Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 184

Archive 180

←

Archive 182

Archive 183

Archive 184

Archive 185

Archive 186

→

Archive 190

How do I find out why a page that I DID NOT create was deleted?

Hi there! I was trying to find out more info about Barre Seid, an American billionaire (from Chicago) who is the Top Donor to the Heartland Institute and was shocked to see that there once existed a wiki article that was deleted. He is also a major donor to other right-wing causes, especially islamophobia films.

That deletion seems absolutely bizarre to me, due to the extreme damage that the Heartland Institute climate change denial has caused.

I had nothing to do with the article that once existed (which I found through the speedy deletion wikia).

D is for... (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Barre Seid was deleted in January 2013 following this discussion. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey, D, welcome to the Teahouse! In this case, the article about Barre Seid was deleted as a result of an Articles for deletion discussion, which is the primary process for deletion on Wikipedia. You can see the discussion that led to the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barre Seid. More generally, to find out what happened to an article, you can look at its deletion log. To do this, type in the article's name exactly into the Wikipedia search bar. If there isn't a page at that exact title, this will bring you to a list of search results, but at the top, there will be a note that says something like "You may create the page "Barre Seid", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered", with the page name in red. Clicking on the redlink will bring you to a blank page, with the relevant deletion log entries at the top in a red box, as you can see here. Generally, the deletion log entry will have something (a short comment, a link) that will explain the deletion, and it will also identify the specific admin that carried out the deletion, whom you can always ask for more information (In this case, it was The Bushranger). Does that help? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It may also be useful for your future editing to be aware that pages relating to the topic of climate change, broadly interpreted, are subject to arbcom discretionary sanctions as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. If your primary purpose in editing Wikipedia is to raise awareness about bad things that you believe a living person is responsible for, you may quickly find these sanctions relevant to you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! @ Writ Keeper: Thank you so much! Seems... ironic at best... It says in the delete discussion that "Being wealthy doesn't make someone notable." WHICH: WRONG! There are literally TONS of articles on billionaires on wikipedia solely because they are noteworthy AS billionaires- heck, there are only 1400 in the entire world! How is being part of the 1000 humans with the biggest financial resources and in this case, uses these vast resources for undue influence, pushing something that 97 % of peer-reviewed articles on the subject disagree with NOT noteworthy? Undue political influence due to extreme wealth is noteworthy- if it isn't we've given up on democracy. (I know that you didn't write that in the discussion page, that just made me sad, cause it shows starkly one of the many issues wikipedia has.) But thank you for providing me with the links! I have no desire to write a new article on him or on any other issue that is controversial on wikipedia, as wiki has its fair share of bullies (one of the reasons why wiki is so unrepresentative of the makeup of society as a whole statistically... minorities just drop out after being shouted down.) But thank you so much for the info!

@ Demiurge1000: Thank you for your response! I'm not sure I understand the arbcom stuff: If there is a dispute, why are not just all different arguments and evidence in the article instead of no article whatsoever? That seems to go directly counter to the idea of "neutral view". *scratches head* D is for... (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, D is for.... Clearly, many billionaires are notable. But that doesn't mean that all billionaires are notable. If a billionaire wishes to remain low-key, and is successful in doing so, then that person is not notable. Notability has a a specific meaning here on Wikipedia. It means that reliable, independent sources have devoted significant coverage to the topic. In the case of a living person, we expect in-depth reliable coverage (not speculative coverage) sufficient to construct a well-referenced overview of the person's life. In this case, it seems that we have speculative and accusatory claims that may or may not be true, but very little in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. If good sources can be found, then a biography can be written and will stay. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hullo D is for.... Arbcom discretionary sanctions do not decide notability of individuals. They may however become relevant in assessing how to deal with editing that breaches Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. And no, we most certainly do not list "all different arguments and evidence" in an article about a living person - or about any topic for that matter. You can read more about neutral point of view at WP:NPOV. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Need help with aligning text in tables

Resolved

I'm currently making a table for an article of TV Characters for a certain show. I have fully filled in the table and added colours and column widths, but I am not able to align all the text centrally. That is all I want to do now, just simply align the text to the centre.

Thanks for the help - Limbsaw - (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User: Paine Ellsworth is helping on Limbsaw page. Thank you User: Paine Ellsworth for helping Limbsaw and Limbsaw please come back if you have more questions:-) -- Moxy (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Pleasure! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again Paine & Moxy. I'd just like to update you both, and for future reference to other users, that you can indeed centralise all text in any kind of table. Simply code style="text-align:center" next to class="wikitable" when editing. I found this using a tutorial (Tables: Manual of Style). Thanks, - Limbsaw - (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How can a concept for a potential disruptive technology be considered as an article instead of a companies page

It seems that the page "O-lay" is presented as an specific company's approach disguised as an article about a generic methodology. How can the article which is about en new engineering concept for a potential disruptive methodology be accepted in the Wikipedia encyclopedia.

