Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Here is the question

What is Vandalism?POISK-300 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi POISK! Welcome to Wikipedia! Vandalism is when an editor - with or without an account - edits articles to perhaps add vulgar words that aren't appropriate, change content in it to be silly or incorrect, or even deleting article content and rewriting articles with gibberish, for example. It's basically Wikipedia graffiti! We even have an entire team of hundreds (perhaps thousands!) of volunteers who monitor Wikipedia for it, to clean it up and take care of any problem editors we have who are considered vandals. I hope that answers your question. Do let us know if we can help you with anything else :) Sarah (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't make me the module!~--User:GS1 (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I don't understand what this means. Sarah (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what is the ISS?I changed my signature so it reads:User:GS1--User:GS1 (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

International Space Station? benzband (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. And know its module Poisk?--User:GS1 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and that means he said not to call him that module--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing "A stub-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

Hi, it's me again. :) I've reworked Aileen Fisher and am confident enough that it is no longer a stub to have changed it's rating on the Talk page to start. However, the notice at the top of the article hasn't changed. I've perused the article's Edit page and can't find anything that looks like a template, so I don't know what to do next. Where is this notice coming from and how do I change it? Thanks. I wouldn't have gotten this far without you you guys! Tlqk56 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tlq - I don't see a stub notice on the top of the article. Are you sure you still see one? If you are, I'll look around a bit more and try to figure out where it's coming from. (It also might help if you clear your cache - ctrl+F5 in most browsers.) Thanks for your rewrite, it looks pretty awesome. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's still there. Weird. It's also still on Alice Dalgliesh. But if no one else is seeing it, I guess it doesn't matter. Thanks for the compliment. I really enjoyed researching both these writers, and am still at it. A new obsession for those nights when I can't sleep. :) Tlqk56 (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tlqk, and thanks for stopping by again! It appears that it's been updated to read: "A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" on both the Aileen Fisher and the Alice Dalgliesh articles. The change happens after a re-assessment on the article's talkpage, from class-stub to class=start. Does that make sense? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I found the Wikipedia:Purge page and tried those steps and one of them worked. I guess it just didn't happen automatically. Thanks for your suggestions. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Need help with an article!

Hi,

I can't seem to get this article to stick. Here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Thunder_Run

Any help would be greatly appreciated. This is a little cult film from the 80's. I also have the U.S. theatrical movie poster to include, but I keep getting shot down. Feel free to edit as you see fit, if you can correct whatever I have done wrong!

RandySWT1 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Randy, and welcome to the Teahouse. :) I have accepted the article (notability standards for movies are pretty low, and there's already a review from the LA Times linked), so if anyone wants to look up sources, etc... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Just to add to the above, I suspect part of the problem was that there was no {{reflist}} added, and thus the list of references couldn't be seen. Accordingly, reviewers couldn't see the LA Times review. As one of links was blacklisted, it wasn't possible to add a reference list until that link was removed. It was an odd problem. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, apologies if I stepped on your toes Bilby; apparently our edits were pretty close... Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was just fixing the references problem - it was great to see you taking care of passing it through the process. :) Teamwork is cool. - Bilby (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help!! Greatly appreciated! RandySWT1 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism from a shared (school) IP

One of the pages I have contributed to is the page of my high school alma mater, Hobart High School (Indiana). It has been repeatedly vandalized from the school's IP. After the last instance, someone posted a warning template on the talk page, but today there was another instance of vandalism. The same person's name keeps getting mentioned every time this occurs. Does Wikipedia ever contact a school's IT manager about this? If not, would it be appropriate if I did? And finally, does Wikipedia ever block educational institutions' IPs for repeated vandalism?Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Vandalism is a pain at times, and it's even worse when it appears to be coming from the article's subject. Anyway, the way it's handled is the same as if it were any other case. You would warn the IP making the edits, then if they don't change, the incident is reported to the administrators through the appropriate noticeboard and the matter is dealt with, usually resulting in the IP being blocked for a short time to prevent further vandalism. If the IP continues, blocks may be extended. There is indeed a provision, in the case of rampant vandalism, that the IT staff hosting the IP address (be it a school, a business or an Internet service provider) would be notified of abuse coming from their site. In very extreme cases, entire businesses can be blocked, but this is rarely done because of what's called "collateral damage"; in this context, that means that we would be blocking a lot of innocent people because of one bad editor.

Ultimately, it's best to let the administrators handle notifying the IT staff, since they have access to more information and can produce logs of data not available to us. --McDoobAU93 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Image Copyrights (Old Sources with even Older Photos)

I have a quick question on image copyrights. I found an excellent resource for historic images that I would like to add to a page I am working on about the historic district I live in. However, I am confused about the copyright designation. The book is free for download through Google Books and was published in 1941, but the pictures of interest were taken in 1919 and 1908. Particularily, Google writes

"This book is provided in digital form with the permission of the rightsholder as part of a :::Google project to make the world's books discoverable online

The rightsholder has graciously given you the right to download all pages of this book. No commercial or other uses have been granted

Note that all copyrights remain reserved."

Does that mean that I would be unable to upload a picture from the book to reference in a Wikipedia article? Thanks for your help!

