This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

I am attempting to update a page and I received the message: "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist."

The only further info it gave me is: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: petition"

How can I tell what link is blacklisted? Or is any link with the word "petition" in it blacklisted?

Thank you for your help.

NateLeskovic (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi NateLeskovic, welcome to the Teahouse. It's caused by a link with "petition" in, but I don't know why the message doesn't display the full link. I have reported it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Incomplete message for petition url. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello NateLeskovic, and thanks for visiting the Teahouse. Without knowing what the specific website is (you could mention it by substituting "dot" for the periods), I can only comment based on the word "petition". Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy, promotion, recruitment or "righting the great wrongs" of society. There are plenty of other websites and activist groups for such purposes. Please see WP:SOAPBOX for more on this matter, and other examples of the things that Wikipedia is not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to start a page on senior citizens in India. I saw there are many pages, almost 500 but not any on Indian citizen.÷Haridas53 (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Haridas53 and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not quite sure what you are asking. If you want to create an article, you first of all need to make sure that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and then I recommend you use the Article wizard. I don't know what you mean about "many pages, almost 500". I wonder if perhaps you mean a category, to group existing articles? If so, you add an article to a category by editing the article, inserting [[Category:name of category]] at the bottom. --ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason it would be better to work on drafts in the draft namespace as opposed to in my userspace? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The main benefits as I see them are that if you want to draft an article with other editors it's easier for them to find the draft in draft namespace, it's also easier for people to check if a draft is already in progress and finish abandoned ones. If you wanted to work on something by yourself non-collaboratively (until you move to article of course), then userspace would probably still be best. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

For you, not really. For IP editors, it lets them create a page with an associated talkpage (since normally they can only create talk pages, hence why AfC uses WT:AfC/Page for submissions). MChesterMC (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Somebody has recently made an edit to the Larry Lujack page stating that Mr. Lujack died of cancer on December 18, 2013. However, no links were provided so that this could be verified. The Wikipedia user who made this edit is only listed as an IP address and they have no talk page. The wording of the edit also does not seem to be from a very neutral point of view. I have posted something about this on the talk, but have a feeling that nobody is going to respond. I'm not sure if it is appropriate for me to edit a page of somebody who is said to have died within the past 24 hours. I've tried searching for verification online but nothing can be found. What is typically done in such cases? Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Connormah for finding a source to verify this that this person has died Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not feel at all bad for insisting on reliable sources for this person's death, Marchjuly. You were 100% correct to wait for the proper sources, even if it turned out that the person had actually died. It is a common pattern that Twitter and blogs and other unreliable sources will be first in reporting a celebrity death, while reliable sources are busy engaging in fact checking. Let them have their 30 minute scoops. We proudly report only on what reliable sources say, and we don't need to yearn for scoops on Wikipedia. That is not our game. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add myself to Wikipedia. Just an ordinary person with no notoriety.

ThanksPorche4629 (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No. --Onorem (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Porche4629. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes a very large number of articles about notable topics. We define "notable" as a topic which has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Every word I've used in the previous sentence is defined very carefully here. So, if you are just an ordinary person who has never been written about in detail as an individual in professionally edited newspapers, magazines or books, then you are not notable by Wikipedia's standards, and any article written about you will almost certainly be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Porche4629 Why not just become a registered Wikipedia user and create your own user page? You don't have to be notable to be an active contributor to Wikipedia. Marchjuly (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Marchjuly, the original poster is already a registered Wikipedia user, but has not yet created a user page. But a user page (which I have) is not by any means the same thing as a Wikipedia article. A user page describes a person in the context of their work to improve this encyclopedia, for use by other editors for purposes of collaboration. An article is a well-referenced biography of a notable person's whole life, for information to all readers worldwide. There is a fundamental difference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to encourage anyone to circumvent the process or imply that a user page was the same as actual article. Meant it sort of tongue and cheek. The "create a user page" was simply an attempt to encourage Porche4629 to take a more active part in the Wikipedia process since they had already taken the time to register an account. Sorry, my bad. Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Marchjuly. A little bit of "tongue in cheek" humor is always welcomed here, as long as our visitors understand the core points regarding editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone plz help post my article on Best Employers in Canada? Or advise how I can push live. It has been reviewed and accepted, but not posted. Thanks WP community Souagague (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Souagague, good news for you - your draft was accepted on 14 December and you can find it at Best Employers in Canada (study). NtheP (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember that you can find articles to which you contributed by clicking on the "Contributions" link right at the top of any Wikipedia page. If you are struggling to sort out articles you created from others to which you contributed, there is an "articles created" link at the bottom of your contributions page. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "not posted". If you mean it does not currently show up in an external search engine like Google then this is not something we control. It shows up for me on the Google search "Best Employers in Canada" site:wikipedia.org, but not on the first 10 pages of "Best Employers in Canada". Google usually ranks Wikipedia articles highly once they have been indexed so the situation seems a little unusual to me, but it is outside our control - at least direct control. Note the message boxes about "orphan" and "categories" on the article. If you do something about those then it's possible (no promises) that Google will rank the page higher at a later time after their Googlebot has found links to the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

