Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 59

My AFC Submission
Hi! A few days ago, I submitted this a few days ago and it got declined for having no refs. Could someone help me find a few reliable sources? Thanks in advance for your help, Jakob 23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Jakob and welcome the Teahouse. This is not an answer, but I have couple of questions for you: Who wrote the book? The text says one thing, and the infobox says something different. And did this book win the Young Reader's Choice Award? If so that might be something you could reference; you can’t use Wikipedia as a reference, but you might find something about it elsewhere. —teb728 t c 03:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, I messed up. The infobox is correct; Marie McSwigan wrote the book and Eric Bowman drew the pictures. Regarding your second question, it did win the Young Reader's Choice Award in 1945. Do you have any suggestions as to which website would have such information? Thank you for your help, Jakob 03:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jakob, and welcome to the Teahouse – it's a great place for questions like this (sorry I haven't been able to help you recently). I've added some references, and please see the discussion that you started on my talk page for more information. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 07:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jakob, welcome to the Teahouse. I took a peek at the article then made a few tweaks and added a couple of references from newspaper archives. I was quite surprised that the book didn't have a page here already! Keri (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have also located several quality references about the historical origins of the story and included that information. Now reviewed and passed, the article is no longer in Afc and has been moved into the main encyclopaedia. Well done! Keri (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say you did most of the work! Jako<b style="background:blue;color:Yellow;">b</b> 15:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Translating a page
I wanted to translate an existing (Russian) page into English because there's no English equivalent. What are the rules regarding this? Would I be able to simply translate all the info from the Russian page? Would I be able to use pictures from the Russian Wikipedia page without a problem? Can I cite sources that are not in English that are approved for the Russian Wikipedia?

Anyone who has any information on translating pages from other wiki's would be appreciated! I'm kind of new to this.

Geeeeklove (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Geeeeklove. Welcome to the Teahouse. If you'd like to translate a page from another Wikipedia project, you might start by reading the basic advice here. See also Copying within Wikipedia for information about proper attribution under Wikipedia's content licenses. Before you start, you may want to check that the topic of the article meets the notability requirements of the English Wikipedia. Many images can be reused on multiple wikis; if the image file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, it's probably okay. While English-language sources are preferred and it would be inadvisable to use only foreign-language sources, some Russian sources would be acceptable. If you speak Russian fluently and can confirm that the sources do support the content in question, that's a plus. I'm sure others will have more detailed advice, but I hope this helps get you started. Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Geeeeklove, welcome to the Teahouse. Translation of pages from other wikis is fine.  There are a few guidelines:
 * it's preferable not to use machine translation
 * you don't have to translate absolutely everything
 * you must attribute the Russian wiki article in your edit summary and add the translated article template on the talk page
 * write in the style that suits this wiki not the Russian wiki if there are differences
 * check the pictures out - many of the images used on the Rusian wiki are already on Wikimedia Commons so they can be used freely. if they aren't they can be copied to this wiki but the licences need to be appropriate to this wiki.
 * Hope you enjoy editing and please come back and ask. NtheP (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

another user interfering.
hi there, there's a page i used to edit. but there's a user who keeps on reverting my edited data (even if i provide the reference). i want to know how to block or report a user for vandalism or these type of acts.?Anidemun (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Anidemun. Welcome back.  If you could provide a link to the page you are concerned about, we will be better able to help you with your question. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollywood_films_of_2013Anidemun (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anidemun, as far as I can tell the other editor appears to object to your including the statement and reference that Bollywood is 100 years old in 2013. Now it's only been removed once with the edit summary "Wrong details added", so it's difficult to say if it's a disagreement with the factual accuracy of your statement or that they think you've added it in the wrong place/article. Either way your first action should be to try and discuss it with the other editor either on their talk page or on the article talk page.  What you are experiencing is a content dispute so when you discuss it please avoid using words like vandalism.  Vandalism on Wikipedia has a specific meaning and "is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - I don't see the other editors action as meeting this definition, so you must assume that they are acting in good faith and work on that basis.  If you cannot resolve this by discussion then there are further steps that can be taken but you must try and resolve it at as lower level as possible first. NtheP (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

editor retention
Are there any empirical studies regarding the Wikipedia mechanisms that encourage editors to stay and/or drive them away?

Specifically, I'm wondering whether an automated invitation to participate in something called "the Teahouse" has been shown to affect the likelihood that an editor returns; and, if so, how?

Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Twentyfour-dot-something, welcome to the Teahouse. There certainly are metrics about editor retention, you can find the most recent relating to the Teahouse at meta:Research:Teahouse/Phase 2 report/Metrics. NtheP (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have my article typed in Word and I just need help in setting it up in the Sandbox
I have all of the words highlighted that I went to become links.

