<div style="text-align:right; color: #7d7b75; font-size: 11px">Please join our discussions! To reply, use the edit button across from the title ↓</div>
<div style="text-align:right; color: #7d7b75; font-size: 11px">Please join our discussions! To reply, use the edit button across from the title ↓</div>
<!-- HI! PLEASE ENTER YOUR QUESTION USING THE QUESTION BOX. BUT IF YOU ARE ENTERING YOUR QUESTION MANUALLY, PUT IT RIGHT HERE↓ -->
<!-- HI! PLEASE ENTER YOUR QUESTION USING THE QUESTION BOX. BUT IF YOU ARE ENTERING YOUR QUESTION MANUALLY, PUT IT RIGHT HERE↓ -->
==editor retention==
Are there any empirical studies regarding the Wikipedia mechanisms that encourage editors to stay and/or drive them away?
Specifically, I'm wondering whether an automated invitation to participate in something called "the Teahouse" has been shown to affect the likelihood that an editor returns; and, if so, how?
[[User:Twentyfour-dot-something|Twentyfour-dot-something]] ([[User talk:Twentyfour-dot-something|talk]]) 04:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
==uploading my picture onto my user profile==
==uploading my picture onto my user profile==
Hi, can someone please help. I've created a user profile "Jack Dikian" recently. I have made at least 10 edits. I was successful in uploading a picture to go along my user page but the image was a little small. Today I believe I have uploaded a large image (I think into commons. Not really sure what that is. The new image is not being displayed on my user page. Does it take time? Should I just wait? Any advice? C 03:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can someone please help. I've created a user profile "Jack Dikian" recently. I have made at least 10 edits. I was successful in uploading a picture to go along my user page but the image was a little small. Today I believe I have uploaded a large image (I think into commons. Not really sure what that is. The new image is not being displayed on my user page. Does it take time? Should I just wait? Any advice? C 03:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Please join our discussions! To reply, use the edit button across from the title ↓
editor retention
Are there any empirical studies regarding the Wikipedia mechanisms that encourage editors to stay and/or drive them away?
Specifically, I'm wondering whether an automated invitation to participate in something called "the Teahouse" has been shown to affect the likelihood that an editor returns; and, if so, how?
Hi, can someone please help. I've created a user profile "Jack Dikian" recently. I have made at least 10 edits. I was successful in uploading a picture to go along my user page but the image was a little small. Today I believe I have uploaded a large image (I think into commons. Not really sure what that is. The new image is not being displayed on my user page. Does it take time? Should I just wait? Any advice? C 03:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
When editing my user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fuschiabriefs), I have two tables 2nd to last and 3rd to last from the bottom, which from what I can see are identical, apart from the individual data in them. However, in the top one, there are 2 boxes "jury votes" to the right which I can't explain why they are there, or how to get rid of them. Also, each column doesn't appear to be of equal width, whereas in the bottom table they do. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks
Hello and welcome Frederic! You need to put a colon in front of it, like this: [[:fr:animal]] which prints fr:animal. NOTE, however, that this is not a reference, merely a link to an article at another language's Wikipedia. You cannot use another Wikipedia article, in any language, to verify text at Wikipedia. Does that help? --Jayron3220:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks much. It works, although it's not very pretty.
I am having trouble changing my main title from User:MyName to Alice Lloyd Hall. By main title I mean what the entire page is centered around and I can't figure out how to change that!Katiereiner (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to move a page, you would do this. I don't think you want to do this, however. The article needs a lot of work Hello Katiereiner, and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article is currently located on your user page which is fine, because user pages are frequently used as a "sandbox" to create a "draft version" of the article. If you wanted to move the article to the main article space, you would use the "move" function as is shown in the picture I just provided. However, you do not want to do this right now. Trust me. As it stands now, the article would likely be deleted very quickly if you moved it to the main article space. Instead, you really should work on the article in your sandbox until it is acceptable. Perfection is not required, but there are still some minimum standards, and the text you have written is fairly below it right now. Here's some things that need to be fixed before the text is moved to an article title:
There are no good references in the article. Wikipedia requires that all text is connected to reliable and independent sources (that is, really good well respected sources that are unconnected to the subject itself, like books, newspapers, journals, etc, which have no affiliation with the University of Michigan) before an article can exist. In the state it is right now, that is the main reason the article would be deleted. You need to remedy this first before anything else can be done. Not every thing in the world has been written about in this way, but in order to exist as an article at Wikipedia, those sources need to exist.
The text is of an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. Your writing needs to describe the subject in dispassionate terms, that is phrases like "one of the many amazing dorms..." really aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. You're job as a Wikipedia writer is to tell us about the subject, not to tell us how to feel about the subject.
I am sorry...am really lost..I can't even locate the image i uploaded...itss lost....while uploading- I simply went on the upload file box at the toolbox & followed the instructions & it got uploaded too...but now I cant find it...please help Callousfreak (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Callousfreak, according to your contributions, which you can see by clicking the contributions link at the top of the page, you have only uploaded one image File:Sabhyasachi Mukherjee at the launch of Zoya Banaras collection by Taj Khazana.jpg. You can attach this to the article on Mukherjee article by adding [[File:Sabhyasachi Mukherjee at the launch of Zoya Banaras collection by Taj Khazana.jpg]] at the at the appropriate point in the article - probably at the top. Looking at the image file you have uploaded it with a licence tag saying that it is licenced under a Creativecommons licence. On the bollywoodhungama.com site I don't see anything that indicates that this image is licenced in this way and therefore I have tagged the image for deletion from wikipedia unless in the next seven days you can supply an appropriate licence and permission. It is your responsibility to show that the image is in the public domain not for me or anyone else to disprove it ,just being available on the internet is not an indication that a photo is in the public domain. NtheP (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi peeps. The image is now on Wikimedia Commons at [[File:Sabyasachi Mukherjee.jpg]]. I've tagged the original for deletion as a duplicate of the Commons image. Keri (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
edit references
I tried to edit some links of references on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pommel_horse. But when I click the "edit" button of the References section I only get the text:
"References Reflist"
Hi Xela46, welcome to the teahouse! The references are inline citations, so they are in the body of the article itself, between <ref> and </ref> tags. Click Edit at the very top of the page, not on the right, and you'll see them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(kind of) Hello! Welcome to the teahouse! If you cite the references inline with <ref> </ref> and {{citeweb}} <nowiki>, then just go to the bottom, type <nowiki> ==References== and then {{reflist}} to produce all of the references in order. If you provide a link, I'd be glad to go take a look! gwickwire | Leave a message17:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ferrari Enzo! Just a tip for you. I am an administrator, so I can check to see what articles you created have been deleted. It would be helpful, if you don't want your articles deleted, if you didn't create gibberish or nonsense articles. The only article deleted from the account you are using now was an article titled "Hfsdffftttttttrr" and it was basically some made-up baloney. This is a serious academic project, and we welcome serious contributions to it, but if you going to ask questions about why things get deleted, "because it was a joke you did just to be funny" is very high on the list of reasons. --Jayron3216:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question about how to interpret the meaning of a word written in RED on a page
I was reading the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_abbreviations and a few words in the tables are written in RED. Also blue is used in non-hyperlink words, so maybe it's both red AND blue I need to understand.
