Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 296

Archive 290

←

Archive 294

Archive 295

Archive 296

Archive 297

Archive 298

→

Archive 300

Why are you deleting my inputs, both to philipofJMJ and philipofBVM?

second attempt to post items You deleted my first attempt at philipofJMJ , now, you are trying to delete my new name of philipofBVM I want you to know, that the article on Pope Sylvester I, correctly states this pope as the one who baptized Saint Constantine The Great. The page on Constantine is incorrect, as it states he was only "baptized" at death, and that, by an Arian heretic. philipofBVMPhilipofBVM 07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipofBVM (talk • contribs)

Hi Philip, I'm Dave. Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid the problem here stems from your very purpose on Wikipedia. Wikipedians expect other Wikipedians to focus on a primary goal above all else - that of building an encyclopedia. Every role here is somehow related to it, either directly (in building content) or indirectly (in managing it). We even have a page about what people are here for.

It appears, however, that you are here for another purpose, promotion of either yourself or your beliefs. Wikipedians are allowed some leeway in broadcasting their beliefs and opinions in their userspace - but if that is the only thing you're doing, it's likely that a dim view will be taken. I hope that answers your question. Dave. Worm^TT(talk) 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But PhilipofBVM is also discussing the content of Wikipedia articles, and that is very much consonant with our purpose. Philip, as far as I can see, both the articles Pope Sylvester I and Constantine the Great refer to the legend that Sylvester baptized Constantine. If you have reliable published sources which throw light on that claim, you are welcome to open a discussion on the talk page of one of the articles. --ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

PhilipofBVM I think the main issue is with your current user page. At the end of your brief bio you say: "There is no salvation outside of the True Catholic Church. www.johnthebaptist.us" I can understand how important your faith is but those kinds of wp:promotional statements aren't allowed here. BTW, just to be clear it has nothing to do with promoting a certain religion. The response would be the same if you were promoting your business or a political party or cause. Wikipedia is not a soapbox I think if you remove those sentences you should be OK. However, you should also review the Wikipedia guidelines for a wikipedia:conflict of interest You seem to have a conflict of interest when it comes to the Catholic church so there are certain guidelines you should familiarize yourself with. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like they’re trying to delete your page because of its content, not because of your edits to articles. Doesn’t mean anyone wants to delete your account; it just means you wouldn’t have a userpage. The problem in a nutshell is: Evangelism is great. Evangelism on Wikipedia is bad. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@PhilipofBVM: - this is it in a nutshell. No-one here bears you any ill-will as an editor (although you need reliable sources for any changes you make to articles) or as a person. I've held strong views on some subjects in the past, and I know how compelling the desire to share them is. Since you've removed the problem bits I can probably ask for the deletion discussion to be closed - you've done what we asked. Folks: I'm not sure how to withdraw the nomination - please can someone close the MFD? LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 07:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That was me, actually, that removed that. Assuming PhilipofBVM approves of my edit, I second the withdrawal. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Everyone

Hi everyone, I just wrote an article which was not approved, i need help

GiveA LimbGive A Limb (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Givealimb:, your article - User:Givealimb/sandbox - has been declined because it's only one line long, doesn't give any idea why it is notable in Wikipedia terms and doesn't have any references. You don't even tell us where it is based although as you say it's a 501 (c)3 I'm guessing it's based in the US. I also suspect that, given your user name and the wording of the last sentence of the article that you work for the charity and have a Conflict of interest. I'm sure it's a worthy cause but we want to know what other people say about the organisation, not what it might have to say about itself. When User:Josve05a declined your submission he added a pink box containg a number of useful links explaining notability and the importance of sources. Please read those linked articles and the ones I have linked here and review your submission based on that content. If you don't understand some of them or want more explanation please ask gain here. Nthep (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Action Synthese Defunct

What happened to Action Synthese after the bankruptcy? ScaredGnomeo (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ScaredGnomeo - this is a place for asking questions about the technicalities of Wikipedia editing, not about actual article subjects. Try the various WP:Reference Desks. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 09:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Which copyright to use when uploading photos for client?

I've done some editing of medical articles for my client but now I'm uploading an article he's written and need to include some photos. Since I don't own the copyright to his photos, is there a specific type of copyright I need to choose from the selections provided? Any comments and/or instructions you can provide will be greatly appreciated.Justael2 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your client will need to release the photos under an appropriate copyright licence. See WP:COPYREQ. I also recommend you read the conflict-of-interest guidelines at WP:COI for editing on behalf of your client. RudolfRed (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

RR, can you clarify COI in previous edits? to clarify from my end, please be aware that I am a digital graphics artist and have none of the education and personal experience as my client Dr. Lee Dellon, a neurosurgeon specializing in peripheral nerve damage of the hands, feet, etc., resulting from such problems as accidental amputation; diabetes, etc. My edits to existing articles on the subject are in Dr. Dellons words to add research to the subject matter. If I have failed to attribute Dr. Dellons additions properly I'll be happy to make corrections as necessary.

