Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 250

Can you open an article with the same name but two different subjects?
I am interested in writing about a woman in Jewellery, which appears to have an article in the same name but a different subject? Spikequeen (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . This is a very common issue here on Wikipedia, we call it "disambiguation", and the various ways to deal with it are described at WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Most simply, you could create an article called Mary Jones (jeweler), for example. There are other methods, depending on the circumstances. Please feel free to ask a more detailed follow-up question. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How to find other editors from the same geographic region for editing an article related to that region.
Hello,

This is Anwar and I am very happily editing articles. I have been editing and creating new articles related to various places in Jammu and Kashmir, India. Now, my problem is, I hardly find others who may help me out with some of the articles especially those pertaining to my home place Kargil, Leh and Ladakh. Many a times I have to give refernces from books and when I do so I get the  following tag on the page.  Can I remove it if I have the source with me and can provide whenever the need may be? Any help would be highly appreciated. Thank You ~ A n w a r a j  &lrm; 11:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, User:Anwaraj. It looks like you have two questions, whether you can find anyone who can help you edit the articles about Indian cities and what to do with the 'reference needed' tag. For the first question, you might be interested in the Wikiprojects WikiProject Indian cities, or more generally, WikiProject India. You can leave a message on the talk page of the Wikiprojects to see if anyone responds, or you can leave individual messages on the talk pages of active members.


 * As for the second question, the tag means that the article itself needs more citations to be added. If you have the book, I suggest that you add the citations in the article by yourself, preferably using inline citations. Template:Cite book might be useful if you will be citing books.  KJ  Discuss? 12:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Kkj11210 Many thanks for responding.
 * As you talked of the wikiprojects I have joined some of them. And have also posted it on the wall of some of the active users but am yet to get any response. Anyhow I'll try again.


 * As for the question regarding the reference tag, I have already cited the book inline using the Template:Cite book even then some unregistered user from some IP address put up the reference banner on the page Kacho Sikander Khan. For the time being I have removed the reference banner and have started a discussion at the talk page and am waiting if someone turns up there. Can you please look into the page Kacho Sikander Khan and see if there is some problem with the references.
 * Thanks~ A n w a r a j  &lrm; 12:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the addition of the banner was fine. In general, most sentences in an article should have footnotes.  Right now it looks like there is only about one footnote per paragraph.  Where did the other information in the article come from?  Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"
 * User:Calliopejen1, Hi and Thanks for the clarification but as I have already stated that most of the information comes from the book the author wrote. In his first book there is this chapter titled "Introduction". That has been the source for the informations. However to support the facts regarding the dates and the number of books he has published, I have cited two journals that carried relevant information regarding the author. So, for a stub won't that be enough sources to refer to. I'll, however, try my best to search for more sources and include them. Would that be fine to keep the banner at bay for now? ~ A n w a r a j  &lrm; 18:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you feel that there are enough information cited to remove the citations needed tag, you are welcome to do so. However, I would advise you to make sure that all the facts in the articles could be traced to a reliable source (using inline citations) and discuss the issue on the talk page of the article if any user raises the issue of citations for the article. Regards.  KJ  Discuss? 11:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Learning the ropes
I submitted a profile of Sydney Finkelstein, a chaired professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, with text from his website. It was rightly deleted for unambiguous copyright violation. The profile has been re-written and re-submitted in a format much like other influential academics. Is there anything else I need to do to get the new version accepted? Thanks very much. Imainfp (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I read over your article, and it's off to a decent start, but it needs some work before it's ready for the article space.  It actually hasn't been submitted yet, but that's OK.  Here are a few things to consider before resubmitting:
 * The information in the article needs to be cited to appropriate sources. These sources should also be independent of the subject (i.e. not a personal website, self-published sources, or an institutional website that Finkelstein is affiliated with) and are reliable (e.g. news sources, books, or articles that have a peer review or editorial process).  This is super important for claims like "it was a #1 bestseller in the U.S. and Japan", but also for the descriptions of his works.  If you're not sure how to cite sources, this is a good primer to get you started.


 * The article sound a bit like a resume, particularly the consulting section. I'd consider dropping this section unless his consulting work has received substantial coverage in reliable sources.  Try to incorporate feedback from book reviews on his publications, rather than just describe the publications.


 * There are too many external links. Choose a single official website for Finkelstein (probably this one), and that's all that's needed.


 * Let me know if you need any help! I, JethroBT  drop me a line 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there anybody who can check articles?

