Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 308

Archive 305

Archive 306

Archive 307

Archive 308

Archive 309

Archive 310

→

Archive 315

Declined article, anything to do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ronald_L._Mondrush We have tried several times to post this story into Wikipedia, and have been repeatedly denied. The reasoning has been mostly a lack of references. We have bumped up the reference list as much as possible. The role that Ron Mondrush and his company played in the automotive industry was pretty significant, although a bit behind the scenes. But a story that should be told and included in car and car design history. At this link is the story in a self made web site, a way for us to show more of a complete look at our story. http://ronaldmondrush.com/ After one of our Wikipedia denials Teahouse came up as a reference and help spot. Perhaps you can guide us to getting this information into the annals of Wikipedia? Thank you so much for your consideration. Ronald L. Mondrush 19:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaneys1 (talk • contribs)

I would accept this article (I don't care much about references), but I am not an admin. I would say that one reference is enough, and will support your article creation. Kitty 56 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hiya, SandKitty256. Thanks for trying to answer. However, you don't need to be an admin to accept an article at AFC; anyone who has the relevant tools and is an established member with a good knowledge of the rules and guidelines can do it (I've accepted 2 articles into WP so far). Also, articles need to be reliably sourced. One reference would not usually be good enough to source an article, particularly primary sources like patents or company documents.

@Delaneys1: - welcome to the Teahouse; let me try to explain why you're having trouble. First of all, your article is too promotional. I know you want to try to prove your notability to us, but we're an encyclopaedia; we need a neutral point of view, which means you may be too close to your own achievements to achieve the detachment necessary. You have a conflict of interest when it comes to this neutral point of view, so you need to take care to avoid superlative words praising your own achievements. However, if you can prove notability, then the article can be edited to remove such words.

You have provided a few more sources; since some of them are offline sources, please double-check they are relevant to documenting your career. You say you were 'a bit behind the scenes'; unfortunately, many people behind the scenes are not notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes. I know this can seem unfair. Giving us a 'complete look at our story' is not really what we're here for; we're here to talk about things people are already talking about. The UBATHE patents are not notable until they're being talked about by third-party sources.

As things stand, I think the article needs to be cut down - remove all the puffery about your work and references to primary sources, state what other sources have said about you and don't editorialise on your current work - because for the moment, that's not really relevant to your previous career.

I'm sorry to give you an awkward write-up. I'll help where I can if you like (I'm mainly a copy-editor). At the moment I'd mainly fail it on promotional grounds, however, so that's something I can edit for you. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 21:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As an AfC reviewer (with 100's of reviews) I thought I should pop a note in here. While it is a well written article, I'm afraid it just doesn't come up to the increasingly high notability standard. You can either keep trying, or use the move tab at the top of the page and put it in the mainspace (not recommended, but as a last ditch attempt). Good luck and contact me at my talk page if you need any other AfC help! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

PROD vs AfD

Why is it that a PROD is enough to delete an article after seven days, yet an AfD can be re-listed multiple times, with no opposition (or comments of any kind), and closed as "no consensus"? What am I missing here? Deunanknute (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Deunanknute As far as I understand it the various ways of deletion are based on how controversial/uncontroversial it is. The first level for clear violation is the speedy deletion, then if not quite that clear you can use the PROD and if not contested then it can be deleted after 7 days as you said. However if anyone contest the PROD or is likely to then you have to go to AfD to get a consensus. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• and to address your second point Deunanknute in the case of PROD the reviewing administrator decides to either agree or not with the proposer, where with the AfD it requires at least someone else to agree with the proposer. If an AfD is "re-listed multiple times, with no opposition (or comments of any kind), and closed as 'no consensus'" then it probably would not have been deleted by the admin as a PROD. Also the other difference is it's easy to get an article deleted by PROD un-deleted, but not if by AfD. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@KylieTastic:Completely not the answer I got. Thank you for the clarification. Deunanknute (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Deunanknute and KylieTastic:Did you get a different answer from another place? How does your other answer conflict with that provided here? My answer would have been along the lines of that provided by KylieTastic. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ceyockey and KylieTastic:I was basically told that one person is not a consensus per WP:CON, and that I could re-nominate it as it was closed WP:NPASR. The article has since been AfD'd by a third party, and supported by myself and one other, so that part has been taken care of. I just don't quite understand the reasoning behind the close. Deunanknute (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Deunanknute and KylieTastic:In cases where an action is not controversial, the concept of consensus need not be invoked; another way of saying this is that one person is a quorum if nobody else cares (here, at least). The concept of controversial content is largely defined in two ways: someone disagrees with an edit after it has been made; there has been consensus reached in the past which relates to a class of edits which includes the one you've made. The first one is easy and makes up the edit-revert-discuss cycle. The second one is what trips up 90% of people who make "controversial" edits as there is soooo much history here that it's tough to know it all, and this is often forgotten by editors who were involved in that history, the thinking going "this discussion was so important, how could anyone have not known about it". Assuming good faith is a way to overcome incomplete knowledge of past consensus decisions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

To put it very simply, if you don't think anyone else will be bothered by the deletion, use PROD. If it is likely to be an issue, or the PROD is removed you then take it to AfD.

