Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 288

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

Archive 285

Archive 286

Archive 287

→

Use of the term BCE

When and who decided to substitute the abbreviation of Before Christ (BC), with Before Common Era (BCE),which I see from time to time in articles? 2602:304:B21C:1650:F52F:E85:21E6:6979 (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The correct place to ask this kind of question is over at the reference desk, this page is for help with editing Wikipedia. That said, our article Anno Domini seems to contain some information on this question which you might find interesting. Sam Walton (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Internet user. Welcome to the teahouse. The short answer is that, and there are other conventions that this applies to such as the differences between American and British English spellings, what is important is that any article uses the term consistently. Also, the other important point is that unless there is a very good reason to choose BC over BCE (or vice versa) editors should not argue or change the convention in any one article. I.e., if it currently uses BC stick with BC if it uses BCE stick with that unless it's a rare case where there is some important scholarly reason to choose one over the other. Here is some relevant documentation: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Era_style --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Both styles are used as you can see in the link that MadScientistX11 provided. There has apparently been several votings about this where you can read the discussions. Most things on the Wikipedia are not "decided" by one person, if a proposal is made, then the community will vote about it. w.carter-Talk 17:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The history of the use of "CE" and "BCE" is described in our article Common Era. Such usage has been common in Jewish academic literature since the mid-19th century. It should be obvious that Jews would not want to use an abbreviation for "Christ" in their literature. The usage has spread to adherents of other religions, to agnostics and atheists, and to those who prefer to refrain from religious references in secular contexts. Either the traditional "BC" and "AD", or the secular "BCE" and "CE" are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. There should be consistent usage (with the exception of direct quotations) within a given article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there has been some discussion whether current academic use prefers one over the other in general today, but since sources even differ, just be consistent within the article but never change it if using direct quotes.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything I do is wrong

I tried to write an article, and it was deleted as non-significant. I tried again, and it was pulled for copyright. I said the organization I was writing about would help me with details, and I was then told I had a conflict of interest. I was told the organization wasn't "notable" enough anyway and had already been rejected for inclusion. I've been warned by two "editors" not to make legal threats, even though I haven't -- I've simply pointed out that there's a Supreme Court ruling in place that covers the name of the organization, and I'm told that's irrelevant.

All I really want to do is get a redirect corrected so that when you type in the name of a specific church, it doesn't bring up the page of a white supremacist hate group that once used a similar form of the church's name in its own title.

I've read the rules. I understand COI and copyright. I get that you won't allow an article. So be it.

What I *don't* get is why the redirect can't be corrected? Since all of the brick walls I'm hitting are the result of Wikipedia's proclaimed effort to be accurate, why is this INaccuracy allowed to continue?

I understand WHY the redirect is in place and WHY it points the way it does -- but that doesn't make it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohemian Gal (talk • contribs) 02:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly not trying to be a PITA, but how is it OK that a legitimate (albeit "flaky") church continues to be tied to a hate group here -- despite the fact that there is not now, and never has been a connection between them -- and no one sees that as a problem?

Bohemian Gal (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you try the dispute resolution noticeboard. By the way, I happen to agree that the creation of the disambiguation page was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Since every editor tells me that the redirect is fine the way it is, I'm not sure what good dispute resolution will do.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I find no evidence that the Supreme Court ever ruled on this issue, Bohemian Gal. Can you please furnish a citation to the ruling? I do see that lower levels of federal courts ruled in favor of TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation in this case, and against the Hale hate group. But if the Hale group is notable (which it is) and the TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation group isn't (I see no evidence that it is), then what are we to do? Imagine some poor obscure innocent fellow named Charles Manson who is upset that an article about a murderous cult leader comes up when people search for his name. Nothing can be done about that. Wikipedia covers notable topics, even though that may be uncomfortable to those with the same or similar names. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

But the hate group isn't "Church of the Creator" -- it was formerly called "WORLD Church of the Creator". Why not add THAT as the link, and delete "Church of the Creator"? If there's to be no article on Church of the Creator (and I get it, I really do), then when people type in that phrase, they should get one of those pages that says "This page doesn't exist". Right?

