Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 507

Archive 500

←

Archive 505

Archive 506

Archive 507

Archive 508

Archive 509

Archive 510

source

Hi, I linked a valid source to one of my articles. However, they keep saying whatever I sourced is false. They aren't even a moderator theirself! XS2003 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, XS2003. I am assuming that you are talking about Pulpit Rock (Cape Schanck). If you are discussing another article, please let us know. You created an unreferenced stub, and another editor removed unreferenced information, which is allowed. You then called the other editor an "idiot" and started adding personal commentary into the article itself, which is not allowed. That resulted in a brief edit war between the two of you, which is also not allowed and is a very poor way to resolve disputes. Two other editors got involved and improved the article dramatically. My suggestion to you is to develop new articles in your sandbox or draft space, and do not move them to main space until they have solid references. Once there, realize that other editors are welcome to improve them in compliance with our policies and guidelines. Do not insult fellow editors by calling anyone an idiot or anything else like that. It is counterproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, you, User:XS2003, are extremely lucky that you are able to edit, and that you did not get blocked for 24 hours for the personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on a second. I never said that they were an idiot. I simply said some idiot, and at that point, it was my first article so I didn't know who it was, I actually thought it was a bot. And I don't know who told you I was adding "personal commentry" into the article itself, because I never did. And the edit war? I explained that on my profile. The two other editors did improve it, but I still had made it and written the most. I just did not really know how to add pictures. I understand I shouldn't have called him an idiot but, really? I am "counterproductive"? Wow. And, I said some idiot deleted the entire article. I am sorry I attacked him so. But I didn't call him a pig! So, why are you guys acting like I did? Anyways, I am not here to discuss that. I am just asking if the parks is a valid source, thats all. XS2003 (talk)

Hello again, XS2003. In my opinion, the park website is a reliable source, but at the time you created the article, no source was in the article. As for the other matters, when you refer to another editor as "some idiot", the word "some" does not soften the personal attack because anyone who looks at the edit history knows exactly who you were talking about. And yes, you did add personal commentary to the article, which I will quote: "XS2003 (talk) Please don't delete what I wrote, I have sources and I am not just making this up." We simply do not include that kind of commentary in an encyclopedia article and also do not add our own personal signatures to encyclopedia articles. It just isn't done. That belongs only on talk pages, not in articles. In your defense, you are a new editor and therefore may not understand such things. I hope that you will learn from your mistakes and move on. We were all new here once. Please keep editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so that's what you mean by personal commentary? Okay. I added that because at the time I did not know how to contact the person who edited it / didn't know about the other tabs (talk and history.) And I deleted that anyways, so it doesn't matter. And I actually made this article AFTER the source was made. David deleted the article because I called him an idiot, even though I had sources. Also,

I know that saying someone doesn't soften the attack, but I actually thought a bot deleted my page. At that time I had no clue who it was. Also, to get offended by one person on the internet who calls you an idiot, and claim they personally attack you? Your not gonna survive. Cullen XS2003 (talk)

Created a page but it has not appeared

Hi there... I created a page entitled Dr Pamela Schulz OAM in mid-June. It was the first article I have written for wikipedia and it needed some fixes. It was submitted for review and changes were made to it, according to a reply I received via the community bulletin board on 20 June. Since then, it still has not appeared. Can I find out what's happened to the article?1.125.48.145 (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi IP 1.125.48.145. It looks like you're referring to Draft:Pamela Schulz. The draft was submitted via the article creation process, but was declined by LaMona due to a lack of reliable sources showing that Schulz is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. For reference, the draft was submitted by another IP (IP 194.254.61.42), but I'm not sure if you are the same person. If you're planning on submitting drafts, etc., it would be helpful if you created an account. You're not required to do so, but editing from a single account will make it much easier for you to keep track of your edits and for others to help you improve your draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

how long can a list of artworks be?

I have written an article about a British painter who has works in the Queen´s gallery. The article also includes a list of portraits of public figures which the artist has been commissioned to create. How long should that list be as a maximum? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_Harris_(painter) Landschaftsmaler (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Landschaftsmaler and welcome to the Teahouse. As rule of thumb, the list should only contain portraits of notable people (or portraits notable in some other way, i.e. have won a prize, are held in a notable museum, or have received press coverage) and each one of those needs independent verification. No commission should be listed without independent verification. This is an encyclopedia article, and its best not to make it too much like a CV. That's what his official website is fo. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. --Landschaftsmaler (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I have shortened the list of commissions as you suggested. Is the article OK now?--Landschaftsmaler (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A glitch with my notifications.

