Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 91

Archive 85

←

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

→

Archive 95

Videos

How do you upload videos on wikipedia articles? anybody tell me how? Thanks, I hope to recieve an answer soon.Disney fan 71 (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Welcome to Teahouse. Wikipedia allows to upload files of selected formats only. You can upload OGV format videos. But, you must own the copyright or the license should follow Wikipedia's standard licenses. What kind of video you want to upload? --Tito Dutta (contact) 02:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

One of David Scott's first steps on the Moon (Apollo 15) from apolloarchive.com. Disney fan 71 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

How to tell an editor from a contributor in changes made

How can you learn what the reason for a revision was, and whether the revision was made by a contributor or an editor? Thanks.Robyn42 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Robyn42. Every article (and almost all other pages including this one) has a page history. Using it, you can see, among other things, what each editor actually changed or added using "diffs" (derived from differences) and the edit summary they left when they made the edit, which is intended to be used by editors to summarize what they did on an edit and often why. Between these, you should be able to suss out the reason for any particular revision. Sometimes editors make it hard by not leaving any edit summary, not providing a transparent one, or by doing neither coupled with a change that is far from self-explanatory. Nevertheless, between looking at diffs and the edit summary, the reason is usually fairly clear. If still not though, you could always hit the editor up on their talk page for an explanation.

I confess I do not understand what you mean in your question when you appear to make a distinction between "contributors" and "editors"; there is no such distinction I am aware of. Though you didn't ask directly, given the context of your question I thought you might get some use out of the WikiBlame tool. It allows you to find which editor was responsible for the addition of a particular portion of text in an article with a large page history that would be difficult to find otherwise. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the OP was referring to persons who added new content as contributors and persons who did less glamourous (typo fixing, for example) work as editors, but I may be mistaken. In that case, I believe Recent Changes shows the size of the edit in bytes. If it's a large number in green, then it's likely addition of content. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We call everyone who contributes to Wikipedia pages an "editor" whether they write articles, fix typos, write policy, tinker with templates or do anything else! Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

please help...also, can someone make it a bit easier to get started?

wow...finally found a spot to type something in. *sigh* i wanted to contribute to wiki since around 2003, but it was too intimidating for someone who doesn't have a ton of time to learn. thanks to the sandbox, it wasn't as much that i would mess up...it was that there was just too much to know in order to just get started and to do it properly. in the last year or two, there have been several solicitations for people to edit, so i was motivated to now give it a try.

please be kind--i'm a total novice here.

i ran into a problem when i wanted to do something as simple as leave a comment in the 'talk' section about what i had edited. i found all sorts of info and guidelines about what to say and how to say it, but i couldn't find any instructions on where to start--where to type in the text.

then, i came to the help section, and had the exact same problem...i clicked on the 'teahouse' link, and after going through several pages, i eventually found this one with a button that allowed me to enter text. whew!

maybe it's done for a reason, maybe i'm just slow and missed it, or maybe this is an oversight. well...here i am, and the main thing i need to know first is how to type text into the talk page.

another question i have... is there a tutorial specific to footnotes? obviously, footnotes are a core element for any post--no matter how short or long--but there isn't an overt footnote information guide as part of a beginner's introduction to editing. plenty of instructions about the importance of footnotes, but nothing 'in our face' about how to code it. i haven't done an extensive search, but then again, given that it's a key part of all entries, it would really help to not have to go searching--but to have that in a very visible place. maybe, again, i'm blind and it was right there, but every time i saw something about footnotes, it wasn't related to the technical aspect of how to insert and code them.

last question...is it allowed to just start a page on a subject that needs to be covered--as a means of encouraging others who have the knowledge to flesh it out?

any help with these issues would be greatly appreciated.

p.s.- i don't understand how these tildes work, so please forgive if i get it wrong...

Number.6.freeman (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Number.6 (but then you're not a number are you, you're a free man!). Welcome to the Teahouse. The first bit of good news is that you got the four tildes bit right first time, so you've no worries on that score. There's a lot to answer above, so I'll try to break it down ito easy points:

• To enter text on Wikipedia - on any page - go to the Edit tab at the top. If you want to leave message on a Talk page, the process is the same. Go to the Talk tab, then the Edit tab, then scroll to the bottom of the page and leave your message. You'll also see, after every header on a page, a little (edit) link - clicking that will allow you to edit just that section. There is also a "New section" tab at the top of talkpages that you can use to start a new thread.
• For the technical aspect of references (what I presume you mean by "footnotes") see if this essay is any help; I wrote it for people in exactly your position.
• You can certainly start an article on a subject in the hopes that others will expand it - I did so myself only this morning. Such pages are called stubs, and whilst they aren't perfect, they're certainly preferable to nothing at all.

I hope that helps clear a few things up; if you need more help please do feel free to leave me a message, or ask here for further clarification. It does get easier, I promise! Yunshui 雲‍水 15:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• oh, i just know i'm going to do something wrong here, but here we go...

• first, thank you so much for the warm welcome. very helpful and very professional--even better than what i could imagine. altho, i kept wondering if it was just a hallucination and i would wake up in the 'village' (inside joke re your comment about freeman). having gone back to the talk page, i see it should be simple. but now one other question...is there a protocol for posting more recent comments first or last? i see both, but if there is an assumed protocol, i would like to follow it.
• as to the tutorial--yes, Yunshui--perfect! i actually did my first 2 citations and thanks to your page, it was basically painless. that should be a front-page link for all newbies.
• re the stubs...yes, i am aware of those. but, the impression i have gotten when seeing those is that they are 'frowned on.' i'm glad they are acceptable for the reasons you gave. thank you, again.