Speedy deletion (CSD), is a whole different kettle of fish for a whole different conversation :) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Reporting

I individually submitted a bunch of IPs as sockpuppets of a closed investigation using Twinkle Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skyhook1. I checked WP:SPI, and they are not showing up. I now realize I should have submitted them at once and manually through the main page. I don't want to do that now in case it ends up double reporting, or otherwise messing with the process. Is there a way to fix it? Will it show up on it's own? Is there somewhere else I should request help? Deunanknute (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops! Nevermind. Looks like somebody fixed it, or it went through. Deunanknute (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! About the listing though technically the wrong way, they all should have been under the same heading, it will work out. As for them not showing up at SPI, edits (especially big ones) sometimes take awhile to get through the whole wiki, remember this is all non-profit funded... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Auto-confirmation

When will "I" become auto-confirmed? Slayer of the Rathalos (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (PS: don't talkback me since I am watching this page.)

Hi Slayer of the Rathalos. On February 18, 2015 at 10:16 (UTC).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Slayer of the Rathalos: Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Your account will become autoconfirmed 4 days after creation and after 10 edits. You have passed the 10 edits and should become autoconfirmed in 2 days. Hope you like it here and decide to stay! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

EoRdE6 is in a time zone where it's still 16 February and you become autoconfirmed 18 February. Wikipedia uses UTC and Fuhghettaboutit gave the precise time based on your account creation. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Indeed I am, very sorry. I have a script to change all timestamps and signatures to my local time. Sorry bout that! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Can a person please assit me in editing "Kindness"

H, could someone please help me in editing the Wikipedia kindness article that is wikilinked here? That would be great. Thank you. Frogger48 (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Frogger48. A good place to start is to check the existing references. Here's a review of one of the books that may be somewhat misrepresented in the article. It would be sad to allow a fragment of psychoanalytic theory to distort the article. Another approach is to look for additional sources, either through your own independent search, or by looking at related articles. In Judaism, for example, "kindness" is called Chesed, a Hebrew word with powerfully favorable connotations. You may find useful sources there, as well as in articles from other religious and secular traditions and moral teachings. By the way, I consider kindness to be one of the values we foster here at the Teahouse. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, is physoanalysis classified as "pseudoscience"?Frogger48 (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Help if I can write about "The influence of sanctions on small and medium russian enterprices"

Good evening, a while ago I posted if i could write about sanctions in russia and I was replied that existed articles who explored the topic but it could be developed. So I come now to ask opinion if writing the influence of sanctions on small and medium russian enterprices, using as source the russian media, will survive in wikipedia. Thank you in advance Lyondelaliberte (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lyondelaliberte. If there exist reliable published sources which discuss this matter, and your article summarises what these sources say, then it has a good chance of surviving. If there are few sources, or they do not say much about it, then there is not much you can write in the article, and it may not survive. Above all, each argument, judgment, or conclusion in the article must be drawn from a single source. You may not include unpublished information or your own arguments, and you may not even draw a conclusion by taking together what two sources say. See original research for an explanation. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Expanding a stub article

I'm proposing to expand this stub Kenyon Taylor, the proposal is in my user sandbox. User:CV9933/sandbox. Is there a protocol I should observe before editing the existing page?CV9933 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, CV9933! As soon as you keep the Wikipedia content policies in mind (see here for an introduction to Wikipedia policies and guidelines), be bold and expand the stub with the new content. If you have any further questions, then you may ask them below this response. Thanks for your contributions! Esquivalience ^t 20:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, as a relative newcomer it's sometimes difficult to know how bold, bold should be.CV9933 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Allow others to aid you, I have made a stub article, and I have gotten others to expand it. Ay Yowai (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I would let you know I have cleaned it up and fixed some typos for you using a semi automatic tool called Auto Wiki Browser. Let me know if there is anything else you need help with! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up, that's a handy tool to have around.CV9933 (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I need help for my article

Tjefwa (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)help me with my article to be publishedTjefwa (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You will have seen that your draft was deleted as a copyright violation. The notice on your user talk page explaines Wikipedia's copyright policy. If you try again, please write in your own words. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dell told me to buy RS-422/RS-485 Adaptor to connect telephone to computer for FAXING!

I purchased a RS-422/RS-485 Adaptor as instructed by Dell to connect telephone to USB port for FAXING. Installed it & it didn't work after Dell told me it would without a modem. Now I have the Adaptor & haven't got a clue what it does! I did have a small dialup modem that is handling the FAXING for now.

I am a 66 year old Disabled American Veteran, technically challenged & would like to know in simple terms if I have some use for this on a home desktop?

