Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 429

What does the following coding mean?
" "Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For clarity, the code in question is " ". , this invokes a template called "SLBY" with the parameter 1500. We use templates to standardize a lot of repeated things in Wikipedia, and to save time. You can read about that particular template by using the normal Wikipedia search box for "Template: SLBY", or follow this link: SLBY.  It is used to identify lists of State leaders by year between 499 BC and the present.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, this particular template seems to invoke a date style that is not encouraged.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * if you mean the use of BC/AD then it's true that Common Era (BCE/CE) dating is ok but Western Christian isn't disallowed, see WP:ERA. I'm sure it you asked someone could modify SLBY to handle either. Nthep (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * PS I've disabled your original link to the coding so as to take this page out of all the categories the template adds to pages where it is used. Nthep (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The current coding for a number of date related shortcuts puts "ON" in the statement instead of "IN". It is grammatically incorrect when a DAY is not supplied so it becomes awkward when reading through "UPDATE" notices an "ON" MONTH (YEAR) statement instead of an "IN" YEAR statement that sometimes never is updated for a considerable length of time. The coding should be changed to reflect grammatically correct statements. How can that come about. Where in WP is that to be reported besides a potential hit and miss here?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how that issue relates to this template. The template only accepts years as a parameter and as far as I can see all the outputs it generates say IN YEAR. Nthep (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where do you see "ON"? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When I use that template, it renders as "This is a list of heads of state, government leaders, and other rulers in the year 2015." Do you see something different, ?  If so, what? Or do you think there is something wrong with that wording - if so, what do you suggest it should be instead?--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And to answer your other question - each template has its own Talk page, which can be used to discuss bug reports, suggested improvements, etc. In this case, it is at Template talk:SLBY.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, got confused here. "IN THE YEAR XXXX" is discouraged (unless it clarifies the situation) so it should be "in XXXX". It is the UPDATED and ARCHIVED situations when without a day being supplied it appears as "ON MINTH YEAR".Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where do you see "ON MINTH (month?) YEAR"? Please give a link instead of trying to describe the situation. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If I knew how to do as you want I probably could answer my own questions but if you do a search on the following three strings you will find of what it is that I discuss: ' "on September 2015" archived '; ' "on November 2015" processed '; and ' "on December 2015" updated '. Review the read text and then review the coding. It will clearly show in each example that where a "DAY" is not supplied that the statement will be grammatically incorrect with the use of an "ON" instead of an "IN".Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A proper link for articles would be  which renders as Nuciruptor. In discussions like here it would also be acceptable to copy the url from the browser address bar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuciruptor. The English Wikipedia has tens or hundreds of thousands of different templates. One of them is SLBY which cannot produce text with "on" but many other templates can. Some templates are meant to be used with a full date as parameter and say "on" even if an editor omitted the day. For example, Nuciruptor contains the code:
 * This uses the template cite journal to produce:
 * Maybe some of these templates should be coded to detect whether no day was given in the date and say "in" instead of "on", and possibly produce a message if a day is considered mandatory in the template. But it would take both coding work on the templates and server resources to make the checks on maybe millions of uses. Each time a page or one of its used templates is edited, the servers render the whole page. This includes to perform all template calls on the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of these templates should be coded to detect whether no day was given in the date and say "in" instead of "on", and possibly produce a message if a day is considered mandatory in the template. But it would take both coding work on the templates and server resources to make the checks on maybe millions of uses. Each time a page or one of its used templates is edited, the servers render the whole page. This includes to perform all template calls on the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of these templates should be coded to detect whether no day was given in the date and say "in" instead of "on", and possibly produce a message if a day is considered mandatory in the template. But it would take both coding work on the templates and server resources to make the checks on maybe millions of uses. Each time a page or one of its used templates is edited, the servers render the whole page. This includes to perform all template calls on the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue at hand concerns coding: 1) "" which uses a discouraged date style "IN THE YEAR" unless it is warranted; 2) the coding used for "ARCHIVED", "PROCESSED" and "UPDATED" that expects a DAY to be supplied so if not then it is grammatically incorrect with "ON MONTH YEAR" instead of "IN DAY MONTH YEAR" or "IN MONTH DAY YEAR". Concerning "", "IN THE YEAR" would better be coded to read only "IN" as it seems redundant to have to clarify that "X" article concerns what happened in a "YEAR". Concerning changes in the coding used for "ARCHIVED", "PROCESSED" and "UPDATED" it assumes a day will be supplied and in many instances it is not. An example of each can be seen with a search on the following: ' "on September 2015" archived '; ' "on November 2015" processed '; and ' "on December 2015" updated '. I used these particular searches so that the amount of hits would be very spare so these are not indicative of the number of hits that can be retrieved without the qualifying "ARCHIVED", "PROCESSED" and "UPDATED". I have already cleaned up the general use of "IN MONTH YEAR" for the period 1500 to 1920 and have been working chronologically reverse from January 2016 but coding for "ARCHIVED", "PROCESSED" and "UPDATED" cannot be eliminated due to the coding. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding concerning the coding issues.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't think the case with SLBY is quite as clear-cut as that. Each individual case should be considered on its merits, not automatically updated. The relevant MoS entry is MOS:BADDATEFORMAT, which recommends "Use 'in the year' only where needed for clarity (About 1800 ships arrived in the year 1801)." In this situation, I think it does aid clarity.  Perhaps the meaning is obvious for a familiar year like 1500, but consider something less familiar, like List of state leaders in 17.  To me, that sounds like they are all having a big meeting in room 17 - it is not obvious that the "17" refers to the year. And the SLBY template is there to clarify just what the list contains. So for me, the extra text "in the year" does help to clarify the meaning.  Of course, I am just one person and I have found that the world does not always operate according to what I think, so I invite other editors' comments...--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The "IN TH YEAR OF 1801" is accepted as it is a sentence but not "IN THE YEAR 1801", three house burned down.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Being a Wikipedia User
Hi, I'm wondering, other than editing, what privileges does having a Wikipedia account give you, when compared to a normal user. Also, does having an account mean having to make donations?Burrito77 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a Wikipedia account, are a normal registered editor, and are not required to make donations. Does that answer your question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Advantages include choosing a skin and otherwise personalizing how pages are displayed; also setting a watchlist. You may find others at Why create an account? —teb728 t c 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my bad, I'm a new user, just joined, should check out the site more. But thanks Robert.Burrito77 (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, I just got the message from Teb728, about a new user and stuff. Thanks for all your help though guys.Burrito77 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . A registered editor with an account at least four days old who has made at least ten edits then gets some additional powers. They can edit semi-protected pages, move pages to a new title, and upload files. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, . It also gives you a Talk page so you can co-operate with other users, your own Sandbox to experiment with (useful when you try something new) or to build an article, it allows you to track the changes you have made, and once you have some experience there are tools you can install to help with some routine tasks.  Also, on the "soft" side of things, it can make working with other editors go more smoothly because there is continuity: they can relate that the comment you make today comes from the same person who made a comment yesterday.  For instance, look above and we can see which comments came from you, and which from other people - without that, it would be really hard to have a sensible conversation.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Burrito77, Creating an account gives you a claim to authorship. Anyone can say they are the ip-adres that made a contribution. But only you can say you are that and that account. So if you make a contribution or write a new article, you are one of authors and you can defend that claim. If you work here more often, you can show the list of work you have done. Where an ip-adres can change. Besides this it has some minor advantages in editing, giving you the right to move articles, vote in elections, and such minor rights. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Constructive edits
I gave a wikilove to a previous blocked user, and I am just wondering if I can get a list of blocked users so that I can help them make good faith and constructive edit to Wikipedia and for them not to vandalize this great learning reasource.