If the COI stems from using my account to make edits for Dr. Dellon I'll need to do a lot more reading to figure out how the situation needs to be approached.Justael2 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Justael2 - reading is definitely good. Taking the time to read and digest the various policies and guidelines that Theroadislong linked to on your page yesterday (15 Jan) would be a very good idea. In your position writing an article or inserting edits that comply with our norms and policies can be a very taxing process. Also, just check out what our policy is on WP:Original research, because if your client is a specialist in one area and has written us an article, it's important the article abides by Wikipedia's style - we don't publish research papers, we need broad articles summarising the range of research on the topic. It also needs to be notable and already in peer-reviewed secondary sources. If you use WP:Articles for Creation, someone will be able to review the article to see whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria, on a whole range of issues such as notability, sourcing, the restrictions on 'original research', and so on, before it gets transferred to the main article space.

Also read (and have your client read) WP:SELFCITE, which discusses how to quote your own, or your client's, research on Wikipedia. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 10:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My submission was denied because there are too many inline quotes. How can I improve?

My submission was denied because there are too many inline quotes. How can I improve?Bonniesychiu (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are asking about Draft:Jake Hayman? The pink box refers to too many "inline external links", not "inline quotes". So you should either turn those links into references, or put them in the external links section if they meet the requirements of WP:External links. If they meet neither criterion, they should be removed.--ukexpat (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My article was reviewed

Hi,

I recently submitted a article about a public figure in Nepal and it was reviewed by a editor of Wikipedia and was green signaled by 1 editor and other reviewing editor declined . So kindly if some can get my article approved by rewriting my article so that it gets accepted then I would really appreciate it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Faithful_loyal/sandbox

Best Regards, Sunny 977-9841366353 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faithful loyal (talk • contribs) 05:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Faithful loyal, and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't understand what you mean when you say that your submission was "green signaled by 1 editor". What I see is that you submitted two identical articles for WP:AFC: one at User:Faithful loyal/sandbox and second one at Draft:Yogi Vikashananda. They were both rejected, and nobody gave a "green signal". The reason the article was rejected is clearly stated in pink boxes at both articles: your article lacks references to reliable, independent sources to establish the notability and verifiability. Every statement in the article should be supported by reliable sources. Please, see: WP:golden rule. You should not expect that somebody else "rewrite" your article, as you say. If you want it accepted, you should improve the article by adding references to wp:reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(@Vanjagenije: I changed the AFD-link to AFC. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC))

Help a very discourge writer and guide him in the right direction

Hello fellow editors of Wikipedia. I go by the user name Graceking123. I'm an aspiring theologian and a proud father of one year old twin girls. I submitted an article in November entitled Hostyle Gospel and two days ago my article was rejected and quite frankly I don't understand why. I read over the requirements for submission of a music artist and I feel I followed all the requirements. I submitted a newspaper article, submitted famous Christian historical writers/bloggers, and proved popular notable websites from secondary and third handed sources. I'm starting this discussion because it is very discouraging for a future writer to get rejected after abiding by the requirements to getting an article published. It would be helpful for you to Guide me in the right direction on my current article and help me achieve success on my next article. Thank you Graceking123 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Graceking123: Welcome to the Teahouse. I've looked at the sources and personally I'd be inclined to accept that article. There is at least one major newspaper article and a couple of magazine articles about the band from what I can tell. Maybe you can contact the reviewer and ask him to reconsider. If that doesn't help, then reply here and perhaps I can be of some further help. --Jakob (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir! Honestly I haven't talked to the person who reviewed and submitted my article. I guess I was so hurt, shocked and discourage by his decision. However if you are willing to help and guide me on this article I would except your offer. Graceking123 (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Graceking123: @Jakec: However, I'm sorry to say I took a look and I agree with the original reviewer. The notability standard for musicians is: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" I don't see that demonstrated by the references in the current version. They all seem like blogs, music promotion sites, and small town papers. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, however MTV is not a blog. And the blog, Journal Of Gospel Music, is independent of itself because it was written by a famous black gospel historical writer name Bob Marovich, who view music from a historical point of view. Although the newspaper that published their article may be small town paper, it is still a notable source. We receive the News Gazette an hour an thirty minutes away from Champaign, Illinois. If I'm not providing enough resources please help me. I would all my articles to be publish. Graceking123 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

“MTV is not a blog”—no, but that section of MTV’s website appears to be WP:SOCIALMEDIA as well as music promotion. And Journal of Gospel Music appears to be self-published by Marovich. Hope that helps you understand why these may be problematic. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If the newspaper in question is the News-Gazette, then referring to it as a small-town paper with the implication that it is not to be taken seriously gives the wrong impression. The The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana) is the leading paper for eastern Illinois and, according to Wikipedia, "The News-Gazette has consistently been an Illinois Press Association award-winning newspaper for editorial and advertising excellence. Since 2008, The News-Gazette's advertising department has been awarded the Illinois Press Association's Annual James S. Copley Memorial Sweepstakes Award for Daily Newspaper Advertising Excellence 6 times. This is considered to be the top honor available and is awarded for overall excellence in advertising.

"The News-Gazette often prints special reports or series from Associated Press writers about the state or national government.