All the court rulings are here: http://www.churchofthecreator.com/TM/TMindex.html

It looks like the Supreme Court sent the case back to lower court, but the decision was that the hate group is NOT allowed to use "Church of the Creator".

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You really need to be careful about the claims you make, Bohemian Gal. Don't say the Supreme Court ruled, when instead they deferred to the lower court. That is not a ruling. Wikipedia paraphrases and summarizes what reliable, independent sources say. And my Google search shows that most coverage of "Church of the Creator" is in connection with the hate group which used the name for over 20 years before adding "World" to its name in the 1990s. The best source I see is from the Southern Poverty Law Center, so maybe your complaint should be directed to them, not to Wikipedia. In their defense, they mention the Oregon group as well, describing it as "peace loving". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: your Charles Manson example -- his name isn't protected by Registered Trademark, and Church of the Creator's name is.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a legal scholar, but the gist is that the name is copyrighted by Church of the Creator, NOT the hate group.

And again, the best solution would simply be to remove the redirect completely so that "this page doesn't exist" comes up when people search here.

But I see that I'm going to get nowhere with this appeal. Again.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not consider current trademark status when evaluating the notability of a topic, as we look at the entire history. The hate group did not add "World" to its name until about 22 years after it was formed. Please describe things accurately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the best solution is to change the redirect to WORLD church of the creator and then add something within the article about the hate group's name change.

I just maintain that, to be fair and *accurate*, "Church of the Creator" shouldn't lead to the Creativity Movement.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See? Everything I do is wrong. I'm upset, I'm frustrated, feeling utterly defeated and incredibly disappointed that no one cares about this.

I give up -- you guys win.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I care, and this isn't about "winning", Bohemian Gal. It is about improving the encyclopedia within our policies and guidelines. What you need to do at this point is to create a very brief article, scrupulously neutral, and referenced to the best available independent sources. Start in your sandbox. Do not include any "preaching" language whatsoever. Exactly the opposite of your first effort. I will help. Ask on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cullen, I have left a long message on Bohemian Gal's talk page, hoping that everything will end well.

Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nahnah4. Thanks for trying to build bridges. But unfortunately you're giving Bohemian Gal misinformation. Notability is not about whether 1 in 5 people, or 1 in 50, or 1 in 5000, have heard of the subject: it is about whether reliable source have been interested enough to write about it. It is often the case that these go together, but not always: certainly there are bands who have many followers but haven't been noticed by writers; and conversely there are subjects known to very few who have been written about at length. --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

ColinFine Oops, sorry, help me correct it. Thanks, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 11:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been told -- repeatedly -- that Church of the Creator is not notable enough for inclusion, so I'm going to waste my time trying to write an article that's just going to be rejected again.

As I've said, though, the only reason I was trying to write an article was so the redirect could be changed. If someone wants to do the right thing and make that change that would pretty much take care of everything.

I understand what everyone is saying about how the hate group is more important, how they used to use the name, etc., etc., etc., but I think I've offered a suitable "compromise" -- make their redirect WORLD church of the creator, put a blurb on their page that they used to use the church's current name, and make it so if someone types in just "church of the creator" they get a "no page found" response. It doesn't "erase" the hate group, it doesn't clutter up the site with an article about an insignificant little church group, and it still gives readers the information they're seeking.

Thanks to those of you who've tried to be helpful.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

When to reply to talk page posts?