Thanks,Awsomegamer75795 (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse (I have moved your question to the top of the page; it's the Teahouse way). There are quite a few blocked users, see: Special:BlockList. I don't think you should feel personally responsible for having to encourage them to make constructive edits. The administrators that have blocked them have informed all of them about how to contribute constructively, and how to appeal the ban if they feel like they are ready to start contributing in such a way Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 11:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * While I'm sure you have good intentions, Awsomegamer75795, your accounts is only a day old and some of the blocked editors have been active for months or even years and might think your offer to help them is premature since you will not be familiar with the circumstances of their block. I think your efforts might not be appreciated until you have more experience editing Wikipedia and working within Wikipedia culture. I hope you can find some articles of interest to you that you can work on. Liz  Read! Talk! 15:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice that the "previously blocked user" to whom you refer was an IP user which you have admitted was you. Further to the comments above, advice to blocked users would probably come better from someone who hadn't been blocked twice within the first 5 days of editing as an IP. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * yes but it was a shared IP users

Awsomegamer75795 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

AFC submission -third decline
I have been trying to submit a draft through Articles for Creation process (see here) and it has been "declined" three times without much explanation after I had tried to revise it according to the reviewing user's notes. Also, an editor erased the improved versions and only left the original version up as the draft. I have never created an article here before so Im pretty new at this, but I have found other articles of similar concepts (United States Arctic Research Commission, Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, and Uniform Law Commission). The problem, I think, is that this is a political nonprofit organization so the sources are few and far between other than its own material. However, I thought this policy article states that primary and secondary sources are permissible in an instance about a topic like this? Also, this policy article about using government sites and law sources as references.

