Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 38

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Hi all, My recent article on composer Kento Masuda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kento_Masuda#References) was declined due to unreliable sources. Could you give me a hint on what reliable sources could be for a composer of modern classic? Since most of them would not appear in usual media like pop magazines. Maybe it would be better to delete some of the unreliable information and make a shorter article?

I am grateful for any hints, thank you so much in advance! Orugoro (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A reliable reference is a site about the composer, but not made by or affiliated by the composer. For example, "Godsend Rondo Music Film" is made by Kento Masuda, so it is not reliable. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi All,

I have created a page in sandbox but do not know how to make it live on wikipedia. Your help is much appreciated.

Best A Rana 1480 (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rana! To submit an article (or sandbox) via Wikipedia's Articles for Creation process, you can add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page. This will add it to the queue of pending submissions (currently 1,811 articles long) and a reviewer will come by to either approve or decline. benzband (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Rana and welcome to Wikipedia,

Nice start, but still a ways to go before it is ready for main space. The section on awards is OK, but it is not usual to list mentions in publications. Best to find a way to work some of the content into the article, then use it as a reference. The Mail is a decent reference, and probably PWM (I'm not familiar with that publication). The link to the Stanhope page is fine for the awards, but it doesn't count as an independent reference, so you really only have two independent references. More are desired.

Some of the statements in the main text are unreferenced.

You've used some Wikipedia:Embedded citations which are strongly discouraged.

I tried to convert the Michael Zaoui link to a ref, but I don't have access.

The publications section needs some work; some may be valid references.

Good Luck --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I created an AFC and received a response from an editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jcutrell/sandbox&pe=1&

I am not sure how or where to respond in order to get these issues resolves.

Jcutrell (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an editor at Wikipedia. Sarah is not here for now, but asking on the talk page is a good way to go. The only thing to do is make the article not appear to be pro-Richard Kuhlenschmidt. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I've had a look at the article too and I can't see why the neutrality, or conflict of interest, has been raised. I've removed the tags. However, I would suggest the article is renamed, because it is clearly not about Kuhlenschmidt, but about his gallery. Hopefully Sarah will give her opinion too when she's available. Sionk (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jcutrell

I agree the article is about the gallery. I'm puzzled by the notability comment of User:Sionk, perhaps that's because the notability of Richard Kuhlenschmidt hasn't been established, although the notability of the gallery has been? If so, a name change will resolve it.

You ought to check out Referencing for beginners, you have a number of decent refs, but none seem to be formed properly. I fixed the first as a model. I think the RefToolbar is now stadard, which makes refs easy, OK, easier than manual.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point that the article is more about the gallery than the person. Should I make that change? Jcutrell (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you should. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey folks.

Just a quick newb question. I noticed a {{refimprove}} tag on this page earlier. Since a bot added the tag in the first place, who will be responsible for taking it off?

Thank you kindly. Misha Atreides (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Misha, welcome to the Teahouse. The simple answer is anyone can remove a tag they think is no longer appropriate. As you have added a number of references to this article which are from reliable sources (thanks for doing this) then you can remove the tag if you think the article is now sufficiently sourced. Just to (semi) correct one thing, the tag was originally in 2007 by a human editor, the bot just updated the tag earlier this year. NtheP (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and warm welcome, @Nthep. I shall proceed to remove the tag now. Regards, --Misha Atreides (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone had vandalized part of the animal crossing:Jump out page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crossing:_Jump_Out#Reception I was looking for articles on the new Animal Crossing video game, and one of the first ones that comes up is the Wikipedia article. The page claimed that the game received poor reviews from critics, but when i checked the sources I discovered just the opposite. I attempted to patch it up but I'm inexperienced at editing and could restore it fully. You can check the article history to see the original text. "IFence902" is the culprit, as all edits before his seemed to be intact. Again, I don't know anything about wikipedia editing, but someone should revert it to before IFence902's edits and hopefully ban him from editing.24.20.15.24 (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for that. I've taken it back to before the vandalism was added, but your fix was fine. I'll be warning the editor who placed the information, as well as checking to see if this was a one-off or not. Thanks again for spotting it so quickly! - Bilby (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to add several facts to different pages, but i find that they are later deleted due to no source or reference. i would add a source or reference if i only knew how to.Eskimopie300 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Eskimopie300. Sorry to hear that you are having trouble. This is a common problem. There is a help page, located at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which is designed to help new users work through providing references to their additions. I'll let you read that page. If you have any questions that page doesn't answer, feel free to ask them here. --Jayron32 02:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi There, just have a quick question on a JPG file. I'm writing up a page on a London Based Film School, and have obtained the JPG file for the school's logo. The question is, through the load and reference routine, is there a way to downsize the file so that it will fit in the info box at the top without taking up the whole page? Many Thanks in advance SamCardioNGO (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome back to the teahouse. To add an image, you can add "|<size>px" (replacing "<size> by the size) before "]]", making the image the specified size. For example, this image is very big., but add "|180px" makes it small. This is the result. . ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, infoboxes sometimes have ways of inputting image size. For instance, {{infobox school}}:

{{Infobox school
|name                   = Name of school
|native_name            = 
|latin_name             = 
|logo                   = [[File:Example.jpg|180px]]
|seal_image             = 
|image                  = Example.jpg
|image size             = 180px
|imagewikilink          = 
|alt                    = 
|caption                = 
|
etc.

