Wikipedia:Teahouse: Difference between revisions

Hello, Am new here. I'm fluent in Swahili and I would like to expand Swahili articles. I cannot seem to find any Infobox in Swahili, or Personaldata either and I would like to make a few. Any idea on how I would start, how I can find people to collaborate with etc.

Thanks Raymachira (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raymachira, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. Translators are always welcome, you haven't found many items in Swahili because this is th English language wiki so articles need eventually to be in English. However some articles do start of in Swahili and if they are noticed will be categorised in Category:Articles needing translation from Swahili Wikipedia. At the moment there is just one, ironically the article on the Swahili Wikipedia. 06:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Another good task for multilingual users is to translate content from one Wikipedia to add it to another. You could look for articles on Swahili Wikipedia that are more detailed and comprehensive than their English-language counterparts (these will likely be articles on subjects important to Swahili speakers, like places in Mozambique), and translate missing information from the Swahili articles. Oh, and when/if you make a userpage, don't forget to add a Babel box to it, to let others know what languages you speak.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could also work on the Swahili Wikipedia (as i see you already have been doing), by creating/expanding articles that interest you and translating material from the English Wikipedia into Swahili. benzband (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymachira, I know almost no Swahili, but I do work on the Swahili Wikipedia from time to time. There are certainly things you can help me with. Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The state of children's literature finally got to me, and I've been revising it -- mostly the intro, illustration and history sections. I expect to be through all my material in the next week, and I'm going to list it for copy editing then, as I'm too close to it. The thought of writing an adequate lead gives me a headache, though. Is there anyone around here who'd like to give it a try? I haven't found anyone else in children's lit who wants to help. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have suggested WikiProject Introductions but they are inactive :( and there are many articles in need of attention at Category:Wikipedia introduction cleanup. benzband (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature? I'll have a quick look if I get time. Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think that's what she meant by "children's lit" ;-) benzband (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sgxi (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the image of? Did you create the image yourself? If not where did you get the image? MorganKevinJ^(talk) 03:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question was continued on Morgankevin's talk page. heather walls (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a new editor, but an infrequent one. Is it better to create a new article page, then wait for review or submit it through the sandbox? Iambosco (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, and thanks for stopping in at the Teahouse. The sandbox is actually mostly for test edits, so you can experiment freely with formatting and whatnot (this is especially useful for learning how to do tables and things like that). Once you've written your article, you are of course welcome to submit it as a new page right away. Provided that the article is at least enough to stand on its own as a stub, you shouldn't have any problems. If you'd like to have someone look over your article first before it is published, to make sure that everything is alright (it's written neutrally, not too short, good tone and all that), you can submit it to Articles for Creation. Someone there will go over it for you and, if there are any problems with it, they will let you know so that they can be fixed, and then you can resubmit it for a second looking-over. Many of the reviewers there are willing to help you make improvements, too, and it's a good way to make sure your page is well-written before it gets created.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iambosco. I'm not sure but I think you are referring to creating an article through a user sandbox (a subpage), verses as an article draft, i.e., the two options provided through the article wizard, and not starting it in the Wikipedia:Sandbox as Dalahäst is speaking of above. (There is a third option of creating it directly.) I think you should start it in a personal sandbox because when you posted your last article you worked out a bunch of kinks immediately after posting it. Also the article was tagged as an advertisement, and if submitted directly, might have flirted with being tagged for speedy deletion on that basis. So it's probably better that you get it into the form where you think it's ready for review first and then move it to the article mainspace. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Christian Doctrine" redirect to "Christian Theology", but the two are distinctly different from each other. "Christian doctrine" is the body of doctrines established by Jesus and his apostles in the New Testament. While it is open to interpretation by various sects, it is established in the whole of the text of the New Testament. "Christian theology" on the other hand, is not only any particular religion's interpretation of the text, but arose out of the study, not of the text, but of the nature of God. The word "theology" means "study of God", not of Christian texts. It is a philosophical practice born from neoplatonism, not a doctrine.

Thus, I would like to know how to change the redirect. "Christian doctrine" is its own subject entirely. Unfortunately, the page "Christian Theology" thoroughly confuses the difference throughout the page. Corjay (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corjay, welcome to the Teahouse. Redirect pages like any other can be edited, so if you want to convert Christian Doctrine into an article in it's own right you can simply edit it to that effect. I suspect that Christian Doctrine is not a short topic so you might want to create and article on a sandbox page of your own and move it over when you are ready. NtheP (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corjay. I have many time run across users who did not know how to access the redirect page to edit it, so following on from what Nthep says above, after you are redirected to Christian Theology, you will see just below the article's title: "(Redirected from Christian Doctrine)". Click on that link to reach the redirect page. The direct link is Christian doctrine but I though you'd want to know how to reach the redirect yourself for future reference. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Corjay (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either something went wrong with my internet that affected only Wikipedia (so far as I can tell), or else the whole website was temporarily down. Does anyone else know what happened? AutomaticStrikeout 21:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell for sure because I'm not you. What did it say? Brambleberry ^{☾of RC☽} 21:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It actually wouldn't open Wikipedia pages at all. It just pointed me back to a search engine page with the word "Wikipedia" as the search keyword. AutomaticStrikeout 21:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi guys! Well, I just checked with staff at the Wikimedia Foundation (who supports Wikipedia on the backend and in other ways) and they said that WMF "accidentally told the network to refuse traffic from the entire world, and the network did as it was told." So, it was an accident with some type of "config" which denied the world access to free knowledge for a few minutes. Actually - even more updates as I'm typing - I guess someone was trying to block a specific IP and well, blocked the world. Everything is back up and running. :) Moments like this make you realize how important Wikipedia really is (and why donating is important too - less stupid servers, as they said to me "stupid servers are stupid"). SarahStierch (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the explanation! AutomaticStrikeout 21:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should a WMF member be added to the village stocks? I once read about a person who accidentally broke Google. Ryan Vesey 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Provided, of course, that we can identify the culprit, and that they don't object! AutomaticStrikeout 21:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I third that. Brambleberry ^{☾of RC☽} 21:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds has declared that Steven Walling is to blame. I'm sure he isn't, but, sometimes you just have to have a scapegoat. ;-) SarahStierch (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link for that, just out of curiosity? AutomaticStrikeout 21:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was on IRC. :P SarahStierch (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was some meltdown!! I kept getting "Internet Explorer cannot display the page". I definitely thought someone plugged the plug, or at least, didn't pay the electric bill... --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitely Steven's fault.--Eloquence* 20:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone!

I've been working with a bunch of people from across the wiki-sphere to help me touch up and refine my first article since it was first rejected, and I was wondering if someone would be willing to take a look and review it! I'd love to get this one in the can so i can devote my time to writing some more...I've enjoyed this process even more than I thought! The article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brandon_Steiner

Thanks in advance! Golombjesse (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Golombjesse! I do see that you have worked very diligently at removing the "peacock words", or the words that add superfluous promotion to sentences. What is currently in the article is well-written; it is what is not in the article that causes it to still read as an advertisement for the subject. The first user who reviewed your article was probably not as clear as they could have been. they said:

The key word here is "balanced". There are significant aspects of the subject's career that are not talked about in the article. If a subject has significant controversy surrounding their career and the article only talks about the non-controversial stuff, the article is not balanced, and it reads like an attempt to only say good things. Wikipedia is not here to promote a subject, and it has to be written from a neutral point of view. The reviewer provided you with the examples that they would like to see before they accept the article. I think it is good advice.

Thank you so much for submitting and article and really working hard to improve it after it was not accepted! You just have to add a few more details and it will be ready to go. Don't give up, and remember: there is no deadline! hajatvrc @ 18:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for getting back to me. I actually did add the stuff that that reviewer was talking about, and I feel like I have covered all the significant parts of his career. Was wondering if you could take a look, or maybe tell me what should still be added?

65.51.171.2 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see it hidden in there, it must not have registered for me the first time. It does not say much about it, but it may be enough. I only have a little experience at Articles for Creation, so I can not tell for sure whether they will accept it. If you really want to be sure, you may want to add a section entitled "Lawsuits" (with === on each side, not a full new section with ==) and talk about the three lawsuits in a bit more detail. I see you have good sources for those details, so it should not be difficult. It is just that there is currently a very long list of all of the partnerships he has landed and only two sentences on the lawsuits. You do not have to go overboard, maybe just another sentence or two! hajatvrc @ 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a small piece of advice. Your sources are formatted very well, but it is a good idea to link to the sites within the citations when the citation is of a website. This makes it a bit easier to find the material. You can do this without changing the text that appears in citation, just adding a link to the domain names. Just change "SportsAgentBlog.com" to "[SportsAgentBlog.com]" and this will do the job. hajatvrc @ 18:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added some and switched up the .com's (though it looks like you or someone else helped me out a bit first!). Any chance you could give another look, maybe even review? Or perhaps someone else can? Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golombjesse (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EXCELLENT! I have move the page to the main namespace Brandon Steiner. hajatvrc @ 19:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I made a mistake and posted an article with a mistake in the title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_loveless

Forgot to capitalize the "Loveless" and can't figure out how to rectify.

Would like to change or even delete the whole article and start over.

Please advise.

John. Johnomalleysf (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, and thank you for your question! It is actually pretty easy to change the name of an article. This process is called "page moving". The only requirement is that your account is autoconfirmed. I see that you only have 8 edits. In usual circumstances, an account is autoconfirmed when it has 10 edits and is at least 4 days old (which yours is). You can go through a process to request that your account be confirmed manually by an administrator, but since you only have 2 edits to go, it is probably easier to just make two more edits!

