Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 73

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75→Archive 80

reliable sources

I am editing Harold W. Percival I am wondering if this link would be considered a reliable citing source? http://www.answers.com/topic/harold-waldwin-percival ThanksDaleSteinhauser (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Good evening Dale, and welcome to the teahouse! I'm afraid the answers.com link won't be considered a reliable source. There's a lot of nuance to the definition, but basically we're looking for sources where someone other than the author has done some fact checking. So books (except when they're self-published), magazines and newspapers are (generally) fine, while blogs and sites like wikipedia (and answers.com) aren't.
My go-to sources are google books (check out chapter six of this one) and google scholar (which didn't have anything obvious). This might also lead to something interesting. Good luck! GaramondLethe 08:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that answers.com page appears to be directly lifted from the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, which, being a Gale Group publication, is almost certainly a reliable source. However, the book's content isn't readily available online, so it's not easy to check whether the text is genuine or not. My gut assumption would be that it is, but I'd recommend a trip to your local library to confirm it. Either way, you'd need to cite the book, not the website; as Garamond says, answers.com, by virtue of being largely unregulated, isn't a reliable source. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Identifying reliable sources is based on:
  1. How reliably the source has been published. Does it have editorial oversite and a history for fact checking?
  2. The Author themself. Are they experts in the field they are being cited for and are they mainstream opinion?
  3. The actual work or "article" being cited. Is it directly relayed and does it support the claim?
  4. The context being used.Amadscientist (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the help. What about Who's Who in America? Is that a reliable source?DaleSteinhauser (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
If it's the Marquis Press one (I assume it is), then: not really, no. Marquis basically advertise the Who's Who books to thousands of potential entrants; those who stump up the appropriate fee make the cut. (I've actually been asked myself if I want to be in one of the British versions.) They do contain the biographies of some genuinely notable individuals, but a Who's Who entry isn't worth much to Wikipedia. Sorry. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not asking about why they choose to put in a person or not. I am asking if the biographies have well checked sources and are reliable for citations on Wiki.DaleSteinhauser (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Dale. To rephrase what Yunshui said, no it isn't a reliable source. The reason it isn't is because of how people get chosen to be in it. It accepts payment to put people in, making it unreliable.Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How long do Edits take to show?

Hi there I made edits to a page - how long do they take to show? They currently don't. It's for William "Billy" Bridgeman the footballer. Thank you for your assistanceBridgemanphillips (talk) 06:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bridgemanphillips, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is that your edits did show up - but because the changes you made were not supported by the sources, another editor reverted them shortly afterwards. If you have some reliable sources that suggest the dates should be changed, the most sensible thing to do at this point would be to visit the article's talkpage and start a discussion on the proposed alterations; other editors can then evaluate the relative merits of the sources there. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Arcillaroja

Hello, I have a problem with the user Arcillaroja in the article Western Europe. He reverted all my edits without a good explanation, after I reverted his with an explanation. I explained that there is a distinction between western Europe and Western Europe, that western Europe is a purely geographic term, and Western Europe has a fixed two meanings - the Cold War one (countries of the Western Bloc) and cultural one (countries of Western Christianity): http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node27.html http://dd.dgacm.org/editorialmanual/ed-guidelines/style/capitalization.htm What should I do to make him stop destroying my work? :( Would you mind to mediate? The same happened with the article Eastern Europe. He wouldn't listen that there is geographically one centre of Europe, and some centers are either old measurements, without professional equipment, confused claims or centres of Eurozone or the European Union, which do not equate Europe. Please see that article Geographical midpoint of Europe. --Martina Moreau (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello Martina Moreau, thanks for dropping by the teahouse. First off, take a deep breath, have a nice cup of tea and relax a bit. This kind of disagreement happens all the time here, and learning how to handle someone reverting your edits is a big part of becoming an effective editor. I'll take a look at the article and get back to you with more specific advice. GaramondLethe 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
So I've done a bit of looking around and I think User:Arcillaroja has done the correct thing here (although the explanation was a bit terse). I'll focus on one example. You added an image with the caption: Europe's geographic midpoint in the continent's centre of gravity, Lithuania. West of that point, there is geographical western Europe. I assume you know this to be true, but unfortunately we can't just accept your assurance to that effect. At minimum, you'll need to provide what we call a reliable source that says this, whether that be an atlas, almanac or geography textbook. There are many rules regarding what is and is not a reliable source and you can find all the details of the currently policy here.
There's a second issue you need to be aware of. I assume there are dozens of definitions as to what "western Europe" means. Most of the time, it's not appropriate to try to include every definition, and it's almost always a bad idea to try to include just your preferred definition. So even if you find one or more reliable sources that support this particular definition, they're still going to be weighed against the other sources we know about and potentially be excluded because they give undue weight to a minority opinion. (The details of that policy can be found at WP:UNDUE. Generally, if someone gives you a cryptic acronym and expects you to know what it means, just type (for example) WP:NPOV into the wikipedia search box and you'll be taken to the document in question.)
So see what sources you can find and let me know how it turns out! Good luck! GaramondLethe 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I had a look in a few sources many times during my studies. I know that there are quite a few definitions of 'Western Europe' (non-geographic term), but 'western Europe' (geographic term) is very straightforward. As soon as we have geographical midpoint, we can indicate northern, southern, eastern and western Europe. Additionally, central Europe is distinguished.
When talking about European cultural (not always geographic) regions, there are always countries that are always considered to be in that region, the core countries. For example, France is always associated with Western Europe, Russia with Eastern Europe, Sweden with Northern Europe, Italy and Greece with Southern Europe and Germany with Central Europe. perhaps we should create maps similar to that:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Eastern-Europe-map2.svg but indicating which countries are always considered Eastern Europe, in vast majority of definitions, then lighter colour - countries that are often considered... and so on.
If Arcilla did not agree with the notion, then why to delete the part in which I explained the difference when we capitalise it? That surely is not a matter of opinion, but... orthography...
--Martina Moreau (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The geographic term "western Europe" may be straightforward to you, but another editor has reverted your edit to this effect and so, despite it being a bit of a bother, you do have to go dig up a reliable source that lays this out. (There are a small set of facts that the community would probably agree do not need reliable sources, but even something as seemingly obvious as "The sky is blue" has drawn differing opinions).
As to the capitalization issue, I'm not sure this belongs in an encyclopedia. That information would be more at home in a style guide, unless you have a source that isn't a style guide that explains why the distinction is important.
It might be helpful to tell you how I started editing. I found a wonderful single-volume encyclopedia in a used bookstore: Robbins's The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (1954, back when witchcraft was only a historical-social field of academic study rather than new-age silliness). I went through that book and compared its entries to the matching entries in wikipedia and added (and cited!) information as appropriate. Since I was starting from a solid academic source I didn't run into the issues you're encountering.
Hope that helps! GaramondLethe 19:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martina!