Thank you

 Luke

70.233.136.225 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Luke. This is a forum for discussing editing to Wikipedia. I am afraid we are not are able to help you with this matter. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

But it is possible that somebody can help you if you ask at the Computing section of the Reference Desk. --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Luke and welcome to Wikipedia. Now this obviously isn't really the place for this, but since you seem lost I'll give you my two cents. The Dell representative may have been wrong in this situation. I would suggest you contact the maker of the fax machine by telephone for more assistance really... Other than that all I could recommend is learning how a scanner operates really. Hope you figure it out! -- Edward: EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry everyone! Please delete this post for as I couldn't figure out how to do it!70.233.136.225 (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Editors who have been paid by The Wikimedia Foundation

Thanks for being a host. How can I determine from their User Page whether an editor has been paid by The Wikimedia Foundation via a Grant, payment for marketing/branding, a salary, or in any other way? Is there a fast method? If I can't find this information, please direct me to a discussion about the issue. Thanks! Flying Jazz (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Actual employees of the Foundation will have WMF after their usernames (e.g. Sage Ross (WMF)), though they may well operate other accounts for regular editing. Beyond that, users generally create their own userpages, so unless they have chosen to advertise their affiliation with the WMF, there's unlikley to be anything on their userpages that will answer this for you. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion somewhere at Wikipedia about whether or when people outside WMF who have received payments from WMF for their services should or must indicate this on their user page? I'm not talking about an affiliation other than payment for services, receiving a grant, or something similar with funds being involved. Flying Jazz (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, WMF doesn't pay people for anything. They are a non-profit organization and don't have a lot of funds (notice there are no ads). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but that doesn't answer my question because I'm not asking about the most part. Is there some guideline or discussion about when/whether/how people outside WMF who do receive grants or payments for service should/must indicate this on their user page? There probably is, but I'm wondering if you could help me find it. I understand that it seems to be a loaded question, but I'm really just here looking to save myself some time. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Flying Jazz, I'm not sure exactly what you are thinking of, but you can find a list of research projects and grant support at Research Projects and Grants. If you look around on these pages, you can find out what projects and events they have supported and, most likely, an contact person.

If you are thinking of outside legal counsel or marketing firms, you'd have to contact WMF directly to request this information. No editors, administrators or arbitrators are paid for their work, we are all volunteers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Rejected

I recently made an article and used all online citations to qualify the article. However it was rejected on the premiss of improper use of citations. My intent was to qualify the individual the article was written about via links to reputable websites (Per WikiPedia's guidelines)and did not find any proper citation places in my content.

So my confusion is regarding how to edit this to make it acceptable. I have seen other articles where links are listed to qualify that individual but citations were not used.

Jamesparticular (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The notice on your rejected draft at Draft:Anthony DiMoro and the notice on your user talk page each give a number of useful links. Try starting with WP:Referencing for beginners. If in your last sentence you were saying that you've seen other Wikipedia pages which suffer from lack of inline citations, I'm afraid that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an adequate defence of your draft. You are, of course, welcome to improve the other pages, or to tag them as being in need of improvement. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Also Jamesparticular, looking at your draft, many of the references are either not reliable (iMDB) or are not independent. In a Wikipedia article, especially one about a living person, every single piece of information should be individually referenced to a published reliable source; and apart from uncontroversial factual data like places and dates, it should be referenced to a source written by somebody unconnected with the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How to draw attention to an erroneous book reference

The current reference note 44: "Prior, Katherine (2000). Traditional Jewelry of India. New York: Vendome. p. 312" in the article Jewellery is erroneous. Katherine Prior was co-author of one book in 2000 (Maharajas' Jewels, published in the USA by Vendome), but it does not have a page 312. I cannot work out for sure which book is being referred to. How do I highlight the problem so that an editor with the right answer can rectify the matter. Is there a template to use like the one for "citation needed"? Sedicesimo (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Might the author be Oppi Untracht? SovalValtos (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sedicesimo. The best place to raise this sort of question is on the article's talk page (Talk:Jewellery); or if there are not many people watching that, at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry. I've just used WikiBlame to find out when that reference was inserted; but it was by an anonymous editor in 2011, so there's no point in trying to contact them. I suspect that it is a mistake for Untracht, as SovalValtos suggests, but I don't know. --ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I too thought the book in question was Traditional Jewelry of India by Oppi Untracht (New York: Harry Abrams, 1997), and checking in the library indeed it is. The problem now arises that the wording in the article leading to that reference follows that of the book rather too closely for copyright comfort and ought to be reworded. Sedicesimo (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

How to add Userboxes to my user page ?

I want to add some userboxes, but I don't know where to find them all and to add to my user page. Please tell about it from basic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh Chatterjee 2 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Saurabh Chatterjee 2 and welcome to the Teahouse. I will leave you a small guide and some links on your talk page. Although I see now that you have found out how to do that already. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My post with solid documentation of the facts got deleted.