This is not a question about editing, but i don't know where else can i get an answer. My account seems to have some sort of a technical glitch. I do not receive my alerts on the Bell Button, and my Notices do not appear on time. What should i do? Wasiq 9320 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you can ask at the Village pump technical page. The techies hang out there and they may be able to help you. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wasiq 9320, welcome to the Teahouse. Some things have moved between the two buttons. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 147#Notification issue. If you think notices are missing or delayed then please link to the edits you think should have caused them. If it's about mentions of you then note there are many conditions at mw: Manual:Echo#Technical details. The most common reason for no notification of a mention is that the edit was not signed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of the @ when contacting Wikipedians

What is the difference between @user:XYZ and user:XYZ in terms of how and where a user is notified, within their local language Wikipedia and across all Wiki sister projects?Lucas559 (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Lucas559, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell, they both notify the user the same way. The difference is the settings each user has for how they're notified. The {{ping}} template, which shows up as "@XYZ:" when you preview or or save the page (and links to their userpage) is normally used at the beginning of a post, whereas the more common way ([[User:XYZ]]) will show up as "User:XYZ" (and also links to their userpage) and is usually used in the middle of a sentence. An alternative method to using that second method is using the {{user link}} (aka the {{u}}) template, which shows up the same way as the second method when the page is previewed or saved. I should also say that capitalization does matter. In other words, [[user:XYZ]] links to a different page than [[User:XYZ]] does. Also, I should say that notifications won't work if you don't sign your post using ~~~~ in the same edit. -- Gestrid (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I would argue slightly with Gestrid on the capitalisation point. I think you'll find that user:Gestrid links to User:Gestrid just as User:Gestrid does. Capitals do matter, but only after the first letter.--David Biddulph (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid and David Biddulph: thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucas559 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 July 2016‎ (UTC)

Notifications only work if you sign your post in the same edit as using the ping template, so that won't have worked, Lucas559. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lucas559: I can confirm that your ping didn't work. You need to type ~~~~ (which automatically turns into your signature when you preview or post your reply) at the end of your post in the same edit for it to work. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A further note on capitalization: It doesn't matter on the first character or anywhere in the namespace. uSeR:gestrid and User:Gestrid link the same page. In practice people always write "User:" or "user:" but there are other namespaces where capitalization of a later letter is sometimes changed. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Contributions after account creation

Is it possible to "claim" contributions made under an IP address once a user has created an account? Sario528 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no way to do it so that it looks as if they were made by you, Sario528. You are welcome to list them (or list the articles they're in) on your User page. --ColinFine (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sario528: You can also mention the connection between the IP address and account. See the box at top of Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Badges?

We don't need no stinking badges, but I want some for my user page. Not for achievement but to learn what they are about and identify myself a bit as I get more involved in the back end of deep WP. I'm not even sure if these are called "badges" or banners or what you call them.

I copied and corrected these and they're great:

This user comes from Ontario.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 17 years, 1 month and 16 days.

I'd like to learn how to make these into "badges" unless there's already something as good:

X!'s Edit Counter analysis of JasonCarswell

X!'s Created Pages Tool analysis of JasonCarswell

Is there a gallery or collection to browse?

Thanks in advance.

Sorry if those "badges" messed up your formatting as it did mine. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. They are called userboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Right! I just discovered them, came back here to delete. Thanks! ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: You can make your own or search for existing ones like User:Barek/userboxes/edits and {{User articles created}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A Question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How to fight vanalism in wikipedia. I want to learn more about vanalism. Help me!—The hunter boy ^{Lets chat!!} 03:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, The hunter boy, and welcome to the Teahouse! We have a nicely-written essay on how to spot and fix vandalism on this page. It explains both what vandalism is and how to fix it in a few easy steps. Since you're so new to Wikipedia, I suggest you edit Wikipedia for now so you can get a feel for how things work around here, as Wikipedia can be very different from what many people think it's like when they first start editing. However, if you run into obvious vandalism, feel free to remove it by just removing that part of the text from the page and provide your reason (ex. "removing vandalism") in your edit summary. (As a matter of fact, use an edit summary as much as possible to tell other editors why you're doing "such-and-such".) -- Gestrid (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gestrid: Thanks—The hunter boy ^{Lets chat!!} 04:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Modifying infobox from a template

I'm working on my first page about an organization (in a personal Sandbox), and everything is pretty straight-forward for me. However, the info box template for organizations is not quite how I would like it. Is it good form to modify it? My prototype is small and has a details section which gives the motto, incorporation info, and director name. It also has a colored bar between sections, which I could code using css, but I don't know the basic rules/policies regarding use of info box templates.

If it is OK to modify, where is the documentation on it? Any other ideas for me?? Illuminer2 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Info box or geo box templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Response archived.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Involvement with other editors

Sometimes, I feel like I don't have the required inspiration to make strong edits. Is it alright to discuss my ideas on talk pages without accusations of team editing? I would, of course, still be referring to my own research and evidence I have discovered as far as possible.Armanikoka (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages team editing and actually discourages relying too much on one's own research. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Armanikoka. Discussing improvements to an article on its talk page is a good example of collaboration, which as Ian mentions is encouraged. Perhaps what you have in mind when you mention team editing is meatpuppetry, which is when you recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. That isn't allowed. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

troy9876

Bold textwhat do people really do on teahouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy 9876 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Troy 9876. The purpose of the Teahouse is described at the top of this page: it's a place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

how do i fix a referencing error in a template?