The method has been presented over the last years on several international offshore and pipeline conferences and is finding more and more followers in the traditional offshore pipeline industry. Please, advise since this is my first page on Wikipedia. Janfromholland (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The subject is of potential interest, but to quote the answer to a previous question: "WP:Notability is proved by citing multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that significantly cover the subject of the article."--agr (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Arnold, Do you mean that the article should refer for example to a conference website which shows the subject. (e.g. O-lay; A New Technology Concept in a Traditional Industry -Isope http://www.isope.org/publications/proceedings/ISOPE/ISOPE%202012/data/papers/vol2/2012-TPC-121Buijv.pdf)Janfromholland (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Conference proceedings are by no means always WP:RS (please follow the link). Some rather tiresome work lies ahead because you need to determine what is and is not reliable for this material. There is always a group of folk happy to help, but it is far better to start to gain this understanding one's self. In general I doubt that most conference proceedings are suitable. Circumstances, however, alter cases. Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Having taken some time to read the pdf you wish to cite, my opinion is that it is a promotional item, given at the conference in order to sell the product. To me this item does not qualify as verifying notability whether the source be judged reliable or not, because it is promotional, thus seeking to create future notability. Fiddle Faddle 23:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tim,

Although the ISOPE's annual conference, the Annual International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, is an international recognized conference and has held as one of the world’s largest of its kind with refereed papers, I will have a further look in the matter how to post this technical interesting method of pipe laying on Wikipedia. Do you have a suggestionJanfromholland (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Mine is not the only opinion, of course, so do not take what I say as the absolute truth on the pdf. What you need to do is to look in publications in specialist media. If this is groundbreaking material there will be reviews. With interesting technical topics it is harder to write articles than when one writes about some near nonentity who has some minor celebrity in the toothpaste advert world, but made the news because all his teeth turned grey. Fiddle Faddle 08:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Arnold, Tim, and other people

I have added an article reference of Marin (which is the Maritime research institute in the Netherlands). Just let me know if this article be sufficiently independent to convince readers that it is not an article in disguise. Can I put a reference to the O-lay web site as well or is that not-done in the Wikipedia community. Janfromholland (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Twinkle Welcomes (don't know if to post here, redirect if needed)

On my Sanbox talk page, I'm trying to get my custom welcome to work, but istead I get this:

{{WPBannerMeta
|PROJECT             = Automobiles
 |BANNER_NAME        = Template:WikiProject Automobiles
 |small=
 |substcheck=SUBST
 |category=¬
 |listas=
|IMAGE_LEFT          = HondaS2000-004.png
 |IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL   = 50px
 |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE   = 100px
|QUALITY_SCALE       = extended
 |class=
 |auto=
 |importance=
|ASSESSMENT_CAT      = Automobile articles
|ASSESSMENT_LINK     = Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Assessment
|MAIN_ARTICLE        = [[automobile]]s
|PORTAL              = Cars
|attention=
 |ATTENTION_CAT      = Automobile articles needing attention
|infobox=
 |INFOBOX_CAT        = Automobile articles needing infoboxes
|note 1=
 |NOTE_1_TEXT        = This article is a [[Portal:Cars/Selected article|selected article]] at the [[Portal:Cars|Cars Portal]].
 |NOTE_1_IMAGE       = Sportcar sergio luiz ara 01.svg
  |NOTE_1_SIZE       = 50px

What do I do to fix it? Anthony is Muso (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, so I've wrapped some highlighting tags around it and understand that you want to add {{WPBannerMeta}} as a custom welcome. Please try:

WPBannerMeta
|PROJECT                       = Automobiles
|BANNER_NAME         = Template:WikiProject Automobiles
|small                               = {{{small|}}}
|substcheck                      = <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly>
|category                          = {{{category|¬}}}
|listas                                = {{{listas|}}}
|IMAGE_LEFT                = HondaS2000-004.png
|IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL = 50px
|IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE = 100px
|QUALITY_SCALE         = extended
|ASSESSMENT_CAT      = Automobile articles
|ASSESSMENT_LINK    = Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Assessment
|MAIN_ARTICLE            = [[automobile]]s
|PORTAL                          = Cars
|ATTENTION_CAT         = Automobile articles needing attention
|INFOBOX_CAT             = Automobile articles needing infoboxes
|NOTE_1_TEXT             = This article is a [[Portal:Cars/Selected article|selected article]] at the [[Portal:Cars|Cars Portal]].
|NOTE_1_IMAGE          = Sportcar sergio luiz ara 01.svg
|NOTE_1_SIZE               = 50px

AND don't forget the opening "{{" closing "}}" then let us know how that worked for you. Happy editing!! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Help to make right standart of article