Which uses two different input styles (one separate image/size; one combo with the [[ square brackets ]] and File: prefix. benzband (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

xedit Actually, you probably don't have to do anything. The default size is 200px, which should be reasonable. If you want a different value, you should add the "| image_size =" parameter.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's actually only true if you use the "thumb" parameter. If you just use the file name, it defaults to the full size of the image. Most infoboxes, however, either embed thumbnails or have a default size associated with them. --Jayron32 20:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks guys. I shall go over the options tomorrow when I load the image. SamCardioNGO (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, is it commonplace for one article to have a single "administrator" who judges every edit made to an article? The reason I ask is because I have tried to make edits to the article "List of Transformers: Prime Episodes", but I find that any edit or contribution I make, no matter how big or small, is taken away within hours by the same person: A user named AdamDeanHall. I have noticed that this same user takes away any edit or contribution that wasn't done by him, referring to himself as an administrator, but is this common, accepted behaviour on Wikipedia? I've never seen any other article come with it's own "administrator" before this one, and really I wouldn't mind as much if this particular user showed respect to others, but he doesn't. I've also noticed that this user has a tendency to be rude and disrespectful to other contributors (often SHOUTING IN ALL CAPS at anyone who does something he doesn't like, regardless as to whether it follows Wikipedia's guidelines or not, and reverting articles back to how they were without really explaining why). I've tried talking to him about how he speaks to other users, but have been ignored. So my question is are administrators for specific articles commonplace on Wikipedia, is it just a control freak who's drunk on power, or am I the one in the wrong here? While I do realise that I'm no angel either when it comes to editing things, at least I show respect towards others on here, and I really don't want to get into an edit war with someone. MunkkyNotTrukk (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi MunkkyNotTrukk, welcome to editing Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions (section)! No, on Wikipedia, administrators are not assigned to specific articles, nor are specific articles assigned to specific administrators. However, it's quite common for individual editors to keep an eye on articles that they have an interest in. Hope this answers your question! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:AdamDeanHall is not an administrator on Wikipedia (see here). benzband (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello MunkkynotTrukk. Sorry to hear you are running into a patch of trouble. Without getting into deciding who is right or wrong, let me recommend that you persue dispute resolution to help get some outside opinions about your situation. May I recommend that you ask for help at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. When a conflict arises, it is best to bring in outside eyes and wait calmly while others contribute their opinions and knowledge. Being emotional rarely works out in your favor. Also, at Wikipedia every one can see every action that everyone has done, so it isn't always necessary to level "charges" against other users, and it is never a good idea to personally attack others. Explain the source of the conflict in unemotional terms, provide a few diffs so people can see what is going on, and let other people weigh in with their opinions to help break the deadlock. Good luck to you, and I hope you can get this resolved. --Jayron32 16:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What appears to be going on is that User:MunkkyNotTrukk is copying and pasting brief episode descriptions from another website and that User:AdamDeanHall is removing or replacing the probably copyrighted text by rewriting the information in his own words, meanwhile, implying, in his edit summaries, that he is an administrator, "Copying episode summaries from other websites will not be tolerated under the administrators' watch."

He is not an administrator, as User:Benzband showed above. But, even if he were an administrator his actions are limited to what is allowable by the community. He has every right to remove, and he or other editors should remove, copyrighted text. You can write the episode information in your own words, and source it to the website, but you cannot put copyrighted information from other websites on Wikipedia, as this is not allowed. Eau (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we ought to AGF, and assume that the edit summary is a clumsy way of expressing policy, not a declaration that the author is an administrator. I say "clumsy" because it is clumsy to suggest that policing for copyright violations is a job for the administrators; it the job of all editors, and there are many more non-admin editors than admins, so the policing won't be effective unless all pitch in. I looked at one edit, this one and it is a valid edit. The material (not added by MunkkyNotTrukk I'm happy to say) was a copyvio and was properly rewritten. It is not acceptable to copy and paste material except in very limited circumstances (where the source is public domain) and even then, proper referencing is needed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we ought to WP:AGF that saying an edit summary implies an editor is an administrator, when it does, is not necessarily an assumption of acting in bad faith on my part when being an administrator is not such a big deal and when I clearly stated, as you repeat, that the editor's actions in removing potentially copyrighted materials were proper. Eau (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the venue for an arguement. If you wish to carry on this discussion, please do so elsewhere, like one of your talk pages, or somewhere else. Having it here does not help users solve their problems. --Jayron32 14:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for help creating my first article for my coworker/friend. He had a page up until 2008 when it was deleted by someone with no affiliation with the artist. I ran a search on the deleter to see that he'd had numerous complaints in regard to unnecessary deletion of pages in the past and that his admin privileges had since been disabled. So i have a deilemna. I have never written an article ever on wiki although i have been a user for a number of years. My friend recently had a lawsuit against his name which is now settled and he has since changed his name in accordance. His name is now Gore Elohim, previously Goretex. The official document states that the name can be used in reference to the artists past only. We are not too concerned with the past. We'd simply like to get a page up for the artist as he is about to release a new album and there is much confusion among fans and music listeners/historians as to why and where he's currently at career wise. Goretex was a member of the underground rap supergroup Non Phixion. I would appreciate help in creating a basic page with link throughs to interviews and articles. Best regards Pyrex King (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Pyrex King, and welcome to the Teahouse! It seems that the Goretex (rapper) page has been deleted multiple times by multiple people, the Gore Elohim page never existed and Non Phixion is just fine, so I don't know who the former admin you're referring to is. Could you tell me more about the case? A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pyrex King! Yes, it looks like the article was deleted as recently as March 2012. Generally, if a musician is well known and widely written about, it will be likely someone will want to write an encyclopedia article about them. A solution for you may be to list Gore Elohim at Wikipedia:Requested_articles#Music. If you are a close friend or associate, you may be too close to the subject to remain neutral. Remember that Wikipedia articles, particularly ones about living people (and even more so if they discuss controversial court case) need to be backed up by reliable, independent sources. Articles that are unsourced, or poorly sourced, are likely to get deleted again.

