Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 36

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38→Archive 40

Multi-account

I really don't know if this is the right place for this question, but I'm interested in making an account. However, I would wish to have (the same) account usable, not only for English, but also for several other Wikipedias (whose languages I know and could contribute to). Help, please. 178.223.213.132 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse! All the Wikipedia's and projects under the Wikimedia umbrella have something called Single Unified Login, which is exactly what you're looking for. It's really easy to use, all you need to do is setup a new username, then go to Special:MergeAccount and it'll do everything for you! Just make sure you don't choose a username which has already been used on other Wikipedias - you can use this tool to find out if the username is attached to a user on another wikipedia. WormTT(talk) 15:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not have to do anything to be a member of many other language Wikipedias, except select an obscure user name. When I am logged onto en.Wikipedia, and I click on an interlanguage Wikipedia, I am also logged in on that other Wikipedia. Eau (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, new users don't have to do anything if their username is not in use elsewhere. meta:Help:Unified login#How to unify your accounts says: "Currently, all new accounts are unified by default, and older accounts can be manually unified by their users. To do so, go to Special:MergeAccount on a wiki where you already have an account." I'm old here and had to do it. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your help! I have made the changes you suggested Sarah, and am really hoping my references are more appropriate now. Also glad to learn more about the wikipedia community.Jengawiki (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Any new accounts created are automatically global and can be used on any other wikipedia. So the Single Unified Login or Merging of accounts is already being done for you when you create a new account. Note that this may not apply to old accounts. Vibhabamba (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Private wikiMedia

Hiya Guys, Theorectically, if I set up (with outside help!!) a private wikimedia programme to handle basic admin tasks for my company would there any reason why this would be a non-starter?. If I were looking to recruit someone with Wikipedia experience is there any such portal/ service/list of wikipedians looking for work? Tommy Pinball (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Tommy Pinball, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question. What do you mean by "a private wikimedia programme" and "basic admin tasks"? If you're asking about paying editors to write an article about your company, then I should tell you that paid editing is a very divisive issue on Wikipedia, and many people are vehemently opposed to the practice, so I would recommend that you don't pursue it. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe he is asking about using the media wiki software to create a private wiki for his own company. Then he'd like someone to help explain the wikimarkup. If that is the case, you can always go to mw:Manual:Installation guide to learn about installing it. I don't know about wikipedians looking for work. I'm assuming they would have to have experience in both Wikipedia and in whatever administrative tasks your company is planning on using it for. If that is the case, I feel like you'd be better off creating a job link externally with requirements that the applicant be experienced in mediawiki. Then you could post links to that at the village pump here and at some of our sister projects (meta might be a good one). Ryan Vesey 17:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hiya Guys, thanks for replying; Writ_Keeper you cold, Ryan Vesey, getting warmer. "Theoretically" the wiki is up & running; my personal edits there number 338,643 - very very useful but resulting in neglect to other areas of the business. A couple of staff use it but they don't really "geddit" the way any wikipedian would. Ideally I would like to stick a note on my user page such as "Fancy earning a bit of cash editing a (non-public) wiki from home? - all above board HMRC read wikipedia too - send me a wiki email for full details." My own Wikipedia contributions have been and will continue to be for pleasure and I do not want to get blocked or banned from my hobby for the sake of my business - My email is not up yet and I wont put it up if this is not within the rules/spirit of the project (ie this message is not a subtle way to shoe in the "advert"). Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there would be anything inherently wrong with doing that - as far as policies go. Obviously, you wouldn't want to spam up the Wiki (your signature, for example) with links to apply or whatever - but something on your userpage doesn't sound wrong to me. What, if you don't mind me asking, is this MediaWiki install used for? Internal/corporate stuff? Theopolisme TALK 20:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hiya Theopolisme, pretty wild yeah! Thanks for you reply. I don't mind you asking and I will try to answer. My answer would be "everything" which probably does translate as Internal/corporate stuff. As an instance we are a construction company and need an ISO14001 accredited Environmental management system inorder to get building work from Goverment Departments. Consequently we have a page ISO 14001 Environmental management systems - similar to (ISO 14000) on Wikipedia but it allows me to strip out stuff that is simply not relevant our company and add stuff that is...without the need for references! Basically ISO 14001 has four chapters and a couple of annexes. For chapter 1, I have a page that branches off called "1 Scope ISO 14001". An employee might get a letter (Pdf) referring to "ISO 14001: 2004, Clause 1" - in the old days they would ring me up saying "what does this mean?" These days they would simply cut & paste a redlinked ISO 14001: 2004, Clause 1 onto my talkpage which I subsquently redirect to "1 Scope ISO 14001" giving them the info they need. In an ideal world they would do a search for say 14001 and make their own redirect. Tommy Pinball (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
If you set up your account preferences for e-mail, interested Wikipedians could send you e-mails about such an offer. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tommy, this is the sort of thing I do commercially. I think it might be clearer as a "MediaWiki" programme though, rather then "Wikimedia". One's the open-source technical platform that runs many, many wikis. The other is the charity behind the Wikipedia and other projects. My email link works, so please drop a line if you'd like to talk further. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Mars Lasar Wiki Page

Hi,

I am talking on behalf of Mars Lasar. He told me that he is trying to edit his Wikipedia page for a while and he doesn't quite understand why his edits were taken out.

Please let me know what guidelines he will need to follow for his page to be fixed.

Thank you!

