Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 181

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 175

←

Archive 179

→

Advice sought on rejection notice

Ref: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Draft:Nigel Randell Evans

This page was recently rejected for the following reason: 'Still not seeing a significant claim for Filmmaker notability, which is the best claim being made.'

The British Film Institute link at the article's conclusion lists over 40 films he produced and/or directed, included ones that have won awards and the first film shown on the UK's Channel 4 - Walter - starring Ian McKellen and directed by Stephen Frears.

If more sources are required I have a few scanned articles that can be linked to in the references (although I need advice on how to access an embedded list). However, I would value independent advice on the reason for rejection and the best course of action from here.

Jamesd.evans (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jamesd.evans! Possibly the problem with Draft:Nigel Randell Evans is that the claims of importance are buried in lots of personal information and film synopses. The only possible claim of notability I can see, is his creation of the Silent minority TV film, which received a lot of attention at the time. If it created a "furor" (or won any awards) then you'll need to explain that, rather than launch into a description of the documentary's content. You'll also need to cut out a lot of the biographical personal information, which is largely unsourced. I'd recommend the article is pruned right back.

Your user name suggests you are Evans' brother. If that is the case, it will be difficult for you to write succinctly and neutrally, which is why we usually discourage conflicts of interest. Sionk (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much Sionk

Jamesd.evans (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

want to write about a famous TV & entertainment personality. her videos are uploaded on youtube, how to pursue.

want to write about a famous TV & entertainment personality. her videos are uploaded on youtube, how to pursueStardiaries (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse! Here's what you need to do:

This is perhaps the most important step. Many articles fail here. Make sure you can find independent, reliable sources of information that discuss her. This is called notability, and it is required for being included on Wikipedia.
Make sure you know how to edit a page, and learn the basics of code using the cheatsheet.
Learn how to cite your sources: See the introduction to referencing (a quick tutorial) or referencing for beginners (more detailed information).
Head to articles for creation, where you can submit an article for review to see if it is ready for Wikipedia.

If you need help going through this process, please reply. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 06:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Secret rule changes

I would like to ask what purpose the rules serve if certain editors are allowed to ignore them?

Two such instances occurred recently on article David Petraeus in direct contravention of two separate rules.

David Petraeus edit history

Further reading shows a claim of a consensus that permits editors to violate the rules.

If such consensuses really do happen, why do they not update the rules to reflect these changes, rather than continue to allow those editors involved having to issue confusing edit summaries and unfair warnings to editors not aware of these secret rule changes? 69.251.213.135 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello 69.251.213.135, and welcome to the teahouse. I'm not particularly clear on what rules you believe to have been broken on David_Petraeus by whom; maybe you could be a bit more specific? In generally most wikipedia rules are made by consensus and they can thus be over-ridden by consensus. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just curious

It's taken me a while to get into the spirit of wikipedia and before I prepare my next article, I'd like to know if someone can help me find out where the first one might be waiting for review. Is it the day you re-submit that counts or the first upload? It was a bit flamboyant so I was declined 3 times. Thanks Graffitinucular (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Graffitinucular, and welcome. I don't understand what is actually you question? You article is here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alex Martinez, Graffiti Artist and it is currently waiting to be reviewed again (for the fourth time). What kind of help do you need? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vanjagenije The backlog is around 3 weeks now. Does resubmitting put you at the very beginning each time when declined as I've been? Quite deservedly of course. Now the article is fixed. Cheers Graffitinucular (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not working on the Articles for creation review, so I'm not sure. But what I am sure is that your article is not "fixed". Every statement in the article should be properly sourced using inline citations. Your article does not even have a source for his birth year. You write that he began "his serious U.S. career in early 2000", bust this is also not sourced. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, every single one of the reviewers gives a different critique, while existing street artists in Wiki have far less citations than my article. Yunshui (talk) helped me out with this version, are you saying he's wrong too? 78.146.17.152 (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's now cut down to 13 sentences peppered with 16 inline citations. I do appreciate being held to high standards. See anything else that needs fixing? Thanks Graffitinucular (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Correction, make that 18 inline citations. Graffitinucular (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I create a wikipedia page for a company I work in?

Thanks for youy simple answer to that 82.242.136.146 (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse! You CAN, but you probably shouldn't. Have a read of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guide, and also the guidance for notability of companies. If your company is notable by those standards you can create an article, though I would suggest you use the Article Wizard and submit through the Articles for Creation process so that other editors can check the article before it is published. Remember that it will not be published if it does not conform to the notability criteria though. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-submitting already existing articles?