~~Cclehnen~~

Hey, CC, welcome to the Teahouse! That would mean that you aren't allowed to upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons. Anything uploaded to Commons requires the material to have a free license (note that this is free as in speech, not as in beer) that's compatible with the license that Commons (and the rest of Wikipedia) uses; that is, CC-BY-SA . As you've described it, the license of the book isn't compatible with Commons's license.

Fortunately, you may still be able to use the images in Wikipedia under what is called fair use. This allows you to upload some non-free files to Wikipedia directly, rather than to Commons, and use those files in articles. If that's what you'd like to do, be sure to read the article on fair use carefully, particularly the parts labeled Policy and Guideline examples. If, after reading these, you feel that you can meet all these criteria and use the images as fair-use, then you can upload it here. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There may be an out here, though. Since the images were taken in 1919 and 1908, according to Cclehnen, they may be out of copyright in the United States. If they were first published in the U.S. before 1923, then they are in the public domain and can be uploaded to Commons. If, on the other hand, they were first published in this 1941 book, then they would probably not yet be out of copyright (depending on when the photographer(s) died). And if the book and/or photos weren't first published in the U.S., then we have further complications... Powers ^T 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Change password for account

How can I change my password? I really need a stronger password before my account gets compromised. Help ASAP! Epicwizard1337 (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Epicwizard, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! To change your password, you can just follow this link and click on the link that says "Change password", about midway down the page. You can also get to this page by clicking on the "My Preferences" link at the top-right corner of your screen. Once you click on the change password link, it'll prompt you to enter your old password, a new one, and the new one again to confirm, and once you do that, you should be good to go! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I completely missed it opening up that same page before when I tried to do it myself. It was right under my nose! Epicwizard1337 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

How to access a particular photo

An example of an image used on wikipedia

I uploaded two photographs and I used one in an article but I've forgotten how I did it. Please tell me how do I access the photos which I have already uploaded in order to choose one ? Does an individual User have an individual picture gallery and if so how do you access it. Can't find a way through the 'help' button. Thanks #Sophena 08:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophena Chisembele (talk • contribs)

Hi Sophena, it's good to see you here at the Teahouse. Don't forget to sign your questions with four tildas (~~~~). Users don't actually have a gallery of photos they've uploaded, though you can search your contributions for the "File:" namespace (Like I did here). I see you've never actually uploaded a file to Wikipedia, so I've done the same to check if you've uploaded free images at Wikimedia Commons - which I found at commons:Special:Contributions/Sophena_Chisembele. There's 3 photos there that you've uploaded. To use any of them, in an article, just use code that looks like this [[File:Monster fish kite at Morecambe Kite Festival.jpg|thumb|An example of an image used on wikipedia]] and it will appear on the article just like it does on the left. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I understand better now. But sorry, I know I will be back later with more questions! I am just glad and relieved that there is this help available. #Sophena 09:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophena Chisembele (talk • contribs)

Quite alright, you know where we are! Worm^TT · (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What is a doppelgangler account and can I have it?

Huh?Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Monareal. A doppelganger account is an account with a name very similar to your main account. Some people choose to register doppelgangers so that they cannot be registered by anyone else pretending to be that person. For instance, you might register User:Monereal or User:Monaraal if you were worried about someone pretending to be you. You can read more about doppelgangers at WP:DOPPELGANGER. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I have a doppelgangler account?Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)!

Hi Monareal. Yes, you can have a doppelganger account if you think you need to secure a specific username. As long as you tagged that account as doppelganger and don't use that account to edit, it will be fine. For more information just see the link that Kgorman-ucb provided. Hope it helps! --Vaktug (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask you one thing? Must we just make a User Page or an account?--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Monareal, it's better to create a userpage for that account and marked it with the {{doppelganger}} or {{doppelganger-other}} tag (or simply redirected to the main account's userpage). --Vaktug (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I ask if we should create a separate account or simply, an userpage--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You'd need to make an actual account; just making a user page won't stop anyone else from taking the name. Also, keep in mind that doppelganger accounts are not supposed to have any actions on them (save perhaps the setup of notices like the one above on their user page). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a note - I've found that doppelgänger accounts are wholly unneccessary. For one thing, if an editor wants to impersonate you there are infinite similar names that can be used and for another any editor worth his salt will instantly spot an imposter. I do speak from experience, as I've been impersonated myself (see the unpleasantness at this archive for more). Worm^TT · (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

@Monareal You always talking about we, why that? Keep in mind: every account should be used only by one person! mabdul 13:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We means the estimated 2 million Users in wikipedia--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What ever does it take to be an admin?(Tell the answer, whatever it is)

Answers: Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: pass an RfA. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing Else?--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that's it, but it's not as easy as it sounds. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And why did you give the edit summary like this?'understatement of the century'--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! There are a few things which are needed. The main one is that you need to have been editing for at least six months, and preferably a year, and you need to have been editing regularly throughout most of that time. It is generally regarded as best if you have many thousands of edits, but the exact number changes a bit, and your edits need to show good judgement on your part. It also helps if you have some good articles that you have written - sometimes people become administrators based on other work, but most of the time you need to show that you understand what is involved in developing new material.