After that, you just have to find the "move" link at the top of the article you want to move and follow the intructions that appear. The picture below shows you where you can locate this link:

If you have any trouble, just reply here and we will help you! hajatvrc @ 16:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, what Hajatvrc won't work in the case as someone else has created Mister Loveless by copying your article. A bit of pity as it would have been easy to move the article from one to the other. I've requested that an adminstrator delete Mister Loveless (uppercase) and then rename Mister loveless to Mister Lovelass. Because all the old edits on Mister loveless need to be attributed, this seemingly long winded way of doing it, is the best way. NtheP (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All resolved now. NtheP (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, The problem with this page being so useful yesterday is that I am going to keep using it now!! I have put an image onto my page waiting for creation but it's been added on one side and needs to be rotated 270 degrees. I've put the command

{{Rotate|270}}

which is supposed to attract the attention of a bot to rotate it. However, I was wondering how long this would take or even better; if there was a way I could do it myself? Thanks in advance Jengawiki (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jengawiki. The template you used, {{rotate}} is not for the issue you had here. What you would have needed to do is go to the image page itself at the Wikimedia Commons where you uploaded it and click on the "request rotation" button just below the image. I have, however, done the rotation directly. The way you could have done this yourself is by downloading an image manipulation program of some sort (there are many), then rotate the image, then re-upload it at the image page (see the link on that page for "Upload a new version of this file"). More specifically, you could download what I used, GIMP, and if you do, the command I used here is Image → Transform → select the requisite rotation from the menu, e.g. "rotate 90° counter-clockwise". I then saved and re-uploaded. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good thing I asked then or nothing would ever have happened! Thank you very much for your help Jengawiki (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newbie and I found a stub I'd like to expand (Marjorie Acker) as a first project. I've asked on the talk page if anyone else is working on it - was that the right thing to do and if not, what should I have done? If so, should I say anything else? Thanks! Mfbjr (talk) 04:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mfbjr! We have a guideline here called Be bold so go ahead and be bold and improve the article! Stubs like that are rarely watched and you never need to ask for permission to improve an article. One aspect of being bold is being prepared for someone to disagree with you. If they do, they may change or undo your edit. At that point, you should discuss it on the talk page. Thanks for volunteering to help! Without editors like you coming along, some of those articles would remain stubs forever. Ryan Vesey 05:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember also that when being bold, you don't have to worry about making a mistake during editing. Even if you make a mistake when editing a large, important page with a lot of complex tables or whatever, you (or any other editor) can revert the page to an earlier version. The preview button is there to help you avoid saving a page before you're sure everything works the way you want it to, but even when it doesn't do its job (or you forget to click it, as many of us do sometimes), the version of the page before your edits is always just a few clicks away. After reverting, you can try your edits again, once you've figured out what needs fixing.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 08:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mfbrg, Welcome to Teahouse! I do a lot of work on stubs, too. One thing I always do is click on the tab that says "View History". Look at the dates of the last few revisions, and you'll know if anyone is currently working on the stub. If they are you can contact them, though you don't have to. Of course, your changes may attract more interest in the article anyway, but this lets you have a better idea how actively it's being edited. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know of any good sites that build on wikipedia? For example, my favorites are:

http://www.wikimindmap.org/

http://wiki.dbpedia.org/UseCases

CurtisSV (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. While these aren't strictly sites, there are a number of things out there that build on the Wikipedia experience in different ways. There is, for example, a plethora of iPhone apps which aim to make reading Wikipedia easier on mobile devices. Some of these apps, like "Articles" (for iPhone) include additional functionality, ranging from creating a list of articles to read later to things like showing nearby locations that have Wikipedia articles on a map (tapping a pin placed on the map opens the corresponding article).  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 03:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I have some questions about speculative, unsourced content. I'm doing something of a copyedit/citation adding/content adding cleanup(?) to Jimi Hendrix's wiki. I've noticed - for some time now - that there's quite a bit of unsourced content, entire paragraphs. I would be Very Grateful for Your Guidance on what to do about this. Yesterday, after I deleted something, another editor suggested I add in "Citation Needed." Well, I checked the Admin categories for this page, and there's (drum roll....) Lo and Behold - only Three Years' Worth of Unsourced Content on this page. Well, hell yes, speaking frankly here. I'm quite ready to be the cleaning lady for this - if you think it's okay. When I've got time - just being honest - and I'm looking at something, I will try and find citations. I've actually done quite a bit of that on this page (You can check the revision history - you'll see.). How many "citations needed" on one article is reasonable? Honestly. At what point - after a reasonable search for a citation - can I delete/alter it if none can be found? (I know - not everything's online - but I have managed to find just a few things no one else did (check revision history). So when I say I do try and find citations - that is what I'm doing, before I delete.) Look - obviously, I don't want a bullet through my head for deleting unsourced, unqualified, fictional statements about A Great dead Artist who happens to be considered black. But on the other hand, we're talking about Jimi Hendrix! The man's been dead for over 40 years. I myself know and see there's lots of times where there's conflicting sources on his life and times. I Totally See That - no contest. But if there's No Source - can I just delete it if there's nothing relevant in it? (I try to find at least TWO sources for unsourced content, based on advice on one of your colleagues, Mr. H.) I'm just starting to feel like this page is just AWASH in Speculative, likely Fictional commentary/statements, possibly original w/out any published sources, What-Ever...about Jimi Hendrix. And I'm feeling like it's time to...let this stuff Kiss the Sky (goodbye) - sorry, I had to that somewhere in here. Dear Tea House Editors, you're always so Nice to Me. Would you please help me figure this out w/out getting a bullet through my head? Not trying to be dramatic here, but I know many people care about what's said about Jimi here. Would you please help me understand: what's the best way to approach this? I Really Appreciate You All Being Here - I Have To Say, yeah? :D Charlie Inks (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Charlie! Welcome back. You rock and your dedication to the Wikipedia is evident :) If you cannot find good reliable sources for something, you can remove it. Seriously. Go for it - clean house! just make sure you state why you are removing the content (i.e. "I spent hours looking for reliable sources, for the love of god, there are none!!"). That article is probably prone to people just adding stuff that they "know" to it. Clean house! SarahStierch (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Charlie! Sarah's advice is good, but I wanted to add some information: at WP:Verifiability it says:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself...

There are a few key points here that mirror what Sarah said:

1. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This basically means that if someone undoes your removal of the content, it is they that then have to provide the evidence that supports the material.
2. consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. You have already taken "interim steps" and the information has been up for a while, giving the people who put it there plenty of time to add sources.
3. try to find and cite supporting sources yourself You have already done this!

I hope this info gives you some more confidence. You already know what to do. If someone gets angry, you have documentation to back yourself up! hajatvrc @ 23:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Sarah! Well God Bless You! Thank you for this Serious Advice Here! You know? I'm trying to Do The Right Thing - Respect the Rules, and All the People Who Contributed - because All Of Those Things Really Are Important! Honestly - not just words. But (paradox - courtesy Mr. H. - whom I see has also Stepped Up here) Let's Get Real! The speculation - it's Got To Go - it doesn't just damage Jimi it damages the whole encyclopedia's credibility, you know what I'm saying? It's so not right. I'm grateful to receive Your Blessing in particular. Why?

I still remember hearing your interview on my little tiny radio that used to belong to my late Dad. You were talking to me, and thousands, if not millions of other listeners, about a special event to add wikis about women scientists. I remember thinking, why should my Sisters have to fix those problems? Maybe their interests lie elsewhere? Or not? But, I digress.

As you've explained, under all the advisement you've given me (Thank you!!! I'm looking for some reassurance, you know?) :D You Rock Too!!! My Goodness! I remember you and what You Said in that interview! :D Thank You Sistah!!!!

When I think of Great Scientists like Marie Curie, who sacrificed, unknowingly (?), her own health to unlock radioactivity/radiation, She is Completely Part of My Milky Way - right up their with Jimi, and all sorts of colours and genders, shapes and sizes of People. People in my family have died from cancer. Where would their treatment have been, how would even I have had x-rays for some of the things I've had to deal with, w/out Marie Curie's Sacrifices? My Goodness!!! It just doesn't bear thinking about, you know?

God Bless You for Bringing Women To LIFE on Here in Every Colour! And helping me on my way. :D Charlie Inks (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Hajatvrc, Thank you for Stepping up here to provide a little more detail. I see how what you say mirrors Sarah's advice. I've said it before, and yes, I'm going to say it again: I really do appreciate the detailed advice you give me on here, especially when I'm trying to solve problems, you know? The edits are not about "contests" as I've read in some of the rules here - for me at this point, it is very much about Jimi and What Is Proven To Be True, if one can humbly aspire to such a thing. And if aint so - True, w/ Citation(s) - what's it doing up here - know what I mean?

All that said, not for the first time, look, I have constraints, limits, things that don't work so well for me - dyslexia, coding, for example, yes, even Time - maybe other editors have their constraints. And that's all good. I'm not perfect - there are probably gaps in what I've seen and researched. And I welcome anyone stepping in to show me what those are because that is going to round out what is said about Jimi Hendrix here - And That's What I Care About!

I do appreciate you itemizing the kinds of things I could do to mitigate and defuse a conflict before it begins. When I'm feeling particularly cynical, I wonder who I think I am making all these edits to the wiki of one Mr. Jimi Hendrix. But then, I remind myself, the details of his life that I identify with and relate to, those are private and belong to me and Jimi's spirit. If they help fuel the fire of my desire to understand him, who he was, what he was about, what he was trying to do, all the research I've done, what is wrong with that? And what people like you are helping realize is, Nothing. There's Nothing wrong with That.

