Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 259

Archive 255

←

Archive 257

Archive 258

Archive 259

Archive 260

Archive 261

→

Archive 265

Add article about an organization

I have been using Wikipedia as a source for a long time but I did not add any articles yet. Now I am interested to add an article (page) about the university am working in (Madawalabu University) which is located in Ethiopia. There is no information about it in Wikipedia yet. So, is there any way to add an article (page), if so please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesayalemu (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome @Mesayalemu: and welcome to the Teahouse. After a general google search, the University you are talking about shows signs of notability or significance. You may want to use the Article Wizard. Good luck!  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 21:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mesayalemu. There is widespread agreement among most experienced editors that all degree awarding educational institutions are notable. I suggest that you look at good existing articles about comparable universities to use as models for your article. Good luck, and feel free to ask other questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User Page and Edit list

I made the mistake of using my email as my username, which was a no no, because it included my Company Name. I got it changed, but Now I need to create a new user page for the new name. Josh.Nickell Are there any guidelines on how I should do this?

When you click on a users "contribs" there are a bunch of pluses and minus'. Are those increases and decreases in character counts?

Thanks! Josh.Nickell (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Josh. Within reason you can do what you wish with your user page or you can leave it blank. You can find lots of stuff at Wikipedia:User page design center. You are correct about the pluses and minuses.Charles (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The main limitation regarding user pages is that their purpose should be to present yourself as a Wikipedia editor. Some biographical information about you is OK, but the main focus should be to describe your goals, interests and projects as an encyclopedia editor. You should not use your page to promote anything unconnected to improving this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Re the current Wikipedia subject "Range Rats"

I am one of a group of "Range Rats" who manned the instrumentation systems on he Air Force, Army, Navy and NASA "Ranges. We have an e-mail list throuh which we exchange stories (The Range Rats Liars Society) and reminisce about our experiences. Someone suggestd that we could list the "Range Rats" on Wikipedia. Do you think that would be possible? If so, how would it be done?

Thanks for your help! Tom McCarthy (Plank Owner, Range Rats Liars Society) 70.125.63.158 (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tom McCarthy. Please read Your first article and A primer for newcomers. Any article here on Wikipedia needs to be a summary of what Reliable, independent sources say about the topic. This article is an example of the kind of coverage that would be useful for building a Wikipedia article about the Range Rats. Good luck, and feel free to ask more detailed questions as you write your article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To 70.125.63.158/Tom McCarthy: Welcome to the Wikipedia. Please write the article!! I would love to read it. If you need any help at all on how to take it through all the Wikipedia policys, mark up, etc. just ask me at my talk page, I would consider it a privilege to help you. I have also taken the liberty of introducing the article at the Wikipedia here. The red color on the name means that the article is waiting to be created. That does not mean that the article is automatically accepted, it still have to follow the WP guidelines. If the article is not accepted, the name will fade to black. I have also left you some more notes at your talk page. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war in progress, experienced level-headed editor needed

Please see [Foundation]

Two users have deleted a section ostensibly because they don't like the source (but more likely because they don't like the info). The source is Vice magazine, which even its wiki page describes as a reputable journal. The users have begun an edit war, constantly deleting the section over and over. They charge that Vice is a "blog" (wrong). So now more experienced and objective users and editors need to weigh in on this issue, the section and the source. Otherwise the whole entry reads like an advertisement.

The section in question:

Charges of being a cult

The Isha Foundation has been called an "exploitative cult" for making members swear to secrecy, for charging large amounts of money for "enlightenment," for onerous free work that is expected of members, and for other various activities typical of so-called brainwashing.[1]

Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Isha_Foundation#Edit_war.2C_Conflict_over_sources.2C_reads_like_an_advertisement

Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @Localemediamonitor: Welcome to the teahouse. I just took a quick look but here are some thoughts. First, I think you are showing good judgement by not edit warring or flaming the other editors. I see that they haven't responded to the section you started on the talk page. Have you tried leaving a message on their talk pages? Regarding vice.com I agree they are more than a blog but they don't seem like a great source either to be honest. They seem to have a reputation for sensationalism. Also, on the specific article they have a link to one of the people who are supposed to be sources against Isha that one would assume support the quotes of those people. But when I followed the link it didn't. The article it links to just says that the sources original post about Isha was taken down. I did a search on Isha and found this: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-623058 It's CNN so a bit more credibility although it is just an ireport, whatever that is. If the other editors continue to ignore your request you can ask for a Wikipedia:Third_opinion Although a third opinion pisn't binding anyway and if they just completely ignore you, you might have to resort to wp:arbitration That is a formal process and probably not much fun but it's better than edit warring. But if you submit a request they will want to make sure you've made significant attempts to resolve it on the talk pages first. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Localemediamonitor, MadScientistX11: Some excellent advice above. I would just note that it seems to me there are major intermediate steps between the touchstones of third opinion and arbitration that can be taken; arbitration is normally an appeal of last resort. I would suggest a request for comment to establish consensus (which can then be enforced, including by reporting to administrators), as a common middle ground action between the two. See also the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note on one specific point, Localemediamonitor and MadScientistX11. CNN's iReports are "citizen journalism submitted by members of the general public without editing or fact checking, and are comparable to blog posts. They are not reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Vice are sensationalist, but they're also following a journalistic tradition of accuracy, not invention. Evidence to the contrary welcomed at the new thread on WP:RSN.