It would be very convenient and also polite to ask me directly in my talk page why did I revert your edits. In general I think that you will get more information and people will be friendlier that what I think you assume. A revert is more often than not not a warmongering act. By the way, I've noticed that you have been reverted in all articles relating to this topic... You might want to consider why that is. Not saying that Wikipedia is a democracy, but when many experienced editor come to the same behavior then there is something going on Arcillaroja (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arcillaroja!

I acknowledged the points you made. Now - please understand mine. I observed that my edits were reverted and there was either no reason given why the revert was made or the reason was irrelevant. The edits were also reverted fully. That is to say that all the changes(e.g.: orthography matters that are beyond discussion), rather than those which disturbed you were reverted. This is the reason why I decided to talk directly to other people. I concluded that it may be a more efficient approach. I read about vandalism on Wikipedia. I know it is common and I did expect you to be a vandal. Now, on the bright side, I look forward to future positive collaboration and, perhaps a better relationship. :) --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S: I actually still do not know. There was an user who has different, but similar objections to mine, back in 2010. Her or his name was Stubes99. His entry was deleted from your log by you. Why would you do that, Arcillaroja? I am also concerned that your talk page seems also rather interesting, to put it mildly...--Martina Moreau (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Martina,

I see that you are very very new to Wikipedia (to put it mildly). Just an advice: try to start your Wikipedia activity with subjects that are a bit less controversial than Geopolitics. You should also try to start learning how to read logs. The warnings you saw on my talk page are threats made by another editor to scare me off. I leave everything on my talk page (some remove it because they think that in this way they can hide embarrassing facts). This editor tried to accuse me on ANI boards... And you can imagine what happened next. BTW, sending messages to many editors to support your cause is forbidden and might grant you your first warning (from an OP);) Don't do it anymore. And the funny thing is: the only user that answer your call is the same user that reverted you (twice) in Central Europe with the sole description "(now please cease this nonsense in the lead)" :) Maybe you got the wrong guy? Anyways be more careful and try articles that are a bit easier.Arcillaroja (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Arcillaroja. Here at the teahouse we take civility far more seriously. "Don't do it anymore" would be fine anywhere else, but the standard here is "be nice to the newbie" rather than "don't bite the newbie". That said, I hope you drop by again and offer a hand answering questions. GaramondLethe 04:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Martina Moreau, the policy Arcillaroja is referring to has to do with "canvassing", or asking a bunch of your buddies to come take your side in an argument. Experienced wikipedians can be hypersensitive about this when it's done by other experienced wikipedians who ought to know better. However, we don't expect you to have mastered all of the rules quite yet, and we will give you even more latitude when you're asking for help here in the teahouse. So no worries. GaramondLethe 04:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are right! I meant to say something like "I advice you not to do that". I would be pleased to help more often on these boards.Arcillaroja (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I fix the formatting on my inline citations?

I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and my first article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Malka) has a note saying my inline citations aren't properly formatted. Can someone help me figure out what is wrong with them and how to fix them? Lagirl24 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hey Lagirl, thanks for swinging by The Teahouse. It looks like there's some details missing about the references in your article, which should be included in footnotes when possible.
There is a "Cite" toolbar at the top of the edit window which allows you to automatically generate the required wiki code.

You click one of the templates, e.g. "book", and fill in the details.

