Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 34

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

New Login & New Article

Hi! I am new to Wikipedia. I just got my login a week ago and have created an article in my "sandbox." But the article is not visible yet. I have saved the article. How long will it take for the article to be visible? The topic is Leigh Bale (a national award-winning author). I've read through copious amounts of "instruction guides" on how to do this and have cited the sources and when I "view" my article in my sandbox, it looks great and the sources and weblink to Leigh's website work great, too. I'm just wondering if I need to do something else to get it to go "live" or if I'm jumping the gun and need to give it a period of time for inspection by the powers that be before it goes live, or what. Sorry for the newbie questions! And thank you. ClaraClara Bale (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have made the article in your sandbox, but you have not submitted it for creation at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I can tell by looking at your contributions. All you have to do to request an article for submission is to add {{subst:submit}} under where it tells you to edit. Brambleberry ☾of RC☽ 19:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anarchopedia

Hi everyone! Hope everyone is doing good. I wanted your help on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation. It is a draft article which i had started almost three months ago but haven't completed it till now. I just want to make sure that the draft article is able to meet all the minimum requirements of a stub or anything else or also if all you can improve it much more than that so that there is high chance that the article reviewer accepts and approves it to move it to article mainspace. I started this article originally after seeing it on Simple English Wikipedia and some part is based on it, but i have just learned that unfortunately it has been deleted there, (see simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Anarchopedia). I am not sure what needs to be done now, should i continue with all of your help to create the article or just get it deleted ? Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

TheGeneralUser, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the deletion discussion at simple it looks like the overwhelming factor was Notability and looking at the draft you have at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anarchopedia I can see this being refused for the same reasons. There is a specific set of notability criteria for web content at Wikipedia:Notability (web). To meet the guideline the site should have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. At the moment it doesn't manage this as the only references are to itself and some Alexa informatiom, what is needed is reviews of the site saying how useful it is (or indeed the opposite if you want to base notability on how bad it is) or how significant it is. Unless you can find this type of information I'm afraid it's always going to be a non-starter. NtheP (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your message Nthep. I came here and asked for help because i am not a professional article creator or content writer, so i was expecting/asking if someone could help write and expand that draft article because right now it does not even meet the basic requirements of a stub article. If it can be improved by someone else, that's great. If not should i keep it idle as it is or just get it deleted if it's of no use ? TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
There are not many professional article creators or content writers around, for one I don't think anyone who volunteers here at the Teahouse falls into that category. But I don't think the quality of writing ability is the problem here - it's the lack of reliable sources about the website that holds it back. NtheP (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

how to userboxes

How do I add userboxes to my user pages? Also, how do I make them on the right? Cubist 10101 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Cubist 10101! Userboxes are naturally on the right when you group them, so you don't have to worry about that.

So here is how you group them:

Find a few userboxes that suit you. So if you are a user that likes Animal Farm, wears contact lenses, and has Celtic ancestry, you would write:

{{Userboxtop|About Me}} {{User:DWP17/Userboxes/Animal Farm}} {{User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Contacts}} {{Template:User Proud Celtic}} {{Userboxbottom}}

Now, to get individual userboxes (since I doubt that you like Animal Farm, wear contact lenses, and have Celtic ancestry, and even if you do you'll want more), you go to Template:WP:UBS, where you get categories of userboxes. You pick a category, say "Animals" under the Interests row, and look at the userboxes. If your favorite animal is the African wild dog, you would go to "Wild Dogs, Wolves, and Foxes" and find African wild dog. The code will be on the left. You copy that using right-clicking and then paste it into part of your userbox chart (which is the Userboxtop and Userboxbottom shown earlier.)

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me. Brambleberry ☾of RC☽ 16:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Upload picture and create fact box

Hi I work in the Danish cable company, YouSee A/S. I have placed some information on the company and would like to 1) ad a picture of our logo, 2) create a factbox instead of the present table, that was easier for me to make. I have read the Manual of Style and Cheatsheet, but still cannot find out how to do it:-( As for the logo the reason can be, that I am not autoconfirmed? I need a step-by-step instruction on how to upload a picture/logo and create a factbox. Can anybody help me? Thank you in advance. Hannah A68447 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hannah, and welcome to the Teahouse! You are right in saying that you can't upload an image until your account if autoconfirmed. It needs to exist for 4 days and have 10 edits to be autoconfirmed. However, you can place a request here. As for the infobox (what you call a factbox, but what we call an infobox) I can handle that for you for now, as it involves pretty complicated stuff, but I can explain it to you on your talk page, as there would be too much to cover here. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I can cover the infobox thing here. You use the template called Infobox. You type 2 curly brackets at the beginning and end of the template (like {{Infobox}}), then you add a pipe (which looks like | <- this). After that, there are sections called parameters that you can use to type information. Hope it helped! FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hannah, you don't need to create an infobox as there are many preformed templates based on {{infobox}}. The one you probably want is {{Infobox company}}, if you follow the link you can see all the parameters and how to use them in the article on YouSee. NtheP (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How long is a piece of string?