It is a long established, but regularly challenged, principle that being uncomplimentary about one's religion / football team / fashion sense does not flip a source into no longer meeting WP:RS. WP suffers a lot under this, and in just this type of article.

The best defence is simply more sources. Is there anyone other than Vice who are looking at this religious group? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

---

3 Oct 2014

This may be useful http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/fraud-in-facebookchase-co_n_433928.html

Vice appears to be a magazine and not a journal, it has no journal reference numbers. The article appears original research when discussing cult indicators since it doesn't cite a source beyond an unverifable interview. Cult supporters appear common on wikipedia?

Amousey (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Disamiguation question

I need to change the name of a health disorder to reflect the changes to the diagnostic manual, so I need both the old and new names to work.

How do I do a disamiguation?

Secondly - on a separate issue - what determines whether a page should be renamed?

A current page should be given a similar but slightly more general name because some references aren't appropriate for such a specific heading. A redirect exists for the more appropriate name and is a protected page, no reason has been given for the redirect/altered page name.

A second, related page also exists but cannot be found under that term due to the redirect.

I have extra information to add which just is not appropriate for the current page name, but I fear an edit war will begin over the page name before the new content can be added

Amousey (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

For creating disambiguation pages, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages to tell you what they should look like. If you want to retitle the page you should go to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests and ask for help there. Jinkinson talk to me 12:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

photographs

I could use some help putting photographs into an article, can anyone here help with that?Taras913 (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Taras913, thanks for your question. If your photos are uploaded, it's just a matter of using the Template:File syntax and if they haven't been uploaded yet, there's a nice guide which I'll post below. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions if you need to.

For uploading pictures and other media, it's easiest to go to Wikimedia Commons (you can use your Wikipedia credentials if you're not logged in already) and visit the Upload Wizard. Wikimedia Commons can only accept files which anyone can use for any purpose. That means most content you find on the web is not acceptable. But for example, most photos that you've taken yourself are OK to upload.

Here's a screenshot of the Upload Wizard:

You start by selecting the files you want to upload, then you go step by step through the process. In the final step, you'll get some wiki markup that you can copy into a Wikipedia article. Let me know if I can help. :-) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Dudes Lodge

Does anyone want to help me create the Dudes Lodge?Mirror Freak My Guestbook 17:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see, below... If you want people to help you build it, you're going to have to explain why what you are creating is useful. I'm not really sure what function it would serve. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what comes to mind. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor blanking sections without WP:CONSENSUS

In 2014 Asian Games, there has been a little back and forth with blanking and reverting. One editor is blanking the section because he feels it's trivial despite there being a cleanup tag that states "Consider discussing with other editors first, as they may disagree with your definition of unimportant and trivial." Can some experienced editors come into the talk page and provide some insight and help put out some guidelines? Roninst (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Roninst:, and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are looking for input from editors who are experienced in how to frame and format this section of the article, you might want to post to the talk page of WikiProject Sports. If you want help from a mediator, I would suggest posting to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Hope that helps, - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 01:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Where I can discuss blacklisted websites?

I have recently discovered a link and it is now blacklisted. I wanted to initiate a discussion, where to do? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bladesmulti. It depends on where it's blacklisted and what you want to discuss about it, for example a replacement, or allowing a specific link on a specific article, or removing the whole domain from the blacklist, or something else. Based on your recent edit [1] I guess it's related to http://www.nowpublic.com/tribal_people_in_attappadi_2. It redirects to a 404 error at http://www.examiner.com/tribal_people_in_attappadi_2 so I still don't know what you want to discuss but if it's a general discussion about the blacklisting of examiner.com then it belongs at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. An archive search on examiner [2] shows the site has already been discussed many times. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing, nowpublic is owned by Examiner. I prefer checking archives before I would make discussion. Never seen blacklist discussions before. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

how to link?

hi, i want to know how to link a word in an article? S04AV (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello S04AV,

Usully we put the word in brackets like this [[Example]]

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 12:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@S04AV: Hi S04AV. Linking to existing Wikipedia pages is done by placing doubled brackets around the name of the page. Thus, [[Wikipedia]] produces Wikipedia. A useful expansion of this is done by separating what you want linked, from what you want displayed, with a pipe character ("|"), to create a "piped link". Thus: [[Wikipedia|encyclopedia]] produces encyclopedia, with the displayed text linking to the article, Wikipedia. You can link to internal sections of pages in this way: Wikipedia#name of internal section of that article. By contrast, for external links: http://www.example.org produces http://www.example.org; [http://www.example.org] produces [3]; and [http://www.example.org example] produces example. For more information, see Help:Link. You might find a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial useful. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't Log In

I'm directing my problem to this page because I can't think of anyone else. Please forward if you're not the right forum.

