This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
Adding New Pages Based on Autobiographical Articles
Hello,
I am the online media editor at Annual Reviews in Palo Alto. I am trying to find out what the policy would be for me to add new articles on Wikipedia.
As part of Women's History Month, we are posting articles written by pioneering women in science. As we began to research them to provide our readers with some context, we've noticed that, much to our dismay, about a third of these women do not have a Wikipedia page explaining their work and contributions (whereas of course, their male collaborators all do).
What would be the policy if, as employees of AR, we created general profiles for these women and added at the bottom their articles, which all go into details about their careers? Would that be acceptable?
Thanks for your help.
Anna
Rascouet (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Anna, welcome to the Teahouse! In my opinion, it would probably be ok as long as all the articles clearly demonstrated that the women scientists meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (in this case, WP:PROF would be the most relevant). It would be better to use the Annual Reviews article as a reference to support some of the article's details, rather than an external link, as that would reduce the appearance of an advert for Annual Reviews which might cause problems. You might like to look at the Wikiproject on Women Scientists and sound people out on its talk page for advice on specific articles you'd propose to create. Another thing you should probably do is to start a talk page for each article you create and clearly identify yourself there as an employee of Annual Reviews, so that others can evaluate any possible conflict of interest. Hope this helps, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi KatieBoundary, welcome to the Teahouse! Desert is semi-protected, which means it cannot be edited by people without accounts, people logged out, or those whose accounts are very new. (This is usually because the article got a lot of vandalism from people without accounts.) As you have an account, if you were logged in, the lack of edit tab is probably because your account is less than four days old. You can request edits on the talk page but to be honest it might be easier just to wait till your account qualifies! Hope this helps, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
What does it mean when a template under a posted image in an article says the following:
This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and United States copyright law. According to Wikipedia's policy for non-free content, the amount of copyrighted work used under fair use should be as little as possible. In particular, non-free media on Wikipedia should not be usable as substitutes for the original work. A high-resolution non-free image is questionable fair use and may be deleted per Wikipedia's copyright policy.
The size of an image may be reduced in an image editing program or by saving and re-uploading a suitably sized thumbnail.
Once a reduced version of this file has been uploaded, please replace this template with {{Non-free reduced}}.
Wikipedia uses content that has as free a license as possible. Non Free images must be a small file, low resolution version of the image. If the uploader does not compy it is likely the image will eventually be deleted. There is a notice board for this issues to be brought up at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Researchers
Is it Wikipedia policy to include minor edits, experimental edits and every single edit for research and author attribution purposes? 182.189.44.226 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Proper attribution is in fact a condition of the Creative Commons copyright licence that is used for the vast majority of content (including all original text) on all WikiMedia Foundation projects. Take a look at the text immediately above the "Save page" button at the bottom of the edit window. Roger (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is okay to only list the authors of significant material throughout the history of an article for attribution purposes. The relevant policy is this one; in it, under the section titled "Re-use of text under Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike", you can see some options that satisfy the attribution requirement. The usual way to do it is to provide a link to the Wikipedia page itself, but one of the alternatives reads as follows: "a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions." So, yes, it's all right for you to do that. It's probably best to err on the side of caution when deciding whether a contribution is small or irrelevant, but in most cases, it should be pretty straightforward. Cheers! Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you please help me.
Hi there
would you please do me a favor, would please help to fix the References on this page, i mean like removing the numbers that came on the top of the References, cause i have been trying to remove it, but it so hard. So would you please hlep????
Hi, Etienne, and welcome to the Teahouse! I assume the article to which you're referring is A.T.M JEFF. There are a series of footnote numbers arrayed at the bottom of the Filmography section, and I think that's what you mean.
The footnote numbers appear there because that's where the <ref> tags are located. Rather than just removing them, those tags should be moved into the article proper, immediately following the statement to which they apply.
If you need help with referencing, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources, and of course you can always ask for clarification here. Thanks!
I want to add a few books(with their individual wiki page) to an author's page that already exists on wiki. But then I realized it is almost impossible to get Book Cover image that meets Wiki's requirements. Most of the books are still in copy right. Then I looked around and saw some existing book wiki page that simply uses book cover image that's not-free, but with low resolution, and with explanation that such cover won't impact book sale. Is that the standard way to go? or are there other ways to get nice Book Cover image for a book page? Ossobuco (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Teahouse! Yes, you can use low resolution images (if possible, image of book cover of first edition), but, don't add multiple images in one book cover! Another way is, you can contact the publisher (through their website's "contact" link and etc and request content permission, theoretically it is better option, practically you'll almost never hear back anything)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Just remember to provide permissions of license if you are providing one and uploading as anything but "fair use". Book covers would need to have a fair use upload using a rationale . You can use Template:Non-free use rationale along with {{Non-free fair use in|image has rationale=yes}} as the license.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any list somewhere (Toolserver) where list of DUK credits received by an editor is listed? (Searching in talk page is not very helpful!) --Tito Dutta (contact) 21:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Advice on how to write an article about a sensitive topic which would need other editors to read all the sources to judge it properly
Hi, I've come here to ask for some friendly advice on a difficult topic. I've never posted here before although i've made about 4,000 edits over 3 years.