Hi there. Just contributed my first article. How long does the approval process usually take? Cheers MattMppulford (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mppulford, i take it you mean User:Mppulford/sandbox? I'm afraid there are currently 1,029 pending AfC submissions, so it may take a week or so before your article is reviewed. While you are waiting, you can edit it further or contribute to other articles. :) benzband (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I need help with my article

My article has had this response This submission is not adequately supported by reliable

Can you help? ZDinally (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Thinktank Planetarium. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! If you get the message "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" on top of your article, it means you need to add sources to back up what you're saying. Examples of reliable sources include newspapers, magazines and other published trustworthy content. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How to write an article about an under-documented but significant topic.

Hello all. I recently joined, and after awhile of looking for uncovered topics, I realized there is little information on here about the early Kaypro computer games. This is significant to me because Kaypro was my first computer and I imagine I am not alone(there are plenty of people old like me). I own a Kaypro with its original games bundle and so I know what these games are like, who made them, etc from first hand knowledge. But when searching the internet, I found there was almost no indication these games ever existed. As I see wikipedia as the most sacred of information sources, I would love to contribute to it by assuring this information about Kaypro games isn't lost. But how do I cite sources if there seem to be none? I have personal proof of these things, because I own the original software, but is that enough to give the article legitimacy? Should I maybe write a webmaster of a reputable website asking them to put up this info so I can cite it? Any help appreciated. AntTche 13:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonTchekhov (talk • contribs)

Hello, AntonTchekhov! I do not know where you can find these sources, but we do have a place called the Entertainment Reference Desk where you will find Wikipedians who are up on these things. The fact that you own the software is not enough to create articles about it. It is a good starting point, but in the end you have to find published sources. hajatvrc @ 14:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
You also might consider creating a section in Kaypro's existing article here if you can't find enough reliable information about the games to warrant their own page. But, as hajatvrc mentioned above, the Reference Desk is likely your best choice for finding the sources you're looking for. Topher385 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Topher385 and Hajatvrc! I will try the Reference Desk. I was also wondering if taking my own pics of the game and uploading the screenshots would help? The title screens have publication dates, name of creators with full addresses. Does that add legitimacy? Thanks again! AntTche 03:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonTchekhov (talk • contribs)

Hello again. You certainly can create screenshots of your games, but how you use them will depend on the current licenses of the games. If a game is not currently under a free license (which many old games are by now, so I would check), the image is subject to "fair use" policy which means it can only be used when it is absolutely educational, and not be used more often than it absolutely has to. On the other hand, if the software is under a free license, you have more leniency. For example, I created two of the screenshots at BZFlag (the first and third), and I was able to release these images under the the GNU Lesser General Public License (a copyleft free software license) because that is the license under which the game itself is released. Therefore those images can be used in galleries, etc. if anyone wishes. Also, Wikipedia's "Image use policy" requests (but does not require) that game screenshots are in the .png format. hajatvrc @ 03:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Though on a side note, the policy doesn't really mention screenshots that you take with a camera and not screenshot software on your computer, so your images probably will not have to be in .png. hajatvrc @ 03:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
And now that I read the policy more closely, they will probably want it in .jpeg. hajatvrc @ 03:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that your topic is notable, AntonTchekhov, but it will take a lot of work to find and properly cite reliable sources. I owned a Radio Shack TRS-80 computer in the late 1970s, and it is very difficult to find online sources about this era of technology. There were plenty of decent sources available at the time, but most of those publications are in dusty paper archives and were never scanned and made available online. But paper sources are acceptable if you can find them and cite them properly. Here's an advertisement in InfoWorld in January, 1983, but ads are not independent or reliable sources. Perhaps you can find some sources by networking at websites such as old-computers.com or obsoletecomputermuseum.org. Keep looking, and good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Anton. Basic Google Books and New Archive search appear to find useful sources, such as <this> and <this>. You can also target once you know a particular game offered, e.g., <Kaypro "slot machine">. I tried a search at newspaperarchive.com (subscription only) and there are many hits but it is difficult finding any targeting the games. (I read a hysterical articles about the amazing and powerful 10 megabyte! hardrive included, only $1,795.) There are 265 hits at Old Fulton NY Postcards (free) searching Kaypro. Hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else, it could be merged into the List of Pac-Man clones article, which has a (incomplete) section for such home computer clones. --MuZemike 21:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate all the help. The information about copyrights helped a lot in categorizing my screenshot during upload. Hopefully I did everything right. I think they are non-free fair use as I took the photos myself from my own computer and software which are my personal property. The screenshots also help confirm what company created the clone and when it was released as that info is displayed on the title screen of the game. I also really appreciate the links to google books, which I did not realize could be so helpful. I was actually able to find a 1985 computer mag here that mentions both CatChum and Ladder(another Kaypro game which someone else already put an article up about) so I was able to add refs to both my CatChum and the Ladder article(which did not have a ref either.) I would also like to create an article about the company that made these Kaypro games Yahoo Software(nothing to do with today's Yahoo of course) as it seems on first search there is no article about them and yet it seems they made quite a few games in their time.

