Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 261

Archive 255

←

Archive 259

Archive 260

Archive 261

Archive 262

Archive 263

→

Archive 265

Change the tittle of an article

Hello, I am a new editor of the Wikipedia and recently I create a new page but my name appears on the article. I do not want my name to be displayed, just the subject to be discussed. Can you help me? I have been searching how to edit this, but everything I do seems not to work, at all.P. S. Sena (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant information is at WP:MOVE, but I'm confused as to which page you are referring to - you have only ever edited this page and the article about Brazil nuts. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello .P. S. Sena Please point out which article you are talking about.As far as I can see you haven't created a new article here in Wikipedia.You only added some info to Brazil nut,I don't see any conflicts in your edits.Usually your name isn't displayed on the body of an article even if you edited/added content,but your user name will be recorded on the history of relevant article,that's unavoidable.If you are worried about you privacy you can change your username by asking a bureaucrat,you can do it here,Hope this helps.Cheers!-Chamith (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I had never had that happen to me. It only works for me if I sign with four tildes (Scoooter3 (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)). Is this helpful?

Scoooter3 (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, P. S. Sena. Usually when a new user asks about something like "my name appears on the article", this means that they have tried to create an article on the user page, which is not the right place for it (the user page is a place to share whatever information you choose about yourself as a Wikipedia editor). That doesn't appear to be the case for you - you haven't a user page - but I wonder if you have perhaps accidentally created two accounts with similar names, and done this in the other one? In any case, if you want to create an article, I suggest reading your first article and then using the Article wizard. --ColinFine (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the more common scenario is that the user created an article on a user page such as User:Vchimpanzee/Michael Gerst. That's a generic example of sorts; it's a page I created which I'm not sure will pass notability requirements, but I'm still working on that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

how to create articles

hi, im a new editor in wikipedia, i want to create a new article in wikipedia, but i dont have experience to create them, I also need to learn to put as references, and images, if you could help me I would appreciate it too, thanks. --Halias 23 (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Halias 23: hello and welcome to The Teahouse. I moved your question to the top so it could be seen. The best way to create an article is to use articles for creation. An alternate way would be to search for the title you want for your article and, if the article does not exist, click on the (probably red) link that you would use to create the article. But to be safe, once you are on the screen allowing you to do that, you would want to click on another link above the box that makes the article a user draft. New users frequently find their first articles get deleted, so it is better to work on them in a draft first and get feedback. As a rule drafts are not deleted, but articles that don't meet the standards usually do if created in what we call article space.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Halias 23. I suggest you have a look at your first article. I believe The Wikipedia Adventure is designed to help, though I've not been through it myself. Happy editing! --ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
• If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Some more help regarding images can be found below (though once this is archived it'll be above). As for references, read WP:REF. Essentially, you put enough detail about your source (usually a URL) between <ref> and </ref> to allow someone to find the information. There are templates, but you don't have to worry about those. Ideally, you would provide more information such as a title with the URL, in case it can't be accessed at some point in the future. The format would look like [www.gocomics.com/glasbergen-cartoons/2014/10/07 Glasbergen Cartoons October 7, 2014].— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Halias 23, referencing is very important with article creation. Formatting them as inline citations is also easy with a number of different tools but the basic part of the wiki mark up is <ref>{{reference information}}</ref>. If all you do is add the url to the source itself, that is called a "bare url" reference. While it is the minimum form of referencing, the inline citation is meant to give the fullest amount of information to verify the source whether or not it available on the internet. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Once a claim is written, the citation goes directly next to it that directly supports what is summarizes. Not every sentence needs a reference but anything you add that is challenged or likely to be challenged should be cited by a reference, even if from a reference already in use.

I use a number of tools to make things easier for me. The one I find the best is the Reference tool for Google books. This requires that there be an url, but not that the book have a preview or accessible version and creates the full wiki mark up. once a refences is added as an inline citation you add:

==References==
<references />

This autogenerates the list of citations with all the information formatted to a proper reference list that links back and forth between the content and the list. When editing any article there are a couple of tool to use in the editing window. You will learn about these on the referecing guide I gave you, but..always reference you content with relaibale sources so you will want to review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as that will help you a lot.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia and I have no clue what to do