Specific guidance on what can make a musician a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article can be found at WP:MUSICBIO. Sionk (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thank you both for taking the time to reply. With regard to who deleted the original Goretex article i guess this isn't important because i am not looking to bring that page back. The name Goretex can legally be used on his future musical projects as long as it has a small sticker declaring eg. from the artist formerly known as Goretex. I am looking to create the new article page for 'Gore Elohim' his new name. My stance is basically neutral as i don't know him personally although we do chat online from overseas. We are not contractually connected in any way and i am not paid from him. He gave me the go ahead to find out about creating the article and would supply me with all of his factual personal and artistic details and documentation. Mitch is a very private man so there isn't anyone else he would provide the necessary information to base a factual article with. He is not signed to any recording labels and his music career has taken a very underground DIY approach so there are no legal issues or ties to any record labels whatsoever. His new material will be privately issued and pressed. However being that he has been a part of a collective in the past there are a number of people who could be likely to try and alter the information i'm hoping to provide which i think would be potentially slanderous, perhaps offensive and certainly not factual. In this instance would a 'locked' article be applicable? I hope i have provided enough information here for you to give further advice on what my next step should be. I am confident that i have all of the necessary source material to create a neutral, factual, fair and balanced encyclopedic entry. Thankyou again Pyrex King (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

beyond the scope of this board. This has been moved to WP:ANI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How do I report if someone has been using my ID as Karankyle posed as me and asked a question on my articles for creation question page? Help me! I don't want someone to use me! Karankyle (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Don;t listen to him! Listen to me! This is the IP adress of KaranBhugtiar and this Karankyle has done enough damage towards my account! Block him!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.142.20 (talk • contribs) I've blocked the above IP address. Karankyle, can you indicate which page, via a link, the impersonation has happened on, so we can check and see what is going on? --Jayron32 13:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I have also asked at WP:ANI for other administrators to come by and help investigate and keep an eye on this. Hopefully we'll get to the bottom of it. --Jayron32 13:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC) OK. I've been doing some investigating, and this needs to be handled at WP:ANI rather than here. I'm going to close this down. Any further comments on this issue need to be handled at WP:ANI, a discussion which I am working on starting presently. --Jayron32 13:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried creating an entry, which was rejected and deleted for copyright infringement of information taken from our own website. I just wanted to ask what my best next steps would be. Should I go about getting the approval to use the text (and if so how should I do that), or would it be easier for us to start over again and reword our entry? Any help is greatly appreciated and thanks in advance! B2gel (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

B2gel, there is a route for getting approval to use the text but it is much better to write the article in your own words, using references from Wikipedia:reliable sources and independent of Colonial Farm Credit. NtheP (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi B2gel. Nthep's advice is good, but please be careful with regards to your conflict of interest. Since you appear to be an employee of the company for whom you are writing the Wikipedia page, you need to be extra careful to maintain neutral point of view. Many editors would recommend that you not write a Wikipedia page on your own company. If your company is truly notable, according to Wikipedia's rules, it is likely that someone else will write an article for you soon. One more point: you talk about rewording "our entry," but that is not correct. If your article is approved for publication on Wikipedia, you will not own it. Any editor will be able to edit it according to Wikipedia's rules. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

I want to edit the article for the artist Man Ray to indicate that his birth date has been reported in various sources as either August 25 or August 27, but I don't know how to code two birth dates. Can anyone point me to an article where this has been done so I have a template?

