Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 549

Archive 545

←

Archive 547

Archive 548

Archive 549

Archive 550

Archive 551

→

Archive 555

about my edits

Hello!Teahouse i am new to wiki and struggling to improved my edits and tell me about my story "MURDER OF A TREE" OR where is my edits is now and who is review this story please help me via email,point out my mistakes in edits so i can improve myself and how can i know that people like my edits. Zeba Rasheed 7.35,1 December 2016 Zeba Rasheed (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Zeba Rasheed and welcome to the TeaHouse. Your story "MURDER OF A TREE EPISODE 2" is at User:Zeba Rasheed. However, it seems that you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not for publishing original works; it is an encyclopedia which aims to summarize what reliable independent sources say about notable subjects. There are plenty of websites which welcome original creations, and that is where you should look to publish that story.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Publish into main wiki

I think my article "Draft: Warfield Church" is about ready to publish. Can you advise what I do next?

Rhian Griffiths (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Rhian Griffiths: it looks pretty good to me. I am making some edits to improve it further.

• A question: the first citation is to the 2010 edition of Pevsner, Berkshire. But you say in the text "(1966, p.257)". Which edition are you citing? You need to decide that, and then just give a citation to that work, without a parenthetical comment as well.
• A comment. I believe there are too many images, and some of them, including those that show more of the congregation than the church, will need to go. They would look fine in a parish magazine, but they tell the reader little or nothing about the church, and are not encyclopedic. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Another editor Theroadislong and I have now made various edits to the draft. I still have a concern. The subject of the article is the church, the physical edifice. But much of the latter part of the draft is not about the church at all, it is about its incumbents, and congregations, and other buidling (or "plants"). I fear much of that must go. Theroadislong and I have removed a little of it already. Maproom (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree it has to go before it can be moved to mainspace and I have removed some of it I think that the "Into the 21st century" section also needs to go it is very poorly referenced and not on topic. Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoosh. You really did edit didn't you. I think the simple reality is this is not just a piece about an historical bricks and mortar, it is about the Warfield Church and the people who are part of it and the community that use it. So taking on board most of your points below, I would like to reinstate one picture which shows the brighter inside because the point is to show it is not a museum, but instead a well used community facility. That's what it was 1,000 years ago - all be it with no seats and a straw floor - and that is what it has managed to become again.

Can it go to main page yet :)

Rhian Griffiths (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

An old parish church is "notable", it has been written about by Pevsner and suchlike, it is worthy of an article. The people who use it, and the community facility, are not notable. They're worthy of respect, no doubt, but they're not notable in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense. If the draft is to be accepted as an article, I think the material not relevant to the building needs to be removed. Maproom (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

tips for new wikepedia editors?

Hello! I'm really new to doing Wikipedia editing, and it would be great if anyone could give me tips on how to be a successful editor.AirBoosterGaming (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've left a message on your talk page that should help you get started off right. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

requesting a correction to ninth planet story.

On the issue of a ninth planet, (this would be in fact the tenth planet), when I was maybe 12, [I'm sixty four now], I ran across an article I still remember today in a then very old scientific magazine talking about an abnormality in the orbits of the solar system, this abnormality in orbits was believed then to be do to a small brown dwarf star near the solar system, (this possible object was in fact named at that time NEMESIS), I believe this was maybe in scientific america some time before 1960. My point and request is for someone who knows how better then me to go back check this out and if this 10 planet was long ago discovered and named, to give credit to the factual discover and to give the correct name Nemesis to the planet. (Trapper)24.237.138.80 (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There's an article here that might interest you. Dbfirs 19:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. You might have better luck asking your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

...although the correction you're requesting is the sort of thing we can help you with. You just might have a better chance of finding the article through the reference desk. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Starter of this discussion is probably referring to Nemesis (hypothetical star).--Fisuaq (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of references there that are worth reading, and even more in our articles Planet Nine and Planets beyond Neptune. Dbfirs 20:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing another user's User: page without permission

Hi, are there any specific user warning templates for editing someone's User: page without asking them? I probably could just write it out in talk pages instead of using a template, but I wanted to know if there's a specific template I can use to speed things up. NOTNOTABLE (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, NOTNOTABLE. That's a very bold yet self-effacing username you have taken.

I don't think there's a specific user-warning template to use in this case, so you might as well use the catchall {{uw-disruptive1|user page name|more remarks}} series of user warnings. The {{uw-userpage}} template is used for a quite different situation.