Is there a site-universal standard for that text color-coding, or was it simply at the discretion of the person who originally posted the page ?
The meaning of the words in different colors, at least on this page, is definitely not intuitive - iow, there's nothing obvious about them that would set them apart to explain their being differently-colored. Th68.205.213.52 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm creating an article in my Sandbox. I want to include 3 images of theoretical models.
Yesterday I uploaded two of them, but they don't appear in my article. I don't know where they are. Additional details: When uploading the files, I checked "in the pubic domain" They are not copyrighted and I accessed them online. I have given full credit to the authour both in the text of my document and in a title of each figure.
Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Unregistered users can't upload images so I'm guessing you have created an account but have asked this question without logging in. If you log into your account at the top of the screen you'll see these buttons at the top of the page
Click on the one called contributions and you will see a list of all your edits including any images you have uploaded. To link your images to your article you need to add [[File:filename]] to your article.
You say the images are of theoretical models and are available online and that you have credited the author. Just because they are available online doesn't put them into the public domain and it's very likely that the copyright does belong to the author. I'm afraid the onus is on you to establish positively that any images you upload are in the public domain. A lack of a notice saying they are copyright isn't enough. NtheP (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may have uploaded them at commons: or they may have been deleted as suspected copyright violations. In either case the above wouldn't show what happened. Please tell your username so we can examine all possibilities. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Files can only be uploaded by logged in users and we can only examine your uploads if you tell us your username. You were not logged in when you posted here so we can only see your IP address and not your username. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can a new user search for all past editing contributions by using IP address?
Hi, I just signed up for Wikipedia editing privileges. In the past few years, I've made occasional edits -- usually just one or two phrases, when the grammar in an existing article seemed to be crying out for improvement. I signed up today after making one of these edits, and when I clicked the "Contributions" link, I imagined that ALL my past edits would appear. In other words, I thought that the system would search for ALL my past edits, by using my IP address, including the handful of edits made before today (when I finally got an official user name).
But as it turned out, the past edits did not appear. Only today's contribution appeared. // So, is there any quick way that I can have the system search for all the past edits, including those made before I got a username?
RichM969RichM969 (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RichM969, Welcome to Teahouse. You can check the edits by typing the IP address in the text box next to 'User' at this page: Special:Contributions. If you are not aware of your IP address, you can check the same at this link: Wikimedia Geoiplookup. Please note that if you were using a dynamic IP modem, its difficult to track the edits. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For privacy reasons, only checkusers can see the IP address used by an account. If you log out and click Special:MyContributions then you can see edits made by your current IP address by users who were not logged in at the time. There might be others than you, and there might be none if your IP address is dynamic. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimeHunter, what does checkuser has to do with in the context of this question? I guess, even checkuser cant help with the dynamic ip issue. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was commenting on the original post and not you. I explained why we could not help more directly and for example not say whether IP contributions would show anything. RichM969 also asked for a quick way and I gave a quicker way than looking up your IP address elsewhere and copying it to a form. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking the time to contribute.
I'm a bot designed by another Wikipedia editor, and I'm here to help you with our deletion process. I noticed that while working on an article recently, you removed a speedy deletion template that tagged it for deletion. Don't get discouraged! Deletion discussions happen on Wikipedia all the time.
If you don't want the article to get deleted, please click here.
The link will take you to the talk page, where you can explain why the article should be kept. If you have any questions about this or need help with editing, you can ask at the Help desk.
The point about preparing a draft of an article in a sandbox is so you can get it into suitable shape there ready top become an article. It is not so that you can write the same kind of promotional crap that you have been told over and over again is not suitable to be a Wikipedia article. We are not interested in being told that someone is "a passionate individual", nor are we interested in seeing "references" to press releases, promotional web sites, and write-ups in newspapers of press releases. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it is not "just one administrator who seems too had a bad day" If you look at the deletion log Hradyesh, you will see that it has been deleted by four different administrators—all for the same reason: Your page is exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. —teb728tc22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aaanshu, a few things:
If you are concerned your article is at risk of deletion, we strongly advise you let the "Articles for Creation" process run its course. You chose instead to directly publish your article by placing it in the main article space, where it was deleted. If instead you waiting for volunteers to review it and offer advice, it would not be published until ready, and would be very unlikely to be deleted.
According to the records at Hradyesh, no fewer than four different admins have deleted your attempts at publishing the article. I would suggest that indicates a general agreement it was inappropriate, over the course of some eight months.
While I don't agree with James B. Watson's choice of words, his overall point was correct, that it is not appropriate to repeatedly submit a promotional article, especially after being told why it's inappropriate. His language could have been better, I agree.
The Teahouse did not endorse your article, it was you that chose to publish it. I offered some structural improvements and suggestions. If you are concerned about possible deletion, you should not move an article into articlespace, but instead leave it at AfC or in your sandbox until other editors advise you it is ready.
Looking at the article, is is rather promotional, but not horrendously so. The writing could use some work to remove promotional tone. Looking at the References, one of them is to Wikipedia itself (you can't cite Wikipedia on Wikipedia, that's circular logic), the one at the Telegraph is a press release (so no real credibility), etc. Some of them are to car enthusiast sites I'm not familiar, so no opinion on those. The one from the Times of India is literally a tweet-like mobile phone posting by a columnist, so really not worth citing. Overall, a lot of the articles seem very similar in nature, so it doesn't give the impression so much of a wide body of coverage as of a press release that's been re-spun in slightly different ways. I'm not an expert on car sourcing, but at least a portion of the sourcing does not contribute to the strength of the article.
