Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 256

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 250←Archive 254Archive 255Archive 256Archive 257Archive 258→Archive 260

Neutrality Edits.

Hello,

I'm a new editor, and am still learning Wikipedia policy. So far I have been adding information to historical female figures that are short or are stubs, as well as adding information to Judy Chicago's "The Dinner Party: Heritage Floor" page. Recently, I've run into a bit of controversy about changing the dates BC to BCE, AD to CE. I feel that, so far as what I know about wikipedia's neutrality policy, this is a fair edit to make. I am not an advocate for any particular world view, but I along with many others in the academic field feel bc and ad are religiously biased, and that to reflect the rapidly changing nature of academic fields to be more neutral, fair and inclusive, edits should be made.

Perhaps not completely unsurprisingly, I have had a "couple" users (although I suspect it is the same user with multiple accounts) undo my edits and tell me my edits are in violation of wikipedia policy, or have just outright yelled at me. I don't want a flame war and have tried to hold a discussion, but they refuse to respond except by edit warring. I have found absolutely nothing in wikipedia's policy guidelines about it except for old rejected proposal pages. How best should I handle this situation? Unless it explicitly contrary to wikipedia's policy, I am quite adamant and will not be bullied by someone with what I can only assume is a religious agenda (They have not really mentioned why they undo my edits. Some nonsense about MOSDAT .. mosdat? really?). Seshata (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Seshata. I first saw Judy Chicago's "The Dinner Party" when it was first exhibited in San Francisco in either 1979 or 1980, and have great respect for her work. I share your preference for CE and BCE in dates, but please be aware that Wikipedia operates on consensus, not the personal preferences of individual editors. Sorry, but WP:MOSDATE is not "nonsense" but is the section of our Manual of Style that has to do with dates. The relevant section reads as follows:
"The default calendar era is the Western Dionysian era system, a year numbering system also known as the Western Christian era (represented by BC and AD), or the Common Era (represented by BCE and CE).
BC and AD are the traditional ways of referring to this era. BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and religious writings. Either convention may be appropriate.
Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change."
Accordingly, you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page, and refrain from describing the behavior of editors who refer to established consensus as bullying, or promising to be "adamant", when instead you should have a collaborative attitude leading to consensus, not confrontation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)



Hi Cullen.

Ok. That WP:MOSDATE is the information I needed. The original comment cited MOSDAT with no link, and nothing of value came up in a search, so I though they were pulling my chain. Well then. Collaboration, indeed. Here's to communication! Thanks for your advice. Also, you saw the original installation of Judy Chicago's piece? I'm very jealous. Have a good one.  :: Seshata (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Seshata

Yes, Seshata, I saw the Dinner Party when it was fresh and new, roughly 35 years ago. I still remember after all these years that it was displayed in sort of an improvised warehouse space, south of Market Street in San Francisco, and I had a hard time finding a parking space. I was driving a burnt orange VW Rabbit at the time, and could fit into the smallest legal space. But I also remember that I loved the exhibit, because my attitude toward art is completely different from that of Hilton Kramer, whose harsh criticism is quoted in the main article about the project. I also saw a representative selection of her work at the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento a year or two ago, which was great but not as impressive as the original, which I consider truly groundbreaking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the over-use of obscure policy abbreviations is something that causes a great many problems, and it is one of the things this Teahouse aims to address. It's good that it's working! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Seshata, I know your question has been answered but I just wanted to add one bit of possibly useful info. When you want to search for a policy or wikipedia manual, essentially anything that is about editing Wikipedia as opposed to the actual encyclopedia remember that the names for those articles are in a different wp:namespace. If you don't know what a namespace is don't worry but all you need to know is to preface everything with "wp:". That's why you couldn't find MOSDATE but if you had looked for wp:MOSDATE you would have found it. The completion also works for things prefaced that way so you can type say "wp:M" in Wikipedia search box up in the right corner and see all the things that relate to the Wikipedia editing namespace and start with M, they will show up as possible completions. I find this very useful because I can never remember the exact names of policies and other things like that. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MadScientist. Useful!

Cullen, that's so cool. I think I was born in the wrong decade, lol. Groundbreaking it was... politically and aesthetically! I believe it was the first time in US history that there were congressional proceedings against a work of art. Both sides of the political spectrum went nuts, apparently! Personally I love it not just for the content, but for her innovative assertion of traditional craft as fine art - though I haven't seen it in person. I've heard they have the original installed at the Brooklyn Museum now. It's on my bucket list for sure. Seshata (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Seshata

