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.
I've been working on a page since August. I am on the verge of being homeless so I need help getting this done soon. With moving and trying to find income, I am overwhelmed. I promised my friend that I would do this for our mutual friend. It is a surprise. We wanted to honor him with a Wikipedia page. I have watched videos and read endless articles when it was rejected the first time. I finally felt like I figured it out but when I returned to the page some nice person had done the references for me. However, I couldn't figure out how to add the magazine / book references etc to what the person had done. I am also not sure if the references I have will be enough. I read BRPage's summary and she sounds perfect for what I need. (That doesn't mean the rest of you aren't) My mutual friend wants to present it to him on the air (they have a weekly radio program) And I would LOVE to have it completed before I lose my home and internet. Can someone please help me get this page right? KatieCollins KatieCollins (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about your situation Katie. Believe me I can relate. I'm sitting here typing to you on my main internet connection, a smartphone smaller than my hand. As your article stands right now it will not pass. You are having a bit of confusion common to most newcomers here on Wikipedia, confusing verifiability and notability. Your facts are referenced. It would be better if mote of them were referenced to something not connected to the subject, but they are referenced so you have verifiability covered. However, what matters for qualifying to have an article is notability. For that, what is important is not what a person has done, but what has been written about what he has done. You have to have references from reliable sources, independent of the guy you are writing about discussing him in detail. The previous reviewers mentioned promo to you. It is still way too promo. You need to remove every instance of superlatives you have in the article. The only time we would use superlatives is if a reliable secondary source used the same exact superlative, and you cited it. Since you have no reliable secondary sources listed, you cannot use any superlatives. I am not going to attempt to explain referencing to you here. I'll leave what I think are really clear and easy to follow instructions on your talk page. You need to add those magazine and newspaper references. Those are what you need to have even a possibility of getting the article approved. Btw, the existing references are not formatted correctly. It looks like someone just ran the old, not so good reffix tool on the article. Without knowing what other references you have, I cannot make any informed guess on whether adding the additional references will get you to a point where it will pass either WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Generally, I advise new editors to just edit articles for a while before attempting to create one, and not to make the first one they do about a person. Due to concerns about libel, we are much pickier about biographies than we are about articles on bugs, streams and Pokemon. John from Idegon (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much John. I can see how editing first would be a benefit but unfortunately I don't have that much time. I do appreciate your understanding of my situation. I am also sorry about your situation. I also understand the libel situation that was why I tried so hard to keep things close to the way he stated them. I'm not sure I understand the promo thing. 1) Can you give me an example from what I have written or otherwise please? I have found magazine articles which are closely related to what I have said but it only covers a small portion of what I said. 2) How do I know they will be accepted? 3) How do I change the way the previous person who did the referencing since I don't see them all? Lastly, when I googled him just now to find those articles again, I found the first one I wrote under Wikipedia Quick Delete where it stated the reviewer would be deleting it soon. How do I get this finished before that happens? KatieCollins (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, KatieCollins. I'm not John from Idegon, but I am an Articles For Creation reviewer. I feel for what you're trying to do but I don't know whether Wikipedia is the right place to do it. Standards are quite strict: pages from AFC are reviewed and not passed until they meet certain established standards, and putting articles into mainspace directly leaves them vulnerable to people tagging them for deletion. The article reads a little like Greener's CV rather than a good encyclopaedic article - as if you're trying to promote his work to prospective employers rather than give a neutral overview of a notable career. I can help with that aspect, as well as removing the superlative adjectives but I think you need to make sure the guy is properly notable, and the article is sourced from third-party sources rather than the majority of the sources being self-published as they are now.
Be aware as well that notability does need the mainstream, independent sourcing (from publications which have editorial control over what their correspondents write, e.g. mainstream newspapers discussing his role as an actor, independent reviews of his projects), and without that you won't get an article to stick within the main encyclopaedic space.
A couple of things:
Most of your sourcing comes from Greener's own website - I think we would need to see independent discussion of his career from other sources rather than self-published ones.
YouTube links demonstrate that he was in something, but they don't really count as good sources for the purpose of notability. Likewise IMDB is also a poor source because it's user-edited; it's something we could use as an external link if he has an entry there, but not for the purposes of referencing.