I have been a Wikipedia editor named RoyGoldsmith for over 5 years. However, over the past week, whenever I access Wikipedia not thru my Favorites (that is, through typing in http://en.wikipedia.org or the article's title via the Wikipedia Search accelerator or Google or Yahoo), I'm set to a status of Logged Off. (This is in spite my setting my User Name to be valid for 30 days.) When I attempt to log in (following the link in the upper right corner), the screen flashes momentarily and returns to the exact same page, without giving me a chance to log in. I have no way of establishing the I'm a registered editor except by going into my favorites and selecting an already-stored entry (which I've done for this message).

I have tried both Internet Explorer 11 and 8 and I'm permanently logged out (except for favorites). (Chrome does appear to work.) I'm set up for MonoBook skin and my account is active on 20 project sites. Can anyone help me? IE11 should work for Wikipedia editors, shouldn't it? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IE11 should work. Does Special:UserLogin work? Does it help to change to Vector at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering when you are logged in? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi RoyGoldsmith (talk welcome to the teahouse. I just wanted to say I also had some login problems a couple of days ago although it's been working fine for me lately and the problems I had were fairly minor. BTW, you have probably done this but make sure you do things like restart your browser, clear your cache, restart your OS, restart your router. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Special:UserLogin does work but I still experience the same problem when accessing WP, even after I've changed my skin to both Vector and Modern, restarted my computer and router, cleared history, etc. I even tried another computer (WinXP running IE8) and it still exhibited the same symptoms.

My problem seems to be that the "Keep me logged in (for up to 30 days)" checkbox doesn't work. Every time I accessed the UserLogin page, that prompt was unchecked. Any favorites that I established less than about a week ago, do log me on successfully. Any favorites that I saved over a week ago (and all methods of accessing WP indirectly, as I explained above), do not.

I was wondering if I should report this to WP:VPT or Bugzilla. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IE9 works for me and if it affected all IE8/IE11 users then there would be many reports in different places but I have only seen yours so let's focus on that. Is there a difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin? Did you completely clear your cache? Does anything at Help:Logging in#Login issues and problems help? Are any IE browser extensions installed in both tested computers? Do other Wikimedia wikis work, for example commons: and wiktionary:? Have you changed settings in Special:Preferences recently? You could consider an alternative test account per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

How do I compliment a group of editers actively working on an article?

Pretty self explanatory. Is their a general norm for that? Salemustbedestroyed (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I always appreciate someone's own words. Fiddle Faddle 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Greetings @Salemustbedestroyed: I tend to agree with Fiddle, I usually just thank people on talk pages as part of normal commenting rather than using any scripts so I can't give a lot of help on this one. But there are some things I know of that might be relevant: if you look on any user's talk page you should see a heart icon, you can click on that icon to leave a message of appreciation. Also, in the edit history for any article on each edit you should see right next to the option to Undo the edit there is a link to Thank the editor for that edit. Finally this article might be of interest to you: wp:wikilove --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Salemustbedestroyed. Any method you choose to thank one editor or several is a good choice. The sentiment is more important than the format. One traditional method is by awarding "barnstars". Please see WP:BARNSTARS for complete details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks Salemustbedestroyed (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Where do article 'stubs' come from?

Recently I updated an article asking for more content. When completed, I deleted the 2 stubs at the bottom. Just wondering how those stubs got there?

And if it was OK to delete the subs?

Article is Cathedral of Christ the King (Superior, Wisconsin) JoeHebda (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Joe, anyone can add stub templates to an article if they feel it meets the criteria at WP:SVSP and anyone can remove them if they think that the article is no longer a stub as per WP:DESTUB. Nthep (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Right. And see Help:Page history for how to find out how something got into an article. It shows the first stub template originates from 2006 [4] and the second from 2013 [5]. Thanks for expanding the article and removing the stub templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks-great answers, very helpful :-)

JoeHebda (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Photos copyright issues

Hello to my article of PPS the Writah i read that i cannot upload pictures of other persons without consent or if they arent mine. The thing is that his photographer MorasEye gived to me all the material i needed because i construct he artist site and i did some graphic design to already existant photos that the artist have used ( mine i mean). So i uploaded those ones but i have much better pictures of his live shows etc from the whitah family his team and his photographer with whom i collaborate. How can i upload those photos with no copywright issue? Should i tell to the photographer ti upload them himself??? and then use them? or i can provide some guarantie that he is ok for their use? Thank you Lila Karakas (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Lila Karakas. The simplest and quickest solution is for the photographer (the copyright holder) to upload the photos to Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license. If this is not possible, there are other methods that require more paperwork that must be completed precisely. That's why I recommend that the copyright holder upload. If you want a detailed description of alternatives, let us know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A follow up question: what if I hire a photographer to take the pictures for me? Are the images now "mine" & do I hold the copyright?