Threats as means to gain an upper hand in content dispute

How does one handle such cases, I am still unclear. Initially, I saw a problem with the conduct on one editor one we had a few disagreements and he saw it fitting to place a tag on my page that an investigation might occur into my behavior. I called it as the fascist way of handling disputes. Putting political opposition behind bars. The community told me to disregard this. Recently, the same editor is reverting to the same conduct. Insisting I reinsert something wrong into the article (or else...). So, what would be the best way to deal with this (besides explaining why the content is wrong -- which I already did here)? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarciulionisHOF. In this particular case, I think you have misinterpreted the other user's statement. The page the two of you are discussion is under Arbitration sanctions, meaning that edit-warring and disputes may result in discretionary santions being applied to the editors involved - Kingsindian was, I believe, drawing your attention to this fact. If the two of you cannot agree, you need to follow the dispute resolution process; looking over the discussion I would recommend that you initiate this as soon as possible. Yunshui 雲水 09:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. This was the exact sentiment presented to me with my initial concern. In this case, however, I do believe the threatening behavior is even clearer -- as the editor insists I am to revert to his latest edit. This is why I bring it up for consultation. I understand you suggest I bring it for DR. That page is very long and very confusing. To be honest. It seems like quite a waste of time -- I've seen someone calling me a crying Jew being baby sat upon by an admin who shrugged such commentary without even commenting on it despite being pinged twice. Apparently, said editor was already topic banned for similar conduct -- so... my trust in the system is not at a high. Thank you again for the suggestion that this is nothing. I sure hope you are correct and my allusion to an old classic between Tal and Fischer ("you laughed when I wrote it down") will stay an hypothetical situation. p.s. Further ideas and suggestion are more than welcome. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Please help this super-good faith editor rescue some version of his article from the AfD queue!!

Hi all, I know I should know this stuff, and the guy I am asking you to help should probably know this stuff too, but hey, Wikipedia has changed a lot in recent years and I am unable to help him out. Here's the problem: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of selected countries in EU context. I wrote my comments there, but I do think some economics or EU wikipedian should take a look and weigh in with comments for Erik. I would really like to see Erik contributing to Wikiepdia with his stats knowledge, and I am afraid he will just give up entirely. Please help!! Thx, Jane (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jane and welcome to the TeaHouse. You may want to read our policy on canvassing. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Stuartyeates, thanks, your point has been noted (see below). I guess I haven't been clear because I am not trying to save the article, but I am trying to save the editor. These are two distinct concepts. I am also in favor of deleting the article from mainspace. Jane (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Sorry, Jane, my only comment on this is that it is not good practice to canvas !votes in a discussion when you wish to influence the outcome. I'd recommend that you remove this request.  Philg88 ♦talk 09:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Philg88, thanks for taking a look, but if you read my comments, you will see that in this instance I actually side with the deletionists, so that is not the issue. My reason for posting here is so that someone who may be interested in Erik's work could help him do something constructive with the work he has already done. Jane (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Your missing the point, Jane. It doesn't matter which "side" you're on, canvassing is not a good idea.  Philg88 ♦talk 14:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I am really disappointed that you see it as taking sides. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. Jane (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

why my article declined ... I new to edit article I need help to publish this article any way..

Hi! Even I new to edit article But there is many evidence that this article has all right reserve ....You can see my blog, sky282.blogspot.com Where I put my creation of Hindi poems ,And some technical stuff that are unique and helpful to the people ...I had performed in DR. A.I.T.H. Kanpur & In Syscom Corp. Ltd.(A Morpho company).

I wanna help people by my creation ,And also this will help people to drive their life with these Ideas in India As well as all over the world.. Santosh Kumar Yadav 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosh282 (talk • contribs)

@Santosh282: Welcome to the Teahouse. The basic misunderstanding you're making here (and it's a very common one) is that Wikipedia is a social networking site. It isn't. It is an encyclopedia. This means that people can't just come here to make articles on themselves. If you or your poetry is ever discussed in newspapers, magazines, books, or similar, then someone else will likely make an article about you. Until then, I'm afraid you're out of luck. --Jakob (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I quite agre. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. A fellow editors job is to make Wikipedia accurate and trustworthy.Shaikt (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

How to create a page for my company

As I was going through "How to write First article on Wikipedia", I found "Do not create pages about yourself, your company, your band or your friends, nor pages that advertise, are personal essays or other articles you would not find in an encyclopedia."

Now, I want to create a page on wikipedia for my company SMTPProvider.com which was established in 2010 and help user to get detailed information about our organization. Can you please help me out with the required procedure

Smtpprovider (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So which part of "Do not create pages about yourself, your company, your band or your friends" did you struggle with, exactly? The answer to your question is: "you don't". If your company meets the relevant guidelines for inclusion, then somebody will write an article about it at some point - that somebody should not be you or anyone else working for your organisation. You are welcome to add SMTPProvider to the list of requested articles to help accelerate that process, if you wish.
You also need to file a change of name request as soon as possible; your current username is in violation of the username policy. Yunshui 雲水 10:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Smtpprovider, welcome to the teahouse. As Yunshui said you can't create or edit a page on your company. Here is an article that may be useful for you: Wikipedia:Corporations_and_the_Community there are more guidelines about what you can and can't do. If you want to get a page created for your company one option is to find a relevant Wikipedia project and ask them to do it. Given the name of your company I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's about IT so a good project to use would be: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing Although I looked on their project page and didn't see a queue of pending new article requests. Another option might be you can find the members of that group here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Members You might try asking one or two of them for help by posting a comment on their talk page. Also, there is a task force that might be more relevant (these are the people who are responsible for the SMTP article) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Computer_networking_task_force I should warn you all these groups always have a lot more work to do than people to do it so it may take a while to get a response. Good luck. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