Bettinche (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bettinche, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I'm not aware of a way of coding multiple birthdates where the date is disputed. Indeed the template for birth dates {{Birth date}} specifically says not use the template if date of birth is disputed or unknown. In cases where the dates are in dispute don't use a template at all but just put the date in as August 27, 1890 or August 25, 1890 and cite the sources that differ. It also means that you can't use the corresponding template for death and age at death {{death date and age}} as it won't calculate correctly. Not using the templates in the infobox is not a huge deal as long as you explain why there is dispute over the date in the text of the article. NtheP (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to add something to what Nthep said, templates are never a required element of a Wikipedia article. Templates exist to make things easier, but you don't have to use a template if one doesn't work for a particular situation. You can simply write what you want in plain text, and since the reader doesn't see the difference, it is no big whoop. Just type the birthdate as "August 25 or 27, 1890" with a footnote next to each date connecting it to the source for it, and you'll be fine. --Jayron32 19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am struggling to understand if there is a way to mark pages of interest (for future reference) other than the watch list, that is to keep track of my favorite pages without having information bout changes edits etc. thanks a lot, regards pic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sempreio68 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Sempreio, welcome to the Teahouse! I don't think there is a way to do this through Wikipedia other than the watchlist, but you could always just use the favorite/bookmark feature of the web browser you use, if you tend to use the same computer. If you go to your watchlist and click on the small link at the top of the page that reads "View and edit watchlist", also accessible through this link, it'll give you a simple list of all the articles on your watchlist, without the new change information. Finally, if you want a portable solution that's separate from the watchlist completely, I suppose you could always create a subpage in your userspace (perhaps at User:Sempreio68/Interesting articles or something similar) and simply add titles to that list as you find them. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Writ Keeper! i will follow your advise and just keep the Mcolm account however how do I include the copy from dubaitennis to mcolm? as you see i have 2 contributions,and i don't want to jeapordise the other entry as per wikipedia's regulations re one account…

On the DDF Company, it said that it appeared to be written like an advertisement but that has been revised now which i have sent for re-approval. Hope the note which says its a spam be removed as this is not a spam.

actually, i followed an instruction on the thread on posting multiple contributions but didnt realised it went to live page which should not have been the case.195.229.74.120 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply which is most helpful. -I have now revised the userpage according to Wikipedia's standard, which i would now like to re-submit for approval. Please advise how to go about it. However, I think it is now 'live' as i received a Google alert and when i checked it took me on the userpage?

- The note is back on top of the page and hope the revised copy (yet to send) will meet your approval.

- I have 2 contributions and created 2 accounts though i didnt mean to violate the rules, now I would like to correct this but unsure how to proceed, can you guide me how to do it? 195.229.74.120 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Mcolm, welcome back! As far as the multiple accounts thing, there's not much you need to do, as there's no way to merge the accounts or anything. All you really need to do is choose one to use going forward (I'd definitely recommend the "Mcolm" one), make a note on the other account's userpage saying that the account is an accidental duplicate and will no longer be used, and use only the account you chose going forward. That should be enough.

As far as the article, I think you did write one that went live at Dubai Duty Free Company, but it was deleted as spam. I can't tell what the version that was deleted looks like, but you should definitely take that into consideration. It's nothing to worry about as long as you learn from it (lots of people have their articles deleted all the time), so just bear it mind and don't let it discourage you.

Finally, you should make sure that you log in when you're editing, even if it's just to ask a question here; it helps us know who's asking about what, and it keeps your IP address hidden. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mcolm. I have admininistrator access here, so I am able to view deleted articles, and the article's tone and wording was unambiguously inappropriate for Wikipedia. The article was covered with what we call "peacock language", just a little sampling phrases like "are to provide travellers with a first class retail experience in a shopper-friendly environment." and "the operation is highly committed to promoting Dubai through a series of high level sporting events" and words like "remarkably" and "offering value for money." are the sort of thing we'd expect to find in an advertising brochure, and not in an Encyclopedia article. The entire article is written in this style, and does not contain any information gleaned from third-party independent sources either. When an article is based solely on a company's own literature, and when it speaks of itself in such glowing terms without regard for maintaining a disinterested, outside, and neutral viewpoint, it is generally in the best interest of Wikipedia to delete the article and start from scratch. Perhaps this would be an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, but it would need to be written by someone without a conflict of interest. You can ask for someone else to write the article for you if you go to Wikipedia:Requested articles, which is the place to ask people to write articles that you yourself are having trouble doing. Does all that make sense? --Jayron32 14:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there i tried posting on the persons talk page, but thought i might try having a look at the other people available to help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Amanda_Blain is the article.. and the feedback was good. I recently removed the 'personal section' as i cant find anything but not notable sources to back it up. With that section removed does it look like this article is good enough to be resubmitted for evaluation? Does anyone have any other tips?

Geek4gurl (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. To me, it looks as if there are insufficient sources to sustain an article on Blain, per the guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (people). What look to be the 2 main sources about Blain[1][2] seem to be focused on the Girlfriend Social website. Maybe an article on that website would be more appropriate, but even then more sources would be a very good idea. I hope that's helpful. Please come back with any further questions. -- Trevj (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sridhar_Lagadapati

Hey Sarah or any reviewer/editor who can take the time, please check this article I'd like to resubmit...