on which public space on wikipedia can i publish a that the article Ross William Ulbricht was created?TheRamtzi (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, TheRamtzi. The most highly visible public place to let people know about a new article is Did you know, which is featured on the home page. However, your article is very brief and would need to be expanded and better referenced to be eligible for that honor. Since your article is about a person accused but not yet convicted of a crime, it needs to be written with great care and sensitivity. You have a lot of work to do before your article is ready for high profile attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, tnx for the answer. indeed the article need more to work, thats why i want the attention of the community. for assist to edit.

tnx again man:)

--TheRamtzi (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We have millions of articles and many are created every hour. See Special:NewPages for an automatically generated list. You can place stub templates to indicate an article could use expansion, but it often has no effect. We probably have more than a million stubs. If you want an article to be improved then you often have to do it yourself or wait a really long time. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

AN OPEN LETTER TO WIKIPEDIA Re: ZACK NORMAN Article December 18, 2013

Link to article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zack Norman

To whom it may concern –

For over a year now, I have been trying to get an article about actor/producer ZACK NORMAN onto Wikipedia, only to be rebuffed time and again by numerous editors on various grounds. Wherever possible, I have made the corrections and adjustments suggested by the rejecting editors – some of whom were very helpful and friendly – and resubmitted, but there is one issue on which I keep running into opposition among your staff, and that is the question of Mr. Norman’s “notability”.

As an actor, Zack Norman has appeared in dozens of well-known films, many of which have their own independent articles on Wikipedia: Romancing the Stone, Cadillac Man, Festival in Cannes, Tracks, Sitting Ducks, etc. I realize that Wikipedia doesn’t accept itself as a reliable third-party reference source, but just to keep things clear and simple for the moment, if you check the cast lists in any one of these films’ articles, you will find Zack Norman’s name listed prominently among them, usually within the first half dozen credits. For example, in the article for Romancing the Stone, he is listed fourth, right after Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner and Danny DeVito. But what is even more relevant here is the fact that Zack Norman is the only one of the first eight actors listed who does not have an article of his own on Wikipedia. In the article for the film Cadillac Man, Zack Norman is the only one of eleven listed without an independent article; for Festival in Cannes, he is one of two of eleven cast members without their own article. And so on and so forth.

What bothers me is not that an independent Zack Norman article doesn’t exist already (though this did initially surprise me somewhat) – but that the article I have submitted at least a half dozen times in various adjusted forms has been repeatedly rejected largely due to its subject’s lack of notability, which, based on the above information alone, is simply not the case. Granted, he may not be a box office draw like Michael Douglas or Robin Williams, but surely the fact that he’s appeared in a major role on screen many times in the company of such luminaries is notable in and of itself, not to mention that there are countless others who do have their own Wikipedia entries with far fewer credits and far less notable careers than Mr. Norman.