Fundamentally, I would strongly suggest you read WP:Neutrality, and take a very hard look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hradyesh and ask yourself "what in this article could possibly be seen as advertising rather than simple fact?" Also, it's not really cricket to put in photos of the cars which don't even include Hradyesh, as that makes it look like you're advertising cars vice describing a person.
A few things to consider. Again, James was a bit brusque, but people tend to get annoyed if they feel someone is trying to "force" an article forward and ignoring critique and advice about it. We here at the Teahouse can help you with the article, but you need to understand that there are legitimate concerns about its promotional presentation and the quality of sourcing, and not simply "one person" in a bad mood. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Matthew , This is exactly what I am trying to understand
1. If you have an access request to plz check all the earlier versions and you will agree about the correction made after understanding the raised concerns.
2. This time I was working on my sandbox and requested for an article creation post which I searched my request in the pending AFC segment where I could not find the same thinking I did something wrong I posted the same content on the article project page. Thats how the entire problem started.
3. I tried to not use the earlier termed promotional language and focusing on the work and sole reason why the person should be featured in this article. i.e. introduction of Hot rods to India , Morris street and all India roadshow. Jus to make sure the article should not be termed as promotion I clearly mentioned the car is not available for sale but this car is India’s first street Rod.
4. I had filtered the list of references limiting only to leading newspapers or auto publications and can further filter the same.
5. In this learning I had come across n number of individual articles which are neither backed by any references , supported by press releases or article was just of 2 or 3 lines still these article exist in wikipedia and such speedy deletion don’t get actioned on them. To my surprise I saw one article where even James visited but not speedy deleted the article so why this double standard view points?
6. The point of my concern is at one side my article is just deleted in fraction of seconds for the claimed promotional language at the same time other articles do exist based on the same outline why those are not still not speedy deleted ?
7. Theres a code of conduct for articles and new users Is there any code of conduct for “expert”, “senior” administrators having years n years or experience on the usage of there language and behavior ?
8. I am reiterating the fact here m learning to publish my first article , yes it got speedy deleted earlier after which I again tried to correct it but this time I feel there was a scope of correction , there was scope to improve it as per the required standards if some one had a different view on the topic. Just speedy deleting the post in fraction of seconds isn't that just showing off of someones rights n powers? The way administrator responded n have opted to use the words is that acceptable at wikipedia ?
I am not here to annoy anyone but this kind of treatment by admin is not encouraging at all. This is my first article and i need to finish it in a proper manner m not asking to wave off any guidelines just requesting to help me learn .
How should I restart -in my sandbox or should I place a request at AFC ?
Hi Aaanshu. I have theory that might explain why you are having such problems: Are you perhaps Hradyesh himself, someone closely connected with him, someone who works for him, or someone commissioned to write an article about him? The reasons I think that may be the case is that in your 9 months at Wikipedia this is the only article you have worked on; you say it is “MOST URGENT” to get the article live; and you seem unable to recognize how promotional your writing is. The reason the question is important is that we have found it necessary to create a guideline, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, because based on experience people like that have great difficulty recognizing promotional writing and assessing whether the subjects are important enough to have an encyclopedia article.
In any case I suspect that there may be a problem with your current draft that is greater than promotion. I really don’t understand why Hradyesh is important enough to have an encyclopedia article. Do I understand correctly that you think that the thing that qualifies him is that he introduced of hot rods to India? If that is what makes him important, I am sorry to say that he is not important enough for an article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for our notability guideline. —teb728tc09:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Teb for the response , with ref. to the shared theory I am an automobile passionate and after knowing about Hradyesh work which is starting of a new league in Indian automobile industry. As there was no information available on wikipedia want to contribute on the topic . In the past months whenever I can get time to write on wikipedia I try to work on this. I never rushed into anything the only thing why raised the alarm yesterday as "Most urgent" cos the article was speedy deleted and I wanted to get it retrieved to understand the concerns n make the necessary corrections.
with reference to the notability part I am quoting the wikipedia guideline under which I am working on this article:
"Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
If there are other people from different international region who are part of wikipedia profile just because they are part of hot rod , custom cars segment, my article hold significant notable credential work and reason too not only for introducing this concept in India but also making first street rod in India and the All India roadshow etc.
As you correctly repeated my words I am trying to learn writing on wikipedia - I cant start something new leaving my first article in between.The whole point here is how I can correct and proceed further to the next level on which I am seeking assistance from all the experts.
Hi I need a bit of advice. In a bio article about a woman who has had three husbands, and who took each of their surnames in turn, I need to know, when referring to her in bio-style by her surname, which of the four (including maiden name) I should use. Eff Won (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eff Won. The usual approach, as per the Manual of Style and the naming conventions, would be to use whichever name is most commonly used to refer to her. Without knowing which article you're looking at it's hard to make a recommendation, but I'd suggest checking what the sources call her and going with the most popular surname. If that's unclear (or if they simply refer to her by whatever name she was using at the time the source was written), I would recommend using the most recent name she used; presumably that of her last husband. Yunshui雲水12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. Yes, it is Gwenda Hawkes, who was notable, for a variety of achievements, under each of her four surnames. I'll try it using just "Hawkes" and see how it goes. Eff Won (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting an improperly prepared image of a logo
Hi. I uploaded a corporate logo from Google Images that should be free. Somehow I got mixed up and labeled it Fair use. I worked for the company Speedera Networks and its Founder Ajit Gupta.
Hi, JayMejia, and welcome to the Teahouse! Please re-upload the image with a free license at this link – I have marked the other one for deletion since it will be replaced.
Also, since you seem to seem to be affiliated with the subject, you must be extremely careful to maintain a neutral point of view and refrain from adding promotional content. See this guide on conflict of interest for more information.