JoeHebda (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if that is a term of the contract you sign with the photographer. Nthep (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

To add a bit to the answer: there must be an explicit agreement that the photographer is releasing all rights to the images. Commercial photographers often retain copyrights, so you have to check. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Another scenario--I live 3 hours drive from a landmark building for a wikipedia article. To get an updated current photo, a friend who lives in that same city offers to take the pic and email to me. There is no fee and no contract--we both just would like to see newer image and in the public domain... JoeHebda (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In this scenario, it would be best if your friend uploads the photos to Wikimedia Commons him/herself. That eliminates doubt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit wars - consensus not reflecting NOV

Experienced editor help needed please.

Sources I added after being removed without proper justification, amid changing claims, firstly bias when citing newspaper, then reverted again despite later citing additional, multiple independent sources. Have asked for WP:NOV and for opposing sources to be cited but instead reverts are made. Using direct quote isn't helping. What to do if consensus is clearly against going against accuracy and not a neutral point of view?

Amousey (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Amousey:, thanks for reaching out. I assume you're referring to Satanic ritual abuse (in future it would be helpful if you included a link to the article in question in your post).

If consensus is against your position the best strategy is often to try to listen to the points the other editors are making, and propose a compromise solution. That gets harder the more tense the situation gets. The Satanic ritual abuse page is locked for the next several days. I suggest you use that time to reach out to the other editors involved and ask them if they think the points you added to the article could be acceptable in any form. And if not on this article, whether there is another article where this information would be useful. - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks J-Mo - my compromise was already rejected. A user is insisting the sources are removed with baseless arguments, they clearly meet WP:RS and WP:VERIFY and confirm each other, another poster has used one at a different page. My question is where to go if consensus on a page prevents sources which are clearly relevant and meeting all criteria for inclusion?

Supposing consensus refuses to allow sources for criminal convictions, claiming no convictions have ever existed, despite facts to the contrary? It appears some active contributors are maintaining a separate list on another page for omitted information giving WP:UNDUE to consensus, and against WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amousey (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverting edits

How do you revert people's edits? -- Annonymus user (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Annonymus user: By clicking undo on a diff. Make sure you explain why you reverted in an edit summary. Users with the rollback right can click a special "rollback" button that reverts one's edit in one click and marks it as a minor edit automatically, rollback can only be used for reverting certain things like vandalism, though. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Annonymus user, AmaryllisGardener: Hi Annonymus user. A manual revert is done by going to a page's history, clicking on a revision (a date and time listed there), clicking edit, and then saving. Both undo and rollback are useful but sharply limited versions of what I just described. Undo will not work if there are any interfering, intervening edits, and rollback only reverts the last editor's contiguous edits. As described above, leaving an edit summary is important. For more, see Help:Reverting. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank guys. -- Annonymus user (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Finding fonts used in Wikipedia

Is there an easy way to find out exactly which font is used for text in an article that is showing up as boxes? I'm trying to track down (among others) the font that is used to render Linear B in that article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B).

Ideally, every non-standard typeface - as determined according to the primary language of the Wikipedia page in question, because non-standard is *very* relative in this case - used in a page should have its own link to a download (open-source, of course) so that people lacking the font don't have to search randomly to find it. In the case of another script for which I was searching for rendering support, I installed half a dozen different fonts and *none* of them were the one used in the page in question. (I don't remember immediately which typeface that was; I moved on to another part of my project instead.)

Many thanks for any assistance.

Jakk42 (talk) 04:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jakk42— many articles that feature some of the more common non-Latin scripts do have a help notice pointing readers to further information on downloadable fonts. For example, our article on Lao language includes the {{Contains Lao text}} template which serves this purpose. As Linear B isn't used on very many articles outside of Linear B, I can see why nobody has taken the time to create a similar template. A quick look at the talk page shows that there's been a lot of discussion about the availability of free Linear B fonts in general, and there's also a section that points directly to a downloadable font that works (for me, at least). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick response! And yes, I'll agree that Linear B isn't the most common script these days. :-D It was just getting frustrating finding unsupported characters and no links; I clearly missed the talk page entirely in this particular case, which won't happen again. :-)

Jakk42 (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Transitioning from becoming an editor to administrator...

Hi, I've been on Wikipedia for several years and interested in becoming an admin. ANy advice on how to start this process and where to go first? THanks..... Wikiworld2 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikiworld2: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, any request you make for adminship will end very quickly and won't be successful. The reason is that candidates for adminship aren't typically taken seriously unless they have at least six thousand edits or so. If you edit actively for the next year, creating content and getting involved in admin tasks such as deletion and reporting users to admin boards like AIV and UAA, you could stand a chance though. --Jakob (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikiworld2: Just adding a few bits here from Jakec's good response above. WP:Advice for RfA candidates is a useful read, I think even early on. The second thing (emphasized there) is that I think you need to have a really good reason to want to be an admin. This goes beyond whether you are trustworthy or not, but whether being an admin will help you be a more productive editor. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:49 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikiworld2: You can have quite an administrative impact by taking part in various noticeboards such as wp:AFD and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard by watching pages for vandalism, etc. There really aren't that many things that admins can do that an editor can't. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikiworld2: Greetings from the Teahouse. Your contributions in creating and editing articles is fantastic. I would personally hate to see you divert your energies to an adminstratorship and cut back on creating content. So many administrators are so busy administering other editors they create little to no content. Your talents in creating new pages (22!) and editing is sorely needed. Administrators really can't do much more than you can do right now as an editor. But get your edit count up there and all things can become possible. (Okay, I might be too optimistic). I've seen some of the discussions about whether or not to 'grant' administrative priveleges to some editors who then get 'bitten' very hard by dozens of other editors and administrators by having their tiniest mistakes raked over the coals for all to see. I know that I personaaly would not survive such scrutiny. You have be pretty stout-hearted to go through this process. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Userpage shortcuts

