Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 207

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 200

←

Archive 205

Help! Vandalism!!!

Look [[1]] and [[2]] for the vandalism and block. How can he edit when he is blocked????? James the Knldge-Lvr (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't get how he can edit!! HOW IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE???? James the Knldge-Lvr (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jwoodward48wiki: Welcome to the Teahouse. Their block expired yesterday. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 17:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! It was reverted. James the Knldge-Lvr (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mentoring

As a newbie it has occurred to me that it might be in Wikipedia's interest to have an optional mentoring system. If a new editor chose to enroll in the program, he would be assigned a mentor who would answer his questions, oversee his editing, and offer suggestions for improvement. Something like a Big Brother (the good kind) or an AA sponsor.

It seems to me that newbies in the program would "grow" much faster and do a lot fewer things that have to be fixed by other people later --- or simply accumulate because there aren't enough people fixing them. Things like the Teahouse are great, but the Teahouse doesn't provide the supervision, and it can't handle the volume of questions that, say, a few dozen mentors could handle.

Has such a thing been considered? If so, is there a discussion I can read? Mandruss (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss and welcome to the teahouse. Wikipedia already has a mentoring program which is the Adopt-a-user program. You will find further info there.

I hope this would be helpful to you. Zince34' 11:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, just what I had in mind. But Wikipedia should tell a new editor about this program immediately upon registration. If I hadn't asked the question here, it might have been a very long time before I ever learned about this. That would be too late to do much good --- I wouldn't need it anymore, and all my newbie mistakes would already have been made. What's the best way to help that happen? Mandruss (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The scheme is mentioned is some of the welcome templates, such as {{WelcomeMenu}}, {{Welcome to Wikipedia}}, and {{Welcome-detailed}}, but there are a number of less detailed welcome messages in use. It is also linked from help pages such as Help:Contents/Browse/Asking questions. I do realise, however, that many people aren't aware of the scheme. It is one of many things which I have learned about by reading the Help Desk and the Teahouse questions here, & seeing advice being given to other editors. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mandruss:Hi Mandruss! As one newbie to another... If you just start doing things here on Wiki mentorlike users will magically appear. I knew nothing in the beginning but at soon as I started writing and got stuck I just yelled "Help me!" and all of the sudden I had two guardian angles helping me along. This Teahouse is also a very good place to get some instant mentorship. You did just right. :) If you feel as overwhelmed as I did not so long ago, just post something at my talk page. - W.carter (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My entry was declined, and now it has disappeared?

Hello, I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I recently created a new Wikipedia entry, submitted it, it was reviewed & declined. However, there was no reason giving for the decline. Is this perhaps noted somewhere? I would also like to edit and resubmit my entry, but it appears to have disappeared. The Article Draft was: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ty HumesKpoulter (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You can find your article here Draft:Ty Humes Cheers. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing malfunction

Hey everyone, I edit from Opera, and I keep trying to edit the infobox and lead of a song article, but everytime it comes out cut off. Could someone please help me out, the article I want to edit is "Work (Iggy Azalea song)" and my template is at User:Coolmarc/sandbox1. Please replace the article's infobox and lead with the one used in my sandbox, it never works when I try it. I will appreciate it so much!!—Cool Marc 15:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? :( —Cool Marc 18:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Its an infobox change and the change needs to be accurate and correct. It should be well referenced. By the way the personnel in the infobox and personnel section don't match so their is obviously a problem. If you are providing the citations then it can be changed.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Done Abhinav0908 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Was this a visual editor issue? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

No help here

I suppose this teahouse is not the place to get help. Noone does anything to help. Bandy boy (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you need help with? Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

How to deal with harassments, as I have already written some hours ago, below. Bandy boy (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

::Oh I see... you're suspected of being a sockpuppet here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/891 mm not sure how to help you really, it doesn't seem like harassment?. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied properly below. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Citing a Web news article

I wish to cite this article on the National Geographic News web site. There is no corresponding print newspaper, to my knowledge. Would it be more appropriate to use the "cite news" template or the "cite web" template? Mandruss (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's a web resource with no corresponding print edition, cite web is likely what you want. Elassint ^Hi 17:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would use cite news with the website= parameter, but I'm open to correction on this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Page creations

Hello! Is there a way to see how many pages you've created? And maybe other interesting statistics about yourself? Thanks!Michael (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

At the bottom of your contributions page you can see links that will tell you your edit count and no. of pages created.Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This link shows the interesting (or not) statistics about my editing. Replace my username with yours in the URL to see yours. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Declaration of interest

I am an editor working on behalf of companies. Should I declare that somewhere on their pages, after I have made changes?FFR2 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi FFR2, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please know that editing on behalf of a company, or getting paid to advocate and edit on someone's behalf, is very strongly discouraged. Please read WP:COI for more information. Articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, and cannot promote and companies, products, etc.