Manny 98.248.8.34 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Manny! Thanks for stopping by. We actually frown upon people editing their own articles. Wikipedia has a pretty strict conflict of interest policy - it helps us maintain neutrality and avoid looking like a promotional website, for example. So, if Mars has some problems, it's best that he drops by the talk page of his article and just leave some comments there. That way, folks who watch that article can investigate his concerns and make improvements as needed. I hope that helps :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Article rejected because page is blank

Hi. I recently tried to post an article and after a waiting period learned that it was rejected because it was a blank page. I retrieved the page and found that it contained the article title plus so material that I assume was formatting language. I had originally created the article as an MS Word document, then copied and pasted it in. Someone more knowledgeable than I am about computers suggested that MS Word formatting may have caused a problem, and that I might succeed if I saved the article as a plain text file. Someone else said I would have to type the article in. Please advise.

Thanks,

Byron 24.23.187.173 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Byron! Welcome to the Teahouse! I looked at your submission and saw that, yes, it was blank - sadly, I'm afraid I can't really help you too much without seeing the file in question. Copy-and-pasting an article might not be the best way to go, however - while it's fine to start the article by copy/pasting, it's recommended you then convert it to WikiCode, Wikipedia's own "special language." But if the problem is some sort of compatibility issue with your computer, I can't really help you there... your friend's guess is as good as mine. :) Sorry to not have been able to offer a more substancial answer. Theopolisme :) 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, 24! (As I look around for Jack Bauer. j/k) I realize I should probably address you as Byron, but I wanted to make that little joke to help hammer home a point. You should register and get a username! With a username comes your very own sandbox, which is a place you can work on articles until you feel they are ready to submit. If you had a sandbox, you would have seen the article was blank before you submitted it. Sandbox is also a great place to practice using wiki markup, so you can see what all of those obscure codes do. It is only a guess, but if you remove the line of code that you mentioned, ya think it might work? I hope so. I am betting that if you resave it in plain text, that too should work. Just a little note, though. When we write a letter or report or something like that, we usually indent 5 spaces to indicate a new paragraph. Well if you do that in wikimarkup, the program will try to put a box around your text. Just hit enter to insert a line for a paragraph break. Good luck. Come back if you need any more help! Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem with MS Word documents is that the formatting can get really big, really fast -- the hidden code that creates the formatting is bloated. Wikipedia tries to create slim documents, so that people can easily read the articles, even on small things like non-smart phones. Also, the only way to read a Word document is to either 1) have Word, 2) convert the document to a different format, or 3) crack the document. Because Wikipedia tries to be open and available to everyone, the first isn't a good option, the second would require a lot of work by the server and the third option doesn't work because Microsoft might sue. So, Wikipedia uses special wiki formatting which is also a lot faster than MS Word once you get used to it. Also, looking at the name of the article you created, it seems like it's likely to be an article about a friend or about you. Just remember that Wikipedia articles about living people must be verifiable and about a notable person. Good luck! :) Banaticus (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

confilcts among contributors

I am new to this. I have added some information to an article along with a supporting reference. Then someone deleted it. Now I have put it back. Is this how it works? How are such things resolved? Bmarlowe1 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Bmarlowe1! We actually have a behavioral standard on Wikipedia known as Bold, Revert, Discuss. Basically this means that if you believe something belongs in an article, you can Be Bold and add it. If another editor believes that the content does not belong, they may revert your edit. It is then necessary to discuss the change you want to make with the other editor, usually on the article's talk page. We also have a rule known as three-revert rule, which means that three reversions of the same edit without any consensus being determined constitutes an edit war and is prohibited. The other editor should have provided an edit summary with their edit to explain why they were reverting your edit, but they did not. I would post a message on the talk page of the article explaining what you want to add and then notifying the other editor on their own talk page that you have left a message for them at the article talk page. Thank you for asking this question, as many editors who do not understand the code of conduct just go right into an edit war and end up disrupting Wikipedia. hajatvrc @ 20:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Article no longer a stub

I've been working on the page for the Raymond Chandler novel The Little Sister following the novels template. I think the article is ready to be elevated to higher than stub status. I would also like some feedback as to how to improve it further. I've looked on various pages for help and the novels project but I'm still a bit confused about the right next step, thanks. Mdebellis (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The next step would be to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment#Requesting an assessment and request an assessment by following the guidelines. If, after a little while, there is no strikethrough, feel free to post a request for reassessment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Brambleberry ☾of RC☽ 20:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Mdebellis (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is my article ready for posting?

My article on the New Rochelle Walk of Fame has been in the sandbox for some time and I would like to know if it is ready for posting. If not what do I still need to do. Thanks, Rod Kennedy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Duwamps/sandbox


69.86.58.234 (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Duwamps (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rodney, and welcome to the Teahouse! You've clearly put some effort into creating this article, which is a very good thing. However, you will need to put more effort into it to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards for a new article. Please have a look at this page about starting a new article. Specifically, I encourage you to work on a couple of things:
1) Keep your language in the article neutral and non-promotional. If the article reads like an ad, it is likely to get tagged and deleted.
2) Do some research into finding reliable sources that discuss the New Rochelle Walk of Fame. You can use these as references in the new article. You will need to demonstrate why this entity is notable in order to keep it from being deleted.
If you have any questions, please post them here. We are happy to help. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Email notice every time page on watchlist is changed?

Hello Those Who Know Things

In my preferences I've checked "E-mail me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" but I'm not getting an email for each change. I've checked my spam box, the notices aren't going there.

