Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 113

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

→

Archive 120

First-section editing

Can one edit the first section of an article without opening the whole thing for editing? If so, how? Cyrapas (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cyrapas. At the top of any page, middle righthand side is a button marked "Edit"; click that to edit the entire article. You can also click on any side edit link in an article and then change the end of the url to section=0 and click enter. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead section editing can be enabled through Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance → Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bots

Hi, I was just wondering if anyone knew a simple method to set up a bot, or if it is not worth it.

Thanks, Matty.007 17:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse Matty.007! If anyone knows, I would think that Theopolisme (talk · contribs) would be the one to ask... Try leaving a message on his talk page. :) Technical 13 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Matty.007 18:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

New Person

Hi,A close family firend of mine is a American football player for the wisconsin badgers and i was trying to create a page for him but a dont know the "template" for a football player.

Thnaks, 17:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattFlynnForPresident (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MattFlynnforPresident. If your subject meets WP:NOTABILITY for athletes, you can create an article via the Articles for Creation process. Thanks, TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 19:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Matt. Be sure to read about conflict of interest since you have a close connection with the subject.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matt. If you're looking for an infobox template you might consider using Template:Infobox college football player for your page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

UBX

Everytime I am going to creat a userbox there's left an empty space below the image that I don't know how to delete. Can anyone help me to delete it and explain to me what is that?? Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Miss Bono! I'm looking at the userboxes that you've created and updated and don't see any space. What you might be describing is the result of making the image too small, in which case you would need to bump up the size of the image that is used. Then again, everything looks okay to me, and so I may be describing something totally different. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Brambleberry... I already tried to make it larger but the black space below remains... Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It may help if you point directly to the userbox that's giving you the most trouble. I believe now that you may be referring to the border, which I think you can delete by setting the counter on "border-s" to 0, but I've never tried that. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Mrs. Bono... Which Userbox are you having difficulties with? I'm sure I can probably help you.... Technical 13 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the userbox User:Miss Bono/Userboxes/Gibson Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've made an edit, is that better / what you were looking for? Technical 13 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Technical 13 I want the normal border in 1 but I dont want that black space below the image.. Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you get it the way you wanted it Mrs. Bono? Or do you still need my assistance? I don't see any black space, so if there is still a problem for you, can you email me a screenshot or a picture of some kind (I understand your technical restrictions). Perhaps telling me which version of which browser you use will be enough (and hoping that it has nothing to do with Ubuntu which I don't currently have). Technical 13 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it, apparently it was the "id-s" field. But for future uses here is the version of my browser: Mozilla Firefox 21.0. Thanks Miss Bono (zootalk) 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Home Wiki

How can I change home wiki from Wikiversity to Wikipedia? --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 16:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Titodutta, I think you are referring to Special:CentralAuth/Titodutta. If that is the case, then, I am sorry, it's not possible to change it. But that doesn't necessarily mean your home wiki is en.wikv. Home wiki is usually considered the project at which you are most active. --Glaisher (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back Titodutta! Unless I am mistaken, Special:CentralAuth/Titodutta, assumes that whatever site you have the most contributions on is your home wiki. If that is correct, then to change your home wiki to Wikipedia, you just need to edit more articles! If I am wrong, then I am not sure what, if anything, will do it. Technical 13 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have 53k edits in En Wikipeda and next is Commons 2.3k. Most probably I opted in somewhere in 2011, I can not remember the place. --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 17:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the edit count is only deciding for accounts which were created before unified login was implemented in 2008. Your account was originally created at enwikiversity in 2011. If you had it renamed at wikiversity:Wikiversity:Changing username then it's possible (I don't know) that the home wiki for Titodutta would change to enwikipedia, or maybe you wouldn't have a home wiki. But why does it matter? Are there any practical effects? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it technically is possible (at least for now) to change the home wiki of a global account by having a steward delete the global account, and remerging it from the desired homewiki (Special:MergeAccount). (Disclaimer: This might only work if the wiki you choose is the one on which you have the most edits/sysop/bureaucrat flags. I don't think so, but ...) I know, because I had mine deleted to change my homewiki from enwiki to simplewiki.

I would recommend you browse archived discussions regarding this, for example this one ("Changing the SUL home wiki"). Another relevant one is bugzilla:14234 (« There should be a way to change "home" wiki in CentralAuth »). Note that the bug was closed as "WONTFIX".

Personally, as someone who changed homewikis, it's really not worth it. And I doubt stewards would do this anymore. ;) πr² (t • c) 01:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. SUL is going to be changed a lot in the near future; some of this might not be valid after that happens. See m:SUL finalisation.