The article Singularity theory has multiple issues. I am working on it. I will soon be finished. What shall I ask for the paper to be reviewed in order to eliminate the comments at the top of the article? Shall I ask for a publication of a major change in the article? Coffeebrake60 (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are satisfied you have fixed the issues the tags refer to, you can remove them yourself :). --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

As regards the "needs additional citations" tag, we should be looking at having inline references within each section to verify the information. Please have a look at Wikipedia:References for beginners. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of wikipedia problems

Dear all,

someone can explain me why since some days the \begin{align}\end{align} is no more recognised from the compiler in wikipedia? if you look at the mathematical pages they are full of error messages. Is it temporary?

thanks

Volk the (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You'll see this mentioned at WP:HD#all <math> are not working and 3 previous threads on the same page, together with WP:VPT#Math aligned environments failing to parse and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Problem with multiline equations. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

i'm bored

wondering how do I find new people after their first post so that I can let them know how to use wikipedia? Kap 7 (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kap, you could look at the new user log if that's any help? Samwalton9 (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate your help but that's not quite what I was looking for :( I'm sure a bot could welcome everyone that is new ... I was looking more to help people that have actually made an edit in a personal way *shrugs Kap 7 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

People needing individualised help with Wikipedia editing often turn up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. For example, there are ten unanswered help requests there as of right now. Help requests here at the Teahouse and (usually) at the Help Desk tend to get answered much faster. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for pointing me in the right direction Kap 7 (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Article denied

Hosts, I attempted to write an article about an Army battalion in Hawaii, but since there is another history on military.com Wikipedia denied my request. How do you get these articles approved if much of the history repeats despite different wording? Thanks, Joe 72.130.229.147 (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe. When writing an article, it is best if multiple sources are used for references. This way, the chance of an article being thought of as merely a copy of a single source is reduced greatly. Try finding both primary and secondary sources...the more references, the better. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Will my contribution stay without a source?

Under "gillnetting" I added some information about types of gill nets. I received a message that my information may be removed because I did not provide source information. With over 50 years experience in the fishing net business, I am the source. Will the information I added be removed?Benny Champlin (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, although you may have 50 years of experience in the fishing net business, Wikipedia's policy prevents you from citing your own experience as a source. You must cite a reliable source along with the information in order for other editors or readers to verify that it is true. (For more information, take a look at this page.) Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Benny Champlin. The above answer is quite right. Simply put, Wikipedia demands verfiability in all things, and this has to be published, reliable sources rather than editors' own authority. As well as being the only viable method for having reliable content, this also acts as a useful filter preventing Wikipedia becoming an arbitrary collection of data. If reliable sources discussing some information can't be found, it's probably a good sign that Wikipedia shouldn't discuss such a topic one way or another. Providing reliable sources shows that both information is correct, and that is has been of sufficient importance to have attracted documentation. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! One other thing you can do, is put the information on the talk page of the article and ask the watching editors for help finding the citations. I have learned all sorts of interesting tidbits this way by helping find citation for a known item. And you can probably more easily find the citations than anyone else. You know the professional magazines, publications, best books and so on to support the information that you know! If you need help with citations, I'd be happy to help you, just leave me a message about what you need and I'll do my best! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Benny Champlin your additions were reverted because they were a copyright violation from Gill & Trammel Nets - The Fish Net Company LLC. That is a copyrighted website, and you can't just copy and paste that content into this encyclopedia. It simply isn't allowed here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How should this be responded to?

Hi,
I was just reverting with Huggle when I saw a post to this talk page that looked very...odd. I didn't know what to make of it, and I wanted to bring it to the attention of some more experienced Wikipedians. So, I posted here. What should one do in this type of situation?
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's now been blanked, which is the correct thing to do when someone uses an article talk page for a screed that is completely and entirely unrelated to the article in question.

The blanking has also blanked the phone numbers the individual provided, which is the recommended course of action for privacy purposes.

If the individual had included threats of violence against themselves or others (they didn't), then emailing the WMF's emergency email address would have been the appropriate course of action (per WP:Responding to threats of harm).

What do I make of the message itself. Well, the person tells us that their written complaints to their local police and to local human rights organisations have been rejected. So, this is their written complaint to Wikipedia instead. Unfortunately, however, Wikipedia is not a forum for publicising or dealing with complaints that are not about Wikipedia. In addition, the person mentions that at one point they were taken to a psychiatric hospital against their will. This may help to explain the tone and content of their message; but again it's not something Wikipedia can help with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That odd edit has been reverted. Crazy happens :) However, since this revision appears to contain personally identifiable information (whatever the provenance), maybe we could get an admin to hide it from the page history? - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 02:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. How do we get the edit deleted from public view? Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

how do I create a new page, i.e. a new article?