 * Thank you

I wondered if like school there was somebody who did not mind checking articles, to see what needs to be improved? I do not want to find I have a problem on the articles I am correcting. So if somebody could help it would be great. ThanksSpikequeen (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse,, and thanks for your contributions. One thing I can suggest is that you read Citing sources. You have added a few citations with just a bare url in it, which can lead to link rot. I find it helpful to use Citation templates to format the information in a link. I have edited one of your citations in Pam Hogg to give you an example of how it is done. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dapo Ladimeji

 * Hi

I have uploaded and used the coding to submit at the beginning. I am not seeing the post live. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dapo_Ladimeji Also I cannot figure out how to upload an image. Any directions you can point me to please? Many thanks

Denise D.Ashurst (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You have correctly submitted your article for review. All reviewers are volunteers, so it may take a while before anyone responds to your request.  However, after a quick glance, I'll tell you that it is highly likely that a reviewer would decline your article.  It is written in a very promotional way.  Please rewrite it using a neutral tone and less peacock/flowery language.  I'd also recommend significantly shortening the article to hit only the very highlights.  If I were writing that article, it would probably be about 75% shorter.  As far as uploading images, please see Help:Introduction to uploading images/1. Good luck! Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, It doesn't look to me that this person is notable by Wikipedia standards.  Please see the policy WP:N for the general notability rule.  You'll need to collect significant coverage of Ladimeji in reliable independent sources and I really don't see that in the references cited in the article.  The closest thing there is in the article is this BBC piece but it isn't really about Ladimeji, it just quotes him in an article about something else.  There's also the Bloomberg link but that's a directory listing.  Really what you need to find is newspaper articles about Ladimeji (not blog posts, not things Ladimeji has written, not websites affiliated with Ladimeji, etc.).  Please do this before you spend more time revising the article, so that your effort is not ultimately wasted.  When you think you have collected sufficient sources (go for quality over quantity, look for 3-5 good quality sources), I'd check back here to see if people think the notability rule has been satisfied.  Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Images
How can I post images on Wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toofania (talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See Help:Introduction to uploading images/1, and let us know if you have any follow-up questions! Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to know about language features, but it seems that there isn't a page called language features
What do I do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ababcdc (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Ababcdc (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . We have a page called feature (linguistics). Is this what you mean, or do you mean something else? --ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply to ColonFine: Thanks, but by language feature I mean like repetition or rhythm. -- Ababcdc (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2014.


 * He, . The problem is that "feature" is such a general word that there's no way of telling what kind of features you mean (and, as I indicated, it also has a technical meaning in linguistics). You might find that one or more of the pages linked from prosody are of interest to you. --ColinFine (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. --Ababcdc (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Explanatory notes / citations order within the body of an article
I posted this on the Help talk:Footnotes page and then realized there's not much activity on that page. So, trying here:

Hello,

I haven't seen anything about the order of explanatory notes and citations in the body of an article. vs
 * [nb 5][53]
 * [53][nb 5]

It's been my practice to use the second approach, but maybe that's my and some other's personal preference.

Is there a guideline about this?

Thanks!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 05:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not seen this specific question, but there is a standard order for the "end matter" of the article, which has Notes before References (see WP:Manual_of_Style/Layout). So at first blush, it looks reasonable (to me, at least) to put the inline citations in the same order.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I like where you're going with that - makes sense! Thanks!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 06:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I understand about the deletion after 7 days. I did secure permission and did email it to the indicated address. It may well be that it arrived after 7 days, and thereby resulted in deletion of the picture, but as soon as I am able to re-insert the picture I will be able to simultaneously re-send the necessary copyright permission. However, I hope that you can now address the second aspect of my question: "When I attempted to upload it again, the forms I was asked to complete indicated that an image cannot be uploaded if its purpose is simply to illustrate what the subject looks like. Is this a new policy? Especially since I simply updated an old image, why can I not get the new image uploaded. Your help is eagerly sought"

Please advise as to how I may be able to insert the new photograph.

With thanks,

Byron Laursen 50.143.181.123 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Question about copyright?
So I was reviewing an article I edited a while back ("Cajun Cuisine"), and I noticed that I used summarized info from a source (a book) for a significant portion of the "History" section of my article, as I couldn't find much info on the topic elsewhere. I was sure to use footnotes, but even after reading the copyright rules I'm a bit confused about what constitutes violating copyright (since I didn't take portions directly from the text)? I just want to make sure I'm not violating copyright. Thanks. -thezulus

Thezulus (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We are allowed to paraphrase, provided we do not use close paraphrasing, to précis, and to summarise. It is likely that you have done it correctly from what you say, I have not inspected your edits to be 100% sure. Fiddle   Faddle  19:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @timtrent thanks for the response! so there really isn't a limit when it comes to paraphrasing? I mean clearly you can't take a whole article from one source but a small section is ok?

