Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 244

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 240

←

Archive 242

→

Flagging a buzzword / advanced lingo in a sociology article.

I was reading an article and it says "...neocolonialism describes the domination-praxis (social, economic, cultural) of countries..." Uh, I don't know about you, but I'm stuck wondering what a domination-praxis is, and because I'm not an expert in neocolonialism, I can't really amend what they're saying. So how do I flag "d-p" as a buzzword or lingo that obfuscates (hides) the meaning of the sentence so that someone with the knowledge and editing skills can fix it? (oh and sorry for any typos. I can't see half of what I'm typing. Weird huh?) Srwalden (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Srwalden: Hi Srwalden. We have a number of templates that are targeted to these types of issues. Please see {{Technical-statement}}, {{Technical}}, {{Buzz}}}, {{Buzzword}} and {{Context}}. Of course, you could always do some research yourself, in contemplation of restating the wording or explaining it – This search, for example. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The code {{jargon-inline}} produces ^[jargon] which I think would be what you want. There are a whole bunch of inline tags (see Template:Inline tags) which I think are rather underused. Happy editing! --LukeSurl^{t c}

{{Buzz}} is probably the exact template you want. --Jakob (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In providing the Google Books search link above, I just noticed that the OP's questioned language from the neocolonialism article is a possible copyright violation of here, though it's an e-book so it could be mirroring us, with or without attribution. Could someone please investigate? I would take care of this but must depart and will be offline for hours.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Crappy jargon in a Wikipedia article results in the same jargon in a crappy book. We are so very influential. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I started an avalanche of "hmm" over the article.

Jakob, I remembered seeing buzz elsewhere, but I couldn't figure out the formatting with brackets vs curly brackets. Just a noob mistake. Thanks!

Regarding suggestions to fix instead of flag, I would normally fix it, but it's really out of my area and I have no energy today. Thanks for the quick help, everyone!Srwalden (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a trustworthy and Reliable resource?

Is Wikipedia and all of the other Media Wiki Projects trustworthy and reliable? Could someone please show me some evidence supporting this.Frogger48 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Frogger48. Our article Reliability of Wikipedia discusses this issue at length. To summarize: In my opinion, Wikipedia is reliable enough to use as an excellent introduction to a wide range of topics. But Wikipedia should not be considered the "final word" on anything. Good Wikipedia articles will have a list of references, and often further reading and external links. Check them out. Our robot programs to detect and revert vandalism are outstanding and getting better all the time. But "subtle vandalism" is tough to detect, and some articles are subject to bad editors pushing fringe ideas. Everyone needs to develop their critical thinking skills, and question anything that doesn't seem right. It is for these reasons that one Wikipedia article should never be used as a reference in another Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is neither terrible nor perfect. It is very useful and free, and that is a wonderful thing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Telemedicine, Teleealth, and telepsychiatry fields.

I know a great deal about the telemedicine industry and I know I would be valuable assets to those fields, I am having issues with the syntax of the site. It is nothing like HTML or the other programming languages. I think I could be a great contributor and would like some advise. Please let me know what I should do in order to get my entries deleted, Thanks, AmandaAcosens (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the teahouse, it is great to see an expert wanting to contribute in their field! Wikipedia layout is actually simpler than HTML, it is easy once you get used to it and its particular foibles. (One of the strangest of which is messing up the display if one starts a line with a space character... although this does have a purpose.) Try taking a look at Wikipedia:CHEATSHEET and see if it makes things any clearer.

Reference formatting is another common problem. See if Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners helps.

I'm not sure what you mean by wanting to get your entries deleted? Do you mean the opposite? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

How to Reply on a Talk Page

For some reason I can't figure out how to format a reply on a talk page so that it doesn't look really funky. How do I reply correctly? Luthien22 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Luthien22, and welcome! If you want to reply to someone, simply start writing on the line immediately under the comment you want to reply to, but start the reply with a ":" character. This will indent your post so the thread can be followed. If you are replying to someone who's post is already indented, you can add a second colon, "::" and so on. Just use one more colon than the person to whom you are replying. If you want more information on this, you can also read Wikipedia:Indentation which covers it in more detail. Does this help any? --Jayron32 20:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't start the line with a space otherwise it will look like this! --LukeSurl^{t c} 20:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That's perfect! Thanks so much! Luthien22 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

How to create new profile ?