Training videos...I'm not sure whether these demonstrate notability. I guess you could establish notability if he's been written up/reviewed in the mainstream press for his theatre appearances, but those points would need referencing with him as a primary subject of the review.
If these things do not exist, then there's not much chance of getting the article into Wikipedia. I know there's a certain cachet about having an article here, but it's something reserved for subjects which meet our own guidelines. LouiseS1979(pigeonhole)13:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Louise. Now I get what the promo means. He is listed in several online magazine articles and briefly in a book although I am not sure they would be acceptable. Is it okay to put the links on this discussion? I am searching for all of them again. I just don't remember where I saved them if I did. Thanks your response helped a great deal. KatieCollins (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Katie - yes, absolutely. Please put them here or on my talk page, then I'll take a look at them for you and see what I think, or someone else can give their verdict too. LouiseS1979(pigeonhole)16:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Orphan article; linking other similar articles to it
The article is designated an orphan and I'm having difficulty understanding how to link other pages. The article has quite a few links within it. Does linking mean going to other articles and linking to the new article?LtUSMC (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi LtUSMC being an orphan just means no other wiki articles currently link to the article, so you are correct it just means going to other relevant articles and linking back to the orphan. So you need to identify one or more articles that mention the subject (but not yet linked) or where it would be sensible and relevant to add a link. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Sleepy Geek and welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: No. Each language has it's own Wikipedia and your edits are not reflected anywhere in a WP in another language. The only thing you could keep in mind is that there are many subjects that have articles in several languages. These can be connected by link in the left-hand column on each article's page under "Languages". There's a little cog wheel and a pen with "add links" that you can click on to connect articles across the WPs. Sometimes articles, or part of them, are translated from other languages, and if that is done you should mark the article's talk page with a tag stating which WP it is translated from so that the original editor(s) get credited. See more at Wikipedia:Translation. Best, w.carter-Talk21:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Another question
Hello, I once asked why are people anonymous here at Wikipedia. Now I have another question regarding anonymous people. Why is it that a large portion of people with IP addresses don't fill in an edit summary? It is annoying. Thanks, -DangerousJXD (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Teahouse! Edit summaries are helpful as users could quickly summarize what they added, removed and/or edited. However they are optional and users aren't required to fill it out. ///EuroCarGT22:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It is because most people without an account are also just editors that pop in and out and do not know much about wikipedia to begin with. They understand editing and basic make up. But that is mostly it. So they never have learned to understand why they should use edit summaries.NathanWubs (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings @DangerousJXD: Also be aware that Edit Summary may not always be accurate. One of my Watchlist pages showed an ES of Remove pornography. When I checked the article, it was really Vandalism. So I did an Undo for that edit. That editor was also one of those with IP address only. Thankfully most edits are Good faith article improvements. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, DangerousJXD, I have a feature (I can't remember whether it is in Preferences or is a js script) that will not allow me to save an edit without providing an edit summary. I had a tendency to save a lot of small edits and not take the time to write an edit summary so setting this feature up forced me to write one every time, even if it is simply ME (minor edit). I imagine other regular editors also have this feature turned on but IP users don't have an option to set up their preferences. LizRead!Talk!12:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
DangerousJXD, what Liz (above) mentions is under Preferences → Editing. Here an editor can check a box "Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes". But, of course, you have to be a registered account to have "Preferences". EChastain (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
All Respectable Wikipedians, I want to ask that if i have clicked clear, relevant and better resolution images of a particular topic which had no images or some erratic ones, how can i change them or can i upload mobile clicked images on Wikipedia, Is any consensus or questioning or verification required to prove that the image clicked by me would be of useful nature. All suggestive opinions and guidance in friendly and unbiased manner would be welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumedh Tayade (talk • contribs) 06:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
I need help with verifying my article. I have a few citations included in the article, including the individual's websites and column in Forbes. But, I am getting notified about needing more verifying references. What other things should I be including so I stop getting notifications about this?
