Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 150

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 145←Archive 148Archive 149Archive 150Archive 151Archive 152→Archive 155

Help test out The Wikipedia Adventure, a new and fun way to learn how to edit Wikipedia

Signup is now on the Teahouse talk page.

This space is reserved for questions. Ross Hill (talk) 00:53, 17 Oct 2013 (UTC) 00:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

primary, secondary sources and specialist fields

Hi there and thanks in advance - i've asked this question on article talk page, but would love to get general advice also... Topic area is mind-body practices and philosophies, which are often contested as pseudoscience or as self-promotion and obviously need good solid work to create NPOV that represents without undue weight both sceptics and promotors. Question is - I get anxious about the primary-secondary source distinction in an emerging and specialist field. A field that has emerged enough to reach notability that is. My thought is the guiding principle is NPOV, independence, reliability, credibility - thus as a field develops peer reviewed and scholarly published journals and gains wider academic engagement, then these sources gain the credibility we're looking for from a secondary source? - but someone commented for example, that wikipedia should not report 'what body psychotherapists say about themselves but what others say about body psychotherapists' which is obviously a good guideline to prevent advertising - except that don't we then also risk getting into a kind of corner where populism is the standard rather than notability and only non-specialists can report on specialist topics therefore reducing reliability and accuracy? thanks for your thoughts Depthdiver (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Depthdiver and welcome to the Teahouse. By the way, your username really befits your question, as that dives in depth :-). What I believe your asking is whether in emerging fields where the majority of the knowledge is held by experts, who publish primary source data, wouldn't what they publish be inherently more reliable than what someone who is not an expert in the field publishes as a secondary source. Am I right? If so, I would tend to agree with your statement that experts in the field generally publish information that may be more reliable. However, on Wikipedia, we have a principle called verifiability, not truth, so we have to be able to verify information from somewhere, and often, secondary sources interpret the information, and we go with that, as opposed to synthesizing data and writing it in more "everyday language" for our readers to understand, and thus have in inclination to secondary sources, so as to avoid original research. Excellent question, and I would welcome thoughts from other Teahousers on this. Go Phightins! 22:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Go Phightins!, that was really helpful and it was good to read the verifiability not truth article and understand more deeply ;-) the principle - NOR is a fascinating discipline, and even tho I built up some muscles doing evidence-based policy work, where the point is to objectively report what has been found, not make any claims yourself, it’s definitely always a challenge for a writer/researcher :-)
Anyway, I think I can now refine my question a little more to this - can a primary source become a secondary source with the growth of a discipline - what I mean is, let’s say a neuroscientist writes a book that summarises the state of neuroscience knowledge - I would be tempted to consider that an expert secondary source … or is it primary because it is from someone within the field? I’m thinking also of where a main author has initiated a field (say for example Dan Siegel and interpersonal neurobiology) and then mainstream academic publishers have published textbooks by Siegel and others on the area which summarise the knowledge and claims in the field - but I see this article has been tagged as relying on primary sources … and maybe it is a grey area depending on the size and history of the discipline?
Thanks so much for the engagement!Depthdiver (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
In regards to your follow up question, I think it would depend what distinction between primary and secondary sources you make - for reliability and verifiability purposes on Wikipedia, I would say that, yes, over time, what was initially a "groundbreaking primary source" into a new field could develop into an excellent source for a Wikipedia article, but I don't really think something that is a primary ever metamorphoses into a secondary source. Go Phightins! 21:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Diver, I think your book example could be a secondary source, but only if the author discussed all the research in the field in depth, not just his own. Here is a more concrete example. Say a professor writes a paper on a subject that he is very expert on. That paper would not be an acceptable source. However, if and when it is published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, then the journal article can be used. Does that make it all clear as mud?  :) Happy editing and Welcome to wikipedia! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to you both! am definitely getting a better feel - and I guess the brilliant thing is, that other editors will help along the way. cheers, and yay for the teahouse - more questions i'm sure down the track Depthdiver (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

To Promote a Friend

Hello. I was wondering if I could make a Wikipedia page about a musical artist I happen to know, Hayden Who. I don't know for sure, but I think a Hayden Who page has been deleted a few times. I am friend of a member of this band, and I would like to create a page of his works to raise awareness. I'm quite the fan of the his works. Do I know the personnel? Yes. He is a solo artist that works for an independent label that I am still researching. I am also researching his record labels and any child acts and collaborations he has had. Hayden Who's music is mentioned on various album websites, so I think he deserves some more recognition. Is it alright if I make a page for Hayden Who? Cj over (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I would only disagree with the thought that "raising awareness" generally falls on the wrong side of policy. An encyclopedia is for that very reason. Awareness is an educational description of passing on information. That is indeed our core reasoning for being. Raising awareness to the subjects of our articles from Julius Caesar to Ebay. Awareness sounds like an attempt to promote...but in itself it is not. Paired with the wrong reasons for the purpose of raising awareness is where things go wrong on Wikipedia as purely promotional content is also "raising awareness" but for purely personal reasons, not educational reasons. But Writ keeper is not wrong at the heart of what was said....I just wanted to add my 2 cents.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Of course. I have read the guidelines for notability, and I understand that I cannot write the article. However, I believe I misspoke about the article's writing format. To raise awareness, I did not wish to write something along the lines of "please listen to Hayden WHo" or "He needs your approval" or anything like that. I just meant to make a regular Wikipedia style page, and write (not in the entire format of a Wikipedia article, but written in the form of an example now):