I am new in Wikipedia & am facing lots of problem in profile creating. Can you support me the exact procedure, or step i have maintain. So that Wikipedia will create my profile. Sanjib Ganguly (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia will never create a profile for you! Wikipedia is not social networking. Your profile goes on FaceBook. If you actually wish to contribute to Wikipedia, when you have a decent history of, say, fifty edits, then you may create a user page telling us what you do on Wikipedia and a bit about yourself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sanjib. Wikipedia does not contain profiles. It contains two kinds of things: articles, which are written in a neutral, encyclopaedic style, about subjects which are notable (which means, subjects that have already been written about in reliable sources such as major newspapers); and User pages, which are pages where people who are editors of Wikipedia may share a little about themselves. User pages may contain something about the user unrelated to Wikipedia, but should be mostly about their activities on Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Find a way to make yourself notable, then you could get your own Wikipedia article. Is that what you mean by a "profile"? Lil Vipt 13:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosyia (talk • contribs)

hello is anyone there?Mistystar of Riverclan (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Plagarism

I am aware of an online account outside of wiki that is directly copying text from wikipedia. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License but the person copying the text is passing it off as their own, and not giving any links, or credits to the original text. How do I go about reporting this?GeorgieLover (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a good idea to list the page at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, so other editors known not to cite the page. What is the website? π♂101 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Text Box

I'm interested in adding a 'text box' to my article which will contain a map, logo, population, etc. How do I create such a text/information box? My article is currently in Sandbox and the written portion is almost finished. Thanks much! Oh . . . I'm not very savvy when it comes to the Wiki writing process, but I'm a fast learner if your response is in plain old terminology!Csboes (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Csboes. What you are talking about is called an "infobox" and they are very good things for articles to have! These are templates where you fill in different parameters for things like the name, location, population etc., and a nice box is created for you. There's a specific one for islands, Template:Infobox islands. If you copy and paste the code (choose either metric or non-metric units, whichever you prefer) and fill in the gaps this should work out (you don't need to fill out all the paramters, just leave ones you can't blank). Please note that any information in the infobox which is not attributed to a cited source in the main text needs a reference of its own. References can be used in infoboxes just like normal. Hope this helps, please let us know if you have any queries on this. Happy editing! --LukeSurl^{t c} 22:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Csboes:. Thank you for your question. I left some additional suggestions about that island article on your talkpage. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Rosiestep, Dodger67 and LukeSurl. Not sure how to send a Thank You. Still working on my references

and, when finished, will still need some help with the info box.Csboes (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How do i join projects?

Help i want to join articals and make my user page awsome plz help me, PLZ!!!Mistystar of Riverclan (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Mistystar of Riverclan. This is a project to build, improve and maintain an encyclopedia. So, the very best thing for you to do is to work on encyclopedia articles. Each Wikiproject has instructions for signing up. Your userpage should reflect your goals and accomplishments regarding improving the encyclopedia. Even this answer I am offering you is intended ultimately to improve the encyclopedia. All else is secondary here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Actors

Are you suppose to add references for all the roles that they did? 107.193.118.211 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello 107.193.118.211, and welcome. Actually, you're supposed to add references for everything written in the entirety of Wikipedia. No, really! The goal is to have all of Wikipedia fully cited; that is every fact linked to the reliable source where it appeared before appearing in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that you do that all, right now, mind you. You should focus on material that is challenged or likely to be challenged as true or not; if you don't think there is any contention that an actor appeared in a particular movie, there may not be a rush to add references for it right now (though of course, if you have access to good sources, feel free to add them for anything!) Remember, Perfection is not required, and there is no deadline. We only ask that you help out where you want, do what you feel is best for the encyclopedia, and use your own skills to the best of your ability in doing so. As long as you're making Wikipedia better in some small way, we invite any and all help you can give! --Jayron32 05:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

how to alert editors to an error I cannot resolve.

I discovered that the History of Glass article (first paragraph) dates the first man-made glass to 3500BC and, two lines later (repeated further down), to the middle of the third century BC (which is 1000 years later). I do not know which is correct so cannot correct it. What should I do? David jd Johnson (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi David. I would go to the article talk page by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of that page. There you can start a new section to explain your concern.Charles (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the third century BC is about 3,300 years later. The Talk page is the way to go, as Charlesdrakew says, and if you think it is worthwhile you could draw attention to that Talk page by tagging the two figures inline with {{dubious|date=August 2014}}. This will show on the article as:
glass is xxxx years old.^{[dubious – discuss]}

Thanks Charles.