As for third-party references and source material, I have consistently supplied plenty of both with each submission. If one of your editors questioned or dismissed these sources as unreliable, I promptly substituted the references they suggested instead. Unfortunately, it appears the criteria for reliability among sources varies among your individual editors, to the point where they have even outright contradicted each other. I have tried not to let this frustrate or discourage me, and have each time done my utmost to remain accurate, thorough and professional in my revisions – on occasion too much so, it would seem, as one of your editors [Hasteur] saw fit to accuse me of trying to “dazzle” with an overabundance of such references ; another [DGG] seemed convinced my article had been plagiarized (which I can assure you it has not) when he wrote (and I quote verbatim): “The third problem is that most of the article reads it was copied from some other source. (i haven't found it, yet)” – it’s really that last, self-assured, vindictive “yet” that gets me; the suggestion is Ad Hominem at best, wallowing in the nethermost regions of Wikipedia’s own revered “Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement”.

Please accept my apology if I sound emotional here – I am trying very hard not to be, but I have to admit that at this point I am pretty much at my wits’ end as to how to proceed. The process has become all but exasperating, and in spite of my best and consistently cooperative efforts to have my article on Zack Norman accepted onto the Wikipedia site, it seems as if the mere mention of his or my name sends up some sort of red flag triggering automatic rejection. I’m sure this is not the case, but if you could please just let me know in the clearest terms possible what it is I need to do to pass muster here, I would be elaborately grateful. And I mean this absolutely sincerely – I’ve long desired to become a contributor to your site, and I am convinced that once I understand exactly what it is I’m doing wrong here, these barriers shall lift and the process for future contributions become vastly streamlined. And if I’m not doing anything wrong, could one of you please just allow my Zack Norman article to finally be published on Wikipedia? As it seems – to me at least – should have happened long ago.

Thank you so much for time and consideration in this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Respectfully, Matthew D. Weiss a/k/a “matzohboy”

Matzohboy (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Matzohboy! As I can see, this is already the fourth time that you're coming to the Teahouse, and I have to say that I appreciate your efforts to write a good article. Wikipedia:Articles for creation is a good and useful project, but there is actually no obligation for you to go through this process. If you ask me, you should post your article to Wikipedia's article namespace, and let it "live". This will give the opportunity to other editors to improve your article. I am doing a lot of new pages patrolling, and my experience tells me that the article is good enough not to be deleted. Go on, Be bold! Post the article to the main namespace. You don't have to wait for it to be accepted in the Articles for creation. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vanjagenije!Thank you so much for your quick response! I took your advice and posted the article accordingly, to :

Zack Norman

Could you do me a another huge favor and check and see if I've done this correctly? Thanks so much!Matzohboy (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm... You actually copied the plain text of the article instead of wiki markup, but I copied it for you. The article still needs to be categorized (see wp:categorizing) and it needs links to other articles (see: WP:LINKS). You should work on that. You should also search other articles that mention Zack Norman and link them to your article, so to integrate it better into Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

