Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 291

Mnn.com and treehugger.com
Hi! I was wondering if someone could check whether mnn.com and treehugger.com are reliable sources, as it's hard to tell whether they classify as blogs or news websites. Thank you, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to the Teahouse, . Those websites are owned by Mother Nature Network, a "media" company started by Chuck Leavell, the hired keyboardist for the Rolling Stones. They are slick sites that seem to publish environmentally friendly "feel good" stories. There is nothing readily visible on either site describing their editorial processes, fact checking or any of the other basics of professional journalism. If I found something on either site that I wanted to incorporate into an article, I would search for a better quality source reporting the same thing. If I failed to find a better source, I would just move on. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * i will also see06:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)06:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)06:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randhawaharnir (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, . When considering whether a source is reliable or not, it's worth remembering that there may not be a simple yes/no answer: sometimes it depends on what information the source is being adduced for. The best place to ask is at the reliable sources noticeboard, where each query gets treated on its merits. Oh. Searching there for treehugger, I see you asked about it there last April, and got a clear "No". --ColinFine (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a bit embarrassing on my part. Please excuse my goldfish memory! Thanks again, Bananasoldier (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Punjabi translations

 * Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

how to create new page in punjabi language for existing topics which are in English language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਪ੍ਰਚਾਰਕ (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. Every language Wikipedia is a separate entity, with its own rules and policies; but I would guess that pa.wikipedia would welcome articles translated from the English Wikipedia. I suggest you read the page Translate us to start with. I can't find a help page on pa.wikipedia, unfortunately: pa:ਅਨੁਵਾਦ may help, but that seems to be in article space rather than Wikipedia space, so I don't know how relevant it is. --ColinFine (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Requirements to be a article reviewer
Given the enormous backlog of articles for review, what are the requirements or needed skills to be an article reviewer?

There are several articles I would be interested in reviewing from the backlog list of Articles for Submission from previous months. Thanks

Publico2020 (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome! There are a few formal requirements to be a reviewer at Articles for Creation which are listed at this page, and it is recommended that one be familiar with the instructions here. Arfæst! 16:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Arfæst Ealdwrítere Thank you very much for your prompt and helpful response. Greatly appreciated. Publico2020 (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Arfæst! 16:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

thing in 2015 I like to see
I'm giving hopes that BBC2 Network might shown the Crystal Ball ident very soon as I told Digital Spy Forum.

- SoundofArticles (talk)


 * It is good that you have dreams, but not really a topic for the Teahouse. Cheers, w.carter -Talk  16:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding references
If you have a source that applies to multiple sentences, how would you cite it. Would you simply add the citation at the end of a paragraph or after each sentence? I am writing an article and I am getting my information from a total of 4 credible sources. I am not sure how to properly reference everything.EarthYES (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello EarthYES, and welcome to Wikipedia! The easiest way to reuse a reference is to name it. For instance, if you're referencing "http://www.example.com", you would do this: . The first time you use the reference, you have to write it out completely (like I just showed you), but when you need to use it again, all you have to do is add   to the end of the sentence. Happy editing! -- Biblio  worm  01:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand your question you are asking if you have a reference that supports multiple statements do you need to put it after each sentence or at the end of the paragraph? There isn't a simple answer, like a lot of things here it all depends on the content but in general for most things you don't need to put a ref after each sentence, at the end of the paragraph is fine. However, there can be cases where you should get that detailed; for example highly controversial topics, very technical topics, or the same reference on multiple pages. As described using named references can help cut down the clutter when you have to use the same ref multiple times. Here is more info on how detailed citations should be: Inline_citation --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * According to External links, Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. The example given above by does not appear to be in accordance with that policy.  Or am I missing something?  Taxee (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you are absolutely correct about URLs and external links but that doesn't apply to references which was the example that was using. It may have been confusing because a good ref should be more than a raw URL which is what this example is but I took that to be just a shortcut to show how to name a ref (any ref) with the understanding that a good ref will be a more complete citation.   --MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,. I definitely misunderstood the general prohibition.  Thanks for the explanation. Taxee (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ading a large list to an existing article
I have recently been expanding the existing article on Seatrain Lines. I have compiled a list of Seatrain Lines ships to augment the article. The list is quite long, and I am wondering if it would be better as a stand-alone page with a link to/from the existing article.