The two main questions raised in the AfD were whether it was notable enough as a standalone topic and whether there was any A+B=C synth. Most editors thought they knew the answer to these questions, perhaps due to the sensitivity of the topic, but few if any read the actual underlying sources on which the overall gist of the article was based. That of course leaves me unsatisfied, primarily because i was unable to convince editors to invest the time to read the scholarly works to allow them to come to a more considered view. In other words, because i feel almost noone bothered reading the main underlying sources, I have no idea whether the decision to delete was really right.
My question for the teahouse is, assuming for the sake of argument that my belief in the underlying veracity of the article was correct, what could i have done to convince editors and commentators to actually read the underlying sources before taking a view in the debate?
For the avoidance of doubt, my question for the teahouse is NOT whether you agree or disagree with the AfD - that bridge has been crossed and I have accepted it - and so i don't think it's worth anyone's time here going over it again. I just want to learn what to do differently next time so i end up with proper closure.
Thanks in advance for any advice or thoughts on on this.
Hello and Welcome to the Teahouse! Maybe this is not of much help, but you could just ask them nicely to read them before taking part in the AfD! Cheers. --Ushau97talkcontribs04:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, well, everyone will have seen that Pogrom exists and is notable, so they'll already be wondering if another article in that area is needed. Then they'll have seen "Definition" in the title, and they'll have thought that "Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary", and wondered if this article is going in the wrong direction. I suppose that an article 'Teahouse' would easily be accepted; 'Teahouse discussions' would be accepted with more difficulty; and 'Definitions of teahouse discussions' would get short shrift. Hope this helps you a little. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
One could just as easily ask for "Advice on how to get an editor to understand that the community has carefully considered the editor's proposals and have decided they are not improvements". I am one of the editors who !voted at that AFD and I read the sources. Fourteen fellow editors of the person asking this question agreed that the proposed article should not exist as a stand-alone article (!voted to delete or merge), and that list included: four admins, six editors with over 20,000 edits each, and at least five editors with GA or FA articles under their belts. That's a group of editors representing a lot of Wikipedia editing experience. It's a terrible assumption of bad faith to assume that the only reason the AFD result was delete was that nobody read the sources. It is probably time for the editor asking this question to drop the stick and back away from the horse. Zad6820:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
How to remove warning that a Wiki article relies largely on a single source?
Hi,
I'm part of a group of scholars updating the Constance Fenimore Woolson page. There's a warning at tthe top of the article that reads:
This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources. (September 2010)
Now that this warning no longer accurately depicts the article, how do I go about getting the warning removed?
Hello Lorelei! Welcome to the Teahouse! If you've added more sourcing to the article, you can remove the notice yourself. If you'd rather have someone else remove it, I'll be happy to take a look if you'd give us a link :) gwickwiretalkediting20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Ypnypn have removed the tag since many new references have been added by LoreleiH. Thanks for adding references to the article, which is in fact a pretty hard work. Before you started editing the article it had only 3 citations. At present, it have more than 70 citations . You can improve the style of the references, by using the Cite book template or the Rp template which are specialized templates for citing books. However it looks good with the way you referenced. If you are willing to make it better, feel free to do so. For more information see Help:References and page numbers and WP:REFB. --Ushau97talkcontribs05:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted edits
Dear editors:
When I use the "Edit count" feature on my Contributions page, it says that a few of my edits have been deleted. Is there any way to find out which ones? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne, anything special you want to know, or is this just general curiosity? As an example, you made a few edits to the article Barnraisers, which has been deleted, so those edits are in that list. SPhilbrick(Talk)17:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I don't know if there is a specific tool for this but "deleted contributions" are your edits on pages that have been deleted. If you have enabled the feature that automatically adds all the pages you edit to your watchlist, then you can just look for the redlinks on Special:EditWatchlist. Roger (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I didn't realize that these were on deleted pages; I thought maybe they were rollbacks, etc. My curiosity is satisfied. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Article and adding information help!!!
So confusing. All I want to do is add as small amount of information to a Wikipedia article> or post the information for others to read.> > > > help!> > > > > > Sorry, but even after all the reading to answer my question I still do not> > understand.> > > I was reading an article and I have information that is confirmed and need to> > post or add to the article.> > > I have an account ,clicked on edit and could not find a place to type what I wanted.> > > I clicked on Talk and could not find a place to write anything.> > > I need to find out where to type my comment. > > >
I have read the site for answering questions and still do not understand what to do.