I also need help in putting my references in.Ahlia.turner (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ahlia, welcome to the Teahouse! Firstly, thanks very much for your efforts to create a new article on Wikipedia. In order to place your writing in a sandbox, you simply create "User:Ahlia.turner/Sandbox" and you can place your work in there. There should also be a link at the top of Wikipedia, on the right hand side, to obtain it easier. In regards to the references, please see WP:CITE and learn further from that. But, basic information on references: add a tag to the start of where you would like you reference to be in the article or sandbox. Then, use cite web or something like that, and use the required parameters, which are the author(s), title, URL, work/publisher, publication date, and access date. Again, see more at WP:CITE. Now, to your question about links, you simply add  to the start, and then place your word to link, then   at the end. This will create a blue link if the article in question exists. Good luck with your article. Hope this helps, TBrandley 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ahlia, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should be aware that there are sometimes some problems when you cut and paste from Word to Wikipedia.  Sometimes some of the hidden formatting information contained in Word will be copied and show up as characters once you paste it into Wikipedia.  Not much you can do about it now, but be aware of it and clean up afterwards.  In the future you might find it better to use an unformatted word processor like Notepad. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of a article ends the long period of time already spend on Wikipedia
I found that many times when a person honestly creates articles and does not like the previous name and he is called as sock puppet by you and deletion of his articles is a great loss to him or not. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkumartundak (talk • contribs) 14:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm new so maybe I can afford to be blunt (a courtesy I expect others to extend to me). If you are talking about an article you created, and it was in English, it's probably because you need to master the language a little better. If it was written anything like you just did, it is horrible. Maybe you should try writing that article in your own language first, then try to find a way to translate it better. Otherwise, I'm sure it was a worthwhile topic.Patwinkle (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Any use of multiple accounts is always viewed with suspicion. Come clean. Tell us the title of the deleted article and tell us your previous user names and we will tell you to what extent you are guilty of sock puppetry. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

When my Article goes LIVE?
Hi! Earlier I was posted question about my article's media files has been deleted. that one can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_55#My_media_file_has_been_nominated_for_deletion_.26_some_are_deleted

and I got several questions answered, thanks for the all information given by hosts. and one answer given by hosts said I can add media files after my article goes live, but until now its only a AFC, so I want to know when my article goes live and what are the necessity to full fill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/St._Mary%27s_College,_Chilaw

Thanks Hasiwarna (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)HasiwarnaHasiwarna (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome back to the Teahouse. I see that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St. Mary's College, Chilaw is still an AFC which hasn't been submitted for review.  At some stage you deleted the box that tells you how to submit when you are ready for review.  It obviously isn't ready at the moment as you don't have any references, so please read WP:Referencing for beginners.  In general any statement in Wikipedia needs to be able to be verified, so you should provide citations. When you have added references for the content you have added, you can submit for review. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing/adding new material to a controversial page as a new user
After years of consulting Wikipedia I decided to create an account with the hopes of contributing to an article. The article I am interested in editing is "Pro-life movements"-- obviously a contentious topic that has been semi-protected to avoid vandalism. After reading the article itself, I noticed that there is no discussion of how people join the movement (i.e., do activists join because of ideological beliefs, are they recruited by members of their social network, etc.). I have read the existing scholarly literature and think that the article would benefit from a new section which summarizes the literature. I decided to enter the 'Talk' section of the page and create a new topic, but I found that as a new user I was blocked from doing so. So my question is: how can I get in contact with those who have substantively contributed to an article in order to suggest a contribution? I know that I can gain editorial access myself by making 10 edits and holding an account for 4 days, but is there a way in which I can create a discussion with existing editors without editing anything myself? Cfordahl88 (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Cfordahl, welcome to the Teahouse! You can do a few things: one, you could make an edit request and just put it on your own user talk page.  Two, you can ask at the permissions page for an admin to grant you the "confirmed" permission, which is the same thing that you'd normally get by waiting out the 4 days.  Three, you could just ask here. :)
 * As for your suggested edits, I take it you're talking about the United States pro-life movement article? I'd suggest that that section might not be the greatest place to start. I'm not sure that the movement the article is discussion is a single organization that one can really join, so I'm not sure what your section would be talking about. Also, we have to be very careful about neutral point-of-view and encyclopedic interest here: a simple "how-to" of how to join a movement might not fit in an encyclopedic article, even if well-sourced, and it might not be possible to write such a section neutrally, especially if it discusses a specific organization within the broader movement.  But I'd be interested to hear what others have to say about this; certainly don't take my word as gospel. :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the speedy response Writ Keeper! I will follow your suggestions. A quick clarification on my suggested edit/addition: yes, I was talking about the United states pro-life movement article. Generally speaking (and I think the existing article itself corroborates this), I think one can 'join' the pro-life movement, as the movement itself is really just an aggregate of activist organizations (of diffuse tactics, etc.). The contribution I have in mind would summarize empirical research on the motivations of pro-life activists for joining the movement (or, if you prefer, becoming pro-life activists). Past research seemed to indicate that people joined the movement out of religious or political commitment. However, recent empirical work by the sociologist Zaid Munson indicates that joining the pro-life movement might more typically result from life course changes rather than firm ideological conviction (e.g., one moves to a new town and wants to make new friends and so joins a pro-life organization).