The list can be seen at my sandbox page at Jeagerca/sandbox.

Thoughts?

jeagerca Jeagerca (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * that is a nice list. Lots of info and well structured. However, there is a major problem: you have no wp:references. Where did you get all that information about the ships? You need to document every fact in the article with an inline citation. Note: I'm not saying every line in the article necessarily needs a citation, just that you have to document where every fact came from, if your source for that list was all from one place that is fine but you need to document it or the info shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. As to whether to make it part of the existing article on Seatrain Lines or a new article a good place to ask that question would be on the talk page for the Seatrain lines article: Talk:Seatrain_Lines For what it's worth I think you have enough info there that once you have it referenced it could probably merit an article of it's own. Also, I noticed on one of the project page for Seatrain: WikiProject_Ships there are several similar lists of ships already so that seems to be a reasonable thing to do once you have the refs for the info. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, MadScientist. I'm still working through the list adding cross reference links to existing articles. I have not yet added outside references because if the list is to be inserted into the main Seatrain Lines article then the refs should be added there, but if it is to be a stand-alone page then it will of course need its own refs list. In any case, almost all of the converted ships have cross links to articles on those individual ships, and thus are already referenced there. As you may or may not know, the ultimate ship reference is Lloyds' list of ships, but it is not freely publicly accessible. However, a nice thing about researching ships is that simply entering the ship name and its IMO number into a search engine will almost always return a number of references to it. Of course, some of them will be more reliable than others, but there are a few that can be counted on. Jeagerca (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . Let me correct what may be a misconception in your comment above. You should add inline references to the list in your sandbox right now. Those references will appear when the content is moved to main space, whether to Seatrain Lines or as a separate list article. Adding references is always a top priority.


 * I believe that this content belongs in its own list article, and I commend you for working on this project. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks Cullen, I will start adding the refs now then. I may need some help with some of the coding if I can't figure it out, for example, how to in-line ref to an on-line source.Jeagerca (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Where to go to have a sock puppet investigated?
Hello, its Mbcap again. I joint just a few weeks ago. Today I have been accused of being a sock puppet on 2 occasions. I find this deeply offensive. This is no way to treat a new editor. Please could you tell me where I could go to have this matter investigated. I will personally ask for myself to be investigated as a sockpuppet because I know the results will show the allegations to be groundless. I think Wikipedia may not be for me after all because these allegations are outright rude and not something I expected to happen. Mbcap (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Mbcap and welcome to the Teahouse. Referring to your question, the proper place to request a sockpuppet investigation is at WP:SPI. However, I am not sure if it is possible to have yourself investigated as a sockpuppet just because certain editors have claimed you to be one. Tutelary (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The unsubstantiated allegation that a new editor is a sockpuppet is covered by casting of aspersions, and is a personal attack, and a very severe one. I would suggest that you advise the other editors that they are required either to file a sockpuppet report themselves, or to withdraw the accusation.  If they do neither, and continue to make unsubstantiated allegations of sock-puppetry, you have the right to take them to WP:ANI and request that they be blocked.  You should not and do not need to go to SPI to clear your name, because you are entitled to the presumption of innocence.  Also, given the structure of a sock-puppet report, you can't request to have your name cleared, because you have to identify both the puppet and the puppet-master.  In order to make that claim, they have to identify both the alleged puppet (you) and your alleged puppet-master.  They are required to go to SPI or to shut up.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, is there any particular talk page where that allegation was being made? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , the allegation was made At administrator Kww's talk page by a dynamic IP. Tutelary (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Finished article, posted on Wikipedia but still in personal sandbox
Hi there I'm still a newbie at this and I'd like to learn what to do to clear my sandbox after I've posted an article to Wikipedia. There must be another step that I'm not doing. Previously another editor has taken care of it for me but I'd like to learn what to do to clear my sandbox after posting an article. Thanks in advance. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Once you have moved the article all you need to do is remove the stuff you don't want in your sandbox (i.e. the redirect) through the normal 'edit source' option. Arfæst! 19:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Off to give it a go. Much appreciated. Ambrosia10 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