More information can be found in Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or the citations tutorial (the below video will play best in Firefox or Chrome):

Hope this helps, I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Much appreciated. Is there any way to bring up the citations tool box for citations that I've already created, so that I can add in additional information? Or do I have to completely re-do my citations from scratch?Lagirl24 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Sadly no, there isn't a way to reverse engineer your citations like that; you'll have to do it from scratch! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, I think ProveIt GT will help you to add additional information, provided citation templates like {{cite}}, {{Cite web}}, {{Cite book}}, etc. are used rather than simply putting bare urls inside <ref></ref>. To install it, simply follow User:ProveIt GT#How to install. It has always helped me. (sorry if this wasn't the one you were looking for) Regards. Happy editing :) ···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 14:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In here...

.. the dark blue segment indicates edits I've made on Wikipedia. I don't understand, does it mean edits I've did excluding the rest categories? If that is so, then what does the light blue sector mean? --Yashowardhani (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Yashowardani. The segments on that graph are the different namespaces in Wikipedia. So the dark blue is the Wikipedia name space, that is pages whose name starts with Wikipedia:, like this one we are on, for example. Your edits to Wikipedia articles are the red sector, and the light blue is the Wikipedia Talk: namespace, such as discussion pages for WikiProjects. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If interested, you may read more on such namespaces at Wikipedia:Namespace. Here is the list of edits you have made to the Wikipedia namespace. Hope this helps. Regards.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Username spelling

How do you edit a spelling mistake that you made in your user name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBardSchoolOfthought (talk • contribs) 12:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You can request that your account be renamed at WP:RENAME. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to see what 'resources' and 'credits' have been rejected?

Hello, I've been trying to get this article that I wrote a few months ago approved for some time now. I am not sure which links/credits/references that I am offering to support what is being said are being rejected.

I remember when I edited the article the first time, the last links that did not work were the links/credits to YouTube videos featuring the actor whose page I am writing's work.

Super confused and need to know where I am messing up.

Thank you. (TheUmbrellaAgencyBP (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the references you have I think the issue is that they are nearly all considered to not be reliable sources as they are all from IMDB. As most content on IMDB is user generated (like Wikipedia) there is no guarantee that it is accurate or true, so you need to look for sources from elsewhere to support your article. Newspaper or film industry journals are better places to search through. NtheP (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Thiagarajar College

My article in wikipedia seeks reorganization, kindly help me what should i have to do? i received these type of messages above my article, ehich is said as "This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Please help by editing the article to make improvements to the overall structure. (January 2013)" NEETHIARASU ARUNACHALAM (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse!  Doing... --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I have attempted to divide the article into section, but it is very difficult to do so with the current content of the article. Please add few sources and ad some information in the "History" section! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
And I can see there was a copyvio issue too. Don't copy paste content from other sites! If you have question, feel free to ask! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

How to locate a talk page

There is, apparently, an unresolved dispute on the article on Mike Bingham. Supposedly, one can see the discussion on the article's talk page. But switching to the talk page doesn't really help. It might be OK for an expert, but I can't see how to get to the actual talk page where the discussion is taking place. Can anybody guide me please? Agent0060 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

And could somebody explain why, after ending my question with the required four tildes, it comes up as "Unsigned"? Agent0060 15:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Teahouse
About, Mike Bingham article, no one has started discussion there! The template says Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Frankly, generally no one (including me) explains issues at talk page after tagging! I'll see if I can tag to theeditor who added the template!
About signature, go to Special:Preferences, in the signature field copy paste this code [[User:Agent0060|Agent0060]] ([[User talk:Agent0060|talk]] (don't add "Nowiki") and save changes!
Thanks! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
About the Mike Bingham article. Thanks. You may or may not be aware that Mike Bingham is something of a controversial character. I don't actually have anything to add, but I would be very interested in what, if anything, is being said/disputed. Anything you can do to get to the editor who added the template would be much appreciated.
About signature. I still don't get it. If you look in the "edit" above, you should be able to see that I added the 4 tildes and that inserted my User name and the UTC time and date at the end of my question. It was then followed by the SineBot autosignature. When I added the query about the signature, the SineBot didn't kick in. Could it have anything to do with the space I left between my original question and the 4 tildes? Agent0060 15:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)
Regarding your question on signatures, you simply put ~~~~ after your comment, and it automatically becomes your signature(Like TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) About Mike Bingham, I have notified the editor. One issue I can see in the article is lack of online sources, all sources are, if you are going to edit that article, this mind find you to help sources Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Don't worry about formatting mistakes. I'll correct those if you inform me after making edits. And if you want I can add 3-4 "citation needed" tags exactly after those sentences in that article where I personally think "! Let me know if you have any other question.
  • About your signature, no, it is not working still. I guess you went to "Preference" page and in the signature field wrote "Agent0060". Did you? We generally add links of user page and talk page in signature. Your basic signature should be [[User:Agent0060|Agent0060]] ([[User talk:Agent0060|talk]] which should result Agent0060 (talk. If it is applicable, go to Special:Preferences, in the signature field copy paste this code [[User:Agent0060|Agent0060]] ([[User talk:Agent0060|talk]] (don't add "Nowiki")! You have another option, which I want to keep as the last option, reset preference! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I tagged the page with the NPOV template. As Tito Dutta says, "no one explains issues at talk page after tagging!", including me sometimes. The page is written, in my opinion, very sympathetically towards Dr. Bingham. I am not sure whether there is any conflict of interest, but whoever wrote this seems biased. Sorry for the confusion. Paris1127 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Your signature must link to your user page or talk page. The simplest solution to your problem is to remove the checkmark at "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences, and click the "Save" button. Then the pages will automatically be linked when you sign with four tildes. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting a Poem