How do you change a picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msirvine98 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Msirvine98. It's not very clear exactly what you mean by "change a picture"; but judging by the edits you have made on Stephanie McMahon and your sandbox, I think you mean you want to replace the picture in that article by a different one.
The first thing, as you have discovered, is that Wikipedia will not link to external pictures. For an image to appear in a Wikipedia article, it must first have been uploaded, either to Wikipedia itself, or to Wikimedia Commons (Commons is preferable, because then other language Wikipedias can use the image as well). However, before you can upload a picture to commons, you must get the copyright status of the image clear. Unless it is in the public domain (rare unless it is very old), the owner of the copyright must explicitly release it under a permission licence such as CC-BY-SA, which will allow anybody to use the image for any purpose as long as they attribute the source properly. I'm afraid that the image you attempted to link on your sandbox is on a site (http://www.catch-arena.com) which says "Tous droits réservés - Reproduction totale ou partielle interdite", which is French for "All rights reserved: total or partial reproduction forbidden". This means that unless you can get whoever owns the copyright to that image to go through the process of donating copyright materials than none of the pictures on that site may ever be used in Wikipedia. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Making sure I don't make the same mistakes as previous attempted creators

Hey all,

Recent user, been doing work on the band "Affiance", adding a new page for their newest album, linking stuff, putting them in Heavy Metal Releases of 2014, etc. Pretty standard stuff. However, I've noticed that their label, "Bullet Tooth Records", HAD a page but was twice deleted for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and "Unambiguous copyright infringement". However, there's no way to see what the previous pages were, is there? I'm curious as to why they were shut down and what I can do to make sure they aren't shut down this time, given the good amount of legitimate information on the label's main website. Any advice? Thanks! ProperCthulhu (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ProperCthulhu. As an admin I can look at the deleted content, and it appears that they copied text from the Bullet Tooth Records site and other commercial sites. Before you try re-creating the page, you need to find reliable, third-party sources on the label. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I should add that there doesn't seem to be much out there. After about five minutes of searching, this is all I came up with (it's not a bad start, though). RockMagnetist (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, RockMagnetist! So basically anything giving legitimate information and quotes can be used, as long as it's not directly from the source's website? ProperCthulhu (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "anything" - for example, you can't use Facebook as a source (see RS for details). And if you have reasonable coverage from reliable, independent sources, you can supplement it with non-controversial information (e.g., where they are located) from the label's website. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources that no longer exist in any form but old newspaper clippings

I nominated an article for speedy deletion for lack of notability; when the author requested more time to find sources I changed it to a BLP PROD. The author has uploaded sources now to the article in the form of old images of newspaper clippings. No idea what to do now if anything, help is appreciated. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Richard Yin. There are two issues here, the sources themselves and the images of the sources. The images are probable copyright violations, unless copyright has expired. This would be the case, for example, if the articles were published in the U.S. or many other countries before 1923. Unless it can be shown that there is no copyright violation, the images should be deleted from any Wikimedia project promptly.
The articles themselves may be reliable sources, and it is not required that sources be available online. Offline paper sources are OK if they meet our standards of reliability. Is the newspaper reputable? Are these news articles, or opinion columns? Are the referenced facts contentious in any way? When citing offline sources, it is advisable to include a two or three sentence snippet in quotation marks, backing up the cited claim. This does not violate copyright. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition, a BLP PROD is incorrect in this case. The person died in 1989, and BLP policies and procedures apply only to biographies of living people (or those who have died very recently). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
...I blame lack of sleep. Anyway, thank you for your help. Should I just refer the user to relevant citation guides? --Richard Yin (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Any guidance you can offer to that editor would be appreciated, Richard Yin. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this source allowed?

I was looking for a new source to replace a HighBeam Research one [1] a non-free source, that only has part of the text of the source. I found [2] at TheFreeLibrary.com that has the full text. Is this allowed under wp:copyright rules? 220 of Borg 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That source seems fine to use. Wikipedia has a section about that site at TheFreeDictionary.com#TheFreeLibrary.com. It's always better to use a legitimate source that is free over one behind a paywall. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Mikemoral. I saw that on the page About the Free library too, but wanted a second opinion. I'll go put it in, if I haven't been beaten to it. :-) 220 of Borg 05:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

editing problems

Hi I have edited an article and I've encountered the following problems: 1) I tried to add some references to the reference section. However, in the saved edit there are only numbers without the sources which, instead, have ended up in the ‘See Also’ section. 2) One of the books which I have entered in the bibliography section does not appear in the saved version.

Is there a way of sorting this out?