As with most of these templates, you can insert your own text ("more remarks" as shown in the example above) to further explain what policy you think was violated. I had a situation myself just yesterday when I was patrolling recent changes and came across a disruptive editor who had created a userpage for another user with inappropriate content. I blanked the new userpage and was heading over to admonish the perpetrator, but before I could do so, I found that the disruptive editor had been banned (indefinite block). This was good for me, since normally we aren't supposed to edit other user pages, but removing edits by banned users from another user's user space page is explicitly allowed.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@NOTNOTABLE: There is no prohibition on editing another user's userpage, but if you ask them to stop it is good manners for them to do so. See WP:UP for guidance. RudolfRed (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

On a similar note, should there be a warning template for deliberately disrupting wiki-syntax? RedPanda25 21:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Undeleting speedily-deleted pages

Can someone help me here? I know that some of these criteria are controversial, but there must be some consensus. Thanks, RedPanda25 20:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The topic under discussion here is Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion#Making it clear which speedy-delete criteria will and will not be undeleted. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Why Page Syed Aman Mian Sharma Can't Be Created?

He is a Indian TV artist and we tried creating a page for him and again and again wiki denied, we have all valid references! Besternkhan (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Besternkhan: the reason was explained on your talk page. You should read the explanation. The article you created was in violation of copyright law, and Wikipedia takes the law seriously. Maproom (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Besternkhan:It appears that the "copyright infringement" was you copied of the last edit of that Wikipedia article prior to its deletion. Since you were not the sole contributor to the original article, it is copyright violation because you did not give credit to all sources that contributed to the original Wikipedia article as per policy on reuse. The original article that you copied was rejected for notability reasons. Simply trying again with the same article does not make the subject notable. the edit history shows that concerns were raised before. My advice would be to leave this topic alone until it becomes notable. This essay and also this essay may be of special interest here. Making multiple attempts is inappropriate. Dig Deeper (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to create an article on an obscure subject!

Hello,

Im a member of the Super Mario Kart community (yes there is such a thing), and since 2002 there has been a World Championship based around it. Its recieved a fair bit of media coverage over the past few years, and I thought it befitting that it should have its own article.

Would I be wasting my time starting an article, or is it something that would be allowed?

ZarkovUK (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You probably want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/eSports, as that's where the people with the specialist knowledge to judge whether this is likely to be kept will all be found. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:ZarkovUK: If you want to play it safe and easy, why not add this information to the existing page on Super Mario Kart. I would suggest under the "Legacy" subheading. My 2 cents.Dig Deeper (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I just joined and got an invite here, can someone tell me why? Headnogood (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Headnogood: Welcome to the Teahouse. You got an invitation because you are a new editor, and this is a friendly place for new editors to ask questions about editing the encyclopedia. Please feel free to ask a question here at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also the teahouse invite was made by "HostBot". It is an automated invitation, nobody's singling you out or anything.Dig Deeper (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Phew thanks, glad to be here.81.101.128.112 (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Patent citations

When I use cite, there are only four templates. I have other sources outside of these, in particular US patents and government pamphlets that I need to cite. How do I do this?Gsmoke (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gsmoke: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Citation templates, where you can find a wide variety of specialized citation templates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello @Gsmoke: and welcome to the Teahouse.

The tool you are using only presents the most commonly-used templates from the {{citation}} family. There are tons of others, including {{cite patent}}. To find the right one, for unusual sources, is sometimes a difficult task. For starters, I'd suggest looking at WP:Citing sources for more information. You may have to use a different citation tool, there are a few others listed in that document.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality of Related Sources

Hello, and thank you in advance.

Assuming an entry, in this case, a business, is notable enough for inclusion, is it fair to assume that an authoritative statement from said entry is viable to use as a source for a citation for a separate entry?

Put another way, if Los Angeles Widget Supply is an entry in good standing, is the material from that site good enough to use as an authoritative source for a missing citation in an entry about widgets simply because it has merited a listing for itself?

BologniousMonk (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BologniousMonk, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's a clever username you've chosen for yourself.

It's hard to give you a definite "yes" to your question. It's more like: "Maybe, but probably not". The subject of each article has to be considered on its own merits with respect to notability. What works for notability in one case is not necessarily going to be accepted for another case. The standards for reliable sources will vary from one part of Wikipedia to another, for instance, on medical and health topics, the standards for WP:MEDRES are considerably stricter than most other places. It may sound whimsical or inconsistent, but there's a certain hysteresis that plays into the decision.