That being said, if you believe the edits you wish to make follow Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies, it is advised that you suggest the changes on the talk page of the article you wish to edit, instead of making the edit yourself. This will allow someone else to take a look at the edit, and then make the changes if they are appropriate. I also recommend you created your userpage at User:FFR2, and disclose your interest there, so other editors may know that you have a potential conflict of interest with the subject. Thanks for asking about this! Let us know if you have any more questions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, FFR2, welcome to the Teahouse. A good place to declare an interest is on your userpage, User:FFR2. A note about conflict of interest should be placed on an article only if it's believed that the article is biased. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you really shouldn't try to "[work] on behalf of companies". I'm afraid that the main point of being an editor is not to try to get favorable content for companies, but to try to make Wikipedia an even better place to find information! Plus, you shouldn't say anything about yourself or why you edited the article in an article. That would be for the talk page, or the edit summary. Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused now. I took pains to add an update for 2014 as factually and briefly as possible. I don't want to be banned from Wikipedia. What do I do now? Do I remove the content I added and leave the page out of date...or what? Your advice gratefully received. FFR2 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have removed the content I added, and restored the page to its former status. I have placed the suggested updates on the Talk Page. FFR2 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Cropping imported photos

Is it possible to crop photos that have been brought in from Wikimedia Commons? I have just imported several B&W photos into the Yin Yoga article, and I'd like to crop the first one, in which the model is small in relation to her environment. Is this possible? Or would I have to ask the owner of the photo copyright to crop it at his end and then re-upload it (an get the permission again)? Thanks! EMP (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Cropping it yourself and then uploading it on Commons as a derivative work of the original (linking the original, and so on) would be fine. There's no need to re-request permission from the original owner.

(This is, after all, one of the things they have signed the rights for you or anyone to do.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's very good news. Thanks for the info! EMP (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What to do if there is a mistake in a category name?

In Category:Lifeboat stations on the Isle of White there is a spelling mistake (it should be Wight). How do I change this? Thanks Tony Holkham (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tony Holkham, welcome to the Teahouse. As for that question. You would have to move the category. You could do this by creating a new Category with the correct name and move the content there. Then you should use the Template:Category redirect to redirect the old category to the new one. I can do it for you if you want.TheQ Editor (Talk) 22:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Would you, please? I'm having some difficulty understanding the Categories for discussion guidelines. I'll try to follow what you did in case I see any other instances. Cheers, Tony Holkham (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Hey Tony. I suppose this is about Category:Lifeboat stations on the Isle of White. See WP:C2A. In short, click edit at the category page and add at the top {{subst:cfr-speedy|Category:Lifeboat stations on the Isle of Wight}}. Copy the message you see in the notice that appears when you click save. Click the blue link right next to it that says "Add entry" which will take you to the top of the speedy renaming section of categories for discussion (CfD). Paste your entry at the top, following the instructions and tailor the message. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both. I see it's been done at the speed of light. Tony Holkham (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Harrassment

I feel persecuted by User:Cuchullain, who can't accept I have another view than him regarding what should be considered the consensus in the third move request regarding Riksdag. He follows me around and harasses me, he thinks I am sockpuppeting just because I happen to have the same opinion as someone had years ago. What do I do? Should I just undo all my edits and leave Wikipedia? Bandy boy (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this editor is currently facing a sockpuppet investigation and has also been reported for edit warring at the Riksdag article here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this is the user harrassing me. :-( Bandy boy (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bandy boy, and welcome to the teahouse. Being accused of sockpuppetry can certainly feel like harassment, as it did for me at a subpage of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daedalus969. However, SPI clerks and checkusers are normally well able to deal with these things appropriately. (They did so in that case.)

So, your question is, what should you do? My answer is, what you should do is to wait for the SPI clerks to decide whether a checkuser check is appropriate in this case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you have also been accused of edit warring, Bandy boy, it would be advisable to avoid multiple reversions in the future. Being "right" is not a defense, and it is not harassment to warn an editor and report such things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding Pictures that are on a public website?

I would like to write an article on a photographic essay, that features some amazing photographers from Kamoinge Inc. One of the photographers photos are on the MoMa website, and the permissions are available. How would I be able to place this photo on my article. It is a photographic essay/novel, and I think without pictures loses its ability to really speak about the work. I have multiple sources for the image, and the website.

Thank you,

Karole Kaycee bc (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Karole, welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure what you mean by "permissions": Wikipedia needs very specific permissions for a picture to be used. I couldn't seem to find it by searching on the website. If you can give a link to the page with the picture, we could give some more specific advice. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The help page Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission may be of relevance to you. --LukeSurl^{t c} 00:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

About commas

Hello again, just a quick check if I am correctly using commas, if I may? Is this correct, "On 30 October 2000, he won the race...." (with a comma after the year) or is this correct, "On 30 October 2000 he won the race...." (with no comma after the year). I think the WPMOS on commas only mentions the month date year format. Many thanks so I can be a consistent editor. Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Myrtlegroggins. According to MOS:YEAR, "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation", so your first example is preferred. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. MyrtleMyrtlegroggins (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing an article for length, scope, depth

Hi, an area about which I'm knowledgeable (art therapy) has a long article that should have a world-wide POV but does not. Certain countries have developed more art therapy training programs, etc. Yet obviously the article should not go into too much depth on the details of how art therapy is done in one particular country. At the current time the article rambles and has long sections that pertain to details of art therapy in America only.