I need step by step help. This information is important to the article or I would not
bother so much 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.60.26 (talk)
Hi! I have an idea of what might have happened here, though I might be wrong. My guess is that you were trying to edit the information in the first part of the page (what we call the "lead section") and what you did was click on one of the [edit] links on the side of the page (which access the particular section of the page below it), instead of clicking "Edit" at the top of the article (which accesses the entire article). Does that help or am I off target?
Regarding the talk page, if you want to add a comment, once there, click on the button at the top of the page marked "new section". By the way, you might get some use out of taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. It clears up many common issues people face in editing. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
New Kid in Town...
Happy Birthday Teahouse!!!! I'm the new kid in town, and the name's Mon, The Wikimon! It's been one day and it feels awesome to be here on Wikipedia. Now I know all that was unnecessary, but I thought I should introduce myself. A couple of quick questions and I'll be outta your hair...
1. Why is Wikipedia user interface so tough to use. Only some codes are like HTML, while others are new, and tough to learn...
Wikpedia has a certain level of complexity that could be seen as University level. That is on purpose in some ways and unintentional in others. The interface editing box should help most basic users and there are several ways, like here to ask questions.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
2. How can new editors' 1st articles be prevented from deletion in case they are good and potential articles but without the actual structure of a Wikipedia article???
I have the pleasure of meeting three awesome editors on my 1st day, Gerda Arendt and Ched and GG-J who have been helping me and so I had a few doubts...I won't bother you again... And once again Happy B'Day!!! The Wikimon (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2013
Hey, Mon! Welcome to Wikipedia. If your excellent friends are not already working with you on an article, there are plenty of other things you can do around Wikipedia other than write an article to gain experience with Wikicode! I might suggest that you just type a subject that you know something about in the search box, go read the article, and then decide if there is something missing that you can add with a proper reference. That way, you have examples of all the code you need in the other edits that are visible right there in the edit window you are working in! And Mad is exactly right! You have chosen some of the most experienced competent people around Wikiland to help you. Great job. One last thing. You are never going to be a bother here, come with as many questions as you wish. My Dad used to say, "The only stupid question is the one you don't ask!" Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Finding and using my uploaded photos
I can't find my uploaded photos. I did once but can't remember how. After finding them I'd like to add them to a page. Can you help?
Hellow Dcloydd. I believe these are the files you are looking for. These are you WikimediaCommons uploads. And this is your Wikipdia account. They are on two different sites that you log into seperately. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding Tito. I'm new to Wiki editing and the image error is frustrating me to no end. I can certainly prove that the image shown is wrong (he appears on various web sources) as Mills' appearance didn't change much his entire life. I happen to own the earliest known daguerreotype of him (c.1852) and he looks the same as he did in 1900.
I'm assuming the vetting process at the 'talk' page starts with a particular individual (designated monitor, experienced editor, etc.)and they move forward with the change from there ? I'll attempt to start the correction there and see what transpires. Thanks for the direction.
I want to know that why minor edit like commons delinker : File abc has been removed, it has been deleted from commons by xyz and other minor edits like this are used to kept in edit history. They are of no use to why? Please explain this to me.Farhajking (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Some minor edits may or may not seem obvious as to why they would kept in the history section, but all contributions, changes, alterations, additions and any work done on an article is copy protected with a Creative Commons atribution license. This requires that all contributers be attributed for their edits. The history of each article is that attribution and will contain every single edit that has not been permanently removed for any particular violation of policy or license requirements. I hope this helps. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
No use to you perhaps, but if you are the one who uploaded the copyright violation in good faith, without realising it, it might be nice to see in the edit history what happened to the image. This way it also allows others the ability to see as well. Its called "transparancy". In this manner, everything can be traced back.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
You can disable minor and/or bot edits in your watchlist if you wish; use the "Hide" options at the top of the list or change the Watchlist settings in your Preferences. (They will still be visible in page histories, however.) Yunshui雲水11:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
actually, i've found it useful to track down images that were migrated to commons and deleted. so i migrate them back to wikipedia with a "fair use" where appropriate. without an electronic trail, you might never find them since they may have been deleted from the web. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
updating statistics that change often
for example what is the etiquette about updating say a footballs amount of goals scored. what if two people decide to update a footballers goal tally and the end result is they add two goals between them when there should be one? Oliveriocastro (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome! You could reference a reputable sports news website that keeps an up to date tally, and add it as a reference. — nerdfighter19:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes published sources are indeed needed. You cannot sit in front of the telly making instant updates while watching a match. That would be original research which is not allowed.--Charles (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Information that changes often should be specified using the "As of" template: "{{As of|13 March 2013}} John Doe had scored a total of 215 goals for the Super Slammers" which will display as "As of 13 March 2013[update] John Doe had scored a total of 215 goals for the Super Slammers". The "as of" should be written in lower case if it is not at the start of a sentence. The template will add the page to a category for articles with potentially outdated content - which alerts editors to check for updates. Roger (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is my infobox acting funny?