How old should a talk page post be before it's too old to reply to? I would guess that if it was posted two or three years ago, it would probably be too old for sure, but should I reply to something someone said six months ago?Zgialor (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I go right ahead in such cases; no need to fuss. Wikipedians are sometimes grouchy but not about this kind of thing. If nobody's listening anymore, it's merely a small waste of time. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zgialor: You can use {{ping}} to notify registered users of your reply. You can check their user contributions see whether they are still active. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zgialor: I just want to add that for some editors six months is not a long time at all. More than once I've added some comments to a talk page, then gone on to work on something else and forgot about it, then come back to that page six months or more later because someone replied to my talk page comment or I just stumbled back on it as a result of other editing. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter and MadScientistX11: So, if someone said something five years ago, but they're still active and what they said is still relevant, I could still reply to them? Zgialor (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zgialor: Everyone has different editing styles and I don't want to claim my way is the right or best way but for me I don't really care how old a comment on a talk page is. If it makes a cogent point that hasn't been fixed and that I have something constructive to say about I think it's fine, in fact it's a good idea, to reply regardless of how old the comment is. Even if the person who made the comment is no longer paying attention there may be others that are. I'm also a software developer. When you develop software one of the counter intuitive things you learn is that defining the requirements and maintaining the application takes up a lot more time than actually writing the code. That's how I got in the habit of over communicating. I view talk pages as meta-data about the article, they represent a history of why decisions were made and capture the rationales for making them. I will document things on talk pages even when no one else is replying just so that if someone comes along later and asks why a certain edit was done I can point back to the talk page. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: OK, that makes sense. Thanks! Zgialor (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What to do with an article whose title includes a blatant typo?

Neocollyris subtilef1avescens should obviously be Neocollyris subtileflavescens, to anyone who has some knowledge of Latin, especially biological Latin (flavis = yellow). (For the avoidance of doubt - 'l' not '1'.) (1) The latter article does not yet exist. (2) The typo in the existing article name is so unlikely that a rename/redirect seems pointless. What best to do? Narky Blert (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: You move the page to the new title! I've done that now and unchecked the option to leave a redirect since it's hardly a likely search term. Sam Walton (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Writing a article

Hello I'm trying to write an article like this -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Skateboarding_Association

For an organisation in England, i'm finding it quite confusing how to add all the info and logo as well as keep people etc

thanks

ReganHull (talk) 13:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ReganHull, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, off, please don't use the dreadful article United Kingdom Skateboarding Association as a model. It is an example of an article that was created several years ago, and would not be accepted now, because it has no inline references whatever, and is full of non-neutral language. if you want to write a new article, my next advice after the above would be to spend some time editing existing articles: creating a new article is hard. Then read your first article, to find out how to tell whether your subject should have an article at all: if it has not been written about at length in multiple reliable published sources which are independent of the subject, then it should not have one. If, after reading that, and finding sufficient independent published sources, you want to go ahead, I strongly recommend you use the article wizard, so that your draft is somewhere that you can work on it until you are ready to have it reviewed. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I have just nominated that article for deletion: I can't find any substantial references to it, so I believe it is unsaveable. --ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Tools for analyzing page edits

I'm hunting for a tool that might give me some insight into how many unique editors are responsible for a given page but, I'm having some trouble finding something like this. Basically I would like to be able to see how many active (and unique) editors (users/admins/IPs) are working on a specific page -- and ideally-- within a specific amount of time and, if possible, how many edits have been preformed by each editor. I know there are some studies discussing this (unique editors to overall edits made, etc) for the whole of Wikipedia but, I'm curious to find some information for specific pages. Any tools, articles or studies that exist on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Aloblivion (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aloblivion. You can click the "View history" tab on a page at the English Wikipedia and then "Revision history statistics" near the top. The tool has however been unstable for some time and isn't currently responding for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Aloblivion: welcome to The Teahouse. You could try WP:VPT to see if anyone knows whether what you want to do can be done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not get emails when a page I have marked as “Watch this page” is changed.