So, how do I get notified every time there's a change?

thanks! Nonesuch75 19:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonesuch75 (talk • contribs)

Hello Nonesuch75. The emails can take a while to come through or so I find with Wikimedia Commons although I do not use the service here. Most of us keep our watchlist open in a separate window and refresh it fairly frequently.--Charles (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that has been turned off in Wikipedia. You can put gobs of pages on your watch list and if those were really popular pages, then the Wikimedia Foundation would be sending gobs of emails to you every day. To avoid server overload, that option has been turned off (I believe). Otherwise, you simply have to "watch" the pages for changes (that's why it's called a "watchlist"). If it's a really popular page, then someone will virtually always be watching it and if it's not a really popular page, then it won't get changed very often (usually). I hope this helps. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How to find the owner of a wiki page?

I want to report the owner of an article about a suspected typo. I updated the same in that article talk page but no response yet. So wondering if any other ways to notify the owner. Kirukp (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi Kirukp and welcome to the Teahouse! There are no individual "owners" of the pages on Wikipedia, and in fact we encourage people to fix what typos they see in articles. If the article reads, for example, "Quene Elizabeth", feel free to fix it with the edit tab at the top of the screen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Crisco 1492, Thank you for the reply. Just saw someone responded to my talk. Checking on it. Kirukp (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess you refer to Talk:Gangs of Wasseypur - Part 1#Suspect a typo! I don't know why you think July 25 is a typo. The statement has an inline reference to a source [1] which says July 25. The article link to the source didn't work but I fixed that by removing a slash.[2] Other sources I have found also say July 25. You are allowed to make corrections to articles but only if you have a verifiable reliable source and don't contradict an inline reference. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. Kirukp (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidencing required for Article

Hi There

New to Wiki, based in London, and would very much like to extend a stub on a London Based Film school. I.e. I would like to construct an article on the film school. The question is, will the film school's website be a permissible source of information. Let's say 'as regards their curriculum'?

thanks in advance SamCardioNGO (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sam. Welcome to the teahouse. The website will be an acceptable source for what the school does, although excessive trivial detail should be avoided. You will however need to show "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" to establish the notability of the organisation.--Charles (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Charles, thanks for the reply (apologies if this added comment is in the wrong place). re your reply - that's likely part 2 of my question. So what should I be looking for? Listings in text books on colleges in the UK, articles about the Film School in Photography and Film Magazines? SamCardioNGO (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi again. Yes magazine and newspaper aticles, especially national papers, are ideal. I was helping someone with another college yesterday as it happens and all I could online apart from the college's website was a mention in a publication by Imperial College. That does at least verify that the place exists.--Charles (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sam, yes generally an organization's own site is considered a reliable source for these sorts of non-contentious information. Of course any claims such as "the only combined set design and property buying course in the UK" or even more "the best directing course", would need to be considered more carefully. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC).
High Rich, yes, most of the information is non contentious. Course structure, nuts and bolts. I guess where they put on their website Nic Roeg says 'xyz' one would not be able to use that quote unless the statement was made in an article outside the film school (e.g. interview through BBC etc)? thanks again SamCardioNGO (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That's correct. :) Banaticus (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

altering and deleting current wording

In making edits and adding to current articles, is it also possible to delete or change current wording, and if so, how is that done? Thank you! 67.83.54.25 (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi 67, welcome to the treehouse. Everything is editable, you just have to click on the "edit" tab either at the top of the page or at the section header. Here's a practice bit for you:
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog while the kookaburra sits in the old gum tree.
Try it! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes 67, if you think you can improve the grammar or readability of the existing text you are very welcome to do so. You just need to keep it faithful to the sources cited for it and avoid synthesis where information from different sources is conflated to give a further meaning. There is a Guild of copy editors which specialises in that type of work if you are interested.--Charles (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Customizing Infoboxes

Hi there! I'm working on an article about the Guyanese artist and archaeologist, George Simon, here and I'm arguing with myself about infoboxes! Basically, I can't decide whether to use Infobox person or Infobox artist, as, in an ideal world I'd like to be able to include information about Simon's ethnicity and both his occupations (which is allowed by Infobox person but not Infobox artist) as well as information about the artistic movement of which he is the founder (which is allowed by Infobox artist but not Infobox person!). I've had this debate with previous articles as well, so I thought it was worth asking: is there a way of customizing infoboxes so that you can put in additional fields, or is it just a question of best-fit compromise? (I realise it's not exactly a big issue - all the info is in the body of the article - but I kinda like icing AND cake!!!) Thank you! Loriski (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Your desire to have just the right information is good, and I would like to help you solve your problem. Unfortunately, both infoboxes are highly protected, because a small change to them, whether accidental or deliberate, will cause problems across many articles. However, you can try and convince the editors that control the templates to add fields by bringing it up on the template's talk page. I'd suggest going to the Template:Infobox artist and request an ethnicity or race field on the talk page. Hope it goes well :) Karafs (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Karafs! I'll run with Infobox person for now, then, and make the suggestions you recommend at the Infobox artist talkpage and wait to see what happens! :) Loriski (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Submission declined due to a lack of 'reliable sources'... how to proceed?

Hi, I have created an article about a man who had incredible local importance to a small suburb of Southampton and who's lasting legacy has seen his small retail outlet turn into a large successful store. The man in question is now deceased, I have found one book relating to this man (which I have cited), plus quoted from a couple of newspaper articles that I have found (which are also cited).