Hi Cal in theory all information in an article should be covered by references as everything on Wikipedia should be Verifiable. So you should add as many sources as required by the amount on information in the article. You should always have a reference for the information as otherwise it would be considered original research which is not allowed. Your article Robert W. Wynne only has in-line reference in the first two sections and Edith Derlon has no reference for the lead, Creative Ideology or Charity sections. Also Robert W. Wynne only has two sources and one is IMDB that is not considered a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
If a source actually does cover lots of the information on the article then you should give the reference a name when first used then user that names reference to mark all sections covered. Probably not a great description so see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations for the better explanation. KylieTastic (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Callied. I'm afraid that at present, not one of the five references in Robert W. Wynne contributes to establishing that he is "notable" in Wikipedia's special sense, and without these the article is liable to be deleted. In order for Wikipedia to have an article on a subject, reliable sources independent of the subject must have written at length about it. iMDB is not regarded as reliable, as KylieTastic says, and the other sources either don't mention Wynne or are not independent of him. You need to find articles about him (not about his company, or his university) written by people unconnected with him, and published in reliable places such as major newspapers or books from reputable publisher; otherwise the article may well get nominated for deletion. Then every single piece of information in the article should be individually referenced to a reliable source, and the majority of them to sources independent of him. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Created a page, got this, trolls here?
I created a page which is referenced in articles here but say the link doesn't exist. I almost immediately received a Speedy deletion nomination for lack of information but went back and filled in some information. Someone (un-named here) wanted it deleted. All my information was correct and part of world history.
Why someone who is into bones want historic information deleted?
Yes, I'm new to posting here, this was a strange set of events.
Hi Moosbrth you created the article which just repeated the title and "Needs information from creditable sources." So it had no actual content and that would be why Animalparty flagged it. So your claim "All my information was correct and part of world history." and "Why someone who is into bones want historic information deleted?" doesn't really make any sense as there was no "information" or anything about bones at the time it was flagged. This is why it is recommend to start new articles in your sandbox or in the draft namespace. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I created the title because it wasn't there and other articles referenced a nonexistent title. It has nothing to do with bones, it has to do with world historythat's why I wonder why Animalparty would want it deleted.
Hi Moosbrth and welcome to the Teahouse. No one is trolling you or harassing you, it's just that it is tricky to create an article right off when you are a "newbie" and unfamiliar with the editing on the Wikipedia. That is why it was suggested that you move your text to your sandbox so that you can get advice and help in getting it right and ready for the Wikipedia. I suggest you do that and read the guide: Wikipedia:Your first article. Your edits were done in good faith, and there are plenty of editors here to help new editors getting their articles right instead of deleted. And while you were right that there were no Psychological Warfare Department article before yours, there is however the article Psychological warfare. I suggest you read it to make sure that your facts do not duplicate those in that article. You can also think about expanding that article instead. Best, w.carter-Talk21:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually it looks like the Psychological Warfare Department new article was pretty much a copy of the Psychological Warfare Division article in Wikipedia (or a copy of that material that appeared somewhere else). Psychological Warfare Department is a valid term, it looks like, so perhaps there should be a wp:redirect from the "Department" one to the "Division" one. If this is the article Moosbrth was talking about, they were right, there is at least one other Wikipedia article that links to it: Billy Wilder. So a redirect would help. --doncram00:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
How do you reduce the indentation of a bulleted list?
This shows the indentation of a bulleted list item using an asterisk
If I use the <"li"> HTML tag, it works the same
It gets worse in a table
Header text
* An asterisk bullet in a table doesn't work (no bullet)
Example
An HTML <"li>" tag bullet in a table
Example
As the heading says, how do I unindent a bullet, especially in a table? Have tried lots of CSS styles to no avail. Sandbh (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, there may be implications I don't know – why {{*}} is often used (but which prefixes a non-breaking space) – but you could use a typographical bullet (•) or •. So:
Hello, Andrei Marzan. Almost certainly not. I doubt that any site on Wikia would be regarded as reliable, because they are generally editable by anybody, and even if they are not, there is usually no evidence that there is any kind of control of their accuracy. I guess it is possible that a particular wiki on Wikia might be managed and controlled by a specific organisation; but I couldn't find a page on the hotwheels wiki that suggested that this was the case. --ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
X!'s Tools
Hello, i have 2 accounts but i edit Wikipedia and other sister projects through this account(AgastyaC).