I've been trying to fix a few Check|url= errors, but on the page 2016 Montana State Bobcats football team there is one in the recruits template and I have no idea how to correct it - (montanastate should all be one word without the / in the middle). EdwardUK (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi EdwardUK and wecome to the Teahouse. Templates that generate references are tricky, not well documented, and cause gray hairs. I changed "montana state" to "montanastate" in the "247 school" field in the template, and it works now. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Email Link

Dear Teahouse-Friends,

I believe I should direct my enquiry elsewhere, but I wasn't sure where to start. When I created my Wikipedia account, I failed to supply an email address for my username. I would very much like to do so. I was wondering if someone might direct me as to whom I should ask or how I might go about adding an email address to my account.

All my best wishes and sincere thanks, MagdalenaKillion MagdalenaKillion (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi MagdalenaKillion. Your preferences are linked at the top of every page. At the last section of them you will see a place to enter an email address. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Fuhghettaboutit. MagdalenaKillion (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)MagdalenaKillion

Acceptable source for birth date of a living person

Several attempts to source birth date for living person Ric Flauding have been rejected by editors. Please tell me what is an acceptable source? Entries for musicians such as David Benoit and Wayne Bergeron, who have worked with Flauding, do not source birthdates but simply add the person's age in parens. Will this be acceptable for Flauding's entry? Thank you. Jimnblack (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Convenience link: Ric Flauding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Maproom (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to find credible sources for an exact date of birth. For many people, this simply isn't public information, and, per our policy, Wikipedia strongly discourages the inclusion of personal information that can't be well-sourced. It's much easier to find an estimate. I can often find a newspaper article on Google News that says something like "Bob Musician, age 35, played at a local venue". From that information, you can use the template {{Birth based on age as of date}}. If the article is dated "July 1, 2016", you would just plug in the numbers like this: {{Birth based on age as of date|35|2016|07|01}}. Sometimes it takes a few different searches before I can find what Wikipedia calls a reliable source. Many of the sources on Google that purport to have celebrity information are unreliable. We can't cite government databases, census information, fan sites, or self-published blogs. We can, however, cite self-published information by the subject himself, such as a Twitter post or biography on an official website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback and helpful information. I will continue to look for an acceptable source and update the page as soon as I am able. Jimnblack (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing issues, Like Edit Misleading and Edit Warring

So I've tried editing more than 3 times. i was told i was edit warring. Which i am not! In the last edit i cited the United Nations recognition of a decolonization committee which established That we are not self determining and USA should move to resolving this issue promptly. i also cited The atlantic press where it establishes what the supreme court of usA says. where it establishes that we are not a commonwealth and o not have right to self-determination nor authority that does not derive from US congress.

So why is my edit misleading again? Why are my edits getting erased. WHEN THE USA SUPREME COURT says it.

here i leave a quote from the article.

"A Supreme Court ruling in the case Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, which was about double-jeopardy protections for Puerto Ricans, established that Puerto Rico has no real authority it does not derive from Congress. The U.S. House’s easy passage of the debt-relief bill PROMESA stripped away even more of Puerto Rico’s functional self-governing authority, establishing an independent board with no Puerto Rican oversight that can restructure Puerto Rico’s debts and set financial priorities. The Court’s ruling in Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust affirmed both of these policies, clarifying that Puerto Rico cannot create its own municipal bankruptcy code and is also excluded from the normal bankruptcy protections granted to municipalities in states, leaving its only legal restructuring path with Congress. With financial ruin fast approaching for the island, it seems the only legally viable path for debt relief is an upcoming vote on PROMESA in the Senate."

Do i have to write the definitions of a Colony and a Commonwealth as well for editor to accept that this is not a war im trying to pursue. This is something real.

or are the UN and The Atlantic and supreme Courts ruling not reliable enough to be used as a reliable source.?

where am i going wrong, what am i doing wrong? JohamGabriel (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@JohamGabriel: edit warring on Wikipedia means that you're repeatedly trying to make the same (or a very similar) edit to an article in the face of opposition. The best way to resolve this kind of dispute is through discussion on the respective article's talk page. Sometimes, people simply don't understand why the edit was being made, and it's easy to convince them. Other times, they're dead set against it, and it's like talking to a brick wall. Those times are very frustrating, but Wikipedia does have several forms of dispute resolution that can perhaps help. Looking over your talk page, it looks like someone has asked you not to use the edit summary "fixing typo" when you change text to have a new meaning. This is good advice, and you should follow it. A typo is something like "dodn't". This is obviously an accidental error and should be fixed to say "didn't". The meaning is the same, and only the spelling was changed. When you change something other than spelling, you shouldn't say that you're fixing a typo. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi JohamGabriel. The edit you are trying to make is very clearly original research, by way of synthesis. It will not become part of the article until such time as the world – as reflected in a preponderance of reliable sources, so that adding it would not be undue weight – recognizes that the official name of Puerto Rico is something other than the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. And such sources will not exist until such time as government process changes the name officially from what it is now, to something else. What you are confusing is the fact of what the official name actually is (and other matters such as its official designation as a territory), with an ideological desire for the name to reflect what you believe is its proper descriptive status. That is to say, even if there were a million reliable sources saying "the official name should be changed, since Puerto Rico is not actually a 'commonwealth'", it would still be incorrect to change it as you have tried to do. Rather, if such sources existed, then the article might discuss, for example, the movement to change the official name, but that still would not make what the official name is any different.