The rest of the content I have found through talking to some of the longer serving members of staff within the store (who remember Mr Peter Green) and therefore I am unable to provide a 'reliable citation'.

I have compared my level of citation to that of another local retail store (Bradbeers) and feel that I am not offering any less than they already have - the question is, what do I need to do to proceed - I'm a little lost?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Adrian AdrianMG (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, there are a number of ways to proceed, and I will presently take a look at the article in question and see if I can help more specifically. Firstly, of course, by finding more and better sources - and if you can't there are people who may be able to help. Secondly by considering whether the best place for the information is in an article on the person, or in an article on the shop, or even an article on Retail development in Southampton.
The second point you raise is about what we call "oral citation" and while there are a number of projects to push this forward, such citations are generally not sufficient for Wikipedia. Possibly if the material can be published in other media (for example, local newspaper columns), it may become citable. While this is an obstacle, "reliable sources" is a touchstone for Wikipedia for a number of reasons, that I expect are self evident. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply Rich, all suggestions are appreciated! The reason that I wrote the article about the man, rather than the business, is that without his input and ambition the business could never have survived in the first place - he was quite a visionary and a very famous and popular man in the local community. The problem that I have found is that there appears to have been very little printed about him and I considered that the 'advertorials' that I have found, would be inappropriate to cite from, as they may effectively represent marketing for the business? AdrianMG (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As someone who works at Articles for Creation quite a bit, I'd have to agree that your article needs more evidence that Green has been widely talked about. Your article largely relies on a few pages in one book. The Reading newspaper article is about the shop, not the person. If you find another source or two, try and edit out some of the chattiness from your article too. AfC usually accepts articles that stand a good chance of surviving in Wikipedia's main article space, but the length of your article, combined with the lack of sources, would set alarm bells ringing for me. I hope you don't get dispirited. Good luck! Sionk (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

i have created an article but it has been deleted, how i can creat ?

i have created an article of my poems which was reflecting live of village children. my all poems are dedicated to those village children amd to motivate them, tell me how can make my wiki page???

sushilk600 09:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushil600 (talk • contribs)

Five Pillars?

Why do they call the six policy articles, the five pillars? Did they used be five? Was one added at some point, and if so, which one and why? →Yaniv256 talk contribs 03:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Yaniv256! I assume, by "six policy articles" you mean the first six links listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. The Five Pillars are a summary of the most basic principles on Wikipedia. They themselves are not the polices, but summaries of all of them. There are more than six policies on Wikipedia, in fact there are scores of them listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. hajatvrc @ 04:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that was really helpful. I was on wp:own and made the mistake of thinking that the infobox to the right is the five pillars. That little mistake would have been very embarrassing in any place other than the teahouse! Major positive feedback here! →Yaniv256 talk contribs 04:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Yaniv256, I just wanted to make an important point regarding Wikipedia rules and pillars and policies and all that. One of the main pillars is to ignore all rules which is not to say that it's OK to be a complete pain; but it is a reminder that Wikipedia does not exist to be a set of rules, but rather to be a source of information. Rules are important, and we should follow them, except when we shouldn't. --Jayron32 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Review too

Hi all! I have had two articles rejected a few times now and although I have tried to execute the feedback I've been given, more specific criticisms would be greatly appreciated (e.g. remove this sentence, reference needed here etc).

I don't want to clutter this discussion forum and turn it into a place just for article reviews, and I would love to practice some objective judgements without having the pressure of having to make editorial decisions without any proper experience, so if there is somewhere devoted to feedback or a place to find a mentor for this sort of guidance, please let me know? Thanks Jengawiki (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jengawiki, thank you for coming to the Teahouse! Sorry you are having a hard time getting your article accepted - it's a tough process sometimes but serves as point to keep Wikipedia healthy and happy with good notable content. :) First, there is a program for folks seeking one-on-one mentorship, called Adopt-a-user. So perhaps you'll be able to find some more indepth guidance there. Here is some feedback:
  1. In the lead, remove the word "largest," without a citation from a major news media resource (or the like) this can't be stated. Just keep it stating that WD is a "UK provider of direct consumer warranties." All content on Wikipedia should be cited and neutral, and that statement is non-neutral and uncited! :)
  2. In the infobox, remove the caption and just leave the image. Also, you don't need the advert (that's copyrighted and can't be on Wikipedia) so just keep the image of the book. I moved it down to the right side. I took the liberty of doing that for you, I hope you don't mind.
  3. Here is the biggest issue: the majority of the sources are not reliable. In Wikipedia, we need reliable sources. These include newspapers, magazines, news programs, etc. The links you use are either press releases, the company or an organizations website, etc. These things are not reliable because they are made by Warranty Direct or organizations related to them. Basically, the entire article can be deleted and not accepted based on this merit alone. Content that is considered reliable are sources like this: [3][4][5], etc. And news outlets or resources (that aren't made by WD) that talk about the organizations history. Basically, if more content like this that actually discusses WD at great length do not exist, then perhaps the organization doesn't need an article right now.
  4. Remove the external links in the "Warranty Direct Affilitated websites," section. That's too promotional. Just mention someplace in the article that WD has two affiliated websites and what the names are.
  5. Here is a better example of an insurance company article Farmers Insurance Group, check out all of those reliable sources at the bottom! THat's awesome.
I hope this helps. SarahStierch (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You might also take a look at Where to get feedback on an article you've just created. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I sent a message before but I don't think it sent. Just wanted to say thank you both for your help and advice and I've tried to implement your feedback Sarah. Fingers crossed for attempt number 4! Jengawiki (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

How should I concretely understand that the article on Bacigalupo needs better formatting?