Problem: My edit counts and other stats are appearing 0 in X!'s tools. but when i switched my unused account and then searched for this (AgastyaC)
the stats were there. Why so?
aGastya 07:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)
Hello AgastyaC, the program running the X!'s tools have been a bit erratic lately (as have some other programs running statistics on the Wikipedia). When you get the 0 just wait a while and try again later. Hopefully it is back up by then. I'm more concerned though when you say: "i have 2 accounts". The general rule is: One person, one account. You need to state on the user pages which the other account is, otherwise you may be accused of sock puppetry. Only use one of them to edit. Best, w.carter-Talk09:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
User:W.carter ,Yes i have 2 accounts. It is actually i joined wikipedia but forgot the password. so an year after made another account(this one) and i make all contributions using this one.
haven't used that account except for the process of something (uspuration).
And i don't use it.
Well will this create any problem to this account of mine?
if it is how can i avoid it?
thanks
aGastya 09:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talk • contribs)
@AgastyaC:You should start with doing as I suggested above, write something like "I have another account [[account]] which I don't use because I forgot the password for it" on the user page of the one you use, and a similar one on the unused one saying the reversed. Preferably you need some help from an admin to sort this out. And please remember to sign your posts with the four "squigglies" ~~~~ so your name and the timestamp appears. Cheers, w.carter-Talk09:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
replacing an outdated photo with a new one in an infobox
Hello MildredJirak. As long as the photograph is freely-licensed content (that is, for that image, you own the copyright and have released it under a free licence, or the copyright holder, the original photographer, has agreed that you can release it under a free licence), you replace the existing file name in the article with the new one.
Go to the Commons information page or the url and copy the filename to your clipboard. In this case that should be 'File:Edmund Battersby photo by Evan Duning.jpg'.
Go to the 'Edit' or 'Edit Source' link for the Edmund Battersby page.
Where the code says '[[File:Edmund Battersby, "...a pianist of uncommon refinement." The New York Times.jpg|thumbnail|right|Edmund Battersby]], replace 'File:Edmund Battersby, "...a pianist of uncommon refinement." The New York Times' with 'File:Edmund Battersby photo by Evan Duning.jpg'. Keep all the other parameters the same.
Hi MildredJirak, why don't you just upload another one and use it for your article? The first one is a good photo and is already categorised on the Commons. It would be a benefit for the Commons to have many freely licensed photos of Edmund Battersby. EChastain (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much everyone! I did not want to remove from the Commons but just replace it in the article with the new one. The reason for this is that under eye touch-up is visible when the photo is enlarged.MildredJirak (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
NEW USER first time, please help meOyinbo Princess (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello - I am new to wikipedia and I would like to know how I can get myself onto the site. I am in the entertainment business, within Nigera, a white British lady from UK. I have suddenly had a lot of followers on my social networking pages and many people asking if they can read my BIO on Wikipedia. Really not sure how to go about this, who to speak to to write it for me or how to upload the write up and pictures. I have read through the terms and conditions, but still stuck Oyinbo Princess (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Oyinbo Princess. I'm afraid you are under a misconception, that Wikipedia has anything at all to do with people publicising themselves. It does not: it is an encyclopaedia, and contains neutrally written articles about subjects which have already been written about at length by people unconnected with the subject: the articles should be based almost entirely on what these independent people have written. Promotion of any sort (commercial or not) is forbidden.
Since it is hard to write neutrally about oneself, people are strongly discouraged from working on articles about themselves. If there have been articles about you in reliable sources such as major newspapers (and not based on press releases) then Wikipedia may have an article about you; but it is best if you do not write it yourself. Social networking pages are almost completely irrelevant to Wikipedia.
To add, if you are writing about a person/group make sure they meet these basic criteria, (snipped from WP:ANYBIO)
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.--Chamith(talk)13:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
No, Chamith, those are not necessary criteria: they are alternative; i.e. you don't have to meet those criteria in order to be notable. It's rather than if you meet one of those criteria it is likely that you will be notable. --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I need your help, hosts. I'm in a big rut.
Hello, I needed the kind and friendly environment of the Teahouse and its hosts to ask this question.
(imagine me walking in, ordering a coffee [though I don't drink coffee], slamming it down upon the table, and groggily having my face fall onto the table as well in aggravation.)