Paolonapizia (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Hello. Can you help to make good article please. All content is real. I can proof it.Thanks .PaolonapiziaPaolonapizia (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Paolonapizia. For lots of information about writing an acceptable Wikipedia article, please read Your first article and The primer. These are two essays for beginners that introduce all the basic concepts of writing a really decent encyclopedia article here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

References section has bibliography subsection

Hi! Looking at Chocolate ice cream, I notice that the References section has a subsection known as Bibliography. Why aren't the bibliography references turned into inline citations? Doesn't that make it confusing because specific facts cannot correlate to its original source? Thank you, --Bananasoldier (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bananasoldier. What you're seeing there is a form of shortened footnotes - it's a valid way of citing sources, but I'll grant that it's rather clumsy to combine two different styles of referencing on the same article. If you wanted to incorporate them into the text so that the article uses only one citation style throughout, I'd see no problem doing so; given that the majority of the sources are given in the shortened footnotes format I'd suggest changing the other three citation to match. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!--Bananasoldier (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are articles not designed to be understandable by a layman?

I've been noticing more and more lately a tendency for articles on Wikipedia to jump right into all kinds of technical terms and concepts right at the start of an article. For example the article on Computers would be very hard for someone to understand, unless they already knew enough about computers that they had no real use for the article.

Psychology is an even worse example, the second paragraph would be undecipherable to anyone who hasn't studied the subject, in fact almost half of it is links to other articles that are just as convoluted.

Isn't the idea of an encyclopedia that a layman can quickly learn the basic principles of a subject they want to learn about, without delving into the complexities of an actual textbook on the matter? 118.209.229.25 (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 118 and welcome to the Teahouse. Articles that are too techincal for an encyclopedia are tagged with {{technical}}, which looks like

Since the articles you mentioned are protected from editng, if you want I or another person with an account can add the tag. --Jakob (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jakob, thanks, that sounds like a very good idea. I've never actually seen that tag used before, but some liberal placement of it on suitable articles would probably make a big difference.

118.209.229.25 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For those who struggle with the wording of an article in the English Wikipedia, it may be worth looking to see whether there is a corresponding article in the Simple English Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

While I'm very concerned by any suggestion that Simple is the solution to jargon-filled or "incomprehensible to the layman" articles (Simple is not aimed at people fluent in English who merely happen not to have specific technical expertise), I've just read the lead and the first few sub-sections of the Computer article and I'm not seeing a problem at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Demiurge1000 here, with no disrespect to Simple English Wikipedia. The lead section of any article here should be an overview of the topic and a summary of the entire article comprehensible to a competent high school senior. The body of articles on highly technical topics may be written to a higher standard. When I read the lead of Computer and Psychology, I see no glaring problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a newbie here, so I can't give you advice, but I have noticed this myself. Even within featured articles, I notice that there are a lot of them that are simply too complex for the average reader to keep up with or be interested in. For example, I added content on the Bloodstain pattern analysis page. It's a beautifully done page, but it's way too technical. Someone who has an interest in the physics of blood spatter are going to go to the library and check out a textbook on the topic, not surf wikipedia. It focuses on information that isn't what the typical google searcher wants. Also, I have a bachelors in psychology and some of the articles on psychology related topics, I have a hard time keeping up with. I don't see any glaring problems with the Psychology article in particular, but it's also hard to be objective about topics you are familiar with. I suspect the problem is that people who have the desire to write encyclopedia articles are probably on the more intellectual end of things and sometimes forget that the average reader wants a more basic, easy to read overview. It's the type of article that *we* like to read so we forget that someone who isn't already very skilled in the topic might not feel the same way. Imo, it should be something wikipedia focuses on on top of the verifiability and neutral stuff...that it's easily followed. It doesn't feel like there is much of a push in that direction as is. Bali88 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

2010+ Census data in Wikipedia

I am looking to update county, municipality, and CDP articles and ran into the giant problem that is the census data in Wikipedia. I saw a discussion of possibly batch-editing the CDPs, which seems never to have happened. And there is scattered discussion of whether to use the 2000 Census data, update to 2010 or later, and what to link to in the American Factfinder website. Is it ok to update and rewrite the demographics information for these pages, especially the CDPs and small towns with very little traffic? Thanks!

Islandisee (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Islandisee. That discussion you linked to was from 2009, so isn't exactly current. All the articles I watch about U.S. populated places have long since been updated with 2010 census data. If some CDPs haven't yet been updated with 2010 data, please feel free to do so. Of course, 2010 census data is preferred to 2000 data, and bigger cities have been updated with 2012 census estimates. If you see a "giant problem", please link to a few particular examples so experienced editors can comment on the specifics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I guess I just meant that there was lots of discussion about it in several places, and city/county/CDP articles from different states look different. I didn't meant to hyperbolize :-) Thanks for the answer!

