, but an American topic would be June 11, 2012 and many editors think spelling out the full date (rather than 6/6/12) is better (unfortunately many of the citation tools don't do this, grr). See WP:STRONGNAT. Regarding isbns, If it's pre-1975 and has no isbn, I would indeed use a later edition's but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. By the way, if you want to format an isbn properly with spaces, bookmark this link: http://pcn.loc.gov/isbncnvt.html enter your isbn, click on hyphenate and then hit convert. Regarding categories, try to think of a similarly situated topic. For this, I just headed over to The Wind in the Willows and looked at what it used and looked at a few others. Regarding the note on my talk page, I often use {{talkbacktiny}} to inform others of a reply (I find {{talkback}} far loo large and intrusive).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Trying to replace a main image that updates the female subject of the article.

1. I have answered all questions twice (verifying I have permission to use the photo, etc.). Each time, the "upload image" tab at the bottom is grayed out. What can I do to eliminate the grayed tab?

2. If and when the system allows me to upload the image, what steps do I take to replace the older image after the new one is uploaded?

Thanks for your help, Claudia Fltola (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Claudia! If you are trying to replace File:Mary_Elise_Hayden.jpg, you will want to upload a new image at the Wikimedia commons with a different file name (your account will work there too and the "upload file" link is on the left) instead of to Wikipedia (this is good practice for any image you upload). Then you would modify the article here on Wikipedia to your to your new file name. In this case the image is provided in the infobox at the beginning of the article, in the "| image =" field which is currently "| image = Mary Elise Hayden.jpg". For an image in a template like this, you don't need to do the usual parameters, just give the plain name of the file as uploaded. Since you are replacing the image in a biography article, and it is a pretty good one currently, you may wish to discuss the change on Talk:Mary Elise Hayden before making it. The old image would not be deleted from wikimedia commons, which has a policy of keeping as many photos as possible unless there is a reason to remove them. The "upload file" button on the upload page should not be grayed out regardless of what you've filled in to that point. Hope that helps. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 01:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Claudi! Welcome to the Teahouse. Obotlig and I tried to answer you at the same time. :) I was just going to say I've had that happen to me, too. The grayed out box is a kind of fail-safe. It means there's a question you missed somewhere up above, and you have to keep looking until you find it. Once everything is filled in you will be able to click on the button. It can be frustrating trying to figure out what you missed, though! If you keep having problems, or something new crops up, feel free to come back and ask some more. The first few times can be tricky. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the new upload form may have some bugs. I uploaded an image through it last night (just to test it out) and every box and text field was ticked and filled but the upload button remained grayed-out until I clicked in already filled-out entries and suddenly it became active. So you might have done everything right and still been frustrated. Me and you does not a persistent bug make, so I won't do anything now, but if I see more reports about this I may bring it up somewhere appropriate, maybe WP:VPT. Anyway, just so you know, at the bottom of the upload page, there are options for "Alternative upload methods", including the old guided upload form and the plain form (which is what I normally use for uploads).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

questionable gramar in one article

I do not understand this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nationalization&action=edit&section=9 78.2.81.149 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 78.2.81.149, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not an official host, but I thought I'd jump in here anyway. Teahouse is really just here to help you with problems editing or writing articles, not understanding them. That said, if you are asking about the Croatia section here Croatia, maybe I can help. When I read a passage like that I like to break it down into pieces and put it into my own words. So I think it's basically saying that Croatia nationalized land and property, claiming it was finishing what had been started under communism. But now some of the land is being returned and the policies are being rethought. Does that help?

