Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 29

Tilda test
Does anyone realize how frustrating it is for a new user that you lock out posting for users who do not sign their.posts, but, instead of explicitly stating that, you just lock out users and tell them they 'should'? Maybe something else is going on. Testimg NittOK (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi NittOK. I am no aware of users being blocked for not signing posts, not unless they have been reminded niumerous times anyway. I am not clear what you are implying by "something else going on" but it seems most unlikely. Signing is not that hard to remember with a little practise.--Charles (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi NittOK, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry that you've had a negative experience of Wikipedia. As Charles said, I'm not aware of users being blocked for not signing posts, but if you point us in the direction of a specific incident, we might be able to comment further. Forgetting to sign a post or two is not a big issue at all - even some experienced editors do it occasionally! Moswento talky 09:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what meant. I tried to use the ask a question function here, at the teahouse, but the "ask my question" button was locked out, until I saw the faded admonishment about signing and when I signed the posting ability became active. However, my mobile keyboard does not have toldahs.
 * Ah, I see what you mean. I'll drop a note in the behind the scenes area regarding this. Hopefully, someone will be able to create a "add sig" button.  Worm TT( talk ) 10:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good catch. I was vaguely aware that someone decided it was a good idea to enforce signing (I'd prefer to have the computer do it for you, but that turns out to be harder than it sounds) but it is clearly unfriendly if we require signing on a devise without a tilde. I support finding an alternation, or maybe not enforcing it on mobile devices.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And please change the admonishment to, you must sign, so editors know where their questions stand in the pecking order (low, at least compared ro signatures.) Adios.

References/general feedback
I've written an article and I'd love some feedback. I'm particularly unsure about including the long list of publications at the end. What kind of links do I need to provide for these? Thanks! MonsieurSpikus (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi MonseiurSpikus! Can you let us know what the article is about so we can track it down? Thanks! Loriski (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi MonseiurSpikus! Are you talking about your article on Kristine McKenna, at Articles for Creation? The article is already listed for review, so you should get some feedback in a few days. Moswento talky 12:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again! As Moswento says, your article is slowly working it's way through the queue at Articles for Creation (there's a bit of a backlog there so you'll need to be a bit patient - sorry about that). In the meantime, though, here's a couple of suggestions for ways you could improve your article:


 * One of the main criteria for any wikipedia article is that it establishes the notability of its subject by providing references to multiple (i.e. at least three) third-party reliable sources that give significant coverage (i.e. at least a paragraph) to the article's subject. At the moment, your article is struggling a little on this front.  Most of your references are to articles by McKenna, or information about her at websites for projects/institutions she's associated with, and none of these count as third-party reliable sources.  What you're looking for are articles in newspapers, magazines or academic journals that are about McKenna - i.e. have noted her - and by someone that is not her, and not associated with her.  You have a few, but in my opinion not quite enough. The LAist interview is good but it's pretty borderline as a reliable source because it is a blog.  The San Fransisco Chronicle ref is ace, and def a reliable source, but it's only a one sentence mention of McKenna.  And the LA Times review is definitely a reliable source but again it's about a book that McKenna and four other people edited, and doesn't give her any coverage.  So my advice would be to see if you can track down one or two more decent sources that talk about McKenna.  She's widely published, so I'm pretty sure these will exist.  You might try looking for reviews of her books, for example.  And if you find mention of reviews in journals that you can't access you can always go to Wikipedia's Resource Request desk and ask for help in getting hold of them.


 * Regarding your question about the publications listing: the only thing I would suggest adding is an ISBN for all of the books that you mention. Also, if it were me, I'd change the title of the second list to just "Interviews, Essays and Introductions" (it is a bit confusing having two sections that are both about books) and then I would format each reference as follows "Title of McKenna article (e.g. "Introduction" or "Interview with David Lynch") in Name of Book (e.g. David Lynch), Name of editor of the book (e.g. ed. by John Smith), Place of Publication (e.g. London): Name of Publisher (e.g. Harper Collins), Date of publication (e.g 1960), pp. (whatever the page refs are for McKenna's contribution).

Hope that helps!

All best, Loriski (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the excellent advice! I will find more references and revise the list of publications as you suggest. MonsieurSpikus (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I please have some feedback on my article?
Can I please have some feedback on my article?Thank you so much, I just need enough feedback so that it doesn't get deleted. User:Xbryboy/Microsearch Xbryboy (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! It's quite a short article at the moment (not necessarily a bad thing) but you really need to show that the company has been noticed and talked about by reliable publications, for example newspapers, magazines or reputable online news sites. This will help to show Microsearch is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I can see you already know how to add inline citations, which is good. Guidance on what sort of information you need to provide about your sources can be found at Citing_sources. Sionk (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Xbryboy, welcome to the Teahouse. I've had a look at it and apart from being fairly short, it doesn't really tell us why the company is notable.  There are lots of former software companies out there so why should this one be any more stand out than the others?  I see there is mention of "a first award". Have there been others?  It's this type of information that can tip the balance in favour of notability being met.  The other thing you must do is find some independent, reliable sources to support what you are saying.  At the moment all you have is the autobiography of the founder which isn't independent enough.  If the firm did win awards I would expect there to be a record of this on either the internet or if the awards are old in the printed media which you could refer us to.  Although there is an indication of notability which were this the subject of a speedy deletion might just be enough to save it, if the article was nominated for deletion I think it would be in serious trouble.  Sorry if this sounds a bit down but there isn't enough verifiable material to be positive about it yet. NtheP (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Xbryboy. I popped by and had a look at Microsearch. There are a couple of little typos which I am sure you will pick up. It might read well if you strictly remove any promotional sounding language. For example, with respect to "Citydesk", you write "one of the very first desktop publishing programs on the market" . Perhaps you could say, "On *this date* Microsearch released "Citydesk", a desktop publishing program. It predated *this*, *this* and *this* software". Are there any archived newspaper or other media articles concerning the company that would be interesting and increase the company's notability? Good luck with it. Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Xbryboy. Just a note that the "feedback" tool is really used to measure reader opinions of quality.  Deletion on Wikipedia is not based on the feedback tool, but the ideas of notability outlined above.  Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC).