"The newspaper's website (www.news-gazette.com) is the most viewed commercial website in East Central Illinois. It is viewed by around 30,000 unique visitors a day, and receives 3.5 million page views per month."Kdammers (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for sluring Champaigne Urbanna. Some of my best friends went there. But the notability guideline that I linked to earlier also says that it excludes articles that " simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories." and I think that article falls under that description. The guideline also discourages school papers and while the Urbana paper may not exactly be a school paper, it didn't seem like it, it is pretty close given the way that area is dominated by the U of I campus, most of the articles seem to be about the U of I. But the main point is that the article is simply an announcement that the band is playing as part of the "Family Rock Jam" and that doesn't help establish notability. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The coverage in the The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana) is very brief, lacking in serious critical commentary, probably based on a press release, and amounts to a routine, run-of-the-mill local announcement of a local music group appearing in a local music performance. That type of routine local coverage does not establish notability, in my opinion. Blog coverage is worthless for establishing notability, and should not be included in the references for a draft article.

Awards a newspaper wins for "advertising excellence", whatever that is, say nothing whatsoever about the reliability of that newspaper as a source on Wikipedia. That's because reputable newspapers maintain a strict wall of separation between advertising and editorial departments. Otherwise, our best newspapers would be packed full of articles praising their biggest advertisers.

We do not ease our notability requirements for draft articles written either by aspiring theologians or the fathers of twin girls, Graceking123. As the father of two wonderful sons, I do not bring them forward here on Wikipedia in an attempt to gain support for an article, though I will happily discuss my family with anyone who is interested for other reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel confident in saying that no competent reviewer will approve a draft article that contains language violating the neutral point of view, such as "Though their music is Jesus Christ centered, their delivery of the gospel is more of a militant approach to act against Satan by any means necessary." That statement is totally inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In case it's not apparent, I had noticed that line, which I would've rewritten had I been formally reviewing the article. --Jakob (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand, however I'm new to writing Wikipedia pages. I felt the person that review this article didn't give any constructive criticism. I don't claim to be an expert, i'm just looking for advice on how to clean up this article so I can create notable Wikipedia page. If anyone of you who are giving me constructive criticism feel that you can help, please help. Graceking123 (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If the group simply is not yet notable enough, then there’s not really anything to be done. Chris goes into some detail about this in his response on his Talk page, along with some encouragement. I for one also agree with Cullen directly above here; notability is not the only concern, but also neutrality, among other matters. You could mention that third-party sources describe their music in this way (and cite those sources), but you can’t simply describe it. See WP:NPOV, and see WP:Five pillars for other Important Things. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Graceking123: Sorry that your first experience here was so negative. I hope you stick around and find other things to edit. That is always my first bit of advise to new editors: creating a new page is really hard. I didn't even try making one until I was editing for over a year. There is so much work to be done I think you could probably find other existing articles that match your interest and that you could help make better. I apologize if my first comment was rather negative or harsh. I just didn't want you to get false hopes about the article. Hope you try more editing and have better luck next time. Cheers. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Contact to another contributors

I need some assistance. I would like to contact another contributors, however I can't find any way to contact. Would you be so kind to assist me how I can complete it! Many thanks!

Mrandrew16Mrandrew16 (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings @Mrandrew16: welcome to the teahouse. There are many ways to contact people here. One example is to "ping" them as I did here with you at the beginning of this comment. The wiki code for that is: {{Ping|UserName}} You usually do that when you want a user to notice you are talking about them on a talk page that they otherwise might not check. The most common way to contact someone is to leave a message on their wp:talk page Talk pages are places for discussions about an article. So when editors disagree about how to edit article Foo we take to Foo's talk page to hash out the issues. But in addition each user has their own talk page. For many users you can see a link that says "Talk" next to all their signatures (although this can be customized and changed by some users). Just click on that link for the user you want and then create a new section on the talk page for whatever you want to talk about. They will get a notification that someone has added a new comment on their talk page and will hopefully reply. Alternatively if you go to the user's page you should see a tab that says "Talk" and you can get to it that way. Note: for some users, especially those with IP addresses they may not have their user page or talk page setup yet. In those cases when you try to go to their talk page or leave a message for them you will get a message asking if you want to create their talk page. That is an OK thing to do, if you need to communicate with someone. Hope that helps, let us know if I missed what you were asking or if you have more questions. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

changing titles of articles

I'd like to change the title of my article so that both words in the article name are capitalized. How do I do this? Elephants3 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the term a proper noun and normally capitalised? I only see your article work on "junk ensemble" which, while a proper name, is deliberately not capitalised. Collect (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes "junk ensemble" is the title I am trying to fix. You're right that its deliberately NOT capitalized, so I would ideally like to list the company as "junk ensemble" no caps, but if that's not possible then I want to list it as "Junk Ensemble" with both words capped...Elephants3 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Elephants3. To rename an article, you move it, using a tab at the top of the page. I have moved it to Junk Ensemble per our Manual of Style: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Trademarks_that_begin_with_a_lowercase_letter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Very helpful. Elephants3 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Important question, how can someone who is both blind and deaf, read Wikipedia?