I am unsure of how to move forward and would really appreciate some advice! T.E.Cooper100 (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Primary sources do not verify notability, and only serve to confirm simple facts. I have left you some in depth guidance on the draft itself. Fiddle   Faddle  15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. References are used for two quite different purposes in Wikipedia: firstly to gauge how "notable" a subject is (in Wikipedia's special sense of that word), and secondly to support individual statements within the article.  In order to assess notability, we need to see what other people have said about the organization, not what it has said about itself and its projects.  Primary sources can be used in limited ways to support some individual, straightforward statements, but they are not relevant for notability.  Consider: I might tell you that I am very important.  I might even bring a note from my mother saying how great I am.  But I doubt they would convince you, because they are not independent.  The article needs a few things, but the first one is independent, reliable sources which have covered the organization in some depth.  Collect all the newspaper articles about it, or even interviews with its leaders.  Articles in reputable journals and magazines are good too.  If any books have been written which include sections about it, that is good.  Verifiable coverage on television and radio can even be included, if it can be cited in detail (which normally means having footage or a reliable transcript). If the organization has received significant awards, that also contributes because it is an independent judgement about how notable the organization is.  Once you have collected all your evidence, then it's time to start building the article based on what those sources say.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Admins
Just out of curiosity how does one become an admin, i am new and want to be one someday Awsomegamer75795 (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Awsomegamer75795, Please see Requests for adminship, Guide to requests for adminship, the miniguide and Advice for RfA candidates. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The short answer, is to start out by spending at least a year or two working to improve the encyclopedia in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Help out in various maintenance areas. Always be collaborative, helpful and friendly. Then, talk to other experienced editors about your prospects. The reading list above is excellent. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  17:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Chimp Management Ltd
I reviewed Draft: Chimp Management Ltd and declined it as reading like an advertisement. User:Joe-lake1954 has posted to my talk page asking for advice on how to improve the article. My advice is to expand the article with more references to independent reliable sources. I would also advise adding wikilinks whenever appropriate, for Steve Peters (psychiatrist), and the athletes. I would also suggest considering merging the draft with Steve Peters (psychiatrist), because it isn’t clear to me that the company is notable except as the implementation of his work. Will other experienced editors please also advise on what needs to be done to improve the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Italisizing
Why in the following is a double "  " used to italicize verses in the same statement single " " " are used? "*It is featured in the episode "Anthology of Interest I" of American animated science fiction sitcom Futurama''."Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to read the Manual of Style, and in particular such sections as MOS:NOITALIC. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is correct or more correct
"of the category of" or "for the category of" when it comes to nominees or winners of the various awards?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe "in the category of"? Your first option sounds a bit strange to me, as it may imply the category is the prize. Then again, sports teams are said to win a certain group in a tournament (e.g. soccer). The second option sounds a bit awkward. Gap9551 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The Wrestler Dylan Stiffwood
How can I have someone write a story and have it put into Wikipedia about the wrestler Dylan Stiffwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiglospaluto (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Great question. If you're not connected with him professionally, then you could go about creating the article yourself -- see Your First Article. Otherwise you can request that a page be created over at Articles for Creation. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox image
The logo in the main WP sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox does not show a sandbox. It shows a sandpile. I would prefer something like the graphic. So where do I make my suggestion to have that sandbox introductory image changed? I don't know the answer, even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the place to ask the question and have the discussion is Template talk:Sandbox heading. Nthep (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

New page about creditism
Hi,

I would like to introduce a new page about creditism.

One meaning is a neologism. It is used to distinguish an economic system from a capitalist one (based on credit rather than capital).

I am currently decrypting another possible meaning linked to statements from an economist (Richard Duncan).

There are other meanings I can find, including a creditist movement in Canada which is completely unrelated.

My questions are as follows:


 * Should I start off by creating this page in my user space?
 * How do I get reliable resources? I could find links to videos, articles and there is perhaps a book but I'm not sure as to what qualifies as a good source for Wikipedia.
 * How do I write the page to include the different meanings? There is no common definition but the word is the same.
 * How should the page be classified?

That's all I can think of for now. Thanks in advance for walking me through this process :)

JamesPoulson (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. The very first thing to consider is: does this belong on Wikipedia? Most neologisms don't, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Our sister project, Wiktionary is for listing various definitions for words. That being said, the distinction between an article about a neologism (there are some) that qualifies for Wikipedia, and one that belongs on Wiktionary instead, is not always clear. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 02:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, that the word is a neologism may be a red herring. The intent is to explain the nature and the workings of something that exists and which can be linked to existing notions on Wikipedia such as Money creation.


 * Of course, a first step might be to introduce the term on Wiktionary as it's use has picked up more recently. Is there the equivalent of the Teahouse on Wiktionary?
 * Hello again, . The Wiktionary Teahouse can be found at wikt:Wiktionary:Tea room. And yes, by all means, you can have a go with the article about creditism on Wikipedia. New phenomena with unconventional uses of terms are not forbidden topics. But they can be more difficult to write about than something more commonplace. With skill and effort, they can turn out to be great articles, and I think you are more than qualified to write on it. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 17:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the teahouse! First of all, you should nail down the subject of your article. If you want to make it about the word itself and its various meanings, you should do so on the Wiktionnary (a dictionnary) rather than here (an encyclopedia). If you decide to focus on a specific concept given by that word, your first step is to check for notability. Basically, have several people independent of the originator of the idea written about it in detail in reliable sources. If yes, you may create the article.


