User:Super ninja2/sandbox

MY SANDBOXS: sandbox 2 · Sandbox 3 · Sandbox 4 · Sandbox 5 Archive · Sandbox 6 Archive · Sandbox 7 · Sandbox 8 · Sandbox 9 · Sandbox 10 · Sandbox 11 · Sandbox 12 · Sandbox 13 · Sandbox 14 · Sandbox 15 · Sandbox 16 · Sandbox 17 · Sandbox 18 · Sandbox 19 · Sandbox 20 · Sandbox 21 · Sandbox 22 · Sandbox 23 · Sandbox useful · User:Super ninja2/sandbox/tasks}

images and photographs
what is the difference between images and photographs? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, A photograph is an image taken by a camera. An image is a broad term, but to put it simply, an image is something that depicts something visually. An image could be a photograph, a map, a scan, a graph, a view from a mirror, or any number of things. Every photograph is an image, but every image is not a photograph. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 13:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

what is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page?
I saw a question here few seconds ago about the "new section" tab and I surprised I never knew it was exists! what is the "new section" tab and what it used for? and thank you all for your help shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Unsurprisingly, the "new section" option allows editors to create a new section.  This allows new topics to be discussed on that particular talk page. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . The "New section" tab is basically a short-cut for adding a new section to a talk page and it works pretty much the same way as the "Edit" tab. Go to User talk:Super ninja2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the very top and see what happens. Next, try clicking on the "New section" tab and see what happens. You can in fact add a new section to a talk page using the "Edit" tab; it just takes a little more time since you have to manually format the section heading, etc. and place the section in the proper location on the talk page. The "New section" tab will automatically do that for you.
 * You seem to have lots of questions about Wikipedia which is fine, but sometimes you can learn a lot by searching for the answers yourself. Have you taken the Wikipedia:Adventure yet? Lots of answers about Wikipedia can be found there. There is also WP:FAQ which has lots of answers to common questions about Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

what is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page?
I saw a question here few seconds ago about the "new section" tab and I surprised I never knew it was exists! what is the "new section" tab and what it used for? and thank you all for your help shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Where is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page?
Where is the "new section" tab at the top of a talk page? My talk page has no such thing as a "new section" tab, but I was told to go there to leave a message for Materialscientist. It wasn't on his talk page either.

I searched for "new section" using the search tool, but found nothing of use. Zee99 (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Zee99, welcome to the Teahouse. First navigate to the talk page you would like to leave a message at. For Materialscientist it is User talk:Materialscientist. The "new section" tab should be located directly to the right of the "Edit" tab and to the left of the "View history" tab. These tabs should all be located directly to the left of the search bar. However, if you're browser window is small, the "New section" tab may be located in the "More" dropdown menu. Take a look at this picture. Do you see it now? Mz7 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Website Sources section
what exactly is Bibliography and further reading sub-heading? and why it contains Website Sources section (like in United States article) does that means I have to separate website sources form book sources or pdf sources when I make an article? why Website Sources section is not simply under References sub-heading? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A "bibliography" in the context of Wikipedia refers to the list of books/articles that the subject of an article has published. For example, Stephen King bibliography is a list of all of the books that author Stephen King has published. The "References" section lists all of the sources that the Wikipedia article itself cites; it explains where the information found in the article can be verified. The "Further reading" section is a list of works where a particularly interested reader could find more detailed coverage about the subject. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just took a look at the United States article – the case there is a little different. The term "bibliography" is confusing because it can either mean a list of works published by an author and it can also mean a list of works that an article cites. The "Bibliography" section at the United States article serves kind of as a combination of references and further reading – it combines sources that the article cites frequently with published media that the reader could look to to find more information about the United States. The "Website sources" header seems to be special to the United States article. Generally, I don't think you need to separate the websites from the other sources. I think it's there for the convenience of the reader. Mz7 (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. The article Manual of Style/Layout explains what each section of an article contains. All the sources are references. The other sections are for information not used in the article but which might be useful for the reader. Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