It's always tricky for experts who write a technical article to make it simple enough for those of us who aren't so knowledgeable. It's a fine line to walk, being accurate and thorough but understandable. Sometimes you might need to click on some of the Wikilinks, (those highlighted blue words) to learn more about the topic as you read. And I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving a polite message on the article's talk page saying "I tried to read such-and-such section and couldn't understand it. It would be nice if someone could rewrite it making it clearer." Later on, if you decide to work on some articles yourself, Teahouse is here to help you. Tlqk56 (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the linked passage was incomprehensible http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nationalization&oldid=496669073#Croatia. It has been rewritten now though. Krystaleen (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Saving work thats not ready to publish

I am working on an article and wondering if it is a wiki violation to copy the coding of said article and paste it into my sandbox in order to save my work for later? I have had computer issues and just don't want to rely completely on saving to my computer. Is my sandbox a page that everyone can see or have access to? I am asking because I did copy some information previously that was left, via a message to me, on another editors wall (just because I feared they might delete the "unneeded" message) and my being very new with loads of advice did not want to lose the info they shared... coincidentally, I was corrected regarding my incorrectly copying and pasting the info to my talk page. Thanks in advance for your help Ț♥ttØØdẄ♥itre§ 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good question. I'd like to know the answer to this also! Sarah (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is that yes, other people can see and edit in your sandbox. More experienced heads may be able to tell you some way to store and hide info somewhere in userspace, but I do not know how to do that. But, short of page protection, there is no way to keep others from editing anything anywhere on Wikipedia. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, again Ms Tattood. Based on my imperfect knowledge, copying a whole article to your sandbox to edit it and then copying the work back is discouraged because that can disrupt the Revision history of the article. Others may have edited the main article while you worked or could edit your draft in your sandbox. But bold and no rules apply. If no edits were posted to that article in the last few months or years, your sandbox work is unlikely to disrupt anything. If the article is divided into sections, copying a section or template or infobox to your sandbox is reasonable. Before pasting your edits back into article space, check the Revision history to see if another editor made any changes while you were working. If not, no problem. I mangled Herbert Friedmann that way; I'm not finished but I'm the only person working on it. Be sure the Template:User sandbox is in place and no one should object. Make sense? I hope so. Take care, DocTree (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC) PS: You did nothing wrong in copying from someone else's page except perhaps not attributing the source. Everything written by editors in Wikipedia can be used by anyone for any purpose under the CC-BY-SA_3.0 license. Might be impolite but not wrong. Only exception is copyright violations which are removed from WP as quickly as possible. You, the other editor and everyone else here agrees to that every time we click the 'Save page' button.

And to follow up on Doctree, I have seen somewhere that if you copy the article and cut and paste the new version in, somehow the two histories can be merged. But I figured that was way above my head, so I just thought "that's interesting" and went on. Also, I've seen WP pages that say you shouldn't cut-and-paste for the reason DocTree mentioned, and pages that say you should. I guess you "makes your pick and takes your chances", as they say. Tlqk56 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the great question, Tattoodwaitress. I do think it is a violation of copyright to copy anything from Wikipedia then post it anywhere publicly accessible, including your sandbox. The easy fix to this is that that when you save it to your sandbox, in the edit summary write "content copied from ..." and post the link. Then you have attributed your source in a way that has precedent as satisfying the CC-BY-SA_3.0 license. See here for more information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

BINGO! And thanks, Blue Rasberry . A bit farther down at WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Userfication is specific with a sample edit summary to meet attribution requirements. The next section on that page deals with repairing insufficient attribution. Interesting question and comprehensive answer. My thanks to all involved, DocTree (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Where to report inconsistency?

These two pages List of best-selling girl groups and List of best-selling boy bands were AfD'd and while the arguments for deletion were exactly the same, the consensus was different. I strongly believe this is inconsistency, as per this guide. Since both pages are identical in concept I think both should either be kept or deleted. Where should I report this incident?