Thezulus (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * PARAPHRASE is a thoughtful and informative essay about this that is well worth reading, even though it partly focuses on the usefulness of combining multiple sources, which obviously is not possible in this case. There are two other approaches I find useful when struggling to avoid paraphrasing a source too closely. First, if it is really awkward to render a particular idea, quote with quotation marks a very short piece of the original, and attribute it immediately after the quote. This is not ideal, but it is acceptable. Second, on a slightly different scale, when summarising or paraphrasing a very detailed source, normally one finds that the resultant Wikipedia text should end up much shorter than the original book text. So for example a newspaper review of a novel might be a full page in a broadsheet newspaper, but Wikipedia perhaps only needs to mention whether the review was positive or negative and the main reasons why, perhaps two or three sentences at the most. Likewise a book which is a biography of a person might spend an entire chapter on some small aspect of their life, but the Wikipedia article may only need one or two paragraphs to cover the same material.


 * The above was not really an answer to your second question, so I will try and work on that now. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Try putting it this way... if you have an entire section in your article that is all based on one book, then that's absolutely fine so long as your section does not paraphrase the book too closely. Being based on one source does not necessarily mean something is too closely paraphrased. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @arthur goes shopping wow that answer was extremely helpful! I took info from about 11 pages about the 17th century to modern times and summed it up in about 16 sentences, with a few other sources used in addition. I will go back and make sure its not too closely paraphrased, though some portions are just pure facts that do have to be worded similarly and I will look to see if I need to quote those things. Thanks for your help!