Hi, everybody. I'm thankful to Sara for suggesting that I visit the Teahouse in order to get help. I certainly accept the criticism of reviewers. With regard to the article on Bacigalupo,I'm not sure what I should change. I know I enjoy an informal tone - but I think I changed it to formal, as appropriate for a Wikipedia entry.Is it formal enough now? Concise enough? I broke up long paragraphs, adding suitable headings. Is that part of the expected formatting? I showed that the filmmaker Bacigalupo is notable. He is a noted experimental filmmaker. (The Turin film festival fairly recently had a retrospective of his work, and the Turin museum of modern art (the GAM) had a simultaneous exhibition showing documents related to his work. Major museums have copies of his films, and the new york filmmakers' coop distributes them or some of them. Jonas Mekas liked one of Bacigalupo's films a lot...) I also showed that his work as an Ezra Pound scholar is highly esteemed by other scholars. Has this problem been handled adequately? I omitted almost all online references, depending on serious printed sources. I think, however, that websites of important museums are serious sources, and so are city government websites naming the recipients of a prize awarded by the city. I backed up the websites of museums etc. with printed Italian newspaper articles that also appeared online (the way n.y.times articles also appear online). The printed sources form the bulk of sources. Are they adequate? Which are not, I ask myself. I simply mention all of this because I feel a bit helpless. What did I overlook? In what way did I depart from the paradigm that I should have respected? What would be necessary to have a properly formatted text? A small hint, tied to a concrete example (of where & how I 'erred') would be appreciated. Sorry, I make too many words, I know. Are my articles also way too long? O yes, I hope I'm not asking for too much help. I checked and read many Wikipedia pages on "how to write" an article. Learning, and glad to learn. Thank you for reading this. I shall appreciate whatever help you may give. JoanX.Chen (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joan. I made a bunch of formatting fixes. Notably I started on the external links - this shows I hope how an external link is formatted [<url> <label>]. There are many other minor formatting issues, for example we avoid "smart quotes" and bolding, and there were some capitalization issues. I have fixed what I can see, and in my opinion they should not be a barrier to the article going live. It may be useful to review WP:ITALIC which covers the use of italic text, which is something likely to be relevant to your writing. Rich Farmbrough, 03:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

How to know what the parent categories are for any given page

Hi

This question is not directly related to editing Wikipaedia - but i could find no other place to pose a wiki question.

I am in the process of creating an extensive enclycopaedic database for my young kids. I plan on making many small flash cards - all categorized logically.

To get the ball rolling, i need to want to mimic the organizational structure of an encyclopaedia. Since I'm a fan of WikiPaedia, i want to use it's content structure. (though i won't obviously cover the entire content :-) - just a general portion).

I plan on using this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Overviews) as a guide for planning my categories. From this, i gather that the general format is

Portal -> Category -> Article e.g. Portal[Geography] -> Category[Cities] -> Article[New York]

My question: When i browse to any given article, how can i tell what the "parent" category/sub-category is?

e.g. For the "Carpentry" article for instance; how do i tie "Carpentery" to the parent "portal" classification ?

Jason_Phox Jason Phox (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hey Jason. Interesting question for an interesting project you are undertaking. Let me see if I can help you.
Articles on wikipedia are organized in a number of ways. One way is through simple category designations you can find at the bottom of most articles. For instance, under the page for New York City there are a number of categories including Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States, Category:Former capitals of the United States, and Category:Port settlements in the United_States. Another way they are categorized is through something called templates. You can see these at the bottom of the NYC page, too (e.g. this template for New York State). A third way is through parent portals as you mentioned above. These are often located at the bottom of the page as well-- the NYC page has them under the "See Also" section, and are also located at the bottom.
So, whatever designation you choose to organize your notecards with, I would check the the bottom of the page. Some articles don't have portals, unfortunately, so you might not be able to categorize everything this way. Taking carpentry for example, at the bottom the page, one of the categories it is under is Category:Woodworking. I hope this is helpful for your project-- best of luck! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi Jason, you might be interested in the Category:Main topic classifications and working downward from there. Be aware that the category system (even looking solely at "content categories") has a number of anomalies: firstly it is not a tree, it has cross-linkages and loops, secondly members of a subcategory are not necessarily members of the parent category, although considerable effort has been expended to make this the case. The main reason for this latter anomaly is that content categories seem to be of two types - "is a" - for example "Stations on the London Underground" and "Relates to" for example Category:London Underground. Thus if Category:Paris is made a subcategory of Category:Cities in France (which it is currently) Adalard of Paris becomes an indirect member of Category:Cities in France, despite not being a city. Rich Farmbrough, 04:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

Préludes (Debussy) -- Merging all the small articles into 1, or 2 big articles.

Hi, I would like to improve the article on Debussy's Préludes, as I've found some sourced information.

However, now there's a "father" article with the listing of pieces and some general information, and then there are all the "child" articles for every piece (however, most are empty). Most of the child articles are redundant and say mostly the same (i.e. an identical lead section plus a sentence about the individual piece).

I would like to merge the contents into one or two big articles (maybe one for Bk.1 and another for Bk.2, or one for both). Then, it would be easier to improve the general content and reach the GA class.

However, that's going to require many redirects and major reestructuring, so I need to post somewhere my intentions so as nobody kills me X-D.