TL;DR - you can get a steward to delete your global account, or a bureaucrat to rename it locally(not sure- 'crats won't be able to do this in a few months), and re-merge it, but it's not worth it (nobody cares really). πr² (t • c) 01:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleting a Wiki Page

Hi -

I just created an article page, Brayton Purcell, LLP, and would like to know if there is an option to disable it temporarily. I was thinking of deleting it, but maybe I'd like to enable it in the future. I have been directed to WP:DEL page, but again, I am overwhelmed with the amount of pages related to deleting a Wiki page and don't know where to start. Does anyone know how to make it unpublic temporarily? Thanks! Ellgee24 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell us why you want it disabled? Although since you chose to publish it, and other authors have now contributed, it's not really "yours" in any sense. If there are materials that are flat-out wrong or libelous, those can be removed, but if, for example, there's some ongoing controversy about a business we can't just remove their page for convenience. If it's being vandalised, we can block vandals. If facts are wrong, we can remove them. But barring unusual circumstance we don't usually do "temporary deletion". MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue now: there's negative information about the company out there in WP:Reliable sources such as Forbes. Other editors removed the vague laudatory bits about the company and put in sections about notable criticism of the company. If you have a legitimate reason why one section or another should be removed, you can bring it up on the Talk page of the article, but "this is mean" or "this is hurting the business" are not valid reasons. There's a major rule about this Wikipeida Law of Unintended Consequence:

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, note that it will probably find its way there eventually.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewVanitas (talk • contribs)

I agree with Matthew. You should absolutely take all complaints about the article to the talk page, but it would be difficult to justify deleting the article at this point. Andrew³²⁷ 16:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thanks for all of your responses. The reason why I'm asking about deleting the page was because the new edits were added under a section I made called Verdicts. The two new edits were more court rulings, and they didn't provide more information. In regards to the Kananian blurb, the firm ended up not losing a pro hac status. Big Tobacco lied to the judge and got Chris' individual pro hac revoked. Also, in regards to the Butler blurb, the case is still going on and the firm did find a representative. So, if the page is unable to be deleted, you all are suggesting that additions can only be made from here on? Ellgee24 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the above, the article which was, frankly (apart from the minor critical bits), a huge spamfest, has been reduced to a stub pending a rework.--ukexpat (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Evidencing Band wiki page

Hello, More and more music apps, including those used by Spotify are looking to Wikipedia for information on bands (music groups). My band has music on Spotify, Itunes etc and so I posted a page on Wikipedia relating to my band. All facts, no opinion, just the basic info about the band. The page (article) was rejected. How can I get it accepted? It's very frustrating because without the Wiki page the apps cannot access the info they need on my band. Regards howibass Howibass (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Howibass. The basic criteria for a band to have a Wikipedia article are listed here. Basically, you need to have received significant coverage in a number of reliable sources, and the article will need to cite all the facts it contains to those sources. Wikipedia strives for verifiability, meaning that all the information here has to have been published somewhere else first - so if you want to recreate the page, you'll need to cite magazine articles about your band, or newspaper articles, or radio commentaries (but not press releases, (most) fanzines, blogs or your own website). Yunshui 雲‍水 10:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Howibass. Yunshui has give you some good advice and I recommend you read up at the link they provided. I have had a look at your article and the reason it was declined. You had a couple of references but no reference list. I have created the "References" section and added {{reflist}} which automatically lists any inline references. I have added a reference from Indie Rock Cafe and have deleted discogs which is not a reliable source. I have also moved the spacehogs url down to a new section "External Links." To be notable and therefore acceptable as an article please follow Yunshui's advice above. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 11:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Howibass. I want to make a correction in something User:Flat Out said. "To be notable" you must meet the criteria Yunshui listed. The band might not be notable, and that's unfortunate for any band using Spotify or a similar service if apps require Wikipedia information to work, because bands that do not qualify cannot have an article. What Flat Out should have said is "To be considered notable". A band (or other subject) might be notable but if one can't convince other Wikipedia editors that the subject is notable, they are likely to reject the article.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Howibass. I'm sorry that you are finding this frustrating, and I understand why. but I'm afraid that the problem is with Spotify etc. They are perfectly entitled to use information from Wikipedia (as long as they credit it appropriately), but Wikipedia exists for its own purposes, not for anybody else's. If Spotify are getting information in a way which will not be available to some of their bands, I'm afraid that is a problem you need to take up with Spotify. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How to rename a page title

I registered as a wiki user since I would want change the title of a page (that use the old name of the company). Says in the help section, I shall become a autoconfirmed user (and see the "Move" tab) after I have updated information of some articles. But now I am not yet a autoconfirmed user since I don't see the "Move" tab. Is there any things else I should do to earn the autoconfirmed user status? Thanks!