If you copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zack Norman to Zack Norman, then that is a copyright violation as it did not preserve the attribution to the various contributors. What you should have done is move the article. You probably need to get it sorted out as described at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The article histories are now merged (dif). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vanjagenije!Thank you so much for all your tremendous help!! I will start adding the links etc asap, and again, I can't tell you how much I appreciate all this! Best, Matthew Matzohboy (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it wise and possible to lock an article for a limited time so I can be the only one to translate it. if possible, what is the allowable limits for locking? I'd like to do this so I can be able to follow the thought-process for such article scrupulously, especially for scientific articles. If not, why is this policy not in place? thanks Emekadavid (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Emekadavid and welcome to the Teahouse. We only "lock" or protect an article in cases of persistent vandalism. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit at any time within policies and guidelines. Preventing people from editing an article should be the last resort. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a template: ((construction)) that can be placed at the top of an article. Although it doesn't prohibit others from editing, (if I understand your intent), it could allow you to explain your situation (comment=). ~I hope this helps (?) ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) — This might be a better option: Template:In use/doc ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Beau! I think the ((construction)) template is fine and adequate. Emekadavid (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Does all of Wikipedia use the same "clock" when it comes to editing, messaging, etc., etc. I am operating on JST (Japanese Standard Time), but ever time I leave a message, make a contribution or use my "time stamp," etc., it appears to be using a different time zone. Is this how it is supposed to be? It kind of makes sense to have the "clock" for edits, etc. be the same for everyone because it makes things easier to follow. I am just curious. Right now it's Dec. 20, 2013, 6:43 here but my time stamp will probably say Dec 19, 2013 21:43 or something like that for this post.--- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Timetags are usually stored in UTC (GMT), but at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets there is an option for them to be displayed in your local time. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I noticed the UTC tag almost immediately after I posted that question. Not sure why I didn't catch it before. [[File:|25px|link=]] However, I didn't know about Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, so thanks for that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"UTC" really means Coordinated universal time which is the modern equivalent of Greenwich Mean Time. Since this is a worldwide project, it is logical that we use a universal time. I kind of like the fact that the next day on Wikipedia starts in the afternoon for me here in California. It is a constant reminder of where I live on the globe, and that things are different for other editors elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I've been trying to improve the NHK Cup (Go) article so that it something more than simply a few descriptive sentences and a list of past tournament champions. I think I've done OK so far, but I'd like to flesh it out a little more. I could simply translate what's on the Japanese Wikipedia page, but I'm not sure if that's really acceptable. Moreover, that are quite a few a sources I could use to support what I've added so far, but they are all in Japanese and I'm not sure if that's OK. To be honest, I am not sure if there are really many sources in English that contain information on this tournament worth using. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marchjuly. It is perfectly acceptable to translate an article or part of an article from one language to another, as long as you properly attribute the source. Please see WP:TRANSLATE for more information. And it is also perfectly acceptable to cite reliable sources in other languages. English language sources are preferred if a wide range of sources are available, but reliable, independent Japanese language sources are perfectly acceptable for a Japanese topic. This is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world (and universe), not the encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it acceptable to cite other versions of Wikipedia as a source? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because they are not considered reliable (in that anyone can change them). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I created a page about a British children's TV show a while ago. I like to check on it and see how it is doing. Recently the show aired in the US and a user has changed the spelling of the page from British to American English and has modified some terminology to American e.g. wool to yarn, bobsleigh to bobsled etc.

Some character names have also been changed. I know these are not correct for the UK version. I guess these may be correct for the US version of the show however I cannot find a reference to back-up these changes.

I understand wikipedia should be neutral and does not favour one version of a language over another. As this page was first written in British English (and concerns a British show) I think it is okay to undo these changes. Would it be fair and correct to put the US alternative in brackets i.e. wool (yarn) to account for the differences?

I am new to wikipedia and would appreciate some advice on what is best to do.

Thank you for any help you can give me, Thecrumble (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the article? There is a policy at WP:ENGVAR where one version should be consistently applied throughout an article, and if a topic has a strong identification with a specific English nationality, its dialect should be used. Often, inexperienced users will make changes to their native spelling without realizing this... Boogerpatrol (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is Sarah & Duck. It should use British English per WP:TIES. But as Mr or Ms Patrol has pointed out, people often do this not to be obnoxious but because they don't realize realise.