Thank you WritKeeper. Yes, I am being extremely careful to be neutral, objective and factual - no promotional or marketing hype content. I was trained as a journalist so I completely understand the need to separate fact from value - especially on Wikipedia. :)
Also, I only mentioned the conflict of interest/advertising thing because, sadly, many users come to Wikipedia just to promote their company, band, etc. Since you seem to be doing a good job of maintaining a neutral point of view, I think your good to go. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image is most likely not free, as it is probably copyrighted by the company that it represents. You can't upload it free unless the company will release the copyright under a CC-BY-SA lisence. Otherwise, it will have to be uploaded under fair use, which is only on Wikipedia, not Commons. gwickwire | Leave a message02:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I have enjoyed making my first article. The problem was that it got rejected twice due to referencing problems. It is still in the "creation stage." However, I recently got in contact with the individual whom the article is about. She would like the unpublished article to be removed because her manager, a more experienced Wikipedian, is busy creating her an article that is more accurate and factual. I would have removed it myself, but I have no idea how to do that. If someone could please remove it and then tell me they did, I would greatly appreciate that! Thanks, -Mallen22 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, and welcome! Could you give us the name of the person? Also, could you give us the username of the "more experienced" manager? That way, I can go in and look at your article, their article, and see what we think? There's nothing that stops you from working on yours though! gwickwire | Leave a message00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what her manager's name or Wikipedia username is. Fay just told me (through email) about her manager creating her article and how she wants my draft deleted. Can you still help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallen22 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither her or her manager has any say over what can and cannot be created at Wikipedia. They should be directed to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which explains that no one owns the content at Wikipedia. Also, they should be directed to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which explains that neither her nor her manager should be creating or editing articles about her. If you do genuinely still wish to delete that AFC page, you can do so by tagging the top of the page with {{db-author}}, but you should feel absolutely NO need to do so based on the requests you have received. --Jayron3200:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay that you didn't know her name. I looked around quickly, and I couldn't find any saved articles on Fay Wolf that aren't your AfC draft. I think you should keep going on your article, and find more sources from independent newspapers or other news outlets (cnn.com, foxnews.com, etc.) and then resubmit it. I don't think you should delete it, as I think it will become a great article with time. Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message00:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I think it's better to retain this version of the article and move it into the history of the new article being created by her manager. This will preserve a complete history of the article(s) about her on Wikipedia, especially since you've interacted with the subject, and thus indirectly with her manager. —C.Fred (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred, I'm not sure the manager's version will be one that will be kept. More than likely it will either get CSD'ed as too promotional, or PRODed, or AfDed. I'm going to help the user to get his version ready for articlespace, so that that article will be up (hopefully) before the manager's version, so we can avoid having to delete the managers version, then move this one, etc. etc. gwickwire | Leave a message19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox loop detected: HELP!!
I am trying to add an article to Wikipedia. Started all today. Have been stuck for a while in a loop detected message with my infobox and I can't seem to understand what's going on. Probably something really easy, but...
Do I have to create a new template?
Hi Tauli and welcome to the Teahouse. May I ask why you are writing a Portugese article on English Wikipedia rather than Portuguese Wikipedia? English Wikipedia is only for English content. It looks like you have copied the problem template from Portugese Wikipedia; is that right? I would be surprised if a copied non-simple template did work. —teb728tc09:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If your article is targeted for English Wikipedia, you should translate it to English, including using the {{infobox writer}} template. If it is targeted for Portuguese Wikipedia, you should draft it there. —teb728tc10:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer at your template I see that you did not copy the the Portuguese template but only its signature. So using it does in fact create a loop. —teb728tc10:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SO much! I think I started it all in English, which I will eventually have to do, but decided to start with the Portuguese for some reason. And as I said, I am totally new to this, pretty lost and very confused. So I was not aware of the fact that I could have that problem. So I should do it all in the Portuguese Wikipedia? I will try that and get back here if I get stuck again.
Still, thank you so much, I know this is very basic and I should probably know. :-) Tauli 23:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauli79 (talk • contribs)
way to see total page views for "online community" ?
i want to see the total page views for "online community" article.. right now, i can see views at the link below, but only in 90 day durations and only by months. I am hoping to find the total views between January 11, 2010, and now. (This is for a research project involving Wikipedia and how Wikipedians define "online community")
Hi, Mollygk, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, I don't believe (but I could be wrong) that there is a easy way to find the total amount of page views from a certain date until now.
You could find the count for all the months from that date until now and add them up. The statistics page also has some interesting links at the bottom with options to raw data and JSON data, if you want to dig down deep.
I've looked and looked and cant find the appropriate tag.
I came across an article with numerous errors, but mainly:
a)Incomplete citations: "Smith, 2006; p5" ...there is no complete cite to which it might be referring, so is there a "{.{tag}.}" for this? I think the ref is listed in the Biblio, but ought not the first cite ref include all the details?
b) I am pretty sure I know the source, and basically the wiki text is citing an old conclusion which the author discards in the next para. Is there a "{.{tag}.}" for this?
Finally, if an article/entry tries to deal with every fringe idea and pet theory ever raised regarding the subject, the article looses cohesion, rambles far and wide and inevitably jumbles opposing theories together. Is there an article tag for this kind of thing? THX
Plutonix (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse, Plutonix! Allow me to answer your questions. To answer your first question, you do not need to include all the details if the book is listed in the bibliography. All you need to put down is the author, the year if there are multiple books by this author, and the page. To answer your second and third questions, I believe that {{Contradict}} is what you are looking for. öBrambleberry_ meow _ watch me in action23:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative to sandboxes
Hi, I made an entire history section for an article. The article currently has a history section and there was a discussion about changing it drastically. I volunteered to reorganize it. I want to present my version of the History section (which is in my user sanbox) to the talk page by linking it there. However, two questions:
Can I link to my sandbox and can other editors see it?
Is there an alternative to linking to my user sandbox?
Welcome to the Teahouse, User:Fordx12! You can link to your user sandbox by placing [[User:Fordx12/sandbox]] in the talk page section. I'm afraid that I don't quite understand what you mean when you ask if there is an alternative to linking to your user sandbox. Could you elaborate on that? öBrambleberry_ meow _ watch me in action21:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Fordx12! I think the easiest way would be to simply link to your sandbox. If you wanted, you could transclude, or copy, your sandbox over to the article's talk page and allow editors to play with it there. Either would work, personally I'd just link it to my sandbox. GoPhightins!21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make a photo image free and fair use - if I don't article will be deleted Help!