Also, I will definitely add CatChum to the List of Pac-Man clones, thank you MuZemike! I have not been an editor here long but I am already enjoying it quite a bit. Thanks again! AntTche 07:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonTchekhov (talk • contribs)

Listing a bibliography

Thanks, if I may, for the answers to my question about editing. Here's another. The existing bibliography lists only the latest editions of certain books, which seems misleading. Can one give the first editions too, so the order of composition is truer to life? A related problem is that there seem to be no google listings for the earlier editions, so how can they be supported or documented? I know they exist because I have the books. Skameikin.70.20.43.130 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is a bibliogrpaphy of the books you've used to reference an article then it should refer to the editions you used. If we're meaning a list of works by an author I'd use the title and the year of publication. Additional identifiers, for example, ISBN are useful if people want to use them to find a copy of the book - that these might link to the latest editions I don't think is a problem. NtheP (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

cannot edit first section of my article

Hello. I am creating an article and I clicked save. Now there is no "edit" link next to the first section of this article. I was not finished linking words to wiki articles and now cannot get back in there. Can anyone tell me how to get back into the editing mode for the first section of my article?

thank you!Swoodness (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Swoodness, thanks for dropping by the Teahouse! You can edit the entire page by clicking the edit button that occurs at the top of the article (next to the search bar and view history tab). Otherwise, you can turn on an edit link for the lead section by going to My preferences→Gadgets→Appearance Section→Click "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" then click save at the bottom. Ryan Vesey 16:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you. Swoodness (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Using references and .wav files

Starting over again. My question is three fold. I have run across a few articles which have difficult or foreign words in the article. Can we link to other articles that refer to the word in question. As for the reference can we use another dictionary as a reference, i.e.; Miriam Webster? Can we insert .wav files for pronunciation of the word in question. The Wikipedia is such a large site. So I thought I would try to abbreviate my search here at the Tea House. Thank You Cmurdock1955 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cmurdock! I'll answer the sound pronunciation question. We have a specific template {{Pronunciation-in}} for linking to a pronunciation sound file. So yes, you can do that. Ryan Vesey 16:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Cmurdock! Welcome to the Teahouse! As far as linking to other articles that refer to the word, I don't think I exactly understand what you mean.. are you saying have the word appear as a blue link (like I did with "word"), and clicking on it takes you to a page about it? Or something else? Thanks! Theopolisme TALK 00:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I began creating a Wikipedia article describing my IntroNeuro course at Georgia Tech, in which students create or fix up neuro Wikipedia articles. It got moved to my "name space". Where does it belong? Here is the work in progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Professorpotter/GeorgiaTech-IntroNeuro Professorpotter (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It belongs where it is now, in your namespace. Article space is where anything that would go in a regular encyclopedia would go, such as Cougar or Dragon. Wikipedia-space is where anything that is not enyclopediac but could be used by all users, such as Wikipedia:WikiFauna or Wikipedia:The five pillars of Wikipedia, would go. Your namespace is anything that would not belong in an encyclopedia and may only be needed to a smaller group of users. Sometimes this group of users is just a portion that likes to have fun on Wikipedia, such as with User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie, and sometimes it is just for you, such as your personal sandbox (which would be located at User:Professorpotter/sandbox.) Works in progress should also go in your namespace, such as the aforementioned sandbox. Your article is and will always be in your namespace, as it is currently a work in progress and it will not apply to all users. Brambleberry ☾of RC☽ 15:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I believe there is a new education style namespace. I saw it referenced in the village pump a while ago. I'll try to find a WMF member to ping. Ryan Vesey 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Professorpotter! Good to see you again (so to speak); welcome to the Teahouse! (I don't have any more information since our first conversation, just wanted to say hi).  :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! What you may be looking for is the Education Program. In particular, you may wish to add your course to the US education program, but to do that you will need to get in touch with Jami Mathewson via jmathewsonwikimedia.org. The education program would be a good choice, as that way you gain support from the online and campus ambassadors, who will assist you and your students. I gather the number of courses is limited, as a lot depends on who is available to assist, but it is a very good program. - Bilby (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question about references and .wav files

Some how I really managed to mess up my question about references and using .wav files??? Put in a short summary and somehow it ended up in a ? header. Not sure what happened here.Cmurdock1955 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Cmurdock! What happened is that you put a space at the very beginning of the new line; this causes Wikipedia to go into "preformatted mode" for that line, which is why your question looked like that. Just one of the vagaries of wikimarkup. :) I've fixed it for you; you can see what I changed in this diff, although it might be hard to see, as it's just the deletion of a space. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Telluride Blues & Brews references

Hello! I tried to model my wikipage after existing music festival pages. These included a brief description and a list of past year line-ups. However, the only references I have for the line-ups are from the festival's own website and past pamphlets. Do I put a footnote next to every year with the same source? Not sure how to provide more references when there aren't many that I can find. Thank you!


71.216.91.187 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. If you reference the same source in many different places, you can follow these instructions:
# The first time you reference it, you would put: <ref name="something short you want to call it">Your reference goes here.</ref>
# Every time afterwards that you reference that place, you would put: <ref name="What you named the reference before"/>
Not everything has to have many references, though I would check with others to make sure that it would constitute as notable, as when there are few references it may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Brambleberry ☾of RC☽ 15:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the timeline for article review?