Thanks

MF59 (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your only recorded edit is to this page, can you tell us which article you were editing? Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: He was editing Secessio plebis, according to Special:Contribs. PhilrocMy contribs 23:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Philroc: That edit was after this question was posted. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
It would require a braver man than me, to sort out the reference problems in Secessio plebis! Anybody else care to take a look? Theroadislong (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@MF59:@Theroadislong: Done. I may not be brave, but I've sorted out the refs. They were just "double marked", that's what caused the trouble. You don't need to insert the numbers or the names of the references in the {{reflist}}. This is all done automatically as you add the references in the text. The references also receive "their numbers" automatically. Since the refs were written twice, they searched for a "second reflist", finding none they always drift to the bottom of the page whatever that section is. For more on refs see: Help:Referencing for beginners. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@MF59:Am I right in assuming that you did not have an account when you made the edits but had the IP-number 2.96.190.127? If the book you are referring to in your question is "Cary & Scullard", it does not appear in the Bibliography section, since this is put in a reference and therefore appears just in the Reference section. Please call again if you have any further question. Best w.carter-Talk 10:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't use → directly in edit summaries

Until recently I have been able to simply click on the arrow symbol to insert it in the edit summary bar, but now if I click on it the arrow is inserted at the last position I was at in the main body of the article, even though I have clicked in the summary bar before clicking on the arrow. Now I find that I have to do a copy/paste to get it in there. Is this a software glytch? If so will things return to the way they were? Jodosma (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jodosma. Someone might know here but this seems to me a good question for the technical section of the village pump. I think it might be relevant to mention your browser and version wherever you ask this. For what it's worth, I am not duplicating this error in Firefox or Safari. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

Hey Teahouse, What are some things that I can do around here?Kid President 12:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a good place to start... Yunshui 雲水 12:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You might also check out User:SuggestBot It works best if you have already done some edits, it looks at your edit history and tries to find similar kinds of articles that need work. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bart Baker

Hey Teahouse, I wanted to try and create an article about Bart Baker, a Youtube comedian. When I went to create it though, I saw that the page has been deleted 3 times. Is there any way that I can see the pages that were deleted?Mirror Freak 15:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, MirrorFreak. Only an administrator can see the content of deleted pages: you could ask an administrator to userfy the deleted article for you. so that you can look at it. But rather than worrying what was written, I suggest you look at the discussion that took place the first time it was deleted. The consensus (which not everybody agreed with) was that there was not enough written about Baker in reliable published sources to ground a Wikipedia article. This may or may not still be the case. If you can find some substantial writing about him which has been published in a reliable place since last November, then there is probably a case for having an article on him, and it might be worth asking an admin to userfy the deleted article for you. But if you can't find such a source, my advice is not to waste your time working on an article that, at present, will never be accepted.
One more point: if you do decide to go ahead and try creating the article, I strongly suggest you use the Article wizard, which will help you put your draft in draft space, where you can work on it until you are ready before submitting it for review. --ColinFine (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know if your page has gone live or has been rejected

I created and submitted a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Exchange_and_Mart some weeks ago. I know it can take several weeks to be approved/go live, but how will I know when that is the case? Or how will I know if my page has been rejected Exchangeandmarteam (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You should get a message about it.Mirror Freak 15:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings Exchangeandmarteam, welcome to the teahouse. As MirrorFreak said you will eventually get a message about the article. Note the message on the draft that says: "The Articles for creation process is severely backlogged. Please be patient. There are 2850 submissions waiting for review." However, here is some quick feedback on the article. Note this is only based on a very brief look. First, based on your name I'm assuming you represent one or more people who work at the web site that the article is about. Unfortunately, that is a wp:conflict of interest So you shouldn't create or edit this article to begin with. Also, the article has at least one wp:external link in the text (to the web site that is the topic of the article) That is also not allowed. External links are allowed but only in a special section at the end of the article. All links in the article need to be to other Wikipedia articles or content. Also the wp:references in the article were not strong. Every significant fact in a Wikipedia article should be supported by a reference. Finally, although I didn't read the article very carefully from my first glance it seemed a little wp:promotional it read like what your corporate web site or a brochure would read. Wikipedia is meant to be wp:objective It is supposed to present information the way an encyclopedia would. I think the article will not be accepted for any one of those reasons, the wp:COI is the most serious though, the others can be fixed but they shouldn't be by you or anyone that works at the company. Sorry. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
no Declined for reasons stated on the draft itself. There was a technical problem which prevented the review script from allowing easy reviews. I have solved that and assessed the draft. It is highly likely that the username of Exchangeandmarteam will be blocked pending a change request. Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@MadScientistX11: please be aware that AfC is generally considered an acceptable means for someone to submit an article regarding which they have a conflict of interest. It's only once the draft is accepted and becomes an article (and thus is part of the encyclopedia) that they should no longer make edits to the article itself, but instead should make requests at its talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange Redirection