You're The Business!! Thank you for helping me feel a little bit more confident about all this. I will proceed, with caution, as you suggest, but I will proceed. :D

God Bless, Charlie Inks (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please someone can help me how to cover language in c as soon as possible with short notes Mihirgoswami2012 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question moved to top of page. NtheP (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might find what you are looking for in the article C (programming language). If you cannot find the answer there, you can try asking your question at the Computing section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer just about any question in the universe (except about how to use Wikipedia, which is what this help desk is for).For your convenience, you may click here to post your question. I hope this helps. benzband (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mihirgoswami2012! I do know some good C resources but which one is appropriate for you will depend on any prior programming knowledge you have and what exactly you are needing it for. Are you just trying to learn an overview, or are you programming for a specific task? hajatvrc @ 22:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen before a template placed at the top of an article that says something like "This article could be improved by translating text from the corrosponding article in X Wikipedia", and wish to add it to Isuzu River, but cannot find it. Any ideas?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gilderien! I think this is it? (For Japanese): Template:Expand_Japanese SarahStierch (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the one. Thanks :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add you can see all the templates of this type at Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates including {{import}} which is the generic template. NtheP (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please review http://www.tupatu.com/content/about.html (CopyVios) and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror. (August 2012)

Sesamevoila (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Sesamevoila, welcome to the Teahouse! I would say that CSD is definitely the way to go with this, both for G12 (copyright infringement) and also G11 (spam), since even if it's not copyrighted material, it's way too promotional in tone for Wikipedia. Perhaps even db-web ( for websites and/or web content that give no claims of importance or significance). I sww that gtwfan52 has already tagged it, though, so it should be straightened out soo. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Sesamevoila and welcome to the Teahouse. THANK YOU for bringing this to our attention and for tagging it, sorry the tag got removed. I reviewed and used my magical admin powers to delete the page as it was a copyright violation. Thank you for monitoring such important things :) (Copyright is the most important, IMHO, on Wikipedia, to monitor!!) SarahStierch (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great:-) I'm surprised, though, that this article managed to stay up on wikipedia all these months Sesamevoila (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I am currently waiting for an article to be reviewed and have submitted it from my sandbox, can I start creating another article in my sandbox whilst I wait or would that delete the article waiting to be created? Alternatively, is there a way to have multiple sandboxes at the same time? Jengawiki (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jengawiki, hi and welcome to the Teahouse. You can have multiple sandboxes, you already have one User:Jengawiki/sandbox which is currently just a redirect to your submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Warranty Direct - that was an automated consequence of submitting your article for review, it got moved to a new page. So you can either edit User:Jengawiki/sandbox and start your new article in there or you can create a new sandbox, for example, User:Jengawiki/sandbox2 by clicking on the link.

If you do have multiple sandboxes then at any time you can see a list of what subpages you have by going to My Contributions and clicking on the link at the bottom of the page that says Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jengawiki/subpages. Many people make a list of the subpages they have on their Userpage either by a series of links or by using code. I use this code

{| class="toccolours collapsible " width={{{width|50%}}} align=center
|-
! colspan="2" |Subpages of [[{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}]]
|-
|{{Special:PrefixIndex/{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}}
|}

to give me a table of my subpages on my userpage. NtheP (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep, following up on this, I added that code snippet to my main page and rediscovered several sandbox pages that I'm no longer using. What's the preferred method for deleting them? GaramondLethe 15:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tag them with {{db-u1}} and an admin will delete them for you. NtheP (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm new here and very confused. I signed up after seeing several errors on a city page. I decided to begin with correcting the name of the mayor (I have verification). Wiki has a former mayor listed.

The problem is that I don't want to Edit anything, being so new, but I can't figure out how to write anything on the Talk page. Do I click on Edit and add my question there?

Thanks,

Inga Wildy 09:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) << bet I don't need that either;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome to the tea house Inga Wildy. Yes indeed just click the edit button and add your questions. Can you find local newspaper articles about the new mayor to verify this? Everything on here should have a source for verification. We just love new editors helping with the great task of writing this encyclopedia and you will find most other editors supportive.--Charles (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on talk pages you can click on the "new section" tab to start a new thread. (see picture below)

Once you have done that, fill in the "subject/headline" field and type your questions/comments in the editing field right below. Then click Save page. benzband (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles, Thanks for replying & for the cookies:) So, on Wiki you use Edit kinda like a Reply button? I know someday I'll wonder why I thought Wikipedia was so complicated, but for now I'm very lost. Yes, there are numerous newspaper articles I can use for verification. The city has had a new mayor for 15 months:) Maybe Wiki editing will make more sense after I've slept. Thanks so much. Inga Wildy 09:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talk • contribs)

Just read your second post. Thank you for explaining so much! I'll be back tomorrow & will attempt to add the name of the new mayor. Rather, use Talk to mention it & give the sources. Night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talk • contribs) 09:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@benzband: Thank you for your help. I didn't realize that was your post re "new section". I made two new sections for Talk:Cairo, Illinois. Do I have to tell someone about the additions, or do I wait until someone replies?

Also, am I supposed to be checking "This is a minor edit"? Thanks. Inga Wildy 01:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talk • contribs)

Hi, Inga. Welcome to Wikipedia. You really don't have to discuss things like factual updates, such as when the mayor of a town changes. Just be bold and change it! I went ahead and changed the mayor's name for you and added the citation you gave. If you click the "edit this page" tab, you can see what I did and maybe that will give you a guide as to how to insert a reference when you write the stuff you want to write on the levee break. (Do I hear a Led Zeppelin tune?) You have the right idea when it comes to referencing your work, so I would say, just be bold and do it. One small note---Facebook is not considered a reliable reference on Wikipedia. And come back to the Teahouse with any other questions you might have. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gtwfan52. I thought I read that we should not do our first edit without someone looking at it:) Also, I knew FB wouldn't be considered a reliable source. I included it on the Talk page to show who the Army Corps of Engineers' press release is attributed to (since the Army didn't state it in their .pdf file). The levee breach info was put there in case someone more experienced wanted to tackle the Edit, but I'll give it a try. Not sure what you meant about Led Zeppelin, but I'm guessing you anticipate a LONG paragraph about the breach?:D Idk, but thanks much! Inga Wildy 04:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inga Wildy (talk • contribs)

Hi maybe someone can take a look at my article for submission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tim_Woolcock) and see where exactly my article deviates from the formal path. I looked at it but can't really see any major problems. Fellowpacker (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fellowpacker, and welcome to the Teahouse! We're glad you're here. The writing and tone look fine to me. One thing I would do is add more to the body of the article. I noticed that you listed a bunch of references at the bottom, why not incorporate information from those sources into the article? If you need more detailed help, please do ask here. I think that if you do that, your submission will definitely be accepted. Thanks for asking and visiting the Teahouse! Happy editing, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is more of a concern to be addressed than a question. I tried to dive right in to wikipedia and edit entries I thought I had beneficial things to add to. I felt beaten down right away. I found that administrators would undo my edits stating they violated policy (without addressing how in a helpful way). The most frustrating thing I found was that my edits would follow the format of a section which apparently contained other violating material, which I had been using as a guide for knowing if it was okay to add something or not. The other user would not edit the section to remove all offending material, but rather would just undo my contributions. I've tried to air my frustrations about this practice, but people just point me to "other stuff exists." I understand this in a broad sense, but within a one paragraph section, if someone is editing for offending material, I'd expect them to remove it all, rather than just undo someone's contribution.

Also: why just undo someone's contribution when you could help dig up sources? I had thought that wikipedia was some sort of all-in-this-together thing, but after trying to contribute, it seems more like trying to present something to a strict boss and having her tear up your hard work and instructing you to do it again. ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and do it again without more guidance. Welcome to the Teahouse, ChateauOfADoubt. Sorry your first experiences were so frustrating. I looked at Troy, New York. Rated just Class C (not very good) but High Importance, that article needs a lot of help. To answer a couple of your questions and comments:

• Why just undo someone's contribution when you could help dig up sources? Some Wikipedians specialize in certain aspects. Your edits were caught by a Recent Changes Patroller. S/he specializes in eliminating additions that aren't up to standards and warning the editor. Digging up sources is left to, well, you and me and a bunch of others who want to add content.
• My edits would follow the format of a section which .. contained other violating material, which I had been using as a guide. Sorry about that. In that article, previous authors didn't set a good example.

Are you up for a challenge? The Troy, New York article needs a lot of help. The section you worked on, Annual events, is under major heading Architecture. Completely illogical. Much of the major section Landmarks at the very bottom belongs under Architecture. An experienced editor could spend weeks bringing the article up to Class B. You don't have to take on the whole article.