We wouldn't put things like "wool (yarn)", just "wool" will do. However, it would seem sensible to include the US names of characters in some way if they are different. Formerip (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it is Sarah & Duck. Thank you to you both for your replies. They are very helpful. I'll will switch it back to British English but will try to incororpate US name varients in some way. Thanks again Thecrumble (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not add a new section (e.g., "US TV Adaptation") briefly describing the difference between the two versions of the show as somebody did for the TV Series Extras (TV series). Or, if there's enough information on the US version of the show, then just ask the person who made those edits to create a new article for it like they have for The Office (UK TV series) and The Office (US TV Series). The UK Version can use British English and the US Version can use American English. Not sure if that's a very Wikipedia approach to something like this, but it seems pretty sensible to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I support MarchJuly's suggestions.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I am new to editing Wikipedia but have referred to it for years. Is mentoring via "adoption" still available to new editors? Where can I find more information about this in order to be adopted? Writers Bond (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is - you can find information about how to become adopted at Adopt-a-user. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!  :) Writers Bond (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe I should not be accused of laziness in searching for the information to this question, but the mountain of information on wikipedia makes it wiser that I ask it here else I'd spend so much time searching, which unfortunately I do not have. Question: After translating an article from french to english, and inserting the markup ((Translated:xxx:xxx)), what happens next? I couldn't find this information on the Wikipedia:Translate page. Please,, can anyone help me understand the translation cycle? Emekadavid (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Emekadavid! Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe you are talking about article École nationale supérieure de l'énergie, l'eau et l'environnement. As I can see, you translated the article from French Wikipedia, and properly tagged it with the Template:Translated on the talk page. That's it. You finished the translating, so you may remove the ((Expand French)) tag from the article. That's the end of the cycle. But, I want to point out to some problems. First of all, you should not add signatures to articles (see: WP:Avoiding common mistakes). I removed your signature from the article ([1]). You tagged the talk page of the same article with the Template:Translated, but you didn't fill the "version" parameter. This is important, so that in the future we are able to know which version of the article you've translated. I fixed this ([2]). The problem with the article itself (École nationale supérieure de l'énergie, l'eau et l'environnement) is that the french original itself is not very well written, so the translated article needs to be improved. There are only two inline citations, and both sources just mention this school, but do not write anything about it. So, the article is practically lacking reliable references. Those need to be added so to make article WP:Verifiable, which is very important. The other problem is that you translated categories verbatim, but English Wikipedia is totally independent of French Wikipedia, so they do not have same categories. The article needs to be categorized. Those are the most obvious problems that need to be fixed as soon as possible. Feel free to ask for any kind of help. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your response has been noted. I will work on them one after the other. Emekadavid (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Improving the article needs considerable research. I'll have to plan on it. The article along with the french original is on my watchlist. 2. When 1 is fulfilled, inline citations will be expanded upon for reliable references and WP:verifiability. 3. I think I need a little tutorial on categorization. Add it here so that I'd search for the tutorial on WP. 4. I noticed that the talk page on the article was categorized as "Pages translated from french wikipedia". That was thoughtful of WP. solves lots of problems. Do I do same categorization on the article page? Thanks for now. Will keep in touch. Emekadavid (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you should categorize the article. You can find more about it here: Help:Category. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, some of the articles I will be writing will contain lots of scientific formulas. Are there specific markups for scientific formulas? I think there are although where, only experts like yourself Vanjagenije know. Do help! Emekadavid (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You can find everything about writing formulas here: Help:Math. And also, be sure to follow this policy: MOS:MATH. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. archived in memory. Emekadavid (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have recently edited this article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Convibra and it got rejected. Can I simply try and translate into English the article about Convibra that exists on wikipedia in Portuguese language? Would it get accepted this way? 95.77.237.140 (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Translating an article from another language Wikipedia is a perfectly good way of creating it (but it must be properly attributed: see WP:Translation). It may or may not give a better result than your previous attempt: it depends how good the Portuguese article is (and it might also depend on how different the rules are in the Portuguese Wikipedia: different language Wikipedias are independent projects, and don't necessarily have the same rules). Please look at The five pillars of Wikipedia to understand the basic rules of English Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Katastasi, I'm just wondering if, as with the protection of pages, it is possible to request administrators to block IP addresses associated with vandalism? Thanks. I'm not there 04:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is! Check out WP:RVAN. There are certain procedures you must follow though before reporting it unless the vandalism is extreme (like racist slurs in a personal attack). Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm curious if someone can point me to a page explaining how to edit SVG files like this one. I downloaded a FF add-on, but can't figure it out. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! SVG's can be confusing at first, but once you get the hang of them, they're not bad. The most common way to edit SVG files is with an external program, the most common one being Inkscape (that's my preference - other editors might have other favorites). Simply download the SVG file you want by saving it as an SVG Document, and open it up with Inkscape. Inkscape might take a while to get used to, but mess around with it - we also have a tutorial on the basics of using Inkscape (Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Inkscape), and you can definitely find more help around the internet. If you run into trouble and have any questions while editing, general SVG troubleshooting can be found at Wikipedia:SVG help. Hope this helps, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I'll give it a shot! EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi - I've submitted an article for review: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SocietyOne The article was declined: Notability of organization, secondary reliable sources, WP:NOT ADVERTISING, COI. I was wondering how I could get expert help to improve referencing and overall article so it's fit to publish? Thanks, Abey Asaied10 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Asaied10. The article now has 39 references, which may be overwhelming to a reviewer. I suggest that you identify three to five sources which are the very best for establishing notability here on Wikipedia. These would be, for example, articles in major newspapers or journals with professional editorial control that give significant coverage to SocietyOne. Ideally, they should be articles not hidden behind pay walls. Another problem is that this financial institution is now very small, having offered just AUD$2 million in loans. Some reviewers may have a hard time seeing a company this small as notable. In my opinion, the article is now far too long and detailed for an article on a small business. I recommend trimming the article wayyyy back, including only the information that is fully verifiable through reliable, independent sources. And remove every word and phrase that can be construed as promotional in the slightest. I see that you are in conversation with the reviewer, and that is a good thing. If you can convince the reviewer of the company's notability, that is the key. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Help to improve this article