I want to remove all the US-only material but place it where it can be preserved and seen for discussion. Where should I put it, the Talk page?

Another rambling section is on assessments in art therapy, which is not central to the field. Yet I hesitate to break that section out into its own article of Art Therapy Assessments with a link to the original Art Therapy article. I hesitate because I am concerned that there may not be much need for such an article. Your thoughts?

Thank you! Anne9853 (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Anne. I agree that being completely US centric is not good but I don't agree that it is necessarily a good thing to just remove big chunks of text solely because they are US centric. I think a better approach is to add additional text that describes the approaches used in other nations. Also, a lot depends on the particular subject. Like it or not the US is very influential in a lot of subjects and for some things a comprehensive review will naturally have a lot of US names and institutions in it. I don't know enough about Art Therapy to comment on that specific topic but when you say you are going to "to remove all the US-only material" that seems like a rather drastic solution to me. At a minimum I would start some discussion on the talk page before you go cutting huge sections of text, especially if those sections have good references. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. Yes the page is rambling and has instruction "For more information on how to become licensed, US art therapists should contact the state licensure board in the state in the US in which they wish to practice." which is not appropriate (though some of it can be recast). Splitting the US material into a separate article "Art therapy in the US" or the assessment material into Art therapy assessment is a perfectly sound move in principle. Best, of course to raise it on the talk page first. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

How do you ping?

I once saw, in "Edit source", somebody say something along the lines of [ping...]. What did he say, and what does that do? Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. This function is described at {{ping}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You can also type @(if you want to), followed by their linked (two [ on either side of username) username, like this: @Acalycine. However, it may be easier to use a template. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 04:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user

This isn't a question. Rather, it's a followup to a question I asked here a few days ago. It's something that I feel is important for newer editors to know; since there are lot of them watching this space, I thought perhaps this non-question would be tolerated.

I signed up for Adopt-a-user a few days ago, after editing like a madman for about two months. The difference is PHENOMENAL, despite the fact that I took of advantage of the resources here from time to time. I'm learning five times as fast, no question is too minor for my adopter, and she responds so quickly that I wonder whether she has nothing better to do than take care of me.

I would strongly recommend this program to any new, or even relatively new, editor. I still think Wikipedia should do more to make sure EVERY new editor is aware of Adopt-a-user. Mandruss (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is an outstanding program, Mandruss, and I encourage experienced editors to participate, as that is the limiting factor in the program. I have been mentoring an editor for 14 months, and it has been a wonderful experience, for both of us, I think. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How to give an Encyclopedic Description to an article?

Hi If an article has a tag "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject", then how to transform it into encyclopedic form? --Ubed junejo (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If the article you are creating is your first one then probably WP:YFA can help you out. In general you should try to write an article based on facts, because wikipedia is a encyclopedia and not a blog personal opinions about anything must be avoided under any circumstances. Remember to add reliable sources to your article. Read the policy for creating an article before creating it.Abhinav0908 (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse Ubed. That's not an easy question to answer, it depends a lot on the topic. Here is an article that might help: wp:Encyclopedic_style In general try to be objective and matter of fact. So for example if you were writing an article about the Beatles you shouldn't say (although I think it's completely true) "the Beatles were the most awesome rock or pop group ever" but instead should say things like "the Beatles were highly influential and set many records for the sales of their singles and albums" One thing I do when I write an article is start with the references first. I start with some short sentences that paraphrase things in good references and then think about how to connect them and make things flow and read naturally from there. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, for the present, as the article does not look like an essay to me. It could certainly be improved, but that's true of many articles. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

I agree, Rich Farmbrough. I have done some copy editing. It is a good beginning, assuming that it accurately summarizes the sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation of reprinted article on the Web

Hi, This page is a transcription of a Harper's Weekly article from 1889. It is not on a Web site associated with Harper's Weekly. What exact citation code would you use? Mandruss (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss. As long as you are satisfied that it's a true an accurate copy, you can cite it as though you were using the original Harper's article (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). I'd therefore use something like

<ref>{{cite journal | last=Howard | first=William Willard | journal=Harper's Weekly | date=May 18, 1889 | issue=33 | pages=391-94 | url=http://urbanplanning.library.cornell.edu/DOCS/landrush.htm | accessdate=9 May 2014}}</ref>

. Hope that helps, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no way to judge its accuracy besides the facts that (1) it's on a server owned by Cornell University, and (2) it contains a statement that it was created by a former Cornell professor. Would that satisfy you? Mandruss (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd find that to be pretty compelling, but if you aren't sure you can always ask for a review at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case, Mandruss, it is OK to link to a copy of the article hosted by someone other than the original publisher. Since it was published in the U.S. in 1889, we know it is no longer copyrighted, as everything originally published in the U.S. before 1923 is copyright free. But if the situation was similar except that the article was first published in 1989, we would not link to a website hosting an unauthorized copy, since copyright is still in effect. We don't knowingly link to copyright violations, just as we don't violate copyright ourselves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What is truth?