HKSI PR (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi HKSI PR. You should be autoconfirmed, as you note, since you account has made more than ten edits and is over four days old. Accordingly, I suspect the problem results from one of these sources: a) The article you are here about, which you did not name, is protected from being moved; b) you are editing through the Tor network; or c) you are using the pathetically bad Vector default skin, and didn't find the move button because that skin hides it – it is accessed by clicking on the down arrow, two to the right of the "view history" tab at the top of the page. Please let us know if any of these might describe the issue. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, HKSI PR! Welcome to the teahouse. Accounts that are four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. However, you have a username that implies your username may belong to the firm you work for. That is not allowed. Only individuals may have accounts on Wikipedia. My advice would be to abandon your current username and start over with another one that does not imply that it may belong to a firm. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fuhghettaboutit and Gtwfan52, thanks so much for your help. But now I have another question. I happened to find that the name of our company appears in the Chi version of Wiki as well. However, I can't login using my existing account. Do I have to register for another account in order to edit the page? If my company appears in many language version (which is good), do I have to register for all those version? Thanks again for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HKSI PR (talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed I found that I can now login but could not find the "Move" button. Just wonder if I will need to make 10 amendments in order to rename the title of the page ... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HKSI PR (talk • contribs) 06:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi HKSI PR. An easy way to find out whether or not you are autoconfirmed is to go to Special:Preferences, and look down to where it says "Member of groups". If it says "Autoconfirmed users", then you're autoconfirmed. If not, make some more edits (you can see your edit count in Preferences too) and you soon will be autoconfirmed. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 13:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Your contribution record shows that you moved a number of pages, almost an hour before your most recent message in this thread. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving articles from submission process to real articles

I'm working with a class of university seniors to expand the WP:Feminism project. Some students have been working on revising and adding article stubs and articles flagged as needing attention, but a couple of students in my class have created new articles. They completed articles in their sandboxes, and then followed the instructions to submit them for review. It's been almost a week, and so far, the only indication of movement we've seen is the following notice has appeared on their sandbox pages:

This sandbox is in the Wikipedia talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template.

Should they (or I) do anything with this? Is there any action we can take to accelerate this process? Graduation is Saturday, June 15, and it would be great to know if their articles were accepted before we all leave campus for the summer. (They will still get grades for the course, and they've made solid contributions, in my opinion, but they are eager to have their work appear on Wikipedia!)

E. Kissling (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear that is unfortunate. You should have been told that class projects should not use the "Articles for Creation" process as it is rather slow. If you tell me which drafts are stuck in AfC I could expedite at least the first reviews - however we frequently end up declining multiple times to get various issues sorted so please go ahead and grade the drafts as they are. The sandbox notice at the top is dealt with automatically at the first review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS violation?

Is this edit an MOS violation? The image takes up the entire screen to the point where the text i unreadable.Pass a Method talk 18:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, Pass a Method, and welcome to the Teahouse! There really isn't such a thing as a "violation" of the Manual of Style. The Manual simply states how things should appear, and if something doesn't fit that it can be easily corrected, either by yourself or by another editor. At the same time, it is possible to present information that doesn't exactly fit the MoS if editors believe through consensus that the article is better served by not strictly adhering to the Manual of Style. If you feel the images should be smaller, change them and see what happens. If the edit sticks, other editors agree with you. If they change it back, you may want to discuss your feelings on the article talk page. You may find other editors agree with you and think they should be changed. I hope that helps! --McDoobAU93 18:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to be bold and make any changes that you think are justified by the MOS. Andrew³²⁷ 16:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User Pages and User Talk Pages

Hi,

I know this might sound like a stupid question, but does anyone know how to create user pages and user talk pages?