One thing that this approach is designed to protect against is any sort of link farming or other abuses of Wikipedia's popularity and reputation for purposes of promotion or marketing.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@BologniousMonk: Welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer to your question is "no". The topics of our articles must be notable, and our sources must be reliable. Notability and reliability are two different things. Consider a publication like Weekly World News. It is notable and we have an article about it because it has been discussed extensively by actually reliable sources over the years. However, it is not itself reliable as a source because it is a tabloid publication in the worst sense of the word (online now). It publishes blatant falsehoods for entertainment value. In the case you mentioned, the widget company may be notable for selling defective widgets, defrauding its customers, and lying to government widget regulators. It would be wrong to cite any widget information to this company's publications. The reliability of a source is unconnected with whether or not we have an article about that source. Reliability is judged independently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen That's a perfect example and I appreciate it. I didn't seem likely that authority would be transitive, but I also couldn't think outside of the box enough to come up with a good example like that.

@jmcgnh I didn't even realize there were category-specific standards so that link is really helpful. I obviously was unable to articulate what I was trying to find in a search.

Pressed for an open username, I cycled through all the jazz-related nicknames that we call our dog and thought this one was more distinct than Charlie Barker. BologniousMonk (talk) 07:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete my this account?

how i can delete my account. Anybody can help me ??? Sher Azeez Khan (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sher Azeez Khan. It's not possible to delete an account, because all edits to Wikipedia need to be attributed to the editor who made them, but you can just stop using your account if you wish. You might also want to consider Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing if your desire to delete your account is motivated by privacy concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sher Azeez Khan: If you would instead like to just rename your account, see Wikipedia:Changing username. While the process is currently down for maintenance, you can still make a request and it will be fulfilled when they are done with the maintenance. — Gestrid (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you really want to leave Wikipedia? Anyway, if you're considering leaving but didn't make a binding condition, add {{considering retirement}} to your talk page. If you are actually leaving, add {{retired}} to your user page. --Rlin8 (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sher Azeez Khan, I've just thought that perhaps you just want to delete your user page? If so, just place the code {{Db-userreq}} on it and an administrator will delete it. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User blocked as a sockpuppet. Odd. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

About reliable sources

I am drafting an article for gardenia tubifera and was curious if a nursery could be cited as a source? Jjlrjjlr00 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Jjlrjjlr00: only published works can be cited as sources. If you are asking whether a nursery's catalogue can be cited as a source, I think the answer must be "no". Catalogues are ephemeral, they are generally not stoted by libraries so that they can be verified by readers. Maproom (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Our amendments to an existing page on the author Philip Glassborow have been rejected. How do we get them approved?

Our resubmission for the entry on Philip Glassborow has been rejected because "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Philip Glassborow instead??". We thought the correct way to edit this piece was to submit the revision so that someone at Wikipedia could check it and post the new version. Should we simply edit the existing text directly online instead??Rowena360 (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rowena360. As you have a very clear conflict of interest in that you are being paid for your work, I would strongly advise you to use the article's talk page to make suggested improvements quoting reliable sources. Please also note that user accounts are for single person use only, you keep saying "we".Theroadislong (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests on how to request edits on the talk page, Rowena360. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I do think that Draft:Philip Glassborow is an improvement on the existing Philip Glassborow article though, so don't lose heart! Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

editing the page about me

HI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisha_Greenhalgh This is the page about me, I ned to edit it but I got told I'm not allowed to. Can you help please? Thanks am I supposed to put the wiggles in now? maybe I will just in case TrishaGreenhalgh (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You raised this, and it has been answered, at WP:Help desk#Trisha_Greenhalgh - please do not raise the same question in multiple places - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding a sentence to an article

I attempted to add a sentence to an exisiting article and it appeared to make the change but when I re-opened the page the new sentence wasn't included. Did I do something wrong? Mikemaiman48 (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mikemaiman48 If you look at the article history here [1] you will see that User:C.Fred removed the edit with the explanation that you "need an independent, published source for that" Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

why not?

Why can't you simply go to the web site I submit with my article--it is VERY clear that my online newspaper is real and has been around for more than six years. Google us. Unfortunately, nobody but me will submit an article about my business--however, we have plenty of articles out there by now, past issues, and even Facebook groups of "Friends of the Mirror!"

My reasoning in wanting to share it with Wikipedia is to let others know that we exist--outside of our 8,000 circulation. Real news sources are endangered--and we are definitely one of them.