Hi, I uploaded this image File:Ajit Gupta Aryaka Founder.jpg
for the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Gupta and mistakenly described it as not free for fair use. It should be free and for fair use but I do not know how to do that. I see that if I fail to comply that the article will be deleted within two days.
Hey, Jay, welcome back. There's actually a difference between "free" and "fair use". The difference is this: we want all the images we use to be free, as in freely licensed with the CC-BY-SA license that Wikipedia uses. But, sometimes it's impossible for a free image to exist, in which case we might be able to use an image under "fair use." Whether we need to or not depends on this: where did you get this photograph? If you took it yourself (i.e. you were the photographer), then you actually own the copyright to the image, and you can release it under the terms of CC-BY-SA, making it "free". Then, there will be no problem. However, if you got it from somewhere else, then you can't make it "free". Furthermore, as it's a picture of a person, it can't be used as fair use. This is because there is always a chance that someone could take a picture of the person later and release their image freely. So, if you didn't take the picture yourself, it will have to be deleted. Writ Keeper⚇♔19:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Writkeeper. Yes, I own the copyright and wish to make it free. How do I do that?
Upload it here, using a different filename to the one you used previously (this is important). Make sure you choose the options during the upload process that you own the image and wish to give it a free use licence (this is also important). Then add {{subst:rfu}} to the page File:Ajit Gupta Aryaka Founder.jpg. This will create a deletion request for the file you originally uploaded, so that there are not two copies on the servers. Hope that helps. Formerip (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
removing comment at top of article
Hi. I was asked to create sections for an article and complied. How do I get wikipedia to remove the request to create sections now that I have complied?
Hey, Jay, welcome to the Teahouse! You can actually remove those tags yourself. When you're in edit mode on the article, they show up at the top of the editing window as a few words surrounded by curly braces. In this case, it looks like {{sections|date=November 2012}}. If you remove that, then the tag will disappear. I went ahead and did this for you, but if you want to see what changed, you can look here. That should give you an idea of what to look for. Hope this helps! Writ Keeper⚇♔18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
can I have more than one draft in sandbox?
Hello,
A question from a newbie here (I tried searching archives briefly but could not find an answer). I am interested in creating a few pages, can I work on more than one draft at once using sandbox?
I've already committed a faux pas of accidentally creating a live page when I was trying to save it as a draft. It has of course been deleted immediately. I'm hoping this doesn't compromise my wikipedia reputation?
Also I'm a little confused about the difference between creating a page in my sandbox then requesting review, vs. creating a page immediately by searching for the page then clicking the red title when the page does not exist...
Hey, Checa, welcome to the Teahouse! No worries about duplicate questions; even if it is, it just means that we know how to answer it. :) Anyway, yes, it's perfectly fine to use multiple sandboxes! You can just create a new one by going to User:Checa985/sandbox2 and starting your draft there. You can have as many sandboxes as you want! The key thing to remember is that the page title has to start with that "User:Checa985/" part, which is what makes it a userspace draft, rather than an article. After that, you can put anything you want.
And don't worry: accidental page creations won't hurt your reputation! Wikipedia is a complicated place, both technically and (for lack of a better word) "socially"; nobody will hold it against you if you make mistakes. It's all a learning experience.
Finally, there's not that much difference between creating your page as a draft first or moving it immediately into an article. The benefits are that, while it's a draft, you can spend as much time as you like working on it without any pressure of deletion. You also get another person to give you an outside opinion on the article, to catch any problems you might be too close to see. But other than that, there's really not much difference, so it's not required or anything. Still probably a good idea, but it's up to you. :) Writ Keeper⚇♔17:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia have a section on how SME's aid NGOs in emerging economies?
Hi my name is Tom, and I would like to find out if Wikipedia focuses on any small businesses that aid NGOs etc and if any articles are dedicated to this?
The reason I ask is because it would be beneficial highlighting the work of Third sector organisations and their link to small and medium business enterprises in the developed world, as this could bolster Wikipedia's own fundraising efforts, rather than focusing on notability that is constrained to large scale media structures.
Hey, Tom, welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sure we have articles about these kinds of things, but the rules about notability apply to them just as they would to any other article. The question I would ask in response to yours is: "beneficial to whom?" The only benefit we really need to be concerned with on Wikipedia is the encyclopedia's; not even the good of the WMF (which is the organization that hosts Wikipedia and receives the donations) trumps the good of the encyclopedia in situations like this. We as a community have decided that verifiability, notability, etc. are in the best interests of the encyclopedia, even though they aren't perfect, and so they need to be followed. The slope of doing content things to drive up donations is a slippery one indeed, and it's best to avoid it as much as possible. Writ Keeper⚇♔16:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article suggestions?
Is there somewhere I can suggest an article that is missing from Wikipedia if I don't have the time to create a page at the moment? Thanks. Error9900 (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware, though, that most requested articles are either never written, or may not be written for several years. In that long, you may find time yourself! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another way, though also not foolproof, is to go to the WP:WikiProject for a given topic and request. For example, if you want to suggest an article about a famous 17th century Scottish politician, you can go to WP:WikiProject Scotland, go to its Talk page, and post there explaining why you think there should be an article about him. Again, no guarantees anyone will jump on it, but getting the attention of an interested Wiki project at least gets you directly to a target audience. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, A Japour, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! That's a pretty big question. I guess it depends on what you want to write it about! If you're trying to write an article about yourself, then you probably shouldn't: writing autobiographical articles is almost always a bad idea, due to the inherent conflict of interest.
If it's about something else, though, then great! The first step for me is to look for reliable sources that discuss the article; you need these to guide you on what to write. You see, Wikipedia can only include information that is verifiable, meaning that it can be referenced to a reliable source. So, it's pretty important that you gather the reliable sources first, so that you know what you can write about.
Once you feel like you have enough material (though there's never too many sources), you should probably start writing the article as a draft in your userspace. Basically, this means writing it at User:A Japour/sandbox at first; this way, you have all the time you need to work on it without pressure. Look at other articles with a similar subject to get an idea of the general shape of your article, like what sections you need. As you write, be sure to use citations as you go. Once you're satisfied with the result, you can submit it for review at Articles for creation if you like, but be patient, as the review can take a long time! Once your article passes muster, it'll be moved into mainspace, and your article will be made!
