Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 220

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

Archive 215

←

Archive 218

Archive 219

Archive 220

Archive 221

Archive 222

→

Archive 225

The page that I created says it is an orphan. I have quite a few links in the page from other wikipedia pages. I looked at the help to see if I made a mistake linking and I can't find what I did wrong. I used [[ ]] to indicate a link.

Also, I am having a little difficulty with the categorization. I am not quite sure what categories I should use other than what I have. I think I am misunderstanding a few things.

One more question. I have a sandbox 2 that I would like to delete. Let me know the best way to do that.

Any suggestions?PerformerResearch (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi PerformerResearch. Is the article you're referring to is Marc Douglas Berardo? If it is, then the problem seems to be that there are no other articles in the main article space linking to it. In other words, the article has plenty of outgoing links, but no incoming links. I think that one possible way you can create an incoming link is to add Bernardo's name to Rye (city), New York#Notable people. You can create another (if you want) by adding information regarding the 2014 Wildflower! Arts and Music Festival to Wildflower! Arts and Music Festival or 2014 Kerrville Folk Festival to Kerrville Folk Festival, etc. You might find the information on What links here? to be helpful. Regarding your sandbox, you can blank it if you want to keep it and just change the name to something else by renaming the page, or you can ask that it be deleted for good by adding {{Db-userreq}} to it (See WP:U1). - Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I submitted an article to review and I can't find it again or see which is its status, what do I have to do? Arturo Barajas Saavedra (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Arturo Barajas Saavedra. Your submission is right here. A notification was also sent to your talk page. It appears that your submission was declined. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Arturo Barajas Saavedra. It seems that the reviewer concluded that your draft article is original research, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. In other words, reliable, independent sources do not seem to devote significant coverage to the topic of "short serious games". They discuss broader topics which you seem to have synthesized into this draft article. I am sure that this is disappointing, but perhaps some of the content you've developed could be incorporated into one or more existing articles on broader topics? Or, perhaps your material could be submitted to a journal of pedagogy, and once published there, could be cited here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Another wikipedian has removed my edits to an article three times already. I have tried to work on this in a way that is constructive, but he just removes all the text from the lead, including the citations, all of which have been in the article for a long while. Where should I go to get input from a senior editor. Ebonyskye (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's probably you added redundant information. What the you said on the first part of the article, is what you should put under a new section called "Concept". I don't know about the others, actually. Nahnah4 | Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! | No Editcountitis! 09:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of editing warring, as this is mostly a content problem. Why not just start a new topic on the talk page, and send niemti a message. I am sure he will respond NathanWubs (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well prior to Niemti's edits the info was not redundant. It was summarized in the lead then given more detail in the body. The points were referenced with several sources. When the entire lead except one sentence was removed by Niemti I thought that was too drastic, especially since the banner states the lead was too short. Well, yeah, after you remove everything it tends to shorten the text. Plus he removed several of the supporting citations. He really offered nothing constructive and was pretty rude. So, who do I contact for another opinion to get the banner removed once I feel its ready? Ebonyskye (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cullen once kindly informed me that you can remove the template code on any article once the issue it's drawing attn to has been corrected. You don't need permission to take it down. ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

2 questions: 1 - how does one *unwatch* a page? 2 - came across an article with a *sweep* template & decided to tidy it, but when I opened the edit box for the section, there was no template code in it so I can remove it when I'm finished - so does anyone have an idea where the template's code might be lurking? TYVM. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

PS - OK, just the 1 ques. The template was under a different header than the sub-section I'm tidying. ScarletRibbons (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That one's easy too - go to the page in question, click the little blue star at the top, watch it spin and turn white and bingo! page unwatched.

(You can also do this by messing around with the source code of your watchlist, but for a single page, the star is much easier). Yunshui ^雲_水 09:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

TYVM! :-D ScarletRibbons (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please can somebody help me in correcting the mistakes/issues that are mentioned below. The link of the article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sooraj_Santhosh

Please note this is not a autobiography. All the details given have been collected from the internet by me and I am not the person about whom this article says.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article may be an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject. (December 2013) This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (December 2013) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (December 2013)

Thanks in advance,

Uma Forthesakeofmusic 07:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthesakeofmusic (talk • contribs)

Hello, Forthesakeofmusic. One thing that I noticed right away is that the article has a lot of citations, but many of them are to web sites such as YouTube or JukeBox which are not considered independent and reliable because anyone can post to them. Sources for a singer should not be to recordings of the songs themselves, but to published news reports, music reviews, magazine articles, etc., written by journalists and music critics. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Anne. I have added all the articles and newspaper clippings available. Most of the Youtube videos provided are by the music companies.