Where do I go - what buttons do I press please, to create a new article - a new page? Thank you. Beryl reid fan (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As you have already created three articles:-

this seems an odd question to ask - but you could start with WP:Your first article - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great - my other articles were for films that had existing links to their unmade articles - but I'm starting from (sort of) scratch now. Ta. Beryl reid fan (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The welcome message on your user talk page has a number of useful links, including Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks v. much Beryl reid fan (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding references

I seem to keep getting in a knot trying to add references. I can add the link but then don't understand the code for describing what the link leads to. I have tried and failed on my editing of the Philip Bounds entry and also with my attempts to edit the Arthur Munby entry. Could someone help me and give me an example please? Many thanks in advance. CaryB42 (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cary, the video found at WP:REFBEGIN should be of help :) Samwalton9 (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@CaryB42:Hey Cary. You seem to be having trouble filling out the citation templates you are using. The citation templates all take the form of a wrapper code and parameters that you fill out in between. Using cite web as an example, the wrapper is {{cite web|...parameters...}}. The parameters in between always take the form of a pipe ("|"), followed by a parameter name like "url", followed by an equals sign, and then you supply the appropriate text. If you visit the page for any given template, it will tell you what parameters are available for it. Cite web that you used is at Template:Cite web.

So, you added to Philip Bounds this code: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://philipbounds.wordpress.com/}}</ref>. That was successful in that the code is correct, but as you can see in its display, it's telling you that it requires a "title" parameter. That requires just adding to it |title=supply the title. But actually, for full attribution, you'd want to add more. Here's my suggestion for a fully filled out template here (I've used colors to demarcate separate elements):

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://philipbounds.wordpress.com/|last=Bounds|first=Philip|title=About Dr. Philip Bounds|publisher=Wordpress.com|accessdate=February 9, 2014}}</ref>

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit,

That's what I need, that's brilliant, once someone gives me an example I'm ok because I can work out the logic of it. CaryB42 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

references

I'm trying to add references but it seems to have hit a max number of entries. Is there a limit? or how do I make more space for more references

Sjwiki2014 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sjwiki. When referencing an article, be sure to put reference tabs at both the beginning and end of your source, like this <ref>______</ref>. Be sure to do that for each reference. See if that helps. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

4Shared video

I want to quote a link to a video from a TV News Channel, but this video had been deleted from Youtube.com , so I wished to used its saved version of 4Shared.com . But Wikipedia had listed 4Shared on its blacklist. What can I do? Marici Punarvasu (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Marici Punarvasu 9Feb2014Marici Punarvasu (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Marici Punarvasu. It may well be that the video was deleted from YouTube because it was a copyright violation. 4Shared.com is a website that allows any user to store and share data. That may include copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder. Accordingly, Wikipedia does not allow links to this site. A link to the TV news channel's official website would be allowed, since there would be no copyright violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You should cite the news program, not a particular upload of it. So for example I used a reference like this;

Presenter: Ian McBride (8 May 2012). "A failing school fights back". Ramsgate. 4 minutes in. Meridian Tonight. ITV Meridian. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |episodelink= (help); Missing or empty |series= (help)

As I originally used it, I filled out the URL field because there happened to be a linkable uploaded version of the news program; but if such an upload does not exist, one can just cite it as above (i.e. leaving the URL field blank). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Same article, different tongues...

What happens if there is an article in two different languages that has different information (or similar), is there a fine line between borrowing from each to make them both great or is this line not permitted to cross? (Or if it doesn't exist in your language, and you would like to make one...?) Thanks Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi savvyjack, do you mean a copy on another language wikipedia (like the french one?) Samwalton9 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, precisely! Savvyjack23 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the usual requirement for reliable sources would still apply, but you're more than welcome to find sources found on that article in the one here. Foreign language sources are needed too, since the English wiki uses them much less than english language ones! Samwalton9 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Savvyjack23. There's no requirement that articles on a subject in different language Wikipedias have the same information; but you are welcome to add information to one that you find in another, provided the information you are adding is reliably sourced (according to the standards of the Wikipedia you are editing - the criteria may vary from one language Wikipedia to another). So if you want to add some information for example from a French article to an English article on the same subject, you need to have a reliable source for that information. Ideally the French article will contain a source, and provided that source is regarded as reliable by the standards of English Wikipedia, you can use it to support the information you are adding to the English article. (If you can find a reliable source in English, even better, but a reliable source in another language is acceptable). What you should not do is to use the other-language Wikipedia article as a source (Wikipedia is inherently not a reliable source, since anybody may edit it): if the information is unsourced in the original article, please don't add it to the article in the other language unless you can find a reliable source for it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Converting USER: page into Wikipedia page?

