Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 112

How can I find a count of articles that I've had deleted?
I am looking to make a count of articles I've had deleted (sppedy, prod, afd, etc). Is there an easy way to do this? UnrepentantTaco (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse, UnrepentantTaco! Unfortunately, I believe that this is the closet that you will get to what you are looking for. It shows all of the pages that you have nominated for deletion. Happy editing! ö   Brambleberry  of   RiverClan  22:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Heya unrepentant Taco! You've made edits to 4 deleted articles.  Here they are:
 * Laura Bartell
 * Quest for the Grail
 * Ysgarth
 * Eric Wallace (entrepreneur)
 * Hope that helps. -- Jayron  32  22:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I misspelled a jpg file I uploaded -- how can I fix my typo?
At the moment of uploading, I saw I had made a typo in the filename: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stringray_movie_poster_1978.jpg

How do I rename it, or delete it and start over? I don't know how to do either.

Thanks - ResearcherQ (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * More precisely: I just uploaded a low-res JPG of a movie poster for a 1978 movie. That all went well.  I unfortunately spelled its filename wrong: "Stringray..." instead of "Stingray...".  The article for the movie has long been existence, Stingray (film).  So, just looking for the right way to fix my typo in the JPG filename: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stringray_movie_poster_1978.jpg
 * Thanks - ResearcherQ (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Heya ResearcherQ. It looks like someone already moved it.  See here.  -- Jayron  32  22:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks, but what triggered that to happen? My posting a question here?  My obvious typo?  What if the typo hadn't been so glaringly obvious?  (Just want to make sure I'm self-sufficient) -- ResearcherQ (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A file mover moved it and gave a url to your post in the summary.. Your account cannot rename files but you can request it with Rename media. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

What sort of feedback can I expect?
I've finished drafting five articles! I'm rather excited to have gotten a good start on these biographies. I have no concerns with notoriety, I believe I have adequately documented their importance and contributions, though there might be some tweaking on reference formats needed.

I'm more concerned with the tone of the articles, I keep seeing references to 'reads like an essay' or 'sounds like a paper.' I'm not sure what they are supposed to read like, I've always thought articles in encyclopedias were essays on topics.

So how cold is the feedback? Pretty brutal or matter of fact? Any help in redoing things, or are you left hanging out to dry?

Aggie80 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Aggie80, welcome to the teahouse! This is not an "official" answer as I'm just lurking and not an actual Tea House moderator. I stopped by to get some questions answered and now I keep coming back just because I've been learning misc. things that way. But I'm a new editor as well so thought I would give you my impressions -- and at least in my experience the feedback here is outstanding. Its why I keep volunteering time its so refreshing to see an online environment where people treat each other with respect as the default rather than hurling insult as seems to be the default in most places. Here is an article on Wikipedian's outlook on things. Its not an official article (also its a little off color so if you are easily offended ignore it please) but someone else linked me to it a while back and it really helped me understand how things work here and how to be a productive contributor:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Apathy  In my experience you should expect people to be polite and constructive and if there are conflicts the people who are cool and reasoned tend to eventually win out. Happy editing! Mdebellis (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm hoping that I do get some feedback. My first two articles were deleted with no commentary, help or assistance, just gone.  One for 'lack of notoriety' which appears to be more subjective than objective.  The other for "apparent copyright violation" which was based on one or two sentences.  I was able to retrieve it and change two sentences and it was reviewed and went live almost immediately.  That really ticked me off, when they could have just flagged it and had me adjust.  As far is the article you linked to, it just sort of proves the point.  Such garbage is allowed to remain on Wikipedia but lots of good commentary from individuals with first hand knowledge isn't allowed as a CoI.  I get the point, about not 'owning' the article and am comfortable with the concept, I've been working another wiki for years.  But if everyone DGAF, this site wouldn't exist.  If there isn't passion, there isn't any point to spending time on it.Aggie80 (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Aggie80! What "sounds like an essay" usually means is that an article is written more like what one would read in journalistic writing or some-such. Articles on Wikipedia are meant to be dry and factual, it actually makes them sound a little boring sometimes, but that is a good way to keep things neutral. Congratulations on your five articles! If you need specific feedback on one, feel free to share it with us. heather walls (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Responses vary wildly but the bar on new articles can be quite high. The good news is that if the new article survives a few days, then you probably have traction and you can put out a request for peer review to get some real feedback. If an article is summarily deleted without a reason (usually there's something but it might be an acronym) then feel free to leave a message on the editor's talk page asking for some explanation. I'm primarily a biography editor, if you would like some response on a B:LP article. Sorry I can't be more precise but good luck. EBY (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks EBY! If you check out my bio page, you can see the five articles for review listed and linked from My Projects, and they are all bios!Aggie80 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks EBY! If you check out my bio page, you can see the five articles for review listed and linked from My Projects, and they are all bios!Aggie80 (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