 * On the topic of what is a reliable source, the standard is typically editorial control and basic fact checking. Peer review is not required, but blogs and forums and some random dude's personal website are frowned upon. Non-tabloid newspapers and books are about what we are looking for.


 * When it comes to the actual process of creating the article, your best bet is to go to wp:AfC and use the process there. That way you will have review by experienced editors before your article goes into the encyclopedia. They can also help you with naming, categorization and other such issues. Hope that helps! Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, . Though I commend you for setting out to improve the encyclopedia, I do have some concerns about your idea as you describe it. You mention that one usage of the word is a neologism. Normally, Wikipedia will only have articles about a neologism if the term or concept itself has been discussed significantly in independent, reliable sources. Occasional use of the neologism is not adequate to support an article. Please read WP:NEOLOGISM for details.


 * An article should be about a discrete topic, and the topic must be notable. An article combining different topics is not a good idea, and we describe this as synthesis. Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. More broadly, Wikipedia does not publish original research. Please read WP:OR.


 * As for sources, a reliable source is a published source with professional editorial control, and a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and correcting errors. The best sources depend on context and while Sports Illustrated may be an excellent source for Steph Curry, for your idea, books published by university presses or articles published in respected peer-reviewed academic journals would be ideal. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles are classified using categories that concisely and accurately define characteristics of a subject of the article. You can add categories to the bottom of an article to classify it to a certain group. For example, as Ludwig van Beethoven is a composer for piano we can categorize him under Composers for piano by invoking that specific category. All you have to do is add  to the bottom of the article. Because category pages have to be separately created some of them might not currently exist on Wikipedia. In such cases you can create a new category as long as it satisfies WP:CATDEF. Nevertheless, most are available by now and Special:Categories provides a list of them. You can use scripts like WP:HOTCAT to make categorization easier. This process can be daunting at first, but you can always request help on your talk page or here on the Teahouse. --  Chamith   (talk)  04:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Although the OED doesn't have an entry yet, there does seem to be a history of occasional mentions of the word over the last forty years. Your Wiktionary entry has been accepted (would you like to add some citations?), but I haven't found enough written about the concept to fill a Wikipedia article.  Perhaps you can find some good sources of information?    D b f i r s   07:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)



Hi ColinFine thanks so much for reply, I'm going to post it at the mentioned-place, village pump (& then i'll take the pause). But I still do-not know, wheather it will be redundant to wikipedia or not. However, from a viewpoint of very-very positive, constructive-criticism i feel that Wiki needs much-more technical-improvement.


 * Hi ColinFine thanks so much for reply, I'm going to post it at the mentioned-place, village pump (& then i'll take the pause). But I still do-not know, wheather it will be redundant to wikipedia or not. However, from a viewpoint of very-very positive, constructive-criticism i feel that Wiki needs much-more technical-improvement.

Article Declined
An article I created for Calliope Writing Coach Writers' Conferences and Workshops was declined because it read more like an advertisement than an article. I've now included two media links in references that verify the content in the article. I would like more specific assistance with this article if it still does not meet Wikipedia requirements. Thank you much. momonroeMomonroe (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . The draft article in question is Draft:Calliope Writing Coach Writers' Conferences and Workshops. Your draft is full of promotional, advertising-type language, such as "boutique", "international bestselling author", and "master the art". Such language is unacceptable. Do you think that a neutrally written encyclopedia article that mentioned Harriet Beecher Stowe or Mark Twain would describe either as an "international bestselling author", although that's technically true? That's marketing language, not encyclopedia language.


 * Notability in Wikipedia terms is established by demonstrating that the topic has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The Salt Lake City Weekly source is an interview of the person who organizes the writer's events, and all the substantive content consists of her words. That is not an independent source. The KUTV item is a completely routine local event calendar listing. That is not significant coverage. Accordingly, your draft article does not yet establish notability. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Correcting the licence for photos
A relatively new editor, has been working on the article MLC School, including uploading a lot of historical photographs. Unfortunately, they were uploaded with the wrong licensing: instead of listing them as expired copyright, she classified them as her own work (unlikely for photos from the 1800s). I can't see any process on Wikimedia Commons to change that after the photo has been uploaded - am I missing something? Or is her only option to delete them and load again?Gronk Oz (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Gronk Oz. Since editing the file descriptions is quite direct (just click edit), I am guessing the issue is that you are viewing the files as mirrored on Wikipedia, rather than navigating to them at the Commons, where the edit button will be presented to you. If that's the issue, click "view on commons" at the top of the page, or alternatively where it says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below", click on the link provided for the words "description page" in this excerpt. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of controversy regarding articles about the "world's oldest people" here on Wikipedia, . If we have an editor who was taking photos in even 1899, I think that we can jointly collaborate on an outstanding Featured article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, - I knew the description could be edited, but it just did not occur to me that this would include the Licensing.  Easy when you know how!--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