This is the link for AfD discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_boy_bands and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_girl_groups Krystaleen (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Krystaleen, welcome to the Teahouse! You wouldn't report the inconsistency per se; what you should do is try to fix it, by either nominating the one for deletion or the other for deletion review; whichever you think is more appropriate. I would probably nominate the one for deletion; "girl group" and "boy band" have a connotation beyond just "bands that are made up of girls/boys", and I don't think you'd be able to define that connotation rigorously (and verifiably) enough for any kind of objectivity on the composition of the list. But that's just me; it looks like you'd disagree with that, so do what you think is right. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No, actually I don't mind. After thinking about it more I kind of agree, although the argument that "Sources used to support the sales figures do not classify or rank any of the bands in this manner" is kind of flawed imo because it applies to List of best-selling music artists too as no source cited in that article has presented the bands in that manner either. How would you go about nominating the girl band article again after it survived such a thing not too long ago? Or if I were to nominate the other for deletion review, what are the chances I will be back to square one with it still deleted and the other still existing? Thanks for answering by the way. Krystaleen (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are right in that it's not really cool to re-nominate it for deletion so quickly. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you should do. I'm not overly convinced by the keep arguments in the girl-group AfD, and it was closed by a non-admin (not that that is necessarily an issue, but it's a smidgen less credible than otherwise). I guess my first move would be to ask an admin who is active in closing AfDs to look over the girl-group AfD and article and see what they think of it. Perhaps Phantomsteve, who closed the boy-band AfD. Not that I think they would unilaterally overturn it, but they could give you more guidance on whether a new AfD would be inappropriate. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you believe a page was kept incorrectly, it should also be taken to deletion review. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally not sure what action should be taken. I'm not sure whether that boyband page was deleted incorrectly or it's the girl group page that was kept incorrectly. The only thing I'm sure is that this is inconsistency. I'm new here, what do you guys more experienced editor think? Has the girl group been incorrectly kept? I've talked to phantomsteve back then but he just said that he was only following the consensus and told me that should I choose to bring one of the pages to deletion review I can't say anything about the other page (i.e. but that other page was kept/deleted!). While I understand the reason behind this I think this one is a valid case like the one explained in the guide I linked earlier. And I think if I don't point out that this is inconsistency by presenting the other article I'd be back to square one. I won't even mind if you or some other editors take over this case, I'm not experienced enough to handle this but it doesn't seem like many editors are aware of this. Krystaleen (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Editing

Last time i edited an article titled HYNU, but it was soon deleted for lack of reliable sources and probably appearing like an advertisement. Then i was wondering what kind of sources do i need to provide and how to provide it. I need your help now. Thank you! XLC pierce (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, XLC Pierce. Welcome to the Teahouse. Hengyang Normal University (HYNU) is certainly notable and an article about HYNU will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. I and others will help you create the article. Write the article in your sandbox. Just click on 'My sandbox' at the top of the page. Copy the information on your User page to a file on your computer to use later. Your User page should tell other users about YOU.

A good method for writing a new article in the English Wikipedia is to use another article as a model. Look at the article University of Texas–Pan American (UTPA). HYNU and UTPA are similar; both are public universities of moderate size. While looking at the University of Texas–Pan American article, click on the 'Edit' tab to see the wiki-code that determines how the information is viewed. It is confusing at first but soon you will learn and use the codes easily and well. Also read the college and university article guidelines.

Reliable sources are documents and articles written about HYNU by other people. Searches using Google.com and other Internet search engines help find articles but articles about HUNU in newspapers and magazines that are not on-line are acceptable. Those articles do not have to be written in English. I found some using Google: Listing in the European Union university directory web site, HYNU Delegation visit to UTPA, an abstract of a scientific article published by the HYNU Key Laboratory of Functional Organometallic Materials and the Universal Second Language program at HYNU.

When you need more help, come back to the Teahouse and we will help. DocTree (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Teahouse, my new Article is here...

Hi, all. I just had to let you know that, thanks to all of you and especially LauraHale and Fuhghettaboutit, my newest article, Incident at Hawk's Hill, can be found here, Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on June 12, working its way to DYK status. What fun! To everyone who answered any of my MANY questions, or will answer the ones I haven't come up with yet, a great big THANKS! Tlqk56 (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is WONDERFUL news! I can't wait to see it on the front page. After it's up for 24 hours you'll (or we will help :) have to check to see how many views it's had! Sarah (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you and I look that will be two. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to my last edit page after saving it?