I submitted an article on 26 July and it was declined the next day, by a very un-qualified reviewer, I might add. I updated the article, per the reviewer's advice, and resubmitted very shortly thereafter. The article is still awaiting review, but a few other people have also contributed. I'm concerned since the article was first reviewed in a single day, and now it's been over two weeks. Stephenpnock (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Stephen, welcome to the Teahouse. First: I'd recommend that you don't throw in things like "very un-qualified reviewer"; we're all volunteers, so the only qualification that's necessary is the willingness to spend the time. I'm not sure why you call Czarkoff unqualified anyway; he's seemed knowledgeable enough in my interactions with him. (I'd also add that, looking at the revision of the page he would've seen, I'd agree with him.)
Anyway, AfC is a rum go; it's entirely volunteer-driven, as I said, so the wait times are always going to fluctuate, depending on how many new articles are being created and how many people are working on it. It's just the nature of the beast; you gotta be patient. Thanks, though! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right, and my comment was a bit inappropriate, but obviously my personal opinion from reading his personal page. I find that Czarkoff is very knowledgeable also, but in the self-identified fields of software and Yugoslavia-related topics. I just felt that it seems more appropriate to receive feedback/approval from someone with knowledge related to bio-materials and/or innovation in materials technology companies. I recognize the nature of Wikipedia as a volunteer operation, but I find it more fair and efficient for articles to be reviewed by amateurs with a passionate interest in the specific topic. We can argue the importance of cross-discipline review, but Czarkoff has specifically published [essay] with a bias against business notability. I find there to be a conflicting argument: Czarkoff argues that businesses should have made a notable impact on their industry, but discredits awards, which often come from an industry to recognize the impact of the business. Will this article be passed on for further review? Is Czarkoff expected to review it again? Or will it simply wait until someone picks it up? Stephenpnock (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Undo or tag this page?

I've come across this page which has had a lot of info added to it, but the info is generally incohorent even though it seems to be some sort of folklore. Should I undo it or tag it with an incohorent tag in the hope that someone can clean it up? The page is Manbhum Sesamevoila (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Sesamevoila, welcome to the Teahouse! After looking at it, I went ahead and removed it; not only was it incoherent, but it didn't appear to be particularly relevant to the article's subject, either. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette of WikiLove

Hey.

I don't exactly know the etiquette of WikiLove. So, in terms of context applicable, what is the different between a barnstar, a drink/food and a kitten? When should I send each? (Actually, I myself don't feel comfortable with any of them.)

Thanks in advance.

Best regards
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks for dropping in. Wikilove is a lot less formal than you may expect—basically, barnstars are a sort of award. Anyone can give them to anyone else, for whatever good work they did / are doing, etc. There is a plain one, as well as several "themed" barnstars intended to be given to people for specific types of work (e.g. reverting vandalism). The rest of them (the drinks, cats, and all that) are even less formal than that; they have no special significance unless you attach such significance to them yourself. They're just fun, lighthearted ways to encourage people, brighten their day, say "thank you", whatever. Hope that helped!  dalahäst (let's talk!) 08:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Lisa, I tend to use wikilove just to thank someone for helping me with a task, or to cheer someone up who has had a rough time editing, and sometimes, just a random act of kindness to a good editor who may have been overlooked for all the good things they do. It is a small kindness, a virtual "gift" and a bit of recognition, like buying a friend a cup of coffee. Or, if I've goofed, it's a way to say "I'm sorry". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Just another view. If you don't feel comfortable with them, don't give them. Wikilove is just a twee way of reminding us that we should be nice to each other, but if you think that you can do the same with a comment, then do that! The comments mean much more than the yellow rectangle and attached image. WormTT(talk) 08:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks everyone. I appreciate this.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Resubmission help

Hello, I wondered if someone might be able to review my article before the resubmission is re-reviewed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/James_S._Economou

Any advice would be helpful. I'm new to Wikipedia and would love to get this first article accepted. Thanks in advance! Uclaovcr (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Uclaovcr, welcome to the Teahouse! I looked over your submission and some things stood out at me. First, all Wikipedia articles need to have reliable sources that are independent from the subject. Other editors need to see the information in the article is consistent with the sources, according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. You can also read Wikipedia's policy on notability to see if a subject should have their own article. If another host spotted something I didn't say, sorry about that. I hope this helps you! -- Luke (Talk) 23:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! This person is an academic, renowned surgeon and cancer researcher. I added some more external sources. If you have a chance, would you please take another peek? Uclaovcr (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't get one heading into TOC or visible on page

I have several different headings in my article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Landt Trio. All of them come up except the third one, "Later Years" or "Later Career" (I tried both hoping the problem might just have something to do with the number of characters, but of course, it didn't.) The heading text appears in neither the table of contents nor the body of the text. I have checked and double checked that each one has the right number of = before (each of my headings has 3 = before and 3 after the words.) I can't think what else to try. Please help or send me to the right forum for this kind of help. Many thanks.

Karlsdotter (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This problem seems to have suddenly fixed itself when I wasn't looking. I am sorry to have bothered you or, if someone fixed it, I thank the person who took care of it for me. Karlsdotter (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlsdotter (talk • contribs)

No worries, it's fantastic that it worked! Please come back to the Teahouse if there is ever anything else we can help with! :) Theopolisme TALK 04:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing Amazon book review

Hi. I just made my first substantial edit. I attempted to cite an Amazon book review using the Amazon "Permalink" for that review. My attempt resulted in an error message indicating something about the link being "filtered". Does this mean that Amazon book reviews cannot be cited in Wikipedia? Why would that be? Otherwise, what is the problem and is there a solution?