Why is it that, irrespective of efforts to remove it, systematic bias creep seems to try and walk right back in, by way of brazen editors that wish to refill a page with just their point-of-view?
More importantly, what can I do editing-wise to make reversions of such edits (which are often multiple, sometimes make reasonable edits to certain sections whilst making purely unreferenced and biased edits to others, and unable to be reverted except manually) easier. Because, as it stands, reverting them manually (which is as slow as molasses) raises my stress levels to the max.
Welcome to the Teahouse, Tharthan. I assume that you are talking about Systemic bias. I am unaware of any bot or automated tool that would revert such edits, though some may assist you.
As Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including those pushing a point of view, only diligent monitoring by those devoted to the neutral point of view can protect the encyclopedia. This is a never ending effort. Your efforts are appreciated, but they are also voluntary. If you get frustrated with the POV pushers, just take a break, and count on others to watch and correct those articles. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Tharthan. You don’t say where you found biased edits; so it is a little hard to help. Looking at your contributions, I suspect you are referring to Rockrunnerthecard’s recent edits to General American, especially his saying that GA “lacks any noticeably regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic characteristics.” If that is your objection, here is my advice.
In the first place, please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Consider that Rockrunnerthecard is mistakenly interpreting the fact that GA is “considered by many to be the accent that is the most "neutral" or lacking in distinctive regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic characteristics.” I think you will find it much less stressful if you see that Rockrunnerthecard’s changes are merely mistaken rather than biased.
As for reverting: In this case an easy way to revert would have been to edit from the last version before Rockrunnerthecard’s edits, and save it possibly unchanged. —teb728tc09:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your advice.
I seem to have become a bit jaded over the years after dealing with constant vandalism and bad faith edits that I have forgotten one of the basic rules of Wikipedia: to always assume good faith.
Your responses have reminded me that I had ought to remind myself on a consistent basis that everyone is not out there to push their points of view or to vandalise, and that some are simply mistaken in their edits, rather than being intentionally deceptive.
Hi Tharthandorf Aquanashi, as someone who has no knowledge of the subject and thus no bias to any particular information, I must admit that I can't see what bias you are talking about. With your edit summary stating "please do not write with a bias on Wikipedia.." and "...completely uncalled for." I expected to find some egregious bias. In fact the edit that Rockrunnerthecard made that you reverted here added several references, where as the text as it stands has been questioned (i.e. the [who?]). As such to me it looks like they were trying to improve the passage with referenced material, several times by using reference already used in your preferred version of the lead. So from my uninformed position on the subject I would guess that a combination of the two versions is probably the best and the full revert was unwarranted. I would suggest discussing either on the article talk page or on Rockrunnerthecard's talk page what the precise concerns were. Certainly the existing text with statement like "considered by many" is in need of improvement. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I don't see the image on the page specified by you. In the history it seems that you have rectified it.
I would like to advise that do not upload images on Wikipedia.
commoms.wikimedia.org is the right place and it is easy to deal there!
aGastya 14:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acagastya (talk • contribs)
@Beryl reid fan, Acagastya: Hi Beryl. I have deleted the photograph. For future reference, you could have added to the image page the code {{db-g7}} (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). Please also note that Acagastya's advice above would only be correct if the image was either in the public domain or bore a compatibly free copyright license, and is incorrect as to this image, or any other image that is non-free and you wanted to upload and use under a claim of fair use. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
User:ColinFine I didn't find the image mentioned by Beryl reid fan so i just advised. I know the uploading restrictions as i too have uploaded (own work)
Hello. I have re-written and re-worked this article multiple times throughout the past year and am still having difficulty getting it submitted. Would you please be able to help me understand what the issues are with footnotes/referencing so that I can fix it and resubmit? I would appreciate your help as I am trying to get this page up, ASAP. I am just very confused.