Islandisee (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-free usage photos

Hi! Would anyone like to help me figure out how to use non-free use photos? I would like to include photos on several articles but I'm finding the explanation on the photo usage page confusing. Thanks! Bali88 (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bali88. Please take a look at WP:NFCI, which is the shortcut to the section of our non-free content policy and guideline that lists the ten specific instances where usage of a non-free image is permitted. This policy can be a bit tricky, so please feel free to ask more specific questions here at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I had looked at that before and I'm afraid I just can't brain. Thanks for responding thoughBali88 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Determining Copyright

I have been working on an existing article on Jerry Bresler, a movie producer and songwriter who went to the same high school as myself. He wrote our high school song when he was 17 in 1931 (82 years ago) which has a copyright indicated on the sheet music by Roosevelt High School. I bought a copy of the sheet music and it has a very nice Art Deco cover which I would like to scan and put a copy on his page and on the high school page.

Because I've been having a bit of a problem interpreting the Wikipedia copyright laws, I thought it best that I ask here if this sheet music cover art would be OK to use on Wikipedia? Thanks! Mursimon (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mursimon. The answer's probably not, I'm afraid. A document as recent as that would still be under copyright, and the cover design would be part of that copyright (possibly owned by the artist, more likely owned by the publisher). There wouldn't be a fair use reason for using the cover to illustrate the article either.

The only possible exception would be if the design was actually a reproduction of an earlier work, although if it's Art Deco, that work might still be subject to copyright itself - the Art Deco movement wasn't all that long ago. Unless you can show for certain that it's a copy of an early, public domain or copyright-free piece, I don't think you're going to be able to upload it, sorry. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui for the quick response. I'm glad I decided to ask here because it saved me a bunch of time and frustration. Murray - Mursimon (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I post/submit an article for public viewing on Wikipedia?

Hello, I've created an article in my user account and saved the page, but I cannot seem to find a way to "move" it to the main space for review and posting on the Wikipedia website so you can search and view it. I've read through the Article Wizard and First Article steps multiple times and cannot find the issue. How do I post it for public viewing? Thank you!Olive30 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charming Charlie? You removed the tag that included the button to let you resubmit the draft, but another editor has kindly added it back for you. You should not, however, try to resubmit it until you have addressed the feedback from the previous submissions. The first sentences of the 2 previous feedbacks were "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article." and "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.", and in both cases the sentence alongside the "Resubmit" button says "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again.". The first sentence of your current draft is "charmingcharlie is an award winning jewelry and accessories specialty retailer that helps women of all ages, personalities and styles find their fabulous." so with advertising slogans like that it is blatantly obvious what the reaction of a reviewer would be. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, David - I appreciate your response and feedback. Your mention of the two earlier submissions are by individuals I do not know...their posts were declined before I even began drafting my article.

To make my article post-worthy, I will need to re-construct it with a more factual tone, with the absence of slogans, etc. correct? Once I have done so, what are the next steps from there to attempt a posting?Olive30 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Olive30. As David mentioned above, the previous rejections were removed by you but have been restored and in those rejection templates there is a big blue button with the word "Resubmit" in white in the center. Once you are ready, click on that. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What should I do if someone edited something bad on my new article?

I recently created a new article. Today I logged on to find that it had been expanded by something that is completely unreliable and un-sourced. Should I just delete it? Healynr (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Healynr, and welcome to the talk page. Yes, you can always revert what somebody has added if you think it is inappropriate - but make sure you give a meaningful edit summary (or else explain on the article's talk page, if the issue is big enough or your reason complicated enough to warrant that). Of course the other person may disagree with you: they should not just undo your change, but should start a discussion with you on the talk page; but not all users are aware of this, so if they do undo your change, don't just apply it again, but you start a discussion with them. We call this the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

How to remove Remove Template Message/Disputes?

I do not find template message on Medha Patkar wiki page appropriate. Don't know how to remove it or request some editor to remove it after reviewing.Anshul3Bansal (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Anshul3Bansa. You can always remove such tags if you think they are no longer appropriate: you need to edit the whole article, using the Edit tab at the top of the page, and you will find the tag or tags there at the top as templates (between double curly brackets). In this case it says '{{advert|date=February 2014}}': you simply remove the braces and what is between them. On a quick look at the article, I agree that the tag is not appropriate: I'll leave you to remove the tag. Make sure you give a meaningful edit summary, so that it is clear that removing the tag was intentional. --ColinFine (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User reverting edits wtih false claims

I would appreciate any help and advice with the situation I documented here: User talk:NeilN#Wendy Davis - need your help with same user

Iricova (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Iricova. It seems that productive discussion is taking place on the other editor's talk page and on the Wendy Davis (politician) talk page.