George George8211 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi George. Do you see the red "talk" link just above? Just click on it and start typing. Clicking on your user name link will create your user page. Rojomoke (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi George. That is right. Use the preview button to check what you have written then the save button to create the page. It will then show as blue instead of red.--Charles (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rojomoke and Charles,Thanks! George8211 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George8211 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The only stupid question is the question you don't ask - Idiomatic Proverb Technical 13 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Alex Trebek would probably say, "There are no stupid questions. Only stupid answers." Just to supplement what was said, see WP:USER.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

What do I do if I see information cited with an unreliable source? Is there a way I can report it, or do I just get rid of the information? Heritage Institution (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Heritage Institution. The first thing that you should do is try to find a reliable source that supports the information. If you find something good, then substitute that for the unreliable source. Then, ask yourself whether the information is contentious or likely to be challenged. If so, remove the information with an edit summary explaining why. If the information is uncontroversial, then leave it be, but remove the bad source. The extreme example would be, don't remove a statement that "the sky is blue" just because someone cited it to the Weekly World News. Just remove the bad source, and let the uncontroversial statement stand.

On another matter, your username seems to imply that your are editing on behalf of an organization, rather than as an individual. Respectfully, I want to draw your attention to WP:USERNAME. It may well be advisable for you to consider changing your username. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Another option is to tag the statement with {{dubious}} directly after the contested source, and then start a discussion on the Article Talk page in question explaining the problem with the source. The tag will let people know the source is disputed, and the talk page allows you to explain exactly what you mean. Does that help? --Jayron32 05:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)s Hi Heritageinstitution. It really rather depends on the context. At one extreme, if it's, say, negative or controversial content in an article on a living person that is poorly source, remove the material immediately (but be sure to leave a detailed edit summary explaining the reason for removal and maybe even citing to the policies involved). On the other, say a poor source placed to verify that the ocean is big, then you might tag it with something like {{verify credibility}}, but if you're sure the source is bad then you might just remove the source as useless (but keep the content). Again, leave a detailed edit summary. The reason for that is because removal of content can easily be mistaken for vandalism without an explanation. It's almost always a better idea in any of these situations, if possible, to replace the poor source with a better one. (If an article is chock full of unreliable sources, you might tag the article at the top with {{unreliable sources}}.) Note also the existence of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It would really help if you gave us the context so we could tailor an answer. Best regards---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Finding the Categories

I've managed to get a couple of articles accepted. And typically within a day or so a bunch of category scripts are thrown into them. How can one find these scripts and others? There is so much out there that it seems to be very hit or miss. Or is it best to just create the article and let those looking for category material come to it? The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Usually, people are using HotCat which you can enable yourself ia your preferences (Preferences → Gadgets → HotCat, easily add / remove / change a category on a page, with name suggestion). It's up to you to categorize yourself really, though it's preferable to add at least some categories. Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization might be a useful page for you. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

HotCat was already active, I just didn't realize what it was! I'll take some time to read the FAQ on the concept.The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

also, not sure how to create and name new user sandbox page

Hi, KXF again - David Biddulph recommended how to name multiple draft articles in my sandbox, but the sandbox seems to automatically name these pages - how do I name and save a page like User:KXF/Rex M. Ball or whatever? I don't know how to save these pages under different names. Thanks. KXF (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello KXF I already create that page for you. When you are going to create a sandbox just add the name you want (e.g. User:Miss Bono/shark), when you go to that link, you have to click in the Start the User:Miss Bono/shark link that appear. Hope this help. Click here. User:KXF/Rex M. Ball Hope this helps Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello KXF and welcome to the Teahouse! I've gone a step above and beyond here and moved the sandbox page that Miss Bono made for you into your sandbox and added a new section at the top of your user page. There is now a directory there of all your drafts as-well-as an input box where you can type a new article name and click the button and it will create the subpage for you and you can go from there. I hope this makes it easy for you (and I will probably be poking in to your page and modifying that slightly for you. I think it is a great tool for everyone and will likely turn it into a set of templates to share with others). Anyways, you shouldn't notice "much" change in it now that it is there. Enjoy and Happy article creating! When you are done with your draft, simply replace the {{Userspace draft}} at the top with {{subst:Submit}} and someone will review it and tell you how to improve it or will tell you good job and move it to article space for you. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tehcnical 13, I will check these out - and thanks again Miss Bono - I appreciate everyone's help very much. KXF — Preceding unsigned comment added by KXF (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Citing sources

Hello! My article, Lumension Security, was recently declined for not having adequate sources, essentially using too much of the website's internal sources, like press releases, to back up my statements. My question is, do I need to have a source for everything I state? For example, I have a timeline on my article detailing important events. I mainly cited those using press releases since I thought I was backing up my statement so to speak. Do I need to take out anything I can't find an external source for? Or can I have a mix of internal and external? I was just wondering since other pages I've seen that are in my category tend to have a mixture of both. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Kendraelise0 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's usually fine to have primary sources from the article subject or someone of something closely related, but following the guidelines on reliable sources, you need source material that is independent of the subject, i.e. news organizations, books, academic journals, etc. A timeline of events is probably good to be cited with press releases since it is the documentation of the company's history, though conflicts with the company's own information should be noted. Hope this helps. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Scroll bar for gallery