( Redirected from NAME ) If you click on the link, you can access the redirect itself to make changes. That being said, there is no need to use the interface-provided sandbox link that defaults to the on-the-nose title "User:name/sandbox". Sandboxes are just subpages of you user or user talk namespaces, which can be at dedicated titled and you can have multiple in use at the same time. Typically users create them specifically for one article, at an intuitive name for the use it is to be put: "User:name/title article is expected to be moved to" So, for example, for the most recent article you created, the way to start it with an intuitive title and with a dedicated history (which can sometimes avoid problems that result from using a mass sandbox over and over) would have been be at User:Ambrosia10/Rose E. Collom. By the way, once you're done and have moved such sandboxes to the mainspace, you can just tag the resulting useless sandbox name for speedy deletion with Db-u1 / Db-userreq / db-userpage. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ambrosia10:  Hi Ambrosia. When you are redirected, such as when trying to access a link to a sandbox that was redirected, you will always see at the top of the resulting page, just below the title of the page:


 * Thanks for this as it gives answers to other questions I had as well. Again, I really appreciate the help. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

My minor addition was reverted without comment. Now what?
I recently came to Wikipedia in search of home-video release information for the movie 'Free Birds'. I find Wikipedia is often the easiest place to find such information.

In this case, there was no information about the home-video availability of the 3D version. So I eneded up spending about 15 minutes searching the web. I came to the conclusion that the 3D version had not been released for the North American market.

So I did what I try to do when I find a fact missing from Wikipedia - I added it to the article.

For the first time in my experience, my change was reverted. It was reverted without an editting comment, nor any comment on the talk page.

How should I proceed? Benthatsme (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Ben, and welcome to Wikipedia! Most likely, your edit was reverted because it did not cite a source. However, since your edit was quite obviously in good faith, the reverting user should have provided an explanation. I recommend that you discuss the matter at the the user's talk page. -- Biblio worm  23:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion. I'll do that next time, but following the advice of Fuhghettaboutit, I have found a source, and will add the information back to the article with a citation.


 * (e/c)  @Benthatsme:   Hi Ben. While it would have obviously been far superior for User:Koala15 to have provided his or her reason for reverting in the edit summary, I am guessing the reason was that you cited no reliable sources to verify the information you provided. These are key matters, backed by fundamental policies. Reading your post above, I am unclear whether after searching you found direct information indicating it was not released, or whether you could not find any information and concluded, based on that negative evidence, that it had not been released. The former can be cited if the source it at all reliable; the latter (which the way your post parses, seems to be indicated) is invalid original research and has no place in the article. We can only assert in an article information that is verifiable directly in a published reliable source. So what I think you should do is find a source and add back to the content while citing it; but if no source can be found, then do not add it back. One other thing you can do is ask the reverting user what the reason was for the revert. Because I linked his or her username in the post, they will get a ping so it's probably not necessary at this point, but for future reference, the first thing I would have done under analogous circumstances would have been to contact the user on their user talk page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the lengthy follow-up. It was not original research in the sense of the definition used here at Wikipedia - I found multiple people stating there had been no 3D release in North America, but there was no one source that seemed as ideal for a citation; the information was usually in the context of regional restrictions on Blu-Ray discs. As the fact of there being no 3D release was certainly not something that I felt would be contested, I did not go to the effort to find a citation.


 * In this case, I took the time to find a citation, and will add the information back to the article. Next time, I'll follow your suggestion and ask on the user's talk page.


 * One other thing - what is the meaning of 'e/c' at the start of your reply?
 * You're welcome. It means E dit C onflict, as in I was typing my post at the same time as Biblioworm, and when I attempted to post it did not allow me to, instead resulting in an error message saying there was an "edit conflict".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit made - added the information back, with a citation. I am all set, thank you for the help.Benthatsme (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked to stop helping in a particular area, what do I do?
The following massage was placed in my talk page:

"Hi! Thank you for contributing to Template:Infobox file format/doc. Although, could you, please, stop further edits related to TemplateData? I am already adding it to it as a part of mw:Google Code-in 2014 task. :) M4tx (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)"

So what should I do next, I was just thinking it would be done faster if more people helped.