Hello, As stated before I am new to wikipedia and I am creating an article. I have everything typed up in a word document with references and everything I have even started the article making process but that is where I have hit a wall. I do not know what to do. I click the preview button and it looks all messed up. I have tried the live chat but that is garbage not user friendly at all. I am not a computer savoy person so none of this makes sense. The article is new there isnt a similar page to it. Its about the museum I work for and they asked me to make them an article on wikipedia so here I am. Any and all help will be greatly appreciated. Kaseywarhurst (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, learning the Wikipedia Markup is one of the more daunting challenges a new editor faces. It's has some similarity to HTML, but there are quite a few differences. Here is a page showing Wikipedia markup, and how it can be applied. The best thing you can do is perhaps copy some existing text/code from an article into the sandbox, and play around with it, and see what happens. I hope that helps! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at your draft as it is now, the thing I see that's messing things up is you have spaces in front of many of your paragraphs, which is causing them to appear as a single line of text in a box. Delete the spaces and that should fix that problem. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

PS, please take a look at our conflict of interest policy. Your museum may be highly notable, but I strongly urge you to work with other editors who are completely independent of your subject. As a bonus, they will probably help you with the wikimarkup as well! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kaseywarhurst: Hi Kasey. I've reformatted your draft, fixing the major display issues, such as the problems from starting lines with leading spaces and fixed the section headers. I think you would get a great benefit from taking a tour through the Wikipedia:tutorial, and after that you might find Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia a useful read. Please be careful of copyright issues. I removed the mission statement, as it was an unattributed copy and paste of text from the museum's Facebook page (note that to use text written elsewhere as a non-quote [and the amount we can quote is restricted by fair use], the museum would have to give up most of their rights to it by an irrevocable release to the world under a free copyright license (or into the public domain) and that release would have to through a verifiable process showing the person providing the release had the authority to do so).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

How many references does an article need to have

Hi I was just wondering how many references does an article need to have?

Thanks Zafiraman (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Zafiraman, and welcome! There isn't a minimum number of sources, although any information that could be challenged or provocative should certainly be sourced, and articles with no sources are quite likely to be recommended for deletion. In the case of articles on living persons, this is even more strenuously enforced. --McDoobAU93 21:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you Zafiraman (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zafiraman: Hey Zafiraman. Please be aware that the type and reliability of sources is of key importance. There are featured articles that are predominantly based on only a few sources (e.g., Palazzo Pitti), and by contrast, numerous article that have twenty citations but all to Facebook, random websites, blogs, forums, etc. that are deleted as failing to meet basic notability standards. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Thank You very much Zafiraman (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell us your subject, and we can be more helpful.

For example, biographies of living people need better and more references than dead people, especially if they died centuries ago. Small towns are often left alone even if there are no references at all. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem confirming e-mail address

I am very much enjoying being a new editor. Thanks for the warm welcome! One minor problem: I am having trouble confirming my e-mail address with Wikipedia. When I type in to my browser the link sent to me for purposes of confirmation, I get a log-in with my correct user name, and then when I type in the password and click, I get a 404 error code. Can you help me? Fenelon39 (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse Fenelon39! First of, welcome to Wikipedia! The first suggestion is a clear the cookies and cache from your browser, you can do this in your browser settings. You should check if the link you've copied to your clipboard or clicked is the correct link. Ensure that you are at Special:ConfirmEmail. One other suggestion is to resumbit/reconfim. You could learn more at Help:Email confirmation. Lastly it could be a connection issue either to WMF servers or your network. ///EuroCarGT 02:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What are rules regarding adding pictures to Wikipedia pages?

I am new to Wikipedia and am just wondering what are rules regarding adding pictures to Wikipedia pages? When adding pictures does it have to be your own photos? or are you allowed to borrow the photos from other wikipedia pages? or Google images? Geramany (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Geramany. Image copyright is complicated, but in essence, you can use photographs that you've taken (or images you've created) yourself, or you can use other images that have been unambiguously released under a free licence. The best place to search is on Wikimedia Commons, where in theory, all images are free. Don't use random images found using Google image search, or images pulled from other websites - they are probably copyrighted, and you'll get into trouble. This essay (shameless self-plug) may be useful. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Geramany Welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia.To add images from your computer Wikipedia,first you have to upload them to Wikipedia servers. Using of Google images aren't practical because most of them are All rights reserved. Using or uploading images on Wikipedia depends on the copyrights of the certain image, For example if it's a freely licensed image then you are free to use them Wikipedia, Also you can upload your own photos(photos you have taken/created) under Own Work copyright tag, So first you should get familiar with copyright tags. Keep in mind everything on the web isn't free, all most all of them are copyrighted under the laws of specific country it's taken/created. Happy editing!--Chamith (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Redeming an autobiographical new editor

If a new editor makes as his or her first contribution an autobiography, is there any way for the new editor to redeem themselves? It seems to me inevitable that their autobiography is going to be deleted, being against several Wikipedia rules. The can, of course, contribute to other articles and and sharpen their skills, but the autobiography seems to me to be a lost cause.