Important question, how can someone who is both blind and deaf, read Wikipedia? Frogger48 (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Braille? I have no experience or knowledge of this myself, but… Refreshable braille display. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Frogger48 welcome to the teahouse. To my knowledge there is no special service for deaf or blind users. Usually, these kinds of tools for disabled people are more generic and designed to work for example on any web site not just on Wikipedia, but there can be exceptions and I could be wrong about that, there might be some special tools that Wikipedia has but I couldn't find them. One of the most common tools is something called Telecommunications relay service although I always heard it abreviated as "TTY", I think that article explains the acronym and the history. Essentially it was a very early version of real time chat, this was developed way before the Internet I think these go back at least to the 1970's probably earlier. If you are old enough to remember dialup modems that used to make this distinctive sound when your computer connected to the Internet the TTY was originally similar technology, taking an analog signal and using it to communicate digital information (i.e., the text stream created by someone typing). So deaf people or a deaf and hearing person could communicate by essentially doing a chat over their phones. Back then (the 70's and 80's) the problem of converting speech to text automatically was very, very difficult. Now thanks to exponential increases in computing power and neural net and similar pattern recognition technology it is easily available so I'm sure the TTYs now come with voice recognition or it wouldn't surprise me if people are just abandoning the proprietary TTY stuff and using things like Skype and standard IM tools. Of course none of that addresses deaf and blind. I think there are also brail versions of the TTY technology, I think the articles I linked to had more detail. It's probably obvious but I don't have a lot of first hand experience with this technology, which is why I'm qualifying my remarks so much but I'm pretty sure everything I said above is accurate. One last thing: sometimes I will be a stickler in my comments for encouraging editors to stick to standards (e.g. add captions to images). One of the reasons for that is precisely to make things more accessible for disabled users. Regardless of the specific technology all these systems make certain assumptions or have requirements on the input for it to be easy to convert from one format to another (e.g., take a page and convert it to an audio stream). The more we stick to standards in our editing the more accesible our work will be. Here is one more article that might also be useful in addition to the one I linked to above: Telecommunications_device_for_the_deaf --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Accessibility is specifically concerned with making Wikipedia accessible to as wide an audience as possible - they might have more specific advice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dodger67 thanks for that great to know. Also, @Frogger48: this article seems like a fairly good overview on the topic with pointers to various commercial and open source technology: https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm14/bm1409/bm140906.htm --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Posting pictures

How do I post my own photos? Do I have to fill in a copyright form? How is that done?Assinrediroma (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Assinrediroma. If you are willing to freely license your photos for reuse by anyone, then you can upload them to our sister project Wikimedia Commons, using your same account. The main restriction is that the photos cannot be of an object that is already copyrighted, like a modern painting, book or movie poster. The process is easy, with an upload wizard that asks you a number of questions. There is even an Android app, to upload directly from a smart phone camera. I do that quite often. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unresponsive editors

What should you do if an editor is unresponsive when asked to explain an edit? By “unresponsive,” I mean active on Wikipedia but ignoring the question on his Talk page. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor 174 etc. Editors are encouraged although not required to respond to talk page messages. It seems that you may have chosen a problematic editor to attempt communications with. In such cases, it is often best to move on to something more productive. I hope you stick around and set up an account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

So in that case it’s best to, what, revert and ignore the edit, just assume it was a mistake or something? That’s distressing. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings 174.141.182.82 welcome to the teahouse. First thing: if you are going to contribute to Wikipedia I think it is a good idea to get a user ID and to always login. It is a lot easier to identify people when you can remember a name rather than an IP address. Second, when asking a question here it helps to be as specific as possible. So which editor? What talk page? Can you link to it? Etc. That info helps people get more context and give better responses. When people ask very general questions it is hard to give very useful answers because here so much depends on the specific context and details. But to answer in general if someone makes an edit and you disagree and you ask them about it on their talk page or the talk page of the article and they don't reply in a timely manner (I usually try to give at least 24 hours) then yes you can revert. You can of course just revert without even asking. I almost always will try to be polite and ask first because I think that helps reduce the chance for conflict but then again there are some changes that are just so obviously wrong I just immediately revert them and don't even bother explaining on any talk page unless requested to. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If I weren’t complaining about a person, I would be more specific. But thanks, both of you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Could someone take a quick look over this?

Hi,
I just nominated RIMS Warren Hastings for GA (after quite a bit of work), but I may have missed a few things, so I'd appreciate a fresh set of eyes to give this a quick look and see if there's any outstanding problems. Thanks! --Biblioworm 20:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As I can see, the article was promoted to the Good article. There are no outstanding problems. Congratulations! Vanjagenije (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Footnote error message

I updated the 'Radio & Television' section in the entry for Jian Ghomeshi as follows:

Reactions to this decision were swift and varied and, after further deliberations by CBC management, the decision was reversed.

I notice that the footnote for this reference says "missing or empty title". I have tried various things, but can't seem to fix it. Clicking on the link in the footnote #36, will take the reader to the correct web page.