Fundamentally, what people are looking for is volunteers who understand how Wikipedia works; know the various (and complex!) policies and guidelines; can make good, reliable judgements; and work well with others. To do that they need to see a solid history of good contributions over a long period. There's some good advice at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates as to what is expected. Personally, I don't see it as something to aspire to, so much as a role I might take one one day if I believe that I can be of some use there, but mostly I'd rather just help build the encyclopedia by helping other people and writing. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is to Writ And why did you give the edit summary like this?'understatement of the century'Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Monareal, I think Writ is currently busy with his work and edit so he directs you to the page where you can find the info that you needed. If you really interested in becoming an admin, just go through the page and it sure will help you in yout application. --Vaktug (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Writ was being slightly amusing. There's been a lot of discussion over the years about WP:RfA being very difficult, as effectively it's a very critical community review of everything you've done. Indeed, if you haven't done enough, you're likely to be rejected outright. I've done a lot of research in the area though, so I created a page where users can request a nomination - I do a thorough review and if I think the editor has a chance of attaining adminship, I nominate them. So far, I've nominated two people, who both got through, but I've turned down a dozen. It's a shame, a lot of people want to be administrators, but the community is very strict on what they want. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A very thick skin is probably an advantage too seeing the amount of abuse/wikistalking that admins can attract.--Charles (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleting a submission and resubmitting it

I have no clue as to how to use your coding. How can I restart the process without being a coding nerd? Can I simply type it as I did originally? Souzaad (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to delete the submission. You can simply add {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page and save it. I hope this helps, Hallows ^{Aktiengesellschaft} (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Howdy, Souzaad! Another easy way is to click on the "View history" tab at the top of any article or talk page. Look for your user name next to "(cur | prev)" and "(undo)" at the end of the line. Click on "(cur | prev)" to see the changes and click on "(undo)" to 'revert' to the previous text.

For me, the primer on Pluma's page was a great help and less confusint than official pages. Try working through the first three 'Required tasks' at his adoption page. Take care and have fun with the 'fun stuff' page. DocTree (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gordon-Smith Guitars clean-up

Hi all,

I've been doing some clean-up on the article for Gordon-Smith Guitars - as this is my first substantial batch of contributions to Wikipedia, I'd be grateful if someone could spare a few minutes to look it over and make sure it meets the standards required.

Cheers, EisenEimer (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! That looks pretty good to me. :) It seems that you've expanded content and removed toned back some of the wording, both of which are great, with references for most of your changes.

There is little I can add, but if you would like a couple of ideas, when referencing web pages you might wish to add the page name, site name and date you visited them. It is a minor thing, but the advantage is that if the links die, we can use something like the Wayback Machine to confirm them (if we know the date), or do a search to see if the page of that name has simply been moved during a site reorganisation. I like the {{cite web}} template for this, as it formats things neatly. For example:

{{cite web | title = About Us | work = Gordon-Smith Guitars | url = http://www.gordonsmithguitars.com/about.php | accessdate = April 15, 2012 }}

will produce:

"About Us". Gordon-Smith Guitars. Retrieved April 15, 2012.

And from a style side, I'd generally put the references after the punctuation, rather than before. :) That's nit picking, of course, but you did a fine job, so there isn't really much to say! - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I had left the reference style as it was in the original page, but adding access dates makes a lot of sense, so I'll reshape the references when I get a few minutes spare. ::high five:: EisenEimer (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations changed, and looking rather swish! :) Thanks again. EisenEimer (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made a small change in a certain phrase to improve the wording and add a little more information (it's the part about using sustainable woods). Let me know what you think. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Creating an Article - Encouragement

Hi, fellow newbies.

I just wanted to say that I've been working on creating a new article, well really just a list. I could have posted it myself, but I wanted to get someone's approval first, so I went through that process, and I'm glad I did. It took a lot longer than it felt like it should, especially waiting patiently(???) for the assessments to come back. And the process wasn't perfect. But I really learned some useful things about sources, and citations, and such. Mostly I work on already created articles, and I've moved one from stub to C class, so I guess I'm getting the idea. But still, if I start another one from scratch, I'd go through the approval process again, to see what else I could learn.

For instance, one administrator suggested the Teahouse, which I hadn't heard of. Another sent me here -- Wikipedia:Introduction.

So don't take the rejections personally, look at it as a long term learning process, and come here with all your questions. (I've asked a few really dumb ones.) :) But I've learned a LOT! If you are persistent you will succeed. Tlqk56 (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Howdy, WikiFaerie Tlqk56. Congratulations on already greatly improving an article from stub class. Although I'm also a newbie, may I offer a suggestion that is working for me? Since you're a member of the Wikiproject on Children's Literature, find featured and good articles similar to what you hope to write or improve. Use them as models and guides. I learned a lot from reading articles already considered good or great. Take care, DocTree (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC) (PS: Please add a bit to your user page to tell us a bit more about you. Thanks)

Changing the copyright/permissions of images in the Creative Commons

Andrewstimothy (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC) (user andrewstimothy)

I uploaded an image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_Rice_House._View_from_the_front.jpg), but did not input the correct copyright stuff. So, Wiki will (correctly) delete it in the next 7 days. I have now learnt that the images are in fact "licences to creative commons Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works". http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcj62/5968161994/in/photostream