External links in userpages
Are editors allowed to post a link to their person website in a userpage? When I was here before it was not explicitly disallowed, but I'm VERY reluctant to do this without someone saying it's ok. I don't want to get in trouble for spamming, as that is not my intention. Thanks! CarringtonEnglish T C ''' 21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * User pages says: "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, go right ahead! If you post a pseudo-article about your product/company/whatever, you might run into troubles, but a simple link (and short description) should be just fine.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The best "short description", in my opinion, is the name of the website.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC
 * Well the link is to a blog, so I wanted to be sure that's ok by WP:Userpage standards. CarringtonEnglish  *chat*  18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

An earlier conversation continued
Further to this conversation I was disheartened with the situation and withdrew for a short while, during which time the original conversation was archived. I would like to reply to those who responded.

ScarletRibbons and Revent, thank you for your help, but I'm afraid you are both quite wrong. Please read what I wrote again and also read my talk page.

Deor, thank you for comments, which I agree with. I will use semi-colons where I can. The bigger problem on Wikipedia, though, is not non-restrictive appositives that appear as items in lists but those that don't, the latter being the vast majority.

Demiurge and 82.45.217.156, the quote's grammar is perfect British English. But it isn't British style. It wouldn't be written by a Briton for a British audience. As you allude to, this usage stems from Americans giving the name of the state when writing or talking about American towns and cities. It's not a style I'd use readily in my own writing, and I was just using it as an example to get my point across.

To 82.45.217.156, you are of the opinion that setting off non-reatrictive appositives with commas looks more American than British. I assure you that this is most definitely part of every dialect of English. From what I've read, though, the commas are most often omitted by Americans when writing dates and the names of places, as in, "On June 10, 2004 people had been..." and, "West, Texas was the scene of..." Examples such as these can be found all over Wikipedia. They are mistakes which are, sadly, now creeping into British English. I'll fetch the references you require. And MOS:APPOSCOMMA is a brilliant idea.

And to everyone else, thank you for your comments. Inglok (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Again it seems that the some people in the linked conversation mistook your edits for introducing Oxford commas (as explored also on your talk page). I think drawing up an MOS guideline or at least an essay with a long term editor would be very useful. These things can seem like a long haul, but they are worth it. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Span. Could you recommend such an editor? Inglok (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * May I suggest not an editor, but instead a page? The correct forum is Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style.  There are some editors there who are extremely knowledgeable about English usage.  If consensus develops that you are correct and that this problem is widespread on Wikipedia, then an appropriate addition to Wikipedia's Manual of Style can be made.  You can then cite the Manual of Style when making these corrections.
 * I should warn you that the MoS talk page can be a very hostile environment. Some of the participants there may not share your calm and your rationality.  I think your case would be greatly strengthened if you were able to cite a style or grammar authority in your favor.  Ozob (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, Ozob. I'm sure you'll be there to fight my corner too! Inglok (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Instead of the long, detailed response that I started to write, I'll just quote GrammarGirl, which applies to most of the arguments about "serial commas":
 * I have no desire at all to get involved in MOS drama, though. Revent (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is, however, a direct response to something you describe as 'correct usage' on your talk page. Surry if the point has already been made. Revent (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To address the other raised point, re "Charles, Prince of Wales", even if you ignore the fact that it's a /title/, a 'non-restrictive appositive' is where:"the second element parenthetically modifies the first without changing its scope and it is not crucial to the meaning of the sentence." 'Prince of Wales' is a 'restrictive appsotive', where: "the second element limits or clarifies the foregoing one in some crucial way&hellip;In English, non-restrictive appositives are typically preceded or set off by commas, while restrictive appositives are not set off by commas." (these quotes are from the relevant wikipedia article). Revent (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As a 'side note', IMO the MOS talk pages (especially relating to commas) are full of large amounts of hot air generated by people arguing 'irrelevant' points, such as the 'classification of a particular comma (serial, oxford, whatever)' in places where /any/ comma is ambiguous (and it should thus be a semicolon). There seem to be quite a few people with 'emotional attachments' to 'incorrect' arguments for what ends up being the 'right' punctuation. This is /especially/ true nearly every time WP:ENGVAR is mentioned, as in most cases people seem to base their idea of 'regional usage' on what they see in newspapers, which is IMO totally wrong....(newspapers worry more about 'speed' than being 'correct', and follow different rules than 'real' books like encyclopedias). Revent (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your further comments, Revent. In the original discussion, Deor suggested I use semi-colons. I have always been aware of their use in these circumstances and I think I'll use them more in the future.