NetworkOP (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * After asking if I could help, the reponse was "I cannot have any help during the work, so I am asking you to stop helping with TemplateData"NetworkOP (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you stumbled into a coding contest. My reading of that is that Google is sponsoring a contest for kids 13 to 17 and that for the contest each young person gets a task and they are supposed to complete that task without help. There must be some metrics for evaluating the quality and timeliness of the work. If I'm understanding it correctly you could inadvertently disqualify (the person assigned the task) because they are supposed to complete the task on their own. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A coding contest, fine, I'll stop doing anything else with templatedata. Hmmm, never knew wikipedia had competitive areas though.NetworkOP (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Does wikipedia have any other competitive areas. I am far too old for this coding contest.NetworkOP (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The coding contest stuff was a surprise to me as well. I've never done technical stuff here, if they ever decide to revert to Lisp or Smalltalk I'm the man but otherwise my skills are a bit dated, but I think that was an unusual situation, most stuff here I think is open source and all contributions are welcome. I don't think you have to worry about contests that much, I think this was just an unusual situation but I don't really know for sure. Perhaps or  could give you more info but I'm pretty sure that most of the tasks you find here are open for any qualified technical person to help. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From time to time the Wikipedia have some friendly competitions or drives related to editing, such as copy editing, disambiguation, GAs, etc. Adding to this, I have a number of times stumbled upon competitions, assignments, etc. given by teachers or other project leaders to pupils or applicants, where the task is to research, write or otherwise create or improve an article. w.carter -Talk  15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We even have an Education program for schools/students. &#160; Discant X  01:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is mainly a misunderstanding, nothing to worry about. There's been a coincidence where two editors had an edit conflict doing the same thing at few minutes distance. M4tx was doing so as part of a GCI task but that's no special concern, it's our business to evaluate the GCI students' work. Please everyone keep working on TemplateData; if you want to be extra careful, add WIP before you start. From a GCI admin, Nemo 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please follow links in messages if you are unsure what the message means. The message at User talk:NetworkOP starts by linking to Template:Infobox file format in the heading. This means the message is about that specific page. It also links to which says "TemplateData: Add TemplateData to  " and "This task is claimed." You are welcome to work on TemplateData for other templates. Wikipedia has a huge number of them. In this case it was a Google Code-in 2014 task but it's generally bad for two users to work simultaneously on the same template. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing articles about books
I have found an article I think I could add to. It is classed as a stub. I am hesitant to begin unless I can find some guidelines about articles on books. Don't want to get pounced on! Greenmaven (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello! WP:Notability (books) would be a good place to start to determine if the book deserves inclusion. Manual of Style/Novels should point you in the right direction for how to write the article. &#160; Discant X  02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

few things i want to learn
Hello friends, TUSHAR GANERIWAL is here.. I am new editor...I want to learn how to add image..
 * how to create a new article..??
 * how to create user page..?

really enjoying wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushar Ganeriwal (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Tushar Ganeriwal the long answers can be found at Images, Uploading images, Your first article and User pages.
 * You'll have to wait a couple more days before your account is auto confirmed and you can upload an image.
 * Good ways to start:
 * Start with small edits, and using the preview option to make sure the change is what you expect.
 * Build up your user page, or play on your sandbox. Look at other users 'user pages' to get ideas.
 * Also you could try The Wikipedia Adventure at a good start

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * hello there are many way to create the userpage join the wiki adventure for everything to learn04:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)04:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Help Allowed?
Excuse me, but can I help other people in the Teahouse if I am a new editor of Wikipedia? Thanks! -John Smith, graduate of Stanford University — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123planea (talk • contribs) 06:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Anyone can help here, but it takes a fair amount of experience in Wikipedia editing to provide accurate, informative answers. I don't think Stanford offers a degree in Wikipedia editing, which is learned at the School of Hard Knocks. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture Uploading
I have uploaded some pictures designed by myself, but later deleted by wiki. I uploaded the pics via photo upload wizard. How can I upload photos in cinema article pages without this problem? 37.107.100.162 (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, 37, and welcome to the Teahouse. What are you trying to upload? If these are cinema articles, and the photographs are of film posters or still pictures from the film, they will need to be uploaded as WP:Fair use works. It would help to have some more information about what happened and which article is involved, as the only contribution visible from this IP address is your question at the Teahouse. If you have an account, please log on with that and post here so we can see who you are and what you've written about. LouiseS1979 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