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shams ul Fuqara Mrashid364 (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Heading added by ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to Improve my Article which is declined by admin the link of this article is given below:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shams ul Fuqara Mrashid364 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Mrashi364. Please follow the links in the rejection message, as these explain what you need to do. The main point is that the draft article does not contain a single reference to a reliable source indepedent of the subject. All Wikipedia articles must be grounded in writing about the subject, published by somebody unconnected with the subject (this does not have to be online, or in English, though it is best if it can be). Second, evaluative statements (such as "proves to be" and "leaves no need to read" are not permitted in Wikipedia articles, unless they are taken directly from published writing by sources unconnected with the subject. Basically, you have written an article from your own knowledge and enthusiasm. But a Wikipedia article must come from published knowledge about the subject, and must contain only neutral, not partisan, language. --ColinFine (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi can anyone take a look at my contribs and give me some feedback, please? I know there is Editor review for this purpose, but that offers a deep insight. I just want little info. Soham (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@Soham: I've looked through your past thousand edits and they seem mostly good. I notice you do a lot of work with images, which is good. Not a lot of people work with images here. I think some more content creation would be the best way to improve now. Happy editing, --Jakob (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Jakob, yes the recent 1000 edits would constitute of 70% images because I went on a poster spree but if you'd check the previous 1000 they are mostly content. Plus I edit in large volumes as you can see here which when compared to file edits which are mostly minor 1-10 bytes get bogged down in number. Plus I have managed to list 5 DYK's until now with three of them being created by me. I have shaped this article also nearly from scratch and will be listing for a GA. I think I'll be focussing more on DYK's now, song articles being the foremost among them. Soham (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish to edit a template for the Heart of Wessex Line route diagram, but it's too complex. Is it possible to help it be less complex so I can do this more easily? Captain Cornwall (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Captain Cornwall, the rail diagram templates are complicated to use because they have to be very versatile and support a lot of variations. What changes do you want to make? NtheP (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish to change some track which says it's disused to the symbol for it still being in use because I know it's still in use. It's the section of track leading south towards Westbury.

Do you mean the section between Westbury East Loop and Westbury North Junctions? If so I've fixed it. NtheP (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you "know" to be true is not good enough for Wikipedia, can you cite a Reliable source that can be Verified? -Arjayay (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Arjayay - most RDTs are unverified in the sense that they are constructed from various atlases, network rail documents but these are not quoted in the templates. This edit is easily verified or if controversial can be discussed on the talk page. NtheP (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's been fixed now. Captain Cornwall (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