I'm new to writing articles but have successfully created a USER: page; how is this converted into an ordinary Wikipedia page? 86.136.207.251 (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, firstly check that you're logged in before you reply; I can't see your user page because you're posting whilst not logged in. Second, you shouldn't create draft articles in your user space, but rather in your sandbox (which you can reach with the 'sandbox' button in the top right of any page), or in Draft space. If you log in and reply, or reply with a link to your user page, someone can move it to a more suitable location. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm a little concerned from the way you posed your question, that you might have tried to write an article about yourself in your user page: if that is the case, please read autobiography, to find out why this is strongly discouraged. Sorry if I've misunderstood you. --ColinFine (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

already banned, need alot of help

I am a new editor and im already banned, I attempted to follow rules and when I made edits I was banned, said some silly things and then was increased, whatever. I understand. Now its about to be lifted but it seems many editors admins have a disdain for me and I already have a bad reputation. There is so much that bothers me, that others can get away with so much in self promote / conflicts of interest / spam /book spam/ etc.. and I can even add legitimate information without being attacked. I really want to start on a clean slate, They literally rolled back about 20 pages of edits that were very resourceful and legitimate. I cant even speak to anyone because they already have so much hate for me in their heart. I don't hate anyone, I just want to start on a clean slate and do everything right without having to deal with these issues. Why is it they turn a blind eye to some users but me I dont even do anything wrong and I am attack viciously. I really want help with this. I would appreciate any help than can be provided.Drinkreader (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Drinkreader, welcome to the teahouse. The account Drinkreader is not blocked, and has never been banned. If you edit constructively and respond to the concerns raised on your talk page, then you shouldn't have any further problems. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The account has now been blocked, for one week. WP:ANI#Mint Julep, clear vandalism. --ColinFine (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How to create a disambiguation?

The page "Isolated Singularity" needs a disambiguation:

"Isolated Singularity (Complex Analysis)"
"Isolated Singularity (Singularity Theory)"

There is a discussion going on at this article. Just because this disambiguation was not introduced. The present text refers only to the Complex Analysis concept. Could someone explain me how to do it? Thank you! Coffeebrake60 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I introduce a disambiguation? Coffeebrake60 (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't capitalise normal words in article titles so if anything it should be something like "Isolated singularity (complex analysis)". But the handling of ambiguous names depends on many circumstances, for example whether a new article is created. It's unclear to me whether you want to do that, or discuss another meaning of "Isolated singularity" in an existing article, or something else. There is a general guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. If you want a more specific answer then please be more specific about what you want to do. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What to do if you think a political/religious party is POV pushing on several articles?

I have come across my first unfriendly editor on wikipedia reverting a couple of my good faith edits using a very accusative tone. Inspired by a combination of curiosity and paranoia, I did a couple of investigations and discovered that he has been involved in significant conflict over an issue related to the edit he gave a dishonest edit summary concerning. Moreover, two other users who responded to my edits on other topics related to the same subject were also involved in that conflict. One of them only appeared in time to support the other two then disappears for months at a time and only edits articles related to the subject. It certainly seems something fishy is going on, sock-puppets? Are there any users experienced with how to investigate this sort of thing who I could email about it? I only created my account recently and would rather like to continue plodding along gently before getting involved in politics, but if there is a committed dedicated to such things I do think they should be informed. Many thanks. F.Tromble (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the teahouse, thank you for mentioning fish. Not sure if I should be adding to his workload when he's already doing everything, but a good option would be to email User:Mark Arsten. --Demiurge1000 (talk)

Thank you for the suggestion Demiurge1000 F.Tromble (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The alternative to curiosity and paranoia is to supply the RS supporting your edits, discussing them on the talk page - especially when the edits contradict the consensus. Неполканов (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Неполканов's comment above fits into the pattern of strange behaviour from certain editors which I mentioned above. Is my edit history in your watch-list Неполканов? And aren't you the one who I have been asking to provide RS to support your edits Неполканов? And when have I opposed consensus, aren't you the one who suggested re-naming a locked article Неполканов? Finally, do you feel like my question applies to you Неполканов? Let's look at your edit history shall we Неполканов? [1] Very interesting. Now who is being paranoid? F.Tromble (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:F.Tromble, you've been editing only two weeks and you already did edit war against consensus twice - at Babai the Great and Seraya Shapshal. For the past few days, you've also been forum shopping without informing the other parties in the conflict, in all cases grossly misrepresenting the nature of the conflicts. Contribs can't be put on a watchlist as far as I know, but if they could then yours should be. By all counts you are edit warring, POV pushing, uncivil and a little bit sneaky. Seriously, if you keep editing like this for even another two weeks you're going to bring a lot of unwanted attention to yourself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding and replacing photographs in articles.

Is it allowed for a new Wikipedian to replace photographs by another wikipedian in a certain article be replaced with better ones? For example, if an article has an old photograph of a place and I have a new and a good copy of the same place, am I allowed to remove the existing photo and replace it with my photo?

Thank you!

Thebrowniris (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Thebrowniris. Yes, it is allowed, and that is considered a bold edit. But reverting your edit is also allowed. And when two or more editors disagree, the matter should be discussed on the article's talk page. We call this the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. But let me suggest another possibility:Perhaps the article would benefit by having both an historical photo and a contemporary photo? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing with Cullen, there is one exception. If the current picture is being used under a claim of fair use and your picture is either compatibly and freely copyright licensed or is in the public domain, you should immediately replace the current picture with yours and remove the old one. Conversely, if the existing picture is either freely copyright licensed or is in the public domain and the one you are talking about is not, you cannot use it and the current one should remain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. :)

Thebrowniris (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Baloch: Hoat

Hoat is one of the tribe of Baloch and is the 2nd oldest tribe of Baloch. Hoat Baloch are mosty found in D.G KHAN,MULTAN and SHUJABAD.