Number.6.freeman (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hello and Welcome to the Wikipedia!

I suggest that you get started by reading up on the Tutorial. Just click on the blue link to the left, and follow the instructions there. It explains a lot of simple things on Wikipedia! The first video on the right of this Video Tutorials page might also help.

Feel free to browse through any of them, and do ask another Question if you have a doubt!

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hello TheOriginalSoni-- yet another kind 'voice' -- thank you too. i thought i had gone through most of the basic tutorial info, but i don't recall a video, so i don't know if i looked at that page or not. i will now. and i saw that i also now have your info on my talk page for future questions (hopefully i can find my way back here, too, if i need to lol).

Number.6.freeman (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jayron 32,

Thanks for the info, It was just what I needed! DaveUplinkdave (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

One more thing; when you have finished adding text, don't forget to click on the "Save page" button!

Top or bottom
Apart from this page always post a new section of a talk page at the bottom. Top posting is done here to make it easier for beginners. Not wholly sure that's a good idea - I even got a bank statement that was top-posted recently, causing a large error... but it's how we do it. Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Can I correct a link to / citation of my website in the `Distinguishable Interfaces' article?

I'm trying to correct a link that someone made to my website in the `Distinguishable Interfaces' article on Wikipedia, and the edit triggered a spam-filter ("Your edit has triggered a filter designed to warn editors, organisations and companies against usin Wikipedia as an advertising medium.").

The link in question is a bullet in the "External links" section at the bottom of the page, currently reading:

       "VisualIDs for Nautilus Reference implementation of VisualIDs
        for the Linux Nautilus file browser, by J. Rosen",

... and it links to a section of my weblog.

The issues here are:

• my project is actually called "libvisualid", and it's just a

'reference implementation of VisualIDs', not specifically something for Nautilus or Linux (and, if you follow the link as it stands, you land on a page that doesn't really say anything about Nautilus or file-management but does say things about other applications)

• I'm pretty sure the link should actually go either to

the actual project website or a specific blog-post, not to whatever happens to be the latest blog-post.

• "J. Rosen" is not the way I'm normally referenced;

my name is "Joshua Judson Rosen", that's how everyone knows me, and that's how I'm usually cited

Should I (can I?) just ignore the warning and proceed? Or should I find someone else to go make the edit for me to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety (though I'd think the before-and-after content of the change would make it clear that I didn't add the link or citation, or change it to add bias, I just fixed it)? Or...?

Rozzin (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joshua (can I call you Joshua?) and welcome to the Teahouse! Based on what you've told us, your edit seems to be fine. Remember, however, to leave a clear edit summary summarizing your edit, so other editors don't think it's spam. Thanks, FrigidNinja 19:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I corrected my name in that article, along with making a couple of other edits that seemed sufficiently obviously-nonconflicted. For the link to my website, though..., after reading through the guidelines on COI and apparent COI, it does seem like it'd be preferable for someone else to make a decision about what form that link should actually take and fix it; so I just left a note on the article's Talk page requesting that someone else fix it.

Rozzin (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Finding Pictures

I was looking for a picture of Eve Hewson and Ali Hewson to add in their articles, but I don't have full Internet access. Can anybody tell me if there are any of these two people's picture? Miss Bono (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Any picture would need to be "freely licensed". I could find nothing on commons, but maybe I did not look very hard. I have added image requests. Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

Sources Again

Need some reliable source that says another Bono's alias, like: The Sonic Leprauchaun, The Sunglasses' Imelda Marco... etc. Because I've posted some of them ("B-Man", "B") but they were deleted for not having a reliable source. Anyway, I just read that Ali herself calls him "B", but I can't remember were I saw it. I need help, please. Miss Bono (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sonic Leprechaun - U2: A Musical Biography By David Kootnikoff, page xi (First page of Introduction) [Do a quick search in Google Books for that book]
• The Sunglasses' Imelda Marco - Rolling Stone magazine, No. 986 (3 November 2005)

• Also, Independant in Ireland.

• B Man - This site is the closest I can get. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Log

Why deletion log should be kept in article history after article deletion e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Management_Company. When I open a red linked page, the page redirected to deletion log. Why is it so? 182.189.103.193 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hello editor and welcome to the Teahouse.

To answer your question, there are several reasons -

1. Wikipedia is transparent in almost everything that is done. Nearly every edit is visible to anyone who wants to see it. To put deletion logs is therefore logical.
2. It reduces the possiblity of deliberate malice on the deleter's part. Anyone can see who deleted it, and is free to ask the question of "Why was it deleted"
3. It allows for better maintainance. Very often, people keep trying to make some particular page which ought not to be here. A deletion log serves as a reminder of sorts. If a page is deleted repeatedly, it would make sense not to try making it.