I recently made a contribution to wikipedia that was well written and documented, only to discover that my work was deleted. It certainly is controversial, but I stick to the facts, which I provide references for. I'm a brand new wikipedian, and I see how I may 'undo' my blurb that was deleted, but I'm concerned that this will just lead to a wikipedia undoing the undos in an endless battle of wits. What do you suggest?

thanks,LSesom (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The best first step is, if there is no edit summary providing an explanation, go to the article talk page to discuss it or the talk page of the editor who reverted you and ask for an explanation. Do NOT get into a revert/undo war, it's an easy way to find yourself in an edit war which can earn you a block.

For what it's worth, many edits are contested and it is perfectly normal to ask why, so do not take this personally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And I would add that there will be less chance of your edits being reverted if you include an edit summary explaining your change. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response to my query. I took your advice and posted to

User talk:99.232.122.22 asking for an explanation and if he/she could undo their undo of my contribution. LSesom (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I need guidance on creating an article.

I wish to create a new article. It is intended to be similar to an existing article -Rues de Paris- and I want to create a similar entry in Spanish for my city. The entry does not exist. Will it be easier to start with the existing French to use the format? How to go about it? thanks Jorge Jorge Patino Sarcinelli (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jorge Patino Sarcinelli and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all: this is the English Wikipedia and all articles here must be in English. If you wish to create an article in Spanish you must do so at the Spanish Wikipedia. Most formats are similar on the Wikipedias in different languages, but some things differ. So you would have to ask at the Spanish Wikipedia, their version of the Teahouse is the es:Wikipedia:Café. Best, w.carter-Talk 20:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinions

Hello!! I have been editing The Evil Within a lot to make it better. I would like an opinion as to how I'm doing. If you go into the page's history you'll see me in there a lot. I have finished the game in real life so most likely I won't be adding any more to it. I think I've done a fine job in improving the article.

A second thing now. I have also been editing a lot of NBA players' pages. I have been adding pictures. Again I'd like an opinion to make sure all is in order. Here are my contributions so you can look. -DangerousJXD (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to say that those images should be either your own work or else the photographer must have granted you the permission to upload it. it would be fine if images from other websites are uploaded and claimed to be under a free license (CC-BY-SA, GFDL, public domain).

~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 13:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, DangerousJXD - nice to see you back in the Teahouse lately. To look into Acagastya's concern, I spot-checked about half a dozen of those basketball images, and they all seem to be licensed appropriately. They all came from Wikimedia Commons where they were uploaded some years ago by various other users, who all classified them with acceptable licences (generally CC-BY-SA). I did not check every picture, but all the ones I checked had no licence concerns. The only thing to watch for is to ensure that each photo adds something to the article, such as illustrating something that is mentioned in the text. The articles I looked at were all fine, so I just mention this as a cautionary tale: some editors get carried away with trying to include every picture they can find, and in the end they can detract from the article. Continue to let your own good judgement be your guide.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that all the pictures I add to articles are from commons. I don't upload pictures at all. DangerousJXD (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding photo to infobox

I'm still waiting for approval of my article... But while I wait, I thought I would get my questions resolved now.

In an infobox, how do I add a picture? I know that copyright will not be an issue as it's a photo taken for the subject of the article. The page for uploading a photo was just a bit too over my head. Elemont.aide (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Elemont.aide.Adding a properly licensed image once it's already available either here or at the Commons is easy. You would just add the name of the image (either with or without "File:" in front of it), next to the existing image parameter in the article's infobox. That is, after: | image =. Be sure to copy the exact file name (and yes it is case sensitive). Uploading an image is more difficult. Are you sure copyright is not a problem? I ask because even if the image was taken just for the purpose of using it in the article, there are many copyright pitfalls. The image has to be released to the world under a free copyright license that is compatible with our licenses – it cannot be licensed for use just here while retaining non-free copyright, and the image must be released in a verifiable manner. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Meanwhile, I'm sorry the upload interface was a problem. But you shouldn't be using our interface at all. Since this is a living person, the image must be free, so if its licensing is not a problem, it should be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here (sign up) so that all Wikimedia projects have access to it. The Commons' upload interface is different than ours and can be accessed here. If you have a problem with the process, you can note where you were stumped and describe the specifics here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Style and Translation

When translating the name of an organization from its native language to English, is the proper form <English name> (<Official name>) or <Official name> (<English name>)?
Examples

• The Cervantes Institute (Instituto Cervantes) offers DELEs.
• The Instituto Cervantes (Cervantes Institute) offers DELEs.

Thank you! Denny1213 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Denny1213 and welcome to the Teahouse. From what I have been taught, and as per your example, if the article is about something Spanish, the Spanish should be first and it should also be in italics like this:

• The Instituto Cervantes (The Cervantes Institute) offers DELEs.

If it is about something English they should be the other way:

• The Cervantes Institute (Instituto Cervantes) offers DELEs.