A couple weeks ago, I created the article 'Annie Edwards (novelist)', a 19th-century author. However, I noticed that the search term 'Annie Edwards' redirects visitors to 'Delta Air Lines Flight 191' rather than the novelist. Annie Edwards isn't mentioned in the Delta 191 article, but according to the category 'Survivors of aviation accidents or incidents', Annie Edwards was a survivor of the accident, although there are no references to verify that and no article about her. Should I remove 'Annie Edwards' from the list of survivors or disambiguate the two?60fathoms (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 60fathoms. It appears that the crash survivor is notable for only one event, so she is unlikely ever to merit her own article. That makes your Annie Edwards the primary topic. I think it would be appropriate to move Annie Edwards (novelist) to Annie Edwards and put a hatnote at the top linking to Delta Air Lines Flight 191. You should also put a link in Anne Edwards (disambiguation). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Signature

Hey teahouse. I want to link part of my signature to my guestbook, but everytime I try, it says that its an invalid. Can someone please help? Thanks, Mirror Freak 18:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Never Mind, I did it.Mirr orFreak 18:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Made it look better.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 18:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

summary page for all user edits across wikipedia, talk page decorum

Hello Ushau97 thank you for your invitation. Is there a page I can go to where I can see a complete history of all the edits I've made across all of Wikipedia, including my own talk page and any talk messages directed at me from other talk pages? How should I properly address someone on my own talk page, so they know I've responded to their message on my talk page? Should I be responding to users on my own talk page or on theirs? Thanks! FACT CHECKER (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@FACT CHECKER: Hey FACT CHECKER. At the top of every regular page on Wikipedia, towards the right, you should see a link for "contributions" (a direct link is Special:MyContributions) Clicking that will take you to a log of every live (not deleted or suppressed) edit you have made to Wikipedia while logged in. Through the interface there, you can limit the results to see just edits to particular namespaces as well as for a particular date range. See also Help:User contributions.

To look for contributions of others directed at you, the only way I know of, other than a targeted search of a namespace or particular page, is to click on the notifications link at the top of the page (just to the right of your username), and then, when it drops down, click at the bottom on "All notifications". However, this will only find talk page or other page in the Wikipedia namespace where you were mentioned by another user, and your userpage was linked (you should have received a notification of this responsive post through that system, as I linked to you through the {{tping}} template at the start).

If you respond to a person at their talk page they will automatically receive a notification of that. If you respond at your own talk page they should be following for it, but you can ping them by one of the templates for that purpose, such as the one I linked above, or by manually linking their username. As for where you should respond, I generally believe conversations should be attempted to be kept in one location – if a post to your talk page, respond there and ping for good measure if you think it's necessary; if at another's talk page, respond there (and there's no need to ping). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello FACT CHECKER, if you click on the tab "Contributions" on your user page you get all your edits. As for how to communicate with other users, here are some tips:
The policy is to leave an answer on the same page as the question, keep the conversation intact unless there is some reason for moving it elsewhere. Like complicated questions at the Teahouse can be continued on the appropriate talk page. When someone is posting on your talk page you get an automatic notification. That notification is a red square followed by a long yellow box (for most browsers and settings). In all other cases you have to alert the other editor in some way, either by "ping" or by mentioning them in a link. This will result in a just the red box notification on that users pages. So even if you respond on your talk page you still have to alert the editor you are addressing. If you want to get hold of me you write {{ping|W.carter}} resulting in @W.carter: or [[User:W.carter|W.carter]] resulting in W.carter. There are some more, but these are the basics. And when you ask something on someone's talk page, you also create a new section so your question don't get entangled in some other conversation. If you are having a conversation with another user on some page, it is also customary to add that page to your Watchlist in case someone in the discussion forgets to alert. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit and w.carter. I really appreciate your clear and detailed explanations. This is a big help to me! FACT CHECKER (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How Long does the article take to get linked into the internet on the artist

Hey JethroBT this is Roaddog.771, Thanks for helping me with the edit. I guess you know that the article on BOBBY GUITAR WOOD is about myself. Just wanted to let you know that I did a edit in the Sandbox, I am not at all familiar with all of the logos and was wondering if you could check that for me and let me know What all of that on that Page means. I am the source of the Information on myself.

Please Take this article over and get the links set up

Keep the Faith Bobby Guitar Wood Roaddog.771 (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bobby, and welcome to the Teahouse. Well done for declaring that the article is about you, so you have a probable conflict of interest: editors are more likely to want to work with you if you are up-front about this.
I'm afraid that the article in your sandbox has zero chance of being accepted. The are two main reasons for this (which are closely connected). The first is that there are no references to reliable published sources in your draft article. All information in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be referenced to a reliable published source; and in articles about living people we are quite strict about this. You say "I am the source of the Information on myself", but that is not acceptable, for two reasons. First, without being rude, we have no way of telling that you really are Bobby Wood, and not a joker. Secondly, even if you somehow convince us that you are who you say, and create an article with information you know to be correct, Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia which anybody may edit. People will come along and edit the article, in most cases to improve it. But sometimes people will have found some wrong information, or will mistype something; and sometimes vandals deliberately alter information. If there are no references in the article, then there is no way for a random reader next week or next month or next year to check that the information then in the article is correct. So information in articles is required to be referenced to reliable published sources.
The second reason why the article will not be accepted as that without any sources, it is unable to establish that you are notable (in the special sense that Wikipedia uses that word). Wikipedia does not have articles on everything and everybody: we require that subjects have already been noticed and written about in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publishers. Once again, we come back to references.
I notice you are asking JethroBT to "take the article over". I don't know how much work JethroBT may be willing to put in for this article; but if I were considering working on it, I would want you to do some of the legwork, and find the reliable published sources first, because if you can't find them, there is no point in anybody spending time on the article. --ColinFine (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what I am doing wrong?