Hope this helped.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

wiki user name

just become a wiki user. i want to change my user name, can i cancel the first name and start over? thks (Deborahannb (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Deborah and welcome to the Teahouse! You basically have two options: you can go to this page and request a username change. Eventually, a bureaucrat (usually User:MBisanz) will come by and, provided there are no problems, change your account name. Another option is simply starting over with your new username. See WP:CLEANSTART for the details, but basically, since you don't have a ton of edits, you could simply start over with a new user name. Just make sure that you don't ever use your current account again. I would strongly recommend option one, but option two could also work. See Wikipedia:Changing usernames for the policy. Thanks! Go Phightins! 22:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

i'll do option one as you suggest. many thanks(Deborahannb (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Caruso

Hi everyone. I am having trouble getting my article approved and it was declined. I wonder if anyone could suggest how to improve without using references that are considered spamming sale refs. I used a lot of wiki links. Are Allmusic and Amazon links preferable? I know social networks are not acceptable and he does not have a personal .com or .net site. Clearly Mr. Caruso is well known and respected in the industry and in the industry and should be considered in the index here. mary Paulhus15 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Welcome to the teahouse! Here at Wikipedia, we like to use only reliable sources, which we define as major secondary sources with editorial oversight. This includes newspapers, respected and/or major magazines in the field, and academic journals. Most of the time, Amazon isn't going to be a reliable source for an article. The reason we only take reliable sources such as that strict definition thereof is because of our "notability" guidelines. These guidelines state that we only have an article if it's received significant coverage in reliable sources. If we let anything at all be a reliable source, we'd have articles on Joe from down the street. Sorry it's a bit complicated! gwickwire^talk_editing 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

New to Wiki - How do I know if I've edited correctly?

I understand that this is a volunteer-based, collaborative website, and as an editor for many ESL students at my university I understand the need for proper grammar. However, how do I know if the small contributions I've made are acceptable? I'd hate to undo someone's hard work because I believe I know best on a certain grammatical matter. Any thoughts? Thanks! :) - NewbieNatalie Natalie2492 (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! I've reviewed your contributions, and you seem to be doing a great job! Phrasing improvements are always helpful. Let us know if you have any other questions. Happy editing! Go Phightins! 03:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• You can also try to get a mentor here WP:Adopt who'll help you in every step! --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Page Ilona Harima removed to main namespace. Help needed

Hello, I have just moved my user-sandbox article on Ilona Harima to main namespace. Please check, there's something wrong, also in the category-section. I cannot find the article still in the public Wiki either, what's wrong! Marjarau (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done a few fixes. It takes a while for the indexing system to add a new article, it will get there soon. Roger (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Roger, Many thanks for the fixing of this article and doing the final steps on its way to public wiki ! One matter still needs correcting: In the categories Ilona Harima is under her Christian name Ilona but shoud be under H, Harima, her familyname. Originally there was also a link to her Finnish wikipage, I wonder where it hides? Anyhow, I'm gratefull for your help Marjarau (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The "sort order" is fixed by setting "DEFAULTSORT" to the required value - {{DEFAULTSORT:Harima, Ilona}}. I'll get back on the Finnish link. Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

OK the Finnish link is there in the normal place. I made a few other minor fixes to Ilona Harima. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

Rich where is 'the normal place'? I don't see a link to Finnish wikipedia on the Ilona Harima article. This is something I've been trying to do as well, to link interlanguage articles but to get it to work so far, to get stuff like link to the Ilona Harima article in Finnish I have to resort to things like [[:fi:Ilona Harima|link to the Ilona Harima article in Finnish]]. What am I missing? Thanks. Penguin2006 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The normal place for interlanguage links is at the foot of the left-hand menus. Looking at Ilona Harima it has Languages: Suomi, and the latter is the Finnish link. - David Biddulph (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I see it, thank you. I never noticed the interlanguage links went there before. Penguin2006 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchlist question

I have 7 articles on my watchlist, and I have email enabled. But I've noticed that I've been getting email notifications of changes on only one of the articles, not the others. I don't see anything wrong with my settings. Anyone have any insight of what might be causing this? Thanks, K828 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi K828 and welcome! Have there been edits made to all 7 of the articles? If so, check your preferences' settings. Perhaps you only have it set to send you emails when your talk page is changed? If not, I too am baffled. Go Phightins! 19:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Actually, of the 7 articles, 4 have had changes since I put them on my watchlist. But I've only been notified by email for one of them. In my preferences, this is checked "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed." K828 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It may well be that you only get one mail, until you use the site, to avoid spamming. Some other features work like this. Rich Farmbrough, 13:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Thanks, but I'm not sure what you mean by use the site. Do you mean having made an edit to the articles on my watchlist? I have done one or more edits to each of them.K828 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Using Talk page for major changes

I disagree with the Notable natives section in this article – Lynn,_Massachusetts. The list seems to be unnecessarily long and I don't agree with notableness of many of them. My question is around to take steps to change this. If I was to remove this section, I suspect I need to start a discussion on the article's Talk page beforehand. But what is no one comes to visit the Talk page? Is there a particular tag I should use? How long should I wait to gather others' opinions on the matter? Charger2 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be bold and make the change. If no one reverts you have a weak silent consensus. If it is reverted you should then discuss. Happy editing.Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Charger2, hope you are good! Well, an option would be to place a request for comment tag on the talk page for discussion and consensus for your proposed changes. Please choose the appropriate subtopics at requests for comment, if you are to use the process in the future. However, a more appropriate option would be to boldly make the constructive change, although if someone is to revert, please do not not edit war and see the bold, revert, discuss essay. Cheers. TBrandley 03:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I was bold and made the edit. I think I will hold off on using a request for comments tag as that appears to be part of dispute resolution. Charger2 (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles "watched" and "protected" from changes by original author

Recently, while correcting typos here and there, I happened on a bio article which, to me, seemed to require some attention. Because I was there and noticed the improvements required to bring the article up to what I perceived as standards for a biographical article, I tagged the article with multiple cleanup templates.