Shamshir Ahmad Khan is famous personality in this respect. He lives in Multan but actually his hometown is Shujabad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul mueed khan (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for questions, not unrelated conversations. Please tell us what you are trying to do.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What to put on my talk/user pages

Hello, I'm really new to wikipedia editing, and I have found that I have a user page and a talk page. Is there anything that I should do to those? Or should I just leave them blank for now? Please respond as quickly as possible. Colin H. (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Your user page can contain some information about yourself, what you are working on in Wikipedia, and any other information for Wikipedia users.

Your talk page is for others to communicate with you. For example, you might have seen my response through a "talkback" message on your talk page. At the top you should put some notices that will help those who wish to talk with you. (One such notice is {{busy}}, which tells others that you may take some time to respond.) --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you "should" put any notices on your talk page. You can choose to do it but most users don't, and that's perfectly fine. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that "should" be on your user page, is something... so it doesn't show up marked in red on the history pages! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with red links. Leaving it empty is fine too. Rojomoke (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I improved my citations, will my article be approved?

Hi there, I keep trying to add new citations to this article and somehow they are not showing up. How do I make sure they are in line for review?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sarah_Jio

Wanderingone12 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Wanderingone12, and welcome to the Teahouse. How do you mean "they are not showing up"? I see you added some citations. They are visible, but the problem is that they are contrary to the Wikipedia policies regarding references. So, your article will most certainly not be approved. Wikipedia articles need multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject and which significantly cover the subject (see: WP:42). You added five references, but all five are the same. All point to the personal web site of the article's subject (and so they are not independent, nor reliable). So, basically, your article does not cite any reliable independent sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I keep trying to add multiple additional sources but they are not saved and won't show up. Am I doing something wrong? I've saved the edited draft several times...

Wanderingone12 (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

They are saved. Those sources you added are either not independent ([2] and [3] is written by Sarah Jio) or do not have significant coverage ([4] and [5] just mention her). They are also in the form of bare URLs. This needs to be fixed. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Advice for Expansion of Health Equity Article

Hi All, As it stands, the article on Health Inequity is inadequate; the scope of the article is limited to covering inequities in North America, namely the US, but fails to address the issue elsewhere. Given that one of Wikipedia’s core principles is that encyclopedic articles should be comprehensive, and represent a complete worldview of the subject when appropriate, this article has a good amount of room for improvement. I propose the rewriting of this article, separating any relevant information on the US into a new article titled Health Equity in the US, and rewriting parts of the original article with a focus on global Health Equity. As of now, I plan to tackle the new article from a systematic approach, identifying the patterns that underlie inequity like gender, sexuality, location, socioeconomic inequality, and writing about them in the context of specific nations/studies. Any suggestions, comments or questions about my proposal would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Jpoles1 (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi JPoles1, welcome to the teahouse. I'm not sure if moving material about the USA into a separate article is a good idea; then we end up with Health Equity in India, in France, in Chile and so on. Why not move USA-related material into a separate section within the existing article, or balance it by including material about the situation in other countries? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you necessarily consider separate articles on Health Equity in different countries an issue? Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, so as long as reputable information on a subject is available, why shouldn't an article on inequity in various nations be written at some point? The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is both expansive and open-access, writing on important issues with even more detail simply enriches the total knowledge available on Wikipedia for the public to access.

Best,

Jpoles1 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding a category

I think a category called something like "court cases that got extensive media coverage" or something that says a similar thing but is more succinct would be a really helpful category. Is there any way to add that category? Bali88 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Bali88, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has very strict rules on the WP:NOTABILITY. General notability guideline says that Wikipedia articles may only write about subjects that received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So, basically, every court case that has it's own Wikipedia article should have received extensive media coverage. Otherways it would not be suitable for Wikipedia. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ThanksBali88 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Image contest

A week or 2 ago a notice popped up in my watchlist asking me to vote on images for a contest of sorts. That was round 1. I cannot for the life of me find that contest again. Can someone kindly link it for me? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You must be referring to the Picture of the Year contest at Wikimedia Commons. I voted in Round 1 of the contest, and there are some extraordinary free images there. Check it out! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That's it! Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Round 1 is over, but Round 2 is coming up on February 21. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Userbox

Hi, I created a userbox but the color of the id box's background isn't turning red. I would also like to know hot to make a name for my userbox.(here is the link)Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Userbox-2}} has no parameter called id-c. There are parameters id1-c and id2-c. I don't know which field you want red background in. You can make a name for the userbox by either moving the page or copying the code to a new page. See Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a page or Wikipedia:Your first article#How to create a page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for answering!_Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I still don't know how to make a name for my userbox please tell me how.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Which name do you want? You can enter the name in the searh box or at Wikipedia:Your first article#How to create a page, for example "User:Andrei Marzan/Userboxes/Likes userboxes", and then click the link saying you can start the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Already named them, thanks.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What to do when a Bigwig insults you in edit summaries?