I have a section on my userpage that I'd like to create a shortcut to. Something in the spirit of WP:HELP, or WP:ARBPIA. How do I do this? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, to do this you need to add a so-called anchor to your wikilink. Let's say you want to link a section on your userpage called "About me", your wikilink would have to look like this: [[User:MarciulionisHOF#About me]]. So basically just add "#section name" to the end of the wikilink. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @MarciulionisHOF: and welcome to the Teahouse. What you are talking about is a WP:redirect. It redirects you to another page or section. But unfortunately, redirects are not aloud to userpages unless you have been renamed. Cheers,  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? 12:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Having my username at the front is not a great solution, but I did manage to create some type of anchor shortcut. User:MarciulionisHOF#NOTE. A little long, but short enough. Cheers. p.s. feel free to give me notes/suggestions on improving that section. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Creating New Article: Sandbox Problems?

I am creating a new article in my user sandbox, and I am experiencing some difficulties. After following instructions on creation citations and a reference list, I saved my draft's changes, only to find that my article-draft will not appear in full on my Sandbox page. The first sentence of the article does appear, as well as the article title/header at the very top The main body of my article-draft does not appear and neither does my reference list(despite numerous attempts to re-save/make it work.)

Am I missing something? Is there something I'm forgetting to add before saving changes? Simonlillard (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Simonlillard,I checked your sandbox and found out your error.You content doesn't appear on the sandbox properly becuase you didn't close the reference tags properly.For example you have to close your reference by adding </ref> at the end of your reference,not <ref>.Generally by adding hyphen after a tag it means that you are ending work done by that tag.Anyway I fixed your sandbox for you.Remember:Close reference tags by simply adding </ref> after the reference link.(Example---<ref>[http://www.southdivisionrecords.com/artist/rigoletto/]</ref>) --Chamith (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's funny that I was making such a basic formatting error. Simonlillard (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question on a reading of WP:QS

Sorry if this isn't the best place to ask this: this is a more general question and not one about specific sources so WP:RSN didn't seem right. At Talk:Gamergate controversy, an article concerning a movement which is probably best known for harassing and otherwise attacking the notability of video gaming journalists, especially those who express feminist opinions, an editor has posited that journalists (and possibly entire news sources) that have been singled out by the movement are rendered 'involved' and should be treated as having a "Conflict of Interest" as defined by WP:QS. Editors have expressed concern that this allows the movement a Heckler's veto, causing its harassment to have precisely the desired effect, at least on Wikipedia, by silencing the source. Is this a fair reading of the policy? -- TaraInDC (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TaraInDC. I have paid a little bit of attention to that controversy, but the amount of verbiage is so massive and the hostility so intense that it is difficult for an "ordinary person" to follow without their head exploding. These intense teapot tempests always die down in a month or two, and then experienced, long term editors will clean up the mess. The specific issue, as I understand it, is that a Time magazine piece was written by someone with a professional connection to one of the entities involved in the controversy. As far as I know, there has been no definitive decision that this source is unreliable, though some editors are making that argument very forcefully.

As a general principle, when an editor is lenient about the reliability of sources saying things that they like, and stringent about sources saying things that they don't like, that is an indication that the editor in question is not fully committed to the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, you're right that the chaos on that article is likely going to mostly blow over eventually, and it seems from some of one of the other editor's later comments that they had the idea that I was talking only about hypothetical future articles (which is an interesting question but not really that big of a deal until there actually are future articles), even where I was responding to threads about her current ones, which led to some confusion in general. I probably could have just let the discussion cool off for a while instead of coming here - I got called 'emotional' one time too many and got irritated. Sorry! -- TaraInDC (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Where to start? Conflict of Interest

Hi, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I have a few questions in regards to my company's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Nuclear_Labs. I have recently started my position at PNL and I have been directed to “fix” our article so that it is not flagged. After reading about Wikipedia, I’ve realized that this is a seemingly bigger job than expected. I’m not even sure where to start on our page or if I can make a lot of the edits because I am an employee. I have found over 20 third party sources that I can add into the information. Is there too much information being provided in our article? I would appreciate any help you can offer! :) Thanks CassieMe (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, CassieMe, for logging that here. You may find using {{Connected contributor}} on the talk page there (at the top), and making a clear statement of your status there will be useful. I commend your openness, and do not envy you your challenge ahead. Please show your managers our policy on conflict of interest and explain to them that you will be working within our rules to create an unbiased and neutral version, as factually correct (matched by citations) as you are able. Remind them that anyone may edit WIkipedia, and there is no concept of artiocle ownership. See WP:OWN