Back again today to ponder more typos to fix, I noticed that the templates I added to the article were deleted by the original author.

Now, I know that I could do a few things, such as replace the templates, and/or start a discussion on the Talk page of the article around bio article standards, etc. - which would essentially turn into a debate if the author decided to dispute my thinking.

A few things about me: I'm not interested, one way or another, about the fate of the specific article; I would like to learn; I feel I need support/ help in this situation. Thanks.

I would like to know a few things:

• Is the article indeed in need of cleanup (specifically, multiple: re-organize, copyedit, verify)?
• Is it okay that the original author rushes in and removes others' templates?
• If the original author shouldn't just remove others' changes, what should be the preferred recourse?
• If cleanup is required, would one of the Teahouse folks mind handling or requesting more seasoned help to handle this situation?

Here's the article in question: Blak Prophetz The changes to which I'm referring were on March 16 by me, and on March 19 by User_talk:John_shaftman

Thank you, Trish - HiTrish (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Heya Hitrish. Welcome to The Teahouse. To answer this as simply as possible: the original author of an article has no special privileges with regard to an article. Any person may edit the article and make improvements to it. If people disagree with whether or not such changes are improvements, they should discuss the matter at the article talk page and try to come to an agreement. But there is no special status accorded to someone merely because they create an article. You may want to see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for more information. Does that help answer at least some of your questions? --Jayron32 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jayron, yes, that helps! Thank you. I suppose now what's left to sort out is to look at the article to see if my thinking is good, and also figure out what to do, and who should do it, as there is bound to be contention as there have apparently been more than one previous issues with this contributor. HiTrish (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems this has been fully dealt with now as the article layout has been improved, my original cleanup suggestions re-instated with the original authors deletions reversed. I'm now satisfied that my questions have been answered; many thanks to the master editors involved for their speedy actions. Thanks again. HiTrish (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I spoke too soon. The original author has again removed templates for cleanup and continues to hone without care to Wikipedia standards. I'm going to bow out and remove from my Watchlist as I'm just not interested in pursuing a clash or trying to figure out what to do about all this. For the most part, my questions are answered. Thanks again. HiTrish (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As a new user, this sounds extremely frustrating. I understand you feel your edits are minor, but I encourage you to escalate this as I feel you are in the right. There is no reason your edits should be reverted, especially if they're fundamental edits like typo fixes. These fixes make Wikipedia better for everyone. Charger2 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Uploading photo - Michael Caruso

Hi, In an attempt to improve my article I have uploaded a photo to the commons. I am uncertain how to move it into the article. Also rules on photos seem rather strict. I wasn't sure if I handled the licensing correctly. Used the share and share alike option. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en; photo is here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Michael_Caruso.jpg. thanks again for your advise and expertise. mary Paulhus15 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! (Not sure whether to call you Paul or Mary, so I'll split the difference and call you Peter. ;) ) Once your file is uploaded to Commons, it's pretty simple to add it to a page. All you need to do is link to it like this: [[File:<file name>|thumb]]. So, in this case, it would be [[File:Michael_Caruso.jpg|thumb]]. This will automatically scale the image down to a reasonable size and put it into the page. There are a few other options, as well; there's a more comprehensive guide to it in the picture tutorial.

However, there is indeed a problem with the licensing, and Wikipedia's rules are pretty strict about such things. Basically, Commons can only accept images that have been released under a license compatible with the Share-alike license you mentioned. The problem is that only the person who owns the copyright to the image can release it under that license, and the person that holds the copyright is almost always the person who took the picture--even if it's a picture of another person, like it is here. That is, Michael Caruso himself would usually not hold the copyright, even though it's a picture of himself; it's the photographer who holds the copyright. Looking at the image you uploaded, it doesn't look like you were the one who originally took the photo; is that correct? If so, then I'm afraid it's not something that should be on Commons.

Don't worry about it too much, though! Copyright is a tricky business, and even old pros (and I'm far from an old pro myself) can get it wrong. Nobody will hold it against you. :) Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, if you look at commons:File:Michael Caruso.jpg you will see that the upload has already been challenged, and will be deleted unless you can satisfy the licensing requirements. But I agree with Writ Keeper: unless you are the copyright holder, you do not have the power to license it under CC-BY-SA or anything else. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you so much. I will delete photo myself and pass along info to someone who can possibly have the actual photographer upload it. I just think the bio would look better with one than without it. thank you so much Colin....it is Mary buy the way but you can call me Peter or Paul....so appreciate the knowledge and help here. mary Paulhus15 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Only the last para above was by me: the rest was Writ Keeper. Many articles would be improved by photos, but it is sometimes hard to find a suitable picture that is available for use. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

New article declined. Then, several hours later; it is back in the waiting queue

I submitted a new article. It was declined. Then, several hours later the decision appears to have been reversed by another editor. It seems the article is now back in the queue awaiting review. No reason was given for the reversal. Whilst I accept the article is far from perfect; I have more data to add. But before I do, I wanted to know whether the initial refusal was due to an over critial reviewer; or why the reversal was made. Should I ask elsewhere? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Redrice_School&action=history Many thanks for your advice. Andrewstimothy (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The original reviewer has been blocked for persistent disruptive editing at AFC, so I would recommend that you wait for review by a more competent reviewer, but there is nothing to stop you improving the draft while you wait. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation.Andrewstimothy (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have reviewed and accepted it (in Wikipedia all secondary etc schools/colleges are considered notable). See here, we have a section on this article already Red_Rice,_Hampshire#Redrice_School --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Interstate 84