Anyways thanks for the help. I will try to collect more reviews and use it for the citation.

Forthesakeofmusic 10:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthesakeofmusic (talk • contribs)

How does someone adopt me as a user. Is there any one opened. Cincao03 13:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cincao03! A user that I'm sure would be willing to adopt you is, Matty.007. Just ask him on his talk page.Schoolskater (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have repurposed my article a bit and am looking for feedback before I submit. What do you recommend I change to encourage acceptance of my article? Does it look ready to submit?

Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnKnox77/sandbox

I just want to make sure it is as perfect as possible. I appreciate your time and thoughts.

JohnKnox77 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi John and welcome back to the Teahouse. It's certainly an improvement, but I would remove the "Company culture" section as it and its reference read like a recruitment advert. Good luck with your resubmission.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to create an article about one of my former university professors. I no longer attend that particular university but I want to write that entry as her work is very relevant to her field. I want to make sure my entry is not seen as promotion.

Thanks!twitterstorian87 (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Twitterstorian14 and welcome to the Teahouse. While we would welcome an article on your former history professor, it will need to satisfy some Wikipedia guidelines with regard to notability and it needs to be written in a non-promotional tone. You might like to read this guide for some pointers on what that means. You can also use the Article wizard to help you. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you aren't too sure if your former professor qualifies, you can ask a Wikipedian (one of us, perhaps?) and we can give our opinions. A good rule of thumb for professors is to check if either a) they have been the subject of one or more biographical articles, either in the popular media or academic press, or b) they have an h-index which is fairly high for the field (showing impact). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I have been working on getting this photo up for quite some time now and wanted to make sure that it is fully usable before I add it to the article page. It was released under a cc by-sa 4.0.

The link to the newly submitted photo is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sally_Steele_at_the_Vegas_Rocks_Magazine_Music_Awards_2012.jpeg

The link to the webpage with the cc by-sa 4.0 disclaimer is located here:

http://vegasrocks.com/?p=1757

TIA for your help!

Rocksinnerqueen 21:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

OK, I added the 4.0 html tags to the photo. Is it useable now?

Thanks!

Rocksinnerqueen 21:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

So is it good to go now?

Thanks!

Rocksinnerqueen 22:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rocksinnerqueen. According to the website, the photo has been released under a CC BY-SA license (which is great), but it has been uploaded to Wikipedia rather than our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. My suggestion is to upload it to Commons, filling in all fields carefully and properly, since that is the project that hosts freely licensed content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rocksinnerqueen. I've fixed up the licensing template and moved the file to Wikipedia Commons for you. There is nothing else you need to do but if you have any further questions please feel free to ask.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! Your time is greatly appreciated!

Rocksinnerqueen 19:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksinnerqueen (talk • contribs)

Where can an IP editor request rollback? If here - User:Carllica4. Thanks. 82.132.224.220 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Only registered editors can be granted rollback. If you are Carllica4, you are indefinitely blocked and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all, except to post an unblock request on your user talk page. Requests for rollback are handled at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, but no one's likely to grant you the tool unless you show a lengthy pattern of productive editing. Deor (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Where can an IP editor request a rollback - ie of all User:Carllica4's edits. 82.132.213.68 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

My guess would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I know I have seen references to vandals having all their edits reverted, but I can't remember where.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm brand new to making changes on Wikipedia pages. I edited the page for Pagliacci Pizza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagliacci_Pizza), addressing the issues with it being "written like an advertisement" and "not citing any references or sources" but I forgot to add my edit summary. Is there a way to go back and add the edit summary without making more revisions to the page? Also, can anyone tell me how else the page can be improved upon so that the "multiple issues" box goes away? Thanks in advance!