Answer me this, and please spare me the "wikipedia" definition of what certain humans deem truth to be. What does truth mean to you, and where can one find it? Do I look for it in the same places that you do? What does he do with it when he finds it? What if the truth is not palatable to him? Say, this truth sheds doubt on all that he has come to know through all of his rigorous "academic" indoctrination, how then does one cope with the cognitive dissonance? Does he search for further "evidence" of this truth, braving the great beyond? Or does he pack it away in the back of his mind like old clothes in a musty attic somewhere, never to be seen again? What makes you think that your truth is greater than mine? Simply because you observed it? Because peer consensus seemingly validated your perceptual reality? Or perhaps is was modern science that allowed you to derive those conclusions, what with your underdeveloped eyeballs and relatively poor hearing? Consensus reality is bogus. I agree with it because I have to to function in this society that we've created for ourselves. Otherwise I would be ridiculed, marginalized, alone. What makes alone a bad thing? Why do humans seek different truths for one another, for themselves? Why is wikipedia the horse's mouth of truth? I for one trust very little of what I read here. I take it into account, sure. I make a mosaic. But the final distinction of what truth *is* is mine, and mine alone, and I need not cite sources to verify this truth that I have collected through years of experience to my so-called "peers", who are really strangers wearing smart people clothes, passing themselves off as "experts". Charlatans. Frauds. I need not pass off my observations as truth, as they are self-evident aphorisms that only I need understand to carry this vessel through this plane of existence. If others join me in my existence, then they are my friends. I condemn your elitist institution and your need to quantify reality with mere human words. 74.109.121.222 (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, IP editor. The Teahouse is a place to answer questions about editing Wikipedia, and we don't presume to answer Life's Deep Questions. I recommend our article on Truth, but if you find that article and Wikipedia itself inadequate, please be aware that you can create your own website dedicated to Truth, and make your observations there. Here, our approximation of truth is what reliable sources say, based on "verifiability". Our shared goal is building an encyclopedia, which is a somewhat different objective from yours. You are free to pursue your own goals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. You are right, "truth" is rather hard to define, which is why Wikipedia's goal is verifiability, not truth. Editors write articles based on information from other sources, and readers should decide if they accept them as true. This is a rather heady question for a Wikipedia help forum, but I hope this answers your questions to some extent. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If I may add two cents, I'm glad 74.109.121.222 brought up the question of truth in Wikipedia, since it's the single most important thing any editor or reader should know about Wikipedia. I'm absolutely certain that 2+2=4, but I can't add that statement to an article without citing a reliable source that specifically says 2+2=4. On the flip side, if I add the statement that 2+2=5, and I cite a reliable source, no editor should remove or change that statement. The tricky part is deciding whether a particular source is reliable, especially in borderline cases.

The fact that Wikipedia is not about truth is interpreted by many to mean that it's never a reliable source for anything, and should be avoided like the plague by anyone who cares about truth. This is one of the main arguments made by the anti-Wikipedia crowd. I think they exaggerate Wikipedia's downside and completely ignore its upside; if I didn't, I wouldn't be here.

I think 74.109.121.222 should be looking for his answers in the works of the great philosophers, not at Wikipedia.org. I wish I could point him to some good choices, but I haven't read any of them! Mandruss (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, Mandruss, Wikipedia's verifiability policy, if followed carefully, leads to the closest possible approximation of "the truth". Let's say for the sake of discussion that an article published by the New York Times on May 8, 2014 said "2+2=6". Because the New York Times has a reputation for publishing corrections when it makes mistakes (all newspapers make mistakes), we can be reasonably sure that a day or two later, they corrected their error, confirming that "4" is the correct sum. We can't rely on that demonstrably false May 8 statement in one of our articles. After all, we can cite the correction published later. Or we can cite countless other reliable sources, including math books for 5 year old kids, that verify that 2+2=4. Yes, this is an extreme example, but illustrates the point that we don't just state what a single "reliable source" states, especially when we know that the claim is dubious or false, because any single reliable source can make an error. Instead, we summarize what the wide range of reliable sources say about the matter at hand. And I assure you that the overwhelming consensus view among the reliable sources is "4". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, thanks for your comments. Obviously I need more work on grasping this somewhat tricky concept (and perhaps there are better places than Teahouse for this kind of discussion). But take, for example, that I come across a statement that I believe to be false and cites a reliable source. Rather than simply finding another reliable source that says what I believe to be true, are you saying I need to survey most or all reliable sources on the question to determine their consensus? And then choose just one or two to cite? Geez, I already thought good citation was tough! Anyway, can you point me to the best help file to read about this? Mandruss (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