Technical 13 or anyone who can help me to add a scroll bar to my new gallery in my user Page...please Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back Miss Bono, what section do you want it in? Check out: {{Scroll box|width=##px|height=##px|content for section}} for scrollbar section and {{Hst|reason=text}} content {{Hsb}} for a collapsible section. Technical 13 (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Miss Bono,  Done at MyFavouriteU2Pictures section. Hope this is what you asked for. --Glaisher (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm being bullied :(

I'd like to know if anyone can help me - I'm being bullied by editors who are unreasonably denying that an article I've worked on has adequate sourcing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesse_R._Waugh

While I hope to not attract the attention of more bullies, I don't know where else to turn for help. If anyone knows the best way to deal with these people please help if you can. HSoberg (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse HSoberg. I'm sorry to hear that you are feeling bullied. I've looked at the AfD for the article you contributed to and it looks like it is going to be kept. You may want to do some more research and try to come up with some more independent reliable sources to add to the article though to reduce the chances of it being nominated again in the future. If I can offer you any more assistance, please let me know and I will try to help you as best that I can. Technical 13 (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not being bullied. You're just being told by multiple editors things that you don't agree with. There is a difference. --Onorem (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you misunderstand the meaning of the word "bullied". No one is "bullying" you. They are simply pointing out that creating new accounts to attempt to create the illusion of support for your position is a deceptive practice, and one that many people have seen before and recognize when it occurs.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

photo deletion inquiry

Hi,

A photo that I had uploaded to my article, Eco funnel, has disappeared. When I tried to reupload the photo I received an error notifying me that it had been deleted. Curious why the photo was removed, since it was uploaded for common use with permission from the owner.

Thanks, Jordan180 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Jordan180. I don't suppose you have a link to where the file was in the syntax of [[:File:filename]] would you? That way one of the hosts here can take a look and see if we can explain it better for you. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your reply. This is the image that has disappeared, although I don't know if it's the information you are looking for: File:ECO Funnel, OSHA and EPA Compliant Waste Management System, March 2013.jpg

The original file name was EF-8-GL38-SYS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan180 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles needing editing

I'm new and trying to locate the page that suggests articles that need to be edited. Was there once, but can't find it. . . Thanks.DDnny (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse--and Wikipedia--Ddnny! You may be looking for Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask, which shows you all of the open tasks that there are. Once you have a few more edits to establish a base of articles that you should work on, you might want to employ User:SuggestBot to deliver regular open tasks for you directly to your talk page! Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

help against vandals

what is the best way to help the administration team against vandals? can i apply somewhere for staff or to be part of a team? ((Argento1985) 14:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse, Argento1985! I personally believe that the best way a new user like you can help everyone to fight vandals is to enroll at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. You will be trained there by someone who fights vandalism in how to spot and eliminate vandals. First you should have around 200 mainspace edits at least. After you graduate the Academy, you can be a part of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Argento1985 and welcome to the Teahouse! Persistent vandals can be reported to WP:AIV. Administrators are promoted after a successful request, but with only 655 edits your best bet is to request rollback (a method of quickly reverting vandalism) at this page. ^King Jakob _C2 15:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back Argento1985! I agree with BoR that you should probably find yourself an instructor and enroll in the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. I wouldn't quite submit a request for permissions for rollbacker yet, well not until you complete CVUA training. In the mean time (and as part of your CVUA training) you may find Twinkle useful for rolling back inappropriate edits. Remember, that you are still responsible for anything you do with Twinkle, so use the privilege with care. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your response guys. i guess its hard to achieve it but i have to start from somewhere! (Argento1985) 15:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How to (whether to) deal with repetative changes