Hayden Who is a solo Canadian electronic jazz/avant garde musician. He is most notable for his debut mixtape "Candles" and his child act, Who's Masquerade. Style: Hayden Who is known for his use of isntrumental tracks that sometimes carry an audio of a famous musician speaking, such as an interview with Paul Simon. He is also influenced by electronic bands such as Daft Punk, and uses saxophone in most of his music. Discography: Mixtapes: Candles (2012), The Absent Tapes (2013) Studio albums: MANNER (2012), Blue (2013) EP's: Love and Death EP (2013) Of cousre, I now see it pointless to do so. If I want to do this, I will make a Bandcamp wikia if I want to do this sometime in the future. Ether way, thank you for replying and I will try to keep my future articles only on notable subjects. Cj over (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How to fix a disambiguation in an infobox?

In an article on Willow Creek Winery, I want to fix disambiguations in the infobox for the words "eggs" and "wormwood." Normally, I would use a piped link but because the infobox automatically links words, it won't accept a piped link. DavidinNJ (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello David. I realise that this is not the answer you are looking for, but in my opinion, none of these words should be linked in the Infobox, and none of them except perhaps 'wormwood' should be linked in the main text. WP:OVERLINK is the relevant section. --ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Colin, The infobox automatically links the words. I put in for example "eggs", and even though there are no brackets around the word, it is linked to the disambiguation for egg. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh right, I didn't realise that. And looking at the source of the Template:infobox winery, I can see that the linking is automatic and that there is no way to provide a piped link. It would be easy to edit the template to remove the automatic linking, so you could if you wanted provide a link or a piped link as the argument; but editing templates is not something that should be done lightly. You might suggest it at Template talk:infobox winery, or perhaps at WP:INFOBOX. --ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. This template is used by hundreds of articles, so I'm a bit reluctant to modify it. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The "other products" section in the infobox is optional. If left blank, it won't show, and the other products can be shown (and referenced) just in the body of the article. The alternative is to link to the disambiguated article names, such as the Latin name for beverage wormwood. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

My talk page

Hi. I noticed recently that messages from my talk page were disappearing as new ones came in. I created an archive quite some time ago but it seems since then this problem has been happening. When I check the only page in the archive, there is a big time gap between the last message and the first one on the current talk page. If this makes any sense and someone could assist, I'd be very grateful. Robvanvee 14:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the history of your talk page, I can see that Legobot has been archiving it about once a week, but it has been moving archived threads to User talk:Robvanvee/Archive 3, whereas the archive link at the top of your talk page points to an older archive page User talk:Robvanvee/Archive 1. I don't know how you can untangle this (maybe someone who knows about Legobot can help), but at least you can see where your messages are going. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Rob. If you click on the "View history" tab of your talk page you will see that since May you have been archiving to User talk:Robvanvee/Archive 3, and not to the previous archive at User talk:Robvanvee/Archive 1. You changed your archive settings on your talk page at the end of April. I'm not an expert on MiszaBot, so I don't know what you need to do to sort out the links in the header to show links to Archive 1 and 3; I see that the search does index both files. A separate entry of {{archives}} would give a link to both archive files outside of the MiszaBot header. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah what I'd ideally like is to be able to see both in the archive and for the bot to continue sending them there. But at least I know where to find them now. Thanks guys! Robvanvee 16:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop Vandalism

All experienced editors know how to respond to vandals.We have policies (Banning policy, blocking policy and protection policy) but to me they seem not very effective.They are still vandalizing even someone warned them.I saw many vandals at Wikipedia but most of them are non-Wikipedians.So we should let Wikipedians to edit and not others.Well this is my opinion but I'd like to get other peoples opinions on this. Paleocemoski (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Paleocemoski: Hi Paleocemoski. Just by editing, we are all Wikipedians. I think what you might mean is that we should restrict editing to people who have signed up for accounts to reduce vandalism. If I'm right that that's what you meant, I agree it would likely reduce vandalism, but it would also have a lot of bad effects, like stopping all the good edits from anonymous users that are made, and restricting our userbase to only those who sign up first, which I think would vastly reduce the number of people who try out editing first anonymously, and only then sign up, thus leading to far fewer new users becoming productive editors. Some determined vandals might also just switch from editing anonymously to signing up and then vandalizing (most of the really bad vandals—those who do sophisticated "sneaky" vandalism that is hard to spot—are actually signed up users). This issue has been discussed many times and rejected. We have a page about proposals that have come up many times and the common outcome of discussion. This issue if covered at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. If I've misunderstood what you meant, please advise. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
You are rigth,thanks for the advice.

Paleocemoski (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

how to create a deleted page

I have created a page with my company name,but it showing that particular page has been deleted.Kindly let me know how can i create it again with same name115.249.208.155 (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Kindly help me115.249.208.155 (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the teahouse. I see you (or someone with the same IP address) contributed to Content delivery network, but I'm guessing that isn't what you mean. Can you tell us the name of the company, so we can look into it?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm removing the separate section, in which you asked how to write an article. Please check out Wikipedia:Your first article and see if that helps.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguity

Hi, today I have spent too much time already trying to figure out how to add a disambiguity. Instead of giving up completely I am looking for someone else to make this small(?) change. The problem that I have discovered: Under "IAV" you can see CFO "Michael Schubert" under key people (on the right). Unfortunately this is the wrong "Michael Schubert". So somehow the following information would need to be added somewhere:

Michael Schubert may refer to:

Thanks for taking care of this! 76.226.148.115 (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If we don't yet have a biography of the corporate executive, then the incorrect link should be removed from the company article. Disambiguation pages are normally created when we have three or more articles with similar titles. When just two exist, hat notes at the top of each page solve the problem. Thanks for asking. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the incorrect link from IAV. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
... and having removed the incorrect link from IAV I also removed 4 incorrect links from swimming articles. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought all names in an article are supposed to be either linked to another article or red underlined ("page does not exist").