Thezulus (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the relationship between a WikiProject and its articles of interest?
I have noticed on Talk:List_of_people_from_Columbus,_Georgia that it is considered an article of interest to the Wikiproject Georgia (Country); the problem is that this is a list about people of a city within the state of Georgia in the USA. Should the link to the Wikiproject Georgia just be edited out of the Talk page or does someone within the Wikiproject Georgia need to be alerted to this list's irrelevance to their project? Plumleaff (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good catch! In this case you can directly remove the relevant template from the page. Adding a note to inform member of Wikiproject Georgia is optional. Keihatsu   talk 02:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. Plumleaff (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Host
Can I become a host cause I am really helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girlrockforever1 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Girlrockforever, and welcome to the Teahouse. Do you think perhaps it might be a good idea to get more experience in editing Wikipedia before becoming a host? Have you edited many Wikipedia articles, and which articles do you feel benefitted most from your contributions? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Not being rude or anything but don't you think you should know to sign your posts before being a host? --DangerousJXD (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is enforcing Terms of Use
When I look around I see a lot of harassment in breach of the Terms of Use. This is very annoying. Is there any sysop around that actually protects visitors against predatory behaviour? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * With precision, what do you mean? Vague allegations have no place here. Fiddle   Faddle  19:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . It is nice to have a visit from such a prominent Dutch Wikipedian. The general issues you raise are a chronic concern here. I suggest that you might try discussing these issues with, an administrator who is of Dutch origin, though he lives in the U.S. now. He may have some useful observations. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ad, the short answer is we are all supposed to do that. The longer answer is, well, kweenie. If harassment is reported, action can be taken. Whether it always is, and whether such is done properly and in a timely manner, that's a different matter. It is no secret that there is broad disagreement about how to enforce civility, for instance, and IMO that's part and parcel of en-Wikipedia's broad cultural diversity. I am interested in particulars; feel free to email me privately if that's more appropriate. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for calling . As I understand Drmies is a very prominent editor of the English Wikipedia, speaks Dutch natively. I'm glad the Teahouse is still operating at enwiki. I experimented as a host a year ago before proposing a Teahouse project on nlwiki. Things start slowly at nlwiki. I'm following the development of Flow. Flow is enabled on a couple of pages on enwiki. In my view Flow could be experimentally tried in the Teahouse. There is some serious opposition against Flow. User Fram vehemently opposes any move in that direction. He is the biting type. Maybe I don't understand the objections. Maybe one of you can explain those to me. The past weeks have been tense. Hundreds of people publically opposed against MediaViewer. Many people don't like MediaViewer and opt-out. Feedback has been collected. From all those feedback so far four cosmetic changes could be distilled, while no one produced a convincing critical issue. A lot of stampede for nothing. So I find this very annoying, hence my post here. At Wikimania London I attend the talk by Fabrice Florin about A culture of kindness. Eventually he calls for being kind to everyone, including the annoying ones. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, prominent--let's not take a poll on that. As for Flow, that's well beyond my payscale. I've caught a whiff occasionally of stuff going on, and a bit of a dispute between the Foundation and some en-wiki folks and all of that, but I don't even know what Flow is since I focus way too much on other things here. I know that Fram rubs plenty of people the wrong way and they're very outspoken, but whether they're right or wrong about all of this, I couldn't possibly tell. What I do know is that Fram is also an editor here that I know as an editor, and I don't know anyone in the Foundation in that way. But I am not the one to explain this particular issue. Let me patch you through to . He's not Dutch, not by a long shot, but he understands technical stuff better than most people I know here, and he can speak of it intelligently. Perhaps he even has his finger on the pulse of the community, though as a 'crat he's one of the untouchables these days. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I try to keep my fingers to myself, really, Drmies, and the community doesn't like to be poked, which perhaps is part of the problem here. I think I've actually discussed this briefly with Ad before, but the real point is that Flow just isn't ready yet. A lot of the most basic functionality is there, as you've seen, Ad. But there's a lot more that has to be in place for something like Flow to be deployed to real pages. A lot of these missing features are more related to behind-the-scenes management and adminning, so to a normal user, they're not visibly missing. But they're no less important for a system to go into production. For example, one problem is that there isn't a good way to remove threads from public view yet; if someone comes in here and posts something that should not be seen by public eyes, we wouldn't be able to fix it if we were using Flow. Deletion of pages also doesn't work well (though that's not a huge concern to the Teahouse specifically). Flow doesn't integrate with watchlists well yet, nor with Echo notifications; introducing Flow right now would likely cause confusion among both hosts and guests, causing questions to go unseen and therefore unanswered. Histories are also a bit sketchy at the moment. There are simple bugs, too; if you were using the Monobook skin, Flow wouldn't have let you click on any of the tabs that normally appear along the top of the screen, to get to the page history and things like that. (I actually think that particular bug might have been fixed, but the point that there are still bugs in the code remains.) Really, even though it looks good to the casual observer, Flow has a looong way to go before it's ready, especially for a place like the Teahouse; while I think that Flow might actually be really nice for a newbie-friendly place like here, buggy and incomplete software is more likely to hurt than help, especially with new users. As for Fram: well, as Drmies says, Fram is very passionate about protecting the encyclopedia. I actually agree with you that several people, Fram included, are overreacting to the creation of these new test pages. But you have to understand that there's a history here; the conflict between the community and the WMF didn't start with the MediaViewer or even with Flow. These issues go back a long time, years even, and with all that history of bad decision and bad blood (on both sides), tempers are bound to flare more easily than perhaps they should. I don't like how far they've gone here, but I can respect that they're just doing what they think is right by Wikipedia, which is all we can ask of any editor. And indeed, even though I don't agree with their conclusions, I can understand how they arrived at them. You just have to learn to roll with the punches sometimes, I'm afraid. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As for Fram, indeed--read "", since we shouldn't be talking about them behind their back. And now, hopefully, he gets one of those irritating pings that I've been getting from them every half an hour for the past week and a half (WK, can you fix that???). Drmies (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am glad that a productive conversation has developed here. In response to the original question, I believe that the best way for me to advance civility is to try to conduct myself in a friendly, helpful collaborative fashion whenever possible. I recommend that course to others as well. I try to say a few friendly words to editors having a tough time. Even when dealing with people clearly here to do damage, it is best to be businesslike and polite. I don't always meet the standard I set for myself, but when I find myself getting angry, I take a step back. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  01:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is about Teahouse/Questions/Flow test, a page where Ad Huikeshoven was acting rudely and annoying towards other editors, like User:Cyberpower678. Thanks to the o-so-readiness of Flow, that page history is now unaccessible for everyone, including admins, so I can't present any diffs; but the total lack of competence and clue presented there by Ad Huikeshoven was amazing, certainly coming from someone who has (or had) his positions in Wikimedia, so should know better. The only conclusion I could draw (and still can) was that we are being trolled here. Fram (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Help Me Work On The Page 3C's
How Can We Build The Page Properly ?IAm3Cs (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you need to do is find places where reliable source (such as major newspapers or magazines, or books from reputable publishers) have written about you. If these places do not yet exist, then I'm afraid you do not currently meet Wikipedia's criteria for "notability", and an article about you is not permitted: it does not matter what goes into the article, it will get deleted.
 * Secondly, assuming you are 3C's, you need to step back from trying to write the article, because you have what we call a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and its articles are required to be written in a neutral tone, and may not be promotional in any way. It is very hard to write that way about oneself, or one's own family, friends, band, company etc, so we strongly discourage people from trying to do so.
 * Your best course is to look for some references such as I mentioned above. These need to be substantial: not just listings, or mentioning you in passing. Reviews are fine, provided they are substantial, and are published in a reliable place (not a fan-site, forum or blog, or your own website). If you can't find such references, then I'm afraid you need to give up the idea of there being a Wikipedia article about you, for the moment. If you can find some, then I suggest you post a request at requested articles, and maybe somebody will pick it up and decide to write an article about you. --ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * https://bop.fm/a/3csIAm3Cs (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Finding talk pages with no parent page
Is there a special page or category (or some other method, like a database dump) that lists talk pages with no parent page? (they meet CSD G8). Just curious to know. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 22:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the question. There is no such list or dump as far as I am aware. If you're curious as to why the criteria exists, it is so that when an administrator deletes an article (which we do on occasion :) ), it provides a quick "drop down" reason for the deletion of the associated talk page since everything on Wikipedia has an audit trail and everything has to be documented. G8 is not that different to G6 (housekeeping etc.) it's just a little more precise.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User contributions
Hello !!! Some times when I see users contributions, I see these three words in brackets (current) [rollback] [vandalism]. The last one is written in red. what are they meant for? Best wishes, Aftab Banoori (Talk) 07:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Aftabbanoori. I take it you've installed Twinkle, then? These are Twinkle options for reverting the edit they appear next to - rollback allows you to add an edit summary and reverts back to the last version of the page that was not edited by that user, vandalism does the same thing but without an edit summary (and will also open the user's talkpage so that you can give them a warning) and current simply means that this edit is the most recent one made to the article in question. Yunshui 雲 水 08:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Yunshui