x-axis
Can we take stress on x-axis ????39.33.117.27 (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You will need to explain the context of your question before we can give a meaningful reply. Scientific and engineering graphs usually put stress on the y axis, but sociological and psychological graphs may put it on the x axis.    D b f i r s   10:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Help me, my article is deleted due to copyright violating information
Hi As i am new on wikipedia and want to write articles related to Indian companies. I have written one article about one of Company's MD and it is deleted due to Copyright violating information. Please suggest me how to upload image on wiki and get right copyright license from wiki. Pnanda1 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse . You get the copyright license not from Wikipedia but from the copyright owner i.e. the photographer or artist who created the image. The license must be one that allows reuse of the image by anyone for anything anywhere. —teb728 t c 08:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Once the copyright holder has agreed, the process for registering that licence is at OTRS.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

in Book-Creating, drag & drop function Not user-friendly. Some-other small problems.
Thanks so so much for idea of book-creating. But few problems exist.

1.Having to drag a heading over many--other headings. So, time-taking, & misplace Occur accidentally. So

(i) Please provide all the newly-added items on a Side-palatte.

(ii) Please keep an option to "group" the articles & sub-chapters with a Particular Chapter together.

(iii) Allow to select/mark More-than-One headings at-a-time.

2.The Book-content-manage-page ; need to reload, to see what I added last. So please synchronize the data automatically.

3. please warn me if I cancel the book-content-manage-page without saving the changes to the book.

4.It will be very helpful if different colors & fonts could-be used for chapters & sub-chapters. It will be also helpful if better graphic interface allows to temporarily adjust gaps between chapters, articles,; could break the book-content-edit-box into several columns, etc. as we do with playing cards.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry you are having so many problems with the Book Creator. Unfortunately there are problems with that software and no further changes to it are being made. See the notice near the top of the page at Help:Books. Maybe some other host here will have helpful suggestions about how to get around the problems. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC) (to StarryGrandma) Thank youfor your reply. No-matter. Any immediate changes may not be possible always ... but Wiki Team can made them advanced in the FUTURE, (& I in-fact told these as Suggessions). The book-making feature is very useful as-well-as interesting. It is just in its childhood, & hopefully it will flourish much much more. Thank-you and Bon Voyage. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User-feedback on book-creation
Thanks so much for providing the book-making feature. It is very Useful, & Interesting.

It Saves the lobor of blind note-taking Line-after-Line. Instead, at that time, I can READ the pages in more conceptual and focused way. It also helps me to revise my OLD Lessons in a good way… when I design chapters, then fill- them up by selecting pages from the Encyclopedia. It helps me in focusing at many possible logical & hierarchial from, a same knowledge-bank.So, great way to practice focusing   relationships among informations, rather than  looking only-at informations.

It also recalls us a basic truth, that, deposition of the knowledge in an encyclopedia/ human memory/ elsewhere, is not the purpse of the knowledge …  But the knowledge become existant,  vibrant & alive,  only-if we  recall, apply on time, & enjoy (feel)it.

Such as, Everyone knows, Sunflower is a beautiful, yellow flower. yet while walking aside a field of Sunflower, we tell others … wowww …  So beautiful, Yellow sunflowers ; though others already “knows” this. Because here we re-cultivate that knowledge.

Likewise, during book-making, we can find-out many flavors ,even  on same topic ;  from same knowledge-bank,  just  altering the aspects (the kinds of information” we choose), Just-like Michelangelo visualized many sculptures in same stone-block, by altering the rejected portion; or like a music-composer if alter only one-or-two notes & the flavor of whole composition changed drastically, or a painter makes Million-kinds of pictures from  the same VIBGYOR.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC) RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Please lower your voice and stop shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing the code-of-conduct in wiki . Removed capital letters, bold-texts, formattings, etc, & made the letter much brief.

Sorry if disrupt the environment of Wiki-Teahouse. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaving
I'm so tired of editors questioning (it's only been 3-8 over 10 years) my copyrights and then an editor without portfolio (Generic1139) questions a paraphrase issue and it's gone. My saying it's good doesn't hold water, so why is a question about copyright take immediate precedents? This editor doesn't have any history or background and he/she rules. I assume it the 'if in doubt, it's out' school of liability. I spent 35 years in the federal government, of which part of my function was to determine the few copyright issues that came our way. Even one on my own pictures was deleted because a reviewer (I hate to think they were an editor) didn't like that I missed the entry to release my control to Wiki and then, when I corrected it, it was deleted in it's entirety. You'd think that the few times this has happened wouldn't be a big deal. It is since I -freely- give my time to research and write the articles and personally provide numerous images for the articles and for other articles.