This one takes the biscuit. I have noticed some misuse of edit summaries by people who apparently should know better. One could say they may be used as building blocks in a straw-man ad-hominem attack. Surely there must be a platform somewhere in the wiki forums to challenge accusations made in edit summaries? One of my edits was reverted and my edit summary was called dishonest, making it appear that I had done something other than what in-fact was done. It is not very pleasant to be called dishonest when everything has been done in good faith. Any help or suggestions would be welcome. Thanks :) F.Tromble (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You can discuss the matter at a talkpage, or provide a link for other wikipedians to take a look at the problem.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you are speaking of the edit summary of the revert of your edit on Seraya Shapshal, I must say that I partially agree with both sides here. I do believe that your main intent was to correct the awkwardly-reading sentence. Rewording "history Dejudaization Doctrine" to "historical doctrine of Dejudaization" is indeed a correction of grammar. Same for piping the wikilink to make it the adjective form needed rather than the noun it was.

The issue seems to be with the other part of your edit, namely your addition of "According to Roman Freund". Whether it was done to correct the way the sentence read, or to fit with the source/attribute the claim, it did change the meaning of the sentence somewhat. Although "according to [person]" does not mean it isn't or can't be according to other people as well, it can easily (and probably will) be read that way, which would be a change of the sentence's meaning and thus not fall under bad grammar correction in the literal definition. However, I believe that your change was in good faith, and that the edit summary of the person who reverted you could have been a bit kinder.

I can however see where they are coming from. It does happen frequently that people try to "slip by" a change in a sentence's meaning under claims of grammar or spelling correction, and changing a broad claim ("this-and-this is") to a narrow claim ("according to person, this-and-this is") without explanation of that change can be seen as POV-pushing by trying to marginalize a claim. Although that may not have been your intent, I can see how it could come across as such. The grammatical part of your change seems to have been accepted and added back into the article. What you (and with you, I mean both you and the people that reverted you) should do now is discuss (that is, explain why it should or should not be there) the wording of the other part on the talkpage, rather than reverting back-and-forth. The edit-summary was not very gentle and I do honestly believe that some more good faith should have been assumed. However, neither was yours when you re-reverted it (what with it containing near-identical wording) and you too did not seem to assume good faith regarding their edit. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am not referring to the Seraya Shapshal article, although the way in which it happened was a bit "rough" I am happy with the outcome there. Although I do think a fringe POV is presented in a way which is a bit too strong. There is another side of the coin in this matter, which a glance through the edit histories reveals has been "censored" by the same editors. "POV-pushing by trying to marginalize a claim" was not my intent, although I would like to know whether Roman Freund has published more than one book on the topic because I can not find reference to him in any of the peer reviewed journals. It certainly seems the theory began with him and I am not sure which eminent scholars have supported his ideas yet. So I don't think it is right to censor the other side of the argument on the strength of just Roman Freund's opinion alone. But no, just to re-iterate this is not about that case. F.Tromble (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, speaking of ad-hominem and personal attacks... your use of Bigwig in the subjectline of this question pretty much is a personal attack. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the meaning of Bigwiki [6] first, it seems to be presented in quite a complimentary way. But since I have not and do not intend to reveal who I am referring to I do not see how that is ad-hominem. Nevertheless, if there is an objection to the term shall I change it?

Finally thanks for taking the time to answer me! :) F.Tromble (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have another question if you can help AddWittyNameHere. If I remember I missed something in a comment and come back to fill it in, (as I did above) should I re-sign the comments with the new time and date after I have finished the edit or leave them alone as I have done above? F.Tromble (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Usually, you're best off leaving signatures alone. Sometimes it may be best to put the additional details in a new comment, though. However, that would mostly depend on how long it has been since your original comment, whether there already have been replies to that and whether or not the change is large. If you make a typo or grammar mistake and want to correct it, there certainly is no need to make a new comment and re-sign it. If you want to add additional information, it would depend a bit. If it's, say, two minutes after the original comment, there really is no need for a new one. If it's been a few hours, better to make a new comment altogether below it (and sign that one), as there will likely have been a fair few people who saw the original comment. If you want to completely refactor a comment (such as going from oppose to accept in a discussion), strike the old one (the "putting a line through it"-strike, not the "delete the comment"-strike) and leave a new one. Regarding bigwig, yes, it can be complementary, but it can also be used somewhat disparaging by focusing on how important they are, are deemed to be or think themselves to be, rather than the behaviour that is troublesome. By using it, it may look passive-aggressive simply because it can be a subtle way of saying "they're important, they should know better" or "they're important, I believe that's the only reason they get away with this". It may very well not have been your intention, of course, but I admit that's how I took it - a subtle way to cast allusions on the editor. (Also, while you may not have used their name, if you give the identifying parts of the behaviour, it's not very hard to figure out who you're talking about.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Revamped an article extensively. Do I need to do anything now?