Caitlin Switzer, Publisher, Montrose Mirror newsblast.98.127.4.104 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or promotional tool. If your paper becomes notable, then the article can be created. RudolfRed (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Caitlin Switzer. Wikipedia has completely different standards from Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media websites. In order for an article about your publication to be accepted, you must provide references to significant coverage of your publication in reliable sources which are independent of your publication. This is mandatory. I suggest that you read an excellent essay called Your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read the feedback at Draft:Montrose Mirror Online Newsblast more carefully, Caitlin. No one has said that your publication isn't real. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think once you give us enough information we can give you additional options to list your information and editors will be interested in providing an article on this, but you can also provide an account with Wikipedia too so you can create your own journalism. Hope this was useful enough for you. God bless and have a very blessed day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M21212121 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, @M21212121: Wikipedia is not about creating one's own journalism -- see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:No original research. The problem is the article the OP is talking about did not meet our notability guidelines and went against our policy on using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. While it's nice of you to try to help, please do so when you actually know what the answer is. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Thompson for your feedback I really appreciate it. It's very nice to know you are an expert teacher on all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Have a very blessed day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M21212121 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I wrote a draft article - how do I submit it as a published article?

I wrote a draft article - how do I submit it as a published article? Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center. It is referenced in "Nun Study," "James Schoenberger," and "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADC" ROSMAP (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors

I can't fix the reference issues in footnotes of my article after following recommended edit to use "ref name" use of second use of reference in Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center draft ROSMAP (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center. I have tried to fix various referencing errors. Maproom (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

how to upload a file (not JPEG)

Hello,

I am a new contributor. I have drafted a figure in Powerpoint (ppt) and would like to upload it as an insert to my Wikipedia page. How can this be done?

Roger

Rgschroeder12 (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rgschroeder12 , welcome to the Teahouse. PowerPoint files cannot be uploaded but if you have PowerPoint then you should be able to use the "Save As..." command to make an image with another file type. See Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files and commons:Commons:File types for permitted file types. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Rgschroeder12: I see that you are working, in your sandbox, on a draft about Operations Management. But Wikipedia already has an article on Operations Management, as you must know, because you have linked to it in your draft. I am wondering what your plans are for what appears to be your rival version. Maproom (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

who has final editing privileges??

I've recently posted a " correction" to an article concerning a house my family lived in. A few "self-appointed editors" have decided it didn't meet THEIR approval. am I authorized to erase every entry made by these individuals if I don't agree with theirs"? why am I trying to justify my entry to other individuals who have no ownership of this webpage??? Mikemaiman48 (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your correction was unreferenced. The source here [2] says "The building remained that officers residence to June 1960" which is all that the article is saying. Wikipedia is only concerned with what the reliable sources say about a subject NOT what you or I know. Convenience link to article Commandant's Quarters (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). Theroadislong (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, @Mikemaiman48:, and welcome to the Teahouse.

Unfortunately, your family is not mentioned in the document which is being cited at that part of Commandant's Quarters, so you would need to find an independent, published source that does mention your family in order for the information to be included in Wikipedia. While I don't doubt your veracity, Wikipedia relies on independent, published, verifiable sources.

As for who has final editing privileges, that would be just about everybody. Nothing is ever final, but if you were to get into an edit war with other editors, it's likely that you would be blocked from editing.

Also, since the information you are adding is about your family, you have a confict of interest. In these cases, the recommended approach is to not edit the article yourself, but to place an edit request on the talk page of the article detailing what information you want added along with some reference by which the information can be verified.

Please don't be too discouraged by this. Wikipedia standards are sometimes a bit difficult to get used to for new editors, but the sort of edit you would like to make can be made, if proper sources exist.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mikemaiman48: I hope you are not editing whilst logged out to include your unreferenced material here [3] and here [4] Theroadislong (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are under the impression that you have ownership of a Wikipedia article, Mikemaiman48, then please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content, which explains that no one has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article, even if they are the subject of that article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Making personal attacks here [5] will not help, the fact remains that to add your material you will need a reliable source Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the status of my draft page

I'm hoping to replace a re-direct page with a page that has actual content. I have created a draft page for Crater Renaissance Academy and am waiting for review. There has been no approval or disapproval in the orange box at the bottom of the page, but the following message was attached to the page in the draft space;

"From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name."

Does this mean my page was rejected? I hope not, as the subject of my page and the target of the re-direct are entirely different things.