What do seasoned editors suggest for a new editor who did not know the rules?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi DThomsen8, Welcome to the Teahouse,For new editors I would recommend reading Five Pillars of Wikipedia.And about the autobiography thing you asked,Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged,You are allowed do so only if other editors approve it.This is because if advancing his interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.If you created an article about yourself then it will be marked for speedy deletion under A7 tag.But you are free to write an autobiography on you userpage though it's won't be a part of Wikipedia articles.Hope this helps.Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dthomsen8. Please do not feel bad about having made a mistake. Almost every new editor makes mistakes. Simply recommit to editing in compliance with our policies and guidelines, and move on. In a couple of months, when you have made lots of productive edits, no one will care at all about any newbie mistakes you may have made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore,If user created an autobiography then it will be removed and the user will be warned not to do it again.That's all.Being kind to new editors is a part of Wikipedia's policies.At first Wikipedia may seem strange to new editors which is obvious, Skilled editors must help those editors by pointing out their mistakes and helping with their problems. But if a user keep doing the same mistake again and again then other editors will have to warn him/her in 4 sequences(notifying-->caution-->warning--->final warning). If he/she still keeps violating policies then administrators have no other choice than blocking him.--Chamith (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@ChamithN: Autobiographies are only removed if the person fails WP:BIO or if the text is irredeemably promotional. Autobiographies are deprecated, but a few folk can actually write a decent neutral one and happen to be notable. People use WP:AFC in a valid way to get help in correcting otherwise inappropriate autobiographies, too. IT is, however, not always a wonderful experience for the author to see their carefully crafted text edited, and to see any notable indiscretions they wish were not public to be made public with full citations. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: But as per WP:CONFLICT Editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships is strongly discouraged.Also it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).Right?--Chamith (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@ChamithN: Editing with a conflict of interest is not prohibited, just deprecated. Promotion of something is prohibited. As I have said, a very few people are able to perform the creation of an autobiography within our rules. Most are not. Assuming that I am notable, which I am not, I have the ability to write a perfectly neutral, factual, well sourced autobiography which will follow all Wikipedia's rules. Rightly, you will tell me I ought not to be doing it, but you may not tell me that I must not do it, nor will a deletion of the theoretical article succeed, because it will be neutral and correctly sourced. Fiddle Faddle 12:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Image Copyright and watermark

Quite a number of years ago I uploaded to the church section of my personal website over 150 pages (50 x 3 sets) of copyrighted text and images. Since I was the original purchaser of the 3 books + CD-ROM disk the publisher's license allowed me to do this.

Publisher's requirements are: 1. Copyright notice on bottom of each page of text. 2. Watermark on each image to contain--copyright notice, artist's name (credit as the creator of the artwork). Here's a link to one of the web pages as an example:

• www.peacecircle.net page with copyright image

This is the actual image file:

• direct link to above copyright image

Applying this to wikipedia images, here is an example image with Copyright notice, vertical along left edge; and 'Credit: Unknown' horizontal at bottom.

• direct link to Bishop Schinner watermarked image

Questions: Would this image watermark format be acceptable to Wikipedia? In the above scenario, the book publisher hired an artist to produce artwork for the books. In my wikipedia case, the church diocese hired photographers to take and produce the pictures of church bishops (10 of them spanning 1905 to present).

If the format I have just described is not OK, what needs to be done to cover this situation where the orginal photographer (image author) is absolutely unknown (and probably deceased)?

What license template should be used that correctly fits the above case?

Thanks for taking the time as I realize this image licensing and copyright is complex. I have visited the wikipedia commons a number of times already and have been 'chewing' on this issue a while before writing out these thoughts.

If you are rushed, it's perfectly fine to reply later. JoeHebda (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JoeHebda to Teahouse! Copyrighted images are often not allowed to be on Wikipedia unless with a Non-Free rationale/templates or have been given proper permissions to be uploaded to Wikipedia or the Commons. If the original creator has given you the images to be used on Wikipedia under file policies then it is allowed once the creator has verified and provided a statement allowing the use of the media should the creator send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, once the permission(s) has been sent, volunteers will approve or disapprove the permission(s) thereafter will archive the permission(s) to the OTRS volunteer system. In short the publisher allowed the use the files with requirements, however to clarify this you should contact the original publisher. Regards, ///EuroCarGT 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Also regarding the watermarks, according to the Wikipedia's image policy, an image must not have a watermark overlaying the image, this is to ensure the file is free use. There are exceptions which are listed on WP:WATERMARK for historic images though which is the watermark or text is part of the image. Best, ///EuroCarGT 20:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

JoeHebda says the original photogrpaher in some cases is not known. This could be a problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

That is definitely a problem. For this moment the best thing to do is to upload as a non-free image as we don't have much information regarding the original author and other information. Until these information gets clarified then uploading it as a free image is an option. ///EuroCarGT 23:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, JoeHebda. The arrangements regarding posting that material on your website do not apply to Wikipedia in any way. This is an encyclopedia dedicated to maximizing free sharing of knowledge, which means that we minimize use of content which is not freely licensed.