But your larger point is well taken--perhaps it is better as a novice to begin with a less controversial topic! Cfordahl88 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Create math formulas
I am a first-time writer in Wikipedia. I am creating a new math article (content) titled Standard-Slope Ingegration and need to enter math formulas that I created using MS Word Equation Editor. How do I copy my formulas into my article (or reproduce them within my article) while working in my Sandbox? Also, am I creating this content in the right place? Will I be able to move it or submit it from here when finished?PeterJItalia (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm no great shakes on editing maths articles but there do appear to be two ways to display formulas in article.  The first is to use HTML for which you can find the codes (or symbols to cut and paste) at Mathematical symbols.  The second way is the use AMS-LaTex markup which you can find instructions at Help:Displaying a formula.  From looking at maths articles it looks like AMS-LaTex is preferred but that doesn't stop you using HTML if you find that easier - it certainly looks easier to me!  If you want specialist help on either of these I would suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics or the subpage dedicated to typography of maths articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Typography.
 * Creating your article at your sandbox is very much the right thing to do. When you are ready to move it into the main article namespace you can do so using the in built move function Vector hidden move button.jpg and moving the article to the Article namespace with whatever name you want to give it. NtheP (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues on the RCCM page

 * Questioner is referring to Research Council for Complementary Medicine.

I expanded the RCCM page and attenpted to improve it, but it has the following banner at the top of the page

"This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (October 2012) This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (October 2012) This article does not cite any references or sources. (November 2007)"

I am afraid I dont understand - there are lots of links to other articles! Can you help me with the external links? Why is the old dated 2007 still there as there are now references and sources in the article?

Sorry to ask such basic questions, all advice appreciated!

Ding47 Ding47 (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ding47, welcome to the teahouse! Don't worry, basic questions are easier than complicated questions :-)


 * When you fix a problem, it's fine to edit the page to remove the template (or part of it) as appropriate. At the moment, though, I would say the problem isn't yet fixed - for example the quite lengthy "First decade 1983 - 1993" section still doesn't have any wikilinks at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ding47, welcome to the Teahouse. There is no need to apologize just for not understanding exactly, it is the process of learning. Anyway, the more links tag refers to the amount of links provide in your article to other articles, with WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK in mind. It appears correct because the article does not provide many links to other articles at the English Wikipedia. In regards to the external links, it means that there are too many external links provided in the article itself that violate WP:ELNO and appear to read as an advertisement, which Wikipedia is not. I would suggest removing all of those external links, none of them are up for any good right now. But feel free to create an external links section, with the official website in it or something perhaps, that is fine, but you may wish to see WP:EL. The reference tag is there because no one has removed it, and updated it, you are welcome to remove it now, as there are references. Hope this helps, TBrandley 18:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * thanks for those comments, I am beginning to get it, will see what I can do to improve the page

Ding47 79.67.225.57 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to acknowledge an edit wrongly identified as vandalism?
Hi, I accidentally reverted an edit by an IP user on the Wonder Woman article and wrongly identified it as vandalism. I had no intention of doing this- I wanted to simply see the edit made by the user and opened that 'comparison'/ difference between revisions page. I noticed some text in red written in front of the ip user edit title- "[rollback (VANDAL)]". As this was the first time I saw some text like this, out of curiosity i clicked on it and it reverted the entire edit by the IP user and even identified it as vandalism. Well I wanted to revert the edit made by the user but not identify it as vandalism as it really wasn't! It's not even letting me revert by actions, saying it has to be done manually- which I don't exactly want to do as I was going to revert the edit anyway. Is there anyway I can show that the IP user's edit was NOT VANDALISM. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi WonderBoy1998, welcome to the Teahouse! One option is to make a "null edit", i.e. make an edit adding a space, and then use the edit summary of that edit to note that the previous edit you reverted was not in fact vandalism.


 * Since it's a one-off and it sounds like you haven't left a "vandalism" warning for the other editor on their talk page, you could probably just leave it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This has happened to me in the past, and I usually just write the other editor a note on their talk page, explaining that it was a mistake. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Or, that sounds like you have twinkle enabled, so just go back to your edit and click the middle, brown, rollback link and use it to revert your accidental rollback, explaining so in e edit summary. :) Hope this helps! gwickwire  talk edits 20:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing for Employer
I have been asked to completely revamp Herman Saatkamp's page. He is my employer. I have searched other College President pages and have tried to model after them. I used the edit option the first few times and everything was deleted. The next time I created an account and have established a Content box and referenced one name but received an e-mail saying that it has been changed by HostBot again. What can I do to retain the information I am trying to upload?