This is a controversial article, and such disagreements are to be expected. We work them out by referring to policies and guidelines, by reading the full range of reliable sources, by keeping the neutral point of view front and center, and by working toward consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How to give references

Please informe me that how can i give references of book which are not available on internet.
When i write text in my own word without of references is it acceptable. Answer me on my talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntazir764 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Muntazir764 and welcome to the Teahouse. I am answering here because that's how the Teahouse works. The answer isn't just for you, it is for all of our guests. It is perfectly acceptable to reference a book which is not available on the internet, as long as it is a reliable source. That means, in general, that it is written by a recognized expert and published by a company with a good reputation for professional editing, accuracy, and fact checking. When you write your citation, include the author's name(s), the title, the page numbers, the publisher, the city where the publisher is located, the ISBN number, the language if not English, and any other relevant information. Please see referencing for beginners for a more in-depth explanation. As for writing unreferenced text, only that which is obvious to all educated people or is highly unlikely to be challenged needs no reference. Example: "Paris is the capital of France". Anything else should be cited to a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ thanks for your help. Can you give me complete formate. I am a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntazir764 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citation templates for examples of templates that you can use, Muntazir764. You do not have to fill in every single field, but fill in as many as you can. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also mention that whilst using those citation templates is very helpful, they are not absolutely compulsory. If one just includes all or most of the information mentioned by Cullen328 between <ref> and </ref> tags, that suffices to allow readers (and reviewers) to identify the source. So for example I could write Matteo, Henry S. (1997). Denationalization v. "The Right to Have Rights": The Standard of Intent in Citizenship Loss. University Press of America. ISBN 0-7618-0781-0, page 44 and that is acceptable as a reference. Some other editor might or might not come along later and improve the formatting of it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lee Oser article

Hello!

I've made many edits and updates to the Lee Oser article, getting it to the point where I believe it fits within the Wikipedia standards. However, the page continues to have "multiple issues," as noted at the top of the article.

Why are those warnings still present after I've made the necessary changes? Is there a way to remove those warnings?

Thank you, in advance, for your help and guidance!

Brittneyhren (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse! There still seem to be lots of problems with that article. This, for example, is far from an encyclopedic tone: "When the legendary Sir Ted Pop hires young Richard Bellman as his secretary, Bellman’s work on the great man’s memoir transforms his young life into a divine comedy—or is it a devilish farce?" That entire paragraph is also cited to a source that's apparently a book by Oser himself.

In fact, most of the references are to material written by Oser himself! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your response. I must say, I don't believe any of the sources or references are from Oser. ForeWord Reviews (Reference 2) is a trustworthy, respectable review source which is independent of Oser; the review will be published very shortly. Should I remove the reference until the link is public? Perhaps you can help me understand why my 3rd reference is problematic. Sir Anthony Kenny is a renowned philosopher from Oxford. We cannot link to his essay in full because Oxford University Press retains the rights. It seems to me that we gave wiki a good citation, so that people who want to read the essay will know where it is. Would wiki prefer the old-fashioned citation without a hyperlink? I'm curious to hear your thoughts--thank you! Brittneyhren (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and one more note regarding the Kenny reference:

The review-essay is truly listed on the oxford up link: the reader needs to scroll down to the bottom of the page. Would I improve it by noting the page numbers as such:

Anthony Kenny, ‘Too good to last’, Essays in Criticism, (2009) 59, 91-98.

Brittneyhren (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Theroadislong has now helped in rectifying some of the problems with this article. You should take note of some of their edit summaries though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help in fixing up the Lee Oser article, as well as your editing tips for me!

Now that the problems with the article have been remedied, how can we get rid of the warnings at the top of the page, which are outdated (as far as I can tell)? Thank you, in advance for any help you can offer!

Brittneyhren (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

After making a minor change I have removed both templates as they do not now appear relevant. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I write a new page if person's name is already referenced?

I am wanting to write a page about an apprentice candidate, there is already a reference to him under a list of apprentice candidates, do I have to edit this or can I create a new page so that when people search his name it comes up straight away rather than having to go through the list of candidates? Thanks in advance for your help Melody916 (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The way it seems to work with this TV series is that most candidates do not have separate Wikipedia articles about them. The ones that do have separate articles seem to be mostly either the winner or the runner-up of a series, so it may well be that it's not appropriate to make a separate article about someone just because they are one of a field of candidates. Anyway, if you are confident that the person is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards - see Wikipedia:Notability (people) you could write an article submission at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Just use the person's full name as the article title; if there is already a separate article about a different person with that name, use "Name (The Apprentice)", like John Smith (The Apprentice).