The copyright has expired on any photograph published in the U.S. before 1923. Those photos can be freely used in any way without restrictions, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. So the 1905 image of Bishop Schinner does not need any labels at all. As for using the photos of bishops taken in 1923 or after, that is problematic since the photographers are unknown, as are the details of the copyright status. In the case of bishops who have died, the only place that those photos could be used, in my opinion, would be in individual biographies of those bishops. Please see our non-free content policy for the specific details. As for any bishops who are still alive, the solution is to take photos of them yourself, and freely license those photos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me better understand. Coming from the world of business, I was thinking 'non-free' meant 'you must purchase' vs. I now see that it means not-free-of-copyright and/or license.

And yes, these images would be used 1-per bio article. Thanks for the guidance.

JoeHebda (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Altering or adding to an article

As a fan of Eastenders, I sometimes make updates, this time to add details to the family section of Peter Beale's page and to the plot. Something has altered or malfunctioned in the jargon of the 'infobox soap character 2: Family, etc' when I made a change; what, I'm not sure. As a result the box containing this info does not show up as it should, if you visit the page you will see exactly what I mean.

I don't have any clue on how to amend the character's infobox properly so it displays, does anybody know what I can do to repair the damage and possibly keep the changes I have added?

Much thanks

Anzukiller (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Anzukiller, thanks for stopping by. I've had a look at your edit to Peter Beale and the edits around it. An editor previous to you had, accidentally, broken the template formatting by adding an extra set of [[ brackets. Another editor has now reverted the article to where it was prior to yesterday so you can try editing now what is a working version of the infobox template. I see you're also trying the template in your sandbox and what you have copied over contained the mistake. I've taken the errant characters out and you should now find that it is formatter correctly. Nthep (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

URL

How to upload image by using URLJojolpa (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot upload an image by specifying an Internet url if that is what you mean. The image must first be downloaded to the user's own computer and then uploaded from there with one of the options at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. If your device cannot download and upload images then you can make a request at Wikipedia:Files for upload. Requests may be declined if the reviewer doesn't find evidence that the image has a license we allow. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems

There are a few problems in wikipedia mobile version, such as no "revert edit" button and there is a problem when try you edit a page, it just goes blank (I don't know how to describe it) -- Annonymus user (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Annonymus user. The people who maintain and develop the software that underlies Wikipedia are a completely different set of people from those who edit it (there might happen to be overlaps, but there may not be). I suggest you ask at the technical section of The village pump. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on overlinking

Hi there, I've read here on Wikipedia about the issue of overlinking and agree that it can be a problem. I think the article that I'm wanting to add to and edit has this problem and I'm wondering what others think.

Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Zukin

In the first couple paragraphs, the words "sociology," "real estate," "culture," "immigration," are all linked, as well as locations such as New York, U.S., and France. And then there are also the links to the colleges. This really seems excessively cluttered and very distracting to me. It's easy to look up those terms in Wikipedia if someone doesn't know them and I'd argue that most readers have a clear enough understanding of them so as not to require further info to understand the content of the article. I'd like to delink at least some of these as part of my editing. Thoughts?

174.6.90.182 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia:OVERLINK is a link to the relevant part of the manual of style. It certainly justifies removal of the wikilinks for the USA and France here, and probably the word "culture" as well. Maybe "immigration" too, though I would keep it. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and that link to the style manual. I'd read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overlink_crisis, but only after looking at the article and independently assessing it as overlinked.

174.6.90.182 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

looking for advice

Hi! this company wants to have a Wikipedia page: snaplearning.co

Do you consider that the page will be accepted? The owner sent me these secondary sources: edtechtimes.com - thejournal.com - nancybarthtutoring.com - momtrends.com - I looked for more info but did not find any other reliable source.

They are not major media, but they are important sites of education.

Can I upload the article? or you think that the company does not have enough notability? I have many doubts about it.