Thanks!

Twofingered Typist Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just repaired the citation using the cite web template (on the right side of the menu bar in wikitext markup, and in the middle of the menu bar in the visual editor). You may also benefit from Help:Referencing for beginners. Markup is not intuitive, and the templates format citations nicely. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Real Projective Line Page

Hello. I was a little confused about why ∞+∞ is not defined but ∞*∞ = ∞. This doesn’t make sense. I believe both should be left undefined (for now) and i think 0*∞ , ∞/∞ , and 0/0 should be defined as C where C is a constant. Idk if this constant could be infinity but I certainly think these should be defined. if a/0 = ∞*b then that implies a/b = ∞*0. A similar proof could be done with the others. Am i allowed to change the page or add a note because this is more of an idea but idk if this is 100% correct (maybe a note to the right of the equation?)

From, Michael Orwin

75.129.112.17 (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Michael, I hate to pass you off to another locale, but you might get better responses at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics which is where all the math experts hang out around here. Maybe someone there can help... --Jayron32 04:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ok. Hopefully someone responds tomorrow or Saturday morning. Don't know how quick wikipedia is. Never used wikipedia beforeJetstream5500 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, every article in Wikipedia has an associated Talk page (pick the 'Talk' tab at the top) and that's the best place to start a discussion about the article. If nobody responds there, then this is one of the places to try, but the talk page is your first port of call. The answer to your question is emphaticaly, Yes, you are allowed to change the page: the worst that can happen (as long as you are not being obviously disruptive) is that omebody disagrees and reverts your change: then you can have a discussion with them on the talk page to try and reach consensus. But here, it doesn't sound like correcting an obvious error, but a difference in approach, so I would recommend the talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a very informative answer.Jetstream5500 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

David D'Alessandro's Comensation 2014

Anyone know what the CEO's compensation salary is for John Hancock. His name is David D'Alessandro. There is information regarding his salary up to 2002 in the Schiff's publication, now defunct. Thanks. Jack Donahue 2601:6:1581:4D60:15CE:48A8:FF8:8BDF (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hi! I think you have come to the wrong place, even though we like to see new faces! This Teahouse is indeed "A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." I think you might try an Internet search engine to help answer your question. Good luck! GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Pictures in Terrorism in the European Union

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC) because this is a separate question.

@Cullen328: HI, I have a related issue and would like some help, if possible. I just added a section to the entry on 'Terrorism in the European Union'. As part of this I wanted to add two charts that I uploaded to Wiki commons. However, it seems as a newbie I don't have permission to add files. Instead of the actual images there now appear the respective links to Wiki commons and clicking on them gives a permission error. Could you have a look? Many thanks! Ben1982 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ben1982. The problem with your edits is that you have put a full URL (including the https:) inside the double square brackets. Never do that: just put the name of the page, so [[File:Terrorist Attacks in the EU by Affiliation.png|thumbnail|Terrorist Attacks in the EU by Affiliation]] not [[[[File:Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terrorist Attacks in the EU by Affiliation.png|thumbnail|Terrorist Attacks in the EU by Affiliation]] . (I was going to fix it for you, but my browser never comes back when I try to load that page for editing. I don't know why: perhaps because there is a stupidly large amount of information in one section, or perhaps its a problem with my connection). --ColinFine (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed them for you.  Done --ColinFine (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and fixing ColinFine! Ben1982 (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How do I add a picture to my wiki

How do I add a picture to my wiki pageAwgallina2010 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse Awgallina2010....Type "[[File:FILENAME|TITLE TEXT]]" when you want to display an image file directly. In most cases, a thumbnail is more useful: "[[File:FILENAME|thumb|CAPTION]]". See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial for further information. --Moxy (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Awgallina2010 welcome to the Tea House

Yunshui has made easy and summarized information about loading images here

Best wishes

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 11:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A rather difficult DYK nomination

RIMS Warren Hastings was promoted to GA just a few hours ago, and I subsequently put in a DYK nom. However, I'm making quite a spectacular wikiFool of myself by continually failing to get the nomination in the right section on Template_talk:Did you know. I'm not sure where to put it, as the article was created on December 11, and the December 11 section has been outdated for quite some time. However, the article is eligible for DYK, as it is a recently promoted GA. So, do I revive the old section, create a new one, or something else? --Biblioworm 04:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Biblioworm. DYK article listings are tied to the date of the event triggering eligibility to be listed. Thus, articles are listed as of the date, variously, that they are created, or expanded fivefold or moved to the mainspace or achieve good article status. Thus, the DYK nom belongs in the section for January 16, 2015 at the top of that section as of the time you add it there. Congrats on getting this to GA!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What to do if I feel I am being harassed?