writing a submission on a band of which i am the managerKencasino (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to start a submission on my band's leader. I have seen Wiki pages on far less experienced and less rated bands and I want ours up there.Kencasino (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Kencasino, and welcome to Wikipedia! Before you write your article, there are two very important things that you should consider. First, you must make sure that your band is notable, which means that it has been significantly covered in independent, reliable sources. By "significantly covered in independent, reliable sources", we mean that: 1) The source must not be directly related to, or operated by, your band. For instance, your band's website, blog, or social media page would not be an independent source. 2) The source must by written by a respected person/entity. If you were using a website, for instance, the website should have a reputation for quality and vetting; therefore, blogs and social media pages would also be invalid under this criteria, as essentially anyone can post on them. 3) The band must have a good amount of coverage, and one or two passing mentions would not do. Second, since you are the band's manager, you have a very large conflict of interest, essentially meaning that you are directly affiliated with the person or entity that you want to write an article about. Since it is generally very difficult for a person to write neutrally about something you are directly related to, Wikipedia policy strongly discourages people from writing articles about themselves or their club/band/company. Generally, if your band is really notable, someone else will eventually write the article. -- Biblio worm  16:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"St" or "St." in article titles?
I can't find a ruling in the MoS about this (and I've looked). Guidance, anyone? and thoughts?

For an article on a person, the full word, Saint, seems appropriate. But, there are several cases where the contraction is customary: for example, (1) in personal names, e.g. St John (name), and (2) in names of churches, e.g. Category:Churches in Dublin (city).

It's a small problem with manually-ordered lists like (1), though imo the inconsistency looks a touch ugly. It's a big problem with automatically-ordered lists like (2): there are two churches in Dublin dedicated to Saint Peter, one with a period the other without, and they are 16 entries apart.

Also, compare these two dab pages: St John (name) and St. Peter (disambiguation). One title includes a period, the other doesn't. In both cases, some of the titles of the listed articles include a period, while others don't. Messy!

Despite my Brit tendency not to use full-stops with contractions like St (whether of Saint or of Street) - I would suggest that the MoS should specify that the full stop be used. AFAIK it's possible everywhere and incorrect nowhere. Narky Blert (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is distinct from the issue of how contractions like St(.) and Dr(.) should be presented within WP articles. I'm content with the existing policy there, that of sticking with the style which the original editor used. Narky Blert (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, &mdash; the MoS does indirectly address this (in the last sentence of this section) by stating that punctuation rules used within the article apply equally to the title. So if the common name for a church includes punctuation, then so should the article title. I agree that it is a problem for sorted lists; the DEFAULTSORT template could be used to solve it but I imagine that it would be controversial to make such a comprehensive change without consensus. My suggestion is that you open a discussion on the MoS talk page if you'd like to see it changed. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. It's such a sizeable issue that I haven't made any edits at all. A problem is, that the names of churches (and also of schools etc.) can add or lose the period after "St", depending on the fancy of the current incumbent, signwriter or typesetter. Consistency is all I ask, and that needs consensus.
 * Another example: St Peter's School, York is St. Peter's in its infobox, though St Peter's in WP and on its website. I've just looked at a school photograph (in which I have a remarkably silly haircut) and an exercise book from 1964: they both have "St.", with the full-stop. So, which is its common name for WP purposes: the new one, or the one which had been used for some 1350 years? WP:COMMON suggests the one which includes the full-stop.
 * Quite by chance, I've just come across another, similar, example: Mrs Brown and Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter.
 * Even if freedom is permitted within pages, there ought (imho) to be rules for . I'll gather my thoughts, and raise the issue on the MoS talk page. Narky Blert (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

How to ?
Please.. help me out... I want to create my own biography,, Can I ??? ..Also, if we searched some person in google by typing their name,, Some Details( I.E there personal life,awards,born date etc) are shown in the right hand side of the Google along with the search result.. So, If I create my very own biography in Wikipedia,, Will My short detail also be shown in Google right hand side like other perosns when i searched my self through google.com. ??? If it will not be shown ,,Please help me how to make it shown on the google right handside.. Also Help me out to create my own biography. Saayaash Brl (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, - welcome to the Teahouse. I see you've had a page deleted already - I think you are misinterpreting what Wikipedia is for. Basically, we're not just a profile site for various people - we're an encyclopaedia which covers only notable people. If you would like a biography, then you need to establish yourself in wider society first and then someone will probably write about you. If you are already notable, then it's also advised not to write about yourself - you have a WP:Conflict of interest and probably couldn't write about yourself properly from the neutral point of view Wikipedia needs in its articles. If you want to contribute to the encyclopaedia, then you could use your user page for that purpose, but it would have to be restricted to what you contribute to Wikipedia in other places and your editing interests, articles contributed on other subjects, and so on, rather than be a general profile page for external purposes.