Most Wikipedia articles fall under some Project. The Troy, New York article should follow guidelines for Wiki Project Cities. Check out the Arts and colture section. Will you build that one section to improve the Troy, New York article? Will you spend hours looking up reliable, second party sourses to prove the notability of events? Use in-line citations in your section? In the upper right of your screen is 'My sandbox.' Work there, adding all the events you can find along with in-line sources. Come back here is you have problems or ask on my talk page and I'll give you a hand. Beware, though. Once you figure this stuff out, editing to improve Wikipedia can become addicting. Take care, DocTree (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chateau, and welcome to the Teahouse! We're glad you're here. I'm really sorry your first experience was difficult. Lots of amazing editors here had a rough start, and I hope it doesn't get you down too much. I have a couple things that may help you. First, you can look for an "adopter", an experienced Wikipedian who walks you through some of the basics. It's really helpful! Another thing you can do is to find an article you're interested in and click on the talk page. A bunch of WikiProjects (groups of Wikipedians who work in a specific area, like astronomy, horseback riding, or cities) should be listed. Click on one that seems to be in line with your interests, and ask on their talk page how you can help the project. I hope this helps - you can also ask me a question on my talk page. I've been around awhile and I'd love to answer your questions! Happy editing, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the input and advice! I guess I didn't realize what an undertaking Wikipedia was. I'm starting to think I should leave learning to properly use wikipedia on the shelf with learning to read charts to better play the stock market! I guess I'll stick to making comics, videos, zines, and educating in ways that don't involve the creation of an encyclopedia. I'm sure I could have realized that it was not for me either way, but I wish I had found you all and figured it out this way rather than what actually happened! ChateauOfADoubt (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm sorry you're leaving us. But if you ever want to come back, perhaps you could pick up a copy of "Wikipedia:The Missing Manual"? We would love to have you return - do come say "hi" in the Teahouse if you ever do! Best wishes, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that sometimes the Article Feedback 5 box appears in articles even though Category:Article Feedback 5 (with brackets) is not included in the article. I was curious as to why this is. Also, I want to know if it is a problem for me to go through adding this feedback category to articles. AutomaticStrikeout 22:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :). So, we've upped to 10 percent of Wikipedia articles, and are holding steady at the moment. Obviously to go to 100 percent we'd have to add the category to every article, and that'd be rather disruptive, so we've switched from "add a category and it appears" to "if it wins the 1-in-10 chance in a randomised lottery, it will appear". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the category front; can you hold for now? :(. We actually had to turn the tool off a couple of days ago when it got laggy - I'm trying to minimise additions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT add [[Category:Article Feedback 5]] to articles on your own. The Article Feedback V5 page doesn't make it clear but there are background chores to create the related history pages where editors can look at, comment on and react to the feedback. Unless things changed since Wikimania 2012, some of those chores still have to be done or at least checked manually. There's a video and more information at WP:Article feedback. If all goes well, FeedbackV5 will be fully implemented in September with most (or all?) background chores done automatically by bots. Okeyes (WMF) is among the developers and experts who are doing the creating and testing. What he says really counts. DocTree (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not an expert - I'm just an editor who gets to shout at the developers more often :P. But thank you! Actually, there aren't any background chores - adding the category should create the feedback page and suchlike automatically. But I'd be really grateful if people held off anyway so we don't overburden the system :). We're still having to tweak the code so that going higher than 10 percent doesn't make the four horsemen cross the horizon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in that case I will stop adding the category. AutomaticStrikeout 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up until now i thought that could be achieved by adding [[Category:Article Feedback 5 Additional Articles]] to the article. But maybe that's no longer the case… benzband (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that should still work :S. If it's not, gimme a poke. In either case I'd rather people didn't for the moment :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay :) benzband (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not correct form to cite the works themselves, that is the original articlesc, particularly if the author is working in an arcane area in which he or she has done the research, and the article appears in fact-checked newspaper publication. I'm trying to grasp the import of a recent comment by Sarah. Sarah, please Feel free to email me but please do not publish my email address online. Thanks. I'll use your feedback to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I actually didn't review your article, and it looks like the article, Chuck Philips, is currently on Wikipedia. The problem is that it cites too many articles and newspapers and related sources that are written by Chuck Philips. Wikipedia articles, like any encyclopedia, strive to be neutral, therefore they use preferably secondary sources - articles written about Philips, not by him. It's one thing to state "he writes about "x" subject," but to extensively cover his career based on articles he written isn't really encyclopedic. I'm sure someone else can elaborate a bit more. SarahStierch (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That guy has written a lot of stuff! I actually read the entire article because he seems like a really interesting dude. One thing I feel the article lacks is some more biographical information. You do have some info on his actual life mixed in here and there, but more biographical content, as opposed to just talking about the things he has written, would help to give his writings some context. Do you know if there are any sources that talk about his earlier life? I did a Google search and all that seems to come up on the first four pages are things about his writings, and not the actual human being. I wonder if you know where some sources can be found that do not just talk about his writings? I feel like these must exist if there 4,270,000 Google hits to his name! hajatvrc @ 22:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to do it more easily than just going to the articles and click manually? Not all of watchlist, but most of it. And if not, maybe just there should be these stars also in the watchlist for a quick unsbscribing. Niemti (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Niemti! If you go to your watchlist, there is a link at the very top of the page that says "edit raw watchlist". There you will see an editing box that lists your watched pages, which you can use to delete as many as you want with one go. hajatvrc @ 19:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what may be just a little more user-friendly is the Special:EditWatchlist page, which you can also get to from the top of your userpage via the "View and edit watchlist" link. That'll let you just check the boxes next to the titles you want to remove and hitting the "Remove titles" button at the bottom. Hoep this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. Never noticed it before. --Niemti (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never noticed it before, either. Thanks Writ! SarahStierch (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I forgot that the check-box format existed. I guess I've just been trained to click on the raw watchlist! hajatvrc @ 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niemti. There is a tool that provides exactly the capability you describe, placing a little "x)" next to each page on your watchlist that when clicked on removes entries, and once you're done, you just toggle the tool off and the watchlist returns to normal view. To access this, you would need to:

1. Click on this link: Special:MyPage/skin.js;
2. Click "Create" at the top of the page;
3. Copy and paste into the page this script:

// [[user:js/watchlist]]
if (wgCanonicalSpecialPageName == 'Watchlist') 
  importScript('user:js/watchlist.js');

 4. Click save page;

 5. Purge your computer's cache memory (you will see instructions at the top of the saved page on how to do this).

After you do this you should see a little menu above your watchlist that looks like this:

The "X" will populate the "x)" watchlist remover tab next to each link in your watchlist. The other tools are useful as well and, like I said, it toggles off and on so it's mostly invisible except when you need it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (I already purged the list). --Niemti (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this cool picture on Commons, and I just wanted to put it in, but it was huge. I tried resizing it by adding |300px after the .jpg, but it didn't work. Some words on both sides came up and then I just gave up. :P Red Hat On Head (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Red Hat On Head! It would help if you would post here exactly what code you are using so I can help you fix it. You can post code by using the <pre> code as such:

<pre>code you are using</pre>

Which will should appear like:

code you are using

Sometimes code can be buggy, so I would need to see exactly what you are using! hajatvrc @ 19:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm using this code.

[[File:India - Srinagar - 032 - sunset at Nishat Bagh Mughal Gardens HDR.jpg|300px]]

Well, I posted that code verbatim at my sandbox and it was resized just fine. Where are you trying to add this picture? hajatvrc @ 19:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasha, that code you are using works fine for me. Were you trying to put the picture inside an infobox? If so then the code is slightly different, for example

{{Infobox garden
|image         = India - Srinagar - 032 - sunset at Nishat Bagh Mughal Gardens HDR.jpg
|image size    = 300px
}}

to get the same outcome . NtheP (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the introduce yourself thing at the guests part of the Teahouse. Just wouldn't work. Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in an infobox, but over here on the guests page. Thanks for the answer though. :) Red Hat On Head (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sasha! I made this change and the image doesn't appear huge to me. It is possible to modify the image width with some code; however, I don't believe it is necessary in this case. Do you still feel that it is too large? Ryan Vesey 19:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha, the Teahouse guest page is a form of infobox template. If you look at Ryan's edit then the image name doesn't have the [[]] brackets around it and doesn't have to be prefixed with File: or Image: That might have been where you went slightly wrong as using either the brackets or the prefix would have caused an error.

PS looked at some of your edits and you seem to be getting to grips with some other complicated stuff like table. NtheP (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that works. :D Thank you so much! I was wondering why. Thanks! :3 Oh, and that table thing that I put in was copied and pasted from another article. But why are the lines all deformed? :P There was another section in the original table - references - but I took it out when pasting because the only reference was in the sentences above. But thanks! Red Hat On Head (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all!

I created Spaceflight radiation carcinogenesis and have been getting feedback that the writing is not encyclopedic and that it is a copy paste from another public domain document. While a couple of paragraphs may be nearly verbatim, it is only because there is no better way to say it.

Also, the topic is not exactly suited for recreational reading, so it may seem like it reads like an essay and is a little long-winded when it is just a very broad overview of the topic. I am engaging subject matter experts to come and make contributions, but I wanted to see if there are any suggestions on format or style from other Wikipedia editors in the meantime.

I welcome any and all constructive criticism and look forward to your suggestions.

Thanks, Jssteil (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jssteil, welcome to the teahouse!

Has this been discussed anywhere else?

Do you work for, or at the behest of, NASA? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The actual content of this article? No...I have been getting negative feedback on my talk page without any suggestions on how to fix it (there was another discussion at WQA and this user's talk page regarding this).

I have created this article at the behest of a NASA program and invite any and all contributors to make changes (preferably productive and not disruptive changes). The content I am adding is meant to act as seed material to be expanded upon. Also, I am not a contributor, scientist, researcher or investigator for this topic and will enjoy no personal gains related to the advancement of this topic (I have already had issues with an editor claiming a conflict of interest). There is no self promotion in this article and I am working to add more 3rd party references. Jssteil (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jssteil. Thank you for adding those details! I think many of the complaints about your editing were from an editor who was having some problems, and who is now blocked from editing. I'm sorry that it's been so chaotic. Perhaps other editors here can offer ideas on how to improve the article. It's certainly an important one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jssteil! I have looked at the public domain study by NASA. The issue with using a NASA-type writing style is that NASA does not write their studies in encyclopedic form. You can certainly use the source (obviously it is an excellent study), but generally the meaning of an encyclopedia is to be accessible to a wide audience. Even if it is an advanced topic, it should be written in prose that a general audience can follow.

The thing about the topic is that it is a really big one! This means that making it a longer article in order to have more readable prose is appropriate. Frankly, I do not see how we did not already have an article about it, but that is beside the point. While I am not any sort of authority, I do like the suggestion of the person who placed the template at the top of the page, which is to move the page to "Cancer and spaceflight". This describes the article in a way that makes it search-able to a general audience. More people are going to run a Google search for "cancer and spaceflight" than they are for "spaceflight radiation carcinogenesis". If you would like to move the page, it is actually quite easy. Somewhere in a drop-down menu at the top of the article (next to "Read" and "Edit") you'll find a "move page" link. As different people have different display settings for their account, there is a document to help you locate this link here if you cannot find it yourself. hajatvrc @ 18:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000 and hajat, thank you for your input. I will definitely take the name change into consideration...now that it is presented in the way that you have presented it, it makes sense. Jssteil (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, Sorry for such a daft question but I keep getting articles rejected due to reputable links- tried inserting these but internal Wikipedia links are a bit confusing and can't work out how to link to external sites.

Also just pushed the resubmit button but how do you know it's actually been sent?

Thanks.

Mike :) Thesocialpro (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I presume you're referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Azimo. You'll need to find a number of independent articles in newspapers/journals, which describe the company and its activities. These articles can be cited in references using <ref> tags, as described at Citing sources. Internal wikilinks are included using the [[Article name]] markup. Keep trying and come back if you have further questions. -- Trevj (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Mike, and thank you for submitting an article! The simplest way to add a references to an article is by adding the following next to the text that you are pointing to a reference:

<ref>information on the source</ref>

and then added a reference section to the bottom of the page with "==References==" and adding nothing to that section but:

{{reflist}}

This will create a list of all of the references that you have made in the article in the order that they appear in the content. I do understand that reading the Referencing for beginners can be "a bit confusing", as you say. The main thing you need to know is what information to include in the citation, which means you only really have to worry right now about this small section. Don't worry, your citations do not have to be perfect for the article to be accepted. They just have to include enough information to help us know where they came from. After the article is created, other people can make them look "pretty". Over time you will learn how to make them pretty, but as a new user, there is no reason to overwhelm yourself.