RebekahW (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RebekahW. You can make a dummy edit, leaving an edit summary for your previous edits. See H:DUMMY for details. I will check out the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted an unreferenced claim about support for charities. I removed the tags you mentioned since those issues have been resolved. In other words, the way that the "multiple issues" box goes away is that any editor removes it. You could have removed it yourself, RebekahW, but I am happy to do it for you, since you are new to this kind of thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to block someone for horrible editing. I went to the block log and did the tag filter and the early year and date and it dosent work. I have done everything to try to do something on the logs but failed. Cincao03 23:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cincao03: Hi Cincao03. Only administrators can block people. The logs show past actions only. I can give more targeted advice about requesting a block if you advise what this is about but see Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cincao03. Sorry to hear that you're having problems with another editor. Have you tried discussing things with the other person either on their talk page or on the article in question's talk page? Perhaps it's just a simple misunderstanding that can be resolved through discussion. Requesting that another editor be blocked seems like a serious step to take, and one that should only be taken after you have tried everything else. Also, you might want to read "Dont' shoot yourself in the foot" before you pursuing further action. Reporting another editor means that your actions may also be scrutinized. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit (talk) how don i become an administrator. Cincao03 13:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

<Noticed but not answered as account is no longer able to edit--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)>

I heard someone say that we shouldn't change the citation format. Do I need t learn several types? Harmelodix (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Harmelodix! You should learn a little about the various types of citation formats, so that you can decide which one you'd like to use when you create your own articles. If you are adding a source to an article that you happen to be reading, you can usually just look at the code and copy the format that the previous editors have used. Sometimes you come to one that already has more than one type, or some that are well formatted and others that have missing information; then you have to use your judgement and copy whichever seems to be mostly used. The main thing is not to go into a article that has many complete citations neatly organized in one format, and decide that you like another one better and change them all. Not only is this a waste of time, but it's disrespectful to the editor who did the previous work. Also, for scientific and scholarly articles, there are sometimes types of referencing that are specifically preferred for those subjects, and another editor may revert your changes. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Harmelodix. If you write a new article, you can choose the referencing style you prefer. If you are editing an existing article with an established referencing style, do your best to stick with that style. You can copy the Wikicode for an existing reference from the article into one of your sandbox pages, and then change all the fields to the material for your new reference. Once you have it right, copy and paste the new reference into the actual article. So you don't really have to "learn" it. You just need to copy its format accurately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a biography for Marcela Paula Carmen Houston and it was rejected twice, I think because I did not have any references that could be used to verify the contents. I obtained the information to create the article by conducting detailed interviews with Marcela over many days. I got the information directly from her. There is nothing to actually reference since nothing else is published about her that I know of. The link to the draft that has been rejected is Marcela Paula Carmen Houston.

What can I do to get this article published? Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. CMW4903 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi @CMW4903:, the reason your article is declined is indeed because it has no published sources. We require reliable sources to prove that information about this person is true. Moreover, since you stated that this person has nothing published about her, she is likely not notable enough for Wikipedia. See our notability criteria for artists. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) 02:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, CMW4903. By interviewing the artist, you have engaged in original research, which we don't publish on Wikipedia, but which is perfectly fine elsewhere. I suggest you submit your article to a reputable art journal instead. If published, that article could become a reference in a future Wikipedia a article about the artist, if she becomes notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Helo Sir/Mam Can u will helo me please in my article it show it is an orpahn there is no links in this article ad links how to add links thanks.RockySharma1328 (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Add the link to your article here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The article in question seems to be Md asif. Am I correct, RockySharma1328? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your page got a link from List of Indian film actors now.[1] This is how you solve the "orphan" tag issue. Tag removed, happy editing.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, in the 1997–98 season at User:Matty.007/sandbox/List of Kingstonian F.C. seasons, I can't get Leworthy's goals to format such as at my guide, List of Margate F.C. seasons. Please can someone fix this? Thanks, Matty.007 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Matty, and welcome back (I think you're a veteran around here, correct?) to The Teahouse. The only problem I see is that Leworthy appears to be the only one whose goal total is even in the table. Maybe I'm seeing something different from what you see.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee: yes. Leworthy was a test, but in Firefox I saw his number of goals (30) in the references column, but I have been told that it is viewed fine in IE and Chrome. Thanks again, Matty.007 10:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have written an article on Swarachakra.I wanted to know what is its status?Is it reviewed or still in process?Also if i make some changes in the document (in sandbox),will it be reflected in main document?Shubham.opensource (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Shubham.opensource! Your article was actually deleted, because it didn't say why it was notable. I see you already have it saved in your sandbox. Just keep adding more references to it and when you feel it's good enough to have an article click the "Submit your draft for review!" button highlighted in green at the top of the page. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Currently i am doing my project on Biography and autobiography in literature ...94.59.126.83 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)so i need to translate the whole content to another language...94.59.126.83 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)how can i do that.................hope will help me translate the content94.59.126.83 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, person with an Ip starting with 94, and welcome to The Teahouse. For Wikipedia articles that need to be tranlsated, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Translation. But it looks like you may be talking about something else, so if that's the case, The Language Reference Desk is where you want to go.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi 94.59.126.83 and thanks for the question. If the translation you need is not listed in the language list to the left of the article, there are a number of alternative options that might help you. If you tell me which article you are talking about and what the target language is, I will try to help you. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that some of my links get an automatic footnote number and some don't. I am citing court cases and Congressional testimony links mostly. Is one type more important or useful then another?Seattle2311 (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Seattle2311, welcome to the TeaHouse. After looking briefly at your talk page and one of your article drafts, I think the numbers you are seeing may not be what we refer to as "footnotes" at all. So for example Brandt v. United States commentary is an external link with a limited text explaining what it is, and thus the text appears as the link here. By contrast, [2] is what we call a "bare URL" with no text explaining what it is, and thus is represented by a number here as you can see. But neither of them is an inline citation (also known as "footnote").