It's not worth my aggravation the few times it happens. So, don't expect to see me in the future. Oh, and I dislike screen names. It's a form of anonymity that allows people to avoid any negative, as well as positive, comments from actually affecting their performance/involvement. That's why, I'm Chris Light (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC) not 'Idiotgeneric666'.
 * Hi Chris Light, it sucks to write an article and have it deleted. You put in your time, with all the best intentions, and it ends up being removed by someone who did not even work on it. But please keep in mind everyone meant well. They were of the opinion it is a copyright violation. And acted the best they could to form an opinion and act accordingly. From what I see Generic1139 brought the question politely to you and asked others for their opinion, since they did not know themselves. In that discussion in which you joined, other people were of the opinion it was a copyright violation, and an admin decided to delete. I really think it is unfair to blaim Generic1139, who saw a possible problem and reported it. I really think the people giving their opinion mean well. And I think the admin means well. You are hurt and this is not nice. Please talk to the other volunteers. From my far away view, I only see good intentions. I am sure the admin will be willing to talk to you about it and try to find a solution to save the article. Ofcourse you are always free to leave. Wikipedia is volunteer work. It is good work, and I really think it is great you help make the world a better place by providing everyone with free information. I hope you will reconsider ofcourse, but I wish you all the best either way. Thanks for all the good work, and I am sure it will be put to good use by people across the world. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

New page
Everyone can edit the page, but I want to do a new one, Not ,,Alaska,,. I just want to CREATE new page. Can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XAlexandraS (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC).


 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to create a new page, first make sure it doesn't already exist. Maybe it exists with a slightly different name? What page would you like to create? There is a guide for making a new article: Your first article, which tells you what to pay attention to before you start writing. Among other things it says that you need reliable sources to support the content of your page, and that the subject should be notable enough. The practical steps of making a page are described in How to create a page. Just ask if you have more questions or need help. Gap9551 (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Chat Enabled Collaboration and User:Catalina.Butnariu.ml
I reviewed Draft:Chat Enabled Collaboration and declined it because it was unreferenced. I also reviewed (twice) User:Catalina.Butnariu.ml/sandbox and declined it as a duplicate of the article in draft space. Another reviewer also asked how this draft differs from Online chat or Intranet and where the topic of Chat Enabled Collaboration is mentioned as notable. I then received a message on my talk page from User:Catalina.Butnariu.ml, saying that she had added another reference to Draft:Chat Enabled Collaboration. I don’t see another reference, and the principal draft is still awaiting resubmission. Some users repeatedly submit new drafts from their sandboxes rather than editing the draft in draft space after the reviewer has moved it there. Sometimes they are doing this in good faith, and sometimes they are being tendentious. (Repeated submission of multiple copies of drafts in sandboxes can be just as annoying as repeated submission of drafts in draft space without addressing reviewer comments. It can be even worse because the few corrections that are made get split across multiple pages, all of which still need help.)  She seems to be a very new user who is struggling and having trouble. Can someone mentor her? She thinks that she followed my advice to improve the draft, but she didn’t. Like another reviewer, I am not sure that she has a topic for a new article, but she clearly does want to contribute to the encyclopedia, but doesn’t understand yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

References listed twice, once in and once after article.
I am editing (i.e. updating) the page Maresin. I added new references to the page and somehow the references became listed twice; once at the end of the article as originally found in it and a second time after the newly added section "Production." Can anyone correct or help me to correct this double listing of references which totally destroys the Wikipedia format of presentation. I am joflaher. Thanks.Joflaher (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC) The problem with Maresin was that you had not closed the final reference with a. Odd formatting often relates to an unclosed instruction, usually references, but sometimes other commands. Finding them can be tricky, I searched for "ref>" (without the variable opening characters) and found 19, so I knew there was an unopened or unclosed command - then just paired them off - Arjayay (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Joflaher

Draft:Tup Tup Palace
I reviewed Draft:Tup Tup Palace and declined it, as had two previous reviewers. I said that portions of it read like an advertisement and that it was split into two sections, one promotional and one negative, and suggesting reworking it. User:Laurahartley posted to my talk page, saying that she has reworked the article, which she has. I would like to ask other experienced editors to please comment on the revised article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the article has a lot of material that is not encyclopedic although probably well-referenced. Content that consists of something like "Celebrity figure X visited the nightclub on such-and-such a date, and got into an altercation. The police were called but no one was arrested." raise lots of concerns. We need to be exceedingly cautious about including defamatory material about living people. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand your concerns and I am happy to redraft if you think it necessary. I certainly do not wish to cause any legal issues for Wikipedia (or myself). I would add however that any such sentences, i.e "_________ was arrested there on suspicion of assaulting a paparazzi photographer. He was taken to a police station but later released without charge" are quoted verbatim from the relevant referenced news source, all which I have ensured are credible and respectable. I am not sure if this is correct procedure or not however, so as I say I will take your direction as to whether to redraft / delete etc. Many thanks, Laurahartley (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I recommend that you read WP:BLP thoroughly, paying special attention to WP:BLPCRIME. Not everything that appears in a newspaper belongs in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, we do not need to sell today's newspaper or write clickbait, and we should avoid all traces of sensationalism, especially when living people are involved. Any implication of criminal misconduct without a conviction is highly problematic, as I see it.