Sincerely, MarcMarc.riese (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Marc, welcome to the Teahouse. Without knowing exactly what you were trying to add to where and what the error was it's hard to say what actually happened. Certainly the Edit filter log for the page you seem to have edited today (Book review) isn't showing any filters invoked recently. There is a wider point on the reliability of Amazon reviews and the general consensus is that Amazon reviews are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Citing unverifiable Amazon 'editorial reviews' as book reviews for one such discussion (if you want to see more go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and search the archives for Amazon). The reason being that as they are anonymous or self published sources they can't be verified unlike a book review in a newspaper or other periodical which will, normally, carry a reviewers name which can be checked out. NtheP (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been involved in the book trade for a third of a century now, and I can assure you that there are few sources less reliable than an Amazon book review. They are right up there with anonymous comments on a blog; in fact, that's basically what they are, except that the clueless and the unscrupulous continue to post smarmy self-praise, and occasionally nasty beatdowns of their perceived "competitors", in the guise of reviews there, much more often than they will on your typical blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Finding templates and WikiProjects

Hello. I am new to the user side of Wikipedia, and looking to get involved. I have a huge personal library, and tons of documents as well. I am active, love to read, love the power of information, and have a well established network in business and politics. My favorite subjects are economics and foreign policy. I am already established in the Economics WikiProject. (Their page hasn't been updated in a long time!) Is there a WikiProject for international affairs / foreign policy? Also, where can I find a template/banner that is useful for students saying that they are busy? thanks! Colonel House (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Howdy, Colonel House! We do have a WikiProject International relations and a WikiProject United Nations. Both are listed as "Active". There is also a template called {{Education wikibreak}} which is probably what you are after. Thank you for wanting to share your interests with us! hajatvrc @ 01:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Hajatvrc, thanks for helping me out! I hope to contribute to Wikipedia after it has helped me out all these years. --Colonel House (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Also I must ask, is there such a template, saying "This user is not a member of Facebook [anymore]?" Because I am not anymore, and am relishing in that.--Colonel House (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Colonel! You might also be looking for the {{Atschool}} template. The closest i could find for "This user is not a member of Facebook [anymore]" is the following userbox: {{User:CaseyPenk/UBX/NoFacebook}}, although that's not quite the same. You could always create a new userbox with that content (you can use the {{userbox}} template to easily create your own). benzband (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
From reading your userpage maybe you'd be interested in {{User OS:Ubuntu}} or one of the others listed there? Just an idea. benzband (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for helping me out! I appreciate that WP has so many active members. I will get started on economics ASAP.--Colonel House (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

articles without references

hi i wanted to know that content on Wikipedia that is original and cannot be cited as it has not been quoted from anywhere, how does that work then?Rafia (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rafia. Wikipedia is a work in progress and there are sadly many pages that are not yet properly referenced. We need more editors to help fix these.--Charles (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Rafia! As Charles said, Wikipedia is a work in progress. However, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking - is there something specific we can help with? Theopolisme TALK 21:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And Rafia, if your concern is the lack of some references, we'd love for you to help out at adding some! Just make sure the sources you cite are reliable (for example, a scholarly paper rather than a Youtube clip). Best of luck and welcome to Wikipedia! -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

SAI Submission question

Hello, thank you for your assistance. I am currently developing an entry on the Sociology association of Ireland (SAI), and I seem to have covered all of the items required by my editor. Is this enough to have the entry published? Thanks, Liam Leonard Liamled (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Liamled! Your submission at Articles for Creation was declined because it does not explain why the subject of the article is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia (see: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). You also need to find more third-party and reliable sources. benzband (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Saving edits

I am trying to edit a short article to make it longer and more accurate, but I don't know how to save the edits until I can continue on another day (I'm informed that if I hit "save" the article will be submitted, but I'm not ready yet). Meanwhile if I hit "help" or any other command, I'm told I "might" (whatever that means) lose my entire text, so I'm terrified of closing my computer down. How do I save the edit page with my new edits so I can return to it tomorrow? Skameikin70.20.43.130 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Skameikin, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Unfortunately, I don't think there is a good way to do what you're trying to do. What I would do in such a situation is copy your changes from the edit box and paste them into a text file on your computer, and then you can save the file on your computer. If you do that, though, you'll have to be careful about edits that might come between yours. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I use an external text editor to do all of my major article revisions. This allows me to always save what I am working on. But yes, you have to make sure others have not made changes before you submit! hajatvrc @ 19:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Skameikin, you can always save even if you're not finished. Add {{Under construction}} to the top of the page to indicate that you are in the process of expanding the article. NtheP (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to view a Wikipedia help page while editing an article, you can always open it in a new window or tab, too (right-click the link and select the appropriate option). This allows you to leave the editing page open in one place while reading help pages in another. We also have this handy Wikipedia cheat-sheet that explains how to use some of the most common wiki markup functions, such as text formatting, inserting images, and using templates. There is even a printable version of this cheat-sheet available for you, so you can keep it nearby when editing without having to have a separate window open for help.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 22:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Shameikin, if you register an account here, one of the advantages is that you can then create a "sandbox" in which just such work is done and saved until it's ready for submission! --165.189.32.4 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Review

Hi everyone! I am very new to Wikipedia editing and I would like to kindly ask you for some help - my recent article on Kento Masuda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kento_Masuda#References) was declined with the statement "unreliable sources". Could you give me some hints on what reliable sources would be for an artist/composer article? Thank you so much in advance! Cheers, Olga Orugoro (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The subject's own website is not a very reliable source, since they have an obvious conflict of interest in wishing to present themselves favorably. Blogs are not reliable sources; and many websites are not much better, lacking the kind of rigour and fact-checking to be found at a newspaper, a magazine, or even an established news site like File 770. This is especially important since we are talking about a biography of a living person. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Feedback?