For how to add inline citations aka footnotes, see WP:REFB. This is preferable to including external links in the body of your text or at the end of your draft.

I'm not sure how well an apparent opinion piece in the Washington Examiner qualifies as a reliable source, if at all, but it is more useful when citing it as a source to mention the name of the publication, the title of the piece, the name of the author, the date published, and a date you accessed it.

Also be careful using Google search links as references because sometimes what they lead to might be different depending on who is clicking the link and when. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I submit an article about myself? 66.91.199.148 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello 66.91.199.148, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, creating autobiographies on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, as the writer may have a strong conflict of interest with the subject. However, if you are notable enough to deserve your own article, you can request that the article be written for you here. Cheers! --k6ka (talk | contribs) 18:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually requested articles are at WP:RA. AFC is Articles for Creation, where the OP will (mostly) be required to write the article themselves.

It would be best first to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing carefully. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Somebody has placed a comment on my talk page and signed it with my own signature. Can anyone tell me how this can happen? I know this is a simple thing to do but how can I find out who did this. Jodosma (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jodosma. It appears possible that your account has been compromised. I recommend changing your password immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think my account has been compromised. I don't need a new password, as you can see now. My name is Jodosma but I'm signing off as Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it you.

@Jodosma: It only seems like you signed off as Cullen328. However, anyone who checks the diff will know the truth because diffs never lie. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jodosma, Have you looked at the history of your talk page? While it may be possible to fake a signature, I doubt the user can change "alias" in the history. - W.carter (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Despite all that I hear to the contrary, I believe that you can change your body language if you really want to. Jodosma (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of cause anything is possible with computers. Unfortunately. Maybe you should ask at the Village Pump where all the tech sages hang out instead. - W.carter (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jodosmad. Not meaning to upset you but I saw the problem that you were wanting to address. And while I was looking at it, I also saw that you reacted kind-of rash toward the other editor. I know it can be upsetting to see other users signing off with your signature, But please don't react in the manner you did. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not mad; if I was I wouldn't have starred out the letters. It was a useful comment, so why didn't they sign off properly. I may have wanted to send a thankyou but I can't because they didn't tell me who they were. Jodosma (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jodosma: Hey Jodosma. Here's what happened. When you list a discussion at RfD using Twinkle it gives you an option to "Notify page creator if possible?"; if you don't take the checkmark out of the box Twinkle then provides a warning for editors of the category through your account automatically when you save. Here, since you are the only editor of Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines, when you listed it for discussion in this edit using Twinkle, you automatically warned yourself the same second (and then yelled at yourself for doing so:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for solving the mystery, Fuhghettaboutit. You are a 21st century Hercule Poirot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments; I'm a lot calmer now it's been explained. I'll take a little longer to think about such things in future before I jump in the deep end. Sorry if I upset anyone. Jodosma (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, so all of this proves that anything really can happen with computers. I rest my case. - W.carter (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I prefer to be called by my first name, Frank – Frank Columbo. Poirot can never match my lazy-eyed, pretend-befuddled stare;-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure you have solved the mystery. When I decided to see if they could find a solution for this, I got this response.