With your modification "Michael Schubert" is not linked to the wrong person any more (which is good) but the name appears as text only. Is this OK (in agreement with the Wiki standard)? 76.226.148.115 (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement that every person mentioned in an article be linked to an existing article, or red linked to a future article. Plenty of people

(millions, I would guess) are worthy of mention in a Wikipedia article for one reason or another, but are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia biography. Adding them to a list is another matter. Lists, in general, should be limited to notable topics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Potential Sockpuppet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There recently has been a flurry of edits to the article "Hapa". The problem is that a lot of the edits are being done by what seems to be several sockpuppets used by one user. The person is even writing on the article's talk page, pretending to be different people and alleging consensus when it hasn't been reached.

What is the appropriate course of action?12.166.104.221 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Please bring any concerns about suspected sockpuppets to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Thanks, Ross Hill (talk) 01:54, 16 Oct 2013 (UTC) 01:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can a 1600x1200 picture become a featured picture? Thanks, --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! It could become a featured picture, however on featured picture criteria it recommends that "still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height". So most likely the photo would not become a featured picture because of it's criteria. By looking at many featured pictures, they seem to have more than 1500x1500 pixels. ///EuroCarGT 01:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Referencing body of work: should the dates be chronologically ascending or descending?

I have created an article which is biographic and I am wondering if I can list the body of work, publications for example, in reverse- that is to say most recent first. So can I list it as 2013, 2012 and so on? Or, does it have to be earliest first? Many thanks in advance. Wikicontribute17 (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Wikicontribute17: Hey Wikicontribute17. Having looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and its subsection on WP:LEADEMBEDDEDLIST, I find no hard and fast rule (and Wikipedia generally has no hard and fast rules). The subsection provides that "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical..., though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable..." Reverse chronological order is certainly a consistent form of organization and there's nothing objectionable about it on its face. Just note (from the first link, on embedded links) that "embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs. Presenting too much statistical data in list format may contravene policy" and further explanation on that page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Lists that aren't in encyclopedia's often list things in reverse chronological order. In a list of artists shows or politician's positions or resumes, the latest goes first. It's part of marketing. But Wikipedia is an encylopedia, so we are interested in the historical development and usually put things, especially in a biography, in chronological order. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A page with this title exists

I'm working on an article in my sandbox (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Artmpls/sandbox), and have a notice that says, "Warning: A page with this title exists. Please make sure that this proposed article does not already exist or that it does not need to be moved to a different title."

However, I can't find the page that already has this title. What should I do? Also, suggestions regarding this article are welcome. Artmpls (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Artmpls: It seems to be in the mainspace now, see Charles Biederman. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 22:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! The article looks good.

Artmpls (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My changes have beed backed out on the Comparison of Project Management Software.

I have attempted to add a new line with the software product I*PMIS to this page twice, both yesterday and today. Yesterdays attempt was my first time with Wiki and I may have not done everything correctly so I understand why it did not show up. However, early this morning, 7:00 cst, I again added the software line I*PMIS with references and it showed up fine on wiki after I did the save. Now I did a quick check and find out that my editing change has been deleted. Can anyone let me know how I am not doing this correctly. The edits do show up on the history page just fine. Was there some kind of editing backout that occured because I did not do something correctly? Thanks for your help, from IStarPMIS, LLC. Thomas M. De Neui (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse,Thomas M. De Neui. Your edits were reverted by MrOllie on the basis of an essay called write the article first. In other words, all the other software compared in this article already have Wikipedia pages and are blue links. Your software has no article so is a red link. If you are editing on behalf of your employer, then please read and comply with our guideline on Conflict of interest. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the I*PMIS had no link and was going to write the article this afternoon, that is when I checked to see if the update was still there. I do have some additional questions on conflict of interest. I will state openly that I am the author of the product I*PMIS and the owner of the company that markets the software. As such, am I precluded from writing the needed article on I*PMIS and doing the updates to the Comparison page. If so, are what procudures should I follow to effect the updates? Can you recommend someone who can do so for me. Thanks again as I am new to wiki editing. Thomas M. De Neui (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Thomas. I appreciate that this must be frustrating, and I acknowledge you for coming here and disclosing and asking for guidance. Unfortunately, I cannot suggest a better approach than to request an article at Requested articles: there is quite a backlog there, and in any case as Wikipedia is created by volunteers, there's no guarantee that anybody will choose to pick up your request. One thing you can do to make it more attractive for somebody to write is to locate the significant coverage in multiple independent sources that will be an absolute requirement for there to be an article. I've just googled "Istarpmis", and on the first four pages of results I don't see anything which looks as if it is substantive (not just a listing), independent of the company, and in a reliable source; which makes me doubt whether the company currently meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If it does not, then there cannot be a Wikipedia article on it at the moment. I am a little disturbed that you refer to "the needed article". It is not your call to say whether or not the article is needed, and the fact that you are thinking about it in this way suggests to me that your purpose in coming here is promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia.
So, in summary, my advice to you would be:
  • Read Identifying reliable sources.
  • Find multiple reliable sources, independent of the company, which cover the company or its products at some length.
  • If you can find them, post a request at Requested articles, with the sources you have located. If you can't find them, give up for the present.
  • Go away and do something else and let things happen at their own speed.
--ColinFine (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I do think there is a conflict between your guidelines on notible and a cataloging and presenting factual information. But that is your call not mine. Thomas M. De Neui (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict within Wikipedia. There is certainly a mismatch between what Wikipedia is and what some people think it is or would like it to be. But Wikipedia is almost entirely run by consensus, and it is open to anybody to try and change that consensus: have a look at Village pump. But to be honest I don't think you are likely to have much success. --ColinFine (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How to add a category