changing the way my page appears online
when you do a search for michael ayer online it does not appear as a regular wikipedia page it appears as "user:michael ayer"   how can i change that? Michael Ayer 13:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ayer (talk • contribs)
 * What you have created is not an article, but a "user page". If you want to create an article titled "Michael Ayer" at this point in time you will have to go through "articles for creation", an area where new editors like yourself can create an article and have it reviewed before it goes into the encyclopedia.  By the way, if you are actually Michael Ayer, you should read Autobiography before going ahead with your article.  Gtwfan52 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael, and welcome to the Teahouse. Further to what Gtwfan52 said, you might also like to check out the notability guidelines to see whether an encyclopedia article would be appropriate. Moswento talky 15:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * PS:Correct link to "Articles for creation". -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ  16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Improving "C" article, linking from other articles
I wrote an article on Kristine McKenna that has been approved with C rating. Any advice on improving it? Also: 1. I'm confused about the links at the end. Now there is an automatically generated list and a second list that I created that is incomplete. Should the second list be deleted? Any help cleaning this up would be much appreciated. 2. Kristine McKenna is cited as a reference in dozens of other articles. Is there an automatic way to make the name a link in those articles, or do I do it one at a time. How do I find those articles, since a search for the name now just turns up my article? MonsieurSpikus (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi MonsieurSpikus! That's an excellent article - very well sourced and put together. C class is very high rating for a new article - most only get to "Start", so that's a good achievement in itself. To qualify for C class the article needs to be well written and well referenced, but generally what it is lacking is completeness. In this case there is a bit about McKenna's career, but it looks like there may be more to say there, and there is nothing about her life outside of that. To reach B class there will need to be more general background and expanded detail about her career to date.
 * I've removed the duplicate references. The automatic ones come from the tag that has been added. They have the advantage of reflecting what is currently used in the article, and are therefore more likely to be accurate as other editors come by and expand it. Some articles separate footnotes from references, and in those cases the reference list is manually maintained, but I don't think you'll need to worry about that unless there are a lot of references which are used multiple times, which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. Anyway, I'll go through the reference list and see what I can do to tidy things up a tad, but it is looking good already. - Bilby (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi MonsieurSpikus and welcome to the Teahouse! Your article looks great, really well referenced. To improve it, I would suggest adding perhaps some biographical detail or some more information on the works she has curated. One thing you can always do to get ideas for an article is to go to the page for Good Articles and the page for Featured Articles and click on the category your article falls in. Find a similar biography that's on one of those lists, and it can show you areas that you can add information and an organizational scheme that could work. The automatically generated links are for the reliable sources you are using; the list you created is more of a list of her works. If you want more help with referencing, please do ask! As for your last question, unfortunately you will have to go through them and add to the reference templates; usually all you have to add is " |authorlink=Kristine McKenna ". If you're really good with computers, you could program a bot (automated script) to do it for you, or you could use AutoWikiBrowser to do it semi-manually. I hope this helps! Feel free to respond with further questions. Happy editing! Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 01:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. :) I forgot to add - if you click on the search icon without typing anything into the box it will take you to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=&button=&title=Special%3ASearch Searches conducted from this page will list all the hits, but won't automatically take you to the page on Kristine McKenna. - Bilby (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help, Bilby and Keilana. Could you explain just a little more what it means to add " |authorlink=Kristine McKenna " to the reference templates? Is this an easier way than going into each article and inserting double brackets around each use of the name? MonsieurSpikus (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry I didn't clarify that better! When you know that Kristine McKenna is in a reference (the thing in tags, looks something like {{cite web |url = xyz.com |last = McKenna |first = Kristine ..., all you have to do to get the reference to link to her article is add the "|authorlink = Kristine McKenna". Otherwise, when you see her name in an article that you find through the search that Bilby pointed you to, just put double brackets around her name like normal. Thanks for asking! Let us know if we can help you with this or anything else. Happy editing! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 02:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Editing info boxes
Hello, I'm trying to edit a wikipedia page about Great Britain Olympic football team, and in the information box I type | Manager: Stuart Pearce | and yet when I save my changes it doesn't appear on the Great Britain Olympic football team page, I was wondering if you may have some suggestions as to why this may be.

Thank You

Sebi608 (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sebi608! It's a simple problem with a complex answer that I will try to explain in the simplest terms I can. The infobox on that page is Infobox national football team. If you go to that link you will see the "Usage" section, which lists all of the options available for that infobox. Unfortunately, "Manager" is not one of them. Options can not be used in an infobox that are not coded into the template itself. I have never played around with editing the source code for these particular kinds of templates so I could not go about describing to you how to add that option to the template. Additionally, the options for infoboxes are pretty standardized by the community, so if you wanted to add that option you would have to contact the people involved in that content area of Wikipedia. If you wanted to do that, the first place to go would be WikiProject Football. I hope this helps! Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 11:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Manager (association football) says: The title of manager is almost exclusively used in British football. In the majority of countries where professional football is played, the person responsible for the direction of a team is awarded the position of coach or "trainer".
 * Infobox national football team has parameters called  (displays as "Head coach") and   (displays as "Asst coach"). PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PrimeHunter Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 11:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Troublesome tables
Hi folks,

While I'm not a new editor (I've been around for some years), I must admit to being somewhat of a noob with wikitables. A few of them have been giving me headaches on the Sarah Slean article after countless attempts at fixing them.