Thanks, HJSwiki (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello HJS, it appears the article previously existed (starting in 2005) but was full of copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO). That is, text cut-and-pasted from other sources rather than being written by an editor. Accordingly almost everything in the article has been blanked; the editor Drmies left you a message on your Talk page explaining this.


 * So far as improving the article, given that you work for Saatkamp, if you do edit it you must proceed very cautiously to avoid bias from your WP:Conflict of interest. Further note, since Saatkamp is currently living, for his protection we must insist on very strict sourcing requirements, so please don't add any information that can't be clearly sourced to somewhere reliable. Even if Saatkamp himself calls you into his office and says "I like reading Charles Dickens", you can't add that to the article unless it's been specifically noted in a WP:Reliable source somewhere.


 * If you want to contribute to the article, ensure everything is sourced as you add it in. WP:Referencing for beginners is a good place to check on formatting. Also note that official university bios are not preferred (except for basic things like date/place of birth) because they aren't formal publications and thus not subject to peer review, strict verification, etc. Feel free to post here if you make any new additions and want input, but anything you add must be a) sourced and b) written in your own words, not cut-and-pasted from a copyrighted source. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How do you edit the page in Facebook to which Wikipedia is linked to?
Many Wikipedia articles have their own "page" in Facebook. However, there is no available option to change the category of the page (for example: Interest, Organization, etc), and the image added to the Wikipedia article does not appear automatically in the corresponding page.

Is there any way to edit this? Do I have to go through a certain process to get the image displayed on Facebook?

BigFatCake (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi BigFatCake, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has no control over the content of Facebook - the two sites are not connected. Facebook users often copy Wikipedia content onto pages there, but that content is a one-time copy, not a live feed from Wikipedia. If you want to see changes to pages on Facebook, you will need to contact the Facebook users who maintain those pages - Wikipedia editors can't do anything about the content of other websites. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Yunshui, thank you very much for responding.
 * However, I have done some researching and am afraid you are mistaken. Facebook's "Community pages" take information directly from Wikipedia, and changes made to articles in Wikipedia automatically change these pages in Facebook as well. There is no person that is in charge of the page, so I cannot contact anyone requesting a change. I was simply curious why the picture I put up on the article was not directly impacting the community page that took information from the article, and what factors affected the "Community page"'s label as "interest, organization, school" and such.


 * BigFatCake (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's interesting, I didn't know that. I assume there's some sort of Facebook app that lifts content from Wikipedia, in that case. I'd assume that an automated program would take data from Wikipedia periodically, so it may simply be that the Facebook page hasn't "caught up" yet, although not being much of a Facebooker myself I really couldn't say for certain. You might try asking for technical help at the Village Pump, but I suspect the only place you'll get a definitive solution is still going to be at Facebook's end. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, Yunshui! I appreciate it.


 * BigFatCake (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Template:HD/facebook is the standard reply when people ask about Facebook copies of Wikipedia articles. The Help Center link worked in the past but not now. I haven't found a new page with the information they had there, but it didn't say anything about how to influence the content of the Facebook copy. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverting Edits
How do you revert more than 1 edits, having a hard time with it? (Monkelese (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Monkelese. The easiest approach is to go into the page history and find the last good diff (before the changes you want to revert took place). Open that diff, and then attempt to edit the page normally by clicking on the "Edit" tab. You'll see a warning message notifying you that you're about to save an old version of the page; ignore it and save the page. This will replace the current (vandalised) version of the article with the older (unvandalised) version.