I posted a poem to the Development section of the Kali page. I formatted it just the way it says on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup with poem tags inside of block quotes. When the poem displays, every other line of the poem is not indented as it should be. Can you tell me what I need to do to get the poem formatted properly?DaleSteinhauser (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dale, and welcome back! I just pasted the text in my sandbox and got rid of the indents and it's just fine, which is rather odd. Therefore I submit to those Teahouse hosts with a better knowledge of markup than I :) - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 13:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

KML usage for coordinates

I have tried to convert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_England to use WGS84 to enable viewing in google maps, however it seems I have screwed up the formatting somewhere. I have compared with other articles but can't figure out why this doesn't work. Any pointer appreciated... Stor-Börge (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Stor-Börge, welcome to the Teahouse. It can make you go a bit boggle-eyed looking at tables but it was the Rocksavage lines. On had a column too many and the other one too few. The easiest way to check is to run your eye down the right hand border and look for ragged edges - that normally indicates the rows with the formatting errors in the table. NtheP (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I had missed that one! Still cannot get the coords to show up up google maps though, it says "no geocoded items found"? Stor-Börge (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Want to make a wikipedia page for my websiite

I try to make a wiki page for my website. But i can't, please help meManumurali2012 (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Unless your website meets our guidelines on notability, it probably will not be able to have a page dedicated to it. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or promote something. If you need help creating an article, see this really helpful page. Thanks. Go Phightins! 04:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
And what is the name of your website? --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Need help deciding which color to use?

I am trying to find the best shade of blue for the logo found at this website. I decided that this color:   matches the color, but I'm not sure. Can anyone help please? Thank you. JHUbal27 Roar! :-) 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That color is perfect,from my point of view,color is the same from logo :) Carliitaeliza TALK 02:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I know that a lot of photoediting programs have a little "eyedropper" that lets you pick a colour, and then shows you the exact colour code such as #ffcc35 or some such. You can screen grab the logo, use this feature if your program has it, and then you'll know exactly which colour it is. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
"color: rgb(135, 206, 250)" -- (from using Inspect element (Q) on the page) ~E 03:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Using this hex converter:[1] that translates as #87CEFA - which is:   ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits without citations

Hi, I few days ago I noticed that a user added some information to the article Takydromus sexlineatus without citations. I left a message at his/her talk page but I haven't received a reply -- is it okay to revert the edit? The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi The Giant Purple Platypus and welcome to the Teahouse! You may revert the edit if you feel like the information is unsourced. Be bold when editing and thanks for editing Wikipedia! JHUbal27 Roar! :-) 02:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Purple. Welcome to the Teahouse. Yes. I've you've given him enough time to fix it, and he hasn't, you may revert uncited material. It can always be added back with citations later. Alternately, is it the kind of thing you could find citations for? I have no knowledge of the topic, but if you do, it's always a nice gesture to help improve articles rather than merely undo the work of others. If you can't find anything, however, and you've given ample time for the other editor to, it may be removed. Just don't edit war over it, and if you need additional support, there are mechanisms to get other people to weigh in and give their views. Does that help? --Jayron32 02:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (ec) Good evening, Platypus, and thanks for coming to the teahouse with this question. It's a particularly good one, I think. First, thanks for notifying the editor—that was the right thing to do, especially as that editor is quite new. You should also raise the issue on the talk page, as more experienced editors will be looking there to hold a conversation about the article.
As to your question: Yes, you may revert the edit, but in this case you might not want to. Ideally you would dig up a citation yourself and add it. That way the new editor (who has only made three edits so far) gets to see his or her contribution being improved and has a better idea of what is expected. Barring that, you may want to use a citation needed tag ({{cn|reason=describe the problem here}}, see full documentation here). That allows readers to make use of the information while giving them notice that it might not be as reliable as we would like. It also lets the editor who added that information understand what the problem is; if you revert the edit completely, they may not think to look at your edit summary and have no idea why their contribution was removed. And it also alerts every other editor who reads that article that there's a problem to be solved and one of them may step up and solve it for you. If the edit is reverted, we lose the opportunity of improving it.
However, keep in mind that if you're dealing with obvious vandalism or with unsourced contentious information in a biography of a living person, then revert first and ask questions later. I also tend to be a little quick on the draw when it comes to removing non-neutral language and other material that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But for this edit by this editor in this article, I think a tag is the best way to go. GaramondLethe 02:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding comments