I've just finished my first article and I was hoping for some feedback. I expanded the section Muffles in the Drum Kit page. Any tips/ideas are appreciated! Thanks Steveotenors (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 23:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steveotenors, and thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia! You clearly have a good understanding of drum muffles, and your expertise and enthusiasm are welcomed and encouraged. In general, your edits were very good. Your links to other Wikipedia articles were especially helpful. The only potential problems I see are with some of your external references. For instance, you reference a Youtube video, which is not generally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. I understand that the video you are referencing is one of John F. Kennedy's funeral, and it could be argued that it should not matter that you got it from Youtube, but many editors will simply delete any Youtube references they see. Is the video available in the archives of a major network or other reliable source? This would eliminate any questions about the legitimacy of your reference. Another potentially problematic reference is www.drummufflers.com. Does this website meet the requirements necessary to be considered a reliable source? I am not sure, but you should definitely do some research and find out. On the surface, it looks like it could be a primary source, in which case it might not be allowed. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them here or post a note on my talk page. Again, thanks for your efforts. You have made a great first article section, and we look forward to see many more from you. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing a page title

Hi! I am quite new to all of this and have a question that might seem very simple. I made an article for the producer John Would, and somehow managed to NOT capitalize his last name... I know... so, I have been trying to figure out how to actually edit the article title in order to fix the W, but cannot seem to do so. I couldn't even find any help when I tried googling the question! Also, do you think that the reason I am not able to link... or redirect... or whatever you call it from another article is because the capitalization is wrong? (i.e. when John Would is mentioned in the Fiona Apple article and you try clicking on his name it just says that a page has not yet been created.) If not, why is this happening?

Thank you so much!!!!!

Nervousfuller (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Nervousfuller, welcome to the Teahouse. Once created a page name can't be altered but the solution is to move the page to the correct name. To do this your account needs to be over 4 days old and have 10 edits recorded so you can't perform a move just yet. Not to worry I've done it for you, although the article really does need more references to establish Would's Notability. NtheP (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Using sources that have no online presence

Is it acceptable to use a publication that has no online presence as an inline citation? For example, a newpaper or magazine that is no longer being published?

And, would a source like this be considered to be a reliable source? Jcutrell (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

By coincidence I have just started The New Machiavelli with references as you describe. I didn't think to check first but I don't anticpate any problems.Tommy Pinball (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for visiting the Teahouse and contributing to Wikipedia, Jcutrell. Yes, it is entirely acceptable to use sources that are not available online. I own a lot of old books and have used some of them for references in Wikipedia articles, even though nobody including Google has digitized them yet. The general rule of thumb is that if a wide variety of reliable sources are available on a topic, you should select the best that are readily available online. When available sources are limited, feel free to use "paper only" sources, but cite them in detail - title, author, publisher, city of publication, date published, page number and so on. The same principle applies to non-English sources. If English language sources are abundant, use those. If English language sources are scarce, feel free to use those in other languages. Consider also how likely the source is to be challenged. If you are doing a good job of writing a biography of a moderately obscure early 19th century legislator, it is likely that no one will challenge your source. If the topic pertains to slavery or eugenics or phrenology or some other controversial 19th century topic, expect more scrutiny.
The only connection between the reliability of a source and whether or not it is available online relates to the ease of investigating the source. We all know that there were many outstanding newspapers and magazines published for generations that have gone out of business as a result of the chaos in publishing connected to the rise of the internet. These were reliable sources then and remain so today. On the other hand, a sensationalistic "yellow journalism" tabloid published in 1860 was unreliable then and remains unreliable now, except for trivial "local color" factoids perhaps. It is all a matter of reputation, which can always be discussed among interested editors if the matter is in doubt.
I hope this helps. Feel free to ask follow-up questions, either here or on my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I reall appreciate the feedback. Jcutrell (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Using a personal external image

I made a userbox (User:Bakura82/Userbox/Married_with_Children) that I would like to populate with an actual avatar of my family (http://www.bakura.org/profile/sig/family_avatar_200x200.jpeg) rather than the current Wikimedia Commons generic. However, I cannot get the photo to appear for the life of me, even after trying this: Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax and a few other help pages. P.S. I don't care to upload the photo and make it public use... which I realize is possible. Thanks! BAKURA (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've got two contradictory goals, Bakura: to use an image in Wikipedia, and not "to upload the photo and make it public use". "You can't have one without the other" (as a certain TV show's theme song reminded us). Any content here must be properly licensed for use and re-use under one of our licenses. Period. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bakura, welcome to the Teahouse! It's true, any content must be licensed for use and reuse. You can't link a photo into Wikipedia from another place. Does that change what you want to do? heather walls (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hm. I've done a little rereading and now understand my confusing. An image CAN link out to an external page. However, the image itself can't be external. So, now I get to decide whether I upload my image to do what I want (also allowing anyone else to do the same) or use use a Wikipedia Commons stock photo. Thank you both for your replies. :) BAKURA (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I was a little creeped out using a 'generic' family for the box that wasn't my own and I wasn't ready to upload my own, so this is what I stuck this. Thanks again! BAKURA (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That says "is a married with children". Did you intend for the "a" to be there?  dalahäst (let's talk!) 11:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Ha! This is exactly why Wikipedia is so useful. Thank you, dalahäst. The "a" was definitely not meant to be there. :) BAKURA (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Expansion Tag