 * If you find yourself doing a lot of anti-vandalism work (and good on you if you do!) then you may want to consider installing Twinkle, and automated tool which allows you to revert multiple edits. You can also look into applying for rollback rights at some point in the future. Hope this helps, feel free to ask me if you need more exposition. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Good advice. It's probably worth adding that rollbacking (whether done with Twinkle or with the rollback user right) is intended to undo vandalism, not other edits. Sometimes there are valid reasons to undo a series of edits that aren't vandalism, and that should always be done manually in the way Yunshui described. Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Can an article be added to a WikiProject while it is proposed for deletion?
I think the article should be reviewed by the Software WikiProject to have a balanced comparison with other software articles. BNVOTFQW (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is always possible to add a WikiProject's banner to an article's talk page, even if the article is being proposed for deletion. It is also possible to add a comment to the talk page of a given WikiProject regarding the article being proposed for deletion. It often is the case that the editors of that WikiProject will be able to contribute to the discussion regarding the article being proposed for deletion. That would allow the editors who are involved in that topic to know about the proposed deletion, and possibly either maybe help find sources if they know of them to establish the notability of the subject, perhaps propose a merger to another article if they believe that the better option, or in some cases indicate why they believe that the article in question might not be appropriate for wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for the explanation. BNVOTFQW (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This should be encouraged, and (in my opinion) be done by the nominator, particularly if no WikiProjects are associated with the article at that time. Adding articles means that if any article alerts are set up, the article will be listed there (normally transcluded within WikiProject pages) automatically. -- Trevj (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Defining "Original Research".
I have read the guidelines on this, but it still seems unclear. Does not being able to use original research mean that I myself cannot be the person doing the original research, or that I cannot use original research as a reference? If I am to take the guidelines on this at face value, it sounds like I can only use as references, a summary article on the topic (or an excerpt from one) written by a credible source. If so, what is a credible source? I noticed some contentious content where the source is a blog by someone I never heard before that is not affiliated with group that is credible. How would I protest on such basis without getting into a "war"? Also, are court documents acceptable when refering to a factual statement, or do I have to find an article about the topic refering to that document? Also, what if the reference is a book, or material, that is not easy to obtain (eg it only exists in the Library of Congress)? Can a reference be directed at that or does one have to find a link of a copy avaiable on the net?Patwinkle (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Patwinkle, an a very warm welcome to da Teahouse. 1. What defines a "credible source"? Simple! Read this! 2. If you feel that the sources are "contentious", just voice out your opinion somewhere (like talk pages), or you could boldly remove them (with a valid reason, of course.) 3. Court documents can be considered credible and can be used as references. (One example of its usage: Trial of Michael Jackson) 4. References need not be found online, offline sources are also okay. (etc. books, newspapers) There is no need for an internet equivalent.


 * Hope this helps and happy editing. ;) Cheers! Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 12:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Patwinkle, there are two aspects to this, firstly the sources used and secondly the reliability of those sources. Wikipedia is not a publisher of primary research, therefore preferred sources are those that review, discuss, comment upon primary evidence in other words secondary sources.  There are occasions when primary sources can be used but they are limited.  Reliable sources are those where they can be "trusted" so news organisations, academic journals are examples of reliable sources, blogs aren't.  The sources should also be independent of the topic - this isn't so much about the reliability of the source but about maintaining a neutral point of view.  As Bonkers has said if you think a source isn't credible then you should start by discussing your concerns on the article talk page explaining why think they aren't credible and suggesting alternatives.  Court documents can be used if as you state they are supporting a merely factual statement - for example establishing the existence of a court case.  References do not have to be available online, paper documents are fine as long as they can be read somewhere should someone wish to do so.  NtheP (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Good question. WP:SOURCEACCESS speaks of material in print in libraries for instance. Noticeboards such as Reliable sources/Noticeboard and No original research/Noticeboard grapple with such questions when specific instances of differences of opinion arise. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all, this was helpful. Patwinkle (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

list of pages
hello, How can I find the list of pages that I created on Wikipedia Trabelsiismail (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

...moved from my talk page.
 * I'm not sure, let's ask at the Teahouse. heather walls (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Trabelsiismail. Welcome to the Teahouse.  There is a line at the top of your screen with several things listed on it.  One of them is titled "contributions".  Click that and you will get a list of all your contributions.  Alternately, on the left side of the screen is a list of links.  If you click on "special pages", you will get another long list of links.  Under "User and Rights" you will find a link to "User contributions".  That will get it for you too.  These links will get you everything yo have done under your username, except for postings to articles that have been deleted. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Trabelsiismail, and welcome to The Teahouse. To find the articles you have created, click the word "Contributions" at the top of the page.  That will show you a list of every edit you have made.  At the bottom of that page is a link that says "Articles created".  Click that, and you'll get to see every page you have created. Does that help?  -- Jayron  32  21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * thank you for your response, I am very happy to be among you Trabelsiismail (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

user page
hi how can i check if I've created a user page or an article page? Should it say it somewhere on the new page I've created? 77.76.77.160 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, 77, welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, it will indicate it in the title of the page.  If it's a user page, the title will start with "User:", whereas if it's an article page, it won't have anything like that.  As another example, the title to this page is "Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions"; the "Wikipedia:" bit at the front means that this page is within the "Wikipedia" namespace, which we use for policy pages and discussions about the project. Does that help? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, 77. You haven't created anything on this IP except for this question. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Double check that you're logged in--then you can just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/YOURUSERNAME to see a list of everything you've created/edited, including pages. — Theo polisme  00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Change in Link
Right now the link to my page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gsunny.488. I would like to change this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinay_Singh or atleast Is it possible to avoid the 'User:' characters from the link ?