That section that I linked you to also shows you how to include an external link in your refences.

A general piece of advice is that for any one task, you usually only have to worry about a small portion of a particular piece of documentation at a time. Look in the table of contents and click on the link to the section that you think will answer the specific question that you have. The is no deadline for Wikipedia! Take it slow, in little steps. If you ever need help deciding exactly what information you need to worry about for a given task, that is what the Teahouse is here for! hajatvrc @ 17:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have messed around with your talk page. I moved it by accident when I moved what was a sandbox from your user page. I hope that's OK. All should now be back to normal! -- Trevj (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you will be fine.. My question to you is that my article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Muhammad_Arshad_Khan_(MAK) Aprrox 5 days have passed and no one reviewed my article.. why..??....Before this the process was too fast.. I could get the comment of the reviewer in short time but now it is taking a long time...

Regards, ARKARK (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ARK, welcome to the Teahouse! Well, the AfC process is entirely dependent on the volunteers who do it. If there are a lot of submissions and not many volunteers, it's gonna take a while. You just gotta be patient. (Although it looks like it was reviewed five minutes after you posted; isn't that always the way?) Anyway, thanks for stopping by! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ARK! I just wanted emphasize one thing, as I am looking at your submission. The key problem that I see is just that many of your citations do not include the descriptive information that lets us know where they actually were published. We cannot really judge whether they are reliable or not without that information. You seem to know how to use the reference codes themselves, so just try to add to them information such as: what precise newspaper or news site the source came from, who wrote it, and the date of its publication. It really is a good start! hajatvrc @ 16:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I meet real wikipedians? I want to talk to real people, but it doesn't seem like there are any meetups nearby or soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiknic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/San_Francisco

CurtisSV (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Curtis, welcome to the Teahouse! I guess it depends on where you live. Wikimania (which appears to be The Big One) was a few weeks ago, so you just missed it. It was in DC this year; great fun, and we even had an unofficial Teahouse meetup! You can see the photo evidence (including me!) here. Not the same as meeting us in real life, I know, but at least maybe you can put some faces to names, which helps, I find. If you do live in San Francisco, I suppose you could always barge into the WMF headquarters there, although I'm not sure how well they'd take that. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curtis! Yes, DC was quite fun. We don't have anything lined up in SF right now, but it doesn't mean you can't be bold and throw your own meet up =) I live in the Bay Area, and if I can come, I surely will! SarahStierch (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving SF on the 10th and going to Purdue to study CS and so I don't really think I'll be throwing my own meetup between now and then. Though, I'm sure I'll be back in SF eventually. I suppose for now I'll just have to settle for messaging and maybe skyping and waiting for the next wikipedia event. Maybe I'll start a wikipedians club at Purdue. I'd love to see students writing the textbooks rather than stodgy publishing companies. I think most old textbooks basically suffer from the Curse of Knowledge. CurtisSV (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May be a basic question but how do I reply to you when you have been kind enough to answer my questions Marcusah (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should see an "Edit" link at the top-right of every discussion. You can just click that and add your response to the bottom like you would on an article! hajatvrc @ 21:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Marcusah, if you look at this page (or any page), at the start of each section you'll see [edit] at the right hand side. If you click on this edit button, it will open that section for editing. You can then add your reply at the bottom. The convention of wikipedia is to indent your reply to differentiate it from the comment above. You do this by typing a number of colons, each of which will indent your comments by one step. So if you edit this section you'll see one colon at the start of my comment indenting my reply one step. If you want to reply you can start with two colons :: to indent your reply two steps. NtheP (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats great thank you, and thank you for your previous response in relation to the delete page query. I will update the page with regards to the queries that have been made and make comment on the delete discussion. Thank you for your assistance. Marcusah (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This section WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT tells me what a reference should look like when I'm referencing something that I haven't seen in the original. But it doesn't tell me how to make the ref look like that. What do I put between the ref tags to do this? I've looked and just can't find it. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tlqk, the easiest way is to do as the example at WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT does and just write it out as text

Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2.

is produced by typing Smith, John. ''Name of Book I Haven't Seen'', Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). ''Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen''. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2. It might not appear to be the prettiest but it does the job. NtheP (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I literally put that between the ref marks? Tlqk56 (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :-) NtheP (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can get a template from WP:Cite book which goes between the ref tags and does a standard job.--Charles (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that cite book isn't great at quoting one book within another. NtheP (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you know, Nthep, that never occurred to me. I guess I thought you had to have |last=xxx, etc, to make it work. (I looked on that page Charlesdrakew mentioned but didn't see where it did what I needed. Doesn't mean it's not there, though.) Thanks again, both of you! Tlqk56 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the wonderful things about wikipedia is that there isn't a universal policy about how references should be quoted. A lot of people think there should be but it never gets consensus, the normal reason against is that referencing for beginners would be too difficult and therefore off putting. Although I am a fan of the cite templates and the {{sfn}} shortened footnote method of referencing, I do accept that imposing any standard would be difficult and off putting. As long as information added has a reference in some form, I'm happy with that - it can always be tidied up later on. Anyway going back to the cite templates like {{cite book}} they do have their limitations, one of which that you can't nest uses of the template inside each other which is what we are talking about here. In this example you could write it as {{cite book |last=Smith |first=John |name=Name of Book I Haven't Seen |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2009 |page=1}} cited in {{cite book |editor= Paul Jones |name=Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2010 |page=2}} but it isn't essential that it's done this way. If you are interested in learning more about the cite templates, how they work or don't as the case may be you might want to add Help talk:Citation Style 1 to your watchlist. This is a centralised talk page dealing with this series fo templates. There are obviously a lot of tehcnical deabtes go on but there are some more general points about behaviour and how to get the templates to work best. Only yesterday I found out that there is {{cite sign}} for citing signs and plaques etc. NtheP (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it and it worked! Thanks again, everybody. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have recently added a wiki page relating to my organisation, it has now for various reasons been marked for deletion and I need to know how to discuss these points and rectify the issues with my page. As I say I am new to wiki and not 100% on the workings.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

MarcusahMarcusah (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Marcusah, welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Sorry to hear about your article being nominated for deletion, but that kind of thing happens a lot; Wikipedia can be a pretty tricky place, so don't worry about it too much! The first thing you should know is that the deletion discussion is going on at this page, so you should feel free to contribute to the discussion there. As for the article itself, it looks like the main issue is that of notability. Notability is the threshold of inclusion for new Wikipedia articles. There are many aspects of notability, but probably the most important one is expressed in the general notability guideline, which says that an article's subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. More specific information on notability for organizations like the one you're writing about can be found at the notability for organizations page; it goes into quite a bit of detail, but the most important bit there is the section called "Primary criteria". Basically, any argument you want to make for the article's inclusion should focus on the existence of reliable secondary sources that specifically discuss the British Boxing Hall of Fame in depth. I hope this helps! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcus! I also took the time to write fellow Wikipedians located in the UK from Wikimedia UK. We have an entire project called "GLAM WIKI" which does outreach with cultural organizations to help improve Wikipedia related to their organization. We've done projects with the British Museum, and now with the British Library. Someone may reach out to you soon from Wikimedia UK, and you can always reach out to them as well - we generally frown upon staff members editing about their organization, so working with the community is one way to change that. Including improving content from your archives about boxing history. Here you can find the contact information for WMUK. I hope this helps! SarahStierch (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, thats very kind assistance. I will update the entry on the British Boxing Hall Of Fame page and add more links and references etc. Hopefully we will be up to speed on Wiki editing soon and will be able to assist others. Thank you again Marcusah (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the 'introduce yourself' page how do I go about uploading a photo? It did not provide any browse button on the image=

Humera Ahsanullah 17:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humera9 (talk • contribs)

Hi Humera9! Photos are added to pages by the use of coding called "wiki markup". A photo that you want to use must be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, and then you can use a code to add that photo to the a page.

To upload a file, use the "Upload file" link in the "Toolbox" section on the main column to the left of this page. If you cannot find it, here is the link. The instructions are pretty clear from there. A file you upload must be either created by you, in the public domain, or have a license that is compatible to Wikipedia. The Upload process contains all of the information you need to know about copyrights. But, I assume you are trying to upload a picture of yourself, which would most likely not be copyrighted unless someone took it who did it for money, etc.. As long as the image is not copyrighted, you should not have any trouble uploading the file. If it is copyrighted, and you are not sure whether it is compatible with Wikipedia, you can provide that information here and we will help you make that decision.

As far as the coding goes, when you are adding a picture to an article it is usually done like this:

[[File:NAME OF YOUR IMAGE.(whatever the extension is)]]

But in the "Introduce yourself" format, you just have to put the name of the image next to the "|image=" part (be sure to include the extension!).

|image=NAME OF YOUR IMAGE.(whatever the extension is)

Does that answer your question? hajatvrc @ 18:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I was wondering if a friendly administrator could help me with this? If memory serves, only admins can move new sections (table & text) into an existing wiki right? (If I do it, I loose all my edit history, right?) If this is so, would you please move the new Recognition: Awards & Achievements section into Jimi Hendrix's wiki just above the Death section - to become Section 3 ("Death" will become 4, etc.)? I've waited over a week for comments - and have some - and have made changes as have other editors. If you think I should wait longer before moving it, just let me know - but my sense is there's nothing contentious or controversial about this mostly new research (It adds key info that's not in the current article - about six posthumously awarded Grammys, for instance.) If you think it's ok to move, here's the original draft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charlie_Inks/sandbox/hendrix(I don't want to loose my edits - so I'd grateful if you'd move them too.) And here's the revised version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charlie_Inks/sandbox/hendrix/awards (with the additional changes). Thanks very much :D Charlie Inks (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Charlie! The merging of histories is a touchy subject. Generally, if someone (against the rules) does a full "copy-and-paste move" of a whole article to an entirely different name, an administrator is required to merge the histories of the articles. But in the case of just moving a section into an article, the history of the creation of that section is not as important. This is especially true in this case because you are the sole author of the new content. When you add this new content to the actual article, it will register in the page history that you are the one who put it there. That is really what is important. An administrator cannot (to my knowledge) merge the histories of two pages that were being edited at the same time, and it would not be necessary for them to do so in this case.