Twinkle isn't automatic. It is your responsibility to read the user manual. Legoktm (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Jodosma and welcome to the Teahouse! Let me see if I can explain the chain of events that led up to what is a misunderstanding by you...
  1. 08:17:30, June 12, 2014, you, Jodosma moved page Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines to Category:Mountain passes of the Apennines: To correct spelling of "Apennines in the title
     • See the N? That means that you created a new page.
  2. 08:29:27, June 12, 2014, on Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines you, Listed for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 12#Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. (TW)
     • You see the (TW) part on the end there? Remember that. See the time stamp, compare it to the next.
  3. 08:29:28, Jun 12, 2014, on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 12 you, Adding Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. (TW)
     • That also has that odd (TW) part on the end, and see the timestamp is only a second apart?.
  4. 08:29:29, Jun 12, 2014, on User talk:Jodosma you, Notification: listing at redirects for discussion of Category:Mountain passes of the Appenines. (TW)
     • That also has that odd (TW) part on the end, that means that you made that change using Twinkle which is a tool that allows you to make edits without the normal edit box through the api. See the timestamps are only a couple seconds difference?. Using this tool, you left a message on your own talk page for yourself informing you that this page you created (via move) was list at WP:RfD.
• This means that you actually made all three edits at the same time including that edit on your talk page and no-one else is SIGFORGE pretending to be you. I hope that helps you understand how you technically made that edit and sets your mind at easy that no-one is pretending to be you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes yes, I understand. I now realise what went on and don't need to be talked down to by arrogant people like you. A smiley face in a post like your last to me is hypocritical; I can even see your smirk. If you don't think you're being arrogant why don't you take some time out and read what you wrote. Get.off.my.back. You seem proud that your home page has only been vandalised 3 times. I'm surprised it's not a lot more. ciao. Please don't reply to this because I really don't want to know you. Jodosma (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I apologize if it seemed like I was talking down to you. That was not my intent, and the Teahouse is suppose to be a calm and civil place. I was unsure that this was clear and resolved to everyone that has commented here based on Vchimpanzee's comment directly above mine that reads I'm not so sure you have solved the mystery. which implied to me that not everyone understood the chain of events. Again, I apologize if I seemed to have come off harsh to you and I hope that any future interactions we may have will be much more pleasant for both of us. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I have my article ready in my sandbox.How can i submit it for review?I mean afterclicking the review button in green,i am directed to another sanbox kind of place and my article is missing? Do i have to copy paste it?Shubham.opensource (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Shubham.opensource. Just follow what the instructions say. Just click "Save Page" and let our system do the rest! Your article will be added automatically. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The article 2006 ICC Awards is contested for deletion. The nominator pooints out the notability of the article. I find no reason for this to be non notable and we have a lot of articles in wikipedia regarding each annual awards. So, how come this be "for sake of creation". I don't think this should be deleted.Abhinav0908 (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Abhinav0908. I see you have removed the proposed deletion tag from the page, which means the article will not be deleted at this point. Should the editor who placed that tag wish to nominate the article for deletion then you will be able to voice your opinion as to why it should be kept. I recommend that if you haven't done so already, add the article to your watchlist so you can see if that happens.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Philg88, I read in the policy that the nominator can remove the tag with an explanation and i have added it to my watchlist now.Abhinav0908 (talk) 07:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Abhinav0908: Just for reference, a subject is not usually considered notable because other stuff exists. It must be notable on its own merits per Wikipedia:Notability and more specifically in this case per WP:Notability (sports). Trying to argue that an article should be created or should not be deleted because there are many others like it on Wikipedia is usually not going be well received by other editors. It's better to try and argue why the article is notable in and of itself than by comparing it (either positively or negatively) to other articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: I do not know anything about cricket so I cannot say either way. I suggest you bring this up at WT:CRIC. If the article does indeed have notability problems or other issues, then the members of WP:CRIC would probably know the best way to fix it. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I want to know why does my article: John L. Benjamin II keeps getting rejected? I'm not really understanding when I get a response. My article are based on true events and people.