 * By the way, I am "Cullen328". "Cullen" is another person, an inactive editor. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your help and I apologise for the error. I have read WP:BLP and I understand the issue now. I see that the paragraphs regarding Kanye West and Tulisa Contostavlos in particular would have been problematic. I have therefore amended as follows, deleting any wording suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime, in accordance with WP:BLPCRIME.

The following year, the venue received significant coverage after Kanye West visited the venue on 22nd October 2008.

On 22nd December 2012 The X Factor judge and pop star Tulisa (singer) visited the club with boyfriend Danny Simpson of Newcastle United F.C.

Do you think this resolves the issue? Many thanks, Laurahartley (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sources describing these visits discuss altercations rather than the club itself, . The best sources would be those that devote significant coverage to the nightclub as a business venture rather than celebrities who got into scrapes there. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

BLPprod
please can you clarify if the BLPprod applies to just living people or if this applies to all deceased people too (i.e if just living people need to be sourced or deceased people also? thanks<abbr title="Winking face" style="border-bottom: none;"> -- Mr.Luther34  18:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All articles must be sourced. WP:BLPPROD, as its name implies, is unique to biographies of living persons as a method of deleting unsourced biographies of living persons.  However, unsourced biographies of dead persons and non-biographies are likely to be deleted by other means.  Articles that make no plausible claim of notability, that contain copyright violation, that are blatantly promotional, or that contain patent nonsense, among other reasons, may be speedy deleted.  Any article may be tagged for proposed deletion, which takes place in seven days unless contested, and being unsourced is a reason for proposed deletion.  Any article may be nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion, which goes to a community debate that takes seven days, and being unsourced is a reason for nomination for deletion.  All articles must be sourced.  BLPPROD is just a light-weight mechanism for deleting unsourced BLPs.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way, : We have especially stringent policy requirements for biographies of living people because the risk of harm to an individual is immediate and real if we allow a malicious and vindictive biography to remain. Imagine that a business person is on the brink of closing a very large deal, and someone with a grudge creates an unreferenced biography full of false accusations. Potential business partners conducting due diligence may pull out of the deal. Many jobs could be lost and careers ruined. We must get rid of such material immediately. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So that is why we have two light-weight methods of deleting harmful BLPs. In the case mentioned by User:Cullen328, the page could possibly be deleted even more quickly under WP:G10 as an attack page.  To answer the original question, all articles must be sourced.  The only differences are what methods can be used to get rid of unsourced articles.  The one in question, BLPPROD, is unique to living persons in order to avoid libel, etc.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Should I have created these categories?
I've been adding Category:Death conspiracy theories to the articles of a few people (Sam Cooke, Brian Jones, George Reeves, Karen Silkwood) who died under suspicious circumstances. In the process of looking for an appropriate category I looked at the alphabetized list of categories starting with "Controvers". I found three categories listed in red, which I think means that they were referenced but didn't exist. They were:


 * Controversies in Austria
 * Controversies in Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Controversies in Israel

I saw that each of these categories had subcategories. I created the categories so that the subcategories would be reachable. My theory was that that someone had created the subcategories and forgot to create the parent categories. Now I'm having second thoughts: maybe someone deleted the categories and forgot to delete the subcategories.

Did I do the right thing? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Another theory: someone deleted those three categories and forgot to make sure there were no references to them. How can I tell which theory is correct? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * those categories have never existed before you created them. Having redlink categories is like redlink articles, it doesn't hurt if they don't exist until such time as there is something to put in them.  Category:Controversies in Austria for example is the subcategory of another currently non-existent category. Nthep (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In the future I won't create redlink categories unless I need them for an article that I'm working on. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the three controversies categories which I created to add parent category references. The categories didn't sort correctly in Category:Controversies by country so I added the country to each category reference: etc., and I also did that in the categories for controversies and scandals in other countries. I'm slowly learning this stuff! Strawberry4Ever (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

How can I search for an image on Wikimedia Commons?
I've been editing the Allen Klein article, and I just saw that a bot has removed the article's reference to the deleted file Allen Klein.jpg. Presumably the image violated copyright (I didn't add it). I'd like to find a photo of Allen Klein which is in the public domain. I've looked at Wikimedia Commons and WP:COMMONS but I can't figure out how to search for a photo. Can anyone help? Strawberry4Ever (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Typing commons:Allen Klein into the search box took me into Wikimedia commons, searching for Allen Klein. There isn't a page on commons with just that title, so Commons replied "This page does not currently exist. You can search for this page title in other pages or create this page." Picking the first link gave me a list of pages starting with File:Allen-Klein-author-in-2015.jpg.--ColinFine (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, but that's the wrong Allen Klein. The Allen Klein I'm looking for is the music business manager etc. who died in 2009. Thank you, though, for giving me the tools to do my own search when I have the time. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, . The Allen Klein you are talking about, who was the manager of the Rolling Stones, and heavily invoved with popular music for decades, died in 2009. However, the file found above by is of an entirely different person of the same name, who is an author and still alive. This photo was taken in 2015. We have an excellent essay Don't build the Frankenstein that warns about combining information about two people with the same name into one article.