Dear editors:
I have created a page HMCS Nene (K270) and tried to add an infobox from another River class frigate page. For some reason the infobox is not being displayed in the usual spot. What have I forgotten? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anne. Which one? There appear to be three info boxes piled on top of each other. That may be why it is displaying oddly.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I have Old Leather Post Cards, Size 5"X 4" Rectangle. Hot Branded Post Marks IE: Burnt into the Leather like a Cattle Branding. Post marked Early 1903. Has Anyone seen or heard of such mail in the United States? I'm thinking along the lines of Pony-Express Era..
I Would Like To Take This Time To Thank The Following People And Organizations, Sponsors, Hosts And Support Personal For Their Technostructure.
Signed: GlideRider24.156.20.99 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Gliderider. This particular help desk is geared towards answering questions about using, editing and learning about Wikipedia itself. It's possible someone might know the answer to your question or research and provide and answer but this is not really the best place for it. We actually do have a place though geared toward general knowledge questions just like yours: the reference desk. It's broken up into various sections, and I think for this question, the best would the miscellaneous reference desk. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to put my 'General Theory of Everything/DNA speed though time to a forum?
General theory of Everything
or DNA speed through Time
The variable speed at which the DNA spiral travels through time and space results in several different effects:
a) Acceleration of gravity is proportionally slower from our point of view and presents a weakened force when compared to the rest of the lifeless universe. The diminished gravity experienced in water may be the reason behind the start of this process. Life is a watery business.
b) Galaxies, seeming to accelerate away from each other at the outer edges of space, don’t, it’s just that time is running slower for us compared to them.
c) We can actually see other planets with DNA cruising at the same rate and they appear to be dark, as light cannot travel through the shared timelines between us. It’s not slow enough. They look like black holes.
d) Approximately one sixth of the entire mass of the universe runs at our rate through time. The rest of it appears to be invisible as it runs at a faster rate and is commonly called dark matter.
e) Evolution. It is inevitable that creation should eventually come up with a being that is self-aware.
Conclusion
As we can only see a sixth of the universe’s matter, we presumably get a sixth of the general gravity; chiefly because we spend a sixth of time in general space. I suppose it was always going to be that number.
Removing a box with broken lines around an article section
Dear Teahouse hosts,
I created a Wikipedia article on The Fralin Museum of Art, which was accepted and moved into the main article space. However, I went back to look at the article a couple of days ago, and noticed that one of the sections, "Audience and Outreach," isn't appearing properly after another user edited it. Most of the text is no longer visible and there is a broken line around the text that's actually there (like a "cut here" line). I went into the editing section to see what might be the problem, but couldn't figure it out. Can anyone help?
I'm a total beginner, so it could be something very obvious...thanks in advance for your help and patience!
Welcome to the Teahouse! The box was there because there was a space before "A". I went ahead and fixed it. If you have any more problems feel free to ask. Thanks! — nerdfighter20:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if you start a newline in the edit window with a space
you get this, a text box that runs on indefinitely.
Sometimes that can be useful, more often, not. If you want to indent a line on a talkpage, use one or more colons,
Hi Anne, welcome back to the Teahouse. As you state, bibliographies are a list of publications about a topic so there is no need for references. However, if you know of another substantial bibliography, particularly one published by say an academic journal, it would be helpful to add reference to it, to help future expansion. I should note, editors are divided as to whether bibliographies about a topic (as opposed to of an author's works) are a suitable subject for Wikipedia articles. Some people feel they should be moved to some other Wikimedia project. Hope this is helpful, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I can see the point. A list of every published work about every topic would be Google Books and Google News, wouldn't it? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Wikipedia. Especially people involved with Wikipedia Education Program. We create bibs for students to do research with and thus expand Wikipedia. Bibliographies have been growing alot - since we are trying to get people to use scholarly publication over web site that will be a dead link in 6 months. Come join the scholars and historians at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies.Moxy (talk)
Hi Moxy, I very much want to be a part of the Bibliographies project, but I often go on sabbaticals from Wiki and then return with a passion only to fizzle again. Can I still be apart or is there a consistency / time commitment?Gray106 (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
How do you deal with vandalism?
Hi Teahouse. I edit a wikipedia page about the Legal Ombudsman and we have a disgruntled customer who persists in writing personal opinions about the service it provides, some of which is inaccurate. We have tried to edit the page to reflect his views in a more unbiased and objective, ultimately factual way to no avail.
I am not a Teahouse host, but after looking at the page I find myself somewhat in sympathy with the "vandal". While the text that he/she is trying to insert is not encyclopedic, I think the article does need some more information. It says what the ombudsman can't do, but it doesn't explain what types of "quality of service" issues it can help with. If this were added, perhaps the editor would be satisfied that the article was sufficiently informative. It also seems that LeO Admin has a conflict of interest in this article. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not a Teahouse host either, but I have left a message on the "vandal's" page. I have informed him that his contributions have not been helpful because they appear to be personal opinions and not information from reliable sources.