Thank you. meetzia Meetzia (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page so it can be reviewed. Also, this isn't really the place for asking for favours like that, your page will be added to the backlog anyway. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 10:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I had submitted this article and it has been reviewed twice by two different reviewer.

I need help on defining the comments that the second reviewer issued which is : " The article needs a better lead and better formatting.".

I think it may not be a perfect article but in my opinion I think it surely does give readers some information in how it relates on the subject matter discussed on the article.

Please help me improving this article so that it can be published and share to the public.

Thank you. Atikah77 (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atikah77 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Atikah, welcome to The Teahouse. I've looked over your article a bit, and here are a few things you can do to improve the article:

• In your lead, you want to bold the subject within a sentence, rather than making it a section title like it is presently. The lead should also be a brief summary of everything else in the article. Try to shorten it a little. Check out These recommendations for leads for more info.
• Instead of using bolded titles to separate sections, use headers. They are formatted like this: ==Background==
• Try to incorporate links to other, relevant Wikipedia pages based on terms you use in your article, like Malaysia. You can do this by putting brackets around the appropriate word, like this: [[Malaysia]].

I think these tips should help you get your article in a more presentable state. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect a user may have used IP addr to anonymous post on RfC to effect the opinions there. Is there a way to trace it down to some users? I am not interested in any info other than it might be linked to certain user. Showmebeef (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Showmebeef, there's the CheckUser tool for logged-in users, but only certain users have access, and you'd need to request someone to do it for you. Doubt it would be approved in this case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• A follow-up question (since it's hard to get a CheckUser to perform a "check" in the scenario I described):

Is there a policy regarding the opinion expressed by an anonymous user in RfC (or any poll-taking forums)--i.e. how can we avoid the pitfall that a user is trying to post anonymously to affect the polling result? Is there a "weight" to give to such post? And a user could possibly try to post as multiple "persons", anyway to detect or prevent that? Showmebeef (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is often tried but the contributions tend to stand out e.g. because the account has made very few edits anywhere else or the language, style etc used in each of the contributions is the same or similar. Also you need to remember that RFCs and other discussions are not simple vote counts but reflection of the range of views contributed. The use of multiple accounts for any purpose is covered by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. NtheP (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you should note that, in order to protect user privacy, checkusers do not usually reveal or comment on technical evidence relating to IP users and registered accounts, as it could reveal the registered account's IP address. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I see, I guess then the only info that can be revealed by CheckUser is that whether 2 (or more) users are actually related (like traced to the same IP)? Showmebeef (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether 2 or more registered users are related, yes. Basically, they'll tell you if similarities exist and vaguely how strong the similarities are, but they won't tell you the exact nature of the similarities (so, they won't tell you which ip address/range they share). Linking an IP address to a registered account would be a kind of end-run around that, so they don't do it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Have created a page recently but edited the content not on sandbox, now the page is live, would this be prorblem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dubaitennis

there appears a note on top of the page saying its written like an advertisement but we feel it is not. cna you pls assist to remove the note Dubaitennis (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dubaitennis, and welcome to the Teahouse! There are just 3 things I want to say:

1. The article is still on your user page, so it isn't quite "live" yet.

2. I notice the advert tag has been removed. I'm afraid it is still written like an advertisement, but I won't retag it as it's still in userspace.

3. Your use of the word "we" and your username suggest that the account is being used by more than one person and that you are editing promotionally. Both are discouraged per the username policy. You might have to change your username and make sure only one person has access to the account.

Hope this helps! A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How do I use the undo facility Soler99 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Soler! You can "undo" an edit by clicking on the (undo) button in a page history / difference between revisions. For more information see Help:Reverting#Undo. benzband (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Soler99, and welcome to the Teahouse! Using the 'undo' facility is as easy as clicking on the word 'undo' in page histories or differences interfaces. However, it can only undo one edit at a time, and it seems you've made many edits to the Self-organization page. What I personally use for reverting many edits is installing Twinkle, then opening up a differences interface between the article as it was before the change you're not happy with and any one after that, then clicking 'Restore this version' above the old revision. Hope this helped! A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 16:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I found it very helpful. I must learn to use the resources of the TeaHouse more regularly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soler99 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still working in my sandbox and I added a template for a sidebar. Now I can't figure out how to get back into that template to edit it. There are edit buttons on every section but that one.JoanB5020 (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Joan, welcome to the Teahouse. To edit the infobox template you have at the top of the article you need to click the edit button at the top of the page and open the entire page for editing. But you can go into My Preferences -> Gadgets -> Appearance and enable the option called "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" this will put and extra [edit] button on each page so you can treat the lead section like any other section. NtheP (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm truly a greenhorn at this but I'm trying to learn. I'm working on my citations now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanB5020 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I created a new page an I have a message at the top saying This article has an unclear citation sources and that it needs to be Wikified. I made changes an think I now meet the wiki standard, but message still there. Can someone help me please? Louki23 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Louki23. Lots of new users have this question, and thankfully the fix is easy. If you think you've fixed the problems with the article noted in the message, you need to remove the "template" that creates the message. For example, if you are seeing:

that text is generated by a template that looks like this: . If you find and remove that template, the little box will go away. More details on using templates can be found at the page Help:Template. Does that all help answer your question? --Jayron32 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

have recently publised an article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcolm however, there appears on top of page that its 'written like an advertisement'. the story is wrten in good way, can you please help to ahve that note removed. Please advise what to do195.229.74.120 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's based on how the article is written. Terms like "excelled" go against Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Also, the article needs more references to show that this individual is notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also also, you should only use one account at a time; using accounts like User:Mcolm and User:Dubaitennis at the same time could be a violation of the rules about multiple accounts, which is called sockpuppetry. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