Gsunny.488 (talk) 10:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Vinay. Since you requested a change of username, your userpage is now located at User:Vinay Singh (your original userpage at User:Gsunny.488 is now a redirect). You cannot remove the "User:" prefix; this is the part of the title that locates your page in userspace, rather than the main article space. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Vinay! Note that the mainspace slot Vinay Singh is already occupied by an article about a footballer; if your page is not a formal article, it must have "User:" in front of it to keep it from being listed as an article. What you have now at User:Gsunny.488 would not be accepted as an article itself. I would suggest you read the guidelines What may I not have in my user pages? to make sure you don't break those rules. Your userspace can have some basic info about you in the context of your work on Wikipedia, but if it starts turning into a resume, or a "fake article" promoting yourself, it will be deleted. The things you should use the userpage for are found at What may I have in my user pages?. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Making a link open in a new tab
I know that ctrl-click opens a link in a new tab. But can you put something in the code that makes it open in a new tab anyway? I really want this for my wikiversity editing rather than wikipedia so I hope the feature works for both, if there is one. (I tried putting in <a target="_blank"> .... </a> but it didn't work.) Droflet (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Droflet. There's no in-house script that does this, to the best of my knowledge (although you can set external links to always open in a new tab under My preferences>>Gadgets). However certain Firefox add-ons, like Tab Mix Plus, can force all links to open in new tabs; if you use Ff, that might be a road you could go down. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Yunshui. Thanks for the quick response.  But what I want is to put in an occasional external (or internal) link so that when any user clicks on it it opens in a new tab. I am surprised there is no wiki-markup to do this.  If there was, then a diagram, say, from an external web site could be displayed and the user could keep that open while flicking back and forth to the wiki page where there was a detailed description or commentary.  Droflet (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean. I doubt that would be possible - it's up to the reader and/or their owm browser configuration to decide how they open any given link. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not possible; MediaWiki generates the anchor tags itself; it doesn't allow users to make their own. You can get more information about which HTML tags are allowed and which aren't at Meta. Probably for the best, really; if readers want to open things in a new tab, they can always ctrl-click it themselves. No real reason for us to force them to do so. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Writ Keeper, for the useful reference. I think that occasionally to have the ability to make a link open in a new page would be useful and, used judiciously, a benefit for the user.  I am pretty sure it is mostly nerds like us who know about CTRL-click!  Where should I make a request/suggestion for someone to implement an 'open-in-new-tab' enhancement to wikitext?  Droflet (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You might be right about us nerds! :) Anyway, I would guess that one of the Village Pumps (perhaps Proposals, or maybe Technical) would be the way to go here, to figure out whether the community would agree with the need for it. If a consensus develops there, I think it can then be kicked to the devs. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed there (and elsewhere) a number of times before... generally to no effect. Not suggesting you shouldn't try again, but be aware that others have trodden this path before and not really gotten very far. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Google search results - Knowledge Graphs - How to get content to feed into Google knowledge graphs
I was wondering what relationship there is between the content of a Wikipedia article and what appears in Google's knowledge graphs (here is a link to an article explaining what knowledge graphs are: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2175783/Google-Launches-Knowledge-Graph-First-Step-in-Next-Generation-Search). I was also wondering why some topics produce a short summary from Wikipedia while others do not.

For instance, searching for the person "Joseph Daul" produces on the right of the search results a picture, a short excerpt from his Wikipedia article and his birth place and date. In contrast, searching for the person "Ingeborg Gräßle"(a page I have been working on) produces nothing on the right side.

Which are the variables that affect wheather or not content from Wikipedia will end up in a knowledge graph?

Thanks,

Stuart Stu18401 (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Stuart, thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I can only give you my opinion which is that this is all down to Google's search algorithms and how much of a knowledge graph they have yet drawn up that includes the subjects in it.  Take one of the examples in the video in the article you linked to and search for Leonardo Da Vinci - here you don't get the Wikipedia article on it's own but links to examples of his artworks and links to other Renaissance artists.  That I suspect is a well constructed knowledge graph, Joseph Daul is less so, so there is more from one source i.e. Wikipedia showing and Ingeborg Gräßle is even less well developed so not front end graph has yet been generated.  There is a Wikipedia article on this topic at Knowledge Graph but I guess we'll all have to see where it goes to in future. NtheP (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the help! Stu18401 (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

How to edit article main title?
Hi I am a first time editor and submitted an article but would like to edit the title. I have named it Ballet Nimba when in fact it needs to be corrected to Ballet Nimba as this is the name of a performing arts company. How do I do this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.66 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have moved the page for you (if you logged into your account, you would be able to do this yourself, but you can't as an IP), it's now at Ballet Nimba. There are a few formatting and content issues, which I'll take care of shortly (to create an internal link, enclose the term in square brackets like this . Putting three inverted commas instead renders the text in boldface. See the markup help page for more details). Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