@Amandalynnhernandez: The two reviewers offered some specific comments that you should probably discuss with them on their Talk pages for clarification. Primefac noted that all of your references are to Hafler's own publications, which are not sufficient on their own. Wikipedia needs to see what other, independent sources have said about these papers - see WP:SECONDARY. Also, Primefac and Arthur goes shopping both pointed out that your article's wording was too close to what is already written in other sources. The words in Wikipedia need to be your own, not copied or closely paraphrased from somewhere else - see WP:PARAPHRASE --Gronk Oz (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: I am featuring Dr. Hafler's research and it is his own, there is nobody else who has commented on it. He is a scientific researcher. That doesn't seem to make much sense. I have already updated the document so that it no longer paraphrases too closely. I honestly do not know how to communicate directly with people on the wiki platform and am getting a bit confused about this whole process. Thanks.
Hi Amandalynnnernandez. The article has problems. It is too much about the "wonderfulness" of the person, rather than being dispassionate as an encyclopedia article is supposed to be. Leave out public relations terms like "advanced the knowledge" and "intensively investigated". Don't use terms like "seminal paper" unless you are quoting someone else who said that. Too many seminals and firsts in the article. But that's a style issue, not an approval issue. I don't see why it was turned down for not having inline references. I don't see any "contentious" material of the kind that needs inline references in the biography of a living person. As a professor holding a named chair, he meets the requirements of being notable enough for a Wikipedia article. However we do want to see references that are independent of the person and his institution. If a scientist is well-known (that is, notable) he has by definition been commented about. Scientists at his level do get written about and Google, especially Google Books, is wonderful for this. See Quinn, Susan (2002). Human Trials: Scientists, Investors, And Patients In The Quest For A Cure. Perseus Publishing. ISBN978-0-306-82091-5. I will clean up the article and approve it. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi RWyman, if someone hijacks an article I would tend to just revert the changes, and leave a message on their talk page. However it depends on what precisely they have done. If you tell us the article we may be able to help more. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
National Fibromyalgia Association - I'm following another editor who has done additional research - see talk. I'm trying to help him/her. Looks like another editor is joining in. Should we just go ahead and revert to the most viable version of the article? Previous editor says Feb 25 2012 - 2nd editor agreed. Just want to make sure that we're doing the right thing. RWymant@lk16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi RWyman - Its clear that the National Fibromyalgia Association still exists http://www.fmaware.org/ so the take over by people promoting National Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Association (http://www.fmcpaware.org/) was dishonest and as these are both non-profits not a nice thing to do. I see this was originally done 25 July 2013 by Cats meowmix with the edit comment "The NFCPA is the official non-profit fibromyalgia and chronic pain association since the NFA handed over all assets and rights because of financial difficulties. See press release." - however as the NFA appears to still be active this appears to be untrue. Also that editor has not been back. So a revert is definitely the correct thing to do, and should have been done back in July 2013. Anybody interest in this should just create National Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Association - but also as less of an advert as it was. Cheers KylieTastic (talk)
Thank you - I see now how this works. Others have taken the mantle and reverted the article - which is a very good thing. Thanks again. RWymant@lk18:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking for a Mentor
I'm Looking for someone to help me understand why my edits are not being accepted? And other such dumb questions
I may be a lousy wiki editor. But I'm a quick learner.
Welcome to the Teahouse, Aseemseth! You may be interested in the Adopt-a-user program, where you can be paired with a more experienced Wikipedian that will answer all your questions. If you have any further specific questions, you may ask them below this response. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Esquivaliencet19:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
How to get charge of boosterism removed from a page
Hi. I have been working to improve the page for Abertay Uni. At the top is a boosterism charge... I think the article is better now, so how can this be removed? comment added by Hpurcell1659 (talk • contribs)
Hi Hpurcell1659 looks like your question either got missed, or no one wanted to venture an opinion. Looking at the article Abertay University it has radically changed since the boosterism tag was added. Also the tag was added after much editing by the COI user User:Abertay University who is now banned. Although it still has a lot of unreferenced content I'd be tempted to remove the tag now due to the article changes and the removal of the COI editor. However it would be more likely not to be contended if you could add more references first (or remove and "praise or promote" information you cannot source). Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I want to translate the page "Punic language" into French
When I click, on more, languages, I end up in wiki data and I don't know what to do then. I tried to see translating in wikipedia, but that only confused me.