Putting aside the "official name" issue for a more general point, we don't look at the proper noun name of things in a vacuum and just decide they are not properly descriptive and substitute our own judgment for what to call something – as divorced from actual English usage. For example, many people think the "Great Leap Forward" was very much not "great", nor a "leap forward". That observation does not change what we all call it. As one person said (in an article move [name change] discussion): "Nickel silver contains no silver, French toast is neither French nor toast, and crocodile tears are neither tears nor ever shed by crocodiles..." We still call them by their names, until that changes out in the world. As an encyclopedia of mainstream established knowledge, Wikipedia does not decide usage, it reflects it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

How can a page about Anandmurti Gurumaa be deleted ???????

Dear Admin,

This is the reference to the wikipedia page of Anandmurti gurumaa" which has been deleted following the deletion debate at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anandmurti_Gurumaa . I was so much SHOCK to see that she was there on wikipedia from the past 15 years and unfortunately few days back when I saw her page was missing I had requested to resume this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joe_Decker in response to which I have been directed to contact you I would like to bring to your kind notice that the reason mentioned in the debate is lack of resources whereas lot of sources and independent links exist featuring work of Anandmurti Gurumaa as a renowned Indian spiritual master. Moreover these reliable links belong to national newspapers like Times of India, DNA, The Hindu, India today, Amar Ujala etc. Kindly Resume her page back

References for Anandmurti Gurumaa

1. Work of Anandmurti Gurumaa in newspapers:

• MTV: http://www.mtv.com/artists/anandmurti-gurumaa/biography/ • The Tribune India: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070420/ttlife.htm • The Hindu Newspaper: http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/education-will-give-flight-to-girls-anandmurti-gurumaa/article8249133.ece?textsize=small&test=2 • The Hindu: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-fridayreview/salvation-with-rumi/article3230217.ece • Amar Ujala Newspaper: http://www.amarujala.com/spirituality/wellness/anandmurti-gurumaa-pravachan-on-good-and-evil • Hindu Digest: http://www.hindudigest.org/2013/01/18/sri-anandmurti-gurumaa-life-history/

Tribune India: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20080930/cth1.htm • Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/programmes/anandmurti-gurumaa/params/tvprogramme/programmeid-30000000549672292/channelid-10000000001160000/starttime-201607200720 • (Times of India) Speaking tree: http://www.speakingtree.in/anandmurti-gurumaa • DNA Newspaper: http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-inner-truth-meditation-not-just-a-stress-buster-2138133 • India West: http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/gurumaa-begins-u-s-journey-across-multi-faiths/article_0ee3100c-1d9c-53b7-8f76-90d00f3ed775.html • Music on itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/anandmurti-gurumaa/id213303380 • Life positive: https://www.lifepositive.com/the-peaceful-warrior/ First Post: http://www.firstpost.com/tag/anandmurti-gurumaa • Yes Punjab: http://www.yespunjab.com/punjab/news/item/96885-make-yog-nidra-a-part-of-life-to-beat-stress-gurumaa

2. Events: • Gurumaa with swami ramdev in an event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICXFJOaY1p8&list=PLGcMB0Jn5jq_ddA5t7InJblfKmZqd_Lb2 • Karmapa: http://kagyuoffice.org/gyalwang-karmapa-visits-gurumaa-ashram/ • Karmapa: http://kagyuoffice.org/hh-karmapa-with-gurumaa-july-11-2008/ • Karmapa: http://kagyuoffice.org/dharma-for-this-world-of-ours/ • Karmapa: http://kagyuoffice.org/karmapa-900-delhi-day-one-a-tribute-to-the-indian-roots-of-the-karmapa-lineage/

3. List of books published by Anandmurti Gurumaa: • SHIVA'S ECSTASY : http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/music-review-of-album-sumiran-and-shivas-ectasy2007/1/155570.html • Know Thyself: http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/9788121614863 • Going Beyond the Mind: http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/9788190406000 • Quotes of the Unquotable: http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/9788190406017 • Truth Exposed: http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/9788190406048 https://books.google.com/books?id=sJEoAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Anandmurti+Gurumaa%22&dq=%22Anandmurti+Gurumaa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF0ci4vYTOAhUX4WMKHbGHCzUQ6AEIHjAA • Shama- E- Rumi : https://books.google.com/books?id=GZMNqSFpFP8C&dq=inauthor:%22Anandmurti+Gurumaa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr1fPwvYTOAhVaHGMKHbjxA4MQ6AEIKzAB • Mananuṃ darpaṇa: https://books.google.com/books?id=KHbRjgEACAAJ&dq=%22Anandmurti+Gurumaa%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF0ci4vYTOAhUX4WMKHbGHCzUQ6AEIKzAD • Health and Healing Through Yoga: http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/9789381464038 • Shakti : http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/9788190406024 • Many more: http://www.gurumaa.com/store/spiritual-wisdom-store

4. External links: • Verified Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/AnandmurtiGurumaa • YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/gurumaaashram • Official Website: www.Gurumaa.com

Salil Chaudhary 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salilchaudhary (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Salilchaudhary

First off, this is not an admin-only page. Many of us aren't admins. (In fact, I think there are only 500-something admins on English Wikipedia.) We're all just here to help new users.