Best, w.carter-Talk 20:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Denny1213 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Denny1213. If it is the title of an article, it should use the English name (as found in the sources, if they are in English): WP:Naming conventions (use English) is the guideline. This guideline is not explicit about what to do when mentioning a foreign name within an article, but I would say the use the same practice. Unfortunately this is the opposite advice from W.carter. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, I was referring to use in the text, not the title, as the example was not a title, but I'm beginning to wonder where my tutor got their info. See the practice in this article, where it is Swe first followed by an Eng translation. w.carter-Talk 21:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, just because something is done in an article, doesn't mean it is necessarily the right way to do it. But actually I would follow what the Bauer article does with respect to the titles of works of art (unless they have an established English name). But to me that seems to be a difference case from the name of an institution. --ColinFine (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please check the notability and references in my article draft?

NOTE: This question originally contained no content apart from the heading. It was submitted by Realsimone and presumably relates to this article about RealSelf. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Online

Is there any way to check if a user is online? To see if there active right now? Thanks. -DangerousJXD (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: Welcome back. To put it simply, nope. The best you can probably do is check a user's contributions for recent edits, or use X! Edit Counter to show when an editor is most active during the day (I've linked to mine; see the time card for when I usually edit), but there is no direct way to tell when someone is online and active. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Dwpaul

I do not understand how this Dwpaul gets to wander around editing peoples pages and he accused me of vandalism and I would never do such a thing! I thought said it said she was born 1993 but she was active from 2008- Present I just do not get it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonutsAreCupcakes156 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @DonutsAreCupcakes156: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to your talk page (lUser_talk:DonutsAreCupcakes156), that page serves as a place for editors to contact you. It appears to me that Dwpaul tried to provide some advice on how user talk pages work. I recommend you read any advice that has been left on your talk page; editors are trying to help you become accustomed with Wikipedia, not bother you.

As for vandalism, we define that as "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - or more broadly, harming any page on Wikipedia. It does indeed appear that you vandalized Dwpaul's userpage in edits such as this or this, which are entirely inappropriate edits and are not allowed. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Automobile

Hello , I am new user and want to contribute. I love everything about automobiles and interested to work on related articles. Please tell me how to do that. Enjoy Optrimes (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Optrimes: Welcome to the Teahouse (and Wikipedia!). Just to get things started, I've placed a welcome message on your talk page with a bunch of links you'll hopefully find helpful (either now or in the future). Including are links to tutorials and how-to guides. There's obviously a lot to do at Wikipedia; I see you've already made a couple edits where you've added references to articles, which is a great start - took me quite a while longer to figure out how to do that when I started out.

Have you checked out WikiProject Automobiles? A WikiProject is a group of editors who share an interest in a topic, and they often provide resources on said topic. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions provides basic conventions for automobile articles. You can also find a list of stubs at Category:Stub-Class Automobile articles; these are all the car-related articles that could use some expanding and/or cleaning up. If you're looking to work on car-related articles, that's a good place to start. Just find an article that interests you and that you can improve. As you go, feel free to come back and ask any questions. Remember that you can add pages that interest you to your watchlist, so that you can be informed when other editors make edits to said pages. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Thank you Optrimes (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

UK equivalent for a US "night on the town" ?

is there a UK equivalent for a US "night on the town" in order to explain swifty why some people such as male athletes, male fans and male celebrities find themselves in trouble that might have been avoided?66.74.176.59 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, IP editor! You might want to seek help at the Reference Desk instead. Thanks! ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 20:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why? Isn't this the place for questions? If what you suggest is just a "might" level advice then I would not think much of one's question answering abilities although a volunteer.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm mistaken, but the Teahouse is a place only for new editors to learn about editing, and it is very rare that a person will answer your question here. I am simply referring you to a place where people might be more experienced, sorry if you misunderstood me. ~HackedBotato ^{Chat with me ♽ Contribs} 21:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The art of editing includes the best word expressions. And regardless where is the question ask, the mark of mental agility.66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The expression "night on the town" is familiar to the undersigned Brit. I wasn't aware that it was also used in the US. Maproom (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing an existing page

Hello,

I am wondering if you can help me, I am trying to add some information onto Sam Roddick page. The information I have to put onto the page has come straight from Sam herself. How do I do this without being able to referencing her. (5.68.241.82 (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 5.68.241.82. Probably you don't. Wikipedia regards verifiability as expremely important. If it has not already been published somewhere reliable, then it should not be in Wikipedia. Period. Now it may be that the information you have been given has been published, in which case you can find a source and add it, with a reference. If it is uncontroversial factual data that has been published on her own webpage or one of an associate of hers, you can reference it (if it is any other kind of information, even that would not be acceptable). If you think it is likely that it has been published somewhere, but you don't know where, you could ask on the article's talk page if anybody else can locate it. --ColinFine (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding an article to a WikiProject