There is also common sense (or WP:IAR) - we are not required to include information we know to be false (though in certain circumstances it may be worth recording how widespread a particular belief is, or was). I can think of two instances where we have removed (admittedly minor) incorrect information which normally RS indicated to be true. The majority of Wikipedia's rules are designed to prevent abuse, and only incidentally have become guiding lights for good faith contributors. Good examples of where they are challenged are in the area of oral history, where we (the community) have been looking to relax them, and WP:MEDRS where we apply tighter control. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

I am a novice to Wikipedia and have a question regarding "the definition of a circle"

I debated with my mathematics teacher over "the definition of a circle",which I find important! My perception is that a circle is; The shortest distance between two points where those points remain an opposite and equal distance apart. My teacher said that I was right, but he was also right by definition of; a point revolving around a point. Recently, I've been using a tetrahedron as the basis for "spherical pi", to search for an irrational, non-repeating numerical sequence and I find that my basis for a definitive circle is more relevant than ever. A tetrahedron has no central point inside, only an "insphere" and a "circumsphere" and the oscillation caused by the surface area of four equilateral triangles in a vectorial motion. In conclusion, do you not think of a circle as; the shortest distance between two points whereas those points remain an equal and opposite distance from each other? Why is this not acceptable?67.204.212.4 (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The teahouse is primarily an asset where new editors can ask, and have answered, questions about editing Wikipedia. Your question would be better situated at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Your mathematics teacher is probably your best resource however, and then the college professors at your nearby community college. I get the sense that you are trying to define a circle as an Ellipse and your two points; the foci. I say this because you stated that your teacher said you were right, and the aforementioned ellipse and foci is the only manner that does generalize a circle that also has an element of equidistant regarding the foci and all points on the curve. Anyway, here's everything you ever wanted to know about a circle except probably, the answer to your question. Good luck in your pursuit of discovery.—John Cline (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Issues Header

I and others have edited a entry Mark Versallion as someone claims it relies on references to primary sources and a major contributor to the article appears to have a close connection, which is why I and others thought we would improve it by contributing. However, the Multiple Issues header keeps getting put back in despite the issues being resolved? Thanks, Merv96(Merv96 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Merv96. You and Plingsby seem to be having an ongoing content dispute about this article. I see you have opened a discussion on the talk page, which is the right thing to do. I notice that your removals of the tags were done with no edit summary, which often makes deletions liable to be mistaken for vandalism. But I don't think Plingsby should have reinstated the tags a second time without opening a discussion with you. If the two of you cannot reach an agreement, the procedures in Dispute resolution are the way to go, rather than descending into an edit war. One point: the quality of the references would be much easier to determine if they were better formatted, according to the methods in referencing for beginners (I prefer to use the templates such as {{cite web}}, but that is not the only way to do it). --ColinFine (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Files

When a file is linked to an article, the name of the articles appears in the file page. Is the article shown by done by magic words ? PeppiTaZobbuKbir (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, PeppiTaZobbuKbir, welcome to the Teahouse. The list of pages that use a file is generated automatically, with no magic words required. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How do I reference a data base?

In Sweden more and more data base material is becoming available online. Most of the material is just books or paper document that have been scanned or digitalized, so the actual book does exist. Example: Dictionary of Swedish National Biography. It is great for research but it poses a problem: When using these as references should I use {{cite web}} or {{cite book}}? At most of these data bases there are two sets of facts to use when referring to the article in question, the “paper one” is suggested if you want a very correct ref that does not change if the website changes, but if you want others to have easy access to the same information the “web one” is recommended. Example: Article about John Bauer (at the bottom of the page). Or is there by now a {{cite data base}}? - W.carter (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, W.carter, welcome back to the Teahouse. All of the citation templates have a "url" parameter, so you can use {{cite book}}, even if it is online. You should provide the other information for the book, not the database, so that others could find a paper copy if they wanted. (By the way, it's better to use {{cite encyclopedia}} for dictionaries.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! There are a wealth of source specific templates see Category:Specific-source_templates. If a source is going to be used a lot, and has special characteristics, these can be real timesavers.