Also, not many people are willing to wade through the massive wall of text you've posted, including me, so I'll just commment on why the article was deleted and hopefully clear that up for you.

Now, to answer your question, according to the deletion discussion, it was deleted because all of the references in the article failed to show how the person was notable in Wikipedia's special sense of the word. As noted in that discussion, a Google search also failed to show how the person was notable. Had that Google search shown how the person was notable, the article may not have been deleted.

Feel free to create an article by the same name, but I recommend you use the Articles for Creation process, which allows you to create a draft and have other more-experienced editors comment on it when you're ready. When an editor thinks the draft is ready, they'll move it to a more permanent page that doesn't have "Draft:" at the beginning of the name.

Happy editing!

Gestrid (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, according to your contributions, you've been spamming this post in several places. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Salilchaudhary, please read Your first article and WP:Referencing for beginners. I am not interested enough to look through all the bare URL's you have given to see how many of them meet the basic, fundamental requirement for references that they are substantial pieces about Gurumaa by people who have no connection with him (and not based on interviews or press releases). What I do know is that his own publications, and anything on social media, do not contribute in any way to his notability (in the special Wikipedia sense). --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• A lot of this was already answered here as well. I'll be honest in that few to none of the links are usable in any format and even fewer are the type that would actually work towards showing notability. There aren't enough to establish notability and I'm actually mildly convinced at this point that there just isn't enough coverage (including anything not listed here) to establish notability for this person to satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

how to add categories to a post

i have made a post on wikipedia please help me add categories to this post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raksha57 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Raksha57. If you are talking about Vijyant Thapar, you have a much more serious problem with that article. It has been nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Everything you add to Wikipedia, except brief cited quotes, must be your own original writing. Once you create an article on a notable topic that does not violate copyright, we can help you add categories. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayant Thapar, which I think concerns the same person. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Raksha57. In addition to the problems with the text pointed out above, there are also some serious problems with the media files you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. You uploaded these files as your "own work" and freely licensed them, but they all appear to have been taken from the a website about Thapar. Unless you can show that this website has clearly agreed to freely license these images or provide proof that you created them yourself and that you are the their copyright holder, they are almost surely going to be deleted from Commons as copyright violations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

how do you make a new wikipedia page.

there was a topic i was searching for, and it didn't exist, is it possible to make a new page.Wasabi,the,one (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wasabi,the,one: yes, any logged-in user can create a new article on Wikipedia. Before you do so, you should read this brief advice page. It contains helpful information, including how to write an article that won't be immediately nominated for deletion. You might also consider going through articles for creation, an optional process wherein experienced Wikipedia volunteers will assist you in making sure that your article fits our criteria for inclusion. If you decide not to make use of articles for creation, you can easily create a new article by doing a search for the title you want to use. If the article doesn't exist, you'll see the text "You may create the page ..." Just click on the red link to create the page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wasabi,the,one, please use Wikipedia:Article Wizard for starting new article.—Constanstin 08:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Bots replacing manually updated information

How do I stop a protected auto bot from replacing my new information with the bots outdated information? SusanneSCSusanneSC (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SusanneSC, and welcome to the Teahouse! In general, the bots we have on Wikipedia do a pretty good job keeping up with stuff. (For example, it was HostBot that invited you here.) In this case, the bot was right to revert you, as we don't normally allow Facebook links in the External Links section, per our External Links Policy. In the future, though, if you feel the bot has made a mistake, feel free undo the edit the bot made. Before you undo an edit made by a bot, make sure it had good reason to revert it. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

To summarize the guideline: An external link to a person's official website is allowed (or even encouraged) in the biography of that person. Additional links to other social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and so on, are not necessary and are actively discouraged. If the person does not have a conventional website, then a single link to a verified social media site is allowed. Many Facebook pages for celebrities are unofficial, unauthorized fan pages, and are of no use on an encyclopedia, so caution is in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@SusanneSC: When the bot saw you added a Facebook link, it reverted all your consecutive edits in the page history [1]. That may seem harsh. You can try to redo the other edits but several of the other changes were problematic. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Spelling: US or British English?

I noticed on a talk page where someone had complained and asked that "cancelled" be corrected and spelled "canceled". Someone replied that "both" are correct. I know that in the U.S. it is spelled "canceled" but out in the British world it goes by "cancelled". Does Wikipedia have a policy on spelling English words? 3dSurveyor (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi 3dSurveyor please see WP:ENGVAR which opens:-

"The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other"

It then explains that each article should be consistent, how the variety should be chosen, and that once chosen it should not be altered - Arjayay (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• WP's policies (linked above) are there mostly to favour stability. If an article exists in one form, then we avoid changing it. Simply because otherwise every editor coming along may well change it again to their own favoured version.