Dear editors: I was browsing through the Articles for Creation and came across a submission that had a lot of duplication. There was already a comment from an editor about the incorrect tone of a previous version of the article, which the author was working to fix. As far as I know, these pages don't have a talk page to go with them as accepted articles do. Not being an expert on the subject (biomass as a renewable energy source) I hesitate to do more than slight editing, but I feel that the article would be more acceptable if all of the redundancy were left out. Is it appropriate for me to make a comment to this effect, or are only designated editors supposed to give advice in this area? I am a novice at Wikipedia, but as a retired librarian I am quite familiar with encyclopedia articles. I don't want to have my virtual knuckles rapped. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne Delong and welcome back to the Teahouse! I got advice from another editor to slow down on giving advice. Sometimes the best advice comes from editors who know a few good tricks. Where am I going, I sound so confusing? Anyway, if you feel you want to leave a comment, leave a comment. If you have the "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", click on the arrow, then Review, then comment. Or add the {{subst:afc comment|your comment}} I'll test it, but it may not work.
Comment: Have fun editing Wikipedia!
Again, I wouldn't say I'm an advanced editor, but I know that anyone can give advice. JHUbal27 Roar! :-) 01:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello Anne, and thanks for dropping in. I appreciate your caution in not wanting to jump in. Your contribution will certainly be welcome once the article is either accepted or rejected, but I'm a little concerned about editing while the review process is underway. If you make a change and the article is rejected the contributor might blame you, and you don't have the benefit of a talk page to hash thing out prior to making the change. If you do decide to contribute, I'd suggest leaving a note on the contributor's talk page and make sure they're ok with it first.
Remember that you can be a reviewer for Articles for Creation once you feel comfortable applying the criteria. If there's an article that you think is strong enough to be accepted that you'd like to edit, doing the review may be the most straightforward way of accomplishing that. GaramondLethe 03:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I have made some edits to articles for review, but just to fix spelling or grammar and a couple of times I added a new reference I found. A few times I found that new users were indenting paragraphs with unexpected results, or adding one carriage return instead of two when making a new paragraph, so I made the page look better. I don't think this sort of thing could get an article rejected. I haven't reorganized anybody's work for the reasons you stated. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

someone edit his Biography

hi. i am Suspicious on one of a wikipedian which is editing on one of people biography (whom is alive). in my opinion, Owner of the user is Owner of article, but i can not prove it, because he use another name for his user. what can i do for providing his contributes on his article ? please tell your respond according wikipedia policy (if it is exist).بیکار (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

بیکار welcome to the Teahouse. Autobiography is discouraged but not banned so unless the edits are very non-neutral I wouldn't worry too much. Perhaps if you told us the name of the article you're concerned about, someone could take a look to see if there is an issue. NtheP (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
are you sure it isn't banned ? that article isn't here, i's on persian wikipedia (fa.wikipedia.org). some persian administrator doesn't know what to for this situation. in persian's one wikipedian whom i'm saying about him, he changes his article page to propaganda weblog, announcing everything that make himself as reliable historian (which he isn't) or telling of Conspiracy theory which is too silly, but Illiterate person's believe it.--بیکار (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
All I can tell you is the en-wp policy which is "strongly discouraged" other wikis may have stronger or weaker policies. the thing to rely on is whether the article is neutral or not. If it isn't then edit it so that it is. If the admins on the Persian wiki aren't sure how to proceed they should contact a steward who can give them advice. NtheP (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

how to edit content like below

Contents [hide] 1 Leadership 2 In psychology 2.1 History of hope 2.2 Understanding hope 2.3 Measuring hope 2.4 Hope versus optimism 3 In philosophy 4 As a literary concept 5 In religion 5.1 In Christianity 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading05:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbchung2 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Dbchung2. I am really not sure what you are asking. Your question appears to be a table of contents. Tables of contents are generated automatically, listing all the headers in the article. So, If you want to change one of the entries in the table of contents, you will need to change the corresponding header. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gtwfan52: thanks for the quick response. yes, I mean the table of contents. My editing seems does not come with a table. the "content" and "hide" will appear automatically,right? dbchung2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbchung2 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Dbchung2, you're talking about the article Social affordance? There isn't an automatically generated table of contents (TOC) yet as the article doesn't have enough sections yet. Once the article has three or more section headings then a TOC will be automatically be added to the article. Based on what you were proposing for this article, have a look now the sections are marked up as section headings and you'll see that a TOC has been generated. NtheP (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Replacing Images

Hi there, I've loaded some images for a page that I am building and have replaced them. However when I paste the links into my article I keep getting the older version of the images. Any thought? Thanks SamCardioNgo (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I believe that it takes some time for the new version of the photos to be actually shown in whichever article they are added. I believe its got to do something with updating the database, but I cant be sure. My best answer would be to be patient and check again in a few hours. If its still a problem, then I suggest you come back here!
Hope it helped!
Cheers,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi SamCardioNgo. This sometimes happens because of caching issues, both on the user end and on Wikipedia's end, and the job queue can be involved. I suggest that you first bypass your cache. Sometimes everything's fine—the new image is actually showing—but you're not seeing it because of your computer's cache. If not, then purge the cache of the images and the pages you placed them on. Then bypass your own cache again. If that doesn't work, try some null edits, which can sometimes work where a normal purge does not. If all that fails, just wait.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
SamCardioNgo, I just had the exact same problem. I tried purging in different ways, but that didn't work. I still see the old version of the image when I click on the file link, but when I added the image code to the page, the new version of the image appeared in the article. So try the image in an article and see what happens. First Light (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't fix this...help!