Someone recently added a template to this dab page. I've not seen that before. Is there a policy or guideline about templating dab pages? Thanks, Illia Connell (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse. From Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Images_and_templates Including images and transcluding templates are discouraged unless they aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question.. I don't think the template is necessary. The plain link "Interstate 84, a 2000 film" should be removed too. I'll ask the editor to share his opinion here! --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. This is discouraged at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Images and templates, and looks superfluous to me. I suggest discussing it at Talk:Interstate 84 (explaining your reasons for removal, if that's what you do), and inviting both the the editor who introduced the change and members of the relevant WikiProject. Consensus according to policies and guidelines should be achieved that way. -- Trevj (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it as infoboxes don't generally go on disambiguation pages. I'm from the roads WikiProject and I'm sure that other people are fine with it too in this case. But as a general rule, it's good to ask. --Rschen7754 08:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your helpful responses. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Can a user share their sandbox draft with another user?

I want to be able to collaborate with another user that I know by e-mail. Does the sandbox allow for another user to review material before it is published? I'd like to be able to show it realtime so that the other can view and editG87Neuro (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, G87Neuro and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, that's fine. There are no restrictions on other editors viewing or editing your sandbox, so you can get another editor to help you with it. Chamal ^T•C 01:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, G87Neuro! Your sandbox will be open for access by any user. If you wish to use it to develop an article, I suggest you make sure that you are using your personal sandbox in your userspace, and not the main sandbox. If you want to read more about sandboxes, I recommend Help:Sandbox. Ducknish (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Translating Polish to English

Hello Everyone :) Im new. I want to translate pages from Polish to English. Is this ok? I did one on Johannes Quistorp, its in my sandbox. There's already a Polish and German page on him. Is there a special way to submit this, since its not my original work, just a translation of the Polish page? Thanks so much :) 79.190.61.89 (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 79.190.61.89! The answer is yes, it's okay, as long as you still have all of the references from the Polish Wikipedia article. You would put {{translated page|pl|(name of the page on the Polish Wikipedia)}} on the talk page of the article so that they know it's a translation. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A point to be aware of is that each Wikipedia is an independent project, and it is possible that the Polish Wikipedia has different requirements about notability and referencing. I have no reason to suppose that it does have different standards, and it might even be stricter; but I'm just giving a heads up that it is possible that a direct translation would not be acceptable in English Wikipedia without further work. You might find WP:Translation a helpful page to read. -ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Creating a good wiki page

Hi,

Can anyone recommend a company or user that can create a good wiki page and how much would it cost?

Johnelec17 (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Johnelec17, and welcome to the teahouse! Paid editing on Wikipedia is generally discouraged, but you may wish to take a look at MyWikiBiz. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, paid advocates are severely discouraged from editing in areas where they will be unable to remain neutral. Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest mean that it is best to edit about subjects that you can remain impartial towards. All content added must maintain a neutral point of view. You can read more at these articles: WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:NPOV. Ducknish (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Johnelec, why would you want to pay someone to write a wiki page when this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and you can create and edit the pages you want yourself? NtheP (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am jumping to unwarranted conclusions, but if people are contemplating paying somebody to create a Wikipedia page, it is usually because they want to promote themselves or their organisation or company. Please be aware that promotion of any kind is forbidden in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If the company is notable you can probably find someone who will create it free. What is the name of the company? Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

Picture Copying

Am I allowed to copy a picture from the internet that is not found on the Wikimedia Commons page? Could I just copy its URL to the article I would like it to be on? Morgana987 (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Morgana987, and welcome! No, unfortunately you can't do that (and it won't work anyway). As a Junior Wrangler here at the Teahouse, the approach I most often recommend is to find out who owns the original image, and then ask them to fill out the form at WP:CONSENT. If they are willing to do so, the image can then be uploaded at Commons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a wonderful image at this page which I sometimes refer File:Licensing tutorial en.svg --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You can, of course, link to an external image, in the event that it is a worthwhile link under our guidelines. Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

Replication Lag

Hey, I've got a question. Why mine or every wikipedians X!'s Edit Counter shows there's a replication lag. Mine are showing

• Caution: Replication lag is high, changes newer than 22 hours, 20 minutes, 12 seconds may not be shown--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Pratyya! I'm not positive, but I believe that replication lag only applies to Toolserver tools. What happens is this: Toolserver tools take a lot of time to run. So, in order to not bog down the real Wikipedia database, they run on their own database, separate from Wikipedia, but with a copy of the information in it. This copy is updated to reflect new changes in Wikipedia's real database (that is, our edits), but this update can get bogged down, and consequently, the replicated database that the Toolserver tools use can fall behind. Replication lag is a measure of how far behind the replicated databases are from the real thing.