 * Thanks for your help, now I understand it


 * Best wishes


 * Aftab Banoori (Talk) 09:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I DONT KNOW HOW TO EDIT ON THIS WIKIPEDIA:(
how can i edit image? Helrichdiola (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome Helrichdiola!!!


 * You can find help here


 * Aftab Banoori (Talk) 09:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Helrichdiola, There are two parts to using files on Wikipedia: 1) Upload the file to Wikipedia or Commons (unless it has already been uploaded) and 2) Use the file on a page. Both are summarized at Help:Files. I see you were trying to use a file on the internet without uploading it: that doesn't work. —teb728 t c 10:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong / is going wrong?
Hello everyone

I was recently editing the Wikipedia article of the Belgian Navy > section: 4 Current Fleet List.I wanted to put the 2 karel-doorman class frigates in a table with a picture so it looked better. In this I succeeded but for some reason my edit appeared in another section of the page which is at the bottom of the page under the section name "6 Future".

When i click to edit the future section my table is not there and when i click on edit of the current fleet section my table is there and still nothing appears under current fleet list but the table does appear under the future section.

This is how my table looks like:

[[Karel Doorman-class frigate |''Karel Doorman''-class]] [[frigate]]
Can anyone help me solve this mystery?

GreetsVerax666 (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Verax666, welcome to the Teahouse! You tried to end the table with . Tables must end with  . I have fixed it in your post here. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Verax666 I have moved the table to desired place


 * But I am not sure if you meant it, If I am wrong then please undo my edit.


 * Aftab Banoori (Talk) 13:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What does a page review mean?
I have on one of my articles that I like, got a message that I was page reviewed? I am accused of sock puppetry, I am getting bullied on one article but not the other articles. I have only just started two weeks ago on Wikipedia? At my stage I am not writing articles just adding to existing ones. Spikequeen (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have not reviewed the problems you've mentioned, since it is very close to my bed time. Feel free to ask additional questions. But a message saying a page has been "reviewed" simply means that a moderately experienced editor took a brief look at it, and determined that there was nothing flagrantly wrong. They didn't fact check it or "approve" it. They simply confirmed that it wasn't slander, gibberish or "complete bollocks", as the British say. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - to add to Cullen's reply, I would like to point out that your article was not singled out for special treatment. All articles go onto the list for a review, although as you can imagine that has a huge backlog so it can take months for the review to take place.  Sorry to read about the rough treatment you received; I encourage you to stick around, because your contributions all help to make this a better encyclopedia.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I now what to learn what the different colours mean. So much to learn and you really become addicted to editing quickly. Anything I can do or learn let me know. Morning wherever you are.Spikequeen (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem editing with the [ ] on Mac Book Air
Hello everyone,

I have encountered an issue when editing with the [ ] signs to create links which do not work properly. As I am using a Mac Book Air I need to use alt-gr+shift+( or ) to create the signs []. However, probably due to the way I create them, the edit program does not create the links properly. Fyi, I use Firefox as my browser. As anyone encountered this issue yet? I cannot find anything on the internet. Thank you in advance for your time and help!