I'm a fairly new editor, been editing pages related to Irish blues rocker Rory Gallagher I've noticed that two other users seem to be starting a potential edit war. It started when user JPGR69 removed a live album from the summary discography section on the Gallagher article. On that page the discography as is common has a list of Gallagher's most popular albums and then a link to the actual detailed discography. JPGR69 said "no live albums here" meaning that in the summary discography section it should be only studio albums. I don't agree but didn't think it was worth reverting. Then another user thought as I do and reverted the change. Now user JPGR69 has reverted that reversion and removed the live album again. I checked and at least one similar artist (Allman brothers) has live albums in the summary discography. To me the summary should be just that based on which were the most popular albums (which in both cases Allman bros and Rory would include live albums). Should I remain apathetic or is it worth getting involved in and if so what's the best way? Also, just as a curios side note User JPGR69 seems to have as their mission in life to remove live albums from summary discography sections. I checked their contributions and they do that (and pretty much only that) on other artists as well. Mdebellis (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Mdebellis. It looks like you are in the middle of a content dispute there. If it seems that this dispute is stuck in a stalemate and no forward progress can be made at this point, I would suggest you open a request for mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard. That is the next appropriate step to attempt to resolve this based on consensus. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I bookmarked the dispute resolution page for future reference. I gave this some more thought though and its such a trivial issue I'm going to see if we can resolve it ourselves. I put a new section on Gallagher's Talk page to discuss the issue and also left a comment on the user's talk page that initiated this. (the other user is an IP address so not sure how to reach them). I didn't re-re-revert the change (even though I think that's the proper answer) as I think doing that would feed into escalating rather than resolving. Mdebellis (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I messed up creating a title of a redirect page - how do you change the title?

It says Bert van der vaart when it should say Bert van der Vaart - i don't know how to fix it - thanks Jameycarroll (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jamey, are you autoconfirmed? If so, you can move the page by clicking on the down arrow and selecting move. Just move the page to where you want it. Be sure to double check the spelling etc. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 13:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe i'm auto confirmedJameycarroll (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Jameycarroll welcome to the Teahouse. Is your account 4 days old and have you made 10 edits? Technical 13 (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind.. That is a redirect page. There is no need to move it, simply make both pages redirect as I have done. Also, Redirect must be the top thing on the page and they don't need display titles as they never actually show up. They just forward the user to the correct page. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

auto check for borders mess up of an edit, vars and quotation missing

is there a way to call for a "bot" to fix the source of a page? ((Argento1985) 13:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC))

Hi Argento, welcome to the Teahouse. You can try using WP:AutoEd, which fixes, or cleans, the source of some pages. If not, try WP:BTR. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 13:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks in advance, autoed helped me and it worked! ((Argento1985) 14:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC))

Citing sources

Good morning everyone, I am wondering, because sometimes I have a hard time knowing which format to use, when citing sources how do you know which template to choose. For ex: I found a time "magazine" source that I want to use but the magazine article is online. Would this be cite web or cite book? And its not really a book its a magazine or news? You see my dilemma? How do you know the difference from them all? So anyway in this instance it is TIME magazine I would like to cite as a source. Also I am finding that sometimes when I know I am using the right format that some of the information asked for is not available such as an author (no byline) and/or no date of publication, this is mostly with on line articles of course. Is it ok just to do without that? TattØØdẄaitre§ 16:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tattooed Waitress! First, if it comes from a magazine or newspaper, it would fall under "cite news". There is even a section in "cite news" for you to post the URL in case you got the reference from a website. Second of all, you should fill in as much information as you can provide and not worry about missing anything. As long as you got the information from a reliable source, it's fine to be missing something like author or publication date. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tattoo, LTNS. The purpose of the citation templates is to make formatting consistent but the really important issue is good attribution so that our readers can verify the material in the source. So, sure, it's a good idea to use the template that is most tailored, but it really is small in the scheme of what's important. Anyway, in minor departure form the above I would not use cite news for magazines, but {{cite journal}} which has dedicated fields for issue, vol, etc., specific to magazines, though it's not a big deal if you used the other. As to the main question, I think the best way to approach thinking about the issue is to ignore whether the source is online or not, but ask what is the source? If a newspaper, {{cite news}}, if a journal, {{cite journal}}, if a book, {{cite book}}, and if a web-only source, then {{cite web}}. The link to an online place where the content of an originally paper source is hosted, is just a convenience link; the source is the paper. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. There is also an all-in-one template {{Citation}}, which you can use to mix and match for any of them, though I personally prefer the dedicated templates.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed LTNS Fuhghettaboutit, but so glad to be back. Grateful for both responses here and the quickness of the reply to my questions. It's a big help. TattØØdẄaitre§ 16:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also the option of simply not using a template at all. It all depends on the type of source, the citation standard you're using and how comfortable you are with wikicode.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