AMONG THE MANY PROBLEMS OF THIS USELESS SITE -- LACK OF ACRONYMS
LACK OF ACRONYMS (and immense wordiness, but we wont talk about that one) makes the articles UNREADABLE -- this needs to be fixed
i want to know HOW -- HOW DO I FIX THIS EASY SIMPLE PROBLEM OF LACK OF ACRONYMS
if this cannot be fixed easiely, i and others that are actually intelligent will continue to ignore wikipedia's trash -- and use ACTUALLY WORTHWHILE SITES
Coginsys, welcome to the Teahouse. I apologize if you're upset at the readability of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an 'encyclopedia, and thus is written in formalized prose. If you're looking for acronyms, perhaps you should look elsewhere for information. As for this specific instance, "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)" should be used the first time with "EPA" used in all subsequent references to the agency. Thanks. GoPhightins!03:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That assumes that the image is freely licensed. If it is not, it is rather more complicated. Generally speaking one should not assume that an image you have found on the internet is usable on Wikipedia--ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
How can I be famous ?
I Love to sing, to dance, but I'm kind of shy, I can't show the world but as well I want to be famous, I live in morocco the invisible country of the world, ... so please somebody tell me what to do ... Jalal1994 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jalal. We can't help you become famous - as the boy in the film said, this is where they make you read, not where they make you real. But, maybe the problem is just that your country is sometimes a bit shy too? The articles Culture of Morocco and Moroccan cuisine are both marked as needing more citations to independent sources, as well as other problems, and Music of Morocco looks like it could do with some work and expansion too. Perhaps start slowly by reading WP:REFB and then trying to add some sourced information mentioned in newspapers or magazines to those articles?
If you're asking when your country will be different to how it is now, then it is worth mentioning that the Arab Spring has changed some North African Muslim countries quite radically, and that some influence of that change may reach Morocco. Whether that is a good thing or not, I do not know.
Do be careful with your web browser history, and with discussing radical ideas with other people or within the hearing of other people, as you explore these ideas. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GPG123 and welcome to both Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Thanks for stopping by. As soon as you post your article, it becomes an accessible part of Wikipedia for the whole world to see. You may either post it yourself, or send it to Articles for creation, where a reviewer will check it prior to moving it to mainspace. Though fair warning, there's a significant backlog over there...it may take a few weeks before your article is reviewed. If you'd like, you can post a draft of your article in your sandbox and post a link to it here, and I'll take a quick look. Or, if you'd rather, you can just post it. Happy editing, GoPhightins!22:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Protected/Semi-protected pages
Hey guys. I keep seeing people talking about protecting or semi-protecting their talk pages (or other pages). I have no interest or perceived need to do so on my page or any I work on, but I am curious as to what it entails. What's being protected, how does it happen, etc? RunnerOnIce (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RunnerOnIce, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit, however on occasion it can be necessary to prevent some or most editors from editing certain pages. The normal reason is to protect pages, especially high profile ones, from vandalism or edit warring. Pages can be semi-protected so that only editors with registered accounts can edit or fully-protected in which case only administrators can edit the page. Protection can be temporary or permanent. Because of the 'anyone can edit' princple page protection isn't granted lightly and should you ever need to request it you need to make the application at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not in the least matter whether it was paywalled or not, as long as it was not under a free license (which essentially no ordinary newspaper is). What was posted was an entire article, and there is no conceivable way that this is permissible. Brief quotations are another matter, and come under fair use. it is also possible for someone with legitimate access to the text to mail it to another editor off wiki--indeed, most newspapers have facilities for it, & even if they don't, it's probably acceptable use & is at any rate no concern of ours. (I note that it is technically impossible to add attachments to WP email.) But that text on the p. must be immediately removed. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a comment to the talk page and removed the material. It can be restored later if the copyright permission issue can be clarified, but it is best to err on the side of caution in cases like this and remove such material on sight. Road Wizard (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kuba, welcome to The Teahouse. You can find userboxen of all sorts here. Next to all of the listings there are code for each userbox, which you can simply copy and paste onto your userpage. There are lots of ways to organize userboxen, so let us know if there's a particular way you'd like to arrange them. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
why are people battling about interracial mixing when china and africa and india are something
Im new here..but I have a photo of a train wreck from the 1913 tyrone,pa train station crash.It's not copyrighted and free to upload to help the article.Im not the writer of the article, is that the reason i can't seem to find a way to upload the image?4barners (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 4barners! The reason is that you are a new user, not that you are not the author of the article. Wikipedia is a collective project and anyone is welcome to edit any article. However, you must be a confirmed user to upload images. Once you have completed 10 edits, you will be able to upload an image. You question here was your first. If you reply that will be your second and you are well on the way. If you need any help, please come back! Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 4barners, great to hear you have access to a useful photo, and one free of copyright too. If I may suggest, the best place to put non-copyright photos is at our sister-project, WikiCommons. WikiCommons images can be coded into Wikipedia articles just as though they were uploaded to en.wiki anyway, but are much more accessible and better-filed at Commons than they would be on Wikipedia proper. The main reason to upload directly to Wikipedia, vice Commons, is when you have a non-Free image such as a logo which can only be used in very limited ways in articles. The Commons has a decently intuitive Upload tool, but if you get stuck, definitely come back here and ask for advice. Thanks for sharing your images! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Koechlyruestow, welcome to the Teahouse. Click "Contributions" at the top of any page to see your edits, or use the page history. Click the "diff" link to see the content of the edit. Edits to deleted pages are only visible to administrators but you have no such edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, I am not looking for my edits on deleted pages, I am looking for my deleted edits on still existing pages, in this case, on the falcata. Most I could find on the history tab, but not all of it.(Koechlyruestow (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The page history [4] shows 10 edits by you. If an edit is not shown there then it was not saved. Click the "edit" link to the right of the section heading and not the below section heading. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to add "help to improve this article" on my article?