 * I disagree with you, though, on your distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive appositives and your classification of Charles, Prince of Wales. If an appositive is set off by commas then it is by definition non-restrictive, and if it is not set off by commas then it is restrictive. A part of what you quoted seems quite wrong to me: "it is not crucial to the meaning of the sentence". What is really meant here is that a parenthetical part of a sentence can be removed and for the sentence to remain grammatically correct. Let's take an example: Thomas Edison, the inventor, was the last of seven children. Well, obviously there is meaning in the inventor, and removing it alters the meaning of the sentence overall: Thomas Edison was the last of seven children. But it is still grammatically correct. The same can be done with this: Charles, Prince of Wales, will one day be king.


 * Thanks for the advice in your last bullet point. I haven't posted anything yet on the MOS talk pages but will soon. I agree with your sentiments about newspapers and usage! Inglok (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're another victim of a (common) misunderstanding, from the 'sense' of the argument you made. Sorry if I get a bet pedantic here, but it is of 'general' interest (I hope)
 * To quote from the lead of Grammar
 * This is discussed more fully at Orthography
 * Specifically, matters of punctuation are not a matter of grammar but of 'usage'. This is a fully grammatical, but 'unpointed' sentence:
 * With reference to the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive appositives, I disagree with how you understand the difference. You stated If an appositive is set off by commas then it is by definition non-restrictive, and if it is not set off by commas then it is restrictive.. This is a grammatical distinction that can't be made on the basis of what is 'correct' punctuation...it would be circular logic.
 * The relevant part of the 'definition' is that a 'non-restrictive appositive' modifies the first without changing its scope....There are many people named Charles....specifying which one 'reduces the scope' of "Charles", so the appositive is restrictive, and does not need a 'following' comma. (I'm assuming we're talking about the 'type' of construction here, and not worrying about the 'preceding' comma). Revent (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As a 'further explanation', the sentence:
 * has the same meaning, but re-written to use 'non-restrictive appositives'. Revent (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Weird Goings on
Has anyone else noticed any weird goings on, such as the ref tags and date (top right)here, and the page view statistics?