You all were so helpful when I came here recently - I am back! I am doing a lot of needed minor edits on Alexander Litvinenko’s article. There is an expansion tab under the section “Flight from Russia and asylum in the United Kingdom”. The tag has been there since 2009. Does it still apply? Is there a fast way for me to find out if it’s been fixed (thru “view history”)? May I remove such a tag once it looks ok? If so, do I discuss it on it’s talk pg first? Here’s the link in case you’re interested: Alexander Litvinenko#Flight from Russia and asylum in the United Kingdom Related to those questions, I plan to fill out another section there which is similarly tagged (section is “Arrest”). How will I know if it’s enough info to remove the tag?

An unrelated question: I’ve noticed that it doesn’t seem to matter that I put the usual two spaces between sentences and after colons, etc. It appears to turn into one space. Should I not bother to put 2? Yes, I'm still reading the wonderful wealth of help pages! In advance, thank you kindly! Albeit27 (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi Albeit, and welcome back. Regarding the spaces, the MediaWiki software automatically merges multiple spaces, so there is need to enter them. For example, after this I will put five spaces: (or so). Regarding the tag in question, you may want to post on the talk page first. Personally, I think some of the subsections are really short and should thus be merged. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Crisco! Did I somehow goof this page up? It is looking all broken up to me and I'm stressin' over it. If it looks funky to you, will you fix it please? Thanks for your above very fast response! I hope I didn't break anything,,, Have a good night (or day).
Looks ok now. Whew! Albeit27 (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Crisco and thank you for the sugg reading. I just skimmed it and am moving it to the top of my reading list for a more thorough reading - very informative and interesting! Albeit27 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Albeit27. There's really not not much you can do to break Wikipedia. I mean, we have people deliberately trying to break it all day long and they fail. Caution is good, but you can be bold too. We need people like you, willing to roll up their sleeves and wade in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit! I very much appreciate your encouragement and kind words :) Albeit27 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick note about spacing: placing two spaces after a sentence is a relic of the typewriter era, when all characters were the same width. This provided more visual distinction, so that sentences could be more easily identified and "isolated" visually. Nowadays, it is considered unnecessary, and it is even listed in one of my favourite articles, the list of common English usage misconceptions.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 06:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Dalahast. Besides the great page you've referred me to, which I didn't know exist, I must say you have good knowledge about this subject. I am also putting it to the top of my reading list for a more thorough study - looks very informative! Albeit27 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

PS - I left brief "you have messages" for this posting on some of your talk pages to let you know I have new messages for you here. I'm unsure if the Teahouse system automatically informs you of this. I will be back to see if anyone has left info about this for me here. Thanks again! Albeit27 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Ah, you mean {{talkback}}? No, there are no automatic reminders. However, all registered users (you too!) have something called a watchlist, which allows us to keep track of articles, talk pages, and other parts of Wikipedia. It's quite useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeppers Crisco! Talkback! Thanks again! :) Albeit27 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

policy about company pages being edited by employees of that same company

hi all, im new to wikipedia and a bit confused about the interface and rules. it all seems not exactly user friendly and highly beaurocratic :P

i work for coolermaster and it has bothered me for a while that they dont have a proper wikipedia page. at some point it annoyed me so much i registered an account and wrote a concise company page, what products the company did in the past, now, what they are known for, where it has offices etc. at first i thought i should probably mark my own content as biased after im done, since i work for coolermaster after all and clearly AM biased no matter how hard i try not to be. but then i thought choosing a username with coolermaster in it would be even more clear.

before i was done tuning the site to look nice (formatting wikipedia page is a bit confusing to say the least) i got a notice that im supposed to change my username. i explained that i chose it because i work for coolermaster and didnt want to hide it. i explained myself, and that i did this in my own free time, not for work. but now after a couple of weeks all the changes i did to the coolermaster page have been deleted

  1. 1. im frustrated
  2. 2. i didnt get an explanation why it got removed and how i should proceed
  3. 3. is this just a matter of beaurocracy and if i create a new personal account and edit the coolermaster page again its fine, or will it be removed again?
  4. 4. where can i propose that this wikipedia policy gets reviewed? on forums and in other communities company reps come forward and identify themselves as such, to avoid complaints about trying to manipulate puplic opinion. it seems on wikipedia company reps are forced into hiding and to PRETEND they are not biased. does anybody here honestly want to tell me the company pages of large international conglomerates are written by normal users only and unbiased?