Hello: Although I checked the box “Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed” in the ‘preferences’ – Wikipedia page, I do not get emails when a page I have marked as “Watch this page” is changed. Is there anything else I need to do in order to ‘watch’ (receive emails) when an edited page is changed? Please let me know. Thanks! Nandinik (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What settings do you have set in the "e-mail options" under the "Notifications" tab?
This has four options:- Do not send me e-mail notifications, Individual notifications as they come in, a daily summary and a weekly summary. - Arjayay (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi! For e-mail options, I have the default setting of ‘Individual notifications as they come in’ – should I change that? Nandinik (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the notification email options work the same as the option at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal for "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed". As far as I can tell, the way that works is that once an email is sent for a page on your watchlist after a change is made, you will not get another email for any future change until you view the page while logged in (not its history or a diff but the actual page), and you will only be informed by email of the first change that occurs after the last logged in viewing. See meta:Help:Watching pages#E-mail notification. Maybe someone can confirm if it works the same and thus that you are getting the notifications emailed, but the issue is that you are looking for notifications for every change, even though you haven't visited the page while logged in after receiving a notification. Again, take this with a grain of salt, because I'm not sure the notifications emails work the same way (and see nothing at wmf:Echo (Notifications) to confirm yes or no).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Make sure it does not go to your spam folder.NetworkOP (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I do have "email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" checked. I plan to carefully read the links and see what the problem might be. Thanks again for all the help! Nandinik (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the "meta-wiki"

I was quite unfamiliar with this myself, but I popped a question anyway to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech#How_many_servers_do_you_have.3F

But, does anyone have any idea what the meta wiki is and what they do? NetworkOP (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NetworkOP. Meta-Wiki is the "internal" wiki for the Wikimedia movement and the several hundred worldwide projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is for behind the scenes discussions of everything from Wikimania to grant making to system wide software developments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See also meta:Meta:About, linked on "About Meta" at the bottom of each page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you please tell me where to start

Hi, my name is Arnold Sean and I am interested in wikipedia's network and traffic management. I want to contribute to building a successful wikipedia, but I want to do so via more behind the scenes means. However, I am not aware what type of servers or what platform wikipedia uses and am wondering what type of a syntax "wikicode" is.

Thank you for reading and I would highly appreciate a response.

Yours truly

NetworkOP (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings NetworkOP There are people who are a lot more technical about the details of Wikipedia than I am but I can't resist a technical question so here are some of my thoughts. The Wiki markup language... what I'm using right here... is a markup language similar to HTML. However, Wiki markup is simpler than HTML. There is probably a way to do scripting in Wiki markup but I've never done it and for the most part articles don't need and shouldn't use advanced features like scripting. The design goal of HTML is to be a very powerful markup language that can be used for all sorts of sites, from the most basic to real time video. The design goal for Wiki markup is to provide a simple standardized language to edit the encyclopedia and to provide a consistent look and feel for the site. It is possible to escape from Wikicode to HTML if there is something really specialized that an editor needs to do but in my several years as an editor I've never seen a justified example of someone doing that and it is something I would strongly discourage a fellow editor from doing unless they had a really compelling argument. You might also want to check out the Wikipedia:Village_pump It's a place where new technical ideas are discussed and proposed. You might find this section of particular interest: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical) Another great site for techies is this one: http://stats.wikimedia.org/ You can find all sorts of real time statistics there about how the site (and various companion sites) are being used and have been used over history. As far as the servers go that is a good question and I don't have a clue. My guess is that like most large sites Wikipedia uses some third party service and that the actual platform is heterogeneous, i.e. some language like Java that runs on multiple platforms and can take advantage of things like distributed processing. But that's just a guess, I would be interested in what other people have to say. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

NetworkOP here are a couple of fairly recent articles about the infrastructure. I don't know this site so have no idea how reliable this info is but just fyi: A Look Inside Wikipedia’s Infrastructure Closer Look: Wikipedia’s Internet Infrastructure --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