The above guideline says that users should be open about any conflict of interest, so I believe that LeO Admin has done this correctly with an appropriate user name, and should keep it. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not correct. There is another policy that explicitly prohibits usernames that suggest the editor represents an organisation or group. Yes the editor is correct to declare a COI but it should not be by way of a username that suggests representation of anything or anyone. The username also imlies that he/she is an Administrator here at WP. Roger (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Question about changing content with [citation needed]
Just last week I read that women don't tend to edit wikipedia, so today, when I read something that I knew was incorrect, I thought I would break the mold and suggest an edit, but I'm not sure about the rules/standards for changing facts. Here is the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buprenorphine#History
These statements about the DATA 2000 Act are incorrect, starting with the explanation that Congress "overturned" the Supreme Court. (Separation of powers!) Second, the DATA 2000 Act allows physicians (and only physicians, not medical professionals) with specific qualifications to get a waiver to prescribe Schedule III, IV, and V opioids for opioid addiction without following the registration requirements of the Narcotic Addict Treatment Act. In short, it allows registered physicians in a community setting, unaffiliated with opioid treatment centers, to prescribe drugs like buprenorphine.
Currently, the most problematic statements in this entry state [citation needed] - how does this work? Can I delete the sentences? Particularly the Congress overturned the Supreme Court? Thank you for any advice on what to do! Bluemile (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bluemile! Welcome to the encyclopedia! Just to amplify what Biosthmors writes, everyone is encouraged to remove factually incorrect information. To be sure that someone won't worry that you are vandalising the article (many vandals just randomly remove bits) be sure to leave a detailed edit summary stating why you are removing the material. (You do this by writing in the text box labelled "edit summary" under the main text box.) You might also like to explain in more detail by starting a section on the article's talk page, which you can access by clicking the talk tab and then the little + tab to add a new section. Hope this is helpful! Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Not a newby, but the question is new
Hello Teahouse folks. I have a new thing I am trying and hence, I came here hoping, that a person, or persons would tell me to go pound sand or WOW, here is what you do: OK, I have reviewed about 100+ US County articles for various US states here on Wikipedia. I will not point a finger and I do not want to naysay brand new folks, BUT, suffice it to say, WOW, we have some creative fols...SO, I went to the US Counties Project page and posted a PROPOSED, new template. I arghue that if comments are placed in a template, the incidents of totally spurious data would decrease. I did indeed provide examples in the Proposed template here. I will caution that I use humor, as some of the comments reflect what I have dealt with in my editing here. MANY thanks for any and all feedbackCoal town guy (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
My edit was removed
My question on why my edit to Monsanto...where I introduced a You Tube video of a protest song I did about Monsanto and tried to fit it into the protest songs and I was told it was removed because it was a You Tube video..however between #s 303 and 311,in the refrences section, directly belo the protest section, six of the edits are You Tube and one, "Old Man Luedecke" not only is on video, but appers largely self promotional. My piece was done at the Astoria Oreagon FisherPoets Gathering and I make no money off this poetry reading. I was told on a talk page that Wiki sowa not allow You Tube videos, yet there they are??Fireweed 007 (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the other links under Monsanto § Books, movies, and songs critical of Monsanto §§ Songs, I asked myself what's different between those listed songs and this poster's song. Without judging the content (which would seem unreasonably subjective), I didn't have an answer, and couldn't easily find one in policy. We don't want long lists of external links, just a representative sample of what's out there. Is that the reason (that we're already "full")? —[AlanM1(talk)<font? color="red">]— 18:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Monsanto article ought to be about the company, including neutral descriptions of criticism of the company. It is inappropriate to list You Tube videos of every imaginable protest song criticizing the company. That's not neutral or encyclopedic. I removed the list of songs, and the non notable movies as well. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Denry.C! That feature is part of Google's Knowledge Graph, and I'm afraid Wikipedia has no control over what is displayed there. Google merely uses information from Wikipedia articles (among other sources) for that feature. You can read Google's explanation of the feature here. ChamalT•C14:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Editing information in the box with photograph
Dear Teahouse hosts,
How can I edit the information in the box, often with a photograph, on the right hand side, beginning of many Wikipedia articles? I do not see an "edit" marker.
Surely has been answered, but I do not know where. Thanks for your help!
Enjoy your tea!