Oops, I meant 3rd millenium BC. By then I had tried to ask the question several times and quoted it wrong.David jd Johnson (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata

i want to wikidata add my userpage tools. Sri Krishna Raja (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sri Krishna Raja and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you mean, what "userpage tools"? Please explain further and I will try to help. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I have active the wikidata in tools box

Sri Krishna Raja (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sri Krishna Raja: So your problem is resolved? Philg88 ^♦talk 10:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Philg88:, they've been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Tutelary (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Tutelary, I saw that earlier. I still have no idea what the problem was but that's kinda academic now. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Template problems

I have been editing few pages of Slovenian politics and i have encountered 3 problems, all of the same kind. Whenever I write an internal link to a minor political party the preview looks like this "Template:Zares – Social Liberals/meta/shortname". This is an example from European parliamentary elections 2009 (Slovenia). I have added 2 links of minor parties, but wikipedia does not connect them to the desired pages, which should happen as they exist in english and i had no problems on other pages with the same parties... How do I solve this problem? ty. ZekeSlo (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you using Wikipedia's link tool that appears in the edit toolbar next to the picture and signature tools? If not, you should. It's much simpler to link to other Wiki articles that way than writing the code. Luthien22 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ty for the info. I didn't use it before, but now I have. But half of the problem remains. Now i got the correct link, so it connects me to the desired page, but this "Template: Zares/meta/shortname" still remains... the problem is that link is written with "[[]]", which is not required in the code i've been using for the article (i have been editing the election inbox, and not normal, simple text)... if I remove "[[]]", the link to the page dissapears, but if I use them, the link is correct, but "Template: Zares/meta/shortname" remains. ZekeSlo (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello ZekeSlo. To insert a link to another page, you put it in double square brackets ([[ ]]). To insert a template in a page you use double curly brackets, thus:

{{Zares - Social Liberals}} - but that is showing red, because the template doesn't exist. I guess that what you want to do is link to an article but use different display text from the article title. For that you use a piped link, thus: [[Zares|Zares - Social Liberals]], which displays as Zares - Social Liberals. --ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Italics for company names?

I read WP:ITALICS but did not see this issue there. Should the name of a company be italicized? I assume not based on what I read about use of italics in general. Is that correct? This question arose for me while editing Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States#The PTSD C&P Exam (see the last sentence of the first paragraph). Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD 16:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Markworthen and welcome to the Teahouse. No, company names should not generally be capitalised unless they form part of a book title. Best, Philg88 ^♦talk 17:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you! - Mark D Worthen PsyD 19:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

article on my idle

i want to write an article on my idle he is a boy and don't have any article on him,,,,Mrityunjay kumar das (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mrityunjay. Has this person received coverage in multiple reliable sources of information like news articles or books? If so, then they qualify for an article! I recommend you read the tutorial and how to cite sources and then submit an article via articles for creation. If they haven't been covered in sources then sorry but they don't yet qualify for an entry in this encyclopedia. Sam Walton (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeking mentorship

I was wondering where I would ask for some mentoring in AfD, CSD, FFD, and the like. I want to get involved in those areas, but I'm finding admins are reluctant to help until you already know everything. TinaG (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello TinaG and welcome to the Teahouse. If you would want mentorship in those areas, you should probably want to be in the adoption program. I would love to help you out, but sadly, I'm going to be really busy in the next few days. Cheers, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 22:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

New page with inappropriate capitalization

Hey all, I created a page for a professor who has been linked to many times around here without a portal of her own. However the template as I created it had her name as "Hillary chute," rather than "Hillary Chute." As I'm new, I cannot move it myself. Is there a way I can work around this given the change is minute? Destrivera (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Destrivera: Hi and welcome to the Teahouse. I've taken the liberty of moving it for you since four days and ten edits are required to be able to rename pages. I've also done some other minor cleanup. --Jakob (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jakob: Thank you! Unsure if I tagged you correctly, but I appreciated the help and the edits. I was cleaning up my citations as you edited the page, so it said we were in "conflict," however I just opened a new window and pasted my touch-ups, so I believe all we've done has stayed. Thanks again, man, the page looks great.Destrivera (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion/Question

Hi! I was just wondering if there is some group of people who are interested in helping stuff look better. (Specifically portals.) I have noticed that many portals have great content, but don't seem to look very good. Unfortunately, I am not very good at making things look nice. I was working on the Energy portal when I got the idea to ask. One thing that I thought would be nice was making pictures in the portals match each other. For example, all pictures in one portal should either be actual pictures, OR drawings/ cartoons. Sorry for rambling. :-) This is JonathanHopeThisUnique. I cannot find the login button on this phone, sorry. Edit: I'm on my computer now so I thought to properly sign. :) JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

additional sandbox

Hello, I am working on articles and would like to create additional sandbox spaces for my work.