An editor stated his political opinion on Talk:Romanian presidential impeachment referendum, 2012. I tried to explain as gently as I could that this is not the place and linked to help pages. Now, he is insulting me (both there and on my talk page) What is the right course of action? Did I do anything wrong in this case? Silvrous (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Silvrous and welcome to Wikipedia! I think it's great that you're trying the best you personally can to be polite and respectful in these discussions. As for resolving the content disagreement, opening a Request for Comment may be helpful, as it brings in views from a diverse range of Wikipedians to help resolve the conflict. If you feel that this other editor is not being nice to you on your talk page, I think it's okay to leave a short and nice note asking to keep discussion on the article talk page, if at all possible.

Best of luck and enjoy your stay at the Teahouse! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The article about JEATH museum refers to its name being an acronym for the "nationalities" involved, e.g Japanese, English,Australian,Thai and Holland. 1. Holland is not a nationality, (but they used to be called "Hollanders") 2. This can be corrected by replacing the word "nationalities" with people whose country of origin is "Japan,England, Australia, Thailand and Holland". 3.The British forces were not all English (4 nations in Britain) but the acronym has been set in stone now literally; so another way to correct this is to refer to "Armed forces sent from England" in the definition of JEATH. 4. The deaths were British (from England), Australian, American, Thai, Dutch (from Holland or now Netherlands) Indian and Canadian. No Japanese deaths attributed to building the bridge so there should be a distinction between those "involved", be they masters or slaves? 5. Can the definition of JEATH be modified along the lines I have suggested? For accuracy and fairness?112.210.218.235 (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi 112, if you spot an obvious error or innacuracy in an article you are encouraged to go ahead and amend it. Remember to explain what you've done in the edit summary. Sionk (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! From what I can see, the article is not protected, so any editor, both anonymous and registered, can edit the page. Your changes you propose are very valid, so you can add them to the article only with reliable sources. Hope this helps! -- Luke (Talk) 12:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I've been trying to load a logo of a Film School for a page I'm writing. I requested and received the Logo from the Film School itself. But Wiki has all these questions about the licence, and this and that. Naturally there isn't a box: 'I got it from the Film School'. Any suggestions? Thanks SamCardioNGO (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse. Unless you have permission from the copyright holder within the school (not just anyone in the school I'm afraid) then the best way of using the logo is under the Non-free use rationale guidelines. Upload the image here but instead of a licence use the template {{Non-free use rationale logo}} explaining where you got the logo from, why you are using it etc. Note that if you intend to use the logo on more than one article you must add a fair use rationale for each article. NtheP (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing some work on an orphan article on an early 20th century opera singer Elizabeth Amsden, for whom there were no birth and death dates listed. I found her obituary in the New York times and so have established that she died July 19, 1966 and will add that info with the citation. I was curious about her birth date (neither of the two references already listed had a birth date for her) and after some poking around, I found info that shows she was born October 9, 1881 as Hattie Josephine Amsden (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/F4YY-4BF). I'd really like to include her birth date but I fear it may be in violation of WP:NOR since the information doesn't appear in what WP refers to as secondary sources AND I had to do a little genealogical digging to establish this. I'm working on getting my head around the premise behind NOR and the reliance on secondary sources but it seems a shame to leave this info out altogether since it's unlikely that her birth date will appear in a secondary source anytime soon. Thoughts? Mfbjr (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mfbjr, thanks for raising this! I'm pretty sure the 'digging' in the births transcripts is original research. Like you say, the birth date has not been published in reliable secondary sources. At the moment there is nothing to connect Elizabeth Amsden to the name Hattie Josephine Amsden and (though the name is not common) there is nothing to confirm that the Hattie Josephine Amsden in the transcribed Massachussetts births records is the correct person. All the same, well done for finding her obituary - I'm sure the information contained there will be a useful addition to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Mfbjr—I think an important consideration is whether or not another editor is going to contest the information you are considering adding. Also you would want to ask yourself how reliable you really feel the information is. If you are 100% confident in the information (concerning the birth date) and if you feel it is unlikely that any editor could challenge that information, then in my opinion adding it might be preferable to omitting it, but perhaps it is also possible to use wording when adding that information that leaves open the possibility that it can be incorrect. That might include mentioning the source of that information, using wording such as such-and-such indicates (or "suggests") that the date of birth was…. Bus stop (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the helpful comments. I think that in this particular case (I'd have to show how I determined that Elizabeth was born Harriet Josephine in 1881- however confident I am about it) - adding the birth date wouldn't be in keeping with the WP ethos. I've left the info as a comment on the photo on the Library of Congress's Flickr site in the hope that the library's cataloging staff will review it, verify it, and add the info to the image's metadata. Again, many thanks! 20:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had my article turned down twice, which is cool. I'm willing to keep trying. The problem I'm having is the resubmit tab is now missing. What could be the problem? The article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kasey_Lansdale. PKDASD 12:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PKDASD (talk • contribs)