Royfreeman (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Royfreeman. Welcome. The "edit this page" button at the top allows editing of the whole page and the infobox will be at the top. There should also be an edit button at the right of the lead section just for that section. You may need to check that section editing is turned on in your "preferences" under the editing heading.--Charles (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I was really hoping we would have a good article on the Ides of March. The Romans are one of my favorite subjects!
thanks alot, love what you guys do.50.58.14.5 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You probably have clicked the edit button for each section (button situated on the right side). If you want to view the full page, you should click the edit button at the top of the page (situated between "Read" and "View History"). Hope that helps. Cheers! ArcticKangaroo10:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. If you want to edit a whole article then you have to press the Edit tab at the top right of the page. For example, in the default skin Vector, which I guess is the one you are probably using right now there will be three light blue colored tabs at the top right side of almost every pages. The middle tab will be the edit tab. Click on it and you will be able to edit the article as a whole. Happy editing! --Ushau97talkcontribs10:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
A list of Reliable Sources
Hi I've seen lots of debate on various talk pages on what source is considered reliable. I am curious if there are any comprehensive list that I can use as a reference, so to avoid contention. For example, I did find this list that I could trace from Wiki's own Reliable Source article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:News_sources/Americas#US
However, I have seen lots of current wiki pages referencing news outlet not listed in this list. Does it mean those wiki pages need correction? or is there a better list than the one i found? Thanks! Pimpilala (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Pimpilala, welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia articles use many types of sources including books, newspapers and web sites. Due to the sheer number of sources used in our articles, it's impractical to compile a list that includes all reliable sources. Usually, each source has to be judged on its own merits (which is why you see those discussions on talk pages) and you can read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for a detailed explanation on how to do this. The purpose of the page you mentioned is "to provide a list of links that can be used to research current events and news stories" rather than a list of reliable sources, so you shouldn't use that as a measurement to check if articles use good sources or not. ChamalT•C14:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I have attempted to contact Akhtar (see the tweet here). In my opinion, "no restriction" is not clear. They need to specify a license like Public domain, CC SA etc. Any other opinion? (also note I have linked this Teahouse thread in the tweet)--Tito Dutta (contact) 06:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
A more explicit CC license is needed. "No restriction on use" is especially unclear in regard to derivatives, and we also need to know for sure that he intends to release the logo for possible commercial use. INeverCry07:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Guidance about what to include
Are there any rules or suggestions about how to decide which facts are appropriate for including in an article and what to leave out, especially on topics where there is an abundance of detail and news, and the corresponding articles are already relatively long? EllenCT (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Ellen! Welcome to the Teahouse! I fear the simple answer to your question is no, not in general. The encyclopedia aims to present a balanced coverage of material that reliable, independent sources discuss in detail. If articles get too long to be readily readable, then the custom is usually to make articles on subtopics, and summarise the material in the top-level article. If there's conflict between editors about what level of detail to include, then it should be discussed on the article's talk page, which you can edit by clicking the "talk" tab on the article page, then the little + tab to start a new topic.
I notice you are trying to edit on economics topics, so perhaps the best place to get advice on specifics might be the Economics WikiProject, which I see you've already discovered. Hope this is helpful and happy editing! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I think things are going pretty well so far, and I am very curious to see how my latest edits work out. Basically, when I asked this question, I was much less convinced that the item I wanted to add was a big deal because another editor questioned it when I proposed it on the article talk page, but it has since become a big-name political football, so the paragraph I added probably seems justified now. Time will tell! :) EllenCT (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
multiple sandbox creation
Hello Wiki Users !
1 main question as a WikiNoob.
I tried creating multiple sandboxes but after an effort of 1 whole day and reading different links and archives 38, 52 and 44 in Teahouse all i could see that there was already a hyper link created for the other users for second sandbox. Can someone please explain the process to create the sandbox 2 , 3 and or further ?
Ghorpaapi(talk) 11:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. Your first sandbox can be accessed by clicking on the link at the top right side of the page. Your personal sandbox 1 is located here. If you want to created your second sandbox click on this link: User:Ghorpaapi/sandbox2 and just create the page as you do on other pages. If you want to create another sandbox just just replace the 2 with 3. If you want to create further sandboxes just repeat these steps while replacing the sandbox number. Hope this helps. --Ushau97talkcontribs11:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Yunshui and User:Ushau97 ! Thanks a lot for help and spontaneous reply. To be precise I did the same method as you have mentioned above, but I thought I have done something wrong and my previous draft would be deleted. But, I really appreciate your help . thanks ^^. Ghorpaapi (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, creating new user subpages like this won't overwrite your previous sandbox. Incidentally, when I'm creating more than one article at once I usually use the format "User:Yunshui/Name of draft article" rather than "User:Yunshui/sandbox x", since it makes the various pages easier to keep track of - you may want to do the same sort of thing. Basically, to create any user subpage just use the format "User:Ghorpaapi/Name of subpage". If you no longer need a subpage (because you've moved the content to an article, or decided not to carry on with it), just write {{db-u1}} at the top and a passing admin will delete it for you. Yunshui雲水11:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Allo Teahosts and TeaGuests and all other Tea prefixes.. I've just made an edit on Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and am scared I haven't done a good job. This will be the last section in the controversies sub heading: Hugo Chavez's Funeral. The page is highly volatile, I mean I might not have done something correctly and so would appreciated it if you guys just corrected what I did... Much appreciated!!!The Wikimon (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there Wikimon! When editing articles (especially controversial ones) you should always ensure that you include a reliable source which supports your addition. In this case, I've reverted as Ahmadinejad is a living person and, as such, unsourced statements should be pruned at sight to protect the individual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Crisco 1492 is correct, and I would like to add that citing reliable sources is the single very best way to ensure that your contributions to Wikipedia stay around and actually improve an article. Well-sourced content is likely to stay, and unsourced content is likely to be removed. Learn that basic principle well, Wikimon, and you are likely to be a very successful Wikipedia editor. Good luck to you, and thanks for working to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking for a table guru...