I have been doing this for about a year, and my experience is that editors are lurking in the hinterlands, waiting to pull down your work as soon as you post. I don't mind guidance and direction, but this is getting ridiculous. (sorry, I needed to get that off my chest.)

I went to the help page and found directions on creating a user draft page. As soon as I created it, it was taken down.

So back to my question, is there an approved method for creating an additional draft page in a sandbox format? Dr. Andrea Bruce (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Andrea Bruce and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at your page and your sandbox, and it seems like you accidentally tried to create a draft page with the name of your sandbox instead of the name of the article. That is why it was taken down. I can help you move the page the correct way. As for sandboxes, you can create as many as you like, just give them number. Best, w.carter-Talk 23:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Or instead of a number, you can give each one a different name if you prefer. So if you were drafting an article about butterflies, you might want to name it "User:Dr. Andrea Bruce/Butterflies". Just type that (without the quotes) into the Search field at the top right of the screen, and Wikipedia will ask you whether you want to create that as a new page. Or you can achieve the same thing using the box at Help:Userspace draft. And then you could create another page for "User:Dr. Andrea Bruce/Moths", and so on.
Other editors would normally only delete a Sandbox page if it violated Wikipedia's guidelines in some very major way, and even then they would normally leave a message on your Talk page, so I suspect what happened is that the page creation failed. Hopefully this will fix it; if not then please tell us the specifics of the page you created, etc. --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How to nominate an article for a merge

Through the copy-editing page's "random article that needs copy-editing" finder, I discovered the article Adaptive Toolbox, which was an orphan article on a heuristics theory. I quickly figured out that it needed to link to the page Gerd Gigerenzer, creator of the theory. After adding some links to the adaptive toolbox page to the page on Dr. Gigernzer, I quickly realized that the two articles would be better if they were merged. However, I have no idea how to nominate for a merge. How do I do that? Luthien22 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, @Luthien22:, welcome to our wacky wiki world. Wikipedia:Merging gives, as many official documents do, a dreadfully long-winded description. As it happens, you've already started, by proposing the merger in one of the talk pages. The key, I figure, is to give warning. First, in the talk page of the other article, make the same proposal, preferably in a comment of its own rather than a sentence in a paragraph about something else. Wait a day or three, and join any discussion that erupts. If no discussion, make the formal proposal on the article pages themselves, use Template:Mergefrom and Template:Mergeto (the instructions are on those pages). If still no discussion for a few more days, you can generally take that as a "no objection". Cut and paste the doomed article into the chosen survivor, insert a Wikipedia:Redirect in the now dead article, and edit the new, bigger article so it makes sense as one unified article. I've done maybe a hundred mergers over the years, and several hundred splits, and occasionally run into dissent, but this procedure takes me a week or so, and mostly eliminates friction. Of course, a few cases call for quicker action, but this isn't one of those. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Luthien22 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Luthien22: Hi Luthein, If I might add to the advice above, there is one extremely important issue that is described at the process page that was not mentioned: Mandatory copyright attribution. It's simple though. When you add the content to the article you are merging to, make sure you link to the article you're merging from, with a description of that in the edit summary, e.g., Merged content from [[<source page>]] to here. See [[Talk:<merger discussion talk page section, if applicable>]], and do likewise when you redirect the article you merged from, e.g.,

Merged content to [[<destination page>#<destination section, if applicable>]]. See [[Talk:<merger discussion talk page section, if applicable>]].

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, thanks for that important info! Definitely will keep in mind as the merge discussion goes on. Luthien22 (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Dr Ghanshyam Sharma (Politician)

Hey fellow Wikipedians. Dr Ghanshyam Sharma (Politician) seems to be an unreferenced article that doesn't seem notable. Do you think I should nominate it for speedy depletion, PROD it, or AfD it? Thanks, Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 11:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been speedily deleted by another editor! --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

enrolling in a course

Hey teahouse,I am willing to join courses via wikipedia but because of not having enrollment token i am not able to join. I am interrested to join Technology entrepreneurship course as mentioned by Stanford university for 2014 Spring session. so i want your help regarding this topic. krishna chalise 06:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia does not handle official enrolment for any courses from accredited institutions, it only provides a platform where part of the course activities might occur. The enrolment token is essentially a password which the university provides to its students so that only they can access the course materials on Wikipedia. If you want to do this course you will need to contact Stanford University itself ( http://online.stanford.edu/course/technology-entrepreneurship ). --LukeSurl^{t c} 12:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

How to wikipedia guidelines come to be?