I'm a WikiGnome in many ways, I prefer to work in less-trafficked pages and fix them up when nobody's watching. I found Hypnotic very lacking (and seeing multiple people on the talk page felt the same way) overhauled it. From what I can tell I'm done with it, and have improved it as much as I am able.

What is the norm after you dedicate ~75-100 edits to a page? Are you supposed to leave it, or ask for it to be reviewed, or drop a note on the talk page, or what? Just not really sure how to say "I fixed it, maybe somebody else can make sure I didn't insert my bias into it or miss something huge?" perhaps? meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You could leave a message on the article's talkpage and/or on the talkpage of the wikiprojects the scope of which the article falls under. Something like "I revamped the article Hypnotic and would appreciate it if someone could look over it" would suffice, potentially with a mention of matters you believe might specifically need attention, be it matters like personal bias or specific sections you're unsure of or something else altogether. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Meteor, and welcome to the Teahouse! There is no fixed "next step" for an article after expansion. Some are best just left as they are, owing to a lack of will in expanding further, comprehensiveness in current coverage, or issues with referencing. Some, if editors want to dedicate time and research into extensive referencing and reasonably comprehensive coverage, can be nominated for Good Article status (criteria here). If one is really sure of an article, Featured Article is the (theoretical) last stop (criteria), although most editors prefer having a WP:PR first.

From articles I've written, Hadidjah is an example of the first, Tjioeng Wanara is an example of the second, and Roekiah is an example of the third. As I tend to write about fairly obscure topics which are far from the topic you've chosen, they are not the best points of comparison, but possibly useful. As for the current action for hypnotic... if you reference some more and provide some more comprehensive coverage (be sure to read MEDRS) you may have a chance for a GA. If you are not interested in continuing the expansion, no further step is necessary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Witty's suggestions are good for getting more feedback. Agree wholeheartedly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll have to think about it, but I have some ideas now. I'll probably go with peer review and try to expand it further if I can. Thanks! meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I certainly haven't been through all of your edits, but glancing at the history I see that in this edit you say that you "replaced entirety of content with Benzodiazepine#Insomnia". Copying en-bloc from one Wikipedia page to another is not generally permitted, because it means that the destination article's history does not show the attribution to the authors of the source page. Experts on copyright violation will be able to give you more detail.. Interestingly, it looks as if Benzodiazepine#Insomnia". may itself have included a copyright violation, as it seems to quote word-for-word from this book without enclosing the words in quote marks. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I would also feel that it is pointless to copy the entrire section en-bloc, as the destination already has the link {{Main section|Benzodiazepine|Insomnia}}, giving . --David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Copying en bloc is allowable, so long as attribution is given. Streatham portrait has a paragraph from The Execution of Lady Jane Grey, and attribution is visible in both the edit summary and the talk page. But yes, the CC-BY-SA license means attribution must be given. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. Will look into all of this. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Links

Is it appropriate to put references in the external links section instead of the references?Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No, if a website has been used as a source in an article it should be in "References". The "External links" list is used for linking to sites that are directly relevant to the subject - in biographies that would be the person's own website or for an article about a company the company's official website. These are often sites that are not really suitable as sources for the article content. There is guidance on do's and don'ts for "External links" lists at WP:EL, WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw a page that put references in external links, I also saw a page that cited other Wikipedia pages as sources.--Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In which case, both were wrong, and should be corrected. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Using same reference many times in the article

I have a bio of my subject from a highly reputable independent source. I'm using it for every biographical fact I write about her. But should I have more than one reference? Does it hurt my credibility to rely on one source?67.208.181.82 (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi 67, and welcome to the Teahouse! Although it's not uncommon to have an article depend heavily on one or two sources, in general it is always best to have several reliable sources discussing the subject. In our Chrisye article, for instance, the biography by Alberthiene Endah forms the backbone of the article. However, numerous other references are provided, including newspaper and magazine reports covering the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I wrote an article... now what?

I just wrote this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jesusdragon737/Shuja_ul-Mulk_Jalala, but I haven't submitted it yet. I think it's good, but I would like to get an experienced user's opinion before it goes live. I don't want to make a newbie mistake and leave out something important. For example, in some articles about people, the name of the person is written in their native language in the article. However, in this case, that language would be Pashto, and I don't know Pashto, so I left it off. Also, I wasn't able to find an appropriate picture of the man to put in the article. What should I do? Jesusdragon737 (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome. You always have the name in English and then as an option, you could add the native language name. I would try to find additional sources. You will probably want to replace the "Who is Afghanistan", "Royal Ark" references as that doesn't look like a reliable source (RS) and I can't seem to get my browser to open reference #4 and #6, the elections.pajhwok.com site. I don't know what's up with that.