So, if you have a lot of replication lag, it means that Toolserver tool results might not show the latest changes. In your example, if you run a tool on the Toolserver with 22 hours of replication lag, you'll only see edits that happened before 22 hours ago, since newer ones haven't been copied yet. It doesn't mean there's any delay on the real Wikipedia, though, since it's a separate system. So, even with a lot of replag, your newest edits will still show up on Wikipedia; it just might not show up on a Toolserver tool, like X!'s edit counter. Does that make sense? Writ Keeper (t + c) 03:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So you're telling me that the Toolserver tools runs on it's own. But I want to ask you (if you can answer), how the replication lag will go low?--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

All you can do is wait; it'll catch up eventually. :) Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• In my slow internet, the page is not opening (server is killing query more than 60 seconds). But, as far as I can remember, there is a link somewhere in the page where you can see the Toolserver status/current errors! You can find some information on "Replication lag" link too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Explicit sexual non free image: Mushrooms (film)

Both Paoli Dam and Mushrooms (film) are disputed for a long time and both articles are pending changes protected. Now, one user has added this image to illustrate a short portion of the plot. They reverted the reversion back and wrote a long post in reply. Can someone add a second independent opinion Talk:Mushrooms_(film)#added_picture_to_chatrak? --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tito, and thanks for stopping by. It is worth noting that there's already a discussion going on at this location regarding this image. It is best to keep all discussions in one locale, rather than splitting such discussions over many places. --Jayron32 03:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if they collected permission, the FFD should be withdrawn for good. Now the question is whether we need this image to illustrate a part of the plot? For last 8 month I have been fighting in this article! Too tired! This dispute is a new one (so far in previous disputes he used to support me and I used to support him).

I have a hunch (which I can have not mentioned there at the discussion, but, I can ask/discuss here at Teahouse): generally we don't add such images in WikiProject India article. And there are chances this article will be negatively covered by media for including one image which is not searchable until you turn off safe search!

You can add your independent comment at the talk page. --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a larger issue regarding his "purpose" in adding that image. I've left a note on his talk page. Chamal ^T•C 04:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

SCOTTISH TV SERIES

I want to add MONARCH OF THE GLEN TV series about Scotland - to the list of TV series about Scotland .... have no idea how to input this !! Historychiquita (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! I can see this question is unanswered for some time. So, I'll attempt to answer. In case, my answer is not helpful, just notify me. I'll ask a better host/volunteer to help you.

Now, you are talking about Monarch of the Glen (TV series)- that's the only article we have on TV series with that title! Either you want to add something in the table or list of series. If you describe in details, what actually you want to add and where, I can try to give you detailed answer (for example, you want to add the list of episodes, more details on each series etc)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Placing Wikimedia art into artist's Wikipedia page.

Hi-I'm placing fine art images for specific artists from Wikimedia to enter in artist's Wikipedia page for the Brooklyn Museum that are now in "public domain." How do I place museum name with image if not already included? Thank youDannb (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Let me see if I can answer this. First, if you are adding the image to the Museum's Wikipedia page or the arist's Wikipedia page, it would be added either in a gallery of images or indivually like this:

• 
  Edwin Deakin, She Will Come Tomorrow, 1888
• 
  Edwin Deakin, Christmas Morning, Hôtel de Cluny, nd, 1890s to early 1900s

Name of the artist, title of the painting and then the date. Here is what that looks like with the markup coding:

<gallery widths="200px" heights="200px" perrow="5"> File:She Will Come Tomorrow.JPG|[[Edwin Deakin]], ''She Will Come Tomorrow'', 1888 File:Christmas Morning, Hôtel de Cluny, n.d..JPG|[[Edwin Deakin]], ''Christmas Morning, Hôtel de Cluny'', nd, 1890s to early 1900s </gallery>

Of course, if you are adding just a single image use the regular thumbnail mark up like this:

[[File:Christmas Morning, Hôtel de Cluny, n.d..JPG|thumb|100px|left|[[Edwin Deakin]], ''Christmas Morning, Hôtel de Cluny'', nd, 1890s to early 1900s ]]

Which displays like this:

Edwin Deakin, Christmas Morning, Hôtel de Cluny, nd, 1890s to early 1900s

Now, if you are asking how to add the museum's name to the Wikimedia image page here is how that is done [1]. Add this code to the "location" on the image page: {{Brooklyn Museum location|collection=american art}} (that template will only work at commons) Of course the image requires the proper template to begin with and that is found here.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving the Haram article

Hi,

I propose to move the Haram article to "Haram (sanctuary)" and have Haram to forward to the Haram (disambiguation) page. The Haraam article actually starts by using the spelling "Haram".

I just wanted to check that this was a sensible/desirable thing to do?

Thanks, Jamie Kitson (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Welcome to Teahouse! Please propose it at the talk page of the article following the directions mentioned here. --Tito Dutta (contact) 6:17, 28 Febuary 2013 (ctu)

Problem With Names

Moved to top of page— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I post some information on Eve Hewson's article (her real name), I found it on a reliable source -Eve Sunny Day Hewson-, but someone deleted it because he "THINKS", Eve was joking about her name. I don't know, but I think there's a policy where you can only post information from a reliable source, not what you "think". I don't think Eve was joking, due her little brother's name-Elijah Bob Patricius Guggi Q- Who says Bono and Ali wouldn't name their girl Eve Sunny Day Hewson?? Plus, any source-as far as I know- says that Eve's first name is Memphis.. NOT EVEN HER OWN FATHER in U2 by U2... So, how can we fix this? Miss Bono (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! If you can't come to an agreement on the talk page with the other editor, then you can ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