How can I make a link point to a specific section in an article, rather than the start of the article? thanks Emekadavid (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Add a # after the name of the article as so: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#making a link point to a section in an article|Your teahouse question]] Samwalton9 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The article name goes before the "#" and the section name goes after. Whatever you add after the vertical line "|" is the text displayed in the resulting link. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for this? I am tempted to link to a specific section but wonder if the titles of sections change often enough to make this a problem by eventually leaving deadlinks. Thanks Fettlemap (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Fettlemap, great question and the answer is yes. The guideline is WP:ANCHOR and the template is ((anchor)), incidentally the template allows you to link to any point in an article, not just a section. Unless you think the section name is very likely to change I'd stick to the # method of linking. NtheP (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You can always click on the "History" tab to see if the article is relatively stable with just minor maintenance edits, or if it has had lots of major substantive edits in recent months, adding or deleting large blocks of text. If the article is pretty stable, it is much less likely that a section will be deleted or renamed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I tried adding an [image size = 200 px] field to the info box but that didn't work. The article in question is here. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi - you'll need to put an underscore between "image" and "size", making the parameter [image_size = 200 px]. See the infobox documentation for all parameters, which need to be used exactly as shown. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, if a user has been blocked for using sockpuppets, then creates a new account, but says that they edited under a former (sockpuppet) name, is that allowed? Thanks, Matty.007 14:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Matty.007. If the sockpuppet master has an active block or ban, they should not be editing under any circumstances, and should be reported to WP:SPI immediately. If the master account had a temporary block that has ended, then all subsequent editing should be under that account. However, there are reasons for using a disclosed alternate account, for example, for security reasons when traveling and using public networks. So each case needs to be judged individually. Is the person deceiving and disrupting, or currently contributing openly and responsibly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, the user is Cloudchased, who admits to being an alternate account of Hurricanefan25, who was blocked indef as being a sockpuppet of Perseus, Son of Zeus, who was also blocked indef. So what should I do do you think? Thanks, Matty.007 20:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please file a report at SPI. Though the editor seems to be contributing productively at the moment, I think the situation should be evaluated by editors with much more experience in dealing with sockpuppets than I have. Thanks for the kind words on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see [3] – I was given permission to re-register on the English Wikipedia following a successful appeal to BASC. Thanks, Cloudchased (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I am very sorry for my mistake. Matty.007 20:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for, Matty.007, though you were kind to extend an olive branch to the returning editor. Your questions were proper and in good faith, as were my answers, I hope. The unblock notice was posted to the editor's talk page after our initial conversation above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia, Cloudchased, and Happy Holidays! I hope that you will continue contributing productively. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

My new article is in my sandbox awaiting review. How do I give it a title?

I read that I should disclose a COI in the Talk page. The only Talk page I see (top of sandbox) seems to be for me, not the article, and it has a star wars game, which I dutifully clicked through to get rid of it, but now it is back again. (I do not understand the function of the Talk page.)

Should I put the COI in the body of the article? I know how to do that! Thank you a new user Hbradt (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The purpose of a user talk page is described at WP:OWNTALK, and its prime purpose is for other users to make comments about your edits, and for you to reply if necessary. I've added a few useful links in a welcome message there. Apart from a limited number of types of messages of a disciplinary nature, you can delete anything you don't want on your user alk page, so you can get rid of all the rubbish about The Wikipedia Adventure if you don't want it there. Your draft article is now at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Jay Bradt, and it will automatically be renamed to Paul Jay Bradt or any more appropriate title if and when the draft is approved. I see that you mentioned your conflict of interest on your user page, so that is probably enough, though you may want to link that note to the draft. You also mentioned the CoI in the edit summary of one of your edits to the draft, so nobody can reasonably accuse you of trying to hid the situation. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't know how to link that item on my user page to the article. I suppose I could find out how and where, but just now I am just totally played out on this site. For now I will just leave it.

I raise some points on my user page about my article, but I see no response there. Should I expect that? I pointed out that perhaps the title should be Paul Bradt (rock climber) rather than Paul Jay Bradt.

Hbradt (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hbradt. Your user page is not a good place for discussion and questions, and people may not see them there (though in this case you have directed them there from here). Your talk page is a better place. You link to an article by putting its full name in double square brackets, i.e. [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/Paul Jay Bradt]], as David Biddulph has done above here. The draft has now been reviewed, but not accepted: you are encouraged to improve it and resubmit using the button there (don't delete the template that contains the button, or you will lose the button!) When it is eventually accepted, the accepting reviewer will move it to the correct title in article space: there is no reason to put "(rock climber)" in the title: we do that only when there are articles about several people with different names, to distinguish them. (It may be that it should be "Paul Bradt" rather than "Paul Jay Bradt": this depends on how the bulk of the reliable sources you cite refer to him.) --ColinFine (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine,

My comments (mostly) are on Hbradt:User Talk, and I see no response to them there. Does anyone but me see them, e.g. a reviewer, without me having to call attention to them.