 * If all you want is an internet profile findable by Google, then there are plenty of other places to make a page about yourself - try a blog site or create your own wiki. For the moment, however, you'll have to wait for someone else to write your page for you after you've done something that makes you notable. LouiseS1979 (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add to the good advise of the other hosts above: regarding Google, when an article is posted on Wikipedia (or any site for that matter) there isn't a lot of direct control over when and how Google will display it. Those things are determined by Google and the algorithms they use to rank search results. People can indirectly control it in some ways. For example, there is meta data you can add to a page such as keywords that you think are relevant to that page and doing that will help the page show up in relevant queries. There is a whole sub field of software engineering dedicated to this topic called Search engine optimization Regarding things that show up on the right side of Google searches, while I can't say with certainty since it depends on which browser, operating system, is it mobile or desktop UI, etc. For the most part I think things on the right side are paid advertizements. I.e., someone gives Google $$ so that when a search with particular keywords is made their site will show up on the right hand side. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , that's an excellent explanation - helps me out too. LouiseS1979 (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is no way to pay for advertisements on the right side of Google (at least not in the infobox). I researched it some time ago and if I recall correctly they are all based off of meta data and contextual clues. Often this does come from Wikipedia but it can come from other sources, such as Google+. The subject of the search result also has to have a strong indication of significance according to Google (ie many links). The existence of a Wikipedia article may increase the chances of that infobox showing up, but it would only be one thing that Google takes into consideration.


 * As I say though, Google+ profiles do have a strong chance of showing up there, so maybe that might be the best course of action for Saayaash Brl. &#160; Discant X  23:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you make clickable links?
How do you make clickable links? I see alot of articles have words that can be clicked to bring the user to a new page. How do you do that?

GoethicTheurgy (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . They're called Wikilinks, and you make them by putting the name of the page in double square brackets thus: London appears as London. You can also make the text that is displayed different from the actual page name by using a pipe character '|' thus: The Smoke appears as The Smoke, but still links to the article 'London', --ColinFine (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is how you would make your name & "talk..."

GoethicTheurgy Place these:  to make a link. If you wanted a link to your user page, just do this, GoethicTheurgy. You will then get this, GoethicTheurgy!!! Now you know how to make Wikilinks! have fun! Acj1  (Say Hi To Me!)  02:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright issues
User:Ranjodhbuttar has uploaded a picture File:Partap singh bajwa.jpg under CC 3.0. But the picture is already present on Facebook here. The Facebook account is perhaps held by the same person. I have asked them to follow the guidelines at WP:DONATEIMAGE and send an email to donate the image, if they are the owner of the image. Do I have to do anything else? Is there any tag, which I can put on the photo? Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * the facebook account holder had given the permission to upload the photo on wiki to me