This is in reference to an article that I've been working on. Specifically, this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_show_loophole_controversy#Simple_question_for_Darknipples.2C_since_it_insists_on_the_existence_of_the_.22Gunshow_Loophole.22 Darknipples (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the person that posted this section is unfamiliar with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#FORUM Darknipples (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Welcome. I see you are stressed. We all get that way. Have a cup of tea. And while you are drinking it, go to Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing_with_harassment, and you might find the answer to your question. Sometimes Wikipedia takes over our lives, but tea always helps. Or some other way of coping. If that WP section doesn't help, come on back here. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have responded to the user on their talk page with a request to move this section to my talk page as per WP:FORUM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:63.152.117.19#Formal_Request_for_Discussion - I think about a week is a reasonable amount of time to wait for a response from them, unless anyone here disagrees. Any more advice? Darknipples (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Though not particularly relevant to the problem, I’d just like to point out that normally, Wikipedians link to articles and Talk pages by typing the page name between double brackets rather than copying and pasting the URL, like so: [[User talk:63.152.117.19#Formal Request for Discussion]] → User talk:63.152.117.19#Formal Request for Discussion. Hope that helps in ways unrelated to your question. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Darknipples I just took a quick look but my advise is: Don't feed the troll. When someone puts pointless and provocative questions that have no relevance to the actual editing of a page I almost always just ignore it. Or simply leave as brief a reply as possible that such discussions aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. Often those people are just looking for attention. That is why my first reaction is to try not to give it to them. Not every comment on every talk page has to be answered and at the same time it doesn't hurt to just leave examples of rudeness in part of a talk page. It is a good example for other editors that one editor has an agenda and is not serious about or doesn't understand how to actually contribute to editing. Its not like there is some hard and fast limit on the number of chars that can be on a talk page. Of course if someone is taking up tons of space with such comments that is another matter and then the various options you and others have mentioned make sense but my first response is to just mostly ignore rude off topic behavior and often such people go away if you do that. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Relevant: WP:DENY. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is my sandbox draft showing up in Google?

Hi, I've just submitted an article for review. However upon doing a brief search on the subject of the article after submission, I now find that my sandbox draft is showing up in Google. How do I stop this from happening? As I understood the sandox was a place for experimentation, and not for public consumption. Scamp2014 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Scamp2014. By default, all Wikipedia pages are indexed by search engines, unless wikicode is added to prevent that, which you can do. Please see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Cullen328. I've actually just requested the sandbox draft be deleted, which has been done by Malcolmxl5. Does this mean the draft will now disappear from Google? Can I possibly suggest that the recommendation to use the recommended wikicode be highlighted in the sandbox edit page? As a recent beginner (who did my best to read up on drafting beforehand) I would have found that piece of information very useful. 21:18, 17 January 2015

Scamp2014 It will disappear (more accurately sink lower and lower in the queue of hits that match the search) but it might not happen right away but should happen soon. I was surprised by this as well btw, I always assumed user namespace articles weren't indexed but I guess not. FYI, here is an article about how to control indexing of Wikipedia articles: Wikipedia:Controlling_search_engine_indexing --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What to do if a jerk insults you in a chat box?

If a jerk put some comment which is completely un-respectful in Multiplayer game, what to do? Phyton505 (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Phyton505, welcome to the Teahouse. This is a help page for Wikipedia. It sounds like your question is unrelated to Wikipedia and beyond our scope but you might try seeking advice at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. If you post there then I suggest you are more specific about the game and comment. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The game is Need for Madness Multiplayer and someone named Mike. (with the dot) says "Your mom is a s**t" which i disagree. I think is another noob... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyton505 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Phyton505. There is no point in giving further information here: this page, as PrimeHunter said, is for help in editing Wikipedia: nothing else. PrimeHunter suggested that you might get some help at the Computing section of the Wikipedia Reference desk, and that is where you should give more information. (Personally, I don't think that is a place that you will get help with this problem either, because it doesn't seem to me to be a question that can be answered from references; but I may be wrong). --ColinFine (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

My humble advice is: ignore it. The advice is similar for dealing with insults here on Wikipedia: see WP:DENY. But I echo the opinion that this question is wholly unsuited to Wikipedia. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

how to upload a songwriting discography from a website

How do I upload a songwriting discography from a website to wikipedia? There are about 600 songs so I'd prefer to cut and paste2601:5:1C00:E9:3DDC:8400:D878:6B60 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. A list of 600 songs is almost certainly inappropriate for a Wikipedia article as far too much detail, and there may be copyright concerns as well. Instead, you should list the notable songs, such as those that already have Wikipedia articles, and those that became hits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Title change

How do I change, or suggest a change in the title of a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzszg (talk • contribs) 01:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Gzszg, and welcome to the Teahouse. You change the title by moving the article. If the change is likely to be at all contentious, I strongly suggest that you discuss it on the article's Talk page, and get consensus before moving it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

And to get input from folks who may not be watching the talk page, you should follow the instructions at WP:RM#CM, so that the request is listed among the requested moves. Deor (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

how can the record of my questions here -- of no interest to anyone -- be removed.