As to refs that do not change, the "accessdate" parameter is some help there, in conjunction with archiving sites.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

How do I lock a page so that only authhorised users can edit information

Good day I am the Social Media Manager for the South African artist Elvis Blue Wiki: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Elvis_Blue website: http://www.elvisblue.co.za/ FB: https://www.facebook.com/Elvis.Blue?ref=hl YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA8eWMFbzxRQQM5GWKK830w Twitter: https://twitter.com/elvisblue If you want to check if he really exist. There has been some edits made on his page previously and information was removed. I have checked the one edit was done and the person stated that this is a blatant copy of his Bio on his webpage. The thing is that's the way he wants it. i am referring to the Elvis Blue Journey to date section. Now he has picked up that most of the section on his second album, Journey has been removed. I can't pick up from the edit why it has been removed. He is asking if we can lock this page so that only members of his management team can edit the page. He understands that WiKi is a great PR tool if used correctly as it displays the image of the artist as he wants it to be displayed to the public. Can anyone please assist me in this task. If there a gross errors that I have edited under this username Please let me know as well I am always willing to learn. But in the end it is the public image of this artist the way he wants it to be portrayed that should go on this page. If I add the part of the 2nd album that was removed, again Will it be removed again? The description of the album and the biography was copied from Wikipedia to his webpage and not vice versa Regards Karin Tottelme (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Karin, welcome to the Teahouse. Simply put, the answer is that you don't. Wikipedia is not a PR tool, and the public face that the subject wants portrayed is not what should go on their Wikipedia page. Rather, it's only the things that reliable sources (that are independent of the subject themselves) say about a subject that should go into an article. This is a common misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, but nevertheless, it is a misunderstanding, and a rather serious one at that. As an associate of Elvis Blue, and thus an editor who has a conflict of interest regarding him, it's actually strongly recommended that you do not edit the article directly at all (though it's not strictly prohibited). Rather it would be better for you to place edit requests on the article's talk page, to allow neutral editors to review your suggestions before placing them into the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tottelme: (edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, Wikipedia is not and will never be a PR tool. It is an encyclopedia. As you have a conflict of interest, you are strongly encouraged not to edit the page directly, but instead propose changes at Talk:Elvis Blue. Also, pages are only locked to prevent vandalism or other disruptive editing and are never locked so that one user or a group of users can own the page (This is not even technically possible. The most common type of protection, semi-protection, allows anyone with an account to edit a page). Copying from someone's personal webpage is almost always a bad idea because it won't be neutral (i.e. it will most likely be written promotionally and in a manner the glosses over any controversy). Nevertheless, if you do insist on copying content from there, you must add a statement on the website saying that it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license. Again, you should not make any edits directly, but propose them on the talk page where neutral editors can look over and possibly act on the changes. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 18:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. I just want to mention again that the specific part that was removed by the editro with the reason blatant copy of was infact not a blatant copy. The write-up of teh album was done first on wikepedia and then it was copied by the person who did a redo on his webpage to his updated webpage. So the reason for removing it was not valid. In the end what is documented on the page should be factual. It is def factual. Any help from the experienced editors and maybe some mentoring would be greatly appreciated. I saw that a large number of musicians pages were locked and therefor I wanted to enguire in this regard. Bottom line is it looks weird the part of the write-up on the album that was left. And I hear what you say that Wikipedia should not be considered a PR tool, but it forms an inherent part of social media management. Esp. for an artist that could still have an international break. Please advise 164.151.4.18 (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tottelme (I'm assuming 164.151.4.18 is you). The copyright infringement was a valid removal. It may have been later copied onto Elvis Blue's website, but the original source was "Gifted and humble – that’s Elvis Blue", St Francis Village News (16 August 2012). It was copied with only minor changes into the Wikipedia article on 21 January 2013. Incidentally, the pages you've seen as "locked", are semi-protected. That means that unregistered users editing from IPs or accounts less than 4 days old are not permitted to edit the article. It's done in cases where the article has been subject to excessive vandalism and/or violation of our policy on biographies of living persons from such accounts. However the article can still be freely edited by anyone with a registered account over four days old and with 10 prior edits to Wikipedia. Complete locking (full protection of the article, when only administrators can edit it) happens occasionally, but only as a temporary measure when the article has seen excessive edit-warring by confirmed editors. Full protection is removed once the dispute has been resolved on the article's talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tottelme - Please note that Wikipedia absolutely definitely is not social media. This misconception is one of the most persistent problems we face, and it is particularly a serious problem among PR and advertising/marketing professionals who seem to lump all user editable websites under that label. In addition, the type of information generated by PR and marketing efforts are in fact considered to be among the least acceptable of all published sources used in writing Wikipedia articles because PR/Marketing information is by definition suspect as its very existence has an ulterior motive - to sell something. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

How Wikipedia tags are removed

Hi there!

I'm new to Wikipedia editing. After working on an article recently I was wondering how tags like This article is an orphan are removed? Who reviews articles and removes the tags? I'm wondering what the process is.

Thanks!

Contentauthor01 (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Contentauthor01 and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer to your question is you do. If you want to remove the orphan tag, first click the "What links here" option in the left hand menu. If you see at least one link from a page that is not in the Wikipedia talk or project area then it is OK to go ahead and remove the tag. You can read more about orphans here. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

To that I would add that if you are removing tags it is wise to put a few appropriate words in an edit summary to justify the change (just as for any other edit). --David Biddulph (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes people like to see an incoming link from an article that is not a list. Note that many orphan tags get removed by people using tools such as WP:AWB. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

The changes I made in an article were rolled back. What can I do?