One last link. But I think this is probably more relevant than some of the others. This is the site for the software that Wikipedia uses which is Open Source and freely available for others to use as well: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I lied, THESE are the last links... couldn't resist just came across these while working on something else: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/Ambassadors --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't you think the editing toolbar is a little outdated, it looks like something from 2005, while you are the 6th most popular website in the world.NetworkOP (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@NetworkOP: Hey NetworkOP It is a testament to the model that Wikipedia is. Google, at number one (according to Alexa [which places Wikipedia at seventh]) has 55,030 employees (according to its 2014 Financial Tables) and budgeted $569 million just for ads and had revenue of almost $7 billion. Twitter, at ninth, has about 3,600 according to their about page. Wikipedia has 241 by my count, only some of which are in the technology end, and which includes 20 fellowships, i.e., not full time and full salaried employees, and a budget of just over $50 million, which is equal to its revenue since its a not-for-profit company. If you want to volunteer and try to design something better, see mw:How to contribute. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

NetworkOP Regarding the UI, I'm the wrong person to ask. I always prefer something that is simple and functional to something that is flashy. I agree the editing toolbar looks like something from VB but it works, is easy to use, and is consistent across several different browsers and operating systems that I use. I'm actually a major fan of the Wikipedia technology. I've worked with far more sophisticated groupware environments with all sorts of bells and whistles such as Lotus Notes and IMO Wikipedia is far better and more scalable. But there is a project to develop a more up to date Wikipedia:VisualEditor If you want to help make that happen I'm sure they would welcome extra help. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

How to reuse a "{cite book ...}" source multiple times in an article, but with a different page no.

I add tens of citations a week, but not usually from a book where I reuse the book citation multiple times in a single article. I'm aware that a single use of the {{cite book ...}} template includes a |page= or |pages= parameter -- and that works quite well when I only want to use the citation once in an article, and cite either one page or a range of pages.

I've seen some other editor use some syntax at the end of a citation that allows a different page no. to show. But for the life of me, I cannot locate how to do it just now. It is definitely not in the doc for {{cite book}}. Would appreciate any help or pointers. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi N2e, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citing multiple pages of the same source and Help:References and page numbers. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, PrimeHunter! That is exactly what I was looking for. N2e (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Various different Welcome templates

I have seen quite a variety of different welcome templates used on new users' talk pages. Is there a list of these templates and advice about when to use which one?

I'm particularly looking to welcome a new editor whose first contribution has been reverted. Thus the welcome message needs to sympathize with the loss of all their (good faith) work and then explain that it's nothing personal, such revertions happen routinely for a variety of reasons. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Roger (Dodger67) There are a lot of welcome templates listed on this page I'm sure you can find a suitable one, but the best thing is always to post a template, and then create a new section below were you can commiserate with the new user and give some friendly support. In situations like that, new users always need a friendly "voice" from a real person rather than a template. If you ever want to find templates for some reason, just write "Template:Whatever you are looking for" in the searchbox and something will turn up, then look at the bottom of the page where the categories are and you will find the page were similar templates are listed. In this case I just typed "Template:Welcome" in the searchbox and at the bottom of the page I saw "Category:Welcome templates" and clicking on that gave me the page with the list. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Citing U S Patent and Trademark Office database

I am puzzled about how to present a citation to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database. I have cited two trademarks to confirm dates related to a business in Draft:Susan Mohl Powers. The problem is that when I rechecked the URLs to the trademarks, there was an error message that the session had timed-out. So I replaced the URLs with a link to the search engine, and added a note in the citation on entering the product name in the database. Is there a less clunky way to present this info? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It was difficult for me to find the page based on your search description but I eventually got a page with a blue "TSDR" button to http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73411973&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch. This is also the link produced by {{US trademark|73411973}} which renders as U.S. Trademark 73,411,973. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, PrimeHunter, that's exactly what I was looking for. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor levels

Hey there, Just wanted to know are there any levels of editor here? As in, you begin at a novice level and thereafter depending upon the number and quality of edits are you upgraded to higher levels? Thanks Sigma.4292 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sigma! Welcome to Wikipedia!