I was asked to update a company page with the most updated information. I have been citing new pages related to the new content. I just got a warning about "Disruptive Editing". The information added is accurate. What do I do?Jbes2014 (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks quite interesting. It is a content dispute between Jbes2014 who has been asked to update the Upland Software page and IPUpfficia whose user name might imply a linkage with the organisation as well. My answer, therefore, is that neither editor is handling this correctly. The talk page, Talk:Upland Software, is the place for this to be thrashed out. Both editors are new, however, hence my pinging them both to show them this reply.
Talk to each other, there, on the article's talk page, and reach, with others, a consensus on the edits each of you finds unacceptable. Please read WP:BRD and also WP:3RR, and note that the number three is for guidance only, and that blocking for reversion may occur with fewer than the requisite number of reversions.
The answer to the question "What do I do?" is thus addressed to each of you. I have not examined the edits in question, and I have no interest in Upland. I do feel that the article depends on a number of questionable references, and that you all need to sort that out. WP:42 refers. Fiddle Faddle 23:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about the page at all, do what you like with it. I agree though, upon a second look, way too many press releases. Best to remove most of them. IPUpfficia (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

What are the Wikipedia editing/viewing software options?

I am very new to editing Wikipedia entries and not much of a programmer. I can do a little html, don't know JAVA or C++ and my Fortran 77 is very rusty. What types of Wikipedia editing software is out there that allows things like editing in a split-screen mode showing the Wikipedia markup on one side and the WYSIWYG view on the other? I am thinking along the lines of something like Microsoft's Expression Web editor for web-pages or Lectora's webpage publishing tools. Thanks in advance. P.martinicus (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello P.martinicus and welcome to the Teahouse. It might be better to ask your question at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), that is where all the Tech-wizards hang out. The Teahouse is for asking about the more unsophisticated ways of getting through the editing area when writing articles. And giving directions, of course. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not aware of any offline editing software (that works anyway, there are some "conversion" tools that work up to a point). Wikipedia's (much-reviled by some) WYSIWYG editor, Visual Editor, is the closest thing we have, but some of the Wiki-dinosaurs like me stick to the old Wiki-markup editor.--ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you w.carter and ukexpat. Good to know about Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). P.martinicus (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Custom Warning

Hey teahouse, I want to get some feedback on a custom notice I made. Red Exclamation Dot Hi, I'm MirrorFreak. I noticed that your username might not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is the name of a company or corporation. If you believe that I am in error with giving you this notice, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. A different solution to this would be to ask for a username change or you can just create a new account for editing the Wiki. Thanks, Mirror Freak My Guestbook. Mirror Freak My Guestbook 13:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering why you feel the need to reinvent the wheel? Fiddle Faddle 13:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
No, its because when warning someone with twinkle, you have to put the reason why your warning them for a username. I mean for this to be like my own warning for people. You know what I mean?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 13:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Jesus, you guys think of everything.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 14:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Getting rid of a popup

I'm trying to figure my way around and so far, I think I'm getting most things. One thing I haven't been able to track down is how to turn off this little box that pops up every time I edit a page - it suggests a similar article I can edit. It's a minor annoyance, but I was wondering if there was a setting somewhere I was missing or if it's just something I have to deal with? Thanks for the help! CyanDye (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

CyanDye you need to add a line of CSS to your User:CyanDye/common.css page; .postedit { display: none;} will do the trick for you. Nthep (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey teahouse. Can I please become an adopter? I know I've made some bad edits in the past but I know that I can teach Infernus how to be a good editor. He really was learning from me. I know I can do it.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey MirrorFreak! You're still a bit new to Wikipedia to take on an adoptee. That said, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from offering constructive advice to other editors, although they are also not obliged to take it. I would certainly recommend making good-faith overtures to anyone you wish to help. --McDoobAU93 20:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Dude! McDoob, where have you been man? You've been gone for a while.Mirror Freak My Guestbook 14:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Password

I forgot the password of my account "ababcdc", can someone please help me. I didnt use an email when i registered it. -- Alalala1000 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alalala1000/ababcdc and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry to say that if you can't remember your password and didn't register an email, we can't help you—except to suggest that you add notices at one or both user pages that you are the same person. —teb728 t c 10:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? P.s. I forgot the password to Alalala and Alalala1000 too... -- 927618100a (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I know that my friend made the page "richalism" (a made up religion that was "believed" by my friends) using my account (it got deleted); and I created several pages about plants. -- 927618100a (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@927618100a: Richalism was also deleted for A11.
I did not create that page! (this is a new account made by 927618100a because he forgot his password, AGAIN! I really have to write the password down instead of just memorizing them, sorry if this is annoying) -- Qwertasdfgzxcvb1001 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, what TEB728 was saying is that, if you do create a new account for editing, you should edit the userpages of the accounts that you forgot the password for and add a notice that proves that you own all those accounts. This can reduce the chances of you being accused of farming sockpuppets. The WP:SOCK#NOTIFY page has some templates you can use. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I really liked that name... -- Qwertasdfgzxcvb1001 (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Where to find Video Tutorials