Ranjodhbuttar (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But you need to show the proof. -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 14:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, -  is right. You need to get them to email OTRS about the pictures if you claim to have their permission to use the photographs on Wikipedia. Thanks :). LouiseS1979 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * but they also need to know that permission to use the photo on Wikipedia is not enough, : they need to release it under a copyleft licence, so that anybody may use it for any purpose, otherwise it is not allowed in Wikipedia. Please see donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ColinFine, free ≠ copyleft. CC BY is a perfectly acceptable free, non-copyleft license.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the status of my article Mark Andrew Zwartynski? I am not able to add the uploaded photo and critical information. please respond.
Please respond. Thank you. I am a Wikipedia supporter, donor and contributor.Markandrewz (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I see that you have written a draft in your sandbox, but have not yet requested a review through the Articles for creation process. You should not do so, because it would certainly be declined as an unreferenced biography of a living person. Another complicating factor is that it appears to be an autobiography. Please be aware that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged here on Wikipedia. Your draft has lots of numbers in square brackets indicating that you may have intended to add references, but I see no evidence of those references. You need to furnish citations to significant coverage of you and your life story in independent, reliable sources in order for other editors to conclude that Wikipedia ought to have an article about you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * of course, I am not Mark Andrew Zwartynski. Just in case someone is curious.  thank you.  JPMarkandrewz (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then, please change your user name,, which clearly implies that you are, and is therefore a violation of Wikipedia policy. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * hello go to the side of wikipedia and find tool>upload file then upload a file12:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Randhawaharnir (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding information based on editor's own published research
I am sure that the answer to this is in here somewhere but could someone please clarify. If a researcher or academic wanted to edit or create an article based on their own PUBLISHED research could they do so, provided the publication is peer reviewed? Thanks Evanscartref (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes it is allowed, subject to limitations described at WP:SELFCITE. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Adding to the correct answer above, this is acceptable as long as it does "not place undue emphasis on your work." A published researcher will be familiar with the related work of other academics. The purpose of citing one's own work must be to improve the quality of our coverage of the topic, which means summarizing all the important research on the topic. So, if you cite the four or five best sources, and you are among them, then that is fine. If you consistently cite only your own work, that is considered promotionalistic and highly discouraged. If you cite yourself to gain the upper hand in an academic dispute, the response will be quite vigorous in opposition. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

i have a question solve as fast
solve this = _+_+_+_+_=30 only use {1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15} u can also repeat no04:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)04:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Randhawaharnir (talk)
 * There really isn't a place for this on Wikipedia, maybe at one of the reference desks but I don't think it would fit. It doesn't fit here, in any case. Nonetheless, 5 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 11 = 30. Tutelary (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Expanding a bit on 's answer, the Teahouse is intended to be a friendly place for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and for more experienced editors to provide friendly, simple answers to those questions. Everyone who uses the internet including Wikipedia needs to learn the basic procedures for searching for answers online using search engines and reference sources. Here, we discuss encyclopedia editing. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * dont use 4. and sorry i just want to know answer10:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)10:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Randhawaharnir (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can't do this question. It's not too hard, it's literally impossible. You are trying to add 5 odd numbers to make 30. Two odds added are even, and odd add even is odd, so we get odd+odd+odd+odd+odd=even+even+odd=even+odd=odd. But as 30 is even, this is impossible. Feel free to ask me for help with maths questions on my talk page, though I may not always answer. John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What to do when you notice an editor is violating their sanctions
I noticed an editor is violating his permanent page ban and causing mild disruption on a page on my watchlist, but the admin who imposed the series of blocks for repeated violations of community sanctions and then gave him that page ban is busy irl for a couple of weeks. Should I mention this to another admin on their talk page or should I mention it somewhere else like the incidents page? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I infer that you mean that the editor has been topic-banned from Syrian Civil War and is continuing to edit. If this were ArbCom discretionary sanctions I would direct you to their noticeboard.  Is there a noticeboard for community general sanctions issues.  My advice would be to use a noticeboard or to mention this to another admin, in particular to one who is active on Syrian Civil War as a neutral admin.  (You could alternatively raise the issue on the article talk page, addressing it to any admin.)  I would avoid going to WP:ANI only in order to minimize disruption, since threads on disruption of contentious articles become disruptive themslves.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The user in question is under a PBAN on a single page of the topic. They (singular unknown gender) have never been topic banned as far as I can tell, but the PBAN was under the general sanctions for the Syrian Civil war after several escalating blocks from the same Administrator. Having seen how ugly ANIs can get with a recently closed one from the topic, I'd rather not resort to that. I assume the fact it's a PBAN rather than a topic-ban doesn't make a difference however? I found where they log the blocks and bans (WP:GS/SCW), but not anywhere to report violations. I guess I should try to figure out which of the admins who is active on the topic is closest to counting as a neutral admin? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"Sufficient Claim of Fair Use" Question
I would truly appreciate if I could get feedback from an experienced editor, administrator, or patroller to make sure I have completed the Sufficient Claim for Fair Use information correctly and so the file won't be deleted. This is the file in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ScottPageAutograph.jpg#Licensing. This has taken quite a bit of work for a couple of reasons, so I could use help getting it right!1987atomheartbrother (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know the purpose of the image, can you please tell me? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - it looks OK but don't take my word for it - I'm not that experienced. You've filled out all the sections. Remember you can only use it for the actual article on the album. One thing I'm not sure on is whether the signature makes a difference, perhaps or  would like to take a look. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking me,, but this is not an area of my expertise. If you want my tuppenyworth, , it doesn't seem to me that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". --ColinFine (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I, too, have my doubts about this image, . The policy language about use of non-free images can be found at WP:NFCI, which states that album covers can be used for "visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item". In practice, the usage is usually in an article about the album, which already has a full image in this case. I have my doubts that a desire to include an autograph overrides the copyright concerns. Seeing or owning an actual autographed album cover may be interesting to a fan, but seeing an image of the autograph in an encyclopedia article doesn't seem necessary to understand the musician. I did notice that the image is once referred to as a book covering the rationale, so that needs to be corrected. All that's just my opinion, and I do not normally participate in image deletion discussions. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @1987atomheartbrother:  . Hi 1987atomheartbrother. Great user name; love that album. Unfortunately, I don't think this meets fair use. Generally, we only consider it fair use for an album cover to appear in an article on the album itself, not to illustrate some tangentially related subject,  for exactly the contextual significance reason described by ColinFine above (WP:NFCC). Additionally, to the extent the use is predominantly to display Page's signature, that appears eminently replaceable by a potential free equivalent that would serve the same purpose. I don't think a person's signature is very significant at all in a person's bio, and the text tells us about his contribution to Pink Floyd, which the display of a portion of the album cover doesn't add much to. Whether fair use is proper should be taken on a case-by-case basis and I can think of potential exceptions to the "album itself" standard I've articulated, but all such exceptions would involve the album cover being of such importance to the topic in a very direct way, such that the article would naturally discuss the cover as part of its prose – say, in an article on an artist who was predominantly known for painting the cover image. I just don't see it here. Tailored places to seek a second opinion are Media copyright questions and Non-free content review. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to thank everyone for their feedback, it's a real relief to see a space at Wikipedia where people are collaborative. It's not always that way!