PS. I don't know if I should post that question here, but in many places you simply get no feedback.

Thanks!Fauban 11:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fauban, and welcome to the Teahouse! I love Debussy's Preludes, they're some of my favorite pieces to play. :) I do think that combining the information would make it easier to get the "father" article to GA/FA status, but eventually, sub-articles may be warranted. That's often what happens - you find too much information for the big article and have to expand elsewhere. So, it's probably a good start for you to work all of the information into the parent article and move on to the individual preludes later. Good luck - and I hope this helps! Keilana|Parlez ici 17:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidencing (further enquiries)

Hi There, I'm writing an article on a Film School in London, my first one, and (perhaps for the first time) realised that 'articles on the Film School' are not enough. In terms of evidencing they have to exist electronically (somewhere). Is that entirely correct? So that paper is not good enough? thanks in advance 86.144.10.33 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! The sources don't have to be online but they have to be verifiable - so, I have to be able to find those sources myself and read them if I want to in order to verify the facts about the film school. I hope that helps :) Feel free to come by and share your sources with us if you need some input! SarahStierch (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Particularly when citing offline sources, you may want to look at Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include. Sionk (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Load a picture

Hey,

This may be a strange question, but I have recently written an article on the Susquehanna Warrior Trail, and I am not sure how to load pictures onto it. How do you load pictures onto Wikipedia articles?

Thanks,

King jakob c (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jakob! You must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image. If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. You could also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear (replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image). See our picture tutorial for more information. Hope this helps! benzband (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! King jakob c (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

How to find status of new article

Seven days ago I submitted a new, non-controversial article, an author mini-biography with a listing of works. It has still not appeared. Is there any way of finding the status or what went wrong?Cloudrush (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cloudrush! Welcome to the Teahouse :) Are you talking about User:Cloudrush/sandbox? If so, you have to click the button in the "this is a user sandbox" box at the top of the page that states "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." HOWEVER, a lot of work still has to be done on it before it will be approved. I hate sending people to policies, but, there is a pretty lengthy explanation on how an author, like your subject, can be included in Wikipedia. Hendricks has to fit into one of the following:
  1. She has to be super uber famous (i.e. Stephen King famous) or cited by peers and scholars who study her work.
  2. She has to have created a new concept or genre and be well known for it
  3. Her work has been made into a feature film (not a tiny little independent film that has had little to no attention, mind you!)
  4. Her work has been reviewed by numerous media outlets (i.e. New York Times for example)
  5. She's won major critical reception for her work

Now, does she fall into any of those? Now, the biggest concern I do have so far is that there are no citations for her article. Ok, there is one, but it is a non-reliable source - it's from a press release and those aren't considered reliable because they are written by the subject or an organization representing the subject and press releases can make up anything about the subject. Here are some examples of potential reliable sources that you can use [6][7][8], etc. My fear, is that without more sources like that, her article could be nominated for deletion or repeatedly declined at Articles for Creation, because she's not famous enough right now. So, if you can improve upon the content - and fully cite any personal information about her (it'll just be deleted without reliable sources) then you can submit the article for review. I hope this helps - and don't let it get you down, there are so many contemporary authors that need articles written about them! Also, we do have a WikiProject for folks who like to write about authors, you can find it here: WP:Writers SarahStierch (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you so much for your complete response. You make Wiki what it is!Cloudrush (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how to get a page updated when there's a potential conflict of interest

I'm a complete newbie at this and have been asked by the organisation I work for to update our wikiepedia entry as recent changes in legislation make the current content out-of-date. I've recreated the article in my sandbox and have asked two previous editors of the article for help but I've not had a response. Can I just go ahead and update the existing page? AngelaHamilton (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome AngelaHamilton to the teahouse. It is great that you are seeking advice at the outset and that you are trying to work with other involved editors. They may be away on holiday so maybe give it a bit longer. Otherwise I do not see why you should not make the changes if you declare your interest on the article talkpage. It will also help if you can find more third party sources for the content. I hope it goes well.--Charles (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Charles, thanks for getting back so quickly. I'll take your advice and wait a bit and see if I get anything back from the other editors. I'll also try and find more third party sources for the content. Best wishes AngelaHamilton (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan

Why is the fact that Paul Ryan (per The Economist) took home his dead son so that his other kids could play with him, not noted in the article. Is this another Paula Bush, Mike Dougles event for Wikipedia? 70.20.18.224 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi 70. This is not the kind of question we deal with here. We help with the nuts and bolts of editing. You need to raise this initially at the talk page of the article. If you are still not satisfiedthe next step could be a request for comment.--Charles (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Another thing you could do, if this is a factual question like I think it is, is ask at the Reference Desk. The Reference Desk is where volunteers research and answer questions like this - I find that it's pretty helpful. Feel free to ask here if you have any questions about using Wikipedia! Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 22:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi 70! I agree with Charles above, an RfC is a great way to get input on controversial additions/deletions of article content. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest - How to proceed?

Hi All -

I am new to Wikipedia, and I am trying to get my bearings. I have a few questions regarding an article that I requested to have created - TransCard,LLC. I am currently an employee at this company, so I do not feel I am the best fit for creating the article due to the conflict of interest guidelines. I created the request under the Companies/Business section (this name may not be exactly correct - again, I am still learning). I want to make sure that I am on the right track. TransCard, LLC, is a company that is similar to Green Dot Corporation. I know of articles and sources, but again, I am a current employee. I would love to hear from someone experienced to let me know if I am heading in the right direction.