Private emails and talk pages

If you received email from a well-known person, because you wrote and asked about their views on something, I know that absolutely cannot be used as a source in an article. But can it inform whether a quote published in a RS is included in an article? In this case the debate was whether a quote "reflected poorly" on a quotee because it was in an interview and maybe was a "casual remark". I think some editors felt including the quote was a form a cherry picking, not because the quotee ever expressed conflicting views, but just because perhaps we were including the harshest version of those views and maybe the quotee felt bad about that particular formulation. So I wrote the quotee, explaining it was research for a Wikipedia discussion, and they said that to this day that quote "expresses my feelings quite accurately". Now on the one hand this seems to completely resolve the debate. On the other hand I see problems with private correspondence, even just on the talk page. I imagine popping up and saying "he wrote me the answer is yes" might not go over well. Firstly some editors might just not believe me, because in fact there is no way to prove it. Secondly editors might write the poor person, who has a public email address, to get individual confirmation. It's sort of a weird thing, it seems like super useful information, but it seems hard to use it. Silas Ropac (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Silas, and welcome to the teahouse! I think there are often occasions where the views of the subject can inform our decisions on how we should edit. For example, there have been a few times where I have sought the views of the author of a quote before (or after) using their quote. However, if the quote has already been published in reliable sources, we shouldn't of course feel that we have to do this. But it seems to me that if the subject affirms that a quote reflects their views well, that's certainly worth consideration as a justification for using that quote as an indication of their views.

I think Jimbo Wales has slightly stronger opinions on matters similar to this. My understanding of his view is that if a person, for example, says they did or did not attend a particular High School, or that their middle name is or is not spelled a particular way, then we should take their word for that, rather than telling them they have to force a "reliable source" to publish it first. This comes back to a debate on verifiability on Wikipedia, which is a bit more involved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have seen this problem resolved successfully a number of times, when undeniable personal knowledge overruled something widely believed. I have also had the reverse where someone denied making statements reported by normally RS. The main difference is context, someone might easily forget something they said in an interview, or indeed wish they hadn't said it, but they are unlikely to be wrong (deliberately or accidentally) about major non-contentious details of their lives.

It is possible to mail WP:OTRS with issues relating to biographies of living people. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC).

As is well known, I think we could do a better job of this. I think there are cases, somewhat rare, in which we have information that we should consider trustworthy which goes further than reliable sources, or sheds light on them in a meaningful way. Using such information will always be tricky and difficult, but ignoring it is not a serious option.

We are still dealing with the after effects of the now-discredited and over-simplified mantra of "reliability, not truth".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all 3 insights. This was the discussion. Whether we ourselves let private information influence our thinking is one thing, but how are editors supposed to interpret private information provided by another editor? It could easily be made up, or maybe the subject mislead the editor on purpose, maybe it's all a joke, maybe the editor spoke to the wrong person, etc. But then no source is 100% reliable, mistakes and mis-quotes happen, or cases like Jayson Blair. I like Google's terminology that their search ranking considers hundreds of "signals" when ranking pages. Presumably no lone signal is completely trusted, but the right combination of signals can vault a page to the top. I think private information is a valid signal. We don't know if it is true, but we don't know if anything is true, really; all Wikipedia can do is act upon signals coming in. Like a brain does really. Silas Ropac (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Best practice - or How to do it?

Hello All,

The life-blood of Wikipedia is to my mind, collaboration and consensus. Especially when the topic has different standards in different countries. The problem I have is conversations - where should they happen? On the talk page for an article - no problems there. But recently. I have had conversations, where I am posting on a fellow editor's talk page and he is then answering on mine - forwards and back, like table-tennis. The full conversation is not visible and then we both tend to repeat ourselves. Bad enough when there is only one point being debated, but disaster when there are various points. So, should the debate happen on the talk page, where it started? And if that is my page, how do I alert the other editor that I have replied? Thanks Everyone. Kiltpin (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Great question there, and there's no real correct answer. Some editors like to keep all of the conversations they're involved in on their talkpage, some like them on others' talkpages, some like not having them on any talkpage, etc. Personally, what I do is this: If you post on my talkpage, I continue the discussion until it's over on my talkpage, and if I feel you haven't responded in a reasonable amount of time, I leave a {{talkback}} template on your talkpage to give you that "new messages" banner without actually putting my reply there. If I post on someone's page, I watchlist it, and then I'll reply when I see it on my watchlist. If someone starts something on an article talkpage, I'll watchlist that page (the talkpage and article are always watchlisted together by the software), to be able to reply in a timely fashion. What I'd suggest is ask the other editor if they wouldn't mind either continuing this all on their talkpage or on yours. If they don't agree, you could just reply at your talkpage and then they'll have to reply at your talkpage somehow. Hope this helps :) gwickwire^talk_editing 12:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply, gwickwire! You have confirmed what I thought. Thanks as well for the {{talkback}} template - I will be putting that to good use. Kiltpin (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything gwickwire said. Just popping by to note that I prefer {{talkbacktiny}}, which has a much small footprint on a user's talk page (thus its name).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Still need some help on an article for creation

Hi there folks,

I spent a lot of time learning the system here to try and get my first article in.. but was rejected twice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Amanda_Blain

I feel this person has enough notable sources,(new york times, huffington post, womens world, various blogs, Google itself) but it might need some more meat, or help from other more experienced editors. I didn't get much help the first time around. It seems social media people was not the best first choice, and those on you tube seem easier to get entered here than other forms of social media. Can someone give me some advice on this? Is 2.5 million people not notable? Geek4gurl (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

Looks like you've added a fair bit since it was last declined. I'm not a great expert on BLP issues here on Wikipedia but in terms of sourcing it: Google results aren't notable and the number of followers doesn't directly mean notability. However, reliable sources talking about the number of followers etc should cover it.

I would check your sources first, (the NYT one appears dead) then consider submitting it for review again. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the NYT citation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

will my text be saved? Where?