I can see that you really put a lot of work into that section! Don't worry, the history of your sandbox will still be there for your own reference. But as far as the history of the article is concerned, people make substantial single edits to articles all the time, and it not really necessary to know all the steps that it took to make that single edit. Anyone, including you, will still be able to make changes to the section if it needs to be fixed. I hope this answers your question. If you still have more questions on this, ask away! hajatvrc @ 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hajatvrc is correct that this isn't entirely necessary; however, it is possible. This is an example of a history merge. You could ask Reaper Eternal if you really want the history merge. Ryan Vesey 18:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hajatvrc! Thanks very much for this! As usual when you answer questions, the detail is very much appreciated. A couple of followup questions, if I may: why is a copy-and-paste-move "touchy"? especially if I had in a sandbox over a week, for comments, open to anyone? 2ndly, if I delete it from both sandboxes (the place where I did the original draft and where I posted it for other editors to make revisions - and one did - for over a week) will that delete this history? I know it's bit silly perhaps, but 1. yes, I did put a lot of work into it - and also, 2. I don't want the input of the 2nd editor to be lost. I don't want him to think that I'm just taking credit for his input. But maybe this is how stuff is done here, post sandbox? I'm asking 'bout this 'specially b/c it is possible that future content maybe controversial. And I really do in all good faith & humility, want to make sure that other editors know that I do listen to their input - and at least try to find some kind of agreement. No, I may not include everything they suggest, but yes, I try to stay open - always - to listening. Does that make sense? (I'm just trying to defuse conflict - not debate, not free expression - but conflict, before it occurs.

Also, yes, I realize anyone, including me, will be able to make changes to the section once it's incorporated into the section.

Finally, I think - if memory serves - you were the editor who suggested to me to do it this way - draft in sandbox, post in talk, w/ link. Take a Bow! Your advice was greatly appreciated - and clearly by the other editors watching that page! Thank you, Mr. H.!

3. Lastly, do you think a week plus a few days on a back burner is enuf or should I give it a couple few more days?

Appreciate you being on here, Mr. H. Thank you for the guidance, Charlie Inks (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryan! Thank you for this! :D You are another person whose presence here I really appreciate! :D I am going to wait 2 c what Mr. H. has to say in response to my followup questions, but I thank you for this. I'm still trying to understand so many things about how this world works - wikipedia I mean, although yes, you know what? There's always something new to understand about the real-time real-life world too, yeah? :) - but it's good to see this and get another view of what it's all about here. Thank you once again, Ryan - Mr. V.! - for helping me.... :D And - no less important - showing me another dimension to this world - the link to ReaperEternal - what a stunning username! (I'm not Christian - although some of my ancestors, So Deeply Beloved, in every shade of purple that could be imagined, were, but do I have to go to Church now? That's no problem, but, you know? This is another time I am really going to have to think about this!) Okay - but forget my questions, Ryan, Thank You, Mr. V.! :D Charlie Inks (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie, I'd be happy to perform the histmerge for you; it would be a little tricky but since you do have to attribute everything for the copyright stuff, it'd be pretty much the only way to add the content you want. Just give me a heads-up! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hajatvrc & Keilana, thank you both for your comments here. I get the sense from this that usually, it's cut and paste for this type of situation - and as you explain Keilana, it's trickier to conserve the history on the article page. That's no problem. I'll do a cut and paste - I just wanted to be absolutely sure that I wasn't breaking any rules here! Thank you both! :D Charlie Inks (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that lists of TV episodes are invariably vague. 'John discovers an old secret of Jane's.' That might be OK for a TV guide but in an encyclopaedia, one expects an absence of coyness and a directness of fact. 'John discovers that Jane used to be his little brother, Arnold.' So is this coyness a deliberate policy? I find it frustrating and suggest that we should have exactly the opposite policy. A description of a plot should detail it straightforwardly, complete with all and every 'spoiler' going. If we don't have this, it's just like the rest of the web. 92.21.158.206 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right idea in contrast to those frustrating articles you've seen. I'm a newbie but I've been working on some novel articles and one of the first policies I came across is that Wikipedia does indeed (and by design should) contain spoilers: Wikipedia:Spoiler Feel free to start editing them and make them more encyclopedic and less "TV Guide" :) Mdebellis (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Teahouse, 92.21.158.206. I just wanted to add a point to what Mdbellis said. The page they sent you to is a "guideline", which in Wikipedia speak means it is a generally accepted idea. That's different from a page like this, Writing about Fiction, which is part of the manual of style. The difference may be small, but it can matter. I'm telling you this because some people feel strongly about NOT revealing spoilers, despite what the first page says, and if you go in and start making changes they may get upset. That's OK, I just wanted to warn you. Before you start changing plot summaries on an established page that doesn't have spoilers, you may want to leave a message on the article's TALK page, suggesting the change. You don't have to, it's up to you. But another principle of Wikipedia is to use consensus and try to avoid what are known as "edit wars". Good luck, and if you have more questions, just ask.

By the way, the first page says "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." So a short summary won't include every spoiler going, as you suggested. Only the one's necessary to summarize the plot. Tlqk56 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm brand new to wikipedia so hope this question isn't too dumb! A friend pointed out that I can use four tildas (~) when I want to enter my user name on a page (e.g. to add myself to a list of participants in a wikiproject) and if I'm looking for wikiprojects its helpful to put 'WP:' in the search field. I wondered if there was a general place on Wikipedia to read about helpful hints like that? Thanks! Kitfox32 (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kitfox32, and welcome to the Teahouse. Right now, there isn't one place to find helpful hints. Wikipedia started a Help Project to improve and simplify things, both for newcomers and experienced editors. The results of that project will hopefully include helpful hints for newcomers. For now, I recommend trying adoption pages. I liked Pluma's adoption pages as a quick start to becoming a Wikipedian. Pluma is busy and not taking adoptees but you can work through his lessons and exercises on your own. His fun stuff exercises really are fun. Right now, WormTT is the most active adoptor. Even if he isn't currently taking any more adoptees (but don't be afraid to ask), you can work through his lessons and exercises. His program is more thorough than Pluma's. Hope this helps, DocTree (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will learn about many such tips by taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. After You learn basics of editing and wikimarkup, you might bookmark the WP:CHEATSHEET for ease of reference to remind yourself. To view a list of precisely what you're hear about, various types of tips, see Wikipedia:Tips. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen this already, you might want to check this out as well: Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Mdebellis (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kitfox, just to add, that you can always ask here on anything you're unsure about. NtheP (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the main help page Help:Contents, you will see a Tip of the Day in the lower right. I think these qualify as helpful hints.

You don't have to wait until the next day to see a new one, you can click on the Prior tip or next tip links to see others.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that's all really helpful! Thanks very much DocTree, Mdebellis, NtheP and Sphilbrick. I'm sure those pages will be great. Thanks for helping me get started on Wikipedia and thanks very much for making me feel so welcome! Kitfox32 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and thank you Fuhghettaboutit, I somehow missed you off the thank yous!Kitfox32 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like someone to edit and perhaps approve my submission, The Truth (Christianity). I obviously don't want it to sound religious, but neutral. The page isn't about any unique doctrine of any one Christian religion, but refers to the Christian ideology of "the truth" to which most Christian religions refer. I myself am religious, so making it not sound religious is fairly difficult. According to Wikipedia guidelines, I want to provide an unbiased standpoint. Anything someone can add or edit to give it a neutral third party perspective would be appreciated.Corjay (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Corjay, and welcome to the teahouse! I think the article as currently written is a little sparse --- there are only two reference works cited and the article doesn't provide a sense of the history of this concept. You might want to take a look at the articles on Salvation, Grace (Christianity), Faith and perhaps some of the articles on epistemology. That should give you a better sense of the scope of existing articles in this general area. Don't feel you need write the entire article in one go (unless you feel moved to do so, of course), but you might want to go a bit further in the initial submission in showing that this is an important topic in the history, philosophy and practice of Christianity. Good luck! GaramondLethe 14:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with info-boxes and what are parameters? NapoleonicTrooper412 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, NapoleonicTrooper412. I think that you will find the information you want at Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. Hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NapoleonicTrooper412! The parameters are all different, as it depends on which one you want to use. Was there a particular article you had in mind? The main ones I can think of are the infoboxes for people and places, but there are a lot of more specific ones as well. :) The main parameters in common are name and image, but things start to get interesting from there. - Bilby (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NapoleonicTrooper! It's great to see you here. I just want to add on to what Cullen and Bilby said; infoboxes are sort of just what they sound like. They're boxes that we put at the top of articles to give some really quick information about the subject of the article. The most common infoboxes are for people, and they usually include biographical data (birthplace, birthdate, full name, data about whatever it is they do (e.g. years active, who they work with, what groups they are associated with), and a picture. Other infoboxes include the most salient information for the subject, like certain values for chemical compounds and elements. Parameters are used with templates, and they are values that you automatically you put in - the important values in the infobox. So, in a person's infobox, some parameters would include their birthdate and their full name. If you need more specific help, please ask! We'd love to help. Happy editing! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i posted personal experience with poison oak, since the article asked for more content. i can provide a note from an MD if that will make you satisfied. If that is not sufficient, then maybe Wikipedia is only a rehash of sterile history books.MrDDG (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrDDG, and thanks for dropping by the teahouse. You're correct that personal experience isn't sufficient to warrant mention in a wikipedia article. (A note from your GP wouldn't work either, come to that.) For the most part we limit ourselves to what is in "sterile history books", reviews in the scientific and medical literature, newspapers, magazines and other sources that are generally considered reliable, and those in turn are filtered though rules concerning undue weight and fringe science and medicine and conflict of interest, among others. At the end of the day we might not have the Truth, but we do generally have a decent summary of what most experts think on any particular topic.