Hello Exacrion and welcome to the Teahouse. To clarify, are you trying to reach a French version of the article or do you want to translate it yourself into French? If it is the first, there does not seem to be a similar article on the French Wikipedia. (the closest is one in Spanish es:Idioma púnico) If the second, please translatete it into French and add that article to the French Wikipedia. (You have to create an account there to do it) You can see at the WP:Translation how to do that properly. For instant translations of articles, you have to use a browser service like the one Google provide. There are no options in the Wikipedia that automatically translate an article for you. Best, w.carter-Talk14:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
A new article whose name duplicates an existing name
'Woca', in addition to the 2 uses presently in the DB, is the name of a native plant in Southern Oregon (or maybe wider). It was substantially used as a food by the native population before we Anglos pushed them aside, and grows in water as do water lilies.
What I'd really like is for someone else to create this article, as I'm still very green on the site!
Welcome to the Teahouse, Geodejerry, also known as Jerry Brown. I am assuming that you are not the governor of California. If I am wrong, please let me know. Your question raises several implications. Should an article about a species be given the formal Latin name or the common name? That depends on which is used most often in reliable sources. If we have several articles, or potential articles, with the same name, how should each be named? Please read WP:DISAMBIGUATION for a detailed explanation. As for someone else creating the article? Maybe, but not highly likely. After all, YOU are the new editor motivated to bring this article to fruition. We need new editors. Please consider giving it a try. Read Your first article and return here to the Teahouse at any time to ask for advice. You can do it! Cullen328Let's discuss it07:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You’re in luck, User:Geodejerry – the WP article for the plant is already out there, under its formal name, Nuphar polysepala. The Native American name is usually wokas – as in “Harvesting wokas, the seeds of the pond lily (Nuphar polysepala), was a specialized (and crucial) Klamath adaptation.” [1] and in this book [2]. (I think woca is a misspelling - so need to worry about disambiguation pages, for now anyway). And since there aren’t, at the time of this posting, any articles called Wokas, I’ll create a page for it that just points to the Nuphar p. article – these are known on WP as WP:Redirects. And you could put this picture in. The wokas season, by Edward S. Curtis If you’d like to expand this aspect of the plant article and have questions about how to do that, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Novickas (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Somehow my writing seem s in the advertising style to a monitor or bot
I'm working on my first project, the Globalscape Wikipedia. I'm stretched for time daily so am asking for helpful opinions on what I can do to improve the page, especially the tone. I must admit that I do not know what they are talking about because it is NOT an advertisement and one of my main and constant goals from top to bottom has been to answer the question, Who or what is Globalscape? To make sure of that, I almost used so many citations that the citations seemed to me to almost be the biggest part of the page ;D).
I constantly asked the question on every edit of the page, "Is this something a person, student, industry professional, business, would want to know and possibly seek to find out?" and support whether they are and where they are a viable, credible entity.MightyMaven (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
So if someone(s) could review the page and see what you think they might be talking about and if correct, where I can make changes. I just don't want to leave out pertinent information that all kinds of people would use to learn about the company or make decisions about it whatever those might be. And PS I am not a salesman, but the son of a country music singer songwriter. I have NEVER done advertising, lol
Thank you so much for your help.
It kind of hurt my feelings to get rebuked, like I was posting a "This is Crazy Eddie and everythings on sale. Buy buy buy!!!" and totally that is not me or this article. I've written many reports in psychology at work and I thought I was being as complete and exhaustive as possible
MightyMaven (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)MightyMaven (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, MightyMaven. It is not easy writing a Wikipedia article. I'm not going to do an in-depth review, but that lead paragraph of Globalscape reads to me like one huge advertisement. It's a bit hard to identify the details, but "is a software developer ... dealing with" is vague, "mission-critical" (unless you are talking about an actual mission somewhere) is marketing speak, as is "solutions" (unless you are talking chemistry or mathematics). One of the things that makes it look like an ad is that there is far too much detail, both in the lead and throughout the article; while at the same time it is rather vague. I tried to cut the first paragraph down, but I actually cannot work out what would follow a statement like "Globalscape is a ... which provides software that ...". (A sentence of that form would be appropriate). All the "includings" and "such as" should go.