Thanks! - Lcarter82 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lcarter82, and welcome to Wikipedia! All editors are welcome here. I take it from your question that you asked for an article to be created. If that's the case, another helpful editor will review your submission and offer suggestions on its improvement. If you're concerned about your conflict of interest, I think that as long as you disclose it openly on your user page and use independant reliable sources for the article, there shouldn't be a problem. Again, welcome to Wikipedia and Happy Editing! -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Article Title change

Hi, I really appreciate having this forum to ask questions as I have really been struggling to get answers on how to change article title. I have followed the instruction given to me by helpdesk and other people but now no one is responding to advise if the change is possible. Article 'Burton's Foods' should read 'Burton's Biscuit Company' as the company rebranded in 2011 as stated in the article itself. Please can you assist. thank you Mrs biskit (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC) In addition, how can we add a logo/photo to an article? Thank you Mrs biskit (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mrs. biskit. I have moved that for you. It is now under Burton's Biscuits. For the logo, etc, you want to add an infobox. Sorry, I cannot help you with that at the moment, but perhaps some nice soul with a little more time available could. Gtwfan52 (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Gtwfan52 was talking about Infoboxes. Also, don't forget, you need references for the things you say in an article. For instance, the product line -- where's that information from? Banaticus (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you to all for your help. I will look into your suggestions. Thanks Mrs biskit (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Gtwfan52, I just noticed the article title should be Burton's Biscuit Company and not just Burton's Biscuits, as per the article content. Please can this amended again. Thank you Mrs biskit (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes

HI guys, do you know how to get userboxes on a user page, thanks. NCrompersCrompo 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncbwfc (talk • contribs)

Hello Ncbwfc, you can find detailed instructions at the page Wikipedia:Userboxes. Basically, you just need to use the template for the userbox you want. Templates look like {{TEMPLATE}} with the word TEMPLATE replaced by the specific template. For example, the code {{User:Dipankan001/Parrot lover}} produces this:
A Parrot.This user is a parrot lover; they think they are the best birds.

.


Does that help answer your question? --Jayron32 18:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Jayron i suggest you replace {{clr}} with a simple <br />, because it's bashing the layout. Cheers ~ benzband (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Done, though it would have been faster had you done it instead of waiting for me to. --Jayron32 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Crompers. Welcome to the Teahouse. To add a userbox to your page, just right-click on your username at the top of every page and open it in a new tab or window and click 'Edit' like you did to start your page. Right-click TEMPLATE:WP:UBS and open another tab or window to see all the userboxes.
Please start with Languages. Since you are from London, I'm guessing that you are a native speaker of English. Edit your userpage to add {{Babel|en}} near the top of the page and then click the Preview button. You should see a userbox on your page. Go ahead and save it after you put an edit summary, something like "Added userbox". Babel userboxes include a transclusion that automagically adds your username to a list of native speakers of English. Do you also speak German pretty well? Edit the babel userbox to {{Babel|en|de-2}} and go through the same drill; preview, add edit summary and save. Browse through the other userboxes and add those that you like. Many include transclusions, especially userboxes for WikiProjects; when you add the userbox for a project, you are likely to be listed as a member of the project.
There are lots of ways to organize your userboxes on your userpage. I'll let you read about it if you decide to use a bunch of them. Did you see an unusual userbox on another editor's userpage that you like? Just click the 'Edit' button on that user's page and do a copy-and-paste of the code to your userpage. There are lots of other ways to fix up your userpage. I suggest working through Pluma's page of FUN STUFF. Hope all this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 18:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


About creating New article

Good evening friends, I have a question, yesterday I create a article about the company nucleus software but they deleted the page by saying that it is for advertising purpose that is wrong, so what i have to do now?? Anshulmahoba (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry to hear about your article. A good place to start working on your article, again, is in your sandbox. You can find it here (it's a red link, you have to create the page, and you use that space over and over again throughout your course as a Wikipedian). The sandbox is often the best place to draft new articles. Then, when you are confident you are ready to share it on Wikipedia you click a submit button on the top of the page (on a template you'll see stating it's your infobox) and then experienced editors will review your article, let you know if there are any problems, and what you need to change those problems before it becomes a "real" Wikipedia page. I hope this helps! Good luck, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! (Also, I always encourage people to also improve other articles on Wikipedia - we need that desperately!). SarahStierch (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

making a wikipage for rheola can someone else check it out

hi, have been making a wikipedia entrie for the town/district of rheola. can someone/people check it over and tell me what i needs doing to it to bright i up to wikipedia standard. i fully admit that i a) already have knowledge of rheola so am probably putting info that is not referencable b)am a newbie and find wikipedia editing/creating/its help very dificult to learn. thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Broadwayduke/sandbox Broadwayduke (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hey Broadwayduke. I've looked over your page and made some edits. It's in good shape and is ready to be posted, in my opinion! However, I think the section on the Easter Monday Charity Carnival needs to be verified and have some coverage, even if only local coverage. I should also note that because you are writing an article about a locality, there's no need to worry about it getting deleted or anything like that. There is considerable consensus that legally-recognized, populated areas are considered notable and only require verification of their existence for inclusion. But I think it's great you want to (and have) put in substantial material into this article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Cross searching

How would I go about finding articles that match two categories? For example, I'm interested in finding articles that are categorized as orphans and also in the American artist category. Thanks! Mfbjr (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mfbjr. There is an on-wiki technique for doing this, but unfortunately it doesn't work well with maintenance categories (since they are included via templates). The alternative is to use a tool, such as WP:AWB, or a custom script. I will have a quick look and see if I can help you. Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC).
OK I had to restructure the category a little, but I should have a list for you sometime later today. Rich Farmbrough, 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC).
The usual technique for finding intersections of categories is described at Help:Category#Searching_for_articles_in_categories. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC).