Thank you!Ane wiki (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ane wiki. In order to evaluate notability, we would need links to specific articles, not just the names of websites. When you say "this company wants to have a Wikipedia page", that raises red flags. In my experience, a "company" is incapable of "wanting" a Wikipedia article, as companies do not have emotions or desires. Instead, their executives have emotions and desires. It seems a company executive is asking you to create this article. I think your concerns may be justified.

Let me be clear that we should have an article about this company if it meets our notability guidelines. But that is a big "if". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ane wiki Welcome to the Teahouse, You are welcome to create articles if you have resources to prove the credibility/significance of the subject.However it's strongly discouraged if you are looking to create a page for your company (or for someone else you know).You can't involve in edits to Wikipedia that promotes your own interests.Wikipedia is not a place where people can promote their companies,business whatsoever.It's an encyclopedia not a directory, I hope you understand.Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Ane wiki should also make it clear that she is a paid editor. Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Paid editors should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing before creating a new article or updating existing ones. I would also suggest to paid editors that they hone their Wikipedia skills before creating a paid article. Being a good writer is a good start, but there are many other skills involved in writing new articles.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize, I assumed it was understood that the article would be a paid contribution. It is not my intention to promote a company because I know that the article will be deleted. It is for this reason that before starting I came here to ask for advice. I have errors, as Theroadislong has marked in one of my articles, but every time I participated in a paid edition, I made a disclosure, as indicated in Terms of use, and my editions were in good faith. In this case, I see that "secondary sources" are recognized in education field, but I'm pretty sure it's not enough. DThomsen8 might be right and I must improve my Wikipedia skills before continue making paid editions, the good thing is that all these experiences are useful. Thank you!--Ane wiki (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ane wiki: While paid editing is deprecated, it is a fact of life. Wise paid editors use WP:AFC and do so patiently. The AFC review process does its best to remove unpalatable COI from drafts. You would also be wise to deploy {{Connected contributor}} with all parameters filled out on the draft talk page, and make a full declaration of your status on the talk page of each and every article you work in for cash or with any other form of COI. By our actions do you know us. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fiddle I will take your advice into account. --Ane wiki (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

Who are allowed to have their own Wikipedia page and who are not? I don't mean user page. -- Annonymus user (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If I answer your question literally, no-one. See WP:OWN.

If your question means "What are the criteria for a person to have an article about them on Wikipedia?" then the best and most general answer is that they must pass WP:BIO. Fiddle Faddle 22:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Annonymus user (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Change

I wonder why they have changed the "Tea House" page.
Now the old questions are at the top and new ones are at the bottom,
we all were used to the old layout.
Is there any logic or reason??
Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 15:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

A script is broken. See Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#Bottom posting. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear PrimeHunter

Thanks

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 16:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

help editting a page, specifically photo insertion

Hello! I need an administrator to help me with inserting a photo and caption on someone's page. I was given permission by a recording artist/ actress to edit her page for her, since she told me she was not authorized to edit her own page. I was able to help her add some info. To her page and was sucessful. But when i try to upload her photo and caption, i do not have admin. Privileges. Can someone help me out? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlipet828 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Carlipet, welcome to the Teahouse. You can't upload images yet as your account isn't autoconfirmed. You need to make some more edits so that you have made at least 10. Once you have then your account will be confirmed and you can upload images. Nthep (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Calipet, Since Simone White is a living person, any photo of her on Wikipedia must be licensed under a free license. That means that you could upload it to Commons, where (unless they have changed the rules recently) you don't need to be autoconfirmed to upload a file. However, you need to understand that it is not enough for her to authorize use of the photo on Wikipedia: the copyright owner (generally the photographer) must grant permission for reuse of the photo by anyone, anywhere, for anything; that is what a free license means. Most professional photographers are not willing to grant that kind of permission. —teb728 t c 07:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Carlipet828. It is right that people are discouraged from editing articles about themselves; but people are also discouraged from editing articles about their friends and relatives, for the same reason: please read conflict of interest to understand the reasons, and for advice on how you, or she, should proceed. --ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Online links on category pages