Hello! I recently improved the article Sicilian mafia during the Mussolini regime. While I was researching, I noticed that similar info existed on other articles, esp. Cesare Mori. I decided to ask WP:ITALY for help. Though I am not a participant of that WP, I added a wikilink to their assessment request page and added the WP template at the top of the article talk page I created. Is this all that needs to be done? (If I messed up, be gentle -- I'm new here) Denny1213 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, adding the talk page banner was correct and your post on the assessment requests seems in order. It all looks good and my quick glance at the article it looks alot better than most peoples first few contributions... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I've become convinced that the article should be merged into the Sicilian Mafia proper. How should I proceed? Denny1213 (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Denny1213. Might I ask why you think it should be merged back into the parent article? Sicilian Mafia is a long article, and content forks such as the article you mention are broken off when their parent page gets too long. My understanding is that this is quite usual in the case of historical articles, where the main article gives an overview of the complete history and the child article can go into more depth about the specific period. It would allow the specific article to be expanded without concerns for the length of the main article. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 10:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue I have is that the relevant sections in the main article: Fascist suppression and Post-fascist revival merely paraphrase the fork in about as many words. Instead of proposing a merge, I will suggest that those sections be improved. Thank you! Denny1213 (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Denny1213. Instead of improving or expanding the main article, you could always work on the specific article until it's longer and more complete. Wikipedia is not a finished work, so if you have sources to expand on the subject, then it's better to add them to that spin-off article rather than expanding the already very long main article. The point of spin-off articles is for them to be expanded with new information for which there's not enough space in the main article. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 10:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Does the linking article have to be one found in Wikipedia?

My Article (title: Alfred Edwin Jones [architect]) was accepted but categorized as an Orphan. I asked the meaning of this and got the following kind answer: "Orphan" means the page lacks incoming links. Your page has outgoing links (otherwise it would be labeled "Dead End"). What you need to do is find other pages which mention Jones, and link his name in those articles to his article. For example, if Jones designed building X in Dublin, make sure the Article for "Building X" has Jones' name linked. And do try the "find link" tool the template suggests to you, that might make it even easier. Hope this helps!

MY QUESTION: 'Finding other pages which mention Jones'... Does this mean pages from Wikipedia? EamonX1 (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi EamonX1, yes it does mean from Wikipedia. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be existing mentions. You can also add mentions to relevant pages like Belvedere College#Notable past pupils. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Another possibility, EamonX1, is for you or another editor to write an article (or more) about buildings he designed. One possibility is the Cork City Hall, mentioned at Cork City Council, which includes a photo of the building. Such articles would properly include mention of the architect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You write: 'It doesn't have to be existing mentions. You can also add mentions to relevant pages like Belvedere College#Notable past pupils. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)'

1. Not sure what you mean by an 'existing mention' (It doesn't have to be existing mentions'). 2. If I come across a wikipedia article which contains the name of my man (Alfred Edwin Jones), how do I make a link between that article and my one? I know I can add the url and title of the article as a Footnote. But is that it? EamonX1 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, EamonX1 I think PrimeHunter means that if there is an article which already refers to Jones, you can make that use of the name into a wikilink; but if an article doesn't mention him but reasonably might (eg it refers to a building he designed) then you might edit the text to mention him, as a wikilink to the new article. The way you make the link is to put the name of the double in double square brackets, so [[Alfred Edwin Jones]] is displayed as Alfred Edwin Jones. You need to match the spacing and punctuation precisely, but you can make it display differently using the 'pipe' character (vertical bar), so you might use [[Alfred Edwin Jones|A.E.Jones]], which would display as A.E.Jones but link to the same article. Footnotes are usually for references to support claims in articles, and you may not use Wikilinks for that purpose, as Wikipedia is not actually regarded as a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to articles which don't already mention him. If you click edit at Belvedere College#Notable past pupils then it's easy to guess what you could add there:

* [[Alfred Edwin Jones]] – Architect

PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Sorry for being so backward (I am over 70 - still no excuse). I realize now (am I correct?) that making links does not mean editing MY article, but editing an article which already exists - inserting a link in it if it contains the name of the subject of my article (or adding in my subject's name if it is appropriate (as in the example you give re Belvedere) and linking it.EamonX1 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I added the name Alfred Edwin Jones - Architect to the Article on Belvedere College, Dublin and saved it. Now when I open that Article on Widipedia the name appears in the list of notable past pupil. However it is printed in a different shade of blue to the other names which are linked. Is this an error which can be corrected? EamonX1 (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Also I have linked the name Alfred Edwin Jones which appears in the Wikipedia article on Michael Scott, Architect. I have previewed it and saved it. However it comes out in Red print, rather than Blue in which the other links all appear. Is there something I did wrong.EamonX1 (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@EamonX1: The mention at Belvedere College#Notable past pupils is correct (apart from using a hyphen instead of the longer en dash in the other entries). It's a different shade for you because your browser has already visited the page. See Help:Link color. The mention in Michael Scott (architect) in [1] is currently a red link because it says Alfred E. Jones instead of Alfred Edwin Jones. There are three ways to fix that. 1) Change it to say Alfred Edwin Jones. 2) Change it to say [[Alfred Edwin Jones|Alfred E. Jones]] which renders as Alfred E. Jones. This is called a piped link. 3) Create a redirect from Alfred E. Jones to Alfred Edwin Jones. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully this will be my last query on this. I have created two links (and will do others), however the Article is still displaying as an ORPHAN. Why is this so?EamonX1 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I can see only one relevant link, the one from Belvedere College#Notable past pupils. You still haven't corrected the redlink from Michael Scott (architect) about which PrimeHunter advised you above a few days ago. The reason that the article is still displaying as an orphan is that you have not removed the {{orphan}} tag from the top of the article. There is no reason why you should not do so. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Clock