All your references are bare url address links. We don't but links in the body of the article. Those need to be properly formatted. Please do a quick review of reference and footnote formatting at Help:Referencing for beginners where you can get the quick basics to show the easiest way to format inline citations for all your reference sources.

I also feel your sections are short and as such should be expanded by at least double what they are now, or incorporate what you have into fewer sections. You want the section "Birth and education" (in that order) before the family background, which shouldn't be its own section. Just add all that information after what is in the birth section. Combaine "Social work" and "Political life" as this is all as governor so it is the same section. No need for section. But I might title that header "Governorship". Seems more neutral and encyclopedic.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec):I have reviewed and accepted it to mainspace - Shuja ul-Mulk Jalala. Congratulations on creating a really nice new article. Someone else might add the Pashto text and find a suitable photo. You can now add links to this article in other relevant articles, to fix the "orphan" issue. I have fixed the bare URL problem. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done some further tweaking and changes to the layout to better follow the usual "standard" for biographies on en.WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jesusdragon737 - I see we haven't really fully answered your "now what" question. The next step in your Wikipedian "career" would be to take a look at similar topics - find an article that needs to be improved/expanded and get into it. Browse through Category:Afghan politicians or ask at WP:WikiProject Afghanistan, they might have a list of articles that need attention. Perhaps you'd like to try something completely different - playing "Random page" roulette (the link is in the main menu on the left margin) often lands on a page that desperately needs some love and attention - or even just some typo fixing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for the extensive replies. I didn't have time to respond to your comments right away, but I really appreciate them. Now that I see your fixes to the topical arrangement and the references, I'll try to follow that format in further article editing. It feels good to be a part of this community, and I'm excited about what I'll be able to contribute in the future. Jesusdragon737 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

wrong wrong wrong

I'm a total newbie...I tried getting involved once before but it seemed time consuming and complicated (eg wtf are four tildes, even wikipedia can't tell me so I cut and paste them)....I spent an hour or so the other day trying to fix something that was wrong wrong wrong, but in the end my edits were somehow swallowed up and it reverted to the original. I find it disturbing that such inaccurate and unreferenced material is allowed to remain. My feeling was it might be easier to start again and write a completely accurate version...is that allowed? 137.166.22.60 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I am glad to hear that you have returned to wikipedia!

If you feel as though an article needs a re-write, then yes it is valid to do so, that said, if you are having difficulties in making edits, that is not a reason enough to redo the article. However, if you want to make tests, go to the link username/sandbox. This does require a user account, and I highly suggest that you make an account so that people are able to work with you easier. You can do so here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin/signup

Please respond here with further questions!

Jab843 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Four tildes are a is the way comments on talkpages are signed, it looks like this

 ~~~~

and it signs your signature automatically. You can find more information about signatures here.--Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about the Tilde. On most computers, it is at the upper left portion of the keyboard. Mine is just below the "esc" key. Just hit the "tilde" key four times at the end of your talk page comments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 137.166. Your IP address locates to NSW: I don't know whether you use UK or American keyboards in Australia (or something else again) but on a UK keyboard, the tilde is next to the Enter. You haven't told us which article you tried to edit, so we can't check what happened, but if you pick the History tab at the top of the article, it will show you who made what changes when, and the edit summary they gave when they changed it. That should tell you who undid your changes, and (if they left an edit summary) why. If they didn't leave an edit summary, there will still be a link to their talk page, where you can ask them why they reverted your changes.

One of the most common reasons for reverting people's changes is that the information they inserted was unreferenced; but since you talk about unreferenced material, so you're probably aware of that. In theory anybody may remove any unreferenced material at any time; but replacing it with other unreferenced material is no improvement. --ColinFine (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I start editing?

1}How do I get invited to the TeaHouse? I have already introduced my self as a guest..

2)Now that I have learned few basics of editing by reading Wikipedia:Tutorial, can I start editing pages I like?? Catalena55 (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Catelena! You're already invited, though strictly speaking everyone is welcome here, whether they introduce themselves as a guest or not :) As for your second question, of course! Anyone is free to make edits to Wikipedia; that's the idea! Well done for making sure you know what you're doing before editing though :) Samwalton9 (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just make sure you know the rules! Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

aero engineering

Hello there. My son Who is 12 years old is interested very much in aero engineering and would like to immediately start right away. We live in east africa and apparently finalising his primary education this year . Please advise me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.202.240.11 (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This page is for help in editing Wikipedia. It is possible that somebody might be able to help you if you asked at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. I suspect that the answer would depend on your country, so it would be worth specifying that in your question (though I may be wrong). --ColinFine (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)