the difference between
what is the difference between sources and references and citations? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi . How I understand it is this: The "source" is the place that verifies a piece of information you want to write in Wikipedia. For example, if you are researching the birthplace of a notable actor, and you find the answer in a book about the actor, the book is the "source". In order to mention the birthplace on Wikipedia, you must provide a "reference" to the source – in other words, the reference explains where you found the information you are writing. A "citation" is a more precise way of saying a "reference". On Wikipedia, they mean the same thing. For help with referencing on Wikipedia, check out the page Help:Referencing for beginners. If you find yourself confused, feel free to ask here at the Teahouse and we'd be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Youtube video as a reference
why it's not ok to put a link to Youtube video as a reference on interview for certain actor? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . There are two parts to answering your question. The first part has to do with the copyright status of the video and the second part has to do with the neutrality/content of the video.
 * As explained in WP:YOUTUBE, YouTube videos can be used in certain cases to cite article content. The problem is that many videos uploaded to YouTube were not done so by the original copyright holder of the content. Lots of YouTubers seem to upload stuff they find online regardless of its copyright status. This maybe fine for YouTube, but Wikipedia does not allow links to any videos, etc. on any website which may be considered to have been uploaded in violation of copyright law per WP:COPYLINK. If the interview the actor gave has been uploaded to the official YouTube channel of the copyright holder, then it can possibly be cited in the article. For example, an interview Tom Cruise gave on CNN uploaded by CNN to the CNN official YouTube channel can possibly be linked; an interview Tom Cruise gave to CNN upload by me to the Marchjuly Youtube channel most likely cannot be linked.
 * An interviews is basically someone talking about himself or herself. When people talk about themselves, they often find it hard to do so in a neutral way. That is why Wikipedia considers interviews to be a primary source. Wikipedia articles are intended to reflect what independent reliable sources say about something, not what the subject says about itself. Primary sources can be used to cite certain article content in articles about living people, but they need to be used carefully per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

a place where I can find articles with multiple issues
is there a place where I can find articles that have multiple issues or any issue and need my help to improve it in one place so I save time searching for them? shorouq★kadair 👱 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings and welcome to the Teahouse! There are several places to find articles with multiple issues.
 * At Template:Multiple issues page, left column, click on "What links here" for the list.
 * There is also Category:All pages needing cleanup.


 * Another place to find more Wikipedia articles to be improved is at the Community portal, Help out section. The grid on that page shows nine different types of updates on a variety of articles, and that page is frequently updated. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia encyclopedia. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A trusted reference
Is this reference a trusted one that I can use in Wikipedia articles?--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the Teahouse, Super ninja2. Our article about this publication Egyptian Streets indicates to me that it is probably reliable for current events in Egypt. Please be aware that no source is 100% reliable, and editors must always evaluate whether a source is reliable for the specific claim being made. When in doubt about a specific situation, please ask a detailed question at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC

Television news as a citation
Is a story on television news considered a reliable citation? I'm looking for a citation to enhance an article I'm editing, and the best source for a key point appears to be a television news story done two years ago. It is a local television station, rather than a national network. Is it acceptable to use television news as a citation? Thank you. Nolabob (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Was this news story featured on a webpage that the TV network released or can you link to a video of someone saying it? My personal view is that videos are acceptable only when the content is uncontroversial, e.g. someone saying that they went to a certain school in an interview. Can you say what content you are trying to provide a source for? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. The news story is now on Youtube. I believe that the subject matter is uncontroversial in that I am using the news source only to document the physical appearance of a certain icon. The article includes a photograph of the icon, so again I don't see controversy. Thanks again for your perspective. Nolabob (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

%
Good evening @Super ninja2: actually, it looks like the bot ran correctly. The very similar looking File:Get_Blake!_logo.png is, as of right now, used in that article. File:Get blake logo SH.png is orphaned. Really, it should be the other way around since our rule is to use web-resolution versions of non-free images, not high-res versions. But as of now, the bot correctly marked the SH version as orphaned. --B (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC) eta: I have changed the article to use the web-resolution version. --B (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

÷
MLA style: "Henri La Fontaine - Facts". Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Web. 19 Jan 2017. 

Situation Room (photograph)
How did the user make the image in the article Situation Room (photograph) clickable so clicking on a person will take me to their respective article???--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Shorouq, they have used an Image map to make an area of the image clickable. 22:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs)


 * The user made a template Image map for The Situation Room that included coding to make parts of the image clickable. Another example can be seen if you go to the edit window at The Club (dining club). See mw:Extension:ImageMap. This sort of thing is pretty complicated to do. If there's a particular image you want this done with, it might be best to ask at Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab for help. Deor (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Museum of Bad Art
How did the user make two maps in the info box of the article Museum of Bad Art and afford it in options???--Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Super ninja2. I don't know how deep an explanation you want. Museum of Bad Art uses Infobox museum with . I have demonstrated it here with the code:


 * Infobox museum calls Location map with the feature described at parameter  at Template:Location map. Location map uses the feature at User:Jackmcbarn/switcher with code at MediaWiki:Gadget-switcher.js. Other wikis would need similar JavaScript for the radio button feature to work. I see you mainly edit the Arabic Wikipedia. It doesn't currently appear to have such code. Pages in the MediaWiki namespace can only be edited by administrators. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Question
Can I have the font family of the word "My Cousin Belle" here? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Super ninja2. It seems to be Unifraktur Maguntia but I'm not sure how. When the page is reloaded it first displays a normal font and then changes it. The produced wikicode is: . It displays a normal font for me here: <span lang="de-Latf"    style="font-family:UnifrakturMaguntia, UnifrakturCook,Unifraktur, serif;font-size:113%;font-feature-settings:'cv01', 'cv02', 'cv03', 'cv04', 'cv05', 'cv06', 'cv07', 'cv08', 'cv09', 'cv10'; -moz-font-feature-settings:'cv01', 'cv02', 'cv03', 'cv04', 'cv05', 'cv06', 'cv07', 'cv08', 'cv09', 'cv10'; -webkit-font-feature-settings:'cv01', 'cv02', 'cv03', 'cv04', 'cv05', 'cv06', 'cv07', 'cv08', 'cv09', 'cv10'; -ms-font-feature-settings:'cv01', 'cv02', 'cv03', 'cv04', 'cv05', 'cv06', 'cv07', 'cv08', 'cv09', 'cv10';">My Cousin Belle . I think WikiSource has code to automatically display the font Unifraktur Maguntia for "font-family:UnifrakturMaguntia" in browsers without own support for the font. It's possible the Commons images at [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Fraktur&filefrom=Uni#mw-category-media] are used. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

United States article
Hello, why the United States article is a good article and is not a featured article? What does it lack to be a featured article? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know the specific reasons for the current assessment of the article, but if you truly feel that it meets the Featured Article Criteria, you could start the review process to upgrade the article.  Keep mind that only one out of a thousand articles has featured status; it must be one of the very best articles on Wikipedia(out of all 5 million plus articles).  You may also want to review the content assessment criteria to learn more about why it might be rated as a Good article. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 331dot, I don't know if the article meets the Featured Article Criteria. I just want to know what a good article lacks in a featured article. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you read the various archived discussions such as from Talk:United States and Featured article candidates/United States? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * David Biddulph, actually, I haven't. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , off the top of my head, a good article follows best practices and manual of style but may be incomplete, while a featured article also has to have virtually perfect prose and more importantly has to be a comprehensive summary of all works on the subject (meaning if there is an important paper or a book about the subject not used as a source in the article, it's not complete enough to be a featured article, unless you can convince reviewers that the source was deliberately omitted because it was outdated, etc.)  Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 13:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a template or what?
I found this code in this article

and I wonder if this is a template or something else. I tried to search for the Template:Attack on Titan (season 4) but I didn't find anything. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . This is done rarely and isn't very well known. What happens is, if you include a colon before template markup, and then place the name of a page within the curly braces, it calls the page's content. However, just as within templates, you can then specify a part of the page only to be called by using tags. Here, if you go to the Attack on Titan (season 4) article, and click edit, you'll see that the table there is nested in tags. That has no affect on that article's display, but at the list article, that part of the other article is being called to the section where the markup is placed. Best regards--


 * Hi . Sort of in a sense. As pointed about above, it's not a template per se, but functions like one. It's called a WP:TRANSCLUSION and is sometimes done in certain articles. It can be tricky to do and may cause confusion when trying to edit the original content because it's not really where it seems to be or is expected to be. It can also create unintentional problems, particularly when the transcluded content includes non-free content. --