All editors are equal at Wikipedia, and a new user's good contribution is just as appreciated as that of an experienced user who has been around for years. We do have user rights, such as rollbacker, reviewer, and administrator, but they are simply extra tools that enable trusted users to further help Wikipedia, and do not give the user holding the rights any status above editors who do not have them. Thanks, --Biblioworm 17:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We do have "levels" in a sense and they are based on edit count and length of service. However, having a higher "rank" doesn't give anyone extra clout in disputes. this lists all the service awards and goes into detail about he criteria. --Jakob (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sigma, the short answer is... sort of! Editors on Wikipedia have a number of different user rights. These rights give the editors varying levels of tools and abilities on Wikipedia. When you create an account you have no additional user rights, but 4 days and 10 edits later you become autoconfirmed; this gives you the right to move pages and edit semi-protected articles. The aim of this is to reduce disruptive editing by logged out or newly created account editors. You can then apply for various extra user rights such as rollback rights (which allow you to undo a number of edits at one time) or reviewing rights (which allow you to review edits made to articles with pending changes protection. administrators, check users, and oversighters are examples of rights which are only given to very experienced editors, providing them with some extra tools and rights. The bottom line is, though, that anyone can edit articles so long as their edits conform to Wikipedia guidelines and policies; most of the extra user rights just give you tools to help with more behind the scenes stuff that could be harmful in inexperienced hands. Hope that helps, and check the links I've added here for extra info. Sam Walton (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Question:

(Moved here + heading by w.carter-Talk 18:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC))

How do I play Wikipedia adventure? I tryed to play it but I couldn't. Does anybody know how to play Wikipedia adventure because I need serious help here. If any body knew how, please send to me the answer right away. By that I mean I can't enter it. Please, I need support to this game. Please answer. I am the user Mostafa12890. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostafa12890 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mostafa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure why you're having trouble. The adventure works for me when I click on the button. Try this direct link, and post here again if it does not work. Regards, --Biblioworm 18:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Mostafa12890. Sorry you are having troubles. Can you give us more detail about what the problem is? Are you getting an error message such as "Page not found"? If so what exactly is the message and what were you doing right before hand? Also, remember the IT support staff golden rule: when things aren't working reboot. The following will solve a lot of Internet gliches: clear the cache from your browser then close the browser and restart it. If that doesn't work try restarting your router. If that doesn't work try rebooting your computer. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hide rollback button on watchlist script

Does anyone know where to find a script that hides the rollback button on your watchlist? After this very embarrassing incident, I've decided that it would be best if I hid the link. I know that I once saw a script for that, but I can't seem to find it now. --Biblioworm 20:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So all of my fellow hosts know, I posted the code to your talk page about 15 minutes ago. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

becoming a pro-editor at Wiki

Hi, I wanted to know what should be the steps taken to become a pro-editor at Wiki? I have joined a few days back and had taken the Adventure game to speed up my learning curve. Also, I have tried to edit 5 articles on Wiki, but every time I begin, the task appears quite daunting. I go to the community portals and look for the topics where I have some information to begin with to edit. The task of correcting grammar, proper referencing, creating external links, looking for images combined together makes it a quite difficult. I know this will get easier with time, but if somebody more experienced has a solution to it I am looking forward to it. Thanks. Sigma.4292 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "pro-editor". Perhaps you mean "experienced user"? Becoming a respected editor takes some time here; it usually takes a few months to a few years depending on the number and, most importantly, quality of your contributions. You should also become familiar with our policies, guidelines, and some common essays. It's a lot of reading, but it will certainly help you become more familiar with how things work around here. However, you can always be bold and learn as you go along. Thanks, --Biblioworm 17:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sigma.4292, to add to Biblioworm's excellent answer, you can also speed up you path to "enlightenment" and becomming an "experienced user" by having someone who has been here for a while, and knows the tricks, as your mentor or become adopted. It is always good to have someone to "bug" with questions. There is a whole lot of trial and error to becoming a good editor here, so do not be discouraged the first 50 times you fail. We've all been there... It is also good to hang out here at the Teahouse and read all the Q&As, learn from other users questions. You can also "stalk" some of the more experienced editors and read their talk pages and learn from how they edit. Watch, read and learn. All the best, :) - w.carter-Talk 18:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! Being less new on Wikipedia, additional tools that I have found helpful are:

In web browser, Bookmark(Favorites) really helpful Wikipedia pages (a lot of them), and
Using Notepad (plain text editor) to stash frequently used and re-used content.

For example, I've been updating Biography articles so I have common See also section content that can be Copy & paste without having to type from scratch every time. A great time saver.

A next-day scanning of 'User contributions' helps me catch things missed or incorrect...sort of like taking a second look. User talk:JoeHebda

Regards,

20:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't understand why the 4-tildes (~) are not signing, so I added my UT above...

JoeHebda, you probably used five tildes instead of four. Cheers! DiscantX (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Sigma.4292. You have found the Teahouse, which is a great step to building your skills - I have found the good folks here to be tremendously helpful, especially when I was getting started. In addition to what has been mentioned above, some other resources that I found helpful were:

Hope this helps! --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

request

In the India article the national language is not mentioned.Why?? The national language is Hindi and it should be mentioned and the drive's on is also wrong.It is mentioned as left but India drive's on right side.The steering is on the right side.I kindly request you to put this information correctlyBhootrina (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving this article. In India I see Hindi mentioned a few times, most substantially "India has no national language. Hindi, with the largest number of speakers, is the official language of the government." Are you worried about the way it is being mentioned? Also, I see left hand driving mentioned, but not very prominently, in the infobox. I see you have also placed your request at Talk:India (which is the best place to be doing it) so I shall reply thre as well. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no National language of India - Hindi is the Official language - see Talk:India FAQ No 9 - Arjayay (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bhootrina

Steering is on the right side, but the cars move on the left side of the road, thats why it is said india has left hand drive, so is in my country Pakistan.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 16:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In English, "left hand drive" means that the steering wheel is on the left hand side of the car (as is the case in much of continental Europe and the USA). It does not refer to care driving on the left hand side of the road. If the term is unclear to some readers, perhaps it should be rewritten to avoid confusion? --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Without Discussion: What Can I Do

A photo file on Wikimedia Commmons that my wife contributed specifically for an article about musician Scott Page was nominated for deletion despite a number of files that are practically the same for other artists existing without problem. My wife responded to the nomination for deletion and within minutes of contesting it, the file was deleted. 1) How can they delete the file without giving a discussion the proper time to take place, 2) Why don't editors HELP other editors (it seems it's largely a territorial issue and far more destructive than constructive which is why my wife and I often refer to this article: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/)? 3) Who can we dispute this issue with as we feel this file was most definitely unfairly deleted and without any proper discussion whatsoever? Please help. The file in question is File:ScottPageAutographCrop.jpg. I believe that the file was unfairly deleted based on: Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free album cover. "The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork. As musical cover art, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the packaging of the music would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary. As musical cover art, the image is not replaceable by free content; any other image that shows the packaging of the music would also be copyrighted, and any version that is not true to the original would be inadequate for identification or commentary. Using a different image would be misleading as to the identity of the work. Use of the cover art in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above." Can someone please help me understand what's going on?1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi 1987atomheartbrother, welcome to the Teahouse. A comment at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ScottPageAutographCrop.jpg correctly said: "fair use is not allowed on commons". Fair use is however allowed for files uploaded at the English Wikipedia and not at Commons. If they are uploaded here then they can only be used in articles at the English Wikipedia but that also sounds like your goal. If you want to upload as fair use then use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A bit extra to add – keep in mind that Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia are separate websites that operate under separate (though often similar) policies. They are both run by Wikimedia, but have different rules dictating what is allowed. In this instance, Commons specifically is designed for photos that are to be released for public reuse, which an album cover very rarely would be. Album covers may be used on Wikipedia though. See WP:NONFREE for the guidelines. Guidance for Commons licensing can be found at commons: Commons:First steps/License selection. The gist of it is that unless you own it and are ready to license it for redistribusion, or someone else owns it and has specifically licensed it for under an applicable license like Creative Commons, which nearly no commercial album art is licensed under, then it can't be uploaded to Commons (though it may possibly be uploaded to Wikipedia). Best of luck to you and your wife on your future wiki-endeavours! Cheers. DiscantX (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, PrimeHunter - I appreciate the feedback and my wife and I (she contributes on the picture side, I contribute on the writing side) will try the Wikipedia upload process. We appreciate your response a great deal!1987atomheartbrother (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, DiscantX - your feedback helps a great deal as well. I truly appreciate this - and the quick responses! 1987atomheartbrother (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Need Help on Creating an article that had been deleted for various reasons