In Category:Renewable energy in Algeria I have found two direct online links to web sites. (Renewable Energy Developement Center and Renewable Energy Portal). I was under the impression that category pages were meant to contain only other categories or wikilinks to articles. Are these entries an example of spam or is this a new practice or simply an error. It doesn't look right to me so I'd like to know whether it will be in order for me to remove them. If they are of use then surely the best place for them is in an articles as references. It seems that both these links were placed there by people without Wikipedia accounts. I just thought I would check here first before I remove them. Jodosma (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jodosma and welcome to the Teahouse you are quite correct they have no place on the category pages, feel free to remove them. Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

invisible but searchable text

Hi Teahouse folks, I'm creating an article on an English Renaissance manuscript which uses many archaic spellings for titles of songs. I'd like to be able to preserve the archaic spellings, but would also like for users to be able to search for the titles using modern spellings (without displaying the modern version). Is this possible? kosboot (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! You could always redirect the modern spelling to the official original spelling article. For example the Sears Tower is the original name but the new name is the Willis Tower so I put: #REDIRECT Willis Tower on the Sears Tower page. Best, ///EuroCarGT 19:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello kosboot and welcome to the Teahouse. Having written some articles about persons and places with different spellings, I'm not so sure about having the alternative spellings hidden, since they may be a source for those readers who might want to search in other places/sites and they might be difficult to locate then. My advice is that you put all the alternatives in notes. This will make them searchable but not distracting the text itself. Look at article Puankhequa where ref #2 lists all the different ways to spell his name. That ref originates in the infobox where the name is spelled with Roman letters and Chinese characters. I have checked, and this way all the different spellings directs to the article when used in say a Google search. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kosboot: I also took a peek at your article (nice work btw!) and in the case of that article it might be neater to have the notes separate from the refs in a notelist, just like in this article which also contains tables and lists. Happy editing! w.carter-Talk 19:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very helpful comments, W.carter! kosboot (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

I face problem in upload figure onto the article that I wrote. It say I need to wait 4 days. I create my account 2 days ago....

Is it true? Or I saw the wrong lines : -) Is there any other way out?

Tks Ben Fang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Fang (talk • contribs) 00:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse Ben Fang! The notice you've seen was probably stating you needed to be autoconfirmed to proceed with the action. Once you get 10 edits and 4 days of Wikipedia activity, your account will be autoconfirmed and you may be able to upload the file, move pages or edit semi-protected pages. If you want to upload an image you could use Wikipedia:Files for upload, a place where volunteers upload requested image under policies or you may request your account to get confirmed. Best, ///EuroCarGT 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

work

How to know which articles need helps? I mean how to get works to do?Jojolpa (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Jojolpa to Teahouse! Thanks for your desire to dive right in! You could start out by helping over at the Community portal, a page listing some pages that may require work. You could also try out Wikipedia:GettingStarted a feature which allows users to improve Wikipedia, you could enable it by heading to the Main page and on your browser URL bar, add ?gettingStartedReturn=true right beside the URL link and load the page. It should suggest you some pages for improvements. Best, ///EuroCarGT 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

questions by user Comp-heur-intel

Hi there. 2 questions 1.I recently put myself up as a host. I was removed. Maybe I didn't understand the process. If someone could explain, great. 2.I recently made a new page, then a couple of days later added some references, as requested. The new page is still invisible. I cleared caches. Should I just wait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp-heur-intel (talk • contribs) 01:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Comp-heur-intel. With regards to your first question, you only have made 69 edits in the two weeks since you established your account, so you clearly do not have the experience necessary to be an effective host. For example, you did not sign your question with four tildes, and SineBot came along and did it for you. Teahouse hosts should have broad experience with editing, and familiarity with our most important policies and guidelines. You are welcome to ask questions here at any time, but I suggest waiting a few months before asking to become a host.

As for your second question, I assume that you are talking about Heterostasis(Computational). That article is live and not invisible. However, the article has significant shortcomings. The three references you have provided do not establish that this is a discrete and notable topic in computer science. Much of the article discusses the origins of the word and uses outside of computation. Please read our policy on articles about neologisms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

UPLOAD

Hello everyone ,I'm again here to ask a question .Can we upload articles instead of creating them?Jojolpa (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jojolpa nice to see you again on Teahouse.If you are looking for a way to upload a document from your computer to Wikipedia then I'm sorry to say that it isn't possible, But you can always use your sandbox to do test editings and other experimental edits.And remember, you shouldn't copy-paste details/content from other copyrighted documents to Wikipedia articles.--Chamith (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