When I tried to save the article from the sandbox, a split screen flashed -- A red note appeared stating that a "blacklog" ref was used for a cite in the article and needed to be deleted -- Then when I tried to go back to the sandbox to edit the cite and delete the ref I lost the entire document already formatted for Wikipedia. No entry of my latest edits appear in the history contributions logAngelandlinda (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Angelandlinda, welcome to the Teahouse! Your description of the screen flashing doesn't ring a bell, but the article looks to be present at User:Angelandlinda/sandbox. You will want to be careful about using the browser's "back" key. It's better to go "forward" to what you want to see, by bring the article link up from your WP:WATCHLIST, or after finishing an edit to the article. Please note that if you only do a "show preview" of the edit, it is not saved until you do a final "save page". Hope that helps. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what happened was that you tried to save the page with a link that is on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (see also Wikipedia:Spam blacklist) and probably got the message seen at MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. I hope you hadn't written too much before losing this edit (so frustrating, but at least it wasn't a term paper or something of that sort), but there is a lesson to be learned: Always copy to your computer's clipboard—highlight selected text (or (ctrl+a to select all) then ctrl+c to copy—before hitting save when you make any big edit, and for a really big edit, maybe actually copy and paste into an offline wordpad/textedit document). It becomes second nature after a while.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wooooww! Back to square zero since I had already built the article in the Wiki format and was ready to post for edits (:-( At least I still have a little bit of energy left to redo it while trying to remember all the changes I'd already made to the original document in the sandboxAngelandlinda (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Angelandlinda - I've been reading your work, as I do have an interest in the field. You have done a great job, from what I was able to read. It looks like you lost all of your references and other work - and we all know how time consuming references can be to get right. I wish I had a magic wand to bring back your lost work - but I don't. C'est la Vie - "see also" option 3!

One thing we can help with is making it easier for you to work smarter and faster - and I for one what to see that article published. So - what have you found slows you down - what is taking up your time as an editor? That may sound like a stupid question, but different editors experience different bottle necks. It does depend from subject to subject - page to page. There may be tools, tips and tricks that can be of help in you recovering and moving forward.

I know it's frustrating, loosing so much work - but we may be able to deal with other "lesser" frustrations in the work process, so you can move forward quicker. It's not much, I know, given all the work you have evidently put in. But, we are here to help! We don't give up easily! All the best - and as I said, I want to see that article published. Let us know what we can do - to help you move forward.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OK Anyone please! Rookie question: What's the easiest way to link cites [1] to the references sub-heading (1. ^abcd Doe, J....) and hyperlinking other cites such as the ones under "See also" or embedded in the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelandlinda (talk • contribs) 04:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, A&L, and welcome to Wikipedia. I looked at your article and added a few technical things for you. Most importantly, I added the {{Reflist}} thingie for you. Now, as long as you add references after the fact they reference and enclose the reference inside "<ref></ref>", your references will automatically add to the list. You do not need to add superscript numbers. They go in automatically. I also turned your "See Also" list into Wikilinks, except for "teenage drug and alcohol abuse", as there is no article by that title on Wikipedia. One note from a quick read though: It looks and reads like a college paper. That is not all bad, but on Wikipedia, you are not allowed to draw conclusions from the facts you report. All you can do is report the facts. Hope this helps. Your article is well written, but you need more references and you need to lose the conclusions. You write well, so this shouldn't be too big a challenge for you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't worry too much about technical issues for right now. You will need to deal with the technical aspect of citing books though, so let me try to explain that to you. After the fact you are referencing, you need to insert a "cite book" template. You access this by making sure the arrow next to "Cite" (at the top of the edit screen) is pointing down. That will make a pulldown menu appear named "Templates". Click on "cite book" and fill in the blanks. You will NOT need the "<ref></ref>" coding. The template will put it in for you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gtwfan52, Thank you for the thoughtful advice! This is my first time doing a project for a graduate course in Wikipedia. Very good comments and helpful hints. Question - How do you list the same ref for multiple cites within the same article to reflect something similar to the following example: (12. ^ a b c d e f g h i Cruz, W (2001)......)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelandlinda (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NAMEDREFS. The long and short of it is that the first time you use a reference you give it a name in the form <ref name="intuitive name">text</ref> The next time you want to reuse that ref, you just type <ref name="intuitive name" /> (make sure to note the closing slash (/) for this later use). I am going to place below a visual guide.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Visual inline citation guide

Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article. In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />. In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code <references/> or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.
Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode'	What it produces when you save
Two separate citations.<ref>Citation text.</ref><ref>Citation text2.</ref> Multiple<ref name="multiple">Citation text3.</ref> citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" /> == References == {{Reflist}}	Two separate citations. Multiple citation use. References_________________
Templates that can be used between <ref>...</ref> tags to format references {{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

Family members

Hi.

Almost all of my family members edit Wikipedia. I am the last to have started editing. They have their own user accounts and probably your buddy right now.

My question is: Do I need to do anything? Because recently, I start to get the feeling that I must.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is compulsory Codename Lisa. We are all volunteers and do as much or as little as we feel like.--Charles (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there Codename Lisa - nice to meet you.
  
  You have asked an interesting question. It does deserve a serious answer.
  
  Wikipedia is voluntary, and there is no must about it. Wikipedia is about sharing human knowledge and making it available to everyone in the world free of charge. That is a big task. Some Wikipedians are faster at sharing than others, and some have very particular knowledge that takes time to share. Everyone in Wikipedia is Equal and we all work at out own speed and in the way that best allows us to share knowledge.
  
  If you are being pressured by other people, that is not really an issue we can deal with - but we can support and encourage you in the knowledge you bring to one of the biggest projects ever known. If we can help support you do that, please stop by and have a cup of tea any time. Many new and inexperienced editors can feel pressured - and in many ways Wiki Land can be overwhelming. There is Jargon - fast moving editors who don't explain what they have done and why. We have all experienced that. That is why the Teahouse was set up. It's here to help people like you who benefit from a more human approach.
  
  If there are specific issues with editing Wikipedia that we can look at for you, please do let us know. We are Human too - so we do know how it feels.
  
  Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm a beginner like you, and I'd just like to add one thing to the good advice you've gotten above. If you're not sure if you want to work on Wikipedia, how about dipping in a toe to see? You might try searching out articles on something you love -- a book, song, place to visit, favorite food or flower, etc, until you find an article you think needs help. Then do some research and add to it, and see how you like the experience. There are thousands of articles out there that need some TLC, and you'll get a feel for how Wikipedia works. I work on articles about children's lit -- not everyone's cup of tea, but a passion of mine. That's what makes it fun. And come back with any questions, no matter how small. Folks here try not to bite us new people. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hello again Codename Lisa! One important point that the others here have not mentioned is that if for some reason you or any of your family are investigated with the CheckUser tool, a small group of trusted administrators will be able to see that your accounts use the same IP address. It is a good idea to be careful with things like this, as we have a policy against misusing multiple accounts, and normally if editors are misusing multiple accounts, then those accounts get blocked. The administrators using the CheckUser tool will also take behavioural evidence into account, like writing style, times of day spent editing, and areas of interest; however, it is best not to rely on such things, and I recommend declaring the accounts of your family members on your user page. See the advice on sharing an IP address for more. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Mr. Stradivarius

Yeah, about that; I do not know their accounts. I asked before and they politely said that it is a private matter of their own. I don't know why. Maybe because they didn't want me to misuse our relation; or maybe because ... you see, their overall opinion of Wikipedia is bittersweet. Do you think I can use this CheckUser tool to find out their accounts?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

hi there. In my opinion, your family members have done a good thing as it allows you to look at their actions(of course without knowing that it is theirs) without any bias. A neutral point of view is very much essential. So, what I would suggest is for you to declare how many people in your family have their own accounts and that you don't know what they are. Roshan220195 (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Considering the privacy concerns between family members, I've just created {{User shared IP address private}}, which may be of some use in your case. -- Trevj (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Trevj. Thanks a bunch. I put in on my user page. I believe that's it then. And thanks, everyone else, for your corresponding replies. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)