Could some kind and generous wikitable wizard help me out in figuring just why oh why they won't show up perfectly?

Sincerely, &bull; H☼&omega;d&Theta;esI&dagger;fl&notin;&isin;   {TALK}  &bull; 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Is this an improvement? I'm not sure what you had in mind and didn't check the article history or anything. -- Trevj (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch! I (somewhat stupidly) hadn't tried removing all row characteristics because I was keen on preserving them, instead repeatedly toying with the "|" and the "|-" as best as I could and following the various indications I could pick up here and there in help pages and tutorials, but it seems like my obstinacy got into the way of solving the problem. Honestly, I still don't understand why the table wouldn't work properly... I'll try adding back the column width later on if it doesn't mess up your much appreciated contribution. Thanks again! &bull; H☼&omega;d&Theta;esI&dagger;fl&notin;&isin;   {TALK}  &bull; 00:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Keep at it! I don't use tables very often myself. But now I've created a few, I generally end up going back to those ones to remind me how I did it. I'm sure that the guidance must provide the same information, or I probably wouldn't have arrived at the correct code myself. However, maybe some concise info should be provided as a reminder (to those such as myself who only occasionally edit tables). Or perhaps that already exists... I'll have a look one day. Enjoy your editing! -- Trevj (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Just posted my first article - there may be some problems
I am not clear if I have cleared up the questions that made it seem likely my article would be deleted, or if I have in fact cleared up any issues and am now clear to proceed. With your final clearance of course.

Clear?

Article is Richard Johnson (war artist)

Thanks

ANashville (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi ANashville! I just wanted to let you know that when you want to make a link to something on Wikipedia, add two brackets like this Richard Johnson (war artist) and that will create a link Richard Johnson (war artist) to help people find your article faster and precisely. Happy editing! heather walls (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi ANashville, and thanks for dropping by the teahouse. There might be a typo in the third reference:  the url resolves to the same place as the first reference.  I think citing Amazon as a reference is a little iffy, as is citing a blog.


 * You might want to try finding the online records for the two museums: is this work something they accepted to put into an archive and forget about or are there plans for displaying it?  Were there any reviews from when the work was serialized in the newspaper?  Reviews for the book would be helpful as well.


 * I'm not sure if they've been pointed out to you yet or not, but wp:notability and wp:reliable are the rules of the road for questions like this.


 * Good luck!