How do I edit/change the settings for the images I have uploaded? Or should I simply upload them again, using the correct copyright status. Thank you. Andrewstimothy (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! In this case, the "non-commercial" part of that means that they aren't suitable for Commons. Commons only accepts Creative Commons licensed images where they permit commercial usage - either CC-BY or CC-BY-SA - and Wikipedia can only accept non-comercial use only images in very restricted circumstances. So unfortunately you won't be able to upload new versions, as the license is incompatible with Wikipedia, and the images will need to be removed in due course. Sometimes if you approach the photographers they are happy to change the licenses, (I've had luck there a couple of times), but otherwise I guess the only thing to do is keep searching. And, of course, you can always ask local Wikipedian's if they can grab a photo some time. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

cite troubles

I can't seem to figure out how to cite and use references so they come up as the little number in brackets, can someone please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunashy (talk • contribs) 06:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Referencing isn't too bad once you've got used to the formats, but there are two steps to it. The first is to add a the reference to the text using <ref> and </ref>. Thus <ref>This is a reference</ref> creates: The second step, if it isn't already there, is to add {{reflist}} to a "References section in the article. That will display the references as:

If you want to make things easier, though, you can use the "Cite" option in your editing bar. When you edit a page you should have a bar across the top of your edit box with "B", "I", and various other symbols on display. If you select "Cite" it will open a extra bar, which has a "Templates" option. That will allow you to choose the right template, and if you just fill in the boxes that appear it will do all the work for you. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a tool--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's one of them. The only problem with that is that it inserts your references, but won't format them. The "Cite" option will do both. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There's also ProveIt, which you may find helpful. -- Trevj (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Updating facts/sources. Deleting old?

Hello everyone, im new to Wikipedia and got a invite to here and had a question. The past couple days ive been trying to improve all the economy pages of countries. I noticed on almost every page the info was outdated by several years sometimes and I was just going through and adding the newest data from CIA world factbook. Anyways I just got to Zimbabwe (not sure how to link just search economy of zimbabwe) on the right where it lists all the basic facts of the economy its filled with a lot of good sourced data. The problem is a lot is outdated. Is it okay to remove anything that is outdated by the CIA world factbook and replace it?

For instance the GDP part is a mess its got 4 entries, 2 good sources but its outdated. Would I be right to delete all 4 and just replace it with the newest CIA world factbook stat for 2011?

What are the rules of deleting stuff like that? RedKiowa (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi RedKowa and thanks for joining us here at the Teahouse! While it is ok to delete an older source, and replace with a newer one, you might consider an alternative, and that is to retain the older content with the older reference, and then add the newer content with the newer reference. For example, a sentence could state that "... in 1950, Zimbabwe exported x tons of widgets, but by 2010, the export tonage had increased to y tons." Does this help? --Rosiestep (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Rosiestep, It does kind of but im not actually changing the articles of the pages. For now I'm just trying to update the basic fact tables of each article in the upper right hand corners. It seems counterproductive to have 4 different old pieces of data on the same thing and then just add a 5th new one doesn't it? RedKiowa (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Looking at Economy of Zimbabwe, I think you could do a couple of things.

1. Check previous versions of the article (via the "history" tab) for how the data was presented before the current sources were added; and
2. When you add your sources, leave a note on the talk page, briefly summarising what you've done and why.

-- Trevj (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Allowed to put about a living person?

So, I've been further looking for information on my created page's subject (Hannah Louise Mickleburgh) and found some interesting articles. Here: http://www.todmordennews.co.uk/news/local/and-all-that-jazz-1-1836240 I could use as a reference to say she was talented at dance but I have two queries: Firstly, is it the same Hannah? I find it highly improbable that multiple children of about the same age at the same dance school would have names so similar, and her official CV says she's been credited as 'Hannah Mickleburgh' before, but it's always possible. And second, would saying 'talented' come across biased, though apparently they all got A's and B's (I hear the equivalent of A*'s is impossible so these are the highest achievable). Then, here http://www.todmordennews.co.uk/news/local/youngsters-join-bid-to-save-wild-habitat-1-1842222 would you be able to say that she is fond of wildlife or something, even though we haven't confirmed her opinion and the media twists words, it was 5 years ago etc.? Thanks, Tropzax (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Bias is a potential issue, but if the article correctly presents the opinions of others (with contrasting viewpoints, if they're reported) then that should be fine. Of more immediate concern (with reference to the current deletion discussion) is adding references to establish notability, per WP:ANYBIO. Notwithstanding Ms Mickleburgh's ongoing achievements, I think it possible that the article on her may be somewhat premature. Depending on the exdistence of suitable references, you could ask for the content to be userfied, or even do so yourself, by moving it back into userspace. -- Trevj (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am fond of the environment and abusing wildlife is wrong when the results are for purely our own unnecessary benefit. (please don't paraphrase). I also believe the page is, as you put it, premature. Trevj I am 14, so 'miss' is my title I think. Cheers, Hannahlouise mickleburgh (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Question on WP:COI