about the "multiple issues" statement

Someone has put a statement that my article, " Greenberg-Hastings cellular automaton" , has "multiple issues" at the top of the page, with an exclamation point. The reader is asked to help fix these or discuss on the talk page. As the article creator, I have tried to discuss these issues on the talk page, but only felt that one very small change was necessary at this point (until I learn to do better graphics). My question is: Having made an effort to address the comments as requested, do I have to leave this off-putting announcement at the top of the page? If I delete it will someone then delete my article? Sph110 (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sph110 and welcome to the Teahouse. The issues noted by the editor who placed the tag on this article include a lack of inline citations, technical language that would be difficult for most readers to understand, and the lack of sections and section headings. The tags may be removed when these issues are resolved but I must say I agree that there are issues with the article as it stands. The tags are there to guide all editors in how the the article can be improved and as such can be very useful in bringing the article up to the required standard. I hope this is of some help to you. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Sph, and keep in mind it's not your article.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions, and I hope I have now addressed the concerns raised. Hoping that others agree, I removed the "multiple issues" statement. Sph110 (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently I satisfied the editors on two of the three issues, but still they want more references. I did add several citations of previously listed articles at what I thought were appropriate points. I am not sure what is now viewed as insufficiently referenced. If someone can tell me, then I can try to add appropriate references.

One question: in a couple of places I cited other Wikipedia articles as the source; articles which do not appear to have current issues. These articles contain further references. Is this not adequate? Sph110 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome Sph110! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. You will have to dig through the sources on those other articles and use those sources directly in this article. It's a little extra work, but I think you will find it is worth it in the end. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have now replaced the reliance on other Wikipedia articles with new inline references. Also, some material was augmented and shifted to a new section. Sph110 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Refrences

I really should know this by now, but what is considered a repuable sorce for an article, and how do I put one in? (I do almost all anti-vandalism and copy-editing work, so I haven't run into this at all yet) Lee Tru. 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lee, and welcome to The Teahouse. A reputable source is a magazine, newspaper or book published by a company with a reputation for making sure the facts are accurate. A blog, and most web sites, would not likely be considered reliable enough. Read more at WP:RS.

Once you have found your reliable source, at the end of the information it verifies, put "<ref>" on the left and </ref> on the right of the information needed to find the source. If it is online, put the URL the title of the article, and preferably the name of the source. It doesn't have to be online. Near the end of the article, put "{{reflist}}" of <references/>, under the heading ==References==.

Don't worry too much about formatting, since someone will often come clean up what you did (I do that a lot), although it's less work for us if you use proper citation templates. — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse Lee. I agree that you probably should know what a reliable independent source is by now. I'm assuming that following those three links will tell you all that you wanted to know. :) Technical 13 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Technical. I forgot to say "independent". And I also forgot that WP:Citing sources was also needed here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiDragons do not clean up their own edits! I do GOCE stuff because there is not much else that I enjoy doing once the vandals are all gone for the day) Lee Tru. 20:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for asking, Lee Tru. It's cool you're stretching your wikiknowledge. Besides the obvious suspects (New York Times, Washington Post, the Guardian, BBC, etc.) books are still great as reliable sources. Google using "allintext:" before your search terms, and that will often get you some. Or searching AT Amazon.com. And if you fill in the ISBN# in the cite template, it will often auto-fill the rest of the book's details for you. EBY (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

adding references and footnotes

I need to add footnotes/references/links to websites other than wikipedia....

MaClarke23 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, MaClarke and welcome to The Teahouse. Most of the information you need is found in the response to the above question (the question below when this gets archived). Also read Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Inline citation. In some cases you can link to websites other than wikipedia in a section called "External links" at the end of an article. It's not generally recommnded that you do this within an article except in a reference (inside <ref ... </ref>)verifying information contained in the article.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Userbox

I need help with this userbox User:Miss Bono/Userboxes/age. The code is a mess. Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It looked fine to me. EBY (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Old image

Hi, it's me again. I've got an image that dates to either 1833 or 1834 (I have no idea when it was published). Given the date of the image, is it safe enough to say that the author died more than 75 years ago (i.e. before 1938)? I mean, it's theoretically possible that someone could have taken the image when they were 5 and lived to be 110, but that somehow sound implausible, if not impossible. ^King Jakob _C2 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fairly certain it falls into PD: Template:PD-1923. -EBY (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone check here to make sure I haven't accidentally performed some evil violation of WP policies? Thanks :) ^King Jakob _C2 18:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The "date" parameter is for the date of the original creation or publication of the image I think. In view of its PD status it should be moved to Commons.--ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If the image was originally published in the United States before 1923, then it is clearly in the public domain. I would recommend listing the name of the book or the website where you found the image, just for the sake of attribution. If the name of the photographer is available, add that too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice job on the article, King Jakob! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't see information

Why doesn't what I have entered in the sandbox appear on the page I have created Kmpurdy (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you mean that you entered something in the sandbox, and it does not show up in the sandbox than you probably are not saving the page, the "read" tab does not save, you have to go to the bottom of the editing window and click save page.