I have had great difficulty contacting Wikipedia to find out what happened to my submission. I still have received no response and the entry is still not up online. On the other hand, the whole correspondence on the issue in Teahouse --- of interest to no one --- comes up in Wikipedia if one types in the subject's name! Can this be removed?Lgossman (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Lgossman I'm trying to clarify exactly what you are asking. It seems like you want a previous question that you asked in the teahouse to be removed so it doesn't show up in the teahouse or in the teahouse archives or when someone does a search within Wikipedia or Google. Is that correct? If that is what you are asking it isn't a normal request. Is there some specific reason for this request? Usually things in the teahouse are archived so that if someone else has similar questions they can first search the archives to see if it has already come up. I've found several good answers that way. In general if you want to contribute to Wikipedia you should understand that transparency and open-ness is a very essential core value here. There is almost no concept of private discussions we want everything to be out in the open and also we like to keep archives of past discussions because they can help answer future questions or clarify future positions when editors disagree. BTW, I took a look at what I think is your draft article: Draft:Victor_Brombert The article still needs a lot of work, actually I'm going to leave some suggestions on your talk page because this comment is getting kind of long but I think the subject of the article definitely seems wp:notable and you have a good start toward what could eventually be an excellent contribution to the encyclopedia. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lgossman If any reader completes a standard search of Wikipedia article space, then nothing discussed in the Teahouse comes up. If you configure your searching in order to search everywhere, then relevant Teahouse discussions will be displayed, as will user drafts. Detailed information about copyright problems with your draft is available on your user talk page, in a notice placed by CorenSearchBot last December 20. You need to clean that up, and submit your draft for review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

new editor, submitting first article

I wrote up a new article (my first) in my sandbox. Then I submitted it, so that it says it's still under review. That's what I expected. At the same time, though, my sandbox now contains the message: "This sandbox is in the Draft namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template." My question is: do I need to remove the '{{user sandbox}}' part of my entry for it to appear, or will that happen automatically if/when the article is approved? Follow-up question: are these two things - 1) approval and 2) changing the script at the top of the sandbox - independent of each other? For instance, what would happen if I changed the script at the top without having the new article approved? ThanksRevdrmjl (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Revdrmjl: Welcome to Wikipedia (and the Teahouse). I've replaced the tag with the correct one. Please see WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CITE for information about the notability threshold that your subject has to meet, and a guide on citations. Your article will not be accepted otherwise. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog. Thanks for making that. Were you giving direct or general feedback about the 'notability' level of my proposed page? In general, I'm confident that this entry meets the notability expectations. But if you have concrete suggestions, please let me know. Revdrmjl (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Revdrmjl: Notability must be evidenced. I did not assess the notability of your subject, merely pointed out that you lack citations for some of the material. The CITE guideline I linked to above should help. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Foraminifera taxonomy boxes

I am trying to edit some Foraminifera orders to add the class and make the taxonomy consistent across Wikipedia and tied in to a source. I am trying to add this text to the Order Rotaliida's taxobox, to replace the current taxonomy scheme:

| domain = [[Eukarya]] | regnum = [[SAR supergroup|SAR]] | supergroup = [[Rhizaria]] | phylum = [[Foraminifera]] | classis = [[Globothalamea]]

However, every time I preview I get some weird column spans instead of a taxonomy box. What is going on here?

I also wanted to use a set of code for inserting the citation for this taxonomy, WoRMS use of the Foram DB, but the code does not generate a citation. Maybe this is tied in with the prior error? Can I place this code in the taxonomy box? It should go after the class, as it is specifically a citation for the placement of the order in a Foram class.

{{cite WoRMS |author= Pawlowski, Holzmann, Tyszka|year= 2013|title= Globothalamea|id= 744104|accessdate= January 18, 2015|db=forams}}

Any help would be appreciated.

MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MicroPaLeo. The taxobox is an example of a Wikipedia Template, {{taxobox}}, which has a large range of possible parameters, but that does not contain 'supergroup'. If the taxon rank you want is not in that template, you can either argue (on the template talk page Template Talk:Taxobox) for adding it to the template, or you can just use 'unranked'. I don't know about the WoRMS: my reading of the template documentation suggests that the 'authority' fields just take text, but I may be wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I am using "supergroup" rather than "infrakingdom" because that is what Wikipedia uses for Rhizaria, so I don't think that can be the problem. Unranked would probably work, and I will try that.

I don't understand what you are saying about WoRMS. There is no authority field. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"unranked" does not work, either. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, MicroPaLeo, this is a complicated area. {{taxobox}} doesn't have parameters 'supergroup', 'infrakingdom', or 'unranked' (my mistake), but it does have 'subregnum', and 'unranked_regnum', 'unranked_phylum' etc. On the other hand, Rhizaria doesn't use that template, but a different one {{automatic taxobox}}, which appears to work very differently. I have not looked into this, but my guess is that this is a more flexible approach that somebody has been working on, but it has not been put in many articles yet. I'm afraid this is an example of the general lack of consistency across Wiipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I will move this to the taxobox talk page you linked to. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How can I access books/bibliographies/footnotes without a library?

Let's say I'm either editing or adding input to an article already on Wikipedia. Let's say, for example, it's on Preston Sturges. I remember reading a book on Hollywood censorship that Preston Sturges successfully circumvented the censors (who were usually literal-minded Roman Catholics) by writing for a literate, sophisticated audience, to the point that he managed to make a parody of the Immaculate Conception in 1944--"Miracle at Morgan's Creek."