Hey guys... Well I've just started working with Wikipedia and I'm trying to find some organized video tutorials that will walk me through everything I need to know to create great Wikipedia pages. I'm looking for something organized and step by step like what you find on Lynda.com. Any suggestions? Thanks TMPstream (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey backatcha @TMPstream: Wikipedia is sadly lacking in video tutorials. There's a VERY small number which can be found by navigating through the pages at Category:Wikipedia video tutorials. There are also a few more I found at this page. Maybe someone else will find some; but that's all I could locate. --Jayron32 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@TMPstream:Hello and welcome to the Wikipedia, there are also some screencasts at Help:Referencing for beginners to help you with how to create a nice article. You can also Play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tutorial to make articles. Best, w.carter-Talk 18:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks guys and gals 19:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMPstream (talk • contribs)

Acceptable use of data from census?

I like to start an article using data from the 1927 census of Jewish agriculture published in the "Palestine & Near East Economic Magazine". 1928

This census is extraordinary detailed but I like advice to what degree I can quote from the census without breaching the magazine's copyright. This important and authoritative census appears unknown and the article will fill in an important gab in the statistics for Jewish settlements in the agricultural Palestine up to 1927. It will take a few months to finished based on a step-by-step approach. The truth. The whole truth. (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi The whole truth.. If it is an 'unknown' or obscure census it's unlikely to be suitable as a subject for Wikipedia. However, there would be nothing to stop you from using some of the information to support other existing Wikipedia articles. You'd just need to make sure you give full details of the magazine source so other readers know where the information was obtained. See WP:CITEHOW for the sort of info you'd need to include. Sionk (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi:Sionk. The census itself is beyond approach and can not be challenged for its reliability. It was commissioned by the 'Department of Agricultural Colonization' Carried out and tabulated by the 'Palestine Zionist Executive' It had an advisory board of 15 members: Representatives from the 'Agricultural Experiment Station, 'Agricultural Board', 'The Jewish Farmers' Association' etc etc. Compiled by David Gurevich, Fellow Royal Statistical Society. Author of the book: David Gurevich; Aron Gertz: The Jewish population of Palestine, immigration and demographic structure.

The census was mentioned here:

Palestine Z.o. Executive Publishes Statistics on Agricultural Settlements

Jerusalem (Jan. 16)1928? (Jewish Telegraphic Agency Mail Service)

An agricultural census taken during August, 1926, by the Department of Agricultural Colonization of the Palestine Zionist Executive shows that the 41 settlements wholly or partly financed by the Kerer. Hayesod in Palestine include 17 Kvuzoth (cooperative farms). girls training farms, 16 Moshave Ovdim (small holders’ villages), and 4 “middle class” settlements. The population of these settlements is 4,628.

http://www.jta.org/1927/02/10/archive/palestine-z-o-executive-publishes-statistics-on-agricultural-settlements#ixzz3EPEHpzzo

The (Mischar w'Taasia) Palestine and Middle East Economic Magazine (A Fortnightly for Trade. Industry & Agriculture) was a respected magazine like Financial Times today.

In a way it is "unknown", as you mentioned, but for no good reasons.

As you suggested I have places part on the census under previous published articles: > Demographics of Palestine > British control 1918–1948 >. The truth. The whole truth. (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sionk : I haven't thought along those lines since the census has the finest pedigree possible. I would of course start with explaining that in the beginning of the article to remove any doubt that is authoritative.

I have included some of the figures from the census in an article (As you suggested) which were removed within hours. I re-posted it after I had answered the complaint which was deleted shortly thereafter from the contribution string.

But that leaves the original question open

I have deleted a lot of my comments here which is interesting enough but hardly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth. The whole truth. (talk • contribs)

Hi Jayron. Good point. Thanks The truth. The whole truth. (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This question is continued here. Let's use that space for additional help to be given to this new (and welcome) Wikipedian. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

article not meeting notability requirements

Hi, I submitted my first article last week and have been editing it ever since. There is still a box that says "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted." I was wondering if this means that the quality of the references are not good enough (I need to add books, articles etc) or that the references have been written incorrectly? Anni Alex (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I checked one reference at random. It did not mention the organisation at all. I could have checked any, but the pin fell on this one. YOu seem to be using references to help define the terms in the article, not to speak about the org itself. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42.
While seeming to be well referenced, this article is vulnerable to deletion. It appears to be a WP:COATRACK for a generic discussion about human trafficking. It requires immediate attention. Fiddle Faddle 11:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you are referring to Awareness Against Human Trafficking (HAART), correct? Oh, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You should take your concerns to the Talk Page at Talk:Awareness_Against_Human_Trafficking_(HAART). That is where you'll be able to get specific advice. Best of luck! GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, go over to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Awareness_Against_Human_Trafficking_(HAART) and state why you think the article should remain, and note that you will carry on discussion for improvements on the Talk Page. I'm sorry this seems complicated, but sometimes we just have to do these things. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't use → directly in edit summaries any more