There is a more general problem, which is that of sources. Again, I haven't gone through far through the list, but not one of the first five sources is both substantial and independent: the first two are valid, but just support a single detail; while the next three, even though they are published in different places, all appear to emanate from Globalscape itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: a summary of what reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. As a rule of thumb, every single piece of information in an article should be individually referenced to a reliable source, independent of the company: if it can't be, then it should not go into the article. For some uncontroversial factual data (such at dates, places, people's names, some numbers), a non-indepedent source is acceptable. But most of the content of the first section would be unacceptable unless it is directly sourced to a commentator unconnected with the company. --ColinFine (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Are vague offline sources OK as citations?
In a recent set of edits to the article on Mark Hendrick, an anonymous editor replaced several "citation needed" tags with vague citations like "Who's Who" and "The University of Manchester" (concerning an awarded degree). While I am sure that if I had access to those sources I could check them, it doesn't seem right to dismiss requests for citation with such vague statements. Can you hep me understand the norms in such situations please?
Hello, ClareTheSharer. No, those are not acceptable (they are barely more useful than no reference). If you are willing to go and looking for a more precise reference, that would be great; otherwise you can revert the edit (but make sure you explain why in your edit summary). --ColinFine (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) @ClareTheSharer: Hi Clare. Tackling something you did not ask about to start, an entry in Who's Who may not be reliable in the first place, so even if a vague pointer to it was proper it might not matter (see discussions here). But no, such "sources" are useless. The heart of verifiability is sourcing so that others can check themselves that the source verifies information included. While that does not mean the source needs to be easy to access (it does not need to be an online source, and can be something only obtainable at a library in person), it does mean that the information about the source needs to be provided with sufficient transparency so that if we wanted to, we could check. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for both of those encouragements. I wasn't able to find reliable sources for those points when I added the CN tags previously as part of an attempt to triage some seemingly self-serving edits made from Parliament. Consequently I've undone each of the anonymous edits made today with a suitable explanation. ClareTheSharer (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The British Who's Who entries (only accessible on subscription) are drafted by the individuals on invitation but are editorially vetted. So, critical matters may become omitted. However, it is not at all a vanity publication, unlike US directories of the same name, and it is excellent to support notability. For Hendrick it does indeed confirm the football teams he says he supports (why do we include such guff?) and he says his "recreations" include French and German. It gives his constituency office address in Preston but it does not say whether he actually lives there. Oh, and looking at other stuff, his cv is confirmed. I'll eventually get around to editing the article but I hope someone else will beat me to it! Not my area of interest. Thincat (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello SleepEditor and welcome to the Teahouse. First there are a few things that we need to clarify. I saw that you tried to upload an article about Heds socken in Swedish here on the English Wikipedia, that is a no-no. Only English here, but I guess you have realized that now. Second you are now editing an article about the bed company Hästens, a company that originated in Heds socken and your signature is "SleepEditor". Am I right in assuming that you are a member of that company or in some other way connected to that firm?
About the logo: If it is a current logo it is probably protected by copyright. Any picture uploaded here must be free to use for anyone for any purpose. In some cases a logo can be used for one time only in that article under something called "Fair use". See: Wikipedia:Non-free content. Best, w.carter-Talk23:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi and welcome. About the logo specifically. It is possible it could pass as what we call a Public Domain-Text Logo on Commons. If you give me a link to the precise image I can have it up on Wikimedia Commons in a second. If there is anything else, don't hesitate to contact me here or on my talk page! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Ay Yowai. I'm afraid not. In fact, there's probably no way of writing it that will be acceptable. WP:SONG#Notability says "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The article should be replaced by a redirect to Gemma Fox. --ColinFine (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid it has been nominated for speedy deletion. You may have a better chance of creating a article for the artist who created the song as they may have more media coverage. Good luck! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
How to connect references to numbered superscripts in the text
I need a step by step guide to setting up the list of references in Wiki style and connecting each reference to a superscript in the text Ahlitanah (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ahlitanah. The numbers for the references are created automatically when you insert the references in the proper way in the article. I have left a step by step guide at your talk page about it. w.carter-Talk21:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
To put it really simply @Ahlitanah:, put <ref>''URL OR SOURCE</ref> around your references in the main text. Then they will automatically appear at the bottom of the page. Any other questions feel free to reply here or on my talk page. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)02:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}