I will leave it alone for now and see what happens but do want to ask for an opinion on this: if I were able to isolate the autograph itself, somehow... would that help sustain this file on the article, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Porcaro#mediaviewer/File:Jeff_Procaro_sig.jpg? I think I will try to do that as a back-up but will hope for the best with the submission for now.1987atomheartbrother (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

pronography on wikipedia is allowed?
I saw users uploaded pornography under the subjects of that would relate to, but why should it be allowed? I don't think it should be allowed. Apriv40dj (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the teahouse. Since Wikipedia is not censored, pornography is allowed, but only in articles where it has a constructive use. Attempts to rid Wikipedia of it have failed many times in the past. --Jakob (talk)  20:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Apriv40dj, welcome to the Teahouse. You won't find photos like the ones in Playboy adorning Wikipedia articles. However, you will find sexual images in articles relating to sex (e.g., an article on a sex position might contain an illustration of that position). Is there a specific image you're concerned about? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, User:Anomie/hide-images may be of interest to you. I tried it on Commons for some time and it was helpful. It did hide all images, though, but perhaps that was because I didn't follow the instructions exactly. --Jakob (talk)  20:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Summerslam 2015
Please move Summerslam (2015) to SummerSlam (2015). At first you must link SummerSlam (2015) from other pages. Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like it has been done. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Reflist in edit mode
In article on Morrison Formation there is a Reflist but the actual references do not display. I want to add to this article and cite my addition. Thanks. Hilyard (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Inline references are not placed in the Reflist section, which is a template. The coding for each individual reference is placed in the body of the article, immediately following the content being referenced. When the page is displayed in the normal viewing mode, the Reflist template displays the references in the proper order in the References section of the article. This is a simplified explanation of what can be very complex in lengthy, sophisticated articles. Please read Referencing for beginners for a good overview, and feel free to ask follow-up questions here. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. The references are appearing in the article so I presume you are trying to see the ones you add in your edit..??? To do that you need to preview the article and if you are edition only a section -- you need to add a  temporarily to the bottom of the section so the references will appear below the section -- remove it before saving the edit. Hope thos helps, Ariconte (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Another tip:  to see what the citation will look like before you save your edit, if you use a cite template from the toolbar, you can press the  button, then 'Show parsed view' to see how the citation will appear in the references.  ~I hope this helps.  ~Eric, aka:71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)