If an article is inconsistent, then it should be made consistent. It might spell "colour" both ways. It might use both "color" and "valour". But gain agreement and consensus on the talk page first. This should usually be by reverting to the first choice made in early versions of the article.

There is no policy of, "Wikipedia is in the US", therefore it has a preference.

It is more complicated if an article is tightly related to one national version: in such a case we do change article text to match. But gain consensus first. "Washington DC" is pretty obvious, but others much less so. Yes, "rock and roll" might be an American invention, but that's not a sufficient reason to change the wording.

Some articles are deliberately international and describe national variations within sections of that article. There is nothing in ENGVAR which says that an article must be made so consistent as to use words which are simply inappropriate, such as "sidewalks in London" (rather than "pavement"), even in an article on sidewalks that uses US English. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Need help in editing the Bio of Black Mind

Need help in editing information about a Malawian HipHop Artist by the name of Black Mind. I strongly feel HipHop artists and artists in general in Malawi are not well documented hence why i decided to start documenting and i really need help to make sure the editing is ok09:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krischirwa (talk • contribs)

Hello, Krischirwa. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not the right place to "start documenting" any subject. Every single piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be sourced to a reliable published reference, so if a subject is not well documented already, then there cannot be a Wikipedia article on that subject. Please read about notability and [WP:verifiability|]]. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Krischirwa, I managed to find one mainstream press article that is substantially about "Black Mind" - http://allafrica.com/stories/201607190743.html - but that's all. The rest of what I found are either merely passing mentions or publicity and social media. If you can find more articles like the one I did, perhaps in Malawian magazines that are not online), you might have enough to start an article. Just keep in mind that his own publicity and social media do not qualify to establish notability. Please look closely at the notability standard for musicians, to help you decide if an article is possible. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Krischirwa. It would be good to have better coverage of non-Western musicians on Wikipedia, and to try to combat Wikipedia's systemic bias towards Western subjects in general. We do need sources to base articles on, though. Is it possible that there are offline sources (e.g. print magazines, as mentioned by Dodger67) that could help us here? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Add images to Wikimedia Commons

What are the guidelines for uploading images to Wikimedia Commons? Gordon410 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Gordon410, just click here and upload an image!—Constanstin 15:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Gordon410, you should be aware, however, that much more is involved than simply uploading an image. You must provide specific information to prove that the image has no copyright restrictions. Otherwise, it is likely to be deleted. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Where can I find images with no copyright restrictions? Thanks. Gordon410 (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Take them yourself, or obtain a release from the photographer, or use images that are in the public domain due to age. Is there a specific reason why you are asking? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gordon410 - first, a lot of images are on Wikimedia Commons already, so I would start by searching carefully for what you want just in case it's there already. A good place to find copyright-free images is still Flickr right now. Search on Flickr and select "Any Licence" --> "Commercial Use & Mods Allowed". Then you can find images that are acceptable for use - any that aren't tagged on the right of the image view "Public Domain". (These images won't be completely free of copyright restrictions - you may have to give credit to the photographer in some cases - but Wikipedia can use them.) Download images you want to your computer and then upload them here, remembering to fill in all the details for things like licence. Another good place to find pictures that are out of copyright is the Internet Archive - in general most books published before 1900 are out of copyright now, though you may want to read through the terms. You can download scans of old books from there as jpeg files. If you can tell me specifically what you want on my talk page I can help, but those are the main things to remember. Blythwood (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I delete an image that I have previously uploaded? Comtos (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Comtos: no, but it is easy to ask for deletion, in fact, far easier than in Wikipedia. If you explain that it was uploaded in error, then it will probably be deleted quickly without fuss.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this person notable enough for wikipedia

Before I attempt this again, I wonder if my daughter is notable enough for Wikipedia and if I might kindly ask for opinions about this from those in the Teahouse. Her name is Ashley Kidd and she is a professional Wake Boarder (2 time world champion). She's the best thing that has ever happened to me, and I just want to do something special for her....that is if her notoriety is enough to warrant a listing in Wikipedia. Thank you, Don Kidd............PS I realize listings attempted by friends or family members are frowned upon, but in the end it's all about the notoriety, so I hope you will look past that.Donaldrkiddjr (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Donaldrkiddjr. Notability (NB: not notoriety) on Wikipedia is generally judged by whether a subject, such as your daughter, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For sportspeople, there are some specific guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Since you have a clear conflict of interest, if you do try to write the article then you need to declare this (well done for acknowledging it here). I think the best thing to do would be to wait for someone else to write the article, but if you insist on doing it yourself, then you should do so via Wikipedia:Articles for creation so that it can be reviewed before going "live". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Update to the above: I now see that you'd already submitted a draft, so that comment about Wikipedia:Articles for creation is redundant - you're already doing that. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As long as your daughter is notable enough (in Wikipedia's special sense), you're not being paid to create the article, and you declare your conflict of interest properly, you should be fine.

Also, the article must be in a neutral tone. It must also include any notable bad things that she may have done, if any.

I realize that's a lot of guidelines, but it's all so that, in the end, it becomes a better article.