What do I do to report a user who has been repeatedly distorting sourced content?

I don't know if this is the right place to ask but I've been trying to deal with a user on the Heinrich Heine article who keeps removing content without any convincing explanation and distorting the stuff he leaves behind so it misrepresents the source. It annoys me that I've spent a lot of time doing research to fix the page and ensure it is reliably sourced and someone comes along and does this. I can't do anthing further because of 3RR. Any sysops or noticeboards I should contact? Cheers. Paul Marston (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hey Paul, glad you stopped by The Teahouse. Dealing with the problem of an editor reverting your changes can be tough, but you have some options. You could first try the talk page and bring up your concern there. That way, you, the editor, and other interested editors can all weigh in there. If you have some healthy participation, you can establish consensus and come to a fair decision. Another way is to get a third opinion, where you can directly request an opinion from another editor. If there are more than two people involved in the conflict, you'll want to address the problem at Dispute Resolution. I hope the problem is resolved soon! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Paul Marston (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Estimated time to Enter Wiki/What Happens if Deleted

Hi, I was wondering, having sent my first article from my user page to the rest of the site, how long the average time is to enter the guide -It says a few days, but i wasn't sure whether this is normally 48hrs, 72hrs etc - i could only find an alphabetical list of all entries waiting to be tagged delete/don't - so i can't see where my entry is in the order In a related sub question, if it is deleted will it revert back to my user page, it would seem very unlikely, but i wouldn't want to lose it all

Apologies for a mixed in list of questions - entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Haileybury_Model_United_Nations Nosebagbear (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bear. Welcome to The Teahouse and to Wikipedia. The place your article went when you submitted it is called Articles for Creation, or AfC for short. If it is declined, you will get a review and a notice and it will stay in AfC so you can address the problems the review noted and resubmit it when you are done. AfC is very backlogged right now and it could be as long as a week or more til they get to your article. Sorry. No-one wants to wait around for news, be it good or bad. I did note one problem as I read through it, though, and maybe you could address that while you wait for the formal review. Your article lacks secondary sources. All of the citations are from either the organization or organizations connected to it. What you need are things like newspaper articles that speak of your Mock United Nations to establish what Wikipedia calls notability. Please use the time til they review it to find and add some secondary sources. BTW, I prettyed up your external link section. Open the article in edit mode to see how that is done. It is surprisingly simple. Happy editing. We are glad you are here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


My thanks, I shall try and add some more sources, my thanks for helping with the external sources - I'd noticed that they had changed layout but was surprised that someone had altered them, cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i added some more sources (as well as some internal links and other things). I can understand your comment about the primary source but the other sources (at the time of me asking the question) were from the UN websites. While they are related in that they pertain to UN matters (how could they not) surely the UN must count as both secondary (as being separate from my school) and reliable - being the UN? Please could you look at the changed sources and see what they are like? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

how may I delete my unused username?

Hi I created a new username then decided I didn't like it, so created another. How may I tidy up by deleting the unused username?

87.74.72.101 (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Teahouse! Quick note - remember to always log in when you're editing. But, on to your question... While usernames cannot be deleted, your best bet is to simply redirect your old username's user page and talk page to your new one, and then only edit from your new account. That way, others will still know that that username was originally yours, and your old edits will be properly attributed, but no one will mistake that for you, if you know what I mean. Thanks for dropping by! Theopolisme :) 07:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Theo
I can certainly do that, but the whole process seems to give rise to several other considerations.
Apologies for TL response, please read!
Firstly, in case you wondered, may I explain that I haven't logged in again because it would be self-outing !
The unused user-name (though polite) was the product of frustration at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin which sedately renders a new page each time one fails to guess at a name which is still available.
I suppose there may be a considerable build-up of such orphan names, making the puzzle of guessing a novel one even more frustrating as time goes on.
There is possibly a better way, by listing already-bagged names similar to one's guess, but one does not discover how to do that until later. I tried at the time, I really did, but even now I've again lost the page showing how to do it.
The excuse for not permitting deletion does not seem truly to pertain for such a name that is never used.
Second to this, I was a little concerned that I would attract the approbation of some admin for having multiple personalities (I am capable of holding more than one view on a subject, even before breakfast).
Where would I go to suggest improvements to the registration process? Apart from the passing vexation of name-selection, there might be scope for letting people know what they're about to let themselves in for, before they've embarked! (Mark-up, for one thing, unless & until the wysiwyg team gets going to implementation; also an understanding of WP civics.)
Trawling around, might it not be better to nominate the alter-ego for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion  ?
Or does he (the Dr. Jekyll side) have to do something even more heinous before being considered?
Then again, the whole circus was engendered by my having had my password hacked on an earlier identity, from which I am still locked out. Without indulging paranoia, it's hard to tell if that was just coincidence, or because of edits in a contentious area. Perhaps I should address that first, though again I'm not sure how to proceed.
87.74.72.101 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you're talking about, but User:GlassCobra/Editor_for_deletion is a joke page. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_36&oldid=1144121777"