If you have already created the page, than you cannot edit it from the sandbox, even if you still have the exact same thing in it, you must go to the page for editing. Lee Tru. 15:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To expand on the reply above, User:Kmpurdy/sandbox is one page, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC is a different page. You have been editing them separately, as you can see from your contribution record. There is no link between them. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(after edit conflict): Hello, kmpurdy. I think you have figured it out, but I'll explain: you appear to have created a user sandbox User:Kmpurdy/sandbox on 27 November, and then two days later created the same article (at least, the same title: I haven't compared the articles) in your user page User:Kmpurdy. On the 4 December you moved the latter to Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC. Recently you edited your sandbox twice, but now I see you have edited the article. I suggest you edit the sandbox to put {{db-author}} at the top: this will request its deletion.

Incidentally, I know you haven't asked about this, but few or none of the references currently in that article are acceptable: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for references, and most of the rest are simply listings, which establish that the firm exists, but not that it is notable by Wikipedia's standards. --ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Lee, that is exactly what I was doing Kmpurdy (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Colin, thanks for the info on the references. I'll make those changes directly to the proper publication/source Kmpurdy (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Colin, I checked the references and they all appear to link to the appropriate website. What am I doing wrong?Kmpurdy (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Image moving

Whenever I see a image in an article/user page there are always some numbers after it, I know that they have something to do with its position, but I don't know what. Please help so I can add some images to articles. Lee Tru. 12:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lee. If the answer to your question isn't at Help:Images, would you mind showing us an example of what you mean? I'm assuming that you are talking about the numbers in the link that define the size of the image displayed, but I would like to make sure. Technical 13 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture without px numbers

Yes, many editors like to fuss with px numbers to set a size precisely, but they aren't necessary and, because different computers interpret them differently, they don't much accomplish their purpose. Simpler to omit. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim, they are sometimes needed... Otherwise you end up with pictures that are 10 megapixels or larger taking up the whole page and creating long scrollbars... Technical 13 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I changed the picture from my 5 Megapixel one to a 12 Megapixel picture, still without px numbers. Those numbers are needed in special cicumstances such as tables, inforboxes and extremely tall / narrow pictures. Ordinarily, no. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim, the reason that you are not needing them with your example is because you are making it a thumb...

File:George Wesley Bellows - Snow Dumpers (1911) detail 03.jpg

This is the problem... Technical 13 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what happens when you use a large picture without the "thumb" frame... Technical 13 (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Thumb is easy, simple, and flexible. Numbers for px, no. For one thing we don't know what kind of phone or tablet or Google glasses a future reader will use, hence whether we're using the right numbers. For some reason the inventors of Wiki made full size the default and WP:THUMB the option instead of vice versa. That doesn't mean it's usually good. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not every situation is made ideal by using thumb. Anyways, I think this question is answered and offers all the needed information. Good work everyone. :) Technical 13 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

pronunciation of "Theorbo"

How to pronounce "Theorbo". Alan L.76.118.34.189 (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alan. This page is really intended for questions about using and editing Wikipedia itself. We have a language reference desk though where general knowledge questions related to language such as this one would fit well. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If my memory serves me right (from when I used to attend a lot of early music concerts in the UK), it is pronounced "thee-orbo", but with the "th" unvoiced as in "thank" (not voiced like "thee, thou" etc).--ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving declined articles for creation

Hello,

I'm sorry if this is a simple question but I can't find or figure out how to move an article for creation from my sandbox. It has been declined and I agree it does not have enough verifiable sources. I moved the article from WikipediaTalk page to the UserTalk page but the old article is still there and I would like to write a different article. Does it need to be deleted? Again, I'm a newbie so sorry if this is a silly question! Aleesha C (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to creat the article, than there is a button on the user sandbox tag, that sayd somehing like "submit article", but it sounds like you don't wandt to do that. What you can do hawevr, is make a subpage called User:Aleesha C/sandbox2 and use that for your nex thing, while fixing the refrences on the old article, in short, keep the old article! Lee Tru. 10:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Aleesha C/sandbox became a redirect to the new title Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Architectuul when your first article submission was moved. This happens automatically when pages are moved. I have replaced the redirect with {{User sandbox}}. See Wikipedia:Redirect#How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article for how I got to the redirect so I could edit it. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you or your help Lee & PrimeHunter. Aleesha C (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)