i suggest that company reps get special accounts with some features that make those accounts more useful for them, and in return they are clearly identified and their changes are automatically marked as biased and can be reviewed more easily. Sfk-coolermaster (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. The teahouse is perfect for these types of questions!
Firstly, I apologize on behalf of the Wikipedia community for any inconveniance you received. Yes, it's highly beuracrautic. But a lot of the editors here are really great, friendly people. Don't let one negative perception influence you!
Now, I recommend that you change your username. While your intentions are great, usernames generally shouldn't be promoting content or offensive (the latter doesn't apply to you). Also, it's encouraged that you also edit other Wikipedia articles, and contribute to the community, and thus the name wouldn't apply permanently either. Once again, it'd be best to just change the username.
As for the article. Generally, self-promotion articles can not be put on Wikipedia. That said, if a subject or business is notable enough, it can, I believe, be created and have other editors (I'd be willing) review it and clean it up. But make sure that whatever you write is NOT just your own personal statements. Even if you know that the business has 50 machines (example), that will need a reference to a media outlet, journal, book, any reliable source that says the business has 50 machines, since we can't take what you say at face value, even though you yourself know it's true.
So perhaps try the article out again in your sandbox, and then have some editors (I'd be willing to) look it over in your sandbox and fix it, and remove any bias. And of course, make sure it's properly referenced. See WP:REFERENCES for more info on that. Afterwards, it can be published.
Lastly, while it's certainly true that some companies have people editing their pages (even members of Congress), the point of Wikipedia is to prevent this as much as possible. In a known case, it should be prevented.
Hope it helps! --Activism1234 02:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's the thing about Wikipedia. It's all about notability. It's a tertiary overview of outside secondary sources which discuss primary sources/content. In other words, Wikipedia is a synopsis of what other people have said when talking about something. Let's say that a fire breaks out. News crews film the fire and the fire gets mentioned in the newspapers. Someone could then start an article on the fire, using information from the newspapers and the TV. If you were involved in the fire personally, like if your house burned down, unless one of the news people mentioned your house burning down, you couldn't talk about it. Wikipedia is all about Notability. So, what you'd want to do is to find other things that talk about your company. Surely there's some sort of publicity department or company scrapbook where the company keeps track of what has been said about it publicly and where it was said? Gather those up and use them as the sources for your new rewrite of the article. While we generally frown on people (who seem to have a conflict of interest) editing articles that they're closely related to, it's really all about whether you have enough sources to back you up. Good luck! :)

Do editors even read the articles they are obsessed with maintaining

It's no wonder the algae articles on Wikipedia are so badly written, editors have no intentions of improving them, when they interfere with a pet original research theory of theirs. Is it really necessary to discuss changes? My page was bombarded with the most contradictory, useless set of links (although I believe the intentions behind the post were good), and discussions with other editors is interfering with correcting misinformation, writing new articles, and adding modern reliable secondary and tertiary sources to badly written current articles.

How can anyone edit around here when the regulars want to spend all their time socializing, or so it seems from the perspective of someone who wanted to add and improve articles? Eau (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, and thanks for visiting the Teahouse. One of Wikipedia's policies is no original research; we even have a noticeboard for it, where you (or anyone else) can report articles suspected of containing original research. As for discussing changes, the point of this is to try and reach consensus. That word gets thrown around a lot here, because it is officially what we base decisions on, as much as possible. Discussing changes to articles helps make sure that everyone is satisfied with them.
Of course, there is more than one way to go about this process; not all changes require a discussion right away, and many changes, like improving the layout of an article and adding reliable sources, don't need a discussion at all. A good way to improve articles is to be bold and make changes as you see fit. Should someone disagree with your edit, they may make further edits, building on what you changed, or they may revert your edit. If this happens, it's time to discuss things, so some sort of consensus can be reached. Enough people have found this method of working on articles productive that they have given it a name, the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle.
One other note—nobody can own a Wikipedia article, even if they started it or have made more edits to it than anyone else. Sometimes, editors get a bit obsessive about pages because they have worked very hard on them to improve them. They may get upset when others make changes that they perceive as "ruining" or "undoing" their work. In those situations, remember to stay cool. You may find it helpful to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down with that editor, to let them know that you appreciate the work they have put into the article.
Anyway, I hope that helps. If you've got more questions, well, the Teahouse isn't going anywhere!  dalahäst (let's talk!) 01:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
They don't seem to even know what the article says, so there is not much to compliment, but thanks for the respectful reply to my blowing off steam. Eau (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, heh. Editing Wikipedia can get frustrating at times, and as hard as we may try, it seems we aren't ever able to overcome the (perfectly natural) impulse to judge and label things, people, or whatever else is at hand—X doesn't know what they're talking about, Y is ruining this article, and Z is stopping everyone from getting anything done here. If you're not feeling up to the admittedly-daunting task of trying to have a discussion about a page where these kinds of things are going on, why not take a break from it and work on something else? There are plenty of WikiProjects that could use some assistance, I'm sure, and there's the Guild of Copy Editors, if grammar and style are your kind of thing.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 01:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Another editor suggested I just write new articles. There are thousands of missing algae species, genera, family, even class articles. I could have written a dozen in the time I spent discussing a single badly written paragraph of misinformation, even if it the lead in a major article. Eau (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just thinking—that actually may increase your chances of working productively on the other articles, in the long run. Once other editors have gotten a chance to look at the articles you create, they might not be so quick to work against you. There is a sort of bias against new editors that shows up sometimes, often unintentionally—and we know that scares people away, so we have a policy of not biting the newcomers. Of course, when people don't realize they're being a bit harsh with an editor who is already confused and upset about why X got reverted, it's often too late before anyone points it out. This is actually one of the reasons the Teahouse was started; it's a pretty recent project.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 05:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_34&oldid=1145706478"