Hello, PKDASD, and welcome to the Teahouse! It looks like the page has been moved to article talk space, and it shouldn't really be there. I'll move it back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kasey Lansdale, which is where it was originally was and should be. I can't move the page myself; I have to ask an administrator at WP:Requested moves. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like GB fan has moved it and it's up for review again. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 17:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

For my Contributions, what due the -red and +green numbers mean? I understand that the green is good and red is bad, but what are they for? Thank you. Eskimopie300 (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Eskimopie300, and welcome to the Teahouse! The red numbers mean the amount of characters ("letters and numbers" to you and me) that have been removed in the edit, and the green ones are the number of characters that have been added in the edit. This happens to everybody's edits, and it helps to track how much information is added or removed, so we can see if huge amounts of content have been added or removed. Hope this helped! A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 04:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the number is really how much the article has grown or shrunk; for example if you remove 100 characters and add 50, the number will be (-50). A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I was just looking for some feedback on this article to see what else might be required to get it ready for submission for approval? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2003/International_Gay_and_Lesbian_Aquatics G2003 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

G2003, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. A quick look and it's looking good, a slightly wider range of sources would improve it (that's just to counter any suggestions that Gay Star News isn't a Wikipedia:reliable source) but the inclusion of local press is good. You've included some terms which refer to Wikipedia articles like this - Out To Swim[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_To_Swim], if you change this to [[Out To Swim]] it will change the links to Wikipedia:Wikilinks. NtheP (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed the Wikilinks and did a few minor edits. I understand Nthep just showing you how to do it, though; it's useful to know. It looks like a useful and informative basic article on the topic. Eau (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also you can add this category: [[Category:LGBT sports organizations]] to the bottom of the article page right before you make it live. Eau (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks everyoneG2003 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The template { {CRHP|17701|Nanticoke National Historic Site of Canada} } comes up nicely with links as Nanticoke National Historic Site of Canada. Canadian Register of Historic Places. Is there an equivalent way to cite the US National Register of Historic Places? NRHP templates do something else entirely. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma! I think {{t|NRISref}} is what you are looking for. I've used it on some NRHP sites myself. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. I'm trying to replace NRISref in a citation at Pico House. It just goes to a general information page {{NRISref}}, not the detail page for Pico House. I can always write a long citation, but I ran into the Canadian form and thought it was cool. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been having the same problem now that I think about it. For some reason the NRHP site doesn't support Deep links. I think the best that can happen is a source to the main page in the URL. Ryan Vesey 19:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The NRHP site doesn't produce a nice detail page the way the Canadian site does. That may be the real issue - nothing to deep link to. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Doncram is one of our experts on NRHP and may be helpful.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes, the NRHP National Register Information System (NRIS) database is a downloadable database, and IMHO there's not anything better to connect to, for information from that database. It is quite reasonable for StarryGrandma and others to question what the standard NRIS reference using {{NRISref}} should display though. It quite possibly should not give a link where it does, as the link just is where you can download the entire database, which is generally not useful for Wikipedia readers. To discuss, probably comment at Template talk:NRISref with mention at Talk page of the NRHP wikiproject, at wt:NRHP.

StarryGrandma, I see you found your way to the full NRHP nomination document for the historic district in which the Pico House is included. The full NRHP nom docs have only just recently become available online for California NRHPs. I expanded the reference to also include a link to the accompanying photos PDF. Nice work with the article! --doncram 16:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks doncram. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks doncram for the addition of the photos. I will take the template question to the NRHP project as suggested. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How can i see all the images associated for an article? Vibhabamba (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

That entirely depends on what you mean by "see" and what you mean by "associated". Many images for articles are held on commons. Search for them here. If you find a category of images there associated with a wikipedia article you can link from the article to the category with the Template:Commons template. I hope this help. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

lets say i sell fruits and i traveld to usa from SA to buy a machine to help in production , i come back to SA without the machine because it was not the right one and my traveling expenses were R12 500, is it deductable or not2001:4200:5000:FFFD:0:0:0:5 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, IP, and welcome to the Teahouse! I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 07:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I need help with my article which I'm writing. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Simple Shop Can you edit my article so that will be ready for publish?