Momoquet (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Momoquet, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't have a Mac Bok Air for testing but it sounds and looks like you can create the characters and the problem is using them to make a link, so I wonder whether the issue is the syntax. In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CyberdivaliveRG/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=624202678] you wrote . The correct syntax for a link to your user page (which hasn't been created yet) is   which produces User:Momoquet. The link will change from red to blue if you create the page. See more at Help:Link. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello . I am interested in simplifying, so here is the simplest way I can explain it: Single square brackets go around the URL for an internet page off of English Wikipedia, which creates a clickable link. Double square brackets go around the name of a page on English Wikipedia, which creates a clickable link to that Wikipedia page.


 * To get just slightly more complicated, you can leave a single space after the URL in my first example, and then type in the page title. The result does not display the full URL, but instead the page title. That is more user friendly. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that helps me too. I do like the tea house.Spikequeen (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Where do i get commonly used templates?
Hello wikipedians. I want to know if there is a page full of templates. 182.65.127.89 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Try Template messages and its various subpages. Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 13:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What does a page review mean?
I have on one of my articles that I like, got a message that I was page reviewed? I am accused of sock puppetry, I am getting bullied on one article but not the other articles. I have only just started two weeks ago on Wikipedia? At my stage I am not writing articles just adding to existing ones. Spikequeen (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have not reviewed the problems you've mentioned, since it is very close to my bed time. Feel free to ask additional questions. But a message saying a page has been "reviewed" simply means that a moderately experienced editor took a brief look at it, and determined that there was nothing flagrantly wrong. They didn't fact check it or "approve" it. They simply confirmed that it wasn't slander, gibberish or "complete bollocks", as the British say. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - to add to Cullen's reply, I would like to point out that your article was not singled out for special treatment. All articles go onto the list for a review, although as you can imagine that has a huge backlog so it can take months for the review to take place.  Sorry to read about the rough treatment you received; I encourage you to stick around, because your contributions all help to make this a better encyclopedia.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I now what to learn what the different colours mean. So much to learn and you really become addicted to editing quickly. Anything I can do or learn let me know. Morning wherever you are.Spikequeen (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

References and punctuation
Full points end sentences, including in scientific articles.

Therefore, references, which are attached to certain words without space, may not be discriminated should the word be inside or at the end of the sentence. All other typo rule makes WIKIPEDIA look ridiculously altering the common and universal rule.

Examples taken from http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/:

"Meissner's corpuscles of the prepuce may be compared with similar nerve-endings in the finger-tips and lips, which respond in a fraction of a second to contact with light objects that bring about deformation of their capsules [14]."

"However, complex sensation, at least in the glans penis, may be mediated by free nerve-endings rather than by specialized end-organs [15]."

Now, users "Arthur goes shopping" and "Powers", who appallingly contest that universal rule must be warned to stop that insidious edit warring. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Wikipedia's manual of style, says "Any punctuation (see exceptions below) must precede the ref tags", so the examples you give do not match Wikipedia's rules. The MOS, like most things in Wikipedia, is determined by consensus. If you think this should be changed, you are welcome to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:manual of style; but changing the consensus requires enrolling other people to you view, so you are very unlikely to succeed by making bald assertions, calling things ridiculous, or being rude about well-established editors. --ColinFine (talk) 08:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

All right, thank you; the issue was that my first post was abruptly archived without my being warned of the answers done as usual in my e-mail box, so that I was shocked.

Since discriminating references in the middle of the sentence and at the end of it is highly illogical and therefore "appalling" indeed in an encyclopedia, I'm rising the question where you indicated me, hoping that, in this place, examples taken from scientific litterature ("other people") will be taken into account.