Yours worriedly, Mat  ty. 007 18:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you did for the ref tags, but thanks Nthep! Mat  ty  .  007  18:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Matty, you'd just missed a > out when closing one of the refs and the link was missing a ]. I use WikiEd for editing so syntax errors and omissions like that show up really easily. NtheP (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Mat ty. 007 19:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to other languages
Hi, I did make a search and read through some help material but unfortunately it didn’t work for me. What I’m trying to do is simple link articles that already exist between each other. They are identical documents but in different languages. For instance the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_of_Melitene exists in English, but it also exists in Russian. Although when go to English or Russian page under Languages they do not exist. All I’m trying to do is simply link them together. What I did is 1. Clicked on Edit page under languages. 2. Scrolled down and chose add. 3. Typed RU for Russian. 4. Under Linked article pasted Гавриил Мелитенский. But when clicking ok, it comes back with error saying that article already exist. Please help.AvoBoro (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi AvoBoro, and welcome to the Teahouse. I had the same error you did at first, and it seemed like the page was being linked to from somewhere else (it was listed as "Item Q" followed by a bunch of numbers-- no idea what that means).  Anyway, I just removed the link from that place since it didn't seem to serve any useful purpose, and then successfully added it to the initial link list.  You'll be able to see the link now for ru:Гавриил Мелитенский on the English Wikipedia article Gabriel of Melitene.  Problem solved, but if anyone cares to explain why this might've happened, that might be helpful for both of us! I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Interwiki links now go through Wikidata, which is a separate project from Wikipedia: if you pick the 'Edit links' link, it takes you to editing an item in Wikidata, which will have a page name of the form Q1234, but it can and ideally should have a more people-friendly label as well. One of the problems which sometimes occurs with links via Wikidata is that a Wikipedia article may only be pointed at by one Wikidata item. If you try to link a second Wikidata item to an article, it won't let you, but that can be confusing.
 * It looks as if when the items were created from ru, this was not linked up with the other language entries, so a separate wikidata item Q4131092 was automatically created for it. So the right thing to do was to merge the two wikidata items, which you effectively did, by removing the link from Q4131092 and adding it to Q921391. The only bit you didn't know to do was to request that the now empty duplicate item be deleted, but I'll do that for you. --ColinFine (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete and Account
How can I delete my account??  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  17:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't. You can add a Wikibreak enforcer (see User:Gilderien/common.js).-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 17:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I need to change my user name and get both my User and Talk page deleted. How can i do that? It is an urgent matter.  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  17:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Miss Bono. Not sure what you mean by "delete my account".  If you don't wish to work in Wikipedia anymore, you can simply stop contributing.  If you wish to change the name of your account, you can do so at Changing username.  You cannot actually delete the account, as there needs to be some record of your contributions, because of Wikipedia's licensing requirements.  You can, if you wish, request to "vanish", which involves having your account renamed to a random string of characters and the password changed so it cannot be accessed anymore.  Courtesy vanishing covers how to do this. -- Jayron  32  17:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I read that and I am sure I want to make a Clean Start. Can some admin help me by guiding me. I have a strong reason for wanting to make a clean start.  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  17:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to make a "clean start", you just stop using this account, never use it again, and start using a new account. "Courtesy vanishing" is for users that never intend to use Wikipedia again.  Clean start just means "I'm going to use a new account and leave the old one behind."  Here's how you do that:
 * 1) Log out of your current account
 * 2) Create a new username
 * 3) Use that one, and not the first account, from now on.
 * So long as a) you aren't dodging a block or trying to circumvent other sanctions and b) you don't switch back-and-forth between the accounts to give the illusion that you are two different people, you should have no problems. Clean start covers this.  -- Jayron  32  17:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid harassment.  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no need to start over Miss Bono... Have a discussion with your friends on your talk page. :) Technical 13 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Miss Bono, I agree with Technical 13. The harassment is over and the other user has been indefinitely blocked. Please continue editing.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving from sandbox to production
Hi, I created a page in my sandbox, and, after hundreds of reviews and corrections, I am ready to move it to the Wikipedia production. I can't find a clear step-by-step on how-to do that. Can anyone help? Thank you much! - agringaus 16:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agringaus (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 June 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. In the box at the top of User:Agringaus/sandbox, the last sentence says "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." When you are ready to submit your draft, click where it says "click here", and then save the page. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the exactly way to fill this correctly
I want to set up an archive for Cullen328 and when I post this in the header of his talk it doesn't show anything. Can someone help?? Thanks in advance  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  14:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the Teahouse, Miss Bono! First of all, I added some "nowiki" tags to the MiszaBot to make sure that there are no problems with our own archiving. Now, onto your question. You filled everything in correctly. When you paste that in, it's not visible on the talk page itself. It also takes anywhere from a few minutes to a few days for MiszaBot to start her archiving, but soon enough you should see an archive box and fewer articles in the talk page. Happy editing! ö   Brambleberry  of   RiverClan  15:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks, can you go to Cullen328 talk page and see if I didn't mess things up??   Miss Bono   (zootalk)  15:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. I guess we'll really see soon enough. ö   Brambleberry  of   RiverClan  15:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks you so much! Cheers! Have a good day :) <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> Miss Bono   (zootalk)  15:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I want to keep the introductory material at the top of my talk page, and I think that Technical13 has done that.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your fix for your signature is on my talk page. As for your archival and header, how would you feel about moving the stuff you want to keep on a separate page and just transclude it?  Also, I'm just about to head to class, but would be happy to create an archive access box for the top of your page similar to mine if you are interested to make the archives easy to access.  Hit my talk page and we can discuss it. Technical 13 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How exactly does the wikipedia review process take place?
Hi, I worked on my first article based on my teaching experience, expert knowledge and research skills at a world class university. Unfortunately, it has been declined by one single reviewer who didn't even try to understand the situation properly and rejected my time and effort with a click of a button. I have wrote my rebuttal here. This makes me wonder, how serious is the wikipedia review process? Who reviews the articles? Is it random and just one reviewer decides the outcome? In scientific journals, the reviewers would at least consult the authors with questions, clarifications and revisions prior to making a final decision. It is grossly frustrating and off putting to experience this kind of amateurish handle on my work. Therefore, I am assuming and hoping you would explain, that mine was not a typical reviewing experience at wikipedia? Thank you. Michaelfaraday1791 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Michaelfaraday1791 and welcome. I'm no authority on the review process but I have had a look at your draft article, and the article that Mechanical amplifier currently redirects to. Your article has a few sources that are not reliable (e.g the mythbusters forum) so you can take some time to work on improving the article before resubmitting. It does seem that there is a misunderstanding in relation to the terms Mechanical amplifier and the one it redirects to and I am sure you can get your point across before re-submitting. Editors who are more experienced than I will be along soon to provide further insights. I hope I have been of some help. ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  11:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the editor who declined submission has left a suggestion on your Talk page which you may wish to respond to. ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  11:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The matter is being handled at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