Larry Gnome (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Draft:Crater Renaissance Academy is still awaiting review, along with hundreds of other drafts. You may have seen the message about a redirect from a move if you were looking at User:Larry Gnome/sandbox, because you moved your draft from there to Draft:Crater Renaissance Academy. You can clear that redirect from your sandbox if you want to (as nothing links to it), but make sure that it is the sandbox that you are clearing, not the draft to which it redirects. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and moved it. I believe it is good enough for the main space. - GB fan 19:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help and for the good edits!Larry Gnome (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice username, Larry Gnome. I have tagged a few sentences in the article that are in need of citations to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

for real?

fr even more real?20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael4ever4life (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Michael4ever4life Do you have a question? Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like there are some edits to my draft article, but as a result (I think) I lost an important sentence - how can I get it back?

Draft Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center ROSMAP (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This is about Draft:Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center again. ROSMAP, you could make it easier for the people who are here to help you by providing a link (as I just did) to the draft you are concerned about. Maproom (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi ROSMAP. With the exception of deleted or hidden revisions, every edit ever made by you (and everyone else) to every page on Wikipedia, including for the above draft, is accessible in the page history. For almost all pages (except those in the "special" namespace) you can view the page history by clicking "history" from the links at the top of the page, while at the page in question.

In the history you can look at every revision individually (click on a date to see the content as of then) and you can also view "diffs" – the differences between selected revisions shown — using the radio buttons there, and then clicking compare selected revisions. If the edits you're talking about were never saved, however, they are probably unretrievable—though hitting the "back" button in your browser, if the tab is still open, just might work to allow you to see an unsaved edit. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for talk pages

Have a hot cup of Earl grey tea.

Hey I think I was referred here by User:Missvain.

I just wanted to say hello to the Teahouse and thank you for having talk pages on Wikipedia !

Sometimes back and forth by edit summaries can escalate fast in tone or misunderstood meanings.

But then hopefully, when we all instead go to the talk pages, and discuss with each other, we can come to mutual understandings.

I had a pleasant situation with Geraldo Perez after an initial conflict.

In the end, with the involvement of helpful user AngusWOOF as third-party input, we were all able to work out a reasonable resolution that hopefully appears to be amicable, and agreeable to the parties involved.

I was so happy to be able to have the talk page discussion and responsiveness from Geraldo Perez.

So, everyone, have a cup of tea, and thank you for article talk pages ! Sagecandor (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: Welcome to the TeaHouse, and thanks for the comments. It is always reassuring to read stories about how editors can have a disagreement, work to find a good solution, and come to a happy conclusion. We could all do with more of this attitude.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sagecandor, don't delete other editors Talk comments, as you did here with mine [6]. LavaBaron (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

ABOUT A SITE.

Hello!teahouse will you please give me the names of some sites where i can post my story ,someone recommend me wikipedia so i can use this please name some reliable sites.thanks. Zeba Rasheed.Zeba Rasheed (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Zeba Rasheed, and welcome to the Teahouse. Are you talking about a story you wrote yourself? — Gestrid (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Gestrid: Zeba Rasheed is talking about the story "Murder of a tree", now at User:Zeba Rasheed. Maproom (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As discussed at #about my edits below above. Some web hosting services are listed at Comparison of free web hosting services. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Need a fresh review of the article I published

Dear Sir

Please let me know how to apply for a fresh review of the wiki page :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debatosh_Guha. It is thoroughly updated and I tried my best to conform to the rules, but still a notice "contains content that is written like an advertisement." is dangling for a long time. I do not know weather a review has been conducted or not since the massive changes are done.

Regards Arunendra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch.arunendra (talk • contribs) 09:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ch.arunendra, and welcome to the Teahouse. Except for some rare occasions, articles don't normally undergo a formal review process. Anyone can "review" an article to fix or remove problems. As for that {{advert}} tag, please don't remove it yourself if it was addd because of edits you made to the article, but wait for someone else to remove it instead. — Gestrid (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Writing in microsoft word and copy paste on Wiki

Hi I formally joined Wikipedia very recently. I have of course been a user of this wonderful encyclopedia for a long time. This is my first question and first request for help.

I am just getting ready to write and contribute my first article. The article will be quite mathematical with numbered equations. It would also have a numbered list of references/citations. Instead of using the Wikipedia editor, it would be more convenient for me if I write the article in MS Word (2016) using their equation editor and then copy paste it to the Full Screen Editor in Wikipedia. Is it possible? Will the Wikipedia page accept it and retain its formatting? Thank you very much in anticipation. Sincerely Mat phys (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Mat phys. Since I do not use the VisualEditor, I held off answering in hope that someone who used it would reply. Since they haven't yet, I would suggest that you try an experiment, pasting a representative sample into your sandbox, User:Mat phys/sandbox. At worst it won't break anything.

If it doesn't work, try writing your wikicode in MS Word. That's what I do for all but my simplest posts. —teb728 t c 08:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mat phys.