Here's a question regarding (potential) violations of WP:COI. I have seen a certain Wikipedia editor, whose entire list of contribution consists of editing, edit-warring and engaging in fights with other Wikipedians on very few articles that are about a certain political movement and its spin-offs. Searching for his name (as he lists it on Wikipedia, where he uses it as his username), I can see that he is in fact a member of this movement. However, contrary to what Wikipedia urges people to do, he does not state his affiliation with the movement, thereby misleading editors, administrators and arbitrators. Is such behavior considered to be a violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use? Furthermore, if someone goes to that article's talk page and outs him for being affiliated with this movement and misleading Wikipedia's editors, administrators and arbitrators, will that be a violation of the Terms of Use? Thank you. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Moderatelyaverage. I'm going to give you an opinion here, which may be different to what other users believe. I hope that's ok. Now, I believe that a conflict of interest is only relevant when a user cannot edit neutrally on a subject. Generally, that's because they are advocating a topic which they are involved in - most commonly companies or people trying to edit their own biographies. Technically, you could suggest that an editor who has an interest in any subject could have a conflict of interest on that subject - I drink Doom Bar beer and regularly declared it to be my favourite, and wrote the article on Doom Bar the sandbank because of that interest. I wouldn't consider it a problematic conflict of interest though.

Because there are so many different levels of CoI, and we strive to be an encyclopedia which can be edited anonymously, there is no requirement to declare a conflict of interest, in fact there can be some significant disadvantages to doing so, if you have the ability to edit neutrally. Editors, administrators and especially arbitrators have the ability to see when an editor is pushing a point of view, whether or not they declare a conflict of interest. Indeed, blocks and other sanctions such as topic bans can be handed out without any knowledge of a conflict of interest.

A larger problem would be that you've searched this guy, anonymity is very important on the encyclopedia - the way we work, and the sensitive subjects we discuss sometimes requires that anonymity. The last thing we need is someone publishing information about editors, as that will lead to a chilling atmosphere. If you believe this editor is a single purpose account, or acting from a non-neutral point of view, we have ways to handle that, listed at our dispute resolution areas, and I'm sure we can help you with that (feel free to email me if you'd like to keep it confidential, I'm an administrator and may be able to advise), but worrying about CoI in this case isn't the best way to go. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to respond. I will contact you as soon as possible. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's okay to mention that you suspect someone has a COI, but it's not okay to mention what you suspect his real life identity is - as Worm suggested, that'd constitute WP:OUTING. In my experience, it's usually not advantageous to mention suspected COI's, unless they are super-obvious - it's better to just handle disputes through WP:DRN, WP:EW/N, WP:ANI in really bad cases, or other appropriate forums. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Have you considered whether it may be appropriate to use the {{Connected contributor}} template on relevant talk pages? -- Trevj (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. The thing is, the suspected contributor has his real-life name as his username here on Wikipedia and the vast majority of his contributions consist of (a) edits to a number of articles concerning the subject matter of the movement he belongs to and (b) conflicts with other users who edited something in the articles that he seems to "safeguard" from the hands of those he perceives as "enemies" (and he often peppers these conflicts with personal attacks). He gives me reasons to believe there could be a case of not just WP:COI, but also WP:OWN, WP:SPA and WP:NPA - all at the same time. As for the WP:COI part, I would like to point to the Talk Page of an article unrelated to the one I am talking about; please see the Talk Page of the article on Saint-Gobain, where a fellow Wikipedian pointed out the COI of that article's main contributor: a former employee of the company. That said, I would like to thank you all again for your thoughts and opinions; this discussion is most useful and provides great insight into the way such cases can be handled. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

How to create a user 'look?'

Hi I want to know how to give my username one of those interesting looking multi-color looks. Some have geometrical shapes with fonts inside, some interesting fonts, what are the steps, please? KSRolph (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi KSRolph, welcome to the Teahouse. Well I believe you mean the signature. The default signature is just you username and user talk page. You can alter that but there are some rules. WP:CUSTOMSIG has them spelled out. My signatures is pretty basic, all I did was omit the c from my username. Since I don't know much about customizing it, I'll leave you with the best tutorial I could find. Tough I'm sure other hosts will drop by and give you great ideas in just a while. Chico Venancio (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Footnote/References not working

I've done several of these that work fine, but something's wrong with this one, and I can't see what. It's located at Beezus and Ramona, the 13th footnote. I want it to work like the previous one, only go to this URL http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n50-40968. Can someone take pity on me and fix it, and then tell me what I've done wrong, please? I'd tell you how long I've spent on those three footnotes, but then you'd fall off your chair laughing and you might get hurt. :) Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You needed the |url= in the cite template. Is fixed. #00ACF4">Rcsprinter (gossip) 21:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(Edit clash)Hi Tlqk56. Does that look better? The url= parameter was missing from the template. I have fixed it--Charles (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you edit conflicted with me fixing it as well. No harm done! Best wishes, Tlqk56! #A20846">Rcsprinter (articulate) 21:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks to both of you. I'd stared at those strings of words for so long, I sure couldn't see my mistake. I appreciate your help. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for help with the article on Blade Guitars