Never expected to be the one asking the questions around here, but... I've got a conundrum. Take a look at the "WikiWork" row in User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Brands. It uses the syntax found at User:WP_1.0_bot/WikiWork/ta/1 -- namely, some colspans, to correctly format itself at the bottom of the table. This works perfectly...except for when the "WikiWork" row needs to show up in a table like User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Eastern_Mountain_Coal_Fields_task_force. Irregular tables don't work due to having a different number of columns. There has to be a better way... <cue the music> Anyhow, I'm curious if anyone knows of a way to make a cell take up a set width of the table (50% for the first one, 25% for the other two). I know you can do it with pixels or points, but can I make it dynamic? Thanks! —Theopolisme(talk)03:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Good grief Theo; I was going to stay up for a half-hour to answer whatever the next question was, but tables are one thing on which I cannot speak on at all, much less authoritatively. I'll be honest, what you said went straight over my head. If Ryan weren't on a WikiBreak, he probably could figure it out...he has an aptitude for that kind of thing. Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical) maybe? I don't know. GoPhightins!03:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not the exact nature of what they do over there usually, but it's the closest thing I could think of. Lord knows I couldn't help you ;) GoPhightins!03:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Banning
How often are people banned from editing Wikipedia, and what proportion of the time is banning for political reasons? EllenCT (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, EllenCT! Do you mean banning, or blocking? Banning means that your editing privileges of a section or all of Wikipedia are formally revoked. Blocking means that you are physically unable to make edits to any of Wikipedia. They are two separate things, although blocking can be used to enforce bans. When it comes to political reasons, banning and blocking generally only happen when the political interests of a user cause them to disrupt Wikipedia, e.g. sending a user a nasty message because they have a userbox saying that they're a Democrat, or a pro-independence Scot putting "VOTE YES IN THE 2014 REFERENDUM!" at the top of Scottish independence referendum, 2014. May I ask why you are interested in this? öBrambleberryofRiverClan22:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
On my third day editing I was asked by someone who turned out to be the banned user User:Grundle2600 to look at his blog about an article I proposed an edit to on its talk page. I've since been looking through his talk page archives trying to figure out how he originally got in trouble. In this case, it looks like originally he annoyed people with persistent opinionated questions, and then was asked to agree to a topic ban on all politics and politicians, which he couldn't resist breaking. In general though, I wonder how much political pressure weighs on who is allowed to edit. I've seen political squabbles on wikipedia articles for years, and read about them in the news, but I wasn't really aware that individuals could be banned. EllenCT (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
There are some editors who the community discovers are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. When this happens it depends on how serious an issue it is. I know nothing about the above, but have participated in and even begun topic bans for editors who cannot edit in a neutral manner. We all have our political opinions and real offline activity, but Wikipedia is not a social networking site or a political message board. Some editors have been blocked, topic banned and in some cases have led to an outright ban on the user returning and editing across the board which I believe is called a "site ban". Generally this happens around the US election period but does seem to be an ongoing problem throughout the year, off and on.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Based on what I have seen so far, I would say that the banned editor in question was absolutely trying to build an encyclopedia because he started around a hundred new articles and his early edits look productive. But his political opinions were clearly very unpopular. Can you think of an example where someone was accused of disruption, other than just for mindless vandalism, where there wasn't an underlying disagreement about what an article should say? EllenCT (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello again Ellen. Gosh, to be honest I am very uncomfortable discussing actual editors as examples because that places them under a spotlight for ridicule and embarrassment unfairly. I am also not quite clear what the last question is asking exactly. There are certainly a number of editors that I can think of off hand that have been accused of disruption, blocked and then had talk page access revoked for continuing to discuss others in a manner that became little more than political mud slinging (in my opinion) but made accusations that were unfounded and disruptive. If I understand your concerns, you are simply wishing to be clear that no editor is blocked or banned over their own personal political convictions. The answer would have to be yes. Some editors have lost their editing privileges for, what we call, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Some editors use their editing to place edits that advocate in one direction or another. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we strive for neutrality and advocacy editing is not allowed. Some editors have been blocked for using their username (as an example) in an inappropriate manner. The best way to edit is to take no stand on any issue. Be neutral and stay disinterested. Thanks for the good questions.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