ACCESSIBLE

I think this website should be designed so that it is easily accessible with any internet device. It should easily be approachable by many people can edit it.Jojolpa (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, Jojolpa. Please read Help:Mobile access for information on reading and editing Wikipedia with a variety of devices. Personally, much of my editing (including writing this answer) is done with an Android smart phone. Currently, I use an HTC One, accessing the desktop site rather than the mobile site. That's my preference. The Wikimedia Foundation works hard to make all its websites as accessible as possible to the widest variety of users. This is a challenge for many technical reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with what Cullen328 said above. I often edit with my Nexus 5 and use the desktop site. The mobile site is designed to work with many devices with web browsers. Wikimedia Foundation has a variety of mobile applications such as Wikipedia Mobile to be well suited to your device that are available to the popular operating systems. Another application from the WMF is Wikipedia Beta which you could test now and report comments, suggestions, problems or concerns to developers to assist you and others to build a better browsing and editing experience for everyone. ///EuroCarGT 03:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Is it legal to put one or two pictures found on Wikipedia into my essay? -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Annonymus user. If the images in question are made freely available under a Creative Commons license, then you can use them in any way you choose. However, some images on Wikipedia are used under our policy on use of non-free images. Common examples are movie posters, book and album covers, corporate logos, and the like. Those images can't be re-used in essays, or anywhere else other than the specific authorized article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphan

For Wikipedia:Orphan, how do you know if any articles are linked to an article? -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Annonymus user: When viewing an article (or any other page for that matter), take a look at the navigation links at the left side of the page. Under the 'Tools' section, the first link you see should be "What links here". That'll show you what pages link to the page you're viewing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, never noticed that. -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

posted a question here yesterday.. where is it?

hi everyone. excuse my ignorance. i am a new user. i posted a question here yesterday, but i dont know where to find the answer. i can't even find the question. thank you. Homeopathicstereo (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Homeopathicstereo: Looking at your list of contributions, I don't see any other instances of you posting a question here. Are you sure you posted a question? Perhaps you weren't logged in when you posted. Regardless, questions are archived after three days, so your question should still be here somewhere below. Do you remember what the question was about? We might be able to better assist you.

For future reference, you can view questions that have been archived after three days of inactivity by using the search box at the upper-right of this page. This lets you search through all the hundreds of pages of archived questions and answers. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a technical problem with the Teahouse question script for a couple of days, discussed on the Teahouse talk page, that prevented questions from posting properly. It was caused by an upgrade to the MediaWiki software. Apologies for the inconvenience, Homeopathicstereo, and I humbly request that you post your question again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all. I will repost under a new, more relevent heading. Homeopathicstereo (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Blank the page

So, is the teahouse page being blanked once in a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymus user (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Annonymus user. The Teahouse has had some technical challenges in recent days, related to an upgrade of the MediaWiki software. Hopefully, things will settle down soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I mean. -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can clarify, then. Detailed questions are better than vague ones. My second attempt at an answer is that older questions and answers get archived. Is that what you mean, Annonymus user? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, this question isn't important anyway. -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Can someone help me delete this question? -- Annonymus user (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Annonymus user. The answer to your question is no, the Teahouse page is never (intentionally) blanked. Instead conversations are archived for future references. You can see the archive a bit further up this page to the right where it says "Question archived?". The archiving is an automatic and continuing process, so in a while this question/tread will also be archived. The only way to really delete something at the Wikipedia is to make a request for deletion. Read about it here: Wikipedia:Deletion process. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

newly created articles

Is there a page that says "XXX just created a new article YYY" or "XXX just edited article YYY" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymus user (talk • contribs) 07:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Annonymus user (talk · contribs), yes there is. it's called Recent changes and it's another useful link you'll find in the interaction section on the left hand side of the screen. If there is one particular user's edits you want to know about then your need to look at their contribution list. It's another toolbox link called User contributions that is only seen when you are looking at that user's userpage or talk page. Otherwise you can type Special:Contributions/XXX to see XXX's contributions. All contribution logs are public so anyone can view any user's log including those of unregistered (IP) accounts. Nthep (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on Nthep's excellent answer, Special:NewPagesFeed provides a feed of all the recently created pages and articles. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to Annonymus user. I can see from your question that you may be thinking that the WP could perform like Twitter or some other social media, where you get updates on activities all the time in small notifications. Well, the WP is not like any of those sites. This is one of the most common misunderstandings about the WP. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

IMAGE

Can information icons, warning icon and hand stop icons can be used by me on other's talk pages to inform them or I need some special permission to do that?Would anyone like to answer this question please?Jojolpa (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You're talking about warnings and notices, right? If so, you don't need any "special permission" to place such warnings/notices. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But you shouldn't misuse these warnings/notice.Civility is an important factor on Wikipedia. Misuse of warning templates to harass/attack other editors is not accepted and you will be blocked if you continue to do so.--Chamith (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jojolpa: Hi again! :) And when we are on the subject of civility: Please don't use all capitals in the headings for your questions, that is considered equal to shouting here. We know that you are new, so no-one is offended now. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 10:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Converting a family tree from Template:Family tree to Template:Chart