Hi everyone. I just created the article on Blade Guitars. However, it will obviously need improvement: photographs, more sources, more information (preferably not only from the company's own website). If anyone can lend a hand, please do. Thank you. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey MA! Glad to see you writing articles - congrats! :) A good place to also ask for help is at the project for guitars - we have a whole group of Wikipedians who love to contribute content related to guitars. You can find their project here: WikiProject Guitarists. There is also a similar project but for musical instruments in general: WikiProject Musical instruments. I'd ask on their talk pages for help, too! SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. I'm already a member of the Guitarists WikiProject and its Guitar equipment taskforce; I've posted requests for help there as well (and on the article's talk page). Moderatelyaverage (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Looks like you've got all your bases covered :) SarahStierch (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

problem with my Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Farid_Omran

Hi there I have a problem with the Sources Section. The Article is a Biography about a Composer, who I know personally. Lately he asked me to put a short biography in Wiki, and the whole thing that it used in wiki, I received from him. Because there was no Information about him in English on Internet. So I put a Link in References in Farsi (Persian). I knew that it couldn’t work but I had no idea how to do this. So here is my Question: how can I fix my problem with Sources? Remember the whole information that I used, is from him. So my sources are the person, which I wrote about him.

Your sincerely Pouya Pouya zen (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pouya, and welcome to the Teahouse! First off, if the subject of the article told you to add something to the article, this is a conflict of interest, even if you had to intention. You need to find independent, reliable sources to make sure the information is verifiable. According to this policy, you should not use references from the subject of the article itself. When in doubt about a references, just ask. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 13:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Puuya! Further to Luke's comment, unfortunately Wikipedia can't include information unless it is available for anyone to check. As we can't get in contact with Farid Omran and confirm things, we can't really include the content based on what he described. The reason isn't because of any fears that you might have done something wrong, but because it is possible that someone else will come along one day and deliberately add incorrect information about him, and if we can't check it we can't know that we need to remove it or prove that it is wrong. So the notion of "verifiability", or the ability to independently confirm that the information is accurate, is central to Wikipedia.

The good news, though, is that you are allowed to use sources in Farsi. Everything you write needs to be covered in a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that the source has to be published in English. :) Otherwise it would be almost impossible to write about people from non-English speaking parts of the world, and that would be very much to the detriment of Wikipedia.

As an aside, I really enjoyed listing to his music. Thankyou for bringing it here, as otherwise I wouldn't have had this opportunity. I wish I could help more with finding sources, but perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran (which is a bit quiet) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers could help? - Bilby (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How to fix a title

I want to fix the title of article "Prince Fahad bin Faisal Al Saud" but do not know how to do it. Could you please help me? Thanks.Egeymi (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, Egeymi. See Help:Moving a page, or tell me your new title and a reason, and I can do it for you. #A20846">Rcsprinter (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Egeymi! In order to move a page, Nolelover has actually written a great how-to that is super easy to understand! Check it out here. And as Rcsprinter says - we can always help you move it if need be! Thanks for visiting! SarahStierch (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Changed my name, and the whole profile changed.

Hi. I've recently changed my name from Monareal to Mir Almaat 1 S1. I've noticed that my whole profile, i.e my watchlist, skin and a few others things changed. But my access to my userpage has remained Monareal. Do you think this is a problem?Does this happen always when you change your namesMir Almaat 1 S1 (previously Monareal) (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As far as I can tell, you have been continuing to log in under the old username. You will need to log in under your new username in order to see your old preferences and to use it. - Bilby (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove notices?

Hi, I've been working on Juliet Cadzow, cleaning it up and wikifying it. Could you take a look at the past versions from when it was tagged for cleanup, copy editing, lead section and wikifying to see if I've tweaked it enough to remove these. I haven't added any new detail, and I don't know how reliable what's currently there is - I did add references and links to other Wikipedia pages too, though. --Tropzax (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tropzax. Wikipedia cannot be used as a citation/reference. References need to be outside, independent, reliable sources. I've removed the inter-wiki references, and also indicated some of the claims you need to verify by citing independent reliable sources. Some reviews commenting on her performance would also improve the article or serve as citations. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Softlavendar is right that you can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources, but other then that the article looks fantastic. Very nice job converting the Filmography section into a table...I know how tedious that can be, but it looks great. Those tags would definitely be able to come off now. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Links/Redirects - Please feel free to step in!

How do I get my Thunder Run article to come up when people search it? And how do I get it linked to all of those people who appeared in the movie who have their own Wiki pages? Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Run_(movie)

RandySWT1 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Randy, welcome to the Teahouse! The issue here was that the article you created was called "Thunder Run (movie)", but the convention is for movie pages to be called "Thunder Run (film)". This is why the links from the existing pages (such as the disambiguation page) weren't linking to the right page; they were all looking for "Thunder Run (film)" without realizing that the page was at "Thunder Run (movie)". No worries; I've moved the page for you to the correct article name. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks for your help!! RandySWT1 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Randy, Writ Keeper has solved half of your problem. To solve the other half, you need to do a few more things:

(1) Click the link on the left column of the article that says "What links here". That lets you find out which articles now link to that one. You can tell, for instance, that the articles on Tucker, Ireland, Fong, and Ludlow now link to the article.