How to upload a picture?
Hello. I want to change a picture but when I clicked on the Insert Picture button, there's no upload option. How do I go about using another picture?Treeroy (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Teeroy and welcome to the Teahouse! There are two types of images:
 * Free – you created the image yourself
 * Fair-use (non-free) – you found the image somewhere (e.g. a website)


 * If you created the image yourself, you may use the image upload wizard on Commons. The main file upload wizard is located at this link: File Upload Wizard, and it should be able to guide you through most of the steps. If the image is fair-use, make sure to add the appropriate copyright information in the wizard. Once you have uploaded the image, add   in the page's code. If you need any specific help with the process, feel free to ask here.
 * (for more information, please see the image use policy)
 * The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 01:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Changing username
Hi/I would like to know how can I change my user name in Wikipedia?Shirin Nezhadbahram (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! Take a look at this page. :) — Theo polisme  02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

How Do You Move From the Sandbox
I completed an article in my sandbox and followed the instructions to move it. I used Move to Wikipedia and to User but when I search for it I can't find it. What am I doing wrong?Robert Adamski (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Robert, welcome to the Teahouse! the problem here is that "Wikipedia" is actually the wrong choice in that menu; the correct choice was "(Article)", at the top of the list. It's actually a very common mistake to make, though, so don't worry about it! The deal is that the "Wikipedia" choice on that menu refers to what's called the Wikipedia namespace, or WP for short.  It's not a place for articles, but a place for the policies, noticeboards, help pages and the like; all the information about Wikipedia, but not the encyclopedia itself.  This very page is actually within the WP namespace: you can tell because it has the "Wikipedia:" bit on the front.  Anyway, Nthep (another host) has moved the page back into your sandbox at User:Robert Adamski/sandbox2, so you can try again there.  Hope this helps! :) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Robert, welcome to the Teahouse. Your article has done the rounds and is now to be found at User:Robert Adamski/sandbox2.  The navigation bit first.  At the top of the screen you will find a number of links to; your Userpage, your Talk page, Preferences, Watchlist and Contributions.  If you click on Contributions you will see the edits you have made starting with the most recent.  Moving the page, you obviously found the move button in the drop down list at the top of the edit screen and managed to move the article from your sandbox.  Unfortunately you sent it to the wrong namespace.  The are several namespace and intuitive as moving the article to the Wikipedia namespace is that was the wrong one.  That namespace is for pages about Wikipedia (like this page).  You worked out it was the wrong area and then moved it to a place in the User namespace again incorrect, I'm afraid.  Articles belong in the (Article) or main namespace.
 * I could have moved it from the user namespace to the mainspace for you but instead I've moved it back to a sandbox page of yours. The reason for this is that left in mainsapce the article would very likely get deleted as it, currently, doesn't explain the notability of the church nor is it supported by any references.  Moving it back to your sandbox at least eliminates this possibility while you work on it.  I suggest you don't move it until you have resolved the notability and referencing issues NtheP (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you reply to answers?Robert Adamski (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You've just done it. NtheP (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi- protecting a page
Can only an administrator protect a page or users can too? (Libby995 (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Libby! Only administrators can place semi- or full-protection on a page, although most (not all) registered users can still edit a page that has been semi-protected. If you need to request the semi-protection of a page, you can ask at Requests for page protection, though you should read the guidelines about the purposes for which protection is and isn't used. Basically, semi-protection should only be used in cases of heavy, sustained disruption (almost always in the form of vandalism) of a page from many different IP addresses or brand-new accounts. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

How do I become better at what I do?
How do I become better at what I do? How do I improve? How do I get top ranking? EricEgo2012 (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi EricEgo2012; welcome to the Teahouse. There's no ranking system here at Wikipedia per se, although with considerable effort you might make it onto List of Wikipedians by number of edits (you'll need over 1.2 million edits if you want to knock Koavf off the top spot, though!). If you want to improve your editing, however, I'd suggest that you may want to consider requesting adoption from a more experienced user, who can help you learn the ropes. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To get better, find something that needs doing that you enjoy; and listen to the feedback from other editors. Without knowing you and what you enjoy, that could be anything from WP:Articles for Creation, WP:Articles for Deletion, WP:New Page Patrol, WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, something else completely, or a mix of everything. I'm in the top couple of thousand on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits, and it's nothing to write home about, it just happened because I was having fun doing stuff that was useful. Note that even getting to the top of that list doesn't give you any extra rights or magic powers: those come completely separate, unrelated, processes such as WP:Requests for adminship. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Want to add a link to the references section
Hi,

I'd like to add a link to the references section of an article but cannot for the life of me work out how to do this.

I can see the references are contained in a reflink template but how do you add something to the list of links?