 * Garamond Lethe 01:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, ANashville, a further note, it would be good to get references from papers other than those for which he worked. Adding his book (s) to a bibliography section is probably a good idea, rather than linking to Amazon. Rich Farmbrough, 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Need clarification of reliable sources
Based on study of the guidelines provided @ Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources and @ Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) I believe that citations concerning the Mayor's academic credentials in the article "Tony F. Mack" require a more reliable source than that provided (i.e., the personal website @ url=http://tonymack.com/biography/). Having found an obviously more-experienced editor than myself has contravened my additions of citation needed templates for said academic credentials in favor of the current source identified above, I find myself concerned that I may not be interpreting the afore-mentioned guidelines correctly. Therefore I was hoping to get some guidance along these lines if someone has the opportunity. Thanks! Tech77 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tech77 and welcome to the Teahouse! Primary sources usually aren't the preferred source, though in some situations they are what's needed. What I would recommend you do is not edit war over the citation needed templates, but rather, look for a more reliable source on the information. Then, you can add it to complement the information from the primary source. That way, everyone wins - the primary source is cited to show what the subject says, and a secondary source is cited to verify that primary source. I'm not an expert in biographies of living people, but I hope this helps. Happy editing! All the best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 18:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Keilana. Thank you for your most helpful (& very timely) response.  I am grateful for your suggestion, and have managed to find some perhaps-more-appropriate sources for much of the material in the article, to which I hope I've contributed by finding even more information for the subject's biography.  As the editor I mentioned is far more accomplished than I (for instance, having created the gallery userbox "This user is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans."---which I interpret to mean he has much more facility with html than I possess---and is apparently very much interested in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, as evidenced by his obvious NPOV, I am loathe to be so bold as to question one of his editorial decisions.  I believe your suggestion is the best approach in such a circumstance, as I certainly don't want to participate in, much less instigate, an edit war.  Thanks for your help & the useful links! Tech77 (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Writing a GA Lead?
Hello. I've recently posted this article I wrote John R. Tunis, and Fuhghettaboutit has been kind enough to propose it for DYK for me. He also mentioned the possibility of taking it to GA status, but the lead needs a lot of work. I've never done this before, and though I've read the pages and looked at examples, this: User:Tlqk56/John R Tunis is the best I've got for a lead. I'd really appreciate any suggestions on how to improve it, or the article as a whole. (Of course, you don't have to run changes to the article by me, but I like explanations so I can get better.) Thanks for your time and knowledge. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tlqk, and welcome to the Teahouse! I don't review a *ton* of GAs, but I have a few under my belt, and to me, it looks like a perfectly fine lead. Great job on the article, by the way! I actually think you could nominate it for GA; the reviewer will give suggestions on improvement so that the article will pass. It's not a black-and-white type of thing, so if the article's not a total mess, the reviewer will often make suggestions so you can get it to the right place. Good luck with your article, and feel free to ask any more questions you may have. Happy editing! Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 01:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Keilana, I appreciate your input. I guess I'll move the lead out if it looks OK. I had fun on the article. The reason I'm considering the GA idea is so I can learn more about how to do articles right. I haven't found anyone writing about books or authors to share ideas with, so it would give me more input. Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tlqk56! Best of luck with your Good Article nomination! If you have any questions about the process, or the review itself, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. I've done a great deal of reviewing, so I'd be glad to walk you through it. All the best, Lord Roem (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! Another thing I would recommend is joining a sub-project of WikiProject Books, so you can find like-minded editors working on the same topics as you. WikiProjects are awesome, because then you can easily find other sets of eyes to review your work and people who are often willing to collaborate. You can also ask on their talk pages to get a wider response for a question. I hope this helps, and good luck with the GA nomination! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 17:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will definitely do that. WikiProject Children's Literature appears to be dead; I don't think I realized there was a books project, or sub-projects . I will look into it. Thanks for the help, both of you. Tlqk56 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are the coloured girls? Oh yeah, and where can I give some simple feedback?
Hi, I logged in today to find a new box about "do you know about wikipedia's new feedback tool?" As a resurrected editor, I thought, hey! maybe THIS is the place where I can give simple feedback. But no, it's another opportunity for wikipedia to push content at me about how great a job it's doing in responding to reader feedback and providing a loop for editors. Not that that's not important. But, stupid me, I am finding Multiple Issues in my second incarnation here, and as a woman of colour, I'd really really appreciate it if some kind man would please step up and show me a place where I can provide Simple feedback - not complaints - simple feedback on my experience here (without needing a degree in coding/computer science). No, I don't want to deal with infantalizing dashboard feedback that has just three emotions (Why isn't "frustration" up there? What would Freud make of wikipedia's dashbaord, I wonder.) Second question, where/how can I connect with other women of colour here? I'm starting to realize, I'm going to need support if I'm going to stay alive this time, and I really would like to be talking to a coloured girl like me - or Someone, anyone, who can deal with the reality of what I'm experiencing, yeah? Just being real. Thanks, Charlie Inks (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Charlie! I can't help you with a lot of that, but I can link you up with other women.  Not those of color, but perhaps they may be of some use to you.  This is the process to get onto the gendergap mailing list.  Here are the past postings so you can check it out and see if it would help(everything is public). Ryan Vesey  Review me!  02:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Charlie Inks, welcome to the Teahouse. The Village Pump provides places to make general comments and to get some feedback on them. There are quite a few efforts to engage new editors and reinvigorate veteran but inactive editors. I'm betting that you will get directions to one of those projects after posting your comments. Oh, and the Teahouse is among the efforts to help newbies. Stick around and you'll find a niche in which to fit that suits you. While you're looking about and venting a bit, hang around the Teahouse, too. Take care, DocTree (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ryan, Thanks so much for these links! I will definitely check them out. I find the environment usually is good, but sometimes can get very challenging.... Once again, thanks for stepping up here. :) --Charlie Inks (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi DocTree, Thanks for your answer - I know I'm raising a lot of things here, that won't make me popular - but they do make me real. I will stop by the Village Pump - didn't know about it before. I'm not looking for a "niche" as much as I'm looking for sisters and brothers (any background, really) to hang out with once in a while, publicly and privately online because last time, I found at times, being on wikipedia was very isolating. I know good people come in all colours but when things go wrong here, the dynamics can sometimes go really awry and yes, in my dreams, I'd love to have at least one sister like me on here. I know "venting" - your word - has a bad rap, but expressing feelings of anger and frustration can be productive if it's done constructively. I'm looking for things, and I came to the Teahouse to ask for help to try and find those things, right? If I wasn't really trying to stay alive this time, I wouldn't bother asking - with deep respect to you and your colleagues, DocTree, I do hope you see that. I'm trying to find ways to change the dynamics of the experience for me this time round. How can the people who run wikipedia hope to resolve the encylopedia's widely publicly reported problems (1, 2, 3, for instance) around internal culture and how that culture and its energy shapes content unless it's willing to look into the shadows, past its own PR, ask some tough questions, and listen to people who are not in the core group once in a while? Like many people here (vets and newbies), I really enjoy contributing. But you know? I don't feel so bulletproof every day of the week. I can't be the only person on wikipedia who's felt like this sometimes. Hey! White guys have hearts, right?! Even I know that from some very close personal experiences! :D Hang around the Teahouse huh? Alright! I'll check it out sometime this week. Thanks again for stepping up and for the links, DocTree. --Charlie Inks (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Charlie Inks! You have definitely found the right place to express your frustrations in using Wikipedia. One of the paradoxes in being a good Wikipedian is that the best way to care about Wikipedia is by not giving a fuck. I think that essay is a great starting point for people who sometimes feel that they go unappreciated here. It does not mean you have to distance yourself completely from your emotions, as we are all human beings, but it is good advice to live by. There are so many people here at Wikipedia, and therefore there is so much that is out of our control. We can work hard on something for weeks and someone else can revert it in a few milliseconds. But there are so many active editors because editing Wikipedia has so many rewarding experiences attached to it. You'll find people who are so good and clear-thinking that you just want to hug them through the computer screen; you'll find people who like nothing but to make other people feel like crap. In all, both experiences build character.
 * I like those three articles you linked to. The first one has to be taken with a grain of salt, as in it the author predicts that there will soon be "a new edition under new management". That article was written eight years ago, and no such new edition exists. Wikipedia's nature means it does not have to work like the executive branch of the US federal government, where periodically the administration changes completely. Wikipedia adapts and grows, and every year new features come out to make it more reliable. I do see the gender gap as being a huge stumbling block, though. The fact that there are so few women means it is even harder for women to participate.
 * Overall, I think the world is full of problems, and Wikipedia is no exception. But the different thing about Wikipedia is that the vast majority of people who actively participate do so because they are passionate about it. In the real world, people run for office because they like power or they want their personal hangups to be public policy.