 * First, you should complete a thorough search for a freely licensed image of this specific Allen Klein. If you find one, upload it to Wikimedia Commons and add it to the article. If that search is unsuccessful, then please read WP:NFCI #10, our policy on use of non free content, including images. In brief, we allow use of a low resolution non-free image of a person who is dead, if no freely licensed or copyright free image is available. However, that usage is limited only to that biography, and that image must be uploaded here on the English Wikipedia, not on Wikimedia Commons. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! I'll look around for something that I can use in the Allen Klein article when I have some free time. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference error on article
Can someone please fix this reference error on this article's page. thanks. (Monkelese (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I corrected the error. The same named reference was fully defined twice. A named reference should only be defined once, and all subsequent uses of that reference are invoked using only the reference name, followed by "/". If you don't get the syntax right, the software generates error messages. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Rest of my questions & suggestions I've submitted in an Wiki page.
Rest of my questions & suggestions I've submitted in an Wiki page. I've no-more questions & suggestions (about Wiki) right now & hopefully not in near-future (e.g. 6-month or 1 year). Here i gave link to that page. Thank you

Rajarshi Rit 06:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)


 * Hi, . As a comment there points out, that is a page for discussing the changes to the main page, but your comments relate more widely. The best place for ideas like yours is on the Village pump. --ColinFine (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

request for tutor short term?
Request for help, or if possible a tutor short term?

I have multiple learning disabilities and put many days/hours of effort here. It might be a matter of identifying a few tips. I am afraid, I just need to work more. Or learn better habits. Also, I have sought help locally with the Literacy Network in my home town.

I have am having trouble understanding this sites instructions. Two examples of what I sincerely tried to accomplish: 1.) Create a book 2.) Write or collaborate on an article about an authorJohn Trimble and his wonderful book "Writing with Style" My problems are technical in regards to computer websites, more than the writing and the requirements, slash research.

I find that the instructions are over my head or to short, hitting dead ends. I am not as computer literate. Age 53 and I never seem to stay nested in an favorite applications before it’s out of date. Same as my hardware, computers change at what seems an exponential rate. haha- along with intrusive Adds and malware. Soon I think people may start throwing their computers out of the window on the pile of TVs

Perhaps there are others who are in a similar situation as me and we could form a group and work together.

Is it possible for administers to look into surveys or other records and see if there is a trend of others like me who are struggling? Perhaps there just needs to be a bit of leadership to get a slower paced help section? If it’s a matter of to much work and to few people, we can cooperate semi-independently, should, this idea resonates with others. Of coarse following the same terms, just at a slower rate. For example I prefer audio, text to speech, I was surprised at how much information I retain once I made a a practice of reading in an audio format.

Pauz Aka Swoon Swoon1 (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. I can't help with a tutor, but if you find audio instruction helpful then you might also like to check out Wikipedia's YouTube channel here.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I create pages on Wikipedia?
I just want to create a few pages of some of my idols who wasn't in wikipedia.DJ Matthew ROCKS (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Tehouse. Everybody is welcome to create articles on Wikipedia, but articles on people here must be written from a neutral point of view, meaning they state facts and the opinions of others without taking sides. This may be particularly difficlut if you are creating an article on a person who you describe as your idol. All articles here must also be on subjects who are notable, meaning the person you want to write an article about has been written or talked about significantly in sources not related to them, such as a national newspaper. You can read My first article for more general information, and if you write an article you can create a draft using Articles for creation, meaning other editors can help you work on it until it is ready. When you think a draft is ready to become an article there, you can submit it for other editors to review. If you choose to create an article using Articles for Creation, if the title was about, for example, Joe Green, the draft would be written at Draft: Joe Green. You can also draft an article at User:DJ Matthew ROCKS/Example, which is a similar process, but without formal reviewing. Feel free to ask here if you have any more questions. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 12:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Chatting
Hello, can i chat with someone user and if the answer is yes, how? ThanksDavid.jovanovikj (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Every user has a talk page, you can message them there. For example your talk page is at User talk:David.jovanovikj and mine is at User talk:Jeraphine Gryphon. If you mean chatting like in an instant messaging program then no, we don't have that here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should also be aware that Wikipedia is not like social media. Talk pages should be used to discuss Wikipedia articles and how to improve them, not for asking what you're doing this weekend or similar.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)