relevant, verifiable citation and sources?92.50.37.49 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
What is the best way to get relevant, verifiable citation and sources?92.50.37.49 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. My two go-to sites for sources are Google Books and Google News (using the Archive option); if you're researching an academic topic, Google Scholar is also very useful. Beyond that, there's always help available at the Resource Exchange, if you don't mind waiting a few days. Hope that helps, Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How can one remove a NPOV tag which is no longer applicable?
I have been editing the article on Eddie Burrup. As I started working on it Hamiltonstone tagged the article with a NPOV on 4 April and posted some advice to me on 5 April 2013. Since then the article has been improved with the help of an experienced Wikipedia contributor (advising me by email and phone calls). I have posted messages in reply to Hamiltonstone but have had no further contribution from him and I notice from his own talk page that the last time he posted any comment (to anyone at all) was 11 April. I have specifically asked him to remove the tag on 25 May. There has still been no response. How can I get Hamiltonstone's attention? Alternatively, is it possible to get someone else to remove the tag.Purwthrub 06:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murranji (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Murranji and welcome. When you are certain that the neutrality issues have been resolved you can edit the article and delete from the very top of the page. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it  11:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you ' Flat Out for your prompt and positive response! I am certain'' that the article is now neutral and I have three people who concur. So, in accordance with your suggestion I will now proceed to remove the tag. However, I must say that I would still have liked Hamiltonstone to respond to my notices to him as he was the one who tagged the article in the first place.
 * There are also some outstanding issues that I have asked him to look at, too, with regard to the three images that have been inserted in the article on the basis of "Non-free use rationale". These have attracted robot notices which I believe have now been addressed. I would like to be re-assured of this and have the associated tags removed, too.Purwthrub 12:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murranji (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure the issues identified on the article's Talk page have actually been resolved. There doesn't appear to be enough written about the other side of the controversy. I can not see consensus nor can i see any support from other editors that neutrality has been achieved. Make sure the dispute is settled on the talk page. Cheers ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  12:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page DYK
Not sure if this is the correct place to point out, but I noticed there's an extra pair of dots at the DYk section. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 05:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Bonkers The Clown, thanks for pointing this out.

To me it looks like this issue has been dealt with already, maybe it was because someone saw your comment here!

There is an "official" place to comment on errors at the main page: Main_Page/Errors. There's a section for each main page box, so your inquiry would be best at Main_Page/Errors. This would get the speediest response!

Thanks for pointing this out! Cheers --LukeSurlt c 22:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What should I put in my user page?
Hi host,

I am a new editor and my main purpose here is to post links to quality online resources created and maintained by UC Irvine Libraries in relevant articles. I quickly read through the help page on "user page" and it sounds any personal information posted there is in danger of being publicly cited and reused. Therefore, I'm a little confused - should I put my job title and main purpose at Wikipedia in my user page or just leave it empty? Does an empty user page affect the credibility of my contributions? What's the happy minimum?

ThanksPandashu (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Pandashu welcome to the teahouse. Your user page is yours - to do with what you like within our guidelines as seen at WP:UPYES. You may find the  User page design center very helpfull - there where you will find all the resources for developing your user page.Moxy (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Opinions on including personal information vary: I keep my identity quite public, while others prefer an extremely paranoid level of cloaking. That's a personal choice. If you are an editor with a mission, though, it's usually best to disclose what that mission is. If you make people aware that your goal is to find places that material from UC Irvine Libraries fits in Wikipedia, you will eventually start getting requests from others to help including that material. You don't have to reveal who you are to accomplish that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Construct your user page the way you want, disclosing as little or as much about yourself as you feel comfortable with. I recommend openness to all editors within reason. Do not post the passwords to your retirement accounts, for example. But many editors have valid reasons for complete anonymity. Describe your interests and work on Wikipedia to the exact level of detail that you're comfortable with. Disclose conflicts of interest openly and frankly, as this will be to your benefit in the long run.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thx much! glad now I've got some directions to go! Pandashu (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a great deal about my 'qualifications' if you will, with lots of links and information about what I've done. But at the same time, there is very little (one thing) that could be used to work its way back to me personally.  I also find it a convenient place to put links to the pages I'm working on, pages that I want to monitor and projects that I hope to start.  It isn't particularly pretty, but it is utilitarian. Aggie80 (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Where did the reference cite input box go?
There always used to be a pulldown in the editing text box to select different reference type inputs. When inputting references from URLs it was just a matter of filling in the boxes and it placed a cool smart cursor on the article page, with flyout description and link to the URL address. Where did it go? Have I gone blind or did I just imagine hundreds of references I added? What am I missing? Thanks! 174.118.142.187 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 174.118.142.187 and welcome. In the editing box click "cite" which is top right in blue, then the "templates" menu box appears on the left. See if that works. ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  01:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. However I have no "cite" anywhere around the editing box. I see menus "B I Sig&Time Link EmbFile Reference Advanced SpecChars Help". The reference menu only gives a single string input box which it delimits with the but you have to know all the syntax idiosyncrasies to use it. It was there about a week or so ago but not lately??? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be to the right of "Help." I'm sorry but I'm not sure why it's not there, perhaps it's a browser issue interfering with a script. I'm sure someone who is more technically minded than me will be a long shortly to help you. ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  02:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The "TEMPLATES" square below the Bold & Italic controls and to the left of "Named References" is where the cite templates can be found now. Click & choose the kind of reference you are using and the ref will be inserted like with old "Cite" button. Does this help? EBY (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I have no "Templates" square or anything below the Bold and Italics icons. If I select Advanced or Special Characters I toggle a second line of submenus that only includes items pertaining to those menu selections. However, I have found that reloading the page with the edit window open will randomly make the cite menu appear and disappear. I can see no pattern to the appearance and disappearance of it though. Thanks again. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, with more trials I have found that entering the edit page seems to always eliminate the cite menu. Refreshing the page with the edit box open appears to repeatedly make the cite menu appear, in the last few trials I have performed tonight. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an aggravating situation. OK, have you tried a different browser? EBY (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume that you're using the most recent toolbar. There have been some situations where the cite menu disappears if you view enough different versions of pages. It's rather aggravating, and it happens to me all the time. What you should do is WP:PURGE. <font color="#007FFF">ö   Brambleberry  <font color="#9C9C9C">of   RiverClan  14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like that has got it! Thanks all! Funny how the cite menu loads distinctly and visibly (with a slight delay) later on the screen though. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Photograph rights
Hello all. I posted (and Wikipedia accepted) an entry I wrote about a retired figure in advertising. I wanted to post a photo of him that his former agency took for promotional reasons. The head of the agency's corporate communications department sent me an e-mail saying that it is fine to use the photo for the entry. My questions: A) does such an e-mail fulfill copyright requirements? and B) how do I provide that assurance to Wikipedia once the photo is added to the entry? Thanks to anyone who can help me. Best, intimeagain Intimeagain (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Intimeagain. No, it almost certainly does not fulfil the requirements because 1) permission to use the photo on Wikipedia is not enough: it must be licensed to allow any use, commercial or non-commercial; and 2) it may not sufficiently establish that the mail comes from the owner of the copyright. You can find instructions for what you're trying to do at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. --ColinFine (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Need editors for first article
Here is a link to the talk page for my article draft. Would appreciate help from experienced editors to prepare article to go live: User_talk:MTJ78/Draft_of_Article_on_Juan_E_Gilbert Thanks! MTJ78 (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * H3ll0!! I can help a little bit. Drop a line in my talk ;) <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> Miss Bono   (zootalk)  20:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Profile Help
For some reason, my profile picture changed to a house picture. Someone plz help. Pokebub22 (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you don't have a picture set - because of this, the page is rotating among several pre-set profile pictures. To use a particular image of your choice, find a file and put the filename after the image in your profile's code.  For example, Flag of Iowa.svg will set File:Flag of Iowa.svg as your profile picture.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Literary Works of...
Hi,