Hello

I'm trying to convert this family tree to chart by writing chart instead of familytree. I tried it manualy, or using familytree.js. The unwanted result is this. The last two columns are disappearing, with the exception of the last three boxes. I don't know how to fix this. Can someone, please, help me. What should I do for my chart to appear in a normal, complete, way? Thank you. Daduxing (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Daduxing and welcome to the Teahouse. Having wrestled with family trees I know how difficult they can be. I have not looked in detail at your examples, but I know that they are very sensitive to having the right number of "|-|-|-|" between the different names. If you fall short by even one "|-|" the chart can't produce the last box (it can't "reach far enough" to put in the box). Try adding and subtracting these spaces first and see what happens. Best, w.carter-Talk 09:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I tried, but is not working. I realized that when I change it back to Template:familytree it's displaying properly. Only in the chart format the boxes are disappearing. Daduxing (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this is beyond my knowledge then. I have looked at it properly, but cannot find the "missing part". Best, w.carter-Talk 13:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! What normally goes on the User page?

Hi Teahouse Host (Rosiestep ?) Thanks for the invite to the Tea House, I'm not entirely sure what to do here yet - obviously can't drink tea (joke :-) but I'll work it out eventually. First, how do I know who is here in the Teahouse? Second, it's my second day, so i should set up a User page, what do people normally put on the User page? Is there a minimum / maximum requirement? Excuse my ignorance - this is probably obvious to you, but most people of my generation have missed out on all that social media stuff. Tennispompom (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:USERPAGE for guidance. You can put more or less anything on a user page as long as it is not promotional or offensive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi ianmacm, thanks but too late! I've just created one. Could you pls have a quick look before I inadvertently offend someone? I've gone for humour, but can change it if you advise. Tennispompom (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The main idea, Tennispompom, Is that your user page should be about you and your goals, interests and accomplishments as a Wikipedia editor. It can be blank, brief or detailed. The choice is yours, and you can expand it as time goes by. As for who is "here", hosts come and go, keeping an eye on the Teahouse. A new question usually attracts someone's attention fairly quickly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tennispompom. I like your user page. Humor is fine outside of article space - see Silly Things. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Well Tennispompom, I love your user page. Some of them are so boring and dry. Yours is great.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Large edits

I made some edits to the page Laci Green. Some of them were considered biased by someone which might be true, but because of this they removed all of the changes I made instead of just removing the biased part. I am scared to edit on it again because it seems like it's a waste of time now. What should I do about it? TempletonU (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TempletonU. Since you conceded that some of your edits may have been biased, the best advice I can give is to refrain from making biased edits. In this particular case, I suggest that you discuss your proposed unbiased edits on the article's talk page. Please read about our bold, revert, discuss cycle, which is applicable here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

But I made several edits and they were not controversial, Why did he revert them all? It should be be so much work to make such simple changed. TempletonU (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted with the edit summary "POV edits and undue emphasis on blogger reactions." So, your edits were controversial to the person who reverted. Discussion is ongoing on the article's talk page, and that is the proper place to reach consensus on your proposed changes. Sometimes, it takes "work" to implement changes. That is the nature of collaborative editing, TempletonU. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked over the talk page and given TempletonU's comment, suspected Ninja of bullying a new user who couldn't do much better. I instead found out that the affirmative consent criticism came from a self published blog, and that's the only part that was omitted. (Other than the section headers and the 'self proclaimed feminist' bit.) He even gave his assent to include those back in. Tutelary (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the Teahouse TempletonU. On Wikipedia I mostly create content in smaller chunks, to prevent someone from doing what has happened to you. Sometimes I add content just one sentence at a time. That way someone has a problem with that particular statement, that's all he will delete or change. I have the additional problem of not being able to discuss changes on the talk page because there are so few editors that are active in my area. So I do a lot of documentation of the changes.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

It is so nice to hear from you fellow editors. Your words are so comforting to know help is available.

Yes, I understand the concern of the editor who reviewed my submission. Yes, I need to document the article further and provide more references. In fact, I do have ample documentation to list and link up the text to the references. I'm working on it will resubmit the page.

Thanks for your support.

Axshah95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by مرداد٩٣ (talk • contribs) 11:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for coming to the Teahouse. I went back to look at your contribution history and I have not found any indication that you have had an article reviewed on English Wikipedia. I did see that you have some activity on another Wikipedia, but I don't recognize the language. Unfortunately, I can't help you with the the problems that you may be having in the other Wikipedia. Something that may help the process along is to create your User page. I see that you have created a user talk page, so then on your new user page. You can tell people a little bit about yourself. Did you upload some photographs that there was a question about?

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)