I should warn you that it's very likely that consensus will ultimately be to redirect your proposed article to the main list of candidates or to the article about the series, so it could be a rather fruitless exercise. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks that is a big help Melody916 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Responding to incendiary comments

I've been observing a conversation on a talk page in which a couple editors seem to be making incendiary comments and engaging in promotion of (what appears to be) willful misinformation against a religious community. Appeals to keep things calm and constructive seem to have had no effect. I'm curious if anyone has suggestions on how to respond to this type of situation. Does Wikipedia have policies to curb targeted hate propaganda or incitement? What's the most appropriate course of action for someone who is not an administrator but who wants to ensure a healthy and welcoming environment on the encyclopedia? Keihatsu ^talk 10:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keihatsu, in cases like this, the best course of action would be to inform an administrator by explaining the problem on the Administrator's incident board, and let them take it from there, as they are the ones who are authorized to block users and issue warnings. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hello, I found a very helpful diagram from a scientific article that I would like to upload (it is simply an algorithm, no images): can I upload the original picture, or do I need to modify it? If so, how much? ThanksLuigi Albert Maria (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Luigi Albert Maria, welcome to the teahouse, and thanks for asking. It would be helpful to identify the source. Most things in print or online are covered by a copyright which would preclude just copying, but a few scientific journals specifically use a compliant CC license, so there is a chance. If not, modifying it may be problematic. If it is a faithful representation, then it sill infringes on copyright, if not, it may not achieve the goal, but maybe if we see the specific example, we can provide more helpful advice. Another possibility is that the copyright holder will provide an acceptable license.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How can I find and contact the main author to an article?

I found the article on beadwork so profoundly lacking touch with reality that I'd like to help improve it. Ideally, I'd like to get the main author to inform himself/herself and correct the article. How can I find and contact the main author to an article? Thank you! 80.136.224.194 (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. We don't have the concept of a "main author" to an article. If you click the "View history" tab at the top of the article you will see a list of the edits which have been made. If you have suggestions for improvements, you can make them at Talk:Beadwork, but make sure that you support your suggestion with published reliable sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! 80.136.224.194 (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

David Biddulph is correct that our articles have no designated "main author" and articles on major topics often have dozens or hundreds of contributors. That being said, it is also the case that many articles about somewhat more obscure but still very notable and encyclopedic topics, will have only one substantive contributor, and perhaps a few others doing copy editing, categorizing and so on.

When I glance through the edit history of Beadwork, I see that many editors, some of whom are quite active and well-known, have contributed over 12 years. But the article is still rated "Start class", probably because no one has yet really devoted the time to giving a comprehensive worldwide overview, describing the entire history, using the best academic resources. I see an over-emphasis on 3-D beadwork, a complete lack of historical background, a halfway decent section on Native American beadwork, and great shortcomings in coverage of beadwork in other ethnic cultures. But I am not an expert. When a contributor here issues a harsh critique such as "profoundly lacking touch with reality", there is a general expectation that such words will be followed by recommendations for improvement. The place to discuss specific improvements to any article is on its talk page. There is a recent comment on that talk page by Geometricjewels, and a very relevant reply by our own Teahouse host David Biddulph as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. Geometricjewels stated precisely my opinion.Geometricjewels (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As some additional help, when you click on the View history page, you should then click on the contributors link. That will wort the contributors by number of contributions, and you can quickly see that user:CorinneSD has 29 edits, more than any other editor, so may be a good person to contact.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo License

I have been given two photos by the owner to upload onto Wikipedia, how can the owner get the photos accepted by Wikipedia?Musicalind (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Musicalind, check out Donating copyrighted materials, and if that doesn't answer your question, or is confusing, please let us know, and we can help.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding a section to an existing article

I am new to editing. I created a new section for an existing article in the talk area. What happens now?

Noah hedroum (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you have removed the text you had incorrectly placed on the talk page and it is now in the (Don Fury) article. Well done. Let us know if you have further questions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving Images to Commons

Can someone move https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Class_wort.jpg to wikimedia commons? I tried but I failedLbertolotti (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Help?Lbertolotti (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I moved it. It's here now: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Class_wort.jpg. I also tagged the local copy on Italian Wikipedia for deletion, as it is now a duplicate of the Commons file. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Lbertolotti (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

i need help

Hello i am zaineb97. I am from germany and i can't speak so good english and i will use wikipedia in german. Please help me it's very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaineb97 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome! What kind of help do you need?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Zaineb97: There is a help desk at the German Wikipedia, located at Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia.

Es ist ein Helpdesk auf Wikipedia auf Deutsch, in sich: Wikipedia:Fragen zur Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How to Upload a Picture

I wanted to upload a picture which is available on my facebook page. Can i upload the picture, if yes then how. Which kind of license should be selected. What about the source. Muntazir764 --Muntazir764 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Muntazir764 and welcome back to the Teahouse. In order to answer your question, we need to know much more about the photo. Who took it and what is the subject? If you took the photo, and it is not a photo of a copyrighted item, then you can donate the photo under a Creative Commons license at Wikimedia Commons. If someone else took the photo, or if it is a photo of a painting, sculpture, illustration, book cover, album cover, poster or anything else copyrighted, then things are much more complicated. If you give us more information, we can give you a more detailed answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How can I add a biograhpy

I have added a personel biography of my boss, but it was deleted. Can you help me to add it properly? (I read Your First Article page) Bgsocialmedia (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you won't be able to, as you have been blocked because it appears your account is mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

article written in wrong space. can it be moved?