I was looking at the requested articles, and saw an article named 'Literary Works in the 1930s' requested. I know that that does not mean it has to be created, but wanted to ask other people's opinions on creating a section of pages, Literary works of [insert year]

Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 19:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That topic already exists as the "[year] in literature" series of articles. Here's a nav template of it (at right): MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! Mat  ty  .  007  20:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Profile
How can I update my Teahouse profile?? <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive"> Miss Bono   (zootalk)  18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just simply find your profile and click on edit. I hope this helps. :) Pokebub22 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I cant see any "edit". <span style="font-family:'Arial',cursive">  Miss Bono   (zootalk)  18:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Miss Bono, you are likely not looking at the right page. Try finding your profile on this page (or go directly to the spot on that page by clicking here) Technical 13 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit button is on the top right after your Profile name. Pokebub22 (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone tell me why this picture isn't displaying?
File:Jim_Beloff_with_ukulele.tif Aggie80 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome back . Seems like the image didn't upload correctly... Try reuploading it, clearing your cache and see if it shows up. :) Technical 13 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Technical 13. Reloaded and it is working fine! Aggie80 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Wikipedia supports .tif files for viewing. Image use policy does not list it as a preferred format for any image type, and Preparing images for upload explicitly recommends converting .tif images to .jpg or .gif.  -- Jayron  32  15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The upload page specifically lists .tif files as being acceptable. Aggie80 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would still be better to convert the picture to a better format. The above linked pages explain why.  -- Jayron  32  17:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I find a new or recient WikiProject to join?
I want to help a user to get his or her new WikiProject running (as I am relatively good at organizing and and tedious editing (page tagging and the like), so I thought it would be something I could help with, but all the WikiProjects I have found, are well established. Is there any way to find a new one? thanks,  Thus Spake   Lee Tru.  13:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse . The best place to start is to read WikiProject which has all kinds of links and whatnot to guide in the creation of a new wikiproject.  I would be happy to offer any technical assistance I can.  Hit me up on my talk page and we can discuss specifics.  Creating a new wikiproject is just a matter of creating the first page with some basic info to let people know it exists.  That is the hardest part, once that is done, if it is interesting to people, it will quickly grow on its own. :) Technical 13 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