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk Team, my new article looks great and everybody keep sending good feedbacks. If possible, could you add a category to my article called: Amherst Barrow Whatman? The article would be improved if a new category: "People educated at Winchester College" is added. Thanks, M0KLBM0KLB (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Instructions to do this are at Wikipedia:Categorization#Creating_category_pages. --LukeSurl t c 16:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Category:People_educated_at_Winchester_College already exists, so in this case it isn't a question of creating a new category. When MOKLB reads the link Wikipedia:Your first article which is among the links in the welcome message on his user talk page, he will see that Categorizing is a topic in that guide. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. As a general question about the article, how do you know all this information that you are writing about the subject? Do you have a book you are finding these from? In order to make the content of the article verifiable, please add inline citations after each fact to the sources of the information. If you're not sure how to do this, please ask. --LukeSurl t c 16:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
MOKLB: here's LukeSurl telling you essentially the same as I told you yesterday. My advice to you is, if you want the article (which is not "your" article, by the way) not to be deleted, you stop spending time on photos and categories, and work on the far more important issue of getting it properly referenced. --ColinFine (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I wright a articale about my self

Why can't I wright a article about my self Janedow123 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jane. You'll find guidance at WP:conflict of interest and WP:autobiography. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
And because if you are a relevant person, you should leave others to write about you. It would be like if Meryl Streep would create a profile here and start writting: Streep is a great American actress, she has won several important awards..., etc. Even if she actually rocks --which I think she does-- it doesn't look OK for Wikipedia, as WP is a free but neutral encyclopedia. Hope this helps! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 14:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
David has provided a couple of good links there. To summarize, one of the core things Wikipedia uploads is that its articles need to be written with a neutral point-of-view (NPOV). When writing about oneself this is practically impossible, your opinion of yourself is very likely to be non-neutral.
Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that means that instead of publishing new and previously unreported information about people, we restrict ourselves to summarizing information that has been published elsewhere. This means that Wikipedia's content is verfiable and is a useful way of making sure the encyclopedia’s content covers important details and not just random facts.
Lastly an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia cannot have an article on every single person. Most people, myself included, are "non-notable" which means that one would not expect an encyclopedia article on them. You can see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for details on the notability criteria for people. You can however edit your user page to include a few details about yourself. --LukeSurl t c 15:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Team My article Amherst Barrow Whatman (in English) could be linked to a similar one (shorter version in Norwegian). I don't know how to do it. Can you help? M0KLBM0KLB (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In general, these inter-wiki language links are now provided by a Wikimedia feature called Wikidata. If you look at the bottom of the left-hand side toolbar in your article, you'll see an entry called "Languages" with a link to the Norwegian version, and also an "Edit links" entry to get you to the Wikidata page where the links exist. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut

I'm visitting the Teahose with Visit the Teahouse button in my talkpage but it's a little waste of time. Is there any easy way to visit teahouse(like a shortcut)? Paleocemoski (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! You can type WP:TH in the search bar. Ross Hill . . (+???) . . 13:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help.

Paleocemoski (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Or, even shorter, WP:THQ will take you to this page. --LukeSurl t c 14:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I just created a shortcut, it might be a bit complicated to set up, but it should be easy in the future. Go to Special:MyPage/common.js and add the following:
importScript('User:Ryan Vesey/THQ.js');

. Then refresh your page. It will add a link to the teahouse to the toolbox section on your sidebar. Ryan Vesey 15:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should be in "Interaction" above Help? Ross Hill . . (+???) . . 15:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a good idea, the problem is I based it off of borrowed code. I don't actually know how to put it in the interaction tab. Ryan Vesey 16:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

recovering previous infobox

Dear Team, I think I have made a mistake. In my current article Amherst Barrow Whatman I had to correct two typos and I think I have done something wrong as the infobox with picture filed as Amherst_Barrow_Whatman. Can you help? Thanks, ErnestoM0KLB (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are talking about the article Amherst Barrow Whatman, previously Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amherst Barrow Whatman, I have been back though the history and can't find any version with an infobox. Can you please tell us which version you think had the infobox? - David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
But having looked further at the article and having started to do some obvious corrections, I realised that some of these were things that had already been changed, & it became apparent that when you did your edit this morning you had done so starting from about 11 versions earlier, before a number of corrections had been made, and hence you undid the improvements that the other editors had made. I have therefore reverted the article to as it was before your edit this morning. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
... and looking again at the article I see further instances where corrections made by other editors have been reverted by you going back to an earlier version and thus reinserting errors, such as this example from a few days ago. Other editors are going to get decidely upset if when they have improved the article you come along and revert their improvements. Please stop doing that. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Ernesto. As David says, he has reverted the changes. Like him, I cannot find any evidence that there has ever been an infobox in the article. Perhaps you just mean the picture? But that is not an infobox. A much more serious matter is that there are no substantial references in the article, and therefore the article does not establish that he is notable. It is likely that some of the items you have listed in "further reading" do contain such substantial writing about him, but you need to turn those into references, with specific items in the article referenced to specific pages or chapters of those books, or the article is likely to be deleted. Please see Referencing for beginners. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Need help in Change Page Title

Change Page Title

How can I correct a misspelling in my pages title?