I want to make sure that I'll be able to get back to what I've been creating here after I turn off my computer. I clicked Save. Is that enough? Steve Leighton Smith (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Steve, welcome to the Teahouse. At the top of any page are a number of links. One of these is titled Contributions, clicking on that will take you to a list of the edits you have made so you can see where they are. A quick look shows me that you have made 9 edits, comprising the edit to the page to add the question and 8 to your sandbox page. NtheP (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Clicking the "Save page" button when editing will save your progress. I see that you have been using your sandbox, which is appropriate when you are saving your progress in large-scale edits. However I should note that Wikipedia has policies regarding the creation of autobiographies, which it appears that you are writing. Andrew³²⁷ 00:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipage in some other language...

What do I have to do to place / upload a new Wiki-page in some other language? I've already translate it... LoirenzoG (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi LoirenzoG and welcome to the Teahouse! A list of all Wikipedias in different languages can be found here. Currently, Wikipedia is in 285 different languages. You may go to the language you want and search for the article to make sure it does not exist. If it doesn't, click on the red link and upload your translated version. Hope this helps! ~~JHUbal27 22:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition, if the article exists in English Wikipedia, you can find the interwiki/wikidata list of other languages Wikipedia where the article has been created. For example, go to Ritwik Ghatak. At the left sidebar, you can see a column "Languages", here you can find all other languages where the article has been written! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What does this phrase mean?

I created an article stub in my sandbox, and then submitted it for review. upon doing so, it placed a box at the bottom of my article, which explained about the queue for approval and included this point... Warning: This page should probably be located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox

what does that mean?

thanks in advance for your help. Number.6.freeman (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Welcome to the Teahouse, and it's great that you've written such an article and submitted it! It should be reviewed soon. It looks like it didn't get "transfered" over correctly - if you visit your article submission now that warning will be gone. I actually moved it over for you - it was still located in your sandbox, I just moved it over to the Articles for Creation space. It's nothing you did wrong :) Hope this helps! SarahStierch (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

creating links

Hi! I am adding a technical term to two articles, and would like to be able to link them to each other (and make them available to be linked to from elsewhere). Is there an instruction page explaining how to do this? Cormackm (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Cormackm - great to see you working away. See Help:Link (has a video tutorial for you) - if you have problems pls just come back here.Moxy (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

how do i enter references?

I'm trying to add a paragraph to an existing article, and would like to give the reference in the proper form. How do I do this? Tried typing < name of reference >, but this just ended up getting included in the article! could be worse, but I'd like to do it right!Cormackm (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You'll find a useful guide at WP:Referencing for beginners. If there's anything there that you don't understand, please feel free to ask again. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is regard to the references again. I'm obviously doing something wrong! I click "cite" and pull down the template, in my case for "book" and I type in the information. I then hit "insert" and get a message:

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag

I assume these templates and tags are meant to list the actual references, but I'm not sure where they are to be found or how to insert them. Back in a bit, — Preceding comment added by Cormackm (talk • contribs) 19:10 26 march 2013; original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors

Cormack the <ref> </ref> tags are only part of the solution. After the main text of the article but before any See also or External link sections you need to add

==References==
{{reflist}}

to insert a reference section. The software will then take the text you have entered between the <ref> </ref> tags and place it where you have put {{reflist}}. Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

All explained at WP:Referencing for beginners.--ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia

Hello... again :)

I was wondering if there is any way to be able to see all the pictures about one specific theme without accessing to Wikimedia. I mean, posting the name of the pict on the URL. is there any page of wi,kipedia with a link to the names? For instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:56622363_BONO.jpg????Miss Bono (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to Teahouse. Generally most of (free) pictures related to a theme are stored at Wikimedia Commons (including the image which you have mentioned in your post). So you can easily access all images related to a theme by visiting the particular category pages (for example, see commons:Category:Krishna or commons:Category:Jesus Christ. Or you can search in Google image search "Query Wikimedia Commons" or "Query Wikipedia" --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey, Miss Bono, welcome back! There is indeed a tool that can do this: it's called grep, and it's a tool on the Wikimedia Toolserver. It's a bit tricky and technical to use, though. What you need to do is go on that page and select commonswiki_p in the "Wiki" field and "File" in the Namespace field, and then enter a regular expression (usually referred to as a regex) that matches what you're looking for. In this case, if you're looking for any image that has "Bono" in the file name, you could use this regex: .*Bono.* This regex will return any file with "Bono" somewhere in it. There will probably be many false positives (that is, images unrelated to Bono that just happen to have the letters "Bono" in the name), and regexes can be refined to account for that, but that should give you a start at least. Hope this helps! :) Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but if turns out that i don't have access to any of those sites!? I don't have full internet access- I only can access to wikipedia, not wikimedia, or wikicctionary, etc, so i was looking for a way to access those pictures by knowing the names, so I can search for them just adding the name at the end of the URL... Miss Bono (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

How about this?...[2] Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

THANX!!! Yai!! it worked!! How did you do that? But I need U2 pictures, just in case I want to edit some articles on Spanish Wikipedia...Miss Bono (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link for U2 (not all relevant of course) [3] Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is regard to the references again. I'm obviously doing something wrong! I click "cite" and pull down the template, in my case for "book" and I type in the information. I then hit "insert" and get a message:

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag

I assume these templates and tags are meant to list the actual references, but I'm not sure where they are to be found or how to insert them. Back in a bit, NtheP (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)