 * So there's my essay. Have a good day! Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 11:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Hajatvrc! Thank you for this, and the reassurance that this is the place to talk. Here's a few thoughts for you! You are very thought-provoking, and I'll be thinking about what you've said for a long time. But it's the "not giving a fuck" that really gives me pause. I'm starting to wonder if coming back was such a good idea for me because, mostly I do give a fuck - so I can't "care about wikipedia in the best way" as you've explained to me. In my humble life experience, it's a fairly select group, ensconced in every kind of imaginable cushion, that gets to say this - DGAF - all the time. I say it sometimes - hey, we all do. But it's the folks with the Big Cushions (serious money, power, position, etc.) who can say it any time, any place - they can afford it. Not to get too heavy here, but this reminds me of Elie Wiesel, writer, holocaust survivor talking about why the holocaust happened. He said - and, I paraphrase - it wasn't about hate, politics, religion, money or land. Basically it happened because of peoples' mass indifference. Mostly, no one cared that the ovens were being lit up and fags, gypsies, artists, musicians, Jews were being thrown in. As a Fag-Loving Gypsy Artistic Musician-Loving Jew-Lover, where would this put me? :D At the top of the line when the ovens get lit up again? (Hey! At least I get to be at the top of the line once in my life! :) lol
 * In my very humble experience, generally the people who DGAF are in three groups: 1. those who aren't affected by the things that get fucked up; 2. those who just don't care about things that are fucked up; 3. those who don't care about the people who will be fucked up by whatever's about to get fucked up including the impact of their own indifference on the imminent fucked-upness.
 * The public gives so much weight to wikipedia, yet some of the information is incorrect or let's be real, really bad quality (no sources, etc.) - and people's perception of what they're reading about will be affected by this. Yet they think they've found The Truth - not A Possible Truth or even A Likely Truth. This troubles me. I'm must be the biggest fool because the reason I came back - yeah, I DGAF - Please, laugh with me! :D - about changing this to help make the articles I contribute to grow closer to A Truth? Or closer to an understanding of some kind of truth? But, you're helping me see: I'm not going to fit in here, am I? Because I can't care about wikipedia in the best way, according to what you've said. I see that now, and I'm really grateful to you for helping me understand this.
 * Much as I love the beauty and ephemeral nature of castles in the sand, how much energy do I want to expend making them here instead of actually on a beach or some place else? How much time?
 * All that said, I loved your description of why people stay here!!! I know there are some fabulous people here - I see them! :D I read what they're saying, what they're doing, see their work. Anyway, thanks for giving me more to think about in terms of my presence here. Cheers and have a fabulous day, a Fag-Loving Gypsy Artistic Musician-Loving Jew-Lover, who's now going to outside to make some real castles :D --Charlie Inks (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I do think that there is a massive difference between getting emotionally involved in the Holocaust and getting emotionally involved when a Wikipedia editor doesn't appreciate you. DGAF is not about not caring (forgive the double negative) about the reliability of Wikipedia, as obviously the reliability of Wikipedia has a lot of weight in the world. DGAF is about not letting it affect you personally when you are met with dislike or discontent. This helps you improve Wikipedia because it allows you to keep going, to keep fighting for good content. It keeps you from acting impulsively or causing yourself distress that is not necessary. If you care about Wikipedia and enjoy participating, then you should continue to do so. You said that certain areas of Wikipedia are "infantalizing". This is true. As you make your way around the place, you will find areas you never imagined would exist on a site like this. It's just a matter of keeping up the fight. Also, I wanted to comment on something you said in a previous post about coding, or "wiki markup". Wiki markup can be challenging to learn, but Wikipedia has been around long enough for there to be a lot of support in this endeavor. There is a gadget that you can enable in your preferences called wikEd. WikEd replaces the standard text editor of Wikipedia with a highly advanced one that has many features that are designed to make editing easier. Probably the most immediate benefit to you will be the syntax highlighting feature. This means that it uses colors to distinguish between different types of code and actual text, which can make code both easier on the eyes and less baffling. There are MANY other features of wikEd, which are listed in the documentation that I linked to. While we're on the subject of gadgets, there are many others in which you may be interested. Navigation popups and Twinkle are practically essential for editors who plan to stick around. Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 17:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Charlie. Don't give a fuck is one of my favorite essays on editing wikipedia, but WP:TIGER puts the idea across a little bit better, I think.  Here's the meat of it:
 * Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about strong views the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection. We put up all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem.
 * I'm a scientist, and my particular tiny, tiny subdomain isn't represented very well here on wikipedia. Despite that, I have no interest editing that area at all:  I'm passionate about that field, I have very definite opinions about the literature in that area, but most of all, I'm right (as in: Did you run any experiments?  Did you publish in the peer-reviewed literature?  Then how dare you revert my edit....).  So I limit myself here to areas well outside my professional expertise where I can lay my hands on reliable sources.  I still try to write well and make a solid contribution, but if it doesn't work out then I just move on to the next article.  That being said, it's a little humbling to realize more people are going to see my contribution detailing the evolution of abbreviations used for kilometers per hour than all of my scientific work combined.... Garamond Lethe  17:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