Thanks, John Benjamin IIJohn L. Benjamin II 23:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John L. Benjamin II (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the TeaHouse. The decline reason provided by User:Hewhoamareismyself was not very helpful. The biggest problem here is that it seems likely that John L. Benjamin II, whose biggest claim to fame appears to be having been CEO of a record label that at one point produced a recording that had 4000 downloads in only a few weeks, is simply not notable enough for Wikipedia to need to have an article about him. The notability guidelines for music can be found at WP:NMUSIC. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello John L. Benjamin II. Your draft article has many problems. Foremost is that you have provided no evidence that the person is notable by Wikipedia's standards. All biographies of living people must have inline references according to policy, and your article lacks them. Verifiability is an essential part of an acceptable Wikipedia article, and a reader has no way (other than your personal assurances) to verify that the content is accurate. Your article apprears to be an autobiography. Such articles are highly discouraged as it is very difficult for a person to write a neutral biography of themself. Your article has lesser problems having to do with formatting and wikilinking, but I have tried to focus on the major problems that are difficult or impossible to overcome. I suggest that you write an article on another notable topic, or improve an existing article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. Best, Old Beeg _{··warble··} 02:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't put the infobox in. Can you help me? Naomitwin (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Naomitwin. I have inserted a song infobox into the page for Neko Miko Reimu. Best, Old Beeg _{··warble··} 00:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It can be found at Template:Infobox song along with instructions for filling in the fields. Best, Old Beeg _{··warble··} 05:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Since yesterday I have been trying to create a page but I am failing every time. The reviewers are deleting it saying it as "unambiguous". I really need to create one. So any one out here who can help me create one.

The email I received is below:

The Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Phoenix Of My Heart has been deleted on 13 June 2014 by RHaworth, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Phoenix_Of_My_Heart.

Editor's summary: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion

Mosiur Rehman 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosiur Rehman (talk • contribs)

Hi Mosiur Rehman and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, your article has been deleted for being unambiguous advertising so I can't give you any specific pointers on what's wrong with it. Please read this guide to assist you in creating future articles.  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you create one for me?

Mosiur Rehman 16:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosiur Rehman (talk • contribs)

@Mosiur Rehman: What is the page about? We can give you tips on writing articles. For example, try to write in a neutral tone. Try not to promote ideas or viewpoints - just state the facts directly. Think about wearing a jabbawockeez mask - the mask isn't happy, sad, funny, or serious. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mosiur Rehman: My apologies, I missed your earlier reply. I'm afraid I can't create an article for you but you could read this guide to give you an idea of what is required for an acceptable Wikipedia article. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I submitted an article for consideration. My name is garryanas and the article is Ashley Little (author). I'm new to this, but I think I posted the article over a month ago, and I have not heard back yet. Did I submit the article properly? Or is there simply a backlog in getting responses. Thanks!Garryanas (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Garryanas and welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like you accidentally removed your article from the review queue on 11 May after it was rejected for notability issues. If you intend to resubmit the article for review I would suggest that you clean up and improve the references to avoid the article being rejected again.  Philg88 ^♦talk