The best mechanism is to use the talk page, to describe, one at a time, the edits you wish to make, and deploy {{Requested edit}} to request that another editor makes the changes. Remember than all edits are subject to community consensus, and we are all subject to it, whether implicit (nemine contradicet) or explicit (after discussion) Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles in German that Need Editing

Hi, I am using and like using Wikipedia in English, but, since I'm German, I would like to know, whether there's a page that shows articles in German that need editing. Very similar to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit but, instead, containing articles in German. Since my English is not perfect, I can't and don't want to contribute too much to the English version of Wikipedia. JohnDiLaurie (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JohnDiLaurie and welcome to the Teahouse. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there are no articles in German, those are all at the German Wikipedia, so I suggest you start editing there instead: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hauptseite .This might be what you are looking for: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beteiligen . Best, w.carter-Talk 18:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi w.carter, I know that, but I would like to know, if there's a page that shows articles that need editing for the German Wikipedia?

Because, without such a page, it's kinda hard to find articles that need improvement. JohnDiLaurie (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the German Wikipedia, all Wikipedias are different. You should ask at that Wikipedia instead, I think that the second link I supplied would be a good starting point for that. Or wait around and hope that someone else, who is familiar with how the German WP works comes around here at the Teahouse. The German WP don't have a Teahouse, they have a café, here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9 w.carter-Talk 18:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Guten Tag JohnDiLaurie willkommen in der Teestube (I think that's welcome to the teahouse in Deutsche... although I may have just welcomed you to the testube...) anyway I guess it's obvious I'm not fuent in German by a long shot but I may have remembered enough to set you on the right path. Try looking at this page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorenportal Then look at the box that says: "Inhalte verbessern, bewerten und warten" which I think is "Improve, evaluate and maintain content" My guess is the things in that box are what you want. If not I think the links you are looking for are likely on that page somewhere. Hope that was useful. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help, w.carter and MadScientistX11!

I will continue asking the Cafe.JohnDiLaurie (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't edit some articles

There are some huge articles that i know about clearly but i can't edit them. I want you to let me help you in some other articles also. Give me a clear reply please. Thank you. Amoori abd (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Amoori abd. Your account just recently became autoconfirmed after your tenth edit, so you should be able to edit most articles now. A few are protected because of persistent vandalism. If you mention a specific article, we can provide more information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sudden deletion of a photo

Hello. I uploaded a photo to the article I was working on (Rev. Gregg Mast, President of New Brunswick Seminary). I went through all the required steps to verify that the photo was created by me and I gave full permission for it to be used. This included returning the "permissions" email I was sent by Wikipedia, and I added the "OTRS pending" tag to the file description page. Still, the photo was deleted. How can I resubmit the photo so it won't be deleted? Thanks. Kenneth LobbKilter1990 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)o

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kilter1990. You should discuss this with Mlpearc, the editor who nominated your photo for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Kilter1990, there's a backlog of OTRS tickets to process, I've found your email, dealt with it and restored the image so you can now use it. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

conflict of interest

Hi, I am staff member of a private German foundation Berthold Leibinger Stiftung and created this personal account after the verified organization's acount from the German Wikipedia has been blocked here on the grounds of differing regulations on en-WP compared to de-WP. My main purpose is to update information related to the laser prizes. As this is factual only (see my list of edits), I hope it is not considered as a problem regarding the regulations on conflict of interest. I do not regard myself as a paid editor, though I do edit in the field of my professional work and I would agree to the fact, that these edits are also in the interest of the organization I work for. I understand, that there is a high sensibility and I'd rather do not edit at all than involving myself or the foundation in any kind of suspicion. Thanks for any advice. LaserSE (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse LaserSE(talk) we are glad you came here for an anwser. I went to your article and cleaned it up a bit. It certainly seems to be written from a neutral point of few, especially after the edits. You might want to leave a message on the talk page of the article to explain your possible POV conflict. You may have less of a problem with POV conflicts because the article is about a benevolent foundation rather than a business trying to use Wikipedia as an advertising venue. I added a secondary source which will help but try to find more. Also, there is way too many red links to biographies of persons which don't exist. That many red links may cause a problem for other editors. If you have biographical information on these persons, create the article about them and then create the link to their biographical article.

I hope this helped.

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again LaserSE(talk). I just found another article that is very similar to the one that you had a question about. I am going to ask for a merge for these two articles I hope you find this helpful. These two articles are: Berthold Leibinger Innovationspreis and Berthold Leibinger Zukunftspreis.

Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting an admin to summarize the community view on RSN

Heyo, I've opened an RSN thing a little while back and interest seems to have died down, plus there's pretty clear consensus that the comic-book source can't be used as neutral voice of history. So, where do I get an admin to summarize the community view and close this RSN? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse (talk). There certainly seems to be a lot of background information concerning your above referenced discussion with other editors on this topic. It appears that consensus has not taken place yet, seeing that the last post in the discussion was on October 4. This seems to be such a long and lengthy discussion, I am not sure anyone here at the teahouse can help you resolve a discussion that is still ongoing. If you would still like the attention of an administrator you can find more information here: WP:Requests for administrator attention

Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox?

Hi, having a challenge with infobox here Marcus Byrne. Please help. Part (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Part, you were missing a bracket. It was fixed by another editor in [6]. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please help me make the persondata of this page visible. Page name "Arpan Pokharel"

Can someone please help me make the persondata of this page visible. Page name "Arpan Pokharel" Mediaent123 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mediaent123: Welcome to the Teahouse. Persondata is actually intended to be invisible. Its purpose is to serve as metadata for bots and the like. --Jakob (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I am writing an entry for an established Artist

I am completely new to editing and would appreciate some help :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matthew_Grayson

Mgfa (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome (talk) and thank you for coming to the Teahouse. I look forward to helping you with your article. My first suggestion is that you read the following:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - WP:FIVEPILLARS

• How to make your your first edit - WP:Tutorial/Editing

• How to make your first article - WP:Your first article

It also appears that your article draft is in a queue awaiting review by someone from (Articles for creation) Afc. I have taken a look at your article and tried to make some constructive edits. I don't think there is much else I can do at this point short of spending a lot of time doing research on the Internet. First of all, you should be able to establish the notability of the person that you are writing about. None of the sources that you reference in the article can establish that this is a notable person with significant contributions. I am an artist by trade myself, yet my notability does not meet the standards of notability on Wikipedia. In addition, the draft is written like an advertisement in an attempt to promote the artist and his work. Wikipedia is really an encyclopedia. It is not meant to be used to promote one's profession or commercial interests. I want to encourage you to develop this article into something that is informative and more encyclopedic and not promotional. Please come back to the Teahouse if you have any other questions. I hope I helped you.

Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to hear some opinions on editing a few articles for weasel words and other odditys

I hope this is the right place to post this. Over the last several months I've noticed that many of the articles I frequent, and a few articles I've only read once or twice have been edited in ways that both remove useful information and add language and terms I feel are unauthoritative and unfitting to a respectable encyclopedia entry. I've noticed a proliferation of ambiguous words like "usually" and phrases like "said to be" or "it often" in articles i read. I've also noticed a lot of, ....well...not really incorrect phrasing, but still kind of odd sounding wording.For instance an exert from the Ambient music article, "As a genre it originated in", rather then "It originated as a genre in". Am I just being nit picky? Or does any of this seem legit? I was considering doing some rewriting on a couple of these articles (most notable the ambient music and extreme metal articles)I've also noticed a lot of information being removed from articles that were once quite good. I understand to some extent this is a citation issue regarding limited acceptable sources,but again with the ambient music article, its basically in ruins from what it was in the past. Looking over its edits history it looks like their was some kind of edit war their or something. Specifically the "Notable ambient-music shows on radio and via satellite" section has been edited countless times over the last year or so.

Well anyway though before I do any editing I wanted to ask some other peoples opinions and such. Salemustbedestroyed (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Salemustbedestroyed, we are glad that you stopped by to ask a question since it is a question that probably a lot of people have but just haven't asked yet.

It seems that each editor develops a writing style after a while. This combined with a controversial subject can lead to edit wars and a type of non-consensus activity. Peacock words or weasel words are irritating to me also. In the example you gave above I would tend to agree with your version. But another editor may think differently. I think a lot of the problems come from editors who have very strong opinions regarding the subjects in the articles. We all have to remember that as editors we really are supposed to keep our own opinions out of the article. But then again, if we didn't care about the subject why would we even participate in editing the article? There are many dilemmas like this. It looks like to me that you are getting wiser in the ways of editing in noticing the kind of unconstructive edits that can take place. If you really feel strongly enough, keep track of the versions or edits that you liked and save them off-line to a Word document or something like that. As time goes by, you may be able to re-insert the more constructive edits back into the article in question.

I hope that helped to answer your question and comments. Please feel free to come back to this message and post your response. You brought up a very interesting topic and I appreciate you posting it to the Teahouse.

Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. On weasel words. This is very context dependent. It also depends on the kind of article you are writing I think. For an article about say a TV show you don't need to qualify what you say much. But for scientific articles you almost can't not qualify your words because things are seldom black and white and because there are so many issues where there are alternative interpretations and to be objective we can't present any one of them as THE answer. In general one thing to NOT do is to look at an article and decide you want to make some global change such as change English style spellings to American or change passive to active tense. If something reads very awkwardly then yes it should be changed but editors that go around constantly tweaking things to make them consistent with their vision of what good grammar is aren't being very collaborative or productive. In case you haven't seen it check out the wp:manual of style Of course the best place to hash out these issues is on the talk pages of the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

HealthTap Doctor Interested in Contributing from Content Library

I am a physician working for HealthTap, recently I have taken a personal interest in making our content more available to the public because we have many millions of doctor-authored answers to lay questions on health topics. I know Wikipedia has ongoing projects in health and I feel like our public content is immensely valuable in this context. I am hoping to find a legitimate unbiased way to contribute HealthTap content to Wikipedia's body of knowledge.