Is there any way to change the times I see on Wikipedia from a 24 hour clock time to a 12 hour clock time? So instead of an edit saying it was made at 18:30, it says 6:30. I think I remember seeing this option somewhere but I don't remember where. Thanks, --DangerousJXD (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: If you head over to your preferences, and check out the Gadgets list, there's one gadget that says "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". The documentation is located at Wikipedia:Comments_in_Local_Time. I think this will only change the times shown in signatures, however, and not page histories; hopefully someone else knows of a script that covers the latter. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD: I haven't tried it but Wikipedia:User scripts#History lists a script. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

i need help getting a page reinstated due to a mistake regarding copyright infringement

i work for a company named Splunk. we do not wish to use our page for marketing purposes (and don't edit it ourselves) but recently an unknown party registered a domain that includes our company name, copied content from the Splunk wikipedia page, and used it on their site. as a result, an editor triggered some automation via the 'duplication detector' and the Splunk page was suspended pending investigation.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splunk)

unfortunately, we're unable to determine the identity of the party who registered the domain. what we can show via the page history is that the content in the Splunk wikipedia page existed there long before the domain in question was registered (sometime in January of this year). so obviously the site copied from wikipedia, and not the other way 'round.

my question is, how can we reverse the suspension of the page? can someone help?

thanks for your time.

Djpiebob (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Djpiebob. You should discuss this matter with the administrator who blanked the page for suspected copyright violations, Joe Decker. Perhaps he will chime in here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you, Cullen328! i await enlightenment :). Djpiebob (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks,

I have removed the copyright notice. It took me a bit of time to convince myself, but I'm now certain that the matching text I had noticed had been copied from Wikipedia, rather than copied to Wikipedia. My apologies for the confusion, and for the delay in responding here. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you so much, Joe Decker! 

Djpiebob (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks For the Invite: What Voice Should I Write in?

Greetings: I want to know what voice I should write in, to meet the style requirements of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.22.102 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 106.68.22.102. The answer depends on what you mean by "voice". If you mean active voice or passive voice, there is no preference (writing entirely in the passive voice becomes a bit cumbersome, but there's no need to be afraid of ever using it). If you mean the level of formality, or neutrality, the answer is that writing should be neutral and in a way impersonal (it doesn't address the reader directly, it doesn't tell the reader what to think, it doesn't use language that is likely to manipulate the user's feelings towards the subject, and it should never contain any kind of argument, judgment or conclusion unless that argument, judgment or conclusion is directly taken from the writing of a reliable source unconnected with the subject. The relevant articles are WP:manual of style and WP:neutral point of view. If this doesn't answer you, please come back and ask a more specific question. --ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Also strictly use only third person; "he, she, they, it, them, his, her, its, their". Never use "you, I, my, your, we, our" except if it is a direct quote. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Name Lists in Name Lists in Categories

I have created a page for George Mason Bodge with Category: listings. The name is in the listed categories, but is filed under "G" for George and not "B" for Bodge in all of the category lists.

How can I correct the page so that he is listed by his last name in the categories?

Gobodge (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. That is done by setting the sort key, normally by the use of {{DEFAULTSORT}}. See Wikipedia:NAMESORT#Ordering names in a category. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about a GA