This is what I've written:

What are you trying to fix exactly? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Fixed TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The string of characters is there, but its so long thats its below the table of contents. Also, you used a level 2 header, which makes it look like there are two questions here, whereas there is only one. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Following level 2 heading replaced with {{fakeheading}} to avoid thread splitting. NtheP (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

External links

This is how it shows up: Boston (OK, now the string of characters isn't even showing up on this page - it's only on the Wiki page - The Rathskeller Boston)Globe RFWHRTb2Z0d2FyZQBBZG9iZSBJbWFnZVJlYWR5ccllPAAAAYlJREFUeNrMVD1rwlAUPfkwBBxFKQQlDhmjqz j4F9w7FfwThZaW9n8UnDrrn1BEXNTBRQQhEE1ERRR0Sd990A7VaKJJ6YHzEu4N99z3zrsRGo2GAuCF8YFRQz SwGOuM7zJb3hgfES2o0SdGSWRLDfGhRgLpGAXS4q0VCoUCBEHwzd8skM/nUSqVoCjKybz8O1CtVn2LeZ4H27 YxnU6xXC6x3+95PJPJoFKpoN1uY7vdnhfww3w+x3A4xGaz4d3quo5sNvuTTyaTXKTb7cJ13csCzWbzKKaqKj /zXC4HSZKO8iRcLpcxGAwwmUzC7UDTNBSLRSQSiVAeyUGNpM4v4XA4oNfr8eMMLJBKpWCaJn9fLBawLAur1Q q73Y6b/H0pyNyrTDYMA7PZDKPRCOv1+uQ3ZCqZe9UcOI6DTqfjW5zMbLVa3Bu6RaE9GI/HZ/P9fp8/qfipYR Oj+ukEnuQgEx0GImKGHGSC//UO/kTAibG+QwIfMQrUyeRXusaM94x3ERW2GT8Zn78EGACRmoKUJhB1TQAAAA BJRU5ErkJggg==

Can anyone help??????

Thanks! Julie

JSFarman (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Broke the incoherent text into several lines for ease of reading TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Unwatch from watchlist

Most probably there is a script or something which allows you to unwatch from watchlist! I can remember that right now! Can anyone help? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. To remove a page from your watchlist, you must go onto your watchlist and click "view and edit watchlist" or "edit raw watchlist" options, which will take you through a small process. TBrandley (what's up) 14:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Titodutta! There's another way that you can remove something from your watchlist. Go to the page that you want unwatched. Next to "View history" there should be a blue star. That means that you watch that page. Click that blue star and it will go to an outline of a star. There will also be a little note that says it was removed from your watchlist. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
After a bit searching I have found what I was looking for
But, I don't know... I am doing something wrong most probably and can not see any changes in wathclist! I have bypassed cache. My js page: User:Titodutta/vector.js --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Using js/watchlist.js' there will be no changes to the way the watchlist appears until you toggle on the features, which might be why you haven't seen how to access it. What you should see if it's working is a little menu above your watchlist that looks like this:

 … | 7 days | all | Only new | x | ↑↓


The "X" will populate the "x)" watchlist remover tab next to each link in your watchlist. The other tools are useful as well and, like I said, it toggles off and on so it's mostly invisible except when you need it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Resubmission

Hi there,

I recently submitted an article about KC Cole, a longtime author, professor and journalist in Los Angeles, CA.

This was my first article. I went ahead and read all of the supporting Wiki articles on how to create and entry and then submitted it. A user, CAWylie [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CAWylie ] told me that if I wanted my article to be approved, I need some more references and less external links. I've gone ahead and made the necessary changes.

What is my next step to have this article approved?