Why Slavs were slaves
Why Slavs were the only European race to be enslaved that much that slavery was named after Slavs? Who enslaved them (was it the Tatars?) and what was the reason behind that? And where were they transported to mostly? Ottoman Empire? Arabs? Europe? And why a big Empire such as the Russian Empire couldn't stop it although it was a huge waste of human and economic resources? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Why Slavs were the only European race to be enslaved IMHO this issue calls in for more nuanced position. I am writing bit off hand you can check related Wikipedia articles.
 * Slavs and Circassians might have suffered most but they might not have been only European race to be enslaved. Slavery is an age old thing, in pre– historic and historic times Whites would have enslaved whites too. Since medieval times first Al Andalus and there after Ottomans came on European borders. In Al Andalus times itself they had reached till borders of France if I am not too incorrect.
 * It's not that slavery was new to Europe but advent of Islam brought slavery in new form with a distinct phenomenon. Many sources attempt to underplay or condone Andalus and Ottoman slavery by only showing positive sides and normalizing it saying any way slavery was normal for those times. But doing harsh things in the name of religion do not bring any accolades to any religion or the God for that matter, nor for their followers or who condone it or forward excuses.
 * As far as resurgence of Russian empire is much later phenomenon after West Europe started colonizing the globe before that Moscow was a weak enough state that Tatars and I believe even Circassians used to harshly loot them as and when they could. When Russians got united  later first took time to understand and adjust to distinct Islamic   phenomenon ended up expelling Tatars and Circassians in brutal manner from their own respective territories. Russians learned managing Central Asian states amicably at much later time.
 * If Crimean and Ottoman slave trade affected more of east Europe and central Asia (also Spain and Greeks to an extent). Barbary slave trade very well affected shores of Mediterranean Europe and European and US trade travelers.
 * Above answer could have been better answered with refs but articles are available on Wikipedia I just tried to give you a brief and may be other users might throw light on some other aspects.
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ancient Greece, or at least ancient Athens, was largely run by the labour of enslaved people, not particularly specifically Slavs. Germanic tribes held slaves, and the Romans routinely enslaved both Germanic prisoners of war and people captured in conquests in large numbers. -- 15:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The etymology linking slaves to Slavs is disputed (by Slavs anyway), see Myths of Russian History: Does the word 'Slav' derive from 'slave'?. Alansplodge (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Is bureaucracy another term for deep state?
I am doing a research on bureaucracy and honestly it is so confusing and it feels like it has numerous meanings depending on the context.

Simplified, it means complicated administrative procedures. But this is not what I am looking for. The one I'm searching for is the one that means "arrogant bureaucrats (civil servants) who think they have the power to push people around as they see fit". And in this context, bureaucracy seems to be another term for deep state, am I right? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You could start by reading Deep state and Bureaucracy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the one I'm searching for"? Unless you are Humpty Dumpty, a word does not mean just what you wish it to mean. Wiktionary distinguishes four senses. The third is, "The body of officers and administrators, especially of a government". So there are your civil servants, but this sense does not imply arrogance; it is a neutral designation. The fourth is, "Excessive red tape and routine in any administration, body or behaviour". This is derogatory, but does not refer to people but to the comportment of people. But if you let the derogation of the fourth sense infuse the third sense and combine the two definitions creatively, perhaps this produces what you are seeking: "A body of officers and administrators, especially of a government, whose comportment is characterized by excessive red tape and routine". While this does not imply arrogance, such behaviour may be occasioned or intensified by arrogance.
 * The meaning of "deep state" is not well defined; different people use this differently. But it implies, in all senses, covert action, out of sight sneaky dealings that even the people nominally in power (the President, the Prime Minister) may be unaware off. The notion of "bureaucracy", in none of its senses, implies by itself covert action. --Lambiam 23:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Does that definition imply that the civil servants being more powerful than the people in power (president, Prime Minister, parliament... etc)? The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The "deep state" is an ill-defined concept spouted by irrational conspiracy theorists in the same way that in prior decades people used phrases like "the Illuminati" or some such. Don't give it the honor of deep analysis.  It doesn't deserve that.  It's not a thing that has any basis in reality.  Bureaucrats and civil servants are just employees that work for the state.  They aren't "the deep state", mostly they do banal stuff like policy compliance, accounting, research, data entry, stuff like that, or they supervise people who do that kind of work.  -- Jayron 32 05:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the late 1990s, Hillary blamed Bill's troubles on a "vast right-wing conspiracy". In effect, Trump was blaming a "vast left-wing conspiracy" for his own troubles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not even remotely the same thing. See Arkansas Project? DOR (HK) (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was the same type of allegation, of a conspiracy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In the UK, the relationship between senior Civil Service bureaucrats and elected Ministers of the Crown was the subject of the TV comedy series Yes, Minister and follow-up Yes, Prime Minister. Many in the know said that the rivalry and one-upmanship depicted was actually quite realistic, with the bureaucracy acting as a sort of brake on over-ambitious political schemes, while elected ministers struggled to overcome the inherent inertia in the system. In the end, a sort of happy equilibrium was usually achieved. It would be interesting to know what the mandarins were telling Liz Truss before her disastrous foray into Trussonomics; probably "don't do it!". Alansplodge (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)