I created a user page and incorrectly wrote a draft of a story in it. Can it be moved to Articles for Creation or the new Draft space so I can finish it correctly? Rutgersbschool (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Rutgersbschool and welcome to the Teahouse. If you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rutgersbschool, then it is already in the preferred for draft pages. As a side note, you may want to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest policy before continuing to write the draft. Good luck with your draft and submission! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding Info about an existing word

I want to add a description of a company with an unusual name. how can Di do that without it getting rejected?RQuaill (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The "unusualness" of the name is of no encyclopedic interest. The question is, does the company itself, as distinct from its name, have significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? If so, the company may merit an article, but not because of its name. Arjayay (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

Changing article name

If I search GlobalGAP it relocates me to EurepGAP. But I think it should be the other way round as GlobalGAP is the new name for EurepGAP and thus the page should be in the name of GlobalGAP. How do I change the page? Thanks Roundtheworld (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Pages can be moved. This article will give you at least a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_a_page Sxg169 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Undoing edits on multiple pages at once?

A registered user has added a category to about 40 pages and I believe the addition has been made in error (though in good-faith). Is it possible to remove the category from all 40 pages without performing an "undo" on each page separately? Sxg169 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sxg and welcome to The Teahouse. Try WP:VPT if no one answers here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Help me

I am new here. I have good team in my small company. We research and make articles that we can remind in future. one article I tried to add but I got deletion message. Someone told me that wikipedia is not approving new articles. Is it true? I don't want to waste my time. So please let me know. How can I publish my research reports and articles. thanks Getacho (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Getacho. Welcome. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing your research. We only use material that is already published in peer reviewed journals etc. Otherwise we accept anything that meets our notability standards.--Charles (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Getacho and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm having trouble understanding what you mean, but it sounds like either you are trying to write about your company, which is discouraged, or you are trying to write about other people's companies or topics and getting paid for it, which is also discouraged. The way to get an article approved is to write from a neutral point of view about how the topic (your company, if I am correct) is covered in independent reliable sources such as newspapers.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am neither trying to write for clients, nor for me. I was curious to add awesome topics, which can describe new myth of internet marketing. I am regular person. In all social media profiles every time. I know what is spamming and I also hate it.

The point is Getacho that whatever it is you are proposing the write about it will have to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, be Verifiable and written from a neutral point of view.--Charles (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I know the status of my article and when it will go live?

Hello, I posted a new wikipedia article about a month ago and understood at that time that there were over a thousand pages ahead of mine. The initial submission stated that the process could take two to three weeks. How can I check the status of my submission? Thank you! Jacqueline C. Moorby (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jacqueline. Welcome to the Teahouse. As Wikipedia is an anarchic collection of volunteers who do what they feel like when they feel like doing it there is really no way of knowing. Sorry.--Charles (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Charles is correct, but you can get a clue how many drafts have been waiting for how long by looking at Category:AfC pending submissions by age. As far as your own draft is concerned, its chance of being accepted would be greater if it had properly formatted in-line citations. I think I pointed out WP:Referencing for beginners to you a while back; it has useful advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked over your draft, Jacqueline C. Moorby, which is located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nicola Majocchi (photographer). It appears that you are the wife of the subject. If so, you should read our guideline on Conflict of interest carefully. Everything in a Wikipedia biography needs to be based on what reliable, independent, published sources say about the person. Your personal knowledge can't be included. Your sources are poorly formatted, and many of your claims are not referenced in any way. Some references do not support the claims. For example, you say that he photographed the sinking of an America's Cup yacht in 1995, and reference that to a New York Times article that describes the yacht sinking but does not mention Majocchi or his photography. Accordingly, this reference does not support the claim that he photographed the sinking and is of little value. In my opinion, your draft needs lots of work, and is simply nowhere near ready for the encyclopedia in its current form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How to address controversial issues

I understand the requirement for referencing a reliable source for material, but how should we approach issues where there are more or less reliable sources with very different opinions about something? I'm not talking about factual matters, but more things that depend interpretation, such as history, religion, etc. Is there a Wikipedia requirement that an author be honest and disclose that there are divergent opinions? In the article I was editing, there are a number of instances where the author referenced a reliable source for his statement, but refused to acknowledge the existence of other opinions. I finally gave up, in part because I didn't know whether Wikipedia has an editing standard for these kinds of situations. I would appreciate any suggestions you might have.