To elaborate: Bans are not merely for blatant vandalism, but more broadly for anything that the community decides through consensus is not productive for the encyclopedia. While blatant vandalism falls under this category, so too do repeated edits against consensus. We call that disruptive editing. Something else that falls under this category is the general idea that competence is required. ⁓ Hello7102:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. If someone persists with annoying or unpopular article edits, then something has to be done or both sides will be accused of edit wars, right? So if edit wars were allowed, would there be accusations of "disruption" or would annoying and unpopular editors simply have their edits repeatedly undone and be ignored on talk pages? Is it safe to say that bans are more likely to happen when a small number of editors are opposed by a larger group in a heated conflict (like Scientology) but not when there are larger numbers on each side (like Israel-Palestine)? I need to write 3,000 words on Wikipedia to graduate this spring, and this might work for a topic. EllenCT (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Where on earth did you come up with "Annoying or unpopular"? Goodness. I have tried to explain this to the best of my ability but you have made some broad assumptions based on...well frankly I have no idea. As I said, this isn't a social networking site or a political message board. If an editor lacks the competence to edit they may be blocked. If an editor uses the encyclopedia to advance a view they may be blocked. If edits cause disruption and it becomes clear the only reason the editor is here is to disrupt the project they may be blocked. The last ban I suggested at ANI was over an editor that refused to interact within the norms of discussion, had become a single purpose account and refused to get the point after a long and exhausting dispute which caused the page to be locked from editing for a very long extended period to protect it. After a year of this type of behavior it was an overwhelming decision to topic ban the editor from that and all subjects related to that article. Being annoying or unpopular isn't the point...or I would have been banned long ago. LOL! Happy editing Ellen.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The simple answer is this: Grundle was banned for his behavior, not for his politics. He was initially blocked for violations of basic Wikipedia behavioral policies, such as edit warring and using Wikipedia to fight battles and things like that, and he compounded his initial, short-term, temporary blocks with further disruptive behaviors including creating new accounts to dodge his initial blocks until his behavior led him to be totally banned from Wikipedia. That he did good work prior to going off the rails is irrelevent, Grundle made it clear through his continuing behavior that he went from being interested in improving an encyclopedia to being interested in pushing a particular agenda. It makes him feel better to claim that he's being unfairly persecuted for his politics, but he would still be at Wikipedia had his behavior been different, and that's all there is to it. --Jayron3204:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
We're all volunteers here, and patience can wear thin. We can't be debating the same things over and over again with the same person, and there's got to be a collaborative attitude. I don't recall seeing too many bans in the political area, but I haven't been involved on the community side much lately and have never been focused on politics. While I'm not too familiar with the specifics of Grundle, it seems pretty obvious that he just didn't know where to stop. The banning process, last I looked into it, was quite primitive and in an ideal world would be more regulated. Someone posts a notice on WP:ANI or WP:AN, a bunch of people jump in (often with prior involvement), and some admin gets up the balls to do it. Though it's primitive, I wouldn't say it is typically ineffective or unjust. If a dozen or so people say you should be banned, you've done a pretty good job of pissing people off. Wikipedia has a problem with Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (WP:PUSH) because many articles just attract those with a passionate minority view which can drown out the less passionate but more reasonable majority. Also, although not entirely related, one of the articles linked on my userpage is Psychologist finds Wikipedians grumpy and closed-minded. The close-mindedness might be inaccurate [2] but both observations correspond very well to my experience, and I'm sometimes guilty as charged on the agreeableness side. You've got to have a thick-skin and you have to recognize that sometimes it's best to just move on to another article, even if you're right. Some people here have a lot of time on their hands. Maybe some people develop a true WP:NPOV attitude which would make the average scholar envious after a long time of editing , but most Wikipedians are mere mortals. Also, don't necessarily be afraid of some of the most outspoken and pushy people in a given topic. If you dig a little, you'll find that in some cases they've already been sanctioned by ArbCom or whatever and they don't get to control the situation regardless of the attitude or tone. Wikipedia is a pretty odd, emotional, and political place in some respects, but I hope you stick around. We need more people. II | (t - c) 05:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe people are ever banned because of their politics. It is usually because they are too obsessive to work collectively with others to achieve a neutral outcome. Some of the most difficult are those who learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines then use them tendentiously in endless circular talkpage discussions which never get anywhere but are intended to bore and drive out those who do not share their point of view. This in itself becomes disruptive and can lead to a block. When blocked for a time such editors are often too obsessed to serve their time and then return. Instead they resort to the use of sockpuppet accounts and block evasion will get them site banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesdrakew (talk • contribs) 14:31, 17 March 2013
Arctic Kangaroo 10:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