Thanks, Ben

Benjamin max (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Benjamin max and welcome to the Teahouse! I will look over the article to make sure it establishes notability and that the sources are reliable. I'm just testing to see if this link works: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KC Cole. JHUbal27 Roar! :-) 02:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm back. The main problem is the lack of reliable sources. I willl break it down for you. #1 is not reliable because it is an autobiography, #2 is not reliable because it only mentions her name, which is not verifiable. Again, I'm not saying this is a bad article or that the sources are unreliable, I'm just stating my opinion. Also, it's okay if you disagree with me. #3 is not reliable because the facts stated are hard to verify, #4 is not reliable because again, the acts stated are hard to verify, and #8 is not reliable simply because Amazon is unreliable. I'm sorry for going on and on, and I probably sound obnoxious, but I'm afraid that the subject is not notable. JHUbal27 Roar! :-) 02:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Ben. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. In other words, we only publish what others are writing about. The problem is that there are many many articles out there that she has written, but none written about her. The articles she wrote are only useful for vetting notability if she won a major (think Pulitzer) award for them. The specific notability criteria for authors is at WP:AUTHOR. And I agree with JHUbal that the sources on the article now do not show her notability. I am thinking that your best bet might be to try to vet her academic accomplishments. The standards are at WP:PROF (I would explain them to you, but to be truthful, I don't really understand them. sorry. Hope someone else will pick up the ball and run with it.) Good Luck!Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello to both of you.
First of all, many thanks for taking the time to respond to me. I do greatly appreciate it. While I understand that you have concerns with this article (I am, admittedly, a novice when it comes to posting), I am a bit perplexed as to why you feel Ms. Cole is not a notable person. KC Cole is one of the most well-known science writers of her generation, transforming the way that journalists approach the subject of science. She's an award-winning science writer, author of several books, and an accomplished lecturer. Furthermore, I would point you to a few other articles about other science writers, mainly Dava Sobel, who have less references yet have their own entries.
I will go ahead and try to add some more references that you find applicable. But, after doing so, I would urge you to reconsider... or at least help me in adding what I would argue is a distinguished, preeminent science writer, one worthy of being part of our collective consciousness, here on Wikipedia.
This article on Philip Ball, a science writer, has one reference to his book and is a link to his personal website. This article on Robert Kunzig isn't even complete and also has one reference... I'm not trying to point figures nor imply that you had a hand in publishing the aforementioned articles... I'm just new to the process and it seems inconsistent. And just because I feel like it's worth mentioning, both of these two writers are on the Science journalism landing page.Benjamin max (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2013 (PST)
Hi again, Benjamin max! Two things:
  1. Notability is term that tends to cause some confusion here. When we say "not notable", we are not saying anything about her skills or accomplishments. Notability is the term we use for the standard for inclusion, and it really has nothing to do with anyone's feelings about her. I think the reason we use the term "notable" is because one of the primary components of notability is that someone is writing about (or "making note of") the subject of the article.
  2. You are absolutely correct that there are other articles that don't seem to meet the standards of notability. Wikipedia has been around roughly 11 years, and has over 4.1 million articles. The process for checking the quality of older article is probably not the best, but there are people who look at them and bring them up to standard. It is a slow process. The two guys you mentioned, however, are notable, because they qualify under the clause of WP:Author about winning major awards.Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gtwfan52,
Thank you very much for your reply. I am very thankful that you're giving this some attention and cannot express that enough.
KC Cole, in my estimation, would quality under the clause of WP:Author for both winning significant awards and (probably most applicable) that she has made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her specific field." She has been honored with the American Institute of Physics Science Writing prize; the Los Angeles Times award for deadline reporting; the Skeptics’ Society Edward R. Murrow Award for Thoughtful Coverage of Scientific Controversies; Los Angeles Times award for best explanatory journalism, and the Elizabeth A. Wood Science Writing Award from the American Crystallographic Association.
I will attempt to showcase these awards more prominently in her entry later this evening, along with her contributions to her field. Her novel on Frank Oppenheimer (the brother of Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb) is considered the biography of record on the physicist and is cited on all of his relevant pages -- The Exploratorium and his personal page, Frank Oppenheimer.
Last thing -- I understand Wikipedia has standards for new entries and I wholly respect that. It is not my intention to be bothersome or to argue my case for this entry. But I feel strongly that Ms. Cole is notable and worthy of an article. If there's anything I can do make this happen that I am missing, please let me know. Benjamin_max (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2013 (PST)
Hi! It certainly isn't a bother...it is a pleasure. You should check to see if any of the awards have Wikipedia articles and Wikilink them if they do! Like I told you earlier, I don't really understand the academic notability requirements, but I believe there is something in there about having a work that is frequently cited. Good luck. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, So I have Wikilinked several of her awards. She was elected to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in 2009, a list that includes, but not limited to, Bill Nye, E. O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins, among others. If you look at that list, 80 percent of the members have Wikipedia entries. The Edward R. Murrow Award is also a very well-known award for journalists.
How can I resubmit the article? Is this the resubmission process or is there a way to have this be peer reviewed again? I can't seem to find out the next step online. Benjamin max (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Ben. I see you've already listed your article for review. I am looking at it right now. There are still a few issues, but I think you've got the notability problem handled. Kinda busy today, but I will leave you a short list of stuff on your talk page. It's mostly copyedit kind of stuff. Cheers. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Where can I go to ask in-depth questions about a subject?