Hi,

I just wanted to get a quick overview of this article by a second pair of eyes. I'm considering submitting it for GA. It certainly might not be the longest article, but I think it covers all the main points about the fish. Its also peppered with refs, so that shouldn't be a problem. I still need to slightly expand the lede, but that won't be too difficult. --Biblioworm 16:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Peer review for feedback on articles. Esquivalience ^t 18:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that, but it usually takes quite a bit longer than getting a quick second opinion, which is what I want. --Biblioworm 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a bad article, but it could do with some expansion before getting the GA star. If it did get promoted, it wouldn't be the shortest GA, though. --Jakob (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Based upon the sources I have, I think that's about all the available information on the fish that could be reasonably summarized. The rest of the info is mostly very detailed measurements and a list of various technical conservation measures that are being taken. --Biblioworm 19:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c x 3) @Biblioworm: First, I note immediately when looking at the article that it mostly relies on web-based sources. This is not what I would expect in a fine article on an animal species. I am not saying these sources are unreliable, but they're far from the best – many are just aggregator fact sheets on the fish. Second, in any article being considered for its overall merit, if you perform a simple search of sources, and find basics not included in the article, then you can probably conclude that the article lacks coverage of key material. While the GA criteria of "broadness" is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" requirement of featured articles, I don't think this is very broad considering that sources—better sources—seem to abound with more material. The remedy for that is of course to expand with the material you can find. Here's s few sources [2], [3], [4], [5] you might use from just the start of a Google Books search. I didn't explore it but see also this. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting sources. I forgot to look at Google Books. Thanks for mentioning them. I'll try to use them if possible. In any case, I think I'll hold off on the GA after some consideration. --Biblioworm 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:Biblioworm try Google Scholar too, that would find serious ichthyology journal articles, wich are arguably the "gold standard" for scientific topics. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The problem is that many of those articles are about very technical genetic things that really have no place in an article intended for the general public. There might be some good information in the articles, though. --Biblioworm 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

really dont know whats wrong wih my entry

Hi,,i submitted an entry about "child custody litigation in pakistan",which was denied and the editor said "wikipedia is not a soapbox.that made sense,so i removed some of the names and events that might look like personal promotion..now i got the same objection..problem is,that now,i do not understand what to remove..because the remaining names are authentic,already have a significant web presence and these people are on thier way to making some history..help me make my entry better plzLobtermir (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately there are many problems with the article. First things like "weasel words" words that try to sway the opinion of the reader. Think "children of broken families in Pakistan are not protected against inhumane discrimination. Also, sources are required for statements like that. Finally, Wikipedia is not a lawyer firm, and your article is written kind of like legal advice. I would suggest starting off with a smaller, easier topic until you get used to Wikipedia's many rules and ideas. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hello, i"m a new user and would like to write an article on the first black Judge post Independence in Zambia. I'am having problems sourcing information based on this man, the only things i have at the moment are newspaper clipping and of course his familys words .Do you think this would be enough for a citation soure to create this article based on the dates of the newspaper and possible links? Any further advice as in where to look or how i can go about this would be higly appreciated.--Katuntaula (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC) KATUTAULA.

Hello, Katuntaula. References do not have to be on-line, so as long as the clipping you have has all the data required that would allow a reader in principle to locate it (the name of the newspaper, the page, the date, and preferably an author and title) you can cite it. Whether a single newspaper clipping is enough to establish notability is another question: generally not. Can you find another newspaper article about him (maybe by going to a major library)? As for information from his family: not unless it has also been published. In general every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be cited to a reliable published source: if it hasn't already been published, it shouldn't go into the article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you -- Colinfine, it is more than one newspaper clipping and im gratefull for you advice. --Katuntaula (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

editing general writing

Hi, I was reading the page on Humphry Davy and found it rather difficult to understand because of general syntax errors and poor paragraph structure. However, I am new to editing and I'm not sure if I should be so critical of If I should just go ahead and change things such as: in the paragraph on Education it is written: " Davy said himself ....". This should read: "Davy said" or "Davy himself said". But I realize that is pedantic yet it interfered with my reading of the article. So I'm not sure, should I just fix it or forget it? More complicated problems exist in this article. The first sentence in Early Scientific Interests: "Davies Giddy, afterwards Davies Gilbert, accidentally saw Davy in Penzance, carelessly swinging on the half-gate of Dr Borlase's house." is almost gibberish and certainly unnecessary to the article. Would it be appropriate to eliminate it? Kaeote (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kaeote. It's a hard one, because we all read differently. I don't agree with your assessments: I find nothing wrong with "Davy said himself", and I find the other sentence perfectly comprehensible, and not "almost gibberish". I agree that it's probably an unnecessary level of detail, though it's only a few words and I don't find it intrusive. But if you alter both of these, I wouldn't object. Copy editing is fine, as long as you're not obsessive about it, and don't insist that you're right when other people disagree.

Actually, now I look further, both of these are nearly direct quotes from the referenced article in the Dictionary of National Biography. This indicates that they were accepted by an editor of that publication (in the 19th century). It does not mean, however, that we have to word things in the same way, and indeed I believe this is a bad idea. The relevant article is out of copyright, so there is no copyright issue, but Wikipedia articles should still not quote extensively without acknowledging it. So by all means go ahead and reword it if you wish.

One other change I would make: the word "drily" in the first paragraph should not be there, as it is editorializing (cueing the reader what they are supposed to think about it). It appears to have added by a Wikipedia editor to a quotation from the DNB article. --ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In summary, GO FOR IT! Be Bold! One of the core principals of Wikipedia. Just remember to leave a good edit summary and if it is undone converse on the talk page, don't edit war. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)