I think I remember the book for a citation--it's not in my own head. But I'd like to access it for a footnote!

Also, is there a place for my own observations/conclusions in a posting?

Carlianschwartz (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carlianschwartz, welcome to Wikipedia! I find Google Books is sometimes helpful for finding books for citations, though it is far from perfect. Perhaps someone else knows of a better solution?

With regards to your second question, Wikipedia has a clear policy against original research, so you should not include your own conclusions in a Wikipedia article. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Carlianschwartz in response to this part of your question: "is there a place for my own observations/conclusions in a posting?" the answer is essentially no. Personal observations, knowledge, etc. are not considered valid references ever and hence aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. Any thing written in Wikipedia must be backed up by good wp:references. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability question

Hi all,

A new editor here.

Recently submitted an article on a company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bluedot_Innovation

The article was rejected on notability grounds, even though referenced 7 times in a variety of news stories and publications including leading newspapers.

The submission was modeled on that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoloqi and is identical in form, structure and referencing.

Can someone please let me know what I am missing here, as I would love to be able to have my first submission approved.

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.142.90 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, anonymous contributor. The draft was declined by Onel5969, with the comment: "Sources do not show notability. Most are mere mentions of the company, while one is a press release". I have not looked at them myself, but if that comment is correct, then indeed they do not show notability: to establish notability you need substantial writing about the subject in independent reliable sources - an article based on a press release does not count, as it is not independent. I'm afraid that large numbers of low-quality sources do not add up to one good one. The Geoloqi article is irrelevant: what is at issue here is sources. If you want further information, I suggest you contact Onel5969 on their talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. And thanks for asking the question. Here's the thing, there are 7 references. The first is the best, but since it seems that at least part of it is an interview, the article loses some of its independence. The second is a discussion of several companies, each with a very brief mention, of which BlueDot is only one. The third also only offers a brief mention. The fourth is more about the CEO of the company, rather than the company itself. The fifth is another brief mention. The sixth doesn't even speak about the company, it's merely mentioned as in relation to it's co-founder. The seventh citation is the only good citation regarding notability, but even that article is rather brief. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How can I eliminate the "issues" at the top of someone's page?

I recently updated my employer's Wikipedia page, included numerous references to articles, interviews, & awards that back up those updates, but the following issues have popped up on his page:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (January 2015) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (January 2015)"

Is there a way to let me know specifically what needs to be changed in order to remove the issues?

WP SAG (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See if any particular problems are discussed on the article’s Talk page, or post on there and ask. And take great care when editing content about your employer; see WP:Conflict of interest. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with my friend just above me. The place to talk about content of any article is, well, on what we call the Talk Page for that article. Just click on the tab marked, um, "Talk" at the top of the article's page and make a new section there with a header saying something like "How can this page be improved?" Then your text below it might be "What can we do to solve the problems pointed out by the tags at the top of the page?" and signed your offering with four tildes (these things:~~), which will put your name, time and date after your posting. Here's a tip: Since you are doing this editing at the behest of your employer, you must reveal that fact somewhere, either on the Talk Page or in the Edit Summary (where you could just type in "Paid edit.") For more on this, read here. By the way, any editor who makes substantive changes to any page, one that might be controversial, should also tell why not only in the Edit Summary but also on the Talk Page, although that is not required. I hope this helps, and come on back to the Teahouse whenever you want. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! 2605:E000:6285:3F00:C22:A7B3:2EFC:1004 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of questions

I seem to be having technical difficulties today. I used the "ask a question" form, but my questions were put on the bottom of the page, and it seems new questions go on top. Why did this happen? Will my questions be ignored because of this? I did get some partial help on both, but would like to get both issues resolved. Thanks, MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Tis post was also put at the bottom of the page. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello MicroPaLeo. There has been some technical hiccups for a while now and some questions are unfortunately ending up at the bottom of the page instead. It seems like some platforms or whatever makes them end up there. All the Teahouse hosts are aware of this problem and are checking both the top and the bottom of this page, so no questions go ignored. And if you only got partial help, that was most likely because the editor who answered them did not know all the answers, very few of us here at the Wikipedia do, or was not on the Wikipedia for the follow up question (I don't know what you asked about). It is a very large place with many things to keep track of. No doubt other editors will come to your help and add to the answers, in time. We are all volunteers here as you may know. Best, w.carter-Talk 00:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You can see what I asked about below, I assume. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, I'm afraid. You'll have to wait for an experienced host to come by and answer, I'm just a "janitor" here. :) It can take a day or so before some editor who knows how to sort this out comes by, especially with the weekend and all. Patience, w.carter-Talk 00:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you said you didn't know what I asked about, so it seemed as if my questions were invisible when they appeared to me to be on this page. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I used bad wording. My mistake. Hope you get your answers soon. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 00:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The matter you asked about, MicroPaLeo, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mesophelles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did that, but messed it up, and someone fixed it. Thanks for the link, though. MicroPaLeo (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)