At last, may the users be well-established or not, first, I did not call them but the thing they were doing "ridiculous". I do not see anything rude in emphasizing that they contested by mere affiming the contrary of what I was affirming, without any justification. And this, according to the wiki rule, is called "edit warring". Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read MOS:REFSPACE Theroadislong (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau:  Hi Michel. How did you come to the conclusion this was the universal rule? Please see, just as a sample: *: University of Washington School of Pharmacy:          “How are citations done in the biomedical literature? ... The citation number goes outside of punctuation..."<P>*: American Medical Association (AMA) & Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (ADA) Styles:          "To format the superscript numerals, follow these guidelines: place outside of punctuation comma, period."<P>*: MLA Format Guide:          “The citation is placed at the end of the quote, outside the closing punctuation.”<P>*: Chicago Style Reference Sheet:          “The endnote reference number always appears ‘outside of punctuation.” * World Meteorological Organization:          "Footnote references in a text are always placed outside of punctuation" * : Hawai‘i Journal of Medicine & Public Health:          "Place citations outside of punctuation marks." --Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit! First, I've always noticed that American standards in matter of editing, and even orthograph (for instance the use of which that is different, and much more logical, in England English), are complicated and unusual by comparison with European ones, so that you will easily find hundreds of such journals to which I do not care. I've created my own standard in my scientific articles (https://independent.academia.edu/MichelHerv%C3%A9BertauxNavoiseau) and it is exactly the same as that of BJU International, the famous English urological review. Now, I've started a discussion in manual of style, we'll see what happens though I doubt that the likely American majority will follow me; I have given two very logical reasons for my point. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll say it again. Establishing (or changing) consensus does not depend only on logic. This is a community of people working together. Taking a combative position, writing as though yours is the only possible view and anybody who disagrees with you must be stupid, and assuming that there is an American bias, are not ways of winning support for your argument. --ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Your fueling assumptions are simply libelling, indeed, I am not taking a combative position; I am giving mine, that's all:

1/ The encyclopedist mind is a universal one, for which reason logic must be our main ground.

2/ Thank you very much to confirm that view by your: "writing as though yours is the only possible view".

3/ However, you are right again saying that consensus is based upon other reasons than logic, but then, it seems to me that you are walking upon very slippery ground; indeed, among many other examples, the Nazis, for instance, as well as those who committed the genocide of American Indians, established a formidable consensus in favour of the logic of invasion and extermination, still alive today in the American policy of aid to Israel.

4/ I do not think that giving a reference to the logic of the British journal or urology may be called "only logic".

5/ I hate combative positions, war, weapons and violence, particularly upon the child whom I defend in my site at academia.edu (bertaux). So, I do not intend to indulge in edit warring, all the more about this trifle question.

6/ I have written nowhere - you have - that different positions than mine are stupid; they obey to a different logic, that's all.

7/ Each culture has its biases, the American ones, well documented, consist in a Puritanism inherited from the Pilgrim fathers. It led to the now famous circumcision bias (the PACE has voted in a great majority in favour of the right of the child to physical integrity) and its dratic outcome: the country is the first for AIDS and also the first world consumer of viagra. Other biases are racism, an appalling attachment to guns and weapons inherited from the "Far-West" conquest, and their uncontrolate use even by the police itself, at last a ridiculous and dangerous for the child male repulsion to breast-feeding...!

The above call to censorship needs to be signed and denounced by administrators!

8/ Since I have raised the debate in the proper place according to our friend's advice, debating here is pointless and I will not answer you any more. I "will not say it again". Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Once you mention "the Nazis" you loose the argument and any assumption of good faith.Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your judgment but I'm not interested in wining or losing, I'm far too old for that. I'm only interested in telling the truth as I see it. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with that, is the "truth as I see it" part.  First is the "I" part.  Wikipedia is not the work of a singular person, it is a work of collaboration, and a part of collaboration is to sometimes put the "I" aside in favor of the "we".  To understand that sometimes, reasonable people disagree, and to realize that sometimes, your viewpoint is not going to be the only valid one.  When competing valid viewpoints exist, not everyone gets their way.  The second part of that is the "see it" part.  That implies it is coming from your perspective.  At Wikipedia, we don't judge truth on one's internal thought processes.  We can't see the inside of your brain.  Instead, we base our view of the truth on verifiability: that is, the "ifiability" part is what is important.  Of course we care about the truth (veritas after all is the same root as verifiability) but it's not the truth as you see it or feel it, it's the truth you can prove from sources.  We provide written, reliable sources anyone can check, and we base decisions on what those sources say.  That's the "ifiability" part of "verifiability".  It's not what you assert is true based on your perceptions, it is what you can demonstrate to others is true based on what is written in reliable sources.  I hope that helps clear up the source of your conflict here.  -- Jayron  32  19:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"LIKE"; you state the obvious but you state well. As for the "I", I'm a democrat and respect the law, even if I find it stupid. As for verifiability, editing rules, since they are an issue of taste and aesthetics, do not need to be verified. They are a peculiar case and each editor has its own rules, each one with its small differences. We are editors, we are free to chose our own editing rules. My two cent point of view is that the BJU International footnote rule is simple and elegant; nothing prevents us to adopt it. If we do, considering the immmense population that reads us, it's likely that other editors will imitate us. Indeed, as for editing rules, one source should be enough to put down a thousand agreeing ones if that one is simple and regular, and therefore reasonable and elegant rather than complicated and variable, and therefore overruling and snobish-like.