Thanks PhilG88. When I go to my 'contributions' link, the May 11 entry says 'currant' in bold next to it. On May 11 I cleaned up the article and added some recent information and then clicked the submit button at the bottom of the page. Are you sure that I removed it?? I must be confused about how to submit. If you can, please clarify. Thanks!Garryanas (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome Garryanas. I don't know what happened previously but Darylgolden has now kindly replaced the header and resubmitted the article for review. I would still advise you to improve the referencing. As for your original question, reviews sometimes take up to a month depending on backlog. Now that your article has been mentioned here at the Teahouse it may well get done sooner. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Garryanas (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Garryanas. I took a look at your draft and made some minor changes. A big problem is the messy way your references are formatted. Please read Referencing for beginners, and be sure that all of your references are formatted properly. This makes it much easier to evaluate the notability of the topic. Good luck to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I change the actual image in an image file (say, to a sharper or better-sized version of the same thing) without having to re-do upload process, re-submit fair use rationale, and leave an orphan behind? If so, how? Specific problem (currently) is with " File: Wood Pile, 1949, b&w print by artist Fay Chong.jpeg " in article Fay Chong. Right-hand border of image keeps getting cut off, just want to tweak it a bit w/o having to create entire new file each time. Thanx, Tomseattle (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tomseattle. The answer to your question is "yes". If you click on the image, you will get basic information including that you uploaded it. Then click on the license information, and the full details will appear. You will see a choice "Upload a new version of this file", so that's what you should click, with a simple explanation of why the new version is better than the old one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. I'll look for it.Tomseattle (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328:. So is it really possible to tweak the above mentioned picture even though the file is tagged with: "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed..."? This is the case with the pictures at Fay Chong. (I am curious about this for pictures I might want to use in other articles, and this seemed just as good place as any to ask.) Best, - W.carter (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I've sorted out the licensing templates with the image but I see no reason to crop it. Maybe it is a problem with your browser/settings, Tomseattle?  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The version of the file I saw yesterday had less than the original image. The right hand edge of the image was missing. So uploading a low resolution version of the full image is acceptable. The image is being used as a representative example of the artist's work. That is an acceptable use of a non-free image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I was using "crop" here in the photographic sense i.e. to remove the border, I didn't mean that the upload/use was unacceptable.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

After reading Fay Chong in detail, another issue concerns me, Tomseattle. Here's my concern: We should use non-free images only in cases where no free image is available. It seems that, during the Great Depression, Chong worked for the Federal Art Project of the Works Progress Administration, where he created art works on the Federal payroll. All works of employees of the U.S. Federal government are in the public domain, and therefore free. As Wikimedia projects prefer free works except in the limited cases when no free works are possible, I recommend that you find one or more of his WPA works which can be freely uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used by anyone without restrictions. Then, add those to the article and delete this non-free work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently working on some spelling errors. The latest one concerns the use of aquarius instead of Aquarius. Is there a way to force a search to discriminate between upper and lower case. Jodosma (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Jodosma and welcome back to the Teahouse! There is no way to do a case sensitive search that I can find anywhere I'm afraid. The only way you are going to get that information is to request a database dump scan. I'm currently in the process of downloading and processing the approximately 50GB expanded file for this. As soon as that is complete, I'll see what I can find for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Update I'm about 3 hours into a 5 hour database scan, I'll have the rest of your results in about 2 hours I expect. For now, if you would like, there are a few instances of "cancer" that you can find in Special:PrefixIndex/User:Jodosma/zodiac/cancer/. Not sure how many are related to the zodiac sign which should be "Cancer" and how many are related to the disease, but I'm sure you can sort it out. I hadn't even thought about the disease until just now, but I'm sure I could refine that search quite a bit to try and cut many of the medical ones down. Once I complete the last 4 signs, I'll post the entire results to User:Jodosma/zodiac. Didn't want you to think I forgot about you, database scans can be slow is all. :) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a bit of work you've done for someone who was rude to you a while ago. Thank you for taking the time and trouble, although I don't know yet how I'm going to use the info as I don't have any interest in the zodiac and I fear that having all these subpages may lead some people to think I'm some kind of astrological nutcase. I would have come across the zodiac signs in WP:Lists of common misspellings anyway eventually, if I don't get tired of it. I'm simply interested in misspellings at the moment, not the subject matter. I hope you won't mind if I get those extra pages deleted if and when I decide I don't need them. ciao. Jodosma (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to remove inline external links - I had three of these I think - the comment was

Comment: Please remove ALL the inline external links - some may be usable as references, so they could be formatted as such. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a little unsure whether or not the inline external links are links to web sites or not - I have references in the footnote style and links to web sites - I presume this is Ok

JerzyQQ JerzyQQ (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@JerzyQQ: Hi JerzyQQ. What is being referred to is the places in the article where instead of having a footnote to a citation like,^[1] you have instead a link to an external cite directly in the text, like: NYT. The first of these appears in the second paragraph linking "City Catapult" directly to its website. Such external links directly in the text might be proper for conversion to footnoted references to verify the information, which is what Roger was talking about, e.g., you might convert:

[https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/ City Catapult] to

<ref>{{cite web|url=https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/ |title=|publisher=...|date=... etc.}}</ref>

so that it becomes a footnoted citation, but you should only do this if it's correct that it verifies the content. To be clear, when you say "and is currently active with the Technology Strategy Board’s City Catapult", you wouldn't provide a citation to City Catapult just generally there, but only if the website page, were it cited there in a footnote, would corroborate the statement that "CASA is currently active with City Catapult". If it doesn't verify that content, just remove the link and don't convert to a citation (and then maybe cite some other reliable source that does). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have my article ready in my sanbox but i dont know how to submit it for review?Shubham.opensource (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the TeaHouse. It is correctly submitted and is awaiting review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shubham. I have now reviewed your article Draft:Swarachakra, and I'm afraid that it does not provide the required references to establish why this article should be included in Wikipedia. I have left more details in the review comments. You might like to read this guide to referencing or Yushui's excellent guide before you resubmit the article for review. Best,  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Teahouse, I was wondering. Is this an acceptable userbox? I don't want to start any arguments so I wanted to ask you guys.

Thanks,Schoolskater (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Schoolskater. Your userbox is not showing up for lack of one more "|" at the end. I'm not sure if you did this intentionally to be discrete, so I didn't fix it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The userbox is at his link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schoolskater/Userboxes/NRA

Please check it out, Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Schoolskater: Hey Schoolskater, thanks for your question. I get why you might be reluctant to put it up; while it's true that folks have strong opinions about the National Rifle Association, as long as you are making a good-faith effort to edit within our guidelines, I doubt that your userbox will be problematic for anyone. There are some articles, for instance, related to gun control where editors have often taken a battleground approach to interacting with other editors, and honestly, it doesn't end well for them or the article content no matter what opinion one has on the matter. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

An analogy might be useful. Imagine if you, Schoolskater, were working on the encyclopedia one day, and encountered another editor, perhaps had a minor disagreement with them over what content should go in an article. (Possibly even a political article.) Imagine you then went to have a look at their user page, and it had a userbox proclaiming them to be a proud member of the Communist Party USA, complete with the nice red logo from that party. Think to yourself if that would make it easier for you to work constructively with the other editor, or if it might lead you to be suspicious about their motives or their editing, and thus cause problems. It wouldn't necessarily cause problems - after all, you would now understand where they were coming from, even if that wouldn't be a set of views you might agree with yourself. Ideally, seeing such a userbox might have no more impact on how you interact with the other editor than if they had a userbox saying they enjoyed potato soup. But on the other hand, others might not be so open-minded in their views. That's why userboxes are perceived by some as potentially causing issues.

But no-one would ever get away with saying you shouldn't or couldn't have a userbox expressing your political views; and indeed there are some editors with "communist" or "socialist" userboxes, and "conservative" userboxes too, that have a history of working well with the community and the community working well with them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Schoolskater and welcome back to the Teahouse! I've taken the liberty of cleaning up and reorganizing your code in the userbox and I think it looks nice. You are who you are, and no-one should be judging your editing abilities based on stereotypes based on userboxes. I'd display that userbox proudly (if I could afford to be an NRA member ;])> — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

how do i know that wikipedia has read an article i create? will it just publish? will i get a message? and, also, how long will it take them to respond? Camcamhamham (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Camcamhamham and welcome to the Teahouse. Once you have created a suitable article, you need to submit your article here so that it can be reviewed. At the moment, Draft:Stigmata (if this is the article you mean) has no references and will be rejected I'm afraid as a non-notable topic. Wikipedia already has an article titled Stigmata so you will need also need to change the title - adding "(song)" after the name should be sufficient. I recommend that you read this introduction to article creation and this guide to referencing before submitting. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, but i have a question. What makes the article non-notable? It is by a notable musician (Ab-Soul) and is on a new notable hip-hop album. Camcamhamham (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NSONG#Recordings states "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."
So the notability of the artist and/or the album are not the criteria - "notability is not inherited" - it needs to be notable in its own right.

The questions NSONG asks are:-
1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
If not, then it probably does not deserve its own article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

could someone give my draft "Hunnid Stax" a look? I would really appriciate if it could be done today... get back to me once you look over it. Thank You!Camcamhamham (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Camcamhamham. The main technical problem with your article is that the references are not formatted properly. See Referencing for beginners for information about proper referencing. But the fundamental problem is that it seems unlikely that this song complies with WP:NSONG, as discussed in detail in the section below. If the song is not yet notable, then its title should be a redirect to the album, assuming the album is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)