-- Gestrid (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi from me too, Donald, and welcome to the Teahouse. One of the reasons writing about family and friends is discouraged is that it is terribly hard to write in a neutral, boring, and encyclopedic way about that person. I had a look at your draft User:Donaldrkiddjr/sandbox. I've re-written it in a more neutral encyclopedic tone and added references in the proper formatting to give you an idea of how to go about taking it forward. I think it is possible that she passes the notability criteria for sportspeople, as I was able to find references for her twice being the wakesurfing world champion. However, this is a fairly new sport and there isn't any specific guidance on it at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I'll see if I can find a couple of experienced sports editors for a second opinion. In the meantime, I've moved it to Draft:Ashley Kidd which is the preferred location for drafts like this. The page Help:Getting started has some useful basic tips, check it out. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald has continued the conversation on my talk page, in case anyone wants weigh in there. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Article summary text in official app

The official WP app shows summary text for most articles. For example, the summary text for London reads "Capital of England and the United Kingdom". However, I am not able to edit this information as it does not exist in the article itself. Is the summary text editable anywhere? It's fine for London, but I have noticed articles where it is wrong, in some cases even appearing to have been vandalised. —BillC ^talk 14:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@BillC: the information you are referring to is found in Wikidata so the text for London is found at d:Q84 where it can be edited by editing the first field - the description. Nthep (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. —BillC ^talk 17:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Make image unclickable

Is there a way to make it so that if you click an image, nothing happens? Thanks. NikolaiHo 00:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Nikolaiho. The answer is "no". Clicking on an image takes our readers to details about that image, including who created it and whether it is free of copyright, or freely licensed by the copyright holder, or "fair use" in compliance with our policies. This is legally necessary information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Nikolaiho. I know of at least one way to do this, but this would only be legally kosher for a public domain image (though still less than ideal). Doing so for images licensed as fair use, or under one or more free copyright licenses such as the GFDL and/or a suitable Creative Commons license would be impermissible. Can you advise the reason you want to do this and specify the image involved, if you had one in mind?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit Hi, I was just generally curious about whether it can be done or not. NikolaiHo 01:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

uploading a non-free logo image

I want to upload a non-free logo image on Wikipedia's article but Idon't know how, can anybody help me please? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, shorouq★kadair. Please read our policy on use of non-free images, which should give you the information you need. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

For a new user, I'd recommend that you do not read the Wikipedia project pages about fair-use images. The information isn't presented in a easy-to-understand format. Also, there is a lot of discussion between editors about the scope of the policy, etc. ⇒ Just follow the directions at Template:Logo rationale. And, don't worry about the policy. If something isn't right, then we can fix it. Wikipedia is a collaboration, and your contributions are always welcomed. Senator2029 “Talk” 04:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Aren't newspapers considered adequate 'reliable sources'? What are 'non-trivial references'?

The article I wrote on Ajai Vir Singh has been declined because of lack of adequate reliable sources. It was my understanding that newspaper articles are reliable sources. Also, I don't understand what non trivial references include. Can someone help me understand this better? And what exactly should I do to have the article accepted? Thanks. WikiMurk (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

News paper articles can be reliable sources, but "non-trivial references" means that the newspaper articles need to be specifically about the article subject instead of merely mentioning the article subject in passing.

Try starting with just the newspaper that mention the article subject in the title and are just about that subject. Write a short article summarizing and paraphrasing only those sources. Then, after the draft is approved, expand it with the other sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, to answer your question on what constitutes a reliable source, I suggest you take a look at our reliable sources guidelines. -- Gestrid (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like to see an article written primarily using newspaper sources, you can see Bud Dunn, which I wrote and got to GA. Google's Newspaper archive is an excellent resource for information on people who were notable before the internet got big. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I make a new page?

I want to make a new Wikipedia Page, "List of fatal shark attacks in South Africa" but I notice that their is already a page that is "List of shark attacks in South African territorial waters." However, that page is incomplete, with only 3 entries in it. Normally, I would just continue that page, only their would be several hundred entries in it, and would take a long time to make. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Shakiba (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to make a new Wikipedia Page, "List of fatal shark attacks in South Africa" but I notice that their is already a page that is "List of shark attacks in South African territorial waters." However, that page is incomplete, with only 3 entries in it. Normally, I would just continue that page, only their would be several hundred entries in it, and would take a long time to make. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Shakiba (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you stated the question twice (rather than once) by accident. I don't entirely understand the question. If what you want is to add only the fatal shark attacks, and not all of the shark attacks, I would suggest adding all of the fatal shark attacks to the existing article, and adding a clarification that they are only the fatal shark attacks. If I didn't understand the question, please explain it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The article that exists but is very incomplete is List of shark attacks in South African territorial waters. If you want to create a complete or nearly complete list of fatal shark attacks (and the term "in South African territorial waters" is more accurate than "in South Africa", because the sharks are not on the African mainland), I would suggest discussing on the talk page of the existing article whether a new article would be appropriate or whether to include the information in the existing article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The topic my article is "Harrori Khakoo village council, its resident tribe Akhun Kheil, and their family tree:.. and the lead sentence is: Harrori Khakoo village council, its residents tribe (Akhun Kheil), and their family tree are described in this article.