I made changes for the Veen wikipedia page. I work in an advertising agency and Veen is our client. He wanted us to make the changes to the page. I made the changes with reference to the website and my changes were removed on the basis that there were copywrite issues. What can I do in such a situation? Akanksha.sri (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The first thing you must do is desist immediately from putting copyrighted material onto Wikipedia. You were warned about it, you've done it again (and been reverted again), and if you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The original message on your user talk page gave you a number of useful links about copyright violation, and about the processes for donating copyrighted material, so you need to read those. It would, however, be pointless to arrange for the copyright in that material to be donated to Wikipedia, because the language is grossly promotional, and totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia which writes about its subjects in a neutral point of view. You need to tell your clients that Wikipedia is not an advertising channel, and you need to read the guidance on editing with a conflict of interest. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit page

Hi! I work for Kranti Kanade (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kranti_Kanade). His wikipedia page states 'This biographical article needs additional citations for verification.' & 'This article appears to be written like an advertisement.' We want these to disappear & seek guidance as to how to edit the page to remove them.117.223.148.197 (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! You can add more references to all the important information because a reliable source is very important for an encyclopedia. All the claims that you make should be cited to a reliable source. Maybe you can expand the article a little more too. Whereas as Kranti Kanade is a notable filmmaker this article should not be considered as an advertisement most probably. Anyhow you should look forward to add citations to the claims about nominations and other things. Then the above mentioned problems can be removed.Abhinav0908 (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but you should not be making any edits to that page at all. First please read our guidelines on conflict of interest and neutral point of view. You can then suggest changes, providing proper references, on the articles talk page, and flag these as a requested edit, as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests - Arjayay (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh God i need some sleep i believe Arjajay is right, i forgot aboutneutral point of view and conflict of interest. It will be better if you leave an edit request.Abhinav0908 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kranti Kanade.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm really new to how wikipedia actually works. Could someone guide me as to how to make Kranti Kanade's page more credible?114.143.114.1 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@114.143.114.1: Please see the identical question higher up the page here. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Kranti Kanade page - Article with multiple issues

Hi! I'm an indie filmmaker from Pune & have been following Kranti Kanade's work (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kranti_Kanade) for quite a few years. The information on the page seems valid and neutral. Yet on top a message displaying 'This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2011) This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (February 2011)' appears. How do we edit the article so that these messages go away & the article becomes more credible?114.143.114.1 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see the response left the last time you asked. So you're now a completely independent party who just so happens to have the exact same concerns as one of the subject's employees - and from the same IP address? Forgive us if we don't find that entirely plausible. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@114.143.114.1: Please don't repeat the same question in a non relevant section as you did further down the page here. Yunshui has already taken the time to answer you, so please follow his advice. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on Article for Creation being declined

Hey! I am trying to create an article on a company called Oktopost, and it was recently declined. Would be great if anybody could point me in the right direction, as I am not sure who it differs from similar articles in the industry. BufferApp/SproutSocial. Thanks! Bnkg99 (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/oktopost has a fairly comprehensive series of suggestions at the top, both in the box, and as a comment underneath - and which, when you posted the above, you had not addressed. You need to start by addressing these points, in particular, the need for significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed?

I just got a notice with a little green checked box saying that my user page had just been "reviewed" by another user. What does that mean? Am I being investigated or something? - W.carter (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It simply means that an editor took a very quick look and determined that it wasn't an attack page containing libel or anything clearly contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia. This is routine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't you wait 10 minutes more ?

The sun does shine, correct ? PeppiTaZobbuKbir (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No to waiting 10 minutes, yes to the sun shining though!

195.158.105.106 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi PeppiTaZobbuKbir. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, not to enquire about the weather. However, as the above IP address indicates that you are in Algeria, which is close to the equator, then the answer is probably "yes." On a more general level, the sun should continue to shine (in some parts of the world), for at least the next 1.1 billion years. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

LoL - to your answer! - W.carter (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please delete user profile Wyliecoyote1990

Could an admin delete Wyliecoyote1990 as i forgot my password and email to reset password.

Can my progress of Tee Hee page be transferred to this new account, or do i have to start again from scratch?