ignorance is not bliss
Pardon my ignorance but I just asked a question and I don't see it anywhere, nor know how to get at any response. I didn't put my email in so I presume I'm supposed to monitor a page or receive an IM. ? Thanks. 97.120.146.108 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As you can see here, the above is your only post under that IP number. Why not just ask the question again? It is not advisable to include an email address. I think most people just monitor this page. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, 97.120.146.108|97.120.146.108. Welcome to the Teahouse, the perfect place for those of us who have questions! I just wanted to let you -- and Bus stop -- know that, usually when someone answers your question here, they will then go to your TALK page and leave you a Teahouse message that says they answered your question. If you click on that, it will "magically" bring you back to see your question and the answer. (Well, it feels like lovely magic to me.) The only problem might be that you don't seem to have registered your own unique name, so the message might go astray. So, you can just check back every so often for the answer.
 * I don't know why your original question didn't show up. Why don't you try it again and see if it works this time? But keep trying -- the Teahouse is a great place to get help. Tlqk56 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Tlqk56 for pointing that out, as I didn't know that a message is also left on one's Talk page. I thought I'd leave a link to a page describing establishing an account. Here is that link. There may be other pages providing related information, but this is the first one I located. Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bus stop; NP, the Talkback Template is one of the things that made the Teahouse so helpful for me when I first arrived. You can read about it and other helpful stuff about hosting here. And no, you don't have to be a registered host to answer questions. I'm not, I just try to help out now and then, as the Teahouse has been great for me. It's just designed to be a little easier and friendlier than some of the other WP spaces, and that page fills you in. See you around. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

PDFs in footnotes
Hello, I just wanted to check that it was ok - in terms of acceptable Wikipedia style - to put a PDF attachment (in this case, a relevant article (a scan of an obituary) for which no full online version exists) - when editing a footnote to an existing article? I've not done an exhaustive search of other pieces, but I have seen the odd example, so assume this is in order. Grateful if someone could confirm, nonetheless. Whilst I'm here, my registered username always shows up in red (I have made a few occasional minor edits over the last 3 years or so). I think this means that my registration has never fully taken effect(?) Is there any simple way for me to make it 'official'? Many thanks in advance for any help and best regards Hiugheerg (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Hiugheerg, and welcome to the Teahouse. It is OK to link to a PDF in a reference (footnote) in the kind of situation you describe as long as the PDF is hosted in a way that does not violate copyright. In the case of an obituary, if the PDF is hosted on the website of the newspaper that published the obituary, you are fine. If the obituary was published before 1923 in the United States, then copyright has expired and it is in the public domain and you are fine no matter where the PDF is hosted. However, if someone scanned a copyrighted obituary without permission of the copyright holder, and then made that PDF available online, then Wikipedia policy is that we don't link to any website known to violate copyright. It is not necessary to limit your references to sources available online, though online sources are preferred when you have many to choose from. Paper sources are acceptable, but just provide a complete citation with full details of the original source.


 * Your registered username is completely official. Your username in your signature now shows up as a red link only because you have not yet created a userpage. This is optional. If you want a blue link instead, simply click the red link, and write something about yourself - either brief or lengthy - and then save it. Now, your username will show up as a blue link, because there is something for people to read about you if they want to know more about you. A red link can be seen as an invitation to create a new page - often a new article is needed, or in this case, a userpage. I hope that this information is helpful to you, and invite you to edit here more often.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  15:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Jim for such a prompt, accessible and full response. On the clarification you provided on the footnote issue, the PDF would have been a private scan from a newspaper published in the UK in 1996. Although it's possible that I may be able to gain permission (there is a close family connection to the subject matter), the opening sentences at least are available on a web page hosted by Highbeam Research (who I see are mentioned on your own usertalk page!) so I will link to that, at least for the time being. And yes, I'm happy to put together a brief userpage for myself also (it would be nice to have a blue link after all). Kind regards, Steve. Hiugheerg (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Hiugheerg, if you want to read how to include a PDF file in a citation, you can read Template:PDF. Hope this helps as well. --   Luke      (Talk)   00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Luke - useful to know, and also to be reminded of the volume of guidance that's available on Wikipedia. Hiugheerg (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are people deleting my work?
People have been deleting my articles and I'm getting pissed off. The first time I understood it because there were no references. Recently, I made an article for Winnebago Scout Reservation and someone deleted it without telling me. I worked hard on that article. Any suggestions or ways to stop people from angering me? Heymister14 (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)heymister14
 * Welcome to the Tea House. Looking at your contributions, you don't appear to have edited an article with that name, but you did edit Winnebago Scout Reservation (New Jersey), which is still there.--ColinFine (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If people delete your work it might be that your writing thing that our not good.If you think that the person who deleted your work is wrong just ask him why he deleted it on his talk page Receptie123 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