One problem with composing wikicode in Word is that, most of the time, Word uses "smart quotes", which insert different characters than the straight apostrophes and quotes expected in wikicode. You should be able to turn these off, but it's on by default. This is one thing to check carefully when you do your experiment.

As for math equations, Wikicode has its own markup for that and pasting from Word is unlikely to work. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong if your experiment shows that it does work.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you jmcgnh. Mat phys (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

-Mat phys, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Word (Word Perfect too) inserts invisible formatting characters when you type. Wikimedia software picks these up and they are a pain in the butt to remove. I'd suggest creating a sandbox for it or creating it in Draft space. However, another solution would be to use a simpler typing program such as MS notepad. They do not add the artifacts that word processing programs do. John from Idegon (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You can use an external editor like Microsoft Word to write a plain text without any formatting. This may be convenient as it allows one to work off-line on lengthy text fragments. However you can not use the equation editor as the Wikipedia uses a subset of latex for the mathematical typesetting. Ruslik_Zero 16:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we use HTML/JS/CSS, to wiki pages, or just markup?

-M159 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone answer me?–M159 ^talk 16:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi M159, though I'm not super experienced in their use, it looks like some HTML and CSS elements are supported on Wikipedia: See for example Help:HTML in wikitext and Help:Cascading Style Sheets. It looks like the page on HTML in Wikitext recommends using Wikimarkup wherever possible, and Javascript seems to be limited to User scripts, not Wikipedia articles. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings and advice on an article split.

Hello. I've been editing for a bit and just now found this incredible resource. Thanks for this!

I have performed extensive edits on The Queen's Beasts. This is a collection of 10 works of art. I am beginning the process of trying to improve Summary Style for this article, and also considering splitting. One of the 10 works already had it's own article which I have done some mild editing on. I am considering splitting out the remaining 9 works into distinct articles. The issue that I'd like some specific advice on is the split. Each of the works would have a portion of redundant information, and the detailed information on the subject of the artwork would be different. But, that detailed information would be somewhat redundant with articles on the subject of the works, specifically the heraldic badges and the beasts. I like the idea of a split because each work does have distinguishing features that deserve interpretation, and a photo of each (via Template:Infobox_artwork). Thoughts?TheCrazedBeast (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi TheCrazedBeast, glad to see that you've been finding the Teahouse helpful! What do the sources you've been finding cover in depth? If the sources write mostly about the statues themselves, then a moderate amount of redundancy is fine. But if they write mostly about the subject of the work, perhaps you could focus the new articles on discussion of the heraldic badge and charge, with the statue being a secondary subject. If that's what you decide to do, then I'd suggest adding material to Welsh Dragon to cover that beast instead of making a new article. Or, if your sources don't really talk about each specific statue or specific badge and charge in enough depth to warrant a split, you could just expand the existing sections, and put images of the statues in a new gallery section of The Queen's Beasts article. I hope these suggestions are helpful. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Howicus. I've done some noodling and consideration of your response. As the works are really a group, and given the redundancies, the unique material for each isn't a large volume and I think can be handled with good links. The idea of a gallery section, or an in-line photo of each is appreciated and may be an appropriate compromise. I suppose I'll work on some draft articles and see how much information is appropriate, then decide based on that if a split is necessary.TheCrazedBeast (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not get the barnstar

For completing the wikipedia tour. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Adityavagarwal. To my knowledge, there is no barnstar awarded for completing The Wikipedia Adventure. You should know that the The Wikipedia Adventure is actually completely simulated. For example, the real article on Earth is right here while the simulated version you edited is right here. Since you've taken The Wikipedia Adventure multiple times (which actually shouldn't be possible, I think), the simulated version appears three times on the same page. To get barnstars, all you have to do is do a good job editing Wikipedia articles. People will notice your contributions and, if they think you deserve it, they'll award you with a barnstar or another type of WikiLove. — Gestrid (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought you might get a barnstar for the wikipedia tour User:Gestrid. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia Adventure gives out badges, not barnstars. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Those are presumably the badges at User:Adityavagarwal? --David Biddulph (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Information removed

Sir can you please say why the information in Uhtred of Galloway which i added was removed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This is about Uhtred of Galloway (the title seems to be a mistake, throughout the article his name is spelled Uchtred).