Can some one please change the page title form "Swayambhu sir Pathala Vinayaka Swamy" to "Swayambhu sri Pathala Vinayaka Swamy" Donadula (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Donadula. You can change the title of a page by moving it. In this case I have moved it for you.  Done --ColinFine (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear ColinFine,

Thanks a lot for your help in this.

Thanks, DonadulaDonadula (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse Host

This question unnecessary but I'm wondering.Is it possible to ask question(like a guest) to other hosts when someone become a host.

I must say; I'm not interested in becoming host yet.I'm quite new and inexperienced.But I respect all hosts of Wikipedia.

Paleocemoski (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Paleocemoski! Yes, becoming a host does not prevent one from continuing to ask questions. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

will references from wikipedia work

hey is it okay if i put references from wikipedia itself--Veena Uppalapati (talk) 07:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Veena, and welcome to the Teahouse. References to Wikipedia itself are generally considered inappropriate for use on articles, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source; as anyone can change or modify an article at any time, it cannot be depended upon to provide the consistent or even necessarily accurate information on its articles. Therefore, I'd encourage you to find sources in news, books, or scholarly articles to support whatever article you are developing. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

hey thanks for the reply i was wondering if a video will work as a reference--Veena Uppalapati (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Self imposed block?

Hello. Out of curiosity, can an editor request to be blocked for a specified period of time? Ajax F¡oretalk 02:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! Yes, it has been done. See: WP:SELFBLOCK. However WP:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer may be an easier option. Ross Hill . . (+???) . . 02:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much Ross Hill! I really needed this. Ajax F¡oretalk 02:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem Ajaxfiore Ross Hill . . (+???) . . 02:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

First Article - added citations, still not approved

Im still waiting for an approval to my re-submitted article - it may not have been reviewed yet, but I would like input as to whether it has enough citations and proof of notoriety.

Here is my sandbox copy https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Book%26stein/sandbox Book&stein (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Book&stein. This is what you submitted to Articles for Creation and was declined. You have not re-submitted the article yet, and I suggest you make some improvements to it before re-submitting. Your article is good, but seems to be a bit promotional in tone by using phrases such as "Tekmira is a leader in the RNAi field". Please read WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV. When you are ready to resubmit your article, you might contact the editor who declined your submission to expedite the process. Ajax F¡oretalk 02:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Videos

How do i get an article on about my new videos The Rising of the dead (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@The Rising of the dead: Hey The Rising of the dead. You cannot. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are tertiary reference works that contain entries on subjects the world has already taken note of by publishing substantive material about the topic in reliable, third-party sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, such as books, newspaper and magazine articles, documentaries and so on. Thus, a new work that has not already been the subject of prior publication by those independent, reliable, third party sources cannot properly have an entry in an encyclopedia. Please see also our policy on what Wikipedia is not. However, if at some point in the future your work garners attention from people writing about it in detail in reliable sources, then an article is possible, but even then you should not be the one to write that potential article. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Upload svg file created with Inkscape

Hello, I've been reading Wikipedia for some time and have found a file that was created or scanned (originally?) as a bitmap. I've been reading long enough to know from the talk pages that svg files are preferred when possible, but also that some editors dislike the use of Inkscape, which is all I have. I am not a graphic artist, but the file in question is small and has poor resolution, and I had an interest in recreating it. This is the first time I have tried to make any sort of edit to Wikipedia and I don't have a way to convert the file to an Adobe svg format.

The original file is copyrighted, but I intend to make mine free to anyone who cares to download/modify it etc. I'm not even very good at Inkscape, so someone with more experience may want to modify my version to make it even more compact/efficient. I can even export the file to the png versions that normally accompany an svg file, but I have no idea how to create links or any of that. I don't do html either so I'll need help with all that sort of stuff.

I have created an account for the express purpose of uploading the file(s) so the four days and ten edits will be a problem. I only know where the file is in the Wikipedia articles (Warp drive), and I'm not sure if it would be in Wikimedia Commons due to the copyright issue. The file I hope to replace is: File:Warptable.gif