Am I being think? Probably? But cannot find anything in the help section that actually helps!

Many thanks

62.189.124.253 (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia uses a bit of coding to automatically generate lists of references - here's what you need to do:
 * Open the page in the edit window and find the place in the article text where you want the citation to appear (usually, this will be immediately after the full stop at the end of the sentence your reference supports).
 * At that point in the text, add your reference between two tags, like this:
 * Save the page. Assuming there's a template already on it (if not, put one at the bottom of the page), you'll see a small superscript numeral at the place where you placed the citation, and the full reference in the footnotes.
 * Hope this helps; see Help:Citing sources for more information. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think I've got it now!


 * Is it possible to edit how the link appears in the References section though?

62.189.124.253 (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The template will display whatever you put in between the   tags, so that's where you can change the appearance of the reference. There are a number of  templates you can use to format the reference;  for websites,  for books and so on. Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  12:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Images of human poop
I am NOT a troll, but just curious, what was the exact rationale behind why they decided not to have any images of human faeces on the human faeces page? They have pictures of noses in nose, pictures of people picking noses in nose picking, and LOTs more gross stuff which I would not like to talk much about (hehe). Anyway, why? I would love to add in images of human poop in the human faeces page, to make the page more informative and encyclopedic. (Note that even the main Faeces article has pictures of animal poop. So what's wrong with pictures of human dung? Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Bonkers. This was a really interesting question to wake up to . The answer would be, I really don't know. If you go on the article's talk page, you can find a list of wiki-projects that support the article; perhaps you could ask at one of their talk pages or on the article's talk page. There was just a discussion (as a matter of fact it may still be ongoing, I didn't participate, I just heard about it) regarding another similar query, so I imagine the result of that one will influence what happens should you raise the point here. Go   Phightins  !  11:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd guess the principle of least astonishment would be at least partially responsible. Plus, how would an image increase readers' understanding? Unless we have some seriously anally retentive readers, anyone in the world can see an example of human faeces just about every day of their lives, if they so choose... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * True that, but Yunshui, your statement is based on the assumption that anyone knows how human poop looks like. (On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, so... A dog just might me viewing the human poop page to find out how human poop looks like?) Whether one knows how human dung looks like is besides the point. The point is, added images of human poop would enhance the quality of the article. (And yup, not forgetting the "seriously anally retentive" readers. Anyway, I will post the question on relevant talk pages soon. Thank you! Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Answering Tea house question
except the host can anyone answer Tea house question?-pratyya (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say most definitely, if you have the experience. (I'm not a host here.) cheers. ;) Bonkers The Clown  (Nonsensical Babble) 11:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes to article
Am a new editor here. Yesternight i spent some 1.5hrs to edit and add relevent information to a biographical article and also provided the references.Not 24 hrs since i made the edits and that article is once again as as same as it was before i edited it.Is there no way i can avoid this happening? This was quite discouraging to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassinatora (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Assassinatora. Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume the article you're referring to is Aditya Shrivastava. If you look at the history of the article, you'll see that your changes are still intact; no one has edited the article since you. Try clearing the cache on your browser and see if that helps. (By the way, your changes look mostly fine, but the india-forums.com reference doesn't look like a reliable source). Rivertorch (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

When does a stub become expanded as a regular article?
Hi I am new. If I expand a stub, how much information do I need to put up to make my piece no longer a stub?

Is there a requirement? I am just curious.

Thanks NatashaP 03:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nphrsai (talk • contribs)
 * Welcome to the teahouse! There's no technical requirement, but the general rule of thumb on DYK (which only allows Start articles and not stub articles) is 1500 characters of readable prose. When an article has been sufficiently expanded, the stub tag can be removed and WikiProject grade can be promoted to Start class. The article that you've expanded, Morganella morganii, currently consists of 2913 characters of prose, and more than adequently qualifies as a Start article.-- xanchester  (t)  03:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and tagged the article as a Start class article.-- xanchester  (t)  04:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

my userboxes
me again sorry about all the questions, but can you tell me why the USBs already on my user page are all out of place like that. thank you. Zeroro (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! You'll need a above and a ((userbox bottom}} below your userboxes per column. See User:Xanchester/Userboxes for an example.-- xanchester   (t)  03:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

acually i think i'll keep them the way they are but thanx anyway. Zeroro (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about my article.
I've been working on this page in my sandbox, but it doesn't seem right. Is there any help I can get on making it better? Or is this the wrong place to ask? King jakob c (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome! I'll take a look at it and pass on any feedback. Keri (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, had a read through, and then nosed around to see what sources you might be able to use. I'll post some info to the sandbox talk page first thing in the morning. If you check out Charles Norris (medical examiner) you may also get an idea for how you might layout the article. Keri (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks.King jakob c (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)