Adityavagarwal: you added the statement that Uchtred was "also known as 12759". You provided no reference in support of this implausible-sounding claim. I am not surprised that someone removed it. Maproom (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Adityavagarwal, and welcome to the Teahouse. Just so I know, are you talking about this information? If so, it's likely for two reasons. The first reason is that the edit doesn't appear to make sense (to me, anyway). Was Uhtred really also known as "12759"? The second is that you didn't provide a reliable source and cite it correctly. May I suggest that you take The Wikipedia Adventure? (I've placed an invite to it on your talk page.) It teaches you how to edit pages and cite material all in under one hour. When I did it, I learned a few things I didn't yet know, and I've been here a while now. I would also suggest that you contact the user who removed the information you added directly so you can get a clearer answer. Only that editor knows why specifically they undid your addition. You can contact that editor, Chewings72, on their talk page here. — Gestrid (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

here https://www.geni.com/people/Uchtred-mac-Fergus-Lord-of-Galloway/6000000000769891479 also the 1118 was added but removed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal: I reverted your addition because I did not consider that it was a serious attempt to add reliable information to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. People rely on it for accurate and reliable information on all manner of subjects and issues. If you had provided a reference to an academic or professionally written document that clearly stated that Uhtred was "also known as 12759 [and] was born in 1118", then I would not have reverted your addition. As advised to you by Gestrid Geni is a privately run web site where anybody can add information. It is also highly unlikely that any important historical person such as Uhtred of Galloway was known by a number while they were alive. (I suspect it is some sort of reference to an index number used by Geni, not an alternate name for Uhtred of Galloway.) Regards --Chewings72 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Maproom, can I get your opinion on that page? Does it look like a reliable source? It seems to me that the page is editable in some way by users, which makes it unusable, but I want a second opinion on this one. — Gestrid (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. You need an opinion more reliable than mine. But I know that some genealogy sites provide unreliable or false information. Maproom (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. See archives at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Boson (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

But how to know the reliability?Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Adityavargarwal:

Try using different websites to depend on the reliability, and compare the information given by that site. Diego712 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

A problem with that, on genealogy web sites, is that many of them are only there to attract customers, and their content is mechanically copied from other equally unreliable sites. For instance, the "12759" which at least two list as an alternative name of Uchtred. I suspect it started as a record identifier in a database, and was blindly copied by a page-scraping program. It is totally implausible that it was really used as a name for a 12th-century Gaelic lord. Maproom (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Diego712, I'd advise you to become more familiar with both our policies and editing in general before attempting to answer more questions here.

Adityavagarwal, simply follow the guidelines set out here and you should be good to go. Very generally speaking, well-known websites that don't allow users to edit their content (like Wikipedia, ironically) are good sources. The website you were trying to use appears to allow user-generated content on it.

— Gestrid (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

How do I preserve links and citations while editing a page

Hello...I had a teacher once who said 'There are no stupid questions'...I do feel I should just sort of 'know' the answer to mine, but it's also like a new job to me where I need just a bit of help learning a basic and then I know I'll be on my way.

When editing a page - and I do prefer doing this, it seems, in the Visual Editing format - how do I preserve existing links and citations? I've checked out a few tutorials and each of these tells me how to create a link or a citation, but not how to preserve those which already exist.

I would so appreciate your help on this. I do feel a bit silly as I know it's probably an obvious sort of answer. Thank you. Ahiroy (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Ahiroy: and welcome to the TeaHouse. Your teacher was right, especially here in the TeaHOuse which is particularly for new editors to ask their questions. The links and citations you talk about are all built based on the mark-up codes written through the article, so a Wikilink to the article about the moon would be coded as [[Moon]], and a reference will be within tags <ref> and </ref>. So as long as you don't remove or change those existing mark-ups, they won't be changed. I hope that addresses what you have in mind: if I have not been clear enough or if there is something specific then please come back and ask.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ahiroy: in the Visual Editor, existing links will show up in blue or red and if you hover over them you should get a box telling you what article they link to. Citations will show up as superscripted blue links within square brackets. If you try and type over, delete or in any way change this text it will show an expanded window with an edit button. So I think the safest answer to your question is avoid anything in blue or red when editing and you shouldn't cause any changes to existing links and citations. Nthep (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your replies. I believe I'm 'getting it' now. I'll be back if I have some more questions. Thanks again! Ahiroy (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverting

How to revert to previous version of article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthWins (talk • contribs) 01:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In your case, you don't, because you are edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Badges