Thank you for any help you can give me. DLadyInRed (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware that any editor has issues with Inkscape but...so what. It is a widely accepted, free program and has no problems on Wikipedia that I am aware of. So...disregard any such criticism as nothing more than individual opinion. HOWEVER...you cannot create an SVG file of a copyrighted work and release it in any manner. Period. Now...if it is just a trade mark, that is different. I suggest just coming clean with the exact work you intend to recreate and allow editors to inform you as to our policy on such works. Happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Welcome to Wikipedia DLadyInRed, and thanks for wanting to contribute. I would personally encourage you to use Inkkscape, and I think Wikipedia would too (see WP:INK). Most free images are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (see commons:Help:Inkscape). Unfortunately, legally you cannot take the image you mentioned, create your own copy, and release it under a free license. The file is copyrighted, and is being used under fair use provision. I believe you can still create and upload the SVG file, but cannot change the license. You can ask for more information at the media copyright questions noticeboard. If you want to sharpen your image editing skills, you can go through CAT:SVG and look for images to convert to SVG format. Ajax F¡oretalk 02:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes a low res copy of a copyright image is used deliberately so that the image will not be suitable for reuse elsewhere. Sharpening it may make it no longer usable in Wikipedia, but it will still be copyright, so there's no point. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Anne but, what you refer to is "Fair use" and not what the OP was suggesting. A copyrighted work cannot be reproduced for Wikipedia in the manner the editor is suggesting: "The original file is copyrighted, but I intend to make mine free to anyone who cares to download/modify it etc." Sorry. but that is not possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
A tag is present on the page indicated previously ( File:Warptable.gif). This tag led me to believe that an svg copy could be made legally. Whether I should have interpreted it that way or not is not up for debate – whether I should have or not, I did interpret the svg tag as indicating that an svg image could be made legally. Chalk it up to not understanding copyright law correctly, or not understanding the implications of the existing tags or both. Here is the text of the svg tag:

“This fair use image was uploaded in a raster graphics format such as PNG, GIF, or JPEG. However, it contains information that could be stored more efficiently and/or accurately in the SVG format, as a vector graphic. If possible, please upload an SVG version of this image. After confirming it is of comparable quality, please replace all instances of the previous version throughout Wikipedia (noted under the "File links" header), tag the old version with {{Vector version available|NewImage.svg}}, and remove this tag. For more information, see Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. For assistance with converting to SVG, please see the Graphics Lab.”

This tag is followed by a fair use copyright tag – the one that says that the image qualifies as fair use but might be copyright infringement even on Wikipedia – if I interpret that correctly. Based upon the responses, it would appear that the copyright tag (fair use) should exist on the page, again if I interpret it correctly, but the tag about uploading an SVG file should not exist. As I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor, it appears to newbies like me that this tag suggests the impossible if one cannot create the image even for the page alone.

At this point I’ll bow out. I’ve done what I came to do – or at least made a good faith effort in that direction – and let the regular editors discuss whether the svg tag should or should not exist on the page. And as for the image I made – I no longer have plans to upload it if it is a violation of said copyright. Ah, I know what my problem was - failure to think it through.

Thank you again to all for your help. DLadyInRed (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I made that tag all text. Apparently I am missing some other info as well. My apologies for the formatting of the tag. DLadyInRed (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I've put nowikis around the tag in your message, so hopefully it now looks as you intended? - David Biddulph (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ref

How I add Ref to articles ?Lankancats (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Lankancats: Go to the place in the text where the source you are looking at, and wish to cite, verifies the written content of the article. At that place, add the following code: <ref>citation text</ref>, replacing "citation text" with detailed information about the source, e.g., Author, name of book, year, publisher, page in the book where the information appears, isbn number. When you save, that code will turn into and display as a footnote at that point in the text (like this:[1]) with the citation itself appearing at the bottom of the article in a references section you must create. You must place in that references section code that tells the software to display the citations there. To do so, you would add usually in the last section of the article:
==References==
{{reflist}}
For more, please see Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources. I am also going to place below a visual guide to inline citations below, which some people find easier to follow (just click "show"). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Visual inline citation guide
Formatting references using inline citations

All information in Wikipedia articles should be verified by citations to reliable sources. Our preferred method of citation is using the "cite.php" form of inline citations, using the <ref></ref> elements. Using this method, each time a particular source is mined for information (don't copy word-for-word!), a footnote is placed in the text ("inline"), that takes one to the detail of the source when clicked, set forth in a references section after the text of the article.

In brief, anywhere you want a footnote to appear in a piece of text, you place an opening <ref> tag followed by the text of the citation which you want to appear at the bottom of the article, and close with a </ref> tag. Note the closing slash ("/"). For multiple use of a single reference, the opening ref tag is given a name, like so: <ref name="name"> followed by the citation text and a closing </ref> tag. Each time you want to use that footnote again, you simply use the first element with a slash, like so: <ref name="name" />.

In order for these references to appear, you must tell the software where to display them, using either the code <references/> or, most commonly, the template, {{Reflist}} which can be modified to display the references in columns using {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Per our style guidelines, the references should be displayed in a separate section denominated "References" located after the body of the article.

Inline citation code; what you type in 'edit mode' What it produces when you save

Two separate citations.<ref>Citation text.</ref><ref>Citation text2.</ref>


Multiple<ref name="multiple">Citation text3.</ref> citation<ref name="multiple" /> use.<ref name="multiple" />

== References ==

{{Reflist}}

Two separate citations.[1][2]



Multiple[3] citation[3] use.[3]




References_________________

  1. ^ Citation text.
  2. ^ Citation text2.
  3. ^ a b c Citation text3.