Thanks :) Martinwylie1990 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Martin and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, nobody can delete an account as you can see on this page. Also, to answer your 2nd question, Tee Hee is located here and you can edit the information in the article. I believe this is your 1st article, so I recommend that you look at these guidelines to make sure that you article does not get declined. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Martinwylie1990 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sign-On Problem

A LONG time ago, I created an account and have not used it for well over a year. I would now like to make an edit with this old sign-on, but I can't remember my password. I have requested TWICE for Wikipedia to RESET my password, using my current gmail email address. But, I have yet to receive an email from Wikipedia concerning this reset password. I have done this twice, with NO email received either time. I have checked my SPAM mail, and it is empty too. I really don't want to create a new account as that sign-on is the one I use everywhere else. And, if I try to create an account using this old ID, the system says it is already in use. ... What advice do you have to fix this problem??? 67.162.15.88 (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. When you set up your account a long time ago, did you activate email communication with that Gmail address? Go to your old user page, and see if the "Email this user" function is activated on the toolbar to the left. If so, send a test email, and check your Gmail account and any older email accounts. You must use the linked email account to reset your password. If not, that means you did not activate email a long time ago, and then it will not be possible to reset your password. Create a new account with a similar name. For example, if your old name was "Cleveland Boy", try "Cleveland Boi" or "Boy Cleveland" instead. Or pick an entirely new user name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the software will stop you from making very similar named accounts, this is to prevent peopel from impersonating each other. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC).

Another note: The Special:EmailUser function is only available to logged-in editors. When checking for the password reset email, sure you are checking the email address you provided to Wikipedia when you registered an account. Have you changed emails in the past year? Perhaps you didn't confirm your email address when you signed up—when you signed up, did you receive an email from Wikipedia asking you to follow a link to verify the email address? If you don't remember this email, or you didn't provide an email in the first place, there's not much else you can do. Creating a new account is probably the only option you have left to take. I apologize for this unfortunate circumstance. We do appreciate your interests in contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope to see you around as a username I can warmly recognize! Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I've had the same gmail account for several years, so don't think a changed email is the problem. I'm stumped. Guess I'll have to create a new account (bummer)! Thanks for the help! 67.162.15.88 (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Figured it out! ... duh!!! Instead of tying email to what I "thought" was ID, I just sent in the email with NO ID assigned to it. Got email this time and my ID was something else (someone already has my usual ID). I've recorded this ID and password for future use. Thanks all again! Sauerjn (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What information is acceptable for articles on living artists?

I wrote an article on a living artist, Cynthia Carlson. Originally it included names & dates of group & solo exhibitions, awards, public commissions and public collections. It was subsequently edited and all the exhibitions, commissions, appearances in publications, included in collections and most of the awards were removed stating that an encyclopedic article isn't a "CV". Second only to their art work, artists consider their exhibitions as a very important representation of who they are.

I was unable to find any information on this topic and have concerns that this administrator will go on to remove all the exhibit listings from all the other living artists who appear on Wikipedia. However I don't think the movie listings for actors, song lyrics or tunes for songwriters or lists of books for authors are in any imminent danger.

Any information on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Murray Mursimon (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mursimon, and welcome back to The Teahouse. Are these awards and achievements covered in reliable sources independent of Ms. Carlson? Is Ms. Carlson considered notable by Wikipedia's definition?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mursimon. I have no doubt that Cynthia Carlson is a notable artist, but on the other hand, I agree with the cuts that StarryGrandma made to the page. Extremely long unreferenced lists of exhibitions are not appropriate, especially if copied from the artist's website. By the way, Starry Grandma is not an administrator, as far as I know, and you can always discuss the matter with her. Have you? Please be aware that a Wikipedia biography should be based on what independent reliable sources say about an artist. If a large majority of the content comes from sources controlled by or affiliated with the artist, the biography becomes little more than a promotional vehicle for the artist, and that is not what Wikipedia is all about. I see that you blanked the article yourself at one point, perhaps in frustration or in error. Once you contribute content to Wikipedia, it no longer belongs to you and should not be blanked without good reason. In conclusion, StarryGrandma and any other editor has just as much right to edit the article as you do. If you want to add a smaller number of exhibitions, be sure to reference them to reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello VChimpanzee, and will we now be going over AGAIN the discussion and search for online references and the question of Cynthia's notoriety? Two administrator's had been involved when this article was moved to Wikipedia space and there seemed to be no concern at that time. Then this StarryGrandma comes along and deletes most of the information. It leads one to believe that there are many administrators, each with her\his point of view on how to interpret the hugh numbers of Wikipedias rules and regulations. So all I can think of to do is to re-list my question here because it still hasn't been answered unless the correct Wikipedia answer to a question is another question.Mursimon (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mursimon, please be aware that VChimpanzee just asked two questions, and there is no need to get upset. The article has not been nominated for deletion. But please be aware that you don't own the article. Anyone can edit it now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee asked what we all ask when we look at articles. Yes, Cynthia Carlson is a major American artist, one of the first wave of women to be accepted as mainstream artists. The reference I used is not an "online" reference. An encyclopedia article isn't an advertising piece for an artist. Instead, we like to see her work presented as it developed chronologically. What was she doing when? More of a history than a list of accomplishments. The artist's web page is always listed first in the "External links" section so that all the information from the web site is available to interested readers. But a good artist web site is designed to promote an artist. An encyclopedia article is something else. Look at the article on Henry Moore. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)