I was wondering if the lead sentence does point out to the topic where I am interested in description of village council (Harrori Khakoo), its residents (Akhun Kheils) and their family tree. The reviewer asks for a lead sentence which should clarify the topic. Can Wikipedia article describe 3 items or it has to be only one item in the article. Thanks. Adamkhandr (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Adamkhandr. In general, a Wikipedia article should be about a single discrete topic, such as a village in this case. A separate article about a village council is not appropriate, since that should be covered in a governance section of the main village article. The residents of the village should be described in a demographics section of the article. The family tree of the residents is not appropriate on Wikipedia, in my opinion, because we are not a genealogy website. Sometimes, we include rigorously well referenced ancestry information about a highly famous person, but not about all the residents of a village. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please check

Both Great Grand Mast and Great Grand Masti are about the same film. But the exact name is not Great Grand Mast. So please check these pages as they are duplicate. ThanksSilent Hunter (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed for deletion the incorrectly named article (which is also only a subset of the correctly named article). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for your attention.Silent Hunter (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you think either WP:A10 or turning the article into a redirect would be a better option here, Robert McClenon? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

A redirect as a plausible misspelling may be the best solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Reidrect as plausible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops. I made a plausible misspelling in that statement, but the redirect is there. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Signature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why my signature is simple but signature of other people is colourful. Example:(Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it) his signature is colourful. How????.Silent Hunter (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Silent Hunter, and I am glad you like my signature. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures, especially section 4 about customization. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Silent Hunter, first go to Special:Preferences, and then go to your profile settings and customize your signature. Thanks.—Constanstin 07:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: @Constanstin: OH! I got it. Thanks for your help.Silent Hunter (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yahoooooo! I customized my signature too. You guys helped me a lot. ThanksSilent Hunter ^Talk 08:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need convenient general way to force tt or serif font

First the context:

In most sans-serif fonts the letters lowercase L "ell" and capital i "eye" are almost identical— l/I — and can be distinguished only through context:

• I saw a lady.
• l saw a Iady.

The two are switched in one of these; can you tell which? ... Oh, by the way, I've observed that the default font for some pages, in some contexts, uses a sans serif font that nevertheless has serifs on the capital "i". This is true of Template: Font/doc, which I've just edited with the summary

Change Illinois example to specify Arial font instead of leaving font default. On some devices, including my smartphone, the default font here has serifs on the capital "i", which voids the example.

Similarly, I've forced the above examples to Arial for a fair exposition.

But in certain environments the context is unreliable or non-existent. I first encountered this issue on Wikipedia while editing Klingon language and other articles that use or mention Klingon words. I originally resolved the ambiguity by enclosing every Klingon string on those pages in <tt>...</tt> to force typewriter font, and created {{Tt-Klingon}} to explain the usage on those pages:

On this page, Klingon text in the Latin alphabet is displayed in typewriter font, and with the modifier letter apostrophe ( ʼ ) rather than the ASCII apostrophe ( ' ), which is a punctuation mark.

See Klingon language § Writing systems.

But then the tt tag was declared obsolete, at least in Mozilla, and around June 13, 2014, I changed all those tags to code, which enforces typewriter font but also encloses its content in a dashed outline to distinguish code from text. (What you see above is the modified template with code rather than the original with tt.)

Now the problem:

That's fine for actual code, and it's acceptable when the content is an example or quotation that is qualitatively distinct from the text, such as phrases of tlhIngan Hol discussed in a text written in the English language. But it's definitely awkward when the content is phonetic notation, which is used all over Wikipedia, but in which most of the time there is sufficient context to make the difference evident. But not all the time, as in this paragraph from Spanish phonology § consonants, presented here about as I see it on that page:

Although there is dialectal and ideolectal variation, speakers may also exhibit other near-minimal pairs like abyecto ('abject') vs abierto ('opened'). There are some alternations between the two, prompting scholars like Alarcos Llorach (1950) to postulate an archiphoneme /I/, so that ley [lei̯] would be transcribed phonemically as /ˈleI/ and leyes [ˈleʝes] as /ˈleIes/.

As above, I've used {{ Font }} to force the font to Arial. In addition, I've removed the tt tags that the page has around every capital "i" in the IPA examples in the last sentence, but left the big tags that surrounded them. There is your context, and even with my finagling, there's still a visible difference because of the big tags.

But now look at the last three lines of the paragraph in a screenshot from my smartphone. (I'm sorry it's so big. I don't know how to make it smaller here, and by the time I had taken it, maneuvered my way through the Commons Upload Wizard, and seen what it looked like, I wasn't going to go back, reduce it on my computer, and go through the whole rigmarole again.)

Can you tell the small "L" from the capital "i"? I can't. Confusing, isn't it? So the question is:

Do we have a way to make this distinction clearly visible on all kinds of pages in all browsers? Or, if not, can we make a way to do it?

References

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thnidu. Here is a general discussion of typography on Wikipedia and serif versus sans serif typefaces: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-03-26/Op-ed. Perhaps you can contact some of the WMF staffers and active editors who commented there for further information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. I'll do that when I get the chance. --Thnidu (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)