Templates that can be used between <ref>...</ref> tags to format references

{{Citation}} • {{Cite web}} • {{Cite book}} • {{Cite news}} • {{Cite journal}} • Others • Examples

Hi, Lankancats and welcome to The Teahouse. Just make sure you put enough information between <ref> and </ref> to allow anyone who wants to check the source to find it. Ideally, you would use citation templates such as those shown above if you clicked "show" but if that's too complicated someone else can do the rest of the work. If the information is online you would want to use the URL at the very least, but we prefer more, especially since that URL might disappear. If it's not already there, add
==References==
{{reflist}} at the bottom of the page.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Page about songs/movies related with a god

Since we got pages like this and this here, wikipedia allows you to make the list of movies/songs about/referring a highly known diety? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bladesmulti. As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists says "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists."
With the two examples (Elvis and DC comics) you give, these lists are of a moderate level of interest, and are likely to have a manageable number of entries when complete. For a list of all songs referencing a god, this would encompass almost all of Religious music, a topic we already have several sub-articles and lists for. The number of entries that would be on such a list would be unmanageable, and an all-encompassing list would be of a size to make it of little utility or interest.
For your other suggestion, List of religious films and List_of_Christian_films already exist, both articles could do with some serious attention. --LukeSurl t c 16:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
LukeSurl, it's Shiva who i am talking about, there has been many movies as well as songs, that are made after him. There are no chances that the listing would be infinite though, but generally large. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. I don't know enough about that topic to offer specific advice, so I'll just point you towards Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Think about what the inclusion criteria should be for those the lists, and how they would be specifically defined. Consider how many entries these lists would conceivably have. Remember that each item on the list should be a link to an existing Wikipedia article (or items which would likely have one soon). Hope this is useful, --LukeSurl t c 16:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo submission

Hi, I've submitted a photo and had it rejected as I didn't provide sufficient proof of consent from the owner. I obtained the necessary proof and resubmitted the photo last week, but have yet to hear back. I'm wondering if someone could take a look at the resubmission and see if I've done it correctly. The article is titled "Lynn Webster."

Thank you for your time, Cosette

Cosettej (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You seem to have put the {{OTRS pending}} tag on the Lynn Webster article, but my guess is that it wasn't the text of that article that was copyrighted material. If the copyright submission was for the file File:LynnWebsterMD.jpg, then that is where the {{OTRS pending}} tag needed to be. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hello, I showed great work at paleontology pages of Wikipedia since I become a wikipedian.But I still can't earned barnstars like Dinosaur Barnstar, Fossilized Barnstar, Fauna Barnstar and many others.Is it normal? Paleocemoski (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Paleocemoski. Barnstars are awarded casually by one editor to another, to recognize good work. They are an informal act of kindness, and you really shouldn't worry about them all that much. Thanks for improving articles on paleontology. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Request help in publishing first article

Page: ChinapulivarruVamsi.Uppala (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I took a quick look at Chinapulivarru. There are very many errors of spelling and grammar in the article, but these could be corrected if you worked with an editor with better skills in written English. On a more important point, I think you need to find more sources for the information that you put into the article. At the moment, it looks as if most of the information may have come from your own local knowledge. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Is my draft properly cited and unbiased?

Good evening,

I am in the process of creating my first article for Wikipedia and am finding the process completely daunting. I have read all of the material regarding proper article creation but was hoping someone could look over my draft. It can be found on my own sandbox page...

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Thecyberfusion/sandbox

First, have I cited everything properly? Also, I am hoping that I have stayed unbiased...but I know that to be truly unbiased I need to have at least a second set of eyes read the material.

I appreciate any insight any members can provide me in this process. Thank you all in advance!

JayThecyberfusion (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jay. Welcome to the teahouse! I think you have managed an appropriate factual tone so that it does not sound biased or promotional. One issue the draft still faces is that it does not prove the notability of the company by Wikipedia's standards. So in particular, the only independent sources cited are the Better Business Bureau and a trademarks website, and neither of these provide significant detail about the company. You may wish to have a look at Wikipedia:VRS again. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Today I finally received the documentation I was waiting on for citing the history and services Summit Nutritionals provides. Having added the latest citations, would you think there are any final issues with the article that would prevent it from being included in the Wikipedia database? I thank you in advance for all your help!Thecyberfusion (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Category redirect

How do I redirect a category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baudelaire Serene (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Baudelaire Serene: Especially in the article mainspace, we normally delete empty categories because they are mostly only for our internal use and if empty, do not serve a navigation or sorting purpose (there are many project categories, on the other hand, that may be empty occasionally or even most of the time, such as for a class of articles marked for speedy deletion). If we do want to emulate the function of a redirect we use a "soft redirect" (because "hard" redirects won't work). The template {{Category redirect|target}} is used for this purpose. The occasions where redirecting a category is warranted are relatively rare. For more information see WP:CATRED.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

want to remove 'promotes the subject in a subjective manner' warning

Our page has a 'promotes the subject in a subjective manner' warning at the top, from work done before my time as editor. I have worked hard to remove and edit text that possibly is the problem but to this day the warning remains. How often are this pages reassessed? Do I need to contact some one to get our page reassess for this problem? Angusmccoll (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Angusmccoll and welcome I have reviewed James Cook University and note that you have made many dozens of edits to an article in which you have a clear conflict of interest and have continued to edit after being asked to stop promoting the university you work for. While much of the promotional material has been removed, the article now reads like a sales brochure and large sections are not sourced. Wikipedia articles should be neutral summaries of what it is written on a subject by reliable sources. Please refrain from further editing and if you wish to suggest any changes to the article in future, please raise them on the article's talk page and let another editor make the change if there is consensus. Please also be aware of the rules regarding editing under more than one account and editing while signed out. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Does this mean I can no longer edit this page and try and fix the problem?