Thanks! CTLandman (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, CTLandman and welcome to The Teahouse. I imagine to get the answer, you would have to discuss this on the article's talk page, and see what other editors have to say. That works if the article is watched by one or more editors, though I've heard of cases where no one visited the talk page for weeks.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello CTLandman, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have asked a very important question, and its answer should guide every editor, especially those writing about controversial topics. All Wikipedia articles should be written from the neutral point of view. The tone of the writing should be neutral, and it should summarize and accurately reflect what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic. Let me give a hypothetical example: Let's say that country "A" and country "B" have a long-standing border dispute that has not yet been resolved. The article about that dispute should give equal weight to the arguments of each of the two countries. The article should also describe in neutral terms what international agencies and peacekeeping groups say about the dispute. Now, let's also assume that more people speak English in country "B" than in country "A", and so there are more editors from country "B" working on the article on the English Wikipedia. We don't say "majority rules" and let them shape the article in favor of country "B"'s point of view. The article must be written neutrally. Now, let's say that there is a fringe nationalist group with loud voices but little political support that says country "C" should invade and take control of the entire area. This argument should be mentioned briefly, but not in a way that represents that it is a mainstream view of the border dispute. I hope that my simplified example helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Contents Table - Shifting from Start to Right Hand Side

G'day Guys I have made a good start on a major list of all radio broadcast transmission characteristics from commencement c.1920 to date (callsigns, frequencies, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_radio_broadcast_transmission_characteristics But I have 600 sections (one for each radio station) and the table of contents at the start is very very long. I have seen articles with long tables of contents placed side by side with the article on the right hand side. How do I do this? Samuel.dellit (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I think WP:TOC may answer your question by floating the table to the right. I would experiment..... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you so much. Samuel.dellit (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Paywalled journal

Hello, I am editing an article on Tea Tree Oil. My university library does not subscribe to the more recent issues of Journal of Dermatology. I am in need of the article "A review of applications of tea tree oil in dermatology." Is there a place on Wikipedia where authors can collaborate on retrieving and reviewing such academic journals?Gsonnenf (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. You can make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. There is also a list of Wikipedians on that page who have access to JSTOR et al and who can be contacted directly via their User talk pages. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Broken link

Hi, I wondering what the procedure is for a broken link, I have searched to see if I could find this particular source and fix the link but the online article seems nowhere to be found. Thank you for your time Conor Robinson (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You may wish to look at Template:Dead link. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

adding pictures

Have added pictures to the Honduran White Bat page which were removed for some reason. Photos are my copyright. Cannot seem to get them uploaded again. Due to the difference in this bat and its region, it is possible that it is a new species. Please advise on how to upload again. Thank you. Kolcapuchins (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please give us a diff to where you added the pictures and to where they were removed? I can only see one edit from your account to the article concerned, and it doesn't seem to be adding pictures. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Let us close this thread. I see that your question has been asked and already answered at the Help desk. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places, as it wastes contributors' time trying to answer a question which has already been answered. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hyperlinks were removed on article and now it appears to locked for editing

I left a message on the talk page about my father Carmelo Zito. We his children and Grandchildren are trying to get him a Wikipedia article. We have references. When the article was created it has a hyper link to the name Carmelo Zito which appears in a section in Wikipedia called Italian Americans under the Newspaper section. I came back to the article and found someone change the [[ to double "" killing the link, and a big note had been posted calling the article an orphan. I went back and reinserted the [[ and I am considering piping, but I understand that is only when the link to split between two subjects. So, if anyone can help by giving me directions or merely replacing the link. Furthermore there were other hyper links. I invite to check the history of the article and see the hyperlinks and ask whom removed them? Apriv40dj (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Apriv40dj, and thanks for your question. I have had a look and there is clearly a link from Italian American to Carmelo Zito. I also reinstated the link to Italian American. If you ever need any help with this article please let me know and I will be happy to help. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 14:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. We are planning to add more references, data and a photo in the near future once we have obtained and organized this data. I will remember you and contact you if this happens again.Apriv40dj (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you have removed the orphan banner and you restored the link but I am still not seeing the hyperlink. I don't know if the page is locked for editing? Maybe it is some html mistake? I used to see the hyperlink, now it's just black text.Apriv40dj (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Apriv40dj I will follow up at your talk page. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How do I get started?

I want to contribute to wikipedia by adding/editing articles.How do I find articles that need editing ? Also my mother tongue is Telugu - which has around 50,000 + articles - and how do i start adding/translating/editing telugu articles 14.139.208.85 (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! As a first step, you may wish to read our Introduction, where our foundations are explained. To create new articles, take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article, where our guidelines for new articles are explained. I would recommend you create an account. Doing so is free and will help you integrate yourself better with the Wikipedia community. If you wish to start editing at Telugu Wikipedia, you can visit their introduction page. If you want to help translate Telugu articles into English, read Wikipedia:Translation, which explains the process. Welcome to Wikipedia! Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Making new article series

I am interested in making an article series on different temperatures like there is for different numbers like this article. Each page would be a range of temperature and would include things that are at that temperature like melting/boiling/triple points temperatures of star surfaces average highs at different cities.

Is this already in existence? Is this not necessary? Is this a good idea? thanks Reedman72 (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary and not a good idea. Thank you for your contributions! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have Orders of magnitude (temperature) and one page is sufficient. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)