(2) Then make sure the rest of your cast list gets linked. You'll notice that John Shepherd has a link for Thunder Run, but it's to the disambiguation page and not to the film. Therefore, you need to disambiguate that link by editing John's article and adding the word (film) to the link plus a | (called a "pipe"). That will make the link go to your article. Also, you'll notice that Alan Rachins and Jill Whitlow do not have a complete filmography listed or a table. So, if you think this credit really is significant in his/her career, you'll need to insert a sentence about it in the appropriate place in their career section, giving the title, year, and saying something about it. For Wallace Langham, you can simply add the credit to his filmography table, in the correct chronological position.

(3) It's always instructional to do a site-specific Google search after this, to see if you've missed any articles that should be linked. I've done one here: [1], and you'll notice that Tom Dugan is a minor cast member who has the film listed in his article, but it needs to be correctly disambiguated just like with John Shepherd so that it links to the correct article.

(4) After doing all of this, click "What links here" again, and make sure you've got all the linkages you intended and wanted. If not, go back and fix the ones that didn't take.

Hope that helps. Have fun! If you have any further questions about this, let us know. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely helps! Thanks so much!! RandySWT1 (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My own words on other website considered copyrighted

Back in February when I submitted an article for creation (Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Bremer), I also sent it to AskArt.com, which compiles biographical info on artists and had some misinformation for this one. They put my new biography at the top of her entry, and then when my Article for Creation was reviewed the second time the editor deduced that I had copied it from AskArt. What now? HarZim (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, HarZim, welcome to the Teahouse! This is a pretty unfortunate situation, but here's what happened. This is an excerpt from askART's terms of use:

By uploading material to any forum or by submitting any comments, recommendations or data ("information") to us, you automatically grant (or represent and warrant to us that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) to us a perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, sublicense, translate, create derivative works of and distribute such information worldwide and/or incorporate such information into any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed. In addition, you represent and warrant to us that all so-called moral rights in the information have been waived.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but it would appear that you gave up the copyright of the text to askART.com when you submitted it to them, and since they don't publish it with a free license that's compatible with Wikipedia (which is licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA and requires any significant text to be licensed compatibly), we can't use it. I hope that a host who is more versed in copyright can give you a more positive answer, but that's my reading of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Writ Keeper. Is it possible for AskART to submit permission to use the material on Wikipedia, and if so, how would they do that? Alternatively, what if they took it off their website and I resubmitted it for Wikipedia? I wonder if Sarah Stierch has been in touch with them at all--there should be cooperation, not exclusiveness. Specialists are more likely to go to askART for info about an artist, but other people might look on Wikipedia, especially since Anne Bremer is mentioned in the article on Albert M. Bender. HarZim (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

For any text that's more than a brief quotation, it's not enough to just have the permission of the copyright holder; the copyright holder also has to agree to release the text under CC-BY-SA or some other compatible license. This is a policy because we need to be able to freely edit, remix, and distribute the text of Wikipedia; without a free license, we can't do that without possibly running into copyright problems. You can get more information on requesting copyright permission here. I don't know for sure about the situation if they take it off their servers, but my guess would be that they still own the copyright and would still need to give their permission to release it to us under an appropriate license. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The key word in askART's terms of use is 'nonexclusive'. If he wrote the content, he can choose to license it to Wikipedia under a permissible license. He didn't give up his copyright by letting askART use it. Content can be under two licenses. As long as HarZim is fine with licensing the text under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL (the licenses Wikipedia uses) then it's no problem that it's also on askART. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Does that bring us back to the problem of how does she convince WP that she produced the original content? heather walls (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And that's why I'm not a lawyer. Thanks for straightening me out, Kevin! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've talked with a volunteer from WP:OTRS, and I think that's the next step. HarZim, OTRS is like Wikipedia's public relations desk. They handle claims like yours, and so forth. What the editor said was that this would be a fairly easy problem, except that AskArt doesn't credit you as the creator. Therefore it's not as easy for you to claim ownership to Wikipedia. I quote:

"I don't see askart.com listing the article author - if we had for instance an email of the author, it could be done through OTRS easily, recording that the author licensed it from that email as CC-BY-SA - the issue is how to prove that HarZim was the author of the www.askart.com article :s" HarZim, do you have any proof of that kind? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. AskART does list my real name (see my User Page) at the bottom of the article, which is not visible to non-subscribers except on Fridays. I've written to Sarah Stierch since this seems up her alley, and I've drafted an email to AskArt suggesting they operate under the Creative Commons approach, but I haven't sent it yet. OK, I'll try OTRS. I do have my original email submitting the article to AskArt. HarZim (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Distorted image

Whilst this image appears in the correct proportions when viewed in it's full resolution, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Red_Rice_House..jpg

It appears distorted in the other sizes (too wide), e.g. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Red_Rice_House..jpg/800px-Red_Rice_House..jpg

Other images which were uploaded at the same time, appear perfectly ok; e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_Rice_House._View_from_the_front.jpg

Any suggestions on how it could be corrected?