Are there any editors involved in medical projects who could advise me? I am curious to know if you think HealthTap is a useful primary source and how I could best contribute. Here are some examples of questions and answers that I thought provided unique insights that would be valuable:

• answers on experimental treatment
• answers that reveal doctors attitudes toward clinical practice
• answers that reveal clinical treatment of hard to reach or understudied populations
• answers that reflect clinical knowledge of rare conditions (especially where treatment citations are requested)
• answers to new or unresearched medical topics of interest to users where clinical opinions might be the best resource

In case you haven't heard about HealthTap, I want to give some context.

• We were founded on principles of social entrepreneurship.
• The articles written by doctors on HealthTap provide unique insights into how doctors practice; because they represent voluntary contributions and insights from the front lines of clinical care in the US.
• Each answer to a clinical topic or question is ″Peer Reviewed″ and shows the degree to which other doctors ″Agree″ with it. So the content on HealthTap reflects the collective practical knowledge of the world's largest network of medical authors (now over 63,000 doctors in over 137 specialties).
• HealthTap content is without commercial bias or influence, because HealthTap takes no advertising or sponsorships ( HealthTap generates revenue from helping individual doctors deliver healthcare to their patients.)
• HealthTap generates content dynamically, however the citations listed here are fixed URLs with content that will not change over time.

I am experimenting with posting citation directly using the citation by contributor template, requesting edits on talk pages, and using the request edit template. But I am new to Wikipedia, and hesitant about doing anything more than suggesting citations to more experienced and unbiased editors. I would appreciate feedback.

Thank you! And thank you from all doctors for the fantastic resource that Wikipedia has become for health information!

Respectfully, Andrea Burbank, MD Drea 19:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Burbank, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for your kind offer and your intent to provide people with up-to-date medical information. I assume that you have excellent intentions, but the website you are referring to is a commercial website that requires people to pay for the information. I suggest that you read the following Wikipedia article: WP:What Wikipedia is not.

If instead, you wish to add content to existing articles related to medicine, I am sure the information would be valuable. You can begin to add your contributions to Wikipedia by visiting the Medicine portal:Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and find out where your contributions can be added.

Please come back to the teahouse if your question has not been answered satisfactorily.

Best regards

  Bfpage |leave a message  21:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Dr., I would like to request that you remove me from your email list. After I visited your commercial website, I somehow began to receive a multitude of messages asking me to sign up for your service. I would say that this is a gross misuse of Wikipedia to further a commercial enterprise and I would warn anyone reading this to make sure that you do not visit the website called health tap.

Best regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Doctor. If you are still coming back to this, I would like to clarify and correct some of what Bfpage has said. The fact that content requires payment to access does not forbid it from being used as a source on Wikipedia (refer to a note about accessibility of sources). However, as these are primary sources, their use should be limited to certain cases only. I also thank you for your offer and encourage you to contribute medical information to Wikipedia. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

previous post dated Sept 22, or 23

how do I find my previous post of sept. 22 or 23 it had a reply by I believe teb728. The reply had good information but can not find it. I thought it would stay with in my account info. The information in the reply had given me some direction and would like to persue the suggestions. I am not even aware how to contact teb728. Is it possible to contact a member and can i view my previous post ?

Thank you for your help, Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saggem10 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome back to the Teahouse! Your post was archived to make rooms for new posts, but i found it by using your contributions list. It is now located at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_255#edward_.28ted.29_kennedy_historians. Just click the link to be taken there. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to contact teb728 you can do so by visiting User talk:TEB728. InsaneHacker (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox (article creation)

Hello all, Recently created a new article in my sandbox, which has been accepted, reviewed & is live. However it still appears in my sandbox. Is there a particular means to remove it or is it safe to just erase it (by whatever means I can)? Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey there @Eagleash: I assume you're referring to User:Eagleash/sandbox? Right now, your sandbox is a redirect to your newly-created article. Whenever a page is moved, a redirect is automatically implemented from the previous location to the new one. Since the redirect is in your personal sandbox, feel free to clear it and use it for other projects. You can also always request the speedy deletion of personal user subpages by tagging them with {{Db-u1}} (see WP:U1). Cheers, and nice job on your article! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi SuperHamster Thanks for the advice, & also the kind words! Eagleash (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, @SuperHamster: tried to clear Sandbox but it deleted the article from Wiki altogether. Perhaps I am wrong thinking it is live or perhaps it needs moving again which I would not know how to do. Or I've just done something incorrectly (not unusual). (Similar message left on your talk page). Thanks Eagleash (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Don't worry, you haven't deleted anything. I have removed the redirect from your sandbox. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88: Thanks. I undid my error!! Thanks for help. Eagleash (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)