Hi Nahid, welcome to the Teahouse. Many different messages can be placed on articles to ask for help. I don't know one saying exactly "help to improve this article". Can you give an example of an article with the message you want? If you mean "Help improve this page" as at the bottom of for example Google then it's part of a test for a limited number of mostly random articles. Badhan (A voluntary blood donors' organization) does not seem suitable for this. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed my first article successfully but have lost links to the chat room
When I was working on my first article I had an APC page which had links to the Wiki Chat room now my article has been placed in wiki I no longer have these links can someone post them for me please?FOSWMT (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FOSWMT and welcome to the Teahouse. The only thing I can think of that would be linked from the AFC draft and that might be called a chat room would be the AFC Help desk. Is that what you want? Your post there is at this. —teb728tc10:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No thats not the same
Its on the submission page that you get when you first submit your article that appears at the bottom of the article whilst its awaiting review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOSWMT (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me answer you directly. Your question is presumably about the article, Speckled Wood, Hastings. You say on your user page that you are associated with the subject. There is apparently a dispute with another editor also associated with the subject, User:Ore CLT about various matters, including the exact status of the reserve. I've posted some comments on your user talk page. The place to discuss the article though is on the article talk page. Any excellent and experienced user, User:Anna Frodesiak has been working with you already, and you can rely on her advice. Since both of you have a WP:Conflict of Interest, it is necessary that you not keep reversing each other on the article, but discuss it on the talk pager first. I'll notify her about this so she can help you further. I will also be available, but you will find she understands the situation very well. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the teahouse! It depends. If it's trivial information and redundant with citations already in the body, it may not be needed. Like stating that Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. But if it's controversial material that's likely to be contested, or a direct quote, a citation is needed, especially if it's a BLP. What's the name of the BLP article and what's being cited?--xanchester(t)05:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Date of birth should be cited somewhere. Dates of birth can be controversial, and its the kind of data that needs a citation, if not in the lead section than in the body somewhere. If there is no citation, it shouldn't be in the article. --Jayron3205:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding what Jayron32 has said. Also, the date of birth usually isn't included in the lead. The lead should be an overview of the article, details like the person's date of birth are better suited for the article's body and infobox. Cheers,--xanchester(t)05:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to disagree with that. DOB is often included in the lead, pulling 3 random bios, it's there in George Washington, Eric Clapton, and Linus Pauling. The DOB doesn't always have a footnoted cite in the lead, but it DOES (or should) have a footnoted cite somewhere in the article, usually in the "early life" section of the biography. --Jayron3206:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I generally put in the lede right after the name, in parentheses. It is generally also repeated in the infobox. It's usual to add the cite for it there also. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a lot of articles I've worked on, there's been a consensus to not use footnotes in the lede, since everything in the lede should be stated and in greater detail in the main body anyway, so better to footnote the longer, detailed explanation below, and also visually that makes the lede look less cluttered. My understanding is that's not binding policy, but a common recommendation, and generally there should not be (much) info in the lede that isn't covered in depth below, since the whole point of a lede is to summarise the key points of a topic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to the teahouse. If you're referring to the main page picture, to discuss errors and changes to the main page, visit Talk:Main Page. To change pictures on regular pages, you'll have to replace the picture with a file that has already been uploaded. For example, to change File:Exampleimage1.jpg with File:Exampleimage2.jpg, you'll have to change [[File:Exampleimage1.jpg]] to [[File:Exampleimage2.jpg]]. You can also upload you're own image through Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, but the image must meet Wikipedia's policies on images. Free images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.--xanchester(t)03:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Teahouse! Strictly from a reference standpoint, it looks reasonably improved from the last time this article was submitted. I haven't yet gotten a chance to look at the remainder of the article, perhaps another host will get to that before me, but you've definitely put some work into it, and for that you should be commended. GoPhightins!00:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Monkelese. Assuming it's the most recent edit to the article, go to the "View History" tab in the top right of the page. You'll see a list of all the edits; after each line is a link marked "Undo". Clicking that link on the top edit will open an edit form with the last edit removed; all you need to do is enter an edit summary (such as, "removed unsourced claim" or similar) and save the page. Hope that helps. Yunshui雲水21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found a page where the link does not take you to the correct page section. The URL it is pointing to is incomplete. When I go to edit the entry I see it is not a full URL , but the following:
In Wikipedia, links to internal wiki pages are done through wikilink rather than complete URLs. Linking to a section is done through the code [[pagename#sectionname]] In this case, the link doesn't take you to the appropriate section because the section name is not complete and no section exists by the name "Sandy Bridge-EP" (32 nm)[[List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#.22Sandy_Bridge.22_.2832_nm.29]] will take you to the section "Sandy Bridge" (32 nm) and [[List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#.22Sandy_Bridge-EP.22_.2832_nm.29_Efficient_Performance]] will take you to the section "Sandy Bridge-EP" (32 nm) Efficient Performance. --Anbu121 (talk me) 07:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need Help Trimming the Fat - Conflicting Comments and Other Jazz
Hey Teahousers,
Been working on this The Art of War bit on and off and I've gotten assorted feedback from multiple sources that I've tried to satisfy, however I also have conflicting comments that I'm not quite sure how to address. Some say mention of reviews are ok while others have mentioned the section should be removed entirely. I'm just looking for some more feedback before I resubmit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingofbreaker/sandbox
Hi there Kingofbreakers, and welcome back. I'm not an expert on notability, but I think the 'Reception' section should be retained, but tweaked a bit. First off, the second and thirds sentences need citations: for example, if someone compared the comic to the works of Philip K. Dick, that's a major factual claim, and the source should be cited. You don't need the sentence "Reviews have been mostly positive", either. If the reviews are positive, that should be reflected in the substance of the reviews themselves, or in the facts/quotes you pull from them. Lastly, I would remove the Comic Book Resources quote, since it's not descriptive at all. Quotes, when used, should help flesh out the content of the article, not just say whether the subject matter is a good read or not. Good work though, and good luck! - J-MoTalk to MeEmail Me06:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am editing an article and I'm not sure about the citations. If I use one of my references in more than one area of the text, do I cite it each time or only once? Moocow6and1 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moocow6and1. Welcome to the tea house. There should be an inline citation at the end of each section of text to which that reference applies. That might be one sentence or a whole paragraph. You do not need to repeat the whole reference each time. A short version can be made by giving the reference a name as explained below (edit clash). The short version will look like <ref name=(whatever the ref name is)/> Note the added slash at the end.--Charles (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Moocow! The best way to cite a reference in multiple places is to include a name in the "<ref name=>" parameter of the cite template and then to simply type "<ref name=(whatever the ref name is)></ref>" where ever you want to cite the reference. Thanks and feel free to drop by should you have further questions. GoPhightins!19:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: User:Go Phightins made an error. Let's say your reference is named "whatever". The first time you use it, it should be formatted <ref name="whatever">Reference</ref>. All other times it should appear as <ref name="whatever"/>.— Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions·19:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Charles, very much. Of course I don't mind. I appreciate all the help I can get. I will make the necessary changes. My professor added a few other changes that I needed to make, as well.