Thank you. Andrewstimothy (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back. I can see why the image is distorted as the original height to width ratio is 1.45 and all the rations shown are 1.33, but I don't know how to correct it. You might want to submit a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop explaining what the issue is and what you want doing to it. NtheP (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Update, a request was made at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop and the image has been fixed :-) NtheP (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Urgent need for admin support

Admin MuZemike has blocked accounts for 64 new users who I am to teach tomorrow. Also blocked is JSeroff the librarian who's been creating the accounts. How to unblock please? KSRolph (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem resolved with admins. KSRolph (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Sarah (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Answering the copyright questions about image source with 19th century family images

The array of questions that require answering when loading an image do not seem to be relevant in the case of old family album images from one's families of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Often the photographer is unknown other that having been an ancestor or possibly a friend of the then family. The posed questions do not seem to cater for this. I have been able to post images (such as on Adelaide Lead, Victoria) but am left in doubt as to whether I've answered correctly and whether my postings will in due course be deleted by the Wiki admin.

Such family photographs are often widely spread around this generations family members descendants, often also both in Australia and Europe, USA; but usually the havve not previously been published in the public domains.

How about including a Question option to cater to this circumstance Lawilson046 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lawilson046, welcome to the Teahouse. I was going to answer with the (crazy) US rule "if it wasn't published before it maybe from 1777 that it is still in copyright" but I saw your pictures where taken in Australia. I'm pretty sure that there will be no problem with them, but I'll leave for our more commons-minded hosts to fully answer your questions. You see, you actually uploaded the images to a different project than Wikipedia, we call it commons. It houses all free media to be used by Wikipedias (in other languages as well) and other wiki-projects. Since all media there must be free (of copyright) the questioning about licensing is pretty important. I don't know Australian copyright law to be able to say that the questions should be changed, but it may be a care taken due to US and other countries (I only know of US that does this, but there maybe others...) laws that have works dated as far back as the country's existence still in copyright (as long as it wasn't published). Family photos are rarely published, so photos taken in the USA could be in copyright still. Chico Venancio (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Lawilson046: You may get a more informed answer if you asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions which is a noticeboard designed for this exact sort of question. --Jayron32 02:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks talk - I see now that I used the incorrect upload option. I also checked Australian copyright law re images, and as I had understood it, pre 1955 images are copyright free 50 years after the date of their creation. Using the Wikipedia upload option rather then the Commons I think I will in future be correct to use the "This work is so old its copyright has expired" option Lawilson046 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! A couple of quick points that I hope will help a bit. :) First, as the images will be hosted in Florida, the rule on Commons is that the photos need to be ok under both US and Australian law. Under Australian law, any photo taken pre-1954 is public domain, so that would be the correct license. However, US law is much tougher. If the work was not published, the rule is that pre-1978 works are protected until either 120 years past the date it was taken, or 95 years after the death of the creator. Presumably these are effectivly anonymous works, which means that the need to have been taken prior to 1892 to be public domain under US law. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The scene may be further complicated via the 2005 Australia-US Free Trade Agreement which included image copyright. This is from Wikipedia's "Copyright expiration in Australia"

Public domain photos before 1955

Photographs taken before 1955 are now in the public domain

Photographs taken since 1955 will not be in the public domain for at least 20 years unless under crown copyright which expires 50 years after first publication.

Any Australian photo, published or unpublished, anonymous or attributed, taken before 1 January 1955 is out of copyright and in the public domain. The Australian Copyright Council is quite specific and unambiguous in regard to copyright law on photographs taken prior to 1 January 1955:

"If photographs were taken prior to 1 January 1955, copyright has now expired."[1]

"The duration of copyright in photographs has changed significantly as a result of Australia implementing its obligations under the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). New rules have been introduced to determine the duration of photographs that were still protected by copyright on 1 January 2005 or that were taken after that date. These rules came into effect on 1 January 2005:

"For photographs which were still in copyright on 1 January 2005, or which were created on or after that date, copyright now lasts until 70 years from the end of the year the photographer died.

"If the photographer is unknown or used a pseudonym, duration continues indefinitely until the photograph is published. Once it is published, duration will then last until 70 years from the end of the year in which it was published

"All photographs taken before 1 January 1955 are now out of copyright and do not benefit from the new rules.".[2]

So, this Agreement was a negotiated substantial toughening of Australia's pre 2005 laws, but not quite as tough as current US laws. I am advised by others more knowledgable in legal matters than I that the AUSFTA would now set the rules to apply to Australian origin images such as I have used in both US and Australian juristictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawilson046 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

New article created - but missing editing history

Hi everyone. TheBlueWizard and I worked on an article for Florence Meier Chase recently. Today TBW brought this to my attention, and I'm not sure how to deal with it. Here is a quote from his talk page: "Thanks, but I just realized while making my dinner that I should've moved User:TheBlueWizard/Florence Meier Chase rather than create the AfC article from scratch. I was going through the step-by-step process for creating an article to submit to AfC and I completely forgot about the editing history angle." Is there anything we can do about this? Also, please talkback his page, whomever helps out. Thanks hosts! Sarah (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a host but my opinion is that an editing history from userspace isn't relevant to mainspace. What happens in userspace stays in userspace. My sandbox project is a mess, full of notes to myself so I don't forget things. A userspace history is valuable if a vandal drops by or to undo a goof but it's of little or no value outside of userspace. Once moved to mainspace, an article's fresh edit history becomes valuable to track improvements and to revert vandalism. The history from userspace never goes away; it's still there, if needed. DocTree (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)