Best regards, Simon Dolenec Dolenec (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Simon, welcome to the Teahouse. There are two problems here. Firstly it would appear that you have a Conflict of interest with the subject as you are, according to the draft, the founder and CEO of the company. Where you have such a close connection with the subject you are strongly urged not to edit the article to avoid the article failing to have a neutral point of view|. Secondly there is the notability| of the company, the references you have referred to are either press releases which are not indpendent or from non reliable sources. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), but there need to be more references from reliable sources that explain why the company and it's services are notable. NtheP (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I edited References from which I got data who bought company and who is CEO of company (Ref: Slovenian goverment web page called "Supervisor"). But still don't understand (not so good in english) "Notability". Is major computer magazine in Slovenia (Računalniške novice) not reliable source? Don't understand that.. PS. I'm not in any relation to any subject on which I'm writting article, so don't understand that either..

Simon. The references, Računalniške novice, may be a reliable source but the reference is labelled "press release" suggesting that all the magazine is doing is printing a press release from the company. A press release, no matter who publishes it is not a relaible source beacuse ultimately it was written by the company. The Slovenian government website is a reliable source but all it does is confirm the existence of the company and it's owenership - that doesn't establish notability. Notability is about attrating notice from places other than Wikipedia so it's about how much notice has been taken of the company and it's services. This is more about what the company does, not any legal requirements which is all the government website does. So what is needed is news items about the company, so far all there appears to be are press releases like http://www.racunalniske-novice.com/novice/news/businesses-need-simple-shop-pos-software.html and http://www.prlog.org/11643530-businesses-need-simple-shop-pos-software.html sorry but this don't count for the reasons I've already explained.

There might be some confusion about your connection with the company in which case I apologise but you have signed yourself here as Simon Dolenec and the article says Firm founder and CEO is Simon Dolenec, that suggests to me that you are the person who founded the company and therefore you do have a conflict of interest. The company may now be owned by Irma Dolenec but if you are the same Simon Dolenec do you really have no interest or connection with the company now? NtheP (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Just submitted a short article on "Battle Storm the trademark" to get a feel for the process. The article has just been reviewed by Sarah Stierch. I thought I followed the procedure correctly, however it looks like I screwed up slightly. First, she has had to move it from my sand box to "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Battle Storm:" , then she had to "Clean up the submission of afc" last post was she removed the "sandbox tag" - I think she is still at it! But seriously, are these normal mistakes or should I read up to the submit process (I am male - so I don't like to read the manual - I just go for it!). DavidAndrewMorris (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi David. Welcome to the Teahouse! The answer to your question is a great, big "Yes!" Reading up on the submission process will dramatically improve the chances that any articles you create will survive. You might want to start by reading this posting on creating your first Wikipedia article, which includes information about reliable sources, proper editing style, etc. I also want to caution you in regards to Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies. If you work for the company you are writing about, it can be hard to maintain a neutral point of view. If your company is notable, then it might be best to let someone who does not work for the company write up its Wikipedia entry. I hope this helps! Please post another question if we can be of further service. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the question another way, these are indeed normal mistakes - new editors are widely encouraged to develop draft articles in their sandbox, and are also (later) encouraged to submit them through AFC by putting the submit template at the top of the article. AFC reviewers then like to move these submissions to the Articles for Creation namespace, which then results in the sandbox tag being inappropriate. The problem lies more in the design and interaction of these Wikipedia processes and features (which have grown up over time), rather than the editors making the edits. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I tried to add a (to Wikipedia) new subject, but it was refused (by Sarah Stierc) due to lack of independent references. I did include two (from each other) independent references describing the topic, but not independent to the topic (obviously - am I miss understanding something here?). She also seem to pick on the topics relevance and as far as I am concerned the subject of the topic (Tune Method) is, although not that spread (til now), the only objective, reliable and repeatable method for judging musically relevant differences.

I have some 25 years of experience in the field although not professionally (more than occasionally).

Regards,

90.227.189.138 (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at the draft the issues I see with it are a) it doesn't really explain to me what the Tune Method is, how it works and what is accomplishes and b) although there are references, one at least isn't independent as it is from the organisation who have a trademark registered for Tune Method. Ideally what is needed here is something written about the method by someone who has no commercial interest in it, something neither current reference has. NtheP (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 90. We are glad you want to help build Wikipedia. Just so you know, I am writing this prior to reading your article, but what I have to say really doesn't depend on what your article says. The single hardest things for me to understand when I started here had to do with notability and verifiability. Strange as it may sound, truth is not the most important thing in a Wikipedia article. What you can prove is true, or verifiability, is. Also, the usefulness or importance in your field of any thing, no matter what it is, is not the big thing. The big thing is that independent secondary reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, or books have noticed your thing. That is notability. Without those two things, you do not have an article. We want you to continue editing here, as it really is fun to be a Wikipedia editor (which you already are, BTW). There are plenty of folks around here that will do anything they can to help us as we grow as Wikipedia editors. Think I'll go read your article now, and if I have any specific suggestions, I'll drop you a note on your talk page. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Gtwfan52 wrote: "The single hardest things for me to understand when I started here had to do with notability and verifiability. Strange as it may sound, truth is not the most important thing in a Wikipedia article. What you can prove is true, or verifiability, is".

How true! I'm a new here too. I am just beginning to grasp these 2 concepts. I think for beginners, the sooner they can let these 2 concepts take hold, the better. Otherwise, they will for sure be getting burned and be frustrated. Showmebeef (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)