Thank you to everyone who has helped me to get this article done correctly. I am a bit rusty in regards to writing and proper punctuation.Moocow6and1 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, I understand that it needs to be put the way you showed, but I'm not sure how to get it that way. Do I type it or use a template for it? If it's a template, where would it be? Sorry for so many questions. Is there a way to connect it to the already formatted citation?Moocow6and1 (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
isn't it wrong to delete a scientific article by poor election and with no scientific reason!?
There are a large number of conference talks in physics.
They are often important
for example i found that, this article [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estakhr's_Constant_(physics) Estakhr's Constant (physics)] that was deleted.
This is very important article so important that alone is a physics cornerstone!.
Requests for undeletion Estakhr constant physics as you can see Unfortunately, most people who have commented to delete this article, had little knowledge of physics.
isn't it wrong to delete a scientific article by poor election and with no scientific reason!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neophysics (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Neophysics, welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry, but the article was deleted appropriately, for a few reasons. First of all, it was unsourced. The only sources cited were blogs and forum posts (the links themselves were mostly dead). Neither blog posts nor forum posts are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. The thing is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't publish things first. We're a tertiary source: we don't publish things like original research or reviews of original research; that's left to peer-reviewed scientific journals. Once a theory has been published in those journals, we can write about it, but not before then. Second, I'm sorry to say it, but the article was written in English so poor and fragmented as to be incomprehensible. Subjects with no sources that are written in indecipherable prose, making grand claims about physics, are generally given short shrift on Wikipedia, as they appear to be hoaxes.
Now, you do raise an interesting point. How do we know whether people have knowledge of physics? We don't, although I'd be willing to bet good money that they know more physics than you give them credit for. That's why reliable sources are so important at Wikipedia. Because we can't tell who people are, and what their areas of knowledge are, we can only go on what's written in reliable sources. This si why the lack of sources in the article was such a problem: without their backing, we have no idea whether the author knew what they were talking about or if they had just made it up.
I hope this was helpful to you: understanding things like this are key to being able to contribute to Wikipedia successfully. Don't feel bad for getting it wrong! They're pretty tricky things, but it's important to keep them in mind nonetheless. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask again here, or if you prefer, you can ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! Writ Keeper⚇♔08:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
original article was not blog posts or forum posts.
infact it was a conference talk that was peer-reviewed and accepted by notable physicist: Giovanni Amelino-Camelia
Hello, and welcome to the teahouse. Has it actually been published in a reputable scientific journal? As Writ Keeper has stated, Wikipedia requires multiple independent, published secondary sources that indicate the notability of a subject. If it hasn't even been published in a journal yet, it's very unlikely that an admin will restore the article.--xanchester(t)09:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the program for the 13th Marcel Grossmann Meeting, and I can't find any mention of Estakhr or any talks that he gave, nor any mention that it was accepted or reviewed. Writ Keeper⚇♔21:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I google it, but the paper is still unpublished. no wonder, because there is no physics journal in all over the middle east!. But the physical content of the article is very
interesting.
but presented, peer-reviewed and accepted in a few prestigious conferences. That's why I've edited it.
Neophysics (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
can't we cite article with this point, "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."?
Neophysics (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That tag is used for articles where sources are known to exist, but have not been yet properly cited. For articles where no proper sources are known to exist, then the article is generally deleted. --Jayron3213:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
why not!?, This talk has been accepted in a reliable conference. i've seen several physics articles in wikipedia that have not even an accepted talk as a reference!.
65.255.37.179 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! A few days ago, I submitted this a few days ago and it got declined for having no refs. Could someone help me find a few reliable sources? Thanks in advance for your help, Jakob23:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jakob and welcome the Teahouse. This is not an answer, but I have couple of questions for you: Who wrote the book? The text says one thing, and the infobox says something different. And did this book win the Young Reader's Choice Award? If so that might be something you could reference; you can’t use Wikipedia as a reference, but you might find something about it elsewhere. —teb728tc03:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I messed up. The infobox is correct; Marie McSwigan wrote the book and Eric Bowman drew the pictures. Regarding your second question, it did win the Young Reader's Choice Award in 1945. Do you have any suggestions as to which website would have such information? Thank you for your help, Jakob03:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jakob, welcome to the Teahouse. I took a peek at the article then made a few tweaks and added a couple of references from newspaper archives. I was quite surprised that the book didn't have a page here already! Keri (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have also located several quality references about the historical origins of the story and included that information. Now reviewed and passed, the article is no longer in Afc and has been moved into the main encyclopaedia. Well done! Keri (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What ought to happen in such a case is that other editors would revert the unhelpful content or change it into helpful content. But if the unhelpful content was blatently promotional or blatently false and it seemed like the whole article was promotional or false, there is a possibility that an admin might delete the article, not noticing that there was good content behind the vandalism. —teb728tc10:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have my article typed in Word and I just need help in setting it up in the Sandbox
I have all of the words highlighted that I went to become links.
Hi Ahlia, welcome to the Teahouse! Firstly, thanks very much for your efforts to create a new article on Wikipedia. In order to place your writing in a sandbox, you simply create "User:Ahlia.turner/Sandbox" and you can place your work in there. There should also be a link at the top of Wikipedia, on the right hand side, to obtain it easier. In regards to the references, please see WP:CITE and learn further from that. But, basic information on references: add a <ref> tag to the start of where you would like you reference to be in the article or sandbox. Then, use {{cite web}} or something like that, and use the required parameters, which are the author(s), title, URL, work/publisher, publication date, and access date. Again, see more at WP:CITE. Now, to your question about links, you simply add [[ to the start, and then place your word to link, then ]] at the end. This will create a blue link if the article in question exists. Good luck with your article. Hope this helps, TBrandley00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of a article ends the long period of time already spend on wikipedia.
I found that many times when a person honestly creates articles and does not like the previous name and he is called as sock puppet by you and deletion of his articles is a great loss to him or not. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajkumartundak (talk • contribs) 14:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 02:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