People may be deleting your work for a variety of reasons. The information you included may not be relevant for an encyclopedia. See WP:UNDUE for more info. You may also have inserted your own opinion perhaps. Or your writing was too sloppy. It's also possible they oppose the topic you were writing about. If you feel there wasn't any reason to remove it, or the latter reason, you should ask the user who removed it, and take it from there. -- Activism  1234  22:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting Started from scratch
Hi All - I read the article on Slate about the lack of female editors on Wikipedia and it got me interested in editing. I found my way to the teahouse but I don't see any instruction about how to get started if you are brand new to this. Can someone point me in the right direction? thanks!128.118.152.231 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for dropping by the Teahouse!  You could start by looking at the Job center which gives some advice, but it might be a bit too advanced.  What are some of the things you are interested in?  Maybe we can hook you up with a wikiproject?  On another note, have you considered creating an account?  There are plenty of reason to create one all labeled here.  In any case, thanks so much for being willing to volunteer your time and knowledge to the encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! It's nice to see other women wanting to join the project. One thing you can do is create an account, which is easy and helps other volunteers to communicate with you. You can start the process by clicking the "log in/create account" link in the upper right hand corner. Feel free to ask here if you have more questions - we can definitely hook you up with things you can work on! Happy editing and good luck. Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah! I second what Keilana said, welcome! I'm happy that the Slate article brought you to us :) We can't wait to have you contributing. What types of things interest you? Some folks like copyediting, some enjoy writing articles, etc. One thing I enjoy is reading articles about subjects I like, and finding red links in those articles that need Wikipedia articles. I look forward to your contributions! SarahStierch (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I second many of the suggestions above. A very good place to start is with taking a tour through the Tutorial. It will provide you the basics of editing and introduce you to some of our guidelines and policies. As for what you might do, the community portal provides quite a few suggestions of areas to which people can contribute. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the advice for getting started and warm welcome! I am a librarian so my interest in wikipedia is varied, but of course I'd be interested in supporting articles with citations ;) Oh, and just some feedback-maybe consider a "path to citizenship" for rookies like myself...but glad to have the support of the Teahouse too. Gruenelf (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's great to see that you created an account! In regards to adding references you can click one of these two buttons to help reference articles.       Help in that area can really be useful, we currently have over 200,000 unreferenced articles (sad, I know).  I can help you put those buttons on your user page if you don't want to lose them.  In regards to a "path to citizenship", you might be interested in reading A Primer for newcomers or The Missing Manual (see Help: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual for a free online copy).  Another option is the Tutorial.  If you have any more questions, or would like something cleared up, be sure to ask. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  23:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Warm greetings, Green Elf. You identify yourself as among the WikiElves, a noble and needed Wikispecies.  As a librarian, you may find the WikiProject GLAM of interest. GLAM is an acronym for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums. I found adoptee programs helpful. Ryan has one at his Adoption Headquarters. I worked through a less thorough program at Pluma's Adoption page when I started out. Working through lessons, exercises and tests teaches a lot about Wikipedia quickly and in an organized way. You don't have to be an adoptee to learn from them. Pluma's page of FUN STUFF will help you turn your name blue. Have fun, DocTree (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Are there people that can assist me for a fee?
I want to create a page, but likely will only ever do this once. Is there freelance assistance available to get it done right and efficiently if I provide all of the information?Ccard12 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Ccard! Welcome to Wikipedia.  There's no reason for you to pay a fee because are people who will do it for free assuming your subject is notable.  Can I ask what you are wanting to write an article on? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  14:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ccard 12 and welcome to the Teahouse! I definitely agree with Ryan, and I think there's lots of people here who are willing to help... for free! Lord Roem (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked that a page be created am now to the point where I need to create it myself. It is an article on a notable golf course architect. I have the information to get started, but want the page to be done correctly by a professional. I'm afraid I will do this person an injustice by messing the page up if I attempt it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccard12 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a good thing to worry about. A good idea might be to try to write a draft of the article yourself in your sandbox, which can be found here.  If you write your draft there, it won't come up on anyone's searches, so you won't have to worry about somebody stumbling across it before it's ready.  Once you think you're done, you can try submitting it to Articles for creation (or just ask us to take a look at it), and you'll get some feedback on what can be improved.  Once the article is ready, it can be moved out of the sandbox and become a real article!  Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try creating the page at User:Ccard12/ARTICLE NAME. You can create that there and I can move it or you can use the article wizard.  (You can skip right to this link and use the create a new article draft button.  Then other editors and I can help you work on the formatting. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats the thing though, I want it done right. That page says its live after I create it. Some articles have photos, links etc, I have no clue how to do any of this. How do I find a freelance professional to assist me with the things you are recommending? If it doesn't work like that, thats fine, I will take the time to learn all of this if its my only option. It just seems more straightforward to hire a professional to get the best results efficiently.Ccard12 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it just doesn't work like that. The issue of paid editing is actually a very contentious one on Wikipedia; some people are adamantly opposed to any sort of payment for editing, from any source, some are tolerant of it as long as it produces good material, and many others have many other opinions.  It's a very divisive issue, and it's one that nobody has a real answer for.  Suffice to say, at this point in time, trying to hire people to edit Wikipedia articles is probably a bad idea. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ccard12. The reason the editors above are being so coy about this is the difficulty with paid editing on wikipedia. It's a very contentious subject, because many editors believe it goes against our goal of striving towards a neutral point of view. As such there are very few editors who would claim to be a "professional" editor as they are quickly ostracised by the hard working volunteers of the community. The best thing to do is have a go, yourself - and then come back here, and tell any of these excellent editors that you have done so. Even providing a list of sources at the sandbox page might get them started! Otherwise, you can use the WP:Requested articles process, which is very backlogged, or if you search google hard enough, you may be able to find editors who are willing to work for cash. I wouldn't recommend it though, an article which has been paid for would be no better than one created by one of the editors on wikipedia who's trying to prove that free is the best way! I hope that helps answers some questions.  Worm TT( talk ) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting information. To be honest, all of that aside, I thought Wikipedia would have a list of trusted editors who would be willing to assist people like me who want to contribute articles on people in an efficient manner which would produce the best possible page. This article is going to take longer and be worse than if I had the proper assistance. I'm all for neutrality and don't see how getting help would violate that. Thanks anyways for your timeCcard12 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Ccard12, I know it may seem really counterintuitive, but there aren't any editors here who are paid for their formatting skills or anything like that. If by "professional" you also mean "someone who's very capable", you could ask any of the editors who have posted above to help you and they would do a fine job. In terms of compensation, on Wikipedia we like to give Barnstars and other awards to show our appreciation. If you get help from someone, thank them with a shiny barnstar! You can do this by going to their user talk page and clicking the heart-shaped icon in the upper right hand corner, near the search box. Happy editing! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 15:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We are all trusted editors. We are saying that the easiest way for you to do this is using one of the links we have provided.  Then we can assist you in preparing it for the mainspace.  Note that we can add tags to your article to make sure it is not indexed by google prior to moving it to the article space. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say we are all trusted editors, but you can see the records of most editors by going to their user pages. For example, clicking on Ryan above, you can see he's an excellent editor at wikification (making articles look right on the encyclopedia). Or if you look at my userpage, you can see a list of articles I've worked on up to a "good" level. We have "service level" awards to let you know how long editors have been around, and all sorts of other ways to see which helper is most appropriate for you. More than that, we have volunteers willing to help you out in live help on IRC, help desks all over the place to make things easier for you. What we don't have is paid staff, because the ramifications, be it in neutrality or the loss of our hard working volunteers - it's not the model that's used here.  Worm TT( talk ) 15:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion Worm, I was referring to the editors commenting here. Ryan Vesey Review me!  16:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry to add to the volume of posts, but just briefly - I've had a look into the freelancer market, and one of the big problems you face is, as you say, there isn't a list of trusted professionals. As a result, I'd say that over three quarters of the people currently accepting freelance work on the main websites are producing poor results - even if their articles stay on Wikipedia for long enough to get paid, many of the articles are unlikely to stay long term. And many don't even make it that long. Like all such things there are exceptions, but mostly the freelance contractors have fairly limited experience on Wikipedia, so they don't do better work than what most volunteers do. And the better volunteers, from what I've seen, do better work than what the freelance professionals provide. If there was such a list it would be safer, but at the moment the professional market is very much buyer-beware.
 * The good thing, though, is that Wikiepdia works by developing articles as a community. It isn't like traditional publishing, where you are expected to know everything and get it right in the final draft. Here there is no final draft, and there are always people to help build on what you can offer, and there are always people who are very happy to help. Thus we're looking for somewhere to start with new articles, rather than expecting everything to be right on the first try. - Bilby (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone look at the article I've done then and tell me what I'm to do? I don't know how to add links, images or any other information for that matter and have what I would assume is the bare minimum. If I can't pay you I assume this would be permissible? Its in my sandbox. Can you access this?Ccard12 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The good thing about enwp is that thre are no scams and no need to ever pay money!TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is to block all paid editors :)TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