If you eventually manage to convince a significant portion of the professional medical establishment that your treatment for poison oak is notable, then word of that will eventually make its way into the "sterile history books" and we'll be happy to take note of it. GaramondLethe 17:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Garamond said. Just wanted to suggest that what you seem to want is a site to express your own personal experiences and stories, a perfectly legitimate thing to do, just not the goal of Wikipedia. i suggest you check out: http://www.blogger.com Its very easy to use, IMO easier than editing a Wikipedia page, and you have a lot more leaway with things like formatting, graphics, style, etc.. Mdebellis (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has started flagged my early articles as needing work, which is fine. I've learned a lot since I started, and every article can be improved. However, they seem to feel that Alice Dalgliesh needs more Wikilinks (and a better layout?). I added two, but honestly I can't see where I would put more. I guess I tend to prefer articles that aren't overlinked, and I may be "under-doing" it, but I've read the MOS pages several times. I tried asking the person who left the tag where I needed to make improvements, but they just said "The multiple issues grouping template conceals the wikify reason", which didn't help me a lot. :) When someone has the time, would you please look at the article and give me some specific feedback? I really want to get better, but I'll never be perfect, and I'd like to just fix it, remove the tag, and go on. Thanks a lot. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tlqk56! I do see a couple paragraphs that could have a few more links in Alice Dalgliesh - though I must say, you've done a great job with the article. The first section could do with links to things like the Pratt Institute and Columbia University. In the section "Writing", you could definitely link the names of her most prominent books, along with the Newbery Honor and Book Magazine. "Publishing" could have links to articles like Francis Felsen, Charles Scribner, Jr., World War II, and Leonard S. Marcus. You did a pretty good job with the wikifying, I just thought it could have a couple more. I hope this helps, and happy editing! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That helps a lot, thanks. I didn't link to Newbery Honor because I'd done it in the lead. Should I repeat it? Same with her books in the writing section? I know the MOS says you can re-link in a long article, but it doesn't say HOW long is long, and I didn't think this qualified. I guess I usually don't link to Universities, I'll have to start. Thanks again for the feedback, I appreciate it. I am proud of that article, it was my first big project. :) So I'd like to do it right. Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! To be honest, I'm not sure what's technically correct under the MOS, but as a reader, I don't want to have to scroll all the way up in an article with sections just to click a link. So, as an editor, I tend to link once in the lead and once in a later section (especially if it's a screen or more down), just for readability. I think that in this case as a reader, I didn't remember that Newbery Honor and the books had been linked, so I would have liked to see them further down. I hope this helps - your article looks great! (you should nominate it for Good Article!) Happy editing, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense, actually. I'll definitely readjust how I do Wlinks. So I've learned something else today, which is great. Just saying "Put in more of them" didn't help me, because when you know a topic really well it can be hard to decide what a more casual reader might want more info about. So your outside perspective was great. (I have one article up for GA, its John R. Tunis. I'm hoping for a real learning experience there, too.) Thanks again. Tlqk56 (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm so glad I could help! Good luck with your GAN! See you around the Teahouse. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this, thought about the issue before and having seen opinions that go both ways on it, and looking for MOS guidance on it in the past and not finding anything very nuanced, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Repeating links in the lead and in the body. Please do feel free to say "no, it's an awful idea because..."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My personal rule of thumb is to relink if the earlier link is no longer visible on the monitor in a preview. Guess I'll join the discussion over at Manual of Style.DocTree (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is clearly not a "cut-and-dried" topic. I will definitely check the discussion out, thanks for mentioning it. It does seem to come down to personal opinion, doesn't it? WP says to add them if "needed to aid understanding of the article", but clearly that means different things to different people. (Does reading about a University someone attended 50 years ago for two years really add anything? To some people, I guess it does.) And, as I said before, when you know a topic well it can be hard to judge what other people might want to know. Thanks to everyone for contributing to the discussion. Tlqk56 (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

where do I go to find out how to redirect a subject's various "aliases"?Pyramid43 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pyramid43! Redirects are pretty easy to create but there are some rules attached to them. They are delineated here. hajatvrc @ 22:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pyramid43. The easiest method is to add #REDIRECT [[Article]] to the page you wish to redirect as the only content, replacing "Article" with the name of the article you wish people to be redirected to. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted two photos to an article (wiki) on "Old Sarum".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sarum). The first one, under Norman Expansion, "Ruins of Old Sarum cathedral" works fine. The second photo under "Decline" works but the thumbnail just won't. It doesn't matter what I do, it has the red X. I've tried literally everything to fix it. I've worked a lot in HTML so I don't feel uncomfortable in this type of environment. But no matter what I do, move the coding to different places, change it from File to Image, delete spaces, you name it, and I cannot fix it. I don't understand what the problem is. Should I just move it into a different section? And how will I know if and when anybody responds to this. Thanks. Mike Allen (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Allen, and thanks for stopping by! I'm looking at the page and all of the past revisions you have done and I do not see a red X anywhere. All of the photos seem to appear just fine. I wish I could help, but it might be just a problem on your side, maybe a browser issue or something. I wonder if any other people reading this have the same problem? hajatvrc @ 22:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hajatvrc. I've figured out that when I am logged in, and probably the same for everyone else, the thumbnail appears. But when I am not logged in, the thumbnail is replaced with the empty box with red X. How can I fix this? Mike Allen (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teahouse. You have new messages at Aurelius99's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mike, I'm not having problems logged in or out with either Firefox 14 or IE9. You might want to raise the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) where some of the more technical minded can have a look at it. NtheP (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nthep. I've done as you suggested and just posted on the Village Pump. Mike Allen 15:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelius99 (talk • contribs)

Hi!

I've been working on a draft of an article on my user page about an Australian comedy podcast called TOFOP. I've been told in a deletion review that if I can improve it enough, that I can submit the draft for review, so that it can be moved back to its original page. This is my first time editing a page though, so any feedback or help anyone would be willing to give me to improve the page (link below) would be much appreciated! The moment, I'm not sure if it's good enough to put up.

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tiggyspawn93/TOFOP

Tiggyspawn93 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tiggyspawn93! The most concise help that I can give is a link to Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. This Golden Rule applies to all articles. I simply cannot state it any better than that page. It is what all of the editors at the deletion review were implying, they just never linked you to it because either they did not know about it, or they thought they were clearer than they actually were. hajatvrc @ 22:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tiggyspawn93, it is great to see you at the Teahouse. I didn't realise that Will Anderson had a podcast - I'm going to have to subscribe now. That's great news. :) Anyway, the article is looking great, but the fundamental problem you have is that you need to show that it has received a lot of coverage in the media. The Sydney Morning Herald coverage is a great start, but you'll need a couple more articles, preferably from mainstream media sources, which spend a reasonable amount of time discussing the podcast. I'll have a dig around Newsbank tonight and see if I can find anything, but unfortunately only the one source will meet the requirements at the moment, and you will need more than the one. That said, the article itself is well written, has some great information, and seems preety encyclopedic to me - if you can find a couple more references then all will be good. - Bilby (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Free-free absorption" is another term for "bremsstrahlung". Both terms direct to the same wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-free_absorption

The first result for a "bremsstrahlung" search, in google, is the wiki article for it. a search for ' "free-free absorption" wiki' doesn't give the wikipedia result in any of the first 5 pages, however. Is there anything about the structure of the wiki pages that could help fix this? All Clues Key (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an answer to your question unfortunately, hopefully people who know more than me will comment further, but I just wanted to add what little I can. Where a page shows up on a Google search isn't something that can be completely controlled. Google has search algorithms that they won't divulge. Also, it takes time between a page being published and that page being indexed by the Google engine. Also, a big part of it is dictated by what people search for and what they click on. However, one thing you can do to help Google's (and other) search engine is add meta-data to a page. Meta-data is data about data, e.g., keywords that tell a search engine that you think your page is relevant to people using those words in a search. So my refinement of your question is: how does one add meta-data to Wikimarkup? I know how to do it to HTML but, and I'm probably just missing something obvious, I couldn't find anyting in the Wiki documentation about how to add metadata. Mdebellis (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't see any mention of "Free-free absorption" in the "Bremsstrahlung" article, so I can't see any reason why Google would associate the two terms with one another. Google normally seems to be very quick indeed to index Wikpedia main articles and their subsequent edits. I expect someone would need to add a mention of "Free-free absorption" to the article, to give Google a helping hand.Sionk (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Free-free absorption is a redirect probably has something to do with it not showing highly on Google as there is no text on the Free-free absorption page for web crawlers to pick up on. Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing also explains why some areas of wikipedia are unlikely to show up at all. NtheP (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NtheP, I looked at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing but that page seems to be more about how not to get things indexed rather than how to make sure they are. I know very little about search index optimization but from what I know I would think a much better approach to this and similar problems is not just to make sure that "free-free absorption" occurs in the text but to make sure it is included in the meta data tags for the page. And I haven't been able to find a page that really describes how Wikipedia articles generate meta-data or more generally strategies to ensure that certain keywords that are relevant to your article are flagged as highly relevant for search engines. If you or anyone else could explain in a sentence or point me to the right page I would appreciate it. Mdebellis (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be harsh, Mdeb, but we very strongly discourage anything which looks like search engine optimization in Wikipedia; it is too easily abused as a tool for spammers and the like. We are an encyclopedia, and search engine results are irrelevant to what we do. Our articles do not generate meta-data in the SEO sense. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment on the Bremsstrahlung talk page to incorporate a discussion and description of free-free absorption explicitly. If no one takes it up, I'll try to add something myself. Thanks for all of your feedback! All Clues Key (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I answer/decode pings and figure out who's trying to contact me? Thanks :D Charlie Inks (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "pings": could you clarify? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike:I think he means the talkback templates that we've been posting on his talk page.