Until recently I was able to insert an arrow in my summaries by simply clicking on it at the bottom of the edit window but now if I try that (after clicking in the summary bar) the arrow appears at the last place I was at in the main article area so I then have to delete it. To insert the arrow now I have to do a copy/paste. Is this a software glytch? If so will it return to the way it was or do I have to keep using cut/paste? Jodosma (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jodosma:Hi, you need to take that question to the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) they are probably going to need to know what your browser and computer operating system are, and maybe which skin (usually Monobook or Vector, look in your Preference settings) you use, since these glitches may only affect some systems. On my combination of computer stuff the arrows work just fine when clicking.→ → → ← ← ← Good Luck, w.carter-Talk 22:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Interested in writing a set of articles listing of domain names for universities, hospitals and research institutes

I have a partial but exhaustive list of university/hospitals/research institute domain suffixes mapped to university names (thousands). While we use it within our company to validate academic email addresses, I believe this list would be very valuable to others, and would benefit greatly from community updates. I would be happy to contribute what we have but am wondering whether WikiPedia would be a good place for it.

Sample set:

Domain name University Name
7aprilu.edu.ly Seventh of April University
7ou.edu.ly 7th October Misurata University
aa.psu.edu Pennsylvania State University - Altoona
a-aarhus.dk Aarhus School of Architecture
aabfs.org Arab Academy for Banking and Financial Sciences
aabu.edu.jo Al al-Bayt University
aac.edu Anglo-American College
aaft.com Asian Academy of Film and Television
aaidu.org Allahabad Agricultural Institute
aakerscollege.com Aakers College

YaronGo (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for dropping in. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Wikipedia can use your very interesting offering. We tell why at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, where we note that "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" and "Wikipedia is not a directory." Stick around and maybe somebody else can suggest a site where your list can be used. Meanwhile, have a cup of tea. Sincerely, your friend, 07:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My Page X3SR got marked for deletion

It's my first time working on this, my article got marked for deletion because of the notablity thing. I had uploaded my article without citing my references as a rough draft sorry. My article I put up is X3SR. Please take a look and let me know if I did something wrong. Sorry I'm just learning. Everyone started somewhere and I look forward to doing my part to help and payback to this site that has helped me so much in my life. Vlolv (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Vlolv, welcome to the Teahouse. It seems that article was marked for speedy deletion by another editor, but the reviewing administrator decided that speedy deletion was not appropriate, while still adding a template indicating that notability of the topic seems uncertain.
One thing you could do to improve the article would be to better format the references. At the moment they are what we call "bare URLs" (bare links), which makes it very difficult to quickly work out what sort of sources they are. All I can tell is that the "CassetteRewind" one is unlikely to be a reliable source because anyone can set up a tumblr account for free and post whatever opinions they like. Check out Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to see how to better format references.
You could then start looking at which of your sources (and which other sources out there about the topic) are reliable. Do they have a named, and possibly paid, editorial staff? Do they have a reputation for reliability and fact-checking? These are the types of sources it's best to use. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I have added a newspaper referance and a reference that is on a list of respected references hopefully this clears it up. I am also going to work on the quality of how i reference.Vlolv (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Have some tea. Sit down while I look at the article, and check back with me in about twenty minutes when I've done going over your conribution. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm back. I hope you had a good chat with some of the others here in the Teahouse while you were waiting. But I suggest you leave this place (as pleasant as it may be) and head over to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/X3SR, where there is a discussion going on about deleting the article because an editor feels the piece is about a "Non-notable group [that] fails WP:BAND (which you should read). No coverage found in reliable independent sources." You have to comment over there and tell why the article should not be dinged. I will see you there also and try to help keep the article, which is just as good as some of the other stuff in Wikipedia (but also see WP:Otherstuffexists). Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I fix my introduction?

The image doesn't show. I have two that I can use uploaded to the Commons, but the links are not working. (0_o) don.otis (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Don. Have a cup of tea. Relax. What's the name of the image you uploaded to Commons? Where is it not showing? Are you trying to load it into an article you are editing? What's the name of the article. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello don.otis. I assume that the files you are talking about are File:Don.otis.logo.png and File:Don's mugshot.png since these are the two last files you have uploaded on the Commons. And since they seems to have the same name as you I also assume that you want to use them on your user page (your "introduction") since that is the most relevant place to use them. Well, one problem might be that you first have to create your user page. Your name is currently in red indicating that you have not yet activated your page.:) Please do so and then get to work with your pics. Do call again if this did not answer your question. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_256&oldid=1142564923"