I'm trying to translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia right now (dōjin circle), and it's making a reference to a concept in German law called Rechtsfähigkeit on the German Wikipedia (The Japanese term [権利能力] translates roughly to "Legal ability." There is no English Wikipedia article on the subject. My Japanese isn't so good that I can go really in-depth into legal matters, and I don't know German at all, but I want to make sure I translate and wikilink this term properly. Right now, I've got it translated as "legal personality," but the Japanese and German wikis have other words for that, and the same thing goes for "legal capacity." I need to find someone who knows German or Japanese law well enough to explain to me the difference so that I can mark this correctly, but I don't know where to go to ask for that. Can anyone help me out? Reinana kyuu (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Reinana! Have you tried the Wikipedia:Reference desks? There's several different subjects, it sounds like your question may be perfect for the Language Reference desk. Does that look like it would be helpful for you? --Jayron32 03:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jayron! It looks like it could be. I just posted my question there, and we'll see if it gets addressed. Thank you so much for helping me. Reinana kyuu (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Joint Wikimedia account

Can I create a joint account for all Wikimedia sister sites? --Yashowardhani (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You can join with this account,only login Carliitaeliza TALK 12:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
check out too https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Unified_login Here in Wikipedia :go to >Preferences< --> >Basic Information< --->above of >gender< clicks on Manage your global account Carliitaeliza TALK 12:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

hi! i created several pages, but mainly using one source. but all the sources have been deleted from the articles, because it's a commercial site. but a lot of information remained in the articles, which is the intellectual property of that deleted site. is there a way i can request the sites to be deleted or do i have to request speedy deletion for each site one by one? thanks for your answers Annaauc (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You can use delete|reason with {{ }} by page, of that form, administrators will know you want they are eliminated and reason Carliitaeliza TALK 12:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Information can't be the "intellectual property" of a site under the US law that guides us. We do not recognize sweat of the brow in this country. Creative content can be owned, but creativity is not displayed in forming a comprehensive list of works. While that may exhibit labor, it isn't creative. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Or put another way, facts cannot be copyrighted, but the way those facts are presented can be.--ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I upload a picture?

hi it is Dfgg i would like to know how to upload a picture on the SouthEast Fuller Road Article thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfgg (talk • contribs) 09:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dffg, and welcome to the Teahouse! First thing, we do things a little differently here -- I moved your question from the bottom to the top.   ;)   I assume you are referring to Southeast Fuller Road (MAX station). An actual Teahouse host will be along soon to answer your question. (I'm just a night janitor)~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dffg! I'm not an actual teahouse host, but I'll give some ideas on your question anyway. I see the night janitor has already welcomed you!
If you have a camera and you can go to the station and photograph it yourself, then you should upload your picture here at Commons. This will then give you a filename for the picture you just uploaded. If you then edit the page Southeast Fuller Road (MAX station), you'll see in the infobox template (near the top) it has a space for you to put an image name. Note that, when putting an image name in a template, you don't need the square brackets or other details around it, just the image name itself (probably ending in ".jpg" or ".JPEG" or similar.) Give it a try and let us know how you get on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If you do not have an account on Wikimedia Commons and the image is your own work, you can upload images you agree to release as CC by SA license on Wikipedia or Public Domain. If the image is worth transferring to commons, a bot or editor can transfer it. You may not upload images to wikipedia that you do not own unless they are public domain. About 75 years of age.

If you take a picture, save the file as a jpeg image. This is the most common and easiest to upload. Make sure you know where it is to access it. On the left of the screen is the "tool box" area. Click on "Upload file". This takes you to the "File upload Wizard". Click the "Click here to Start the Upload Form" button. This opens up a three setep process which includes the Step 1: Choose your file. Click the button and choose your image to upload. Step 2: Describe your file, First give a very brief descriptive naming for the file such as "Depot image" Next give a brief summary of the image. Step 3: Provide source and copyright information. If this is your own work click the box "This is a free work". This opens a drop box. Click the first copyright status: "entirely my own work". Fill in all the "How", "Date" and "Publication" information. Besure and clsick to have this uploaded localy to Wikipedia only or you are redirected to commons.

If you wish to use an image that you can demonstrate is older than 75 years, it can be uloaded as Public Domian. If it is an image that you want to upload ad fair use because you do not own it, let me know and I will expalin that.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

New anti-vandalism feature I haven't heard about?

Three days ago, I've added a new section on Talk:YUV. Still, I can't see it to this day unless I go to view history. Is this some new kinda anti-vandalism feature? Do I need to be registered to see IP posts on plain talkpages (rather than in the history)? Do I need to be registered to even just post something on plain talkpages? Or do I now even have to be an admin to just see new IP posts that are being posted after this new anti-vandalism feature has been introduced? 87.174.193.113 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have no problems seeing your edits but I don't think it's an anti-vandalism feature but an ongoing bug to do with page cahcing and purging. You can view the full discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Users reporting site time issues and delay in visible update of edits - mostly it seems to be affecting European editors and I see that your IP is registered to an ISP in Germany which would fit with the symptoms being seen. Hopefully it will be resolved fairly soon but please rest assured it's nothing against IP users. NtheP (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I was already getting paranoid here if this could be some kinda censorship move. I'll be looking at the village pump discussion you kindly linked in just a second. --87.174.193.113 (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Extraction of a URL

Hi can anyone tell me if I can get the original URL from this link I tried to right the page but that is disabled, and when I pull it from the listing, part of the link contains search.yahoo.com which is blocked by Wikipedia spam filter (want to use for a source). - Regards FOX 52 (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just take the tail-end of the search URL: http://www.maltaspotting.com/airwingafm.htm. Usually if you follow the search link your browser will display the destination URL. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

many thanks FOX 52 (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_73&oldid=1140109778"