changing a picture from last year from some one else on a wiki personality.
am I allowed to change someone elses' picture put up last year on a wiki personality? and put up a new picture? I don't know all the rulesDiddlysmom (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Diddlysmom, I'm a little confused about your "Wiki personality" term. Can you clarify? Thanks. --   Luke      (Talk)   02:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Diddlysmom, hello, if by wiki personality you meam a wikipedia article about a person, then the answer is yes. Images and there use in articles are as editable as the text of the article.  If you have an image that you feel is of better quality, more appropriate and above all is free then change it.   But if your edit is reverted becasue someone else prefers thre previous version please don't get into an edit war over it but discuss on the article talk page why you think the image you selected is better. NtheP (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandal fighting
Seriously, I have to keep on clicking refresh and revrting manually. In simple wiki I could revert and 1/10th of the time. And now some guy on my talk page says I need some "rollback" stuff to use Huggle again. I only came here because I heard there was more vandalism here.TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello TheAnnoymousUser! I use Huggle quite often, and yes, you need the rollback feature. This is because Huggle is extremely powerful and we only want trusted users to be able to use it. To request the rollback feature, you can go here. But as you have so few edits on the regular English Wikipedia, you will probably be asked to enable the Twinkle feature in your preferences as use that to fight vandalism for a while before you will be granted the rollback right and be allowed to use Huggle. Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 15:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi TheAnnoymousUser! Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for your question! We always appreciate help with reverting vandalism. You can do that by clicking 'undo' on an edit that very clearly meant harm. Make sure it really is vandalism, like a bunch of random characters or very obvious ill-intended inclusions. I'd be glad to help with some examples if you would like. As to your question about "rollback", that is a special tool given to some users who can demonstrate they're experienced in fighting vandalism. The rollback tool speeds up the process for undoing an edit, but must be given by an administrator. If you want to apply for rollback, check the permissions page here for more details. If you have any further questions, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. All the best, Lord Roem (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I see on your talk page that you say "Twinkle is useless". Are you sure you have read the documentation for Twinkle? It is actually quite powerful and many vandal-fighters that use it never even see the need to apply for the rollback feature. The major difference between Twinkle and true rollbacking is that rollbacking gives you the ability to use Huggle, STiki, etc. Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will use Twinkle, but repetedly pressing refresh is hard :(TheAnnoymousUser (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Annoymous, you can find some more anti-vandalism tools here: Counter-Vandalism Unit/Tools. Not all require rollback. Personally, i use Twinkle and STiki. benzband  ( talk ) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that on many PCs you can refresh by hitting the button and on macs, by pressing +R. Some people find this much faster than clicking on any refresh key in a browser. Also, you can place a clock in the Wikipedia interface that when clicked on, purges the page, by going to your preferences →   tab →   section → check the box for " "--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)