Hi and this the third time I am calling for help, or probably a suggestion in this forum. My discussion is that I want to create an article named Awesome Truth (a professional wrestling tag team). When I searched to verify whether this article exists on Wikipedia, I found it is not created. So I clicked on the red link to create one. Then my eyes were caught on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awesome_Truth (please view them here)! I, however, decided to rather start my work on my sandbox. Will it will be safe for me to start the topic? If not, how can I? One thing to make sure that there is zero percent chance of my article to break the wikipedia policies. Please don't try to mention me in your answers or remind me of your answers on my talk page. Thank you! Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ikhtiar. (I don't understand why you don't want me to ping you in my answer, but I have not done so). If an article has been deleted several times, it is going to be hard to get one accepted, but not impossible. My advice is

Read all the deletion discussions carefully. It is possible that some of them were solely about the way the previous attempts were written (eg entirely promotional language), but if it has happened several times, it is likely that the subject simply does not pass the tests for being notable. If that is the case, then no article will be accepted, however it is written. So
Find several reliable published sources, unconnected with the subject, that have written about it at length. So if a major newspaper has written an article about Awesome Truth (not just a listing, or an article that mentions it in passing, or a press release, but a real article which talks at length about the team), or somebody has written a book, published by a reputable publisher, which has some pages about it, then that would be one useful source. If you cannot find such places, then the team is not currently notable, and no article will be accepted.
If you have found such sources, then there may be an article. Read your first article, and then use the article wizard to create it in Draft space, where it will not be subject to immediate deletion (unless it is a copyright violation) and you can work on it at leisure. --ColinFine (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

How to start with editing?

Now, you probably got a lot of these questions but where do I start with editing, and how? Andro498 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure do, @Andro498: Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers/Welcome can help you learn first but the majority of us old-time editors started by reading articles, until we noticed something bad. Like, misspelling, bad grammar, important facts missing. Whatever. So, we fix it. Then we fix something else. Continue doing it and learning and wow, it becomes a big thing. For more details, try looking at #becoming a pro-editor at Wiki. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was very helpful! Andro498 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Using ecyclopaedia Britannica as a source

Hello, would someone be kind enough to tell me if encyclopaedia Britannica can be used as a source on Wikipedia. Even better would be a link to a relevant Wikipedia guideline page about doing such a thing. Thanks Mbcap (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mbcap: Welcome to the Teahouse. Encyclopedia Britannica is extremely credible, and thus can be used as a source. Generally, if a source is known for being accurate and having editorial oversight, it's reliable. If you're interested, have a guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, that goes into more detail, but it's pretty long and dense reading. --Jakob (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)