Funny my argument begins and ends with "like"! Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * References may well depend upon the type of article. My question is how one references photographs for pathology articles.

"LIKE" Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

An Encyclopedia is exactly what a pathology textbook is. A pathology textbook is a special type of encyclopedia because the person who reads a pathology textbook is using the information to better practice his or her skill. Wikipedia is ideal for this purpose because the pathologists who would create the pathology textbooks on it, which would be defined as a series of articles, can upload the photographs from their own practice with almost no effort these days. Other pathologist editors would, of course, correct any errors in the photographs, but the information is strictly derived from well established, & hopefully constantly updated sources. It is this continuous updating that renders Wikipedia especially wonderful. Another great feature is that editors can add as many photographs as needed to flesh out the matter with different examples. This has been done in several articles, but I will work with the Anatomic Pathology group to better produce things.

The reference question in this case is for the photographs. Certainly, all photographs from journals should 1) ensure the journal is either freely & publicly available or 2) get permission from the journal for this purpose. With respect to photographs of diseases, should one specifically reference those photos not made at one's own microscope? If so, how should this be done. Also, how, if reference is needed, should one reference one's own photographs?TexasPathologist1 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to be qualified to anser you. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I do Date of death when I don't know the exact date?
I'm working on the Murder of Holly Bobo article and I'm not sure how to do the dates in the lead. We know what day she went missing and she was found this week (three years later). Right now, it says "Holly Bobo (born October 12, 1990) was an American woman who went missing..."

Another editor edited it to say Holly Bobo (October 12, 1990 - September 7, 2014), adding the date she was kidnapped as the date of death. The police theory is that she was kept alive for at least a few hours before she was killed, possibly even longer so we don't really know what day or even month/year she died. Should I leave it as "(born October 12, 1990) or should I clarify that in some other way. I can't think of any other examples of people whose date of death is unknown to check wikipedia convention on this. Does anyone have any opinion on how this should be handled? Bali88 (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't speculate or create a date based on logic. We need a reliable secondary source for something as important as DOD. Just give the birth date (if its backed by a reliable source) and then mention in the lead that she was missing on XYZ date and was found dead on ABC date or whatever the sources say. On WP we just summarize the sources and avoid WP:OR. Thanks for asking this very good question and good luck with the article. Best, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 01:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. So you think "(born October 12, 1990)" is fine? Bali88 (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the article is entitled "Murder of..." I would think that would be adequate. Alternatively it could say "Died between XX and YY".

--ColinFine (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when you say "that" is adequate, you mean just including her birth date in the parentheses is adequate? Bali88 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia allow Videos and photographic links|?
Hello, I just wanted to know if Wikipedia allows video links? What are their views on photographic agencies. Sometimes the article only has photographs, saying the event happened? I don't want to put a foot wrong, Thank youSpikequeen (talk) 16:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello . Wikipedia does not link to images or videos outside Wikipedia/Wikimedia at all. In some circumstances an article may link to a web page which contains an image or a video: this will be either if the page is a reliable source being used as a reference (for example, if a reliable newspaper posts an interview or a lecture on its website or on YouTube), or if the link is permitted under the quite strict conditions for external links. I think it will be rare that a link to a photo page will be appropriate, but as I say a video sometimes can be. --ColinFine (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Help required to edit a table
I wonder if anyone can help. I am a fairly novice editor but a quick learner!

Anyway there is a table in the following article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchegeri_Sampradaya

And the table appears towards the end of the article it is entitled:

"Overview of the Inchegiri Sampradaya"

However when I click on edit beside the title all I get is:

==Overview of the Inchegiri Sampradaya==

However the table consists of several rows and columns of information and I wish to insert an update into one of the cells. I cannot figure out how to do this. Can anyone assist with this?

Many Thanks!

NemoNemoshaw (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, . That table is in a template, and you would have to edit the template. Goto Template:Navnath Sampradaya - Inchegiri Sampradaya, and you can edit it like any other page. But please consider that templates by their nature are usually used in many articles, and a change to the template will appear in all the articles which use it. If you change is likely to be even a little bit controversial, I advise you to discuss it on the template's talk page first. --ColinFine (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)