What are the badges here? Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Adityavagarwal:. I'm sorry but I don't follow your question - what badges are you referring to? Where have you seen them, to prompt the question?--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Like the ones in the wikipedia tour User:Adityavagarwal so are there any other badges in here? Gronk Oz Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, @Adityavagarwal:. I am not aware of other badges, so I took a look around and I found that there is a Wikipedia project to look at implementing a more comprehensive system of badges - see WP:Badges for details of the project. However, it does not seem to be active lately, so I wonder if it has stalled after the badges were implemented for the Wikipedia Adventure - though I notice they have added a couple more badges since I did the Adventure. For interest, I also found a list of other existing "incentives" in Wikipedia here. Perhaps somebody more experienced could offer more perspective ... please? --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

how do i donate to wikipedia?

how do i donate to wikipedia?2601:153:800:C4E0:9DF2:52DD:1DA0:A4EE (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This page allows donations to Wikimedia (the organization that maintains Wikipedia). -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Do we use American English or British English for articles?

For example, should we use "honors" or "honours"? Mstallone (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mstallone: in general, you use American English. But in an article about a British, or Canadian, Australian, etc., subject, you use that form of spelling. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. Maproom (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no preference for American English. WP:ENGVAR starts by saying "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other", but goes on to give additional advice, including re strong national ties to a topic. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mstallone, if you are editing an existing article about a topic with no strong national ties, you should continue using the variety of English used when the article was first written. It is considered disruptive to change the English variety just because of personal preference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mstallone: I would just challenge Maproom's assertion that "in general, you use American English". When starting a new article with no regional connection, use whichever variety of English you prefer. Rojomoke (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I take back what I wrote above. Rojomoke is right. Maproom (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I get help fixing my denied page?

My page on Arthur Shea was recently denied after me trying to post it. I would like to see if someone could help me with showing me how to fix it. Thanks! Jstewie77 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The draft in question is Draft:Arthur F. Shea. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The tone could be corrected. So could the way it keeps switching between present and past tense. But the lack of evidence of notability probably can't be fixed. Maproom (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd start with a reading of WP:BIO and based on that, work to establish notability. This must be supported by citing sources in the article that verify the information provided, and support notability. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editors

How to bring users to the attention of administrators for disruptive editing?

WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

That depends on how exactly they're being disruptive, WikipediaUserCalledChris. If they're a straightforward vandal who is simply damaging pages with malicious intent, then report them at this noticeboard. If they're repeatedly replacing the same (non-vandalistic) edit over and over, that is edit warring, and should be reported here. Or if they're being disruptive in some other way, the best place would be the Incidents section of the Administrator's Noticeboard. But I would caution you to be careful before posting something on AN/I (as it's called). Read over relevant Wikipedia policies, and make sure you can make a good case that the person you want to report is in violation of some of them. I hope this helps! Feel free to ask any followup questions here. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Denied Edit

Hello, I edited a page about a city named "Ruwais", and i improved the spelling and grammar of the previous editor, but my edit was denied although i edited the page almost good. I don't know if i did something wrong, or if there were other reasons, I fully understand how the editing should be, and that i should follow the rules of editing. I will try in the future to improve editing, but please tell me what did i make in order to deny my edit and make the page go back to it's original state. Mnaser54 (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mnaser54. You added links to advertising sites that are not allowed on Wikipedia. Much of what you wrote also seems to be your own observations when all Wikipedia content should come from published sources.Charles (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

page not found

Hi! I am Peterye2005. I clicked on reference #16 of the article Energy density Extended Reference Table. It said "Page Not Found" Should I remove the reference. Thank you

Peterye2005 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Peterye2005, and welcome to the Teahouse. Per WP:DEADREF, citations with dead links should not be removed. The saying that nothing on the internet is ever truly deleted is very true here. The Internet Archive and Archive.is are very useful in cases like these. (See Help:Using the Wayback Machine and Wikipedia:Using archive.is for help on using each in Wikipedia.) If you know how to add citations manually using templates like Template:Cite web, then it's a simple fix. Simply find an archive of the webpage using either Archive.is or the Internet Archive and do what I did here. I've already gone ahead and fixed your problem, by the way. Feel free to reply if you have any more questions about this. — Gestrid (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Energy density Extended Reference Table is a very strange "article", isn't it? I'm not sure if I've ever seen an article that consists entirely of a table. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention, it's filled with a lot of {{citation needed}} tags. — Gestrid (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Red font colour of username

Hello, how does one's username get changed from red to black font? Thanks. EvidenceFairy (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

EvidenceFairy: by writing something, anything, on your user page. That'll make it go blue not black though. Maproom (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

For a full explanation, see Wikipedia:Red link, EvidenceFairy. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want your name to appear in black, you can change your signature at Special:Preferences. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the responses, everyone. EvidenceFairy (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)