Angusmccoll (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Angus. It means that you are not forbidden, but you are strongly discouraged from doing so, specifically because you are likely to find it hard to tell what is promotional and what isn't. In addition to the links Flat Out posted, you might find Best practices for editors with close associations helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've spotted a problem with an article but I'm unable to edit the page - mathematics html not my strength

In the section on the mathematical constant "e", there is a serious factual error. Where a formula is given for e in the history section, it's plain incorrect. The bottom of the fraction should be n!, not n.

Unfortunately my maths html is not up to making the change - any maths experts know what I need to add?

Current code is:

m a t h \lim_{n\to\infty} \left( 1 + \frac{1} {n} \right)^n</math>

Which displays as:

++++++++

UPDATE: SOLVED BY REPEATED GUESSWORK

81.157.202.66 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to change anything - the formula is correct. See this page at Mathworld. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete FP

Is it possible to delete a featured pic?? Benison talk with me 15:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Benison P Baby: Hey Benison. Yes, it is possible to delete just about anything (though the main page presents difficulties). It is, however, rather unlikely that one would be successful in a quest to delete a featured picture, though it is difficult to prognosticate without the specifics – your reason for seeking the deletion. Anyway, I am going to skip speedy deletion methods, because a featured picture is never going to be subject to them. If at all, the place where this would be discussed for a local image, is Wikipedia:Files for deletion. However, most (maybe all) featured pictures, and many other image one sees here, are actually hosted at the Wikimedia Commons, a sister site (look for this symbol on a file's description page:, and you'll immediately know it's actually hosted at the Commons). If an image is from the Commons, you would have to seek its deletion there, at Commons:Deletion requests. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Everyone See This?

On several of the posts (including mine) this "nonsensical babble" idiot-thing shows up, and when I click on it, I see it's "inappropriate" and possibly getting into my checking account or something. Sorry if I appear overly suspicious, but my computer is waaay slow today and my previous Wikipedia name was eaten by something, and I really don't have time for crap. I only want to write.

But I need to say the Jack Russell at the top of this page right now is very cute... KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Kathryn. There is a user who has posted lower on this page (e.g., here) who has "nonsensical babble" as part of his user signature, which is actually a link to his talk page. The adorable Jack Russell you are seeing is the picture one of the Teahouse hosts (User:Writ Keeper) has selected to display as part of his or her profile (which Teahouse host's profile you see at the top the page varies as it rotates). However, I don't know what you are seeing that might say "inappropriate" in it, nor anything mentioning bank accounts. So, I think maybe you do have a virus, possibly one phishing for bank account information, but on top of that, have also identified other innocuous things from here that are not part of the virus' output. You might head over to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing and describe in more detail what you are seeing, exactly what the message seeking your bank account information says and looks like and anything else, so that users can possibly identify the virus and tell you how to get rid of it. Note that in my years here I have never once seen a virus on the site itself nor heard of anyone being infected from the site directly. In other words, if what you are seeing in a virus, it's on your computer; we aren't seeing it and it's highly unlikely Wikipedia is the source (of course, people can post external links to malicious sites that might infect you if they are followed off Wikipedia, though I think this too is rather rare). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I admire what you do here-- encouraging people-- some of whom may not have read a Wikipedia entry before writing one of their own :) KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My submission was rejected- will the edits help

Hello- I've written an article about Tim Selberg, a master sculptor and creator of 3-D Ventriloquist Figures. I was told the prose was overly promotional and the references couldn't be verified. I have photos of all of the printed references but don't know how to include them in the re-submission. Please tell me if you think the prose is now acceptable. Changes have been made. Thank you. 1332JH (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, 1332JH, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am sorry, but the prose is not acceptable. This is an encyclopedia, and our articles must be written from the neutral point of view. Your draft article is filled with promotional language that must be eliminated. The references are not formatted properly, so please read Referencing for beginners and follow those procedures. You also need to add wikilinks, and organize the article into sections. Once you do so properly, the software will create the table of contents automatically. I suggest that you read the Primer for a good introduction to writing an acceptable Wikipedia article. In conclusion, please do not try to upload copies of references. That would be a copyright violation. Just cite the sources properly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, 1332JH. To add to what Cullen has said, I'll try and illustrate a couple of things in the draft article which are promotional in tone. "has received international acclaim" is an evaluative expression, which is acceptable only if you are directly referencing a reliable source which says this (not necessarily precisely these words, but pretty close to them. It would not be enough to give an example of an appreciation, or several appreciations from different countries, because "international acclaim" would be a conclusion from these, and so forbidden as original research). Adding "for its beauty" etc is even more so, and again requires direct sourcing to be acceptable.
As a different example, "He carved his first basswood figure at the age of sixteen with only an X-acto knife!" This sentence without the exclamation mark would be acceptable (provided there was a reliable source, independent of him, which supported it). The exclamation mark is an unacceptable bit of editorialism, which makes it promotional rather than encyclopaedic.
The "Direct Quotes Collections From Clientele", again, are acceptable only if they have each been published in a reliable source (I'm not sure what the word "Collections" is doing in that title).
A final example: "resulting in his own unique style and approach" is entirely promotional. An encyclopaedic version of this would explain, with references to reliable sources, just what it was about his style and approach that caused somebody (named and referenced, or it could not appear) to refer to them as unique.
I hope this makes it clearer what it is about the article which is not currently acceptable. --ColinFine (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, ColinFine, for taking the time to elaborate and for offering specific examples. I agree completely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_150&oldid=1086982149"