what is considered as encyclopedia tone and reliable source?
Hello, I am new to the English Wikipedia and was trying to create one article for this man called Cheah Cheng Hye. The article is reviewed and declined for "submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article"...I look at the content again and feel that the submission only include facts and those facts are supported by references which come from sources like government website, university website, Forbes article, bloomberg article, etc, although some of them include Chinese media (but recognized ones) sources. Is it because of the Chinese media sources that the submission got declined? Tsuitsui (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tsuitsui and welcome. It seems to me that the article is written in a way that it appears to be promotional. It is also difficult to determine whether the subject is notable. However, the editor who declined the article raised a number of issues include neutrality, reliable sources and WP:Peacock terms that you should make yourself familiar with. See Yunshui's answer below, I think it covers it better. ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  09:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tsuitsui. No, your sources are (generally) okay (English sources are preferred, but Chinese ones are perfectly acceptable). The problem, I would say, stems from the last two sections ("Proponent of value investing" and "Industry recognition"); whilst these are the sort of thing one would expect to see on a CV, LinkedIn profile or company website, they really are't suitable for Wikipedia. The language of the "Proponent..." section is very promotional (vague phrases like "widely recognized as the pioneer" or "refined the method" are exactly the sort of marketing-speak that we try to avoid here), and whilst a selection of awards may be appropriate, the awards should be notable in their own right (i.e. they should have a Wikipedia article, or the potential for one, in and of themselves). They would also need to be sourced.
 * If it helps, I think the article's pretty close to completion; the lead and the "Early life..." sections are quite good. Clean out the inappropriate language (this page may help) and trim and source the "Industry recognition" section (or drop it altogether and merge the pertinent content into the rest of the article) and I reckon you're about done. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui for your specific comments! I will try to work on the parts you suggest and submit again. Tsuitsui (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I create an official company Wikipedia page?
I am new to Wikipedia and I wanted to create an official page for my company that has not been created yet. Is it best to get the page online with only the basic info to start(as a placeholder), or should I take more time and create a foundation before I begin?DamonWiki (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi DamonWiki, and welcome to The Teahouse. I'm glad to see you are enthusiastic about getting started.  It's very common for editors who own or are associated with a business to start by writing an article about it, but I'm actually going to recommend you avoid doing this. This is primarily because you are in a conflict of interest.  What this means is that it's generally difficult to write about your own business in a way that minimizes bias and avoids promotional language, both of which we try to strive for in all Wikipedia articles.  I'd recommend that instead, you request that the article be written by an experienced editor, which you can do at Requested Articles.  You can also add reliable sources in your request about your business, which can support your case for why your company is notable.  Let me know if you have any questions about this process, and I'd be happy to help.  <font color="green" face="Candara">I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "official page" but the usual meaning on the Internet is a page endorsed by the subject and controlled by the subject or a party acting on their behalf. Wikipedia has no such thing. No one "owns" an article. If a page about your company is made then everybody will be able to edit it and if well-sourecd negative content is added then you will have no authority to remove it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note in particular the Wikipedia Law of Unintended Consequence:


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px" width="80%"

If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, note that it will probably find its way there eventually.
 * style="background-color:#c8ffc8" | Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences
 * } MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Automated harvesting links and adding to relevant articles
At UC Irvine, we are interested in adding links to our finding aids published in Online Archive of California to the External links section of relevant articles. There are about 400 finding aids and I wonder whether there is a way to automate this process. Any idea is welcomed! Pandashu (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't even consider this without getting consensus first. You'll need to convince people that doing so will add value to the articles, and is consistent with WP:EL. I suggest starting a discussion at WP:Village pump. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * thx! will look into it. Pandashu (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Stats Broken
— <font color="Green">Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Hi,

I don't know if anyone else has notices this, but when I click on page view statistics, such as here, I get a message saying 'internal server error'. Has everyone got this, and does anyone know when it will be back up?

Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 16:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! Mat ty. 007 19:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

How often do you wikilink?
So how often does one wikilink? Example, the article is about an ukulele player and the word ukulele appears many times. Do you link it every time? Once a paragraph? Once a section? Just the first appearance?Aggie80 (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. Generally just link the first time, see OVERLINK. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with David's general rule. One possible exception might be a very lengthy article, where the topic is wikilinked in the lead, and then not mentioned again until deep into the article. In this case, a second wikilink might be a good idea.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  16:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Overlinking can be a real problem, but I think all of us have swung back and forth on this pendulum. I tend to wikilink major ideas in both the infobox AND the main article space (or lead) but that may just be a bad habit. EBY (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes and succession boxes are really sidebars to the main article, imho, so I generally link in all three locations. I only use one wikilink within the article body itself (or most internal tables), though. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfa Question
Which WP user became an administrator in the shortest amount of time after registering? Just curious. CarringtonEnglish *t/c*  20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe in the beginning of Wikipedia you became an admin by registering since the tools had not been turned off for certain access levels, so I guess the question has to become, after the hierarchy was imposed, who became one in the shortest amount of time? I don't know the answer to that but the amount of experience required to pass RfA has consistently climbed and in the early days, even after the levels were imposed, there was a much less formal process, so you couldn't even search by looking at the earliest RfA's because RfA didn't exist. The first revision of WP:RFA is illuminating.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks! CarringtonEnglish  *t/c*  23:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Rocket and space probe development
how different people make different decisions about now a scientific development is used 81.145.247.148 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello 81.145, and welcome! I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but it seems like you're asking a question that may be better answered at the Sciences reference desk. The reference desks are usually good about addressing such questions, at least by pointing you to articles on Wikipedia (and elsewhere on the Internet) that may explain things. If I'm not understanding your question, please feel free to elaborate here and we'll try again! :) -- McDoob  AU93  18:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse invitations
Dear Teahouse hosts:

I have been reviewing submissions in the Articles for Creation category and one of the options is to send an invitation to the Teahouse. However, the messages says "I noticed..." and then does not sign the invitation. If the invitation was intended to come from the particular reviewer, shouldn't it be signed? and if not, shouldn't it say "we noticed"? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse!  That may actually be a bug in the afc reviewer script.  I'll leave a note for  on the development page. Technical 13 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

On this day
How do I nominate for something to appear on the On This Day box on the main page?--Taiping Tulip (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know . Regards, Ariconte (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Er, no, wrong section. That should be Selected_anniversaries. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I report suspected Copyright violation?
I've tried wading through the pages, but it sure isn't easy to figure out the right process.

I was working on a biography and realized that the wording was almost identical, same order, etc., flags that someone had been copying someone.
 * First of all, it is entirely possible that this a reverse copy job and there isn't a problem. I don't know how to go about figuring that out at this point.
 * Second, if it is a problem, I want to work on a re-write and don't want the work to disappear, have it pegged to my sandbox or something, but not deleted.

Roy Smeck is the Wikipedia page. The possible issue is with The Ukulele Hall of Fame Museum - Roy Smeck page

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To report a Copyright violation, I think you need to tell a admin. or you can also report it on the talk page. Pokebub22 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've put the appropriate flag on the page and commented my words above in it. If I'm reading this whole thing right, it will get flagged on an automatic report and someone will look into it and open discussion. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Aggie 80, and welcome back. You can report the suspected violation at Copyright problems.  A user experienced in investigating these problems will deal with it there, though it may take some time given the backlog.  Another avenue is to contact User:Moonriddengirl, who is something of Wikipedia's resident text copyright cleaner-upper.  She doesn't have any legal standing, but DOES have a VERY lot of experience in the area, so she is who I go to first on these matters.  Does that help?  -- Jayron  32  19:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For future reference, one good way to check whether something is a copyvio is to use the Wayback Machine. If you drop the URL of the external site into it, you can then see that the text was present (unchanged) since November 29, 2010. If the offending text in the Wikipedia article post-dated that, you would know 100% that it was a copyvio. It doesn't work so well in the other direction. To wit, since the Wikipedia article's text long predates 2010, the Wayback Machine results can only be a mere indication that the Wikipedia article might have been first, because the Wayback Machine does not always capture the earliest entry. Complicating matters more, we know from the article that he was inducted in 1998, and we have to wonder, then, when the entry went up, (possibly at that early date). Another thing you can do is look for how the suspected copyvio text was added. Specifically, if it was added as a pure "text dump", that's a good indication, and if it was pieced together over time or in separate edits with tweaks, that's an even better indication of the opposite proposition. The WikiBlame tool can be very hekpful in articles with large page histories to find the revision adding specific material. Unfortunately, again, the suspected copyvio text was in the page's first revision, already wikilinked and the like, so there's no easy determination. One more route: check the contributions of the person who added the text to see if they have had problems with copyvios (you should treat the page as a presumptive copyvio, if such are found). Here, I was not able to determine the user had any major copyvios in the past. This is a hard one but sometimes using these methods it can be a breeze.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Fuhghettaboutit took the words right out of my mouth but I wanted to add a bit of encouragement - the whole Internet can take any Wikipedia article and copy it, that's completely legal (and fairly common). All the time, editors looking for reliable citations end up finding an entire version of the article they are working on and do that "huh, chicken or egg" thing where it has to be researched which is source material and which is the scrape. Wayback is a great first line of defense. And this isn't as helpful, but you sort of develop a sense of these things over time. EBY (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not exactly true. The entire Internet can copy a Wikipedia article so long as they provide proper attribution that is compliant with Wikipedia's license.  If there is no attribution, it is "illegal".  -- Jayron  32  18:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Jayron, absolutely right. Why, just last night I was telling the whole Internet to remember to make sure they use proper attribution. EBY (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you read this with the humor it was intended :) I know many of us have lived through the frustration of feeling like Wikipedia editors are the only ones who actually follow the rules. EBY (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)