As far as I can tell, my article has been reviewed once (Dec. 17). I have made quite a few edits, and it is awaiting a second review (I think). I hope the reviewer sees my comments on my User Talk page.

All references are to "Paul Bradt", so I think that should probably be the title. There is no other Paul Bradt on WP. I could put the middle name in parentheses at the beginning. What would you recommend?

Thank you again, Hbradt (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Hbradt. I don't know whether anybody will see the comments at your user page, but people are unlikely to reply there because it is not a talk page. I didn't realise you had made further edits since the review: when you think it is ready for another review, pick the "Submit" button on it, and it will go back into the queue for reviewing. As to the title: I have moved it to WT:Articles for creation/Paul Bradt, since it appears that that is the most common form of his name (The former location still exists, but redirects to the current location). When the article is accepted, a reviewer will move it to Paul Bradt. But the article should give his full name in the lede. --ColinFine (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a battle of wills on the page for Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport. Under "airlines and destinations" it is stated that Southwest Airlines will begin flying to the airport in May to Dallas Love Field and to Las Vegas.

Southwest Airlines does not serve the airport and has not announced any plans to do so.

The page has been edited (not by me) more than once to reflect this, but someone else has keeps putting the information back in. The list of recent edits is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwest_Arkansas_Regional_Airport&action=history

What to do? Marinerpacific (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Marinerpacific. If this is a battle, it is a slow moving one. If you have researched and are confident that the information is incorrect, please remove it with an edit summary inviting discussion on the article's talk page. I see no discussion there, and that is the right place to try to resolve a content dispute. Please also read about our restrictions on edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I've watched the piece of information change several times quite recently. The several changes have been discussed on airliners.net with some bewilderment.

I am extremely confident that Southwest Airlines does not fly to the airport nor has it announced plans to do so.

However, I am not confident to change the information myself because I am a scarcely beginner in the language used in editing here.

I looked for a discussion on the article page, but could not find one, nor any way of starting one, which may - again - be my own language naiveté.

But - thanks for your not very helpful reply. I won't pursue the issue and if it stays as inaccurate, it stays as inaccurate. 122.57.218.238 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that you did not find my answer helpful. I was trying to encourage you to jump into the article and make the change yourself. Since you don't yet feel comfortable editing boldly, I have reverted the information you say is incorrect and which is certainly unreferenced. I have also started a discussion on the article's talk page. Would you be kind enough to make a comment there? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Howdy folks! Could somebody help me add Thermal Man to Template:Thor? Apparently I'm not "old" enough here. ;-) Cheers, --THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 06:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Rojomoke (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch and Feliz Navidad! ;) THAT AMAZING GUY (Give your friendly bro a love note or two!) 07:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I wish to do a major edit on the Franklin Planner article page. However, I may have a lot of issues regarding the addition of sources, for most of this information is commercially restricted to the FranklinCovey's convenience. It's their right, I reckon. Anyway, my edition would not overrun FranklinCovey's intellectual property rights. And my main source of expertise on the subject is that I have used this personal management system for years.

Suggestions? TIA!

Incumbent article: FranklinCovey

hal100 Hal100 (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Hal100, and welcome to the Teahouse. You should understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to produce new knowledge, but to collect the knowledge about a subject found in reliable sources. When we write Wikipedia article, we collect the knowledge about the subject that is found in books, newspapers, magazines, internet news portals, etc. But, we may not copy-paste the book or magazine text verbatim, because that would be copyrights violation. We just use books, magazines, etc. as sources, but retell their text in our words. But, your personal knowledge is not a reliable source (unless you have published a book on the subject or something similar). The fact that you have used this personal management system for years is useful, but you should still use reliable sources when writing about them, and not write your personal experiences. So, if you want to write about Franklin Planner and FranklinCovey, you can use their official web site as a source, but you may not copy-paste text from their web site. But, you should not rely primarly on their web site, since it is not reliable source. It is never reliable when somebody writes about himself. You should find some books, newspapers or magazine articles, or such and use them as sources for the article. (see here: wp:citing sources) Vanjagenije (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)