@Charlie Inks: The way the talkback templates work is that they're posted by the same person who responded to you, so the signature on the talkback template will tell you the "who". The "where" can be found in the link that, for the Teahouse talkback, reads "Teahouse Q&A board"; it'll actually take you directly to the section that was replied to. I'll admit that that might not be really clear, though. We're always looking for ways to make the Teahouse more user-friendly: is there anything you think we could do to make this clearer? I'm thinking that actually including the name of the section within the talkback (not just as a link) would help; do you have any thoughts or ideas? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am new user here (have done some small edits here and there over the years though). I am looking for advice on how I should format my first article. The article is going to be very extensive and would take me a few months to complete. It has thousands of uses, both for me, viewers and other users. Other users may link my article as a referance,to confirm if a particular music release exists. If is is listed in the aricle then it means that I have personally tracked it down (how could I track it down if it didnt exist?). Anyways here is a link to said article, and my question will follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Simdude1990/My_Album_Collection Should I link each Band/Artist to a new subpage? Or have them all as drop down lists? Or does anyone have a better Idea? Simdude1990 (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simdude, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not sure that what you are attempting to create is really suitable for Wikipedia. This page, as a list of albums you own, is not really appropriate for your userspace. Wikipedia already contains a large amount of information on notable bands and albums, so I would suggest working to expand this coverage by writing about bands and albums that you enjoy. There are other websites that allow you to record the albums you own, like discogs.org. Moswento ^talky 10:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Simdude. I second Moswento, and am quite certain this is not appropriate as an article and also not appropriate to be held even in your userspace; that even if not deleted immediately, it will be taken to miscellany for deletion eventually if kept in your userspace and deleted, so please don't use your valuable time compiling this here. That being said, there may be alternative places for you to keep this, off of Wikipedia. You could I think, for example, create this at Wikia, and though I don't know a great deal about creating content there, I believe you can still fairly easily link the albums you include to their articles here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I must add my confirming voice, that this would be swiftly rejected, since Wikipedia is not a webhost and is not to be used to house your personal projects. That sort of thing belongs on your personal website, not here (not even in userspace). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have been told that volunteer photo editors are used by Wikipedia? I have over ten years working with photoshop/ gimp etc and also teach image editing and restoration. If possible I would like to offer these skills to Wikipedia.

Stephen 86.22.7.197 (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen! That would be great! Wikipedia always needs people with good photoshop skills. You'll need to create an account, as accounts will be needed to upload images, but to find things that need doing the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab is always after skilled volunteers. - Bilby (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stephen, thanks for any help you can give! I'd like to point you out to com:commons:Graphics Lab as well. Your assistance would be useful for both projects. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the correct link: commons:commons:Graphics Lab. You might help at Commons:Category:Images for cleanup too. -- Common Good (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I should have used a preview. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, so taking your advice I created an account. However I'm finding navigating my way round very difficult. For instance, where do I go to find images needing some digital TLC? Then after downloading then retouching how is the retouched image placed back on its correct wiki page, it it automatic? I did manage to somewhat confirm the authenticity of a photograph of Edison, Ford and Firestone that a request had been submitted for. However to be honest I'm not sure if I clicked on the right links to submit said appraisal. --Ceepin1826 (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceepin. It can be very difficult at first and your offer is very generous. One place to find requests for fixing/retouching photographs is at following link (I suggest bookmarking it with your browser): Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop.

Maybe I can boil a few things down. The first thing to know is that there are actually two websites often involved with image use here: This site (the English Wikipedia), and our sister site, the Wikimedia Commons, a free media repository. It can be very confusing in that many of the images seen and used here are actually hosted at the Commons (though some are local), and when you click on one of those images here, you are not actually seeing where the image is hosted. So my first tip is this:

• Anytime you come across an image here, after you click on it if you see this symbol , the image is actually at the Commons. When that is the case, there will be some text just below the image that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." The phrase "description page" will be a blue-colored link to the actual image page at the Commons. Now what to do?

1. Click on that link!
2. Bookmark that page or keep it open because that is where you will be re-uploading the image after you work your image manipulation magic offline.
3. Download the image, work your magic, then go back to the page where the image is hosted. Look for a link near the bottom of the page that says: "Upload a new version of this file" (you can use your browser's find function to find this text – on most computers, accessed by clicking Ctrl+F).
4. Click that link.
5. On the resulting page, click on the button marked Browse which should then access your computer and allow you to choose the image you've fixed and saved.
6. Briefly describe what you've done in the "File changes" field, e.g., "removed watermark, per request".
7. Click on the button marked Upload file
8. Voila.

There's much more I could say but I don't want to overwhelm you. Maybe just start with removing the watermarks from the photographs on the page I linked at the beginning, following the steps I've laid out, which I hope are clear and correct. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit Ok, I managed to follow your instruction to find and download an image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Soegijapranata) needing attention. I carried out the requested work, saved it and then ? I could not find, even using Ctrl+F, anything that said "Upload a new version of this file" I did try, on the left side of the page, in the toolbox, "upload file" but soon realised I'd boobed! So I've got an image all dressed up, but with nowhere to go! Help.--Ceepin1826 (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have the great opportunity to share about Wikipedia to about 60 12-year students in about 6 weeks time. They will be mostly interested in how to use it as a resource, but I will be able to dispose of myths and hopefully promote Wikipedia. All help/guidance welcome. Thanks, Mozzy66 (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mozzy, I am Referent in the Educational Program of WMDE. Feel free to ask questions, on my user talk page or via mail. Kind regards Ziko (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mozzy, and welcome to the Teahouse! One thing you can do is to sign up with the Education Program, which provides a set of experienced Wikipedians as mentors for your students. For example, I am one of the online ambassadors, who strictly help online. You may also be assigned a Campus Ambassador, to help you in person. Take a look through those pages and let me know if you have any questions! I hope this works for you. If it doesn't, we can help you find another solution - maybe describing your project in more detail? Happy editing! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. I was unclear in what I asked for: these are 12 years olds, so I think the Uni oriented Education Program is not so relevant. I am not looking to get them editing yet (though I will show them it is not so scary) but to encourage a positive outlook to Wikipedia, e.g. to its reliability. Is there any material reaching out to such a young group. Thanks, Mozzy66 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helo Mozzy, as far as I know there are no real materials (maybe the Anglo Saxons have produced something?). In Germany, we stopped promoting our services to schools and only go to schools if it is a useful occasion e.g. because of media attention. We gave up the hope that pupils could become editors (only in extremely rare cases). Telling pupils that WP is reliable is not a peticular goal, as pupils already naively copy from WP. Media awareness is the key word that is also popular among teachers. A thorough understanding of copyright and free knowledge (the latter is the goal of WMDE) is important. You can get the pupils' attention if you first shock them with what can be the consequences of neglegant behavior on the internet with regard to copyright related issues. On the other hand, it is not the task of the Wikimedians to teach pupils what they actually should learn from their teachers... so it's up to you what you find important, and how you want to invest your time. Kind regards Ziko (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mozzy. It seems unhelpful to introduce pupils to Wikipedia without introducing them to its most important facet - that anyone can edit! Of course, you should also make them aware of the pitfalls of this, such as potential issues with copyright (see also WP:close paraphrasing), and, for this age group, giving away too much personal information.

In terms of using Wikipedia purely as a resource, "anyone can edit" also means that hoaxes or incorrect information are more likely than in printed works, and the important idea to get across to pupils is that they should use Wikipedia as a starting point, not a place to copy and paste from. So, they should look at what sources Wikipedia cites for the information it gives, and try to find and check some of those sources themselves.

Wikipedia:School and university projects has had a number of school editing projects where the pupils were in the approximate age group you mention. The average 12 year old would find it difficult to participate constructively on Wikipedia - but equally, the average 12 year old would find it difficult to become a proficient competitor at javelin throwing, but many schools still give them a taste of that sport. From experience, school projects with pupils of this age tend to produce very few problems because the volume of material outputted by the students tends to be very low. (By contrast, the university level projects produce very many problems, because the volume of material tends to be very high.) Whether you encourage them to edit or not, you should point them to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, Demiurge1000, I am not too familiar with the material on en.wp. Still, I keep admonishing that contributing to an encyclopaedia is a hobby for a very small minority, no matter whether it is about writing whole articles or making small corrections. Most people just don't find that fun. Don't be disappointed but make your goals broader. :-) Ziko (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mozzy! It sounds like you have a great idea here. Though many teachers discourage the use of Wikipedia for academic purposes, the truth is that most students will use it at one time or another. Instead of leaving the whole issue at "don't use Wikipedia," I think showing students how to use it in a beneficial way and educating them about possibly issues (inaccuracy, bias, etc.) is a great idea. I would suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia and an essay called Wikipedia:Academic use. Both pages approach the issue relatively neutrally, and discuss the benefits and dangers when using Wikipedia academically. The pages are not really intended for students this young, but the information is relavent to basically anyone.

You've been getting a lot of feedback here regarding helping these students edit, but it sounds like that's not your intention. That's probably good—12 is very young to be editing, and issues can arise both for the student and for Wikipedia. That said, I'm very involved in the Wikipedia Education Program, so if you have questions regarding that, I'd be happy to help. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, and thanks for all the advice. I will have a go at this and let you know how I go. Some of it will be just plain promotion of Wikipedia to the teachers. There are many who formed a negative view of it at an early stage, perhaps due to gossip, bad press or bad experience. Anyway I hope to have fun with them all. Zikos comment of it being a minority hobby is probably pretty accurate - maybe i will be like someone coming in and showing that i make model trians, or breed finches - and perhaps just one might think: "that is so cool, i want to get into that one day..." Cheers, Mozzy66 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm new here, as you probably can tell. Was wondering how long it usually takes for something to be reviewed. The page I wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brandon_Steiner) has been awaiting a review for 10+ days.

Golombjesse (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Jesse[reply]

Hi Jesse, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! We're glad you're here. There's a fairly significant backlog, of over 400 articles, at Articles for Creation right now. Usually, submissions wait 1-3 weeks before being reviewed. I hope this helps, and if you need anything else, please do ask here. We love questions! Happy editing, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jesse! Keilana already responded, but I'm just going to say that while you are waiting, you can edit other articles, add to your userspace, design a template, or write another article! And always come back to the Teahouse if you have another question. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 17:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm an AFC Reviewer myself and there are only about 50 of us and a ton of submissions. I'll review it now, for you. Best, Electric Catfish 01:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Someone already declined it for having a lack of a formal tone. That's fine. Many people make that mistake. If you want, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help you clean it up. Best, Electric Catfish 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That sounds great. I'd love that, thanks for your help...Golombjesse (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]