There have been a few editing issues I've come across where there really doesn't seem to be any guidelines as to how it should be handled. There are a few things that I think would be great editing guidelines that I'd like to see implemented after I've been here for awhile. How are the guidelines created? What is the process like? Bali88 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if you provided the link to the page where you were stuck. But don't be confused, you can edit the pages as per the knowledge you have about the topic not violating the wikipedia rules. If you are in search of any ddocuments that can help you out then visit the page Wikipedia:Training/Newcomers and take some editing trainnings.krishna418(talk)krishna chalise 07:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, no, I'm not currently stuck, but while editing articles regarding criminal and civil cases, there are certain topics that come up over and over that do not have guidelines currently in place for how to address them. I would like a conversation and consensus to take place addressing how those situations should be handled on wikipedia. :-) Bali88 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The place you are looking for to propose new polices or guidelines is: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), but please research to be sure there is indeed no policy or guideline already in place before you make any proposals. After over a decade...I think we have all the bases covered but you never know.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Mark is right, we have established a fairly substantial corpus of guidelines over the years. That said, perhaps if you could indicate the editing issues you've encountered then we may be able to point you in the direction of a suitable guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And, of course, we even have a policy about policies and guidelines - which is actually a quite comprehensive and readable introduction to the whole subject. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Bali88 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the main issues that keeps coming up while editing crime articles is how the information is presented. Quite often there are people editing a crime article who are on both sides of it and it ends in a big edit war. The Amanda Knox article is a great example. You have those who are adamant that she is guilty who want to edit the article to say "Amanda Knox is a murderer, she killed her roomate in a drunken sex orgy", and then on the other side of that you have other people who want to down play the whole thing. You can see some discussion on the talk page to that effect. There are quite a few wikipedians who believe that a murder conviction proves conclusively that a specific person is a murderer. There are quite a few others, like myself, who prefer to emphasis that they were convicted as opposed to stating it as an objective fact. This applies to civil cases as well. You can see the talk page for Black Bike Week for an example of a fight over how to discuss edits regarding a civil case.

The second issue, which is related, is that when a crime is being described, many people treat the statements of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and witnesses as literal truth on the basis of who they themselves believe. So like, if a prosecutor argues in court that a defendant killed his wife for insurance money, there are quite a few articles that say "John Smith killed his wife for insurance money". Other articles, written by people convinced of a certain person's innocence will do this the other way around. If a witness testifies for the defense about an alibi, the editor will write it as if it's the literal truth. As far as I can find, there are no wikipedia guidelines regarding this issue. (I think a way to solve the whole thing is to encourage editors to attribute all statements as opposed to presenting it as literal fact.)

These inconsistencies are problematic for a number of reasons. Yes, we do have a NPOV policy, but it's very difficult to enforce NPOV guidelines in crime articles because of the type of article it is and the emotional response it provokes. Also, convincing someone that they aren't being neutral or defining neutrality in crime articles is next to impossible. My POV on the whole issue is that we should have a uniform way that we treat criminal allegations and convictions. I feel like we should state things in a way that we know is true. For instance, if someone has been convicted of a murder, we should phrase it "John Smith was convicted of the murder of his wife. The prosecutor alleges he did it for insurance money. He denies the allegation" as opposed to "John Smith killed his wife for insurance money". This sidesteps all bias. Further, there is the real issue, particularly in America, of wrongful convictions. We may find out in the future that someone was wrongfully convicted and if we've said "John is a serial killer", we've had an inaccurate article for 10 years. If we stick to facts that can be proven and attribute all allegations, regardless of what happens in the future, if we find out he is later innocent, we have always had a reliable article.

I wouldn't bring this up, but it's one of those issues that I see constantly. There are constant arguments and edit wars over this issue and the crime articles would really benefit from some solid guidelines. If anyone can find existing guidelines that help with these issues, let me know, but after months of going over and over these issues, several times posting at teahouse or help desk or other places for advice, no one I know has found any guidelines that helps solve this issue. Bali88 (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, another thing I've come across is when it's a crime article such as "Murder of so and so", people will often break BLP rules and talk about criminal actions, for which they has yet to be a conviction, as literal fact. When it is pointed out that it is a BLP violation, they will reply "well, this isn't a BLP, it's an article about a crime, so we can do that here". It's still a living person. They are innocent until proven guilty, it is an allegation until they are convicted. It's kinda sad that it needs to be spelled out that the spirit of these guidelines don't just apply to BLP articles, but for whatever reason, people are taking advantage of that loophole. Bali88 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It is spelled out exactly as you want. Read WP:BLP which states " This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." I don't think it could be made more clear. --Jayron32 16:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I'll point that to them next time. I've had that conversation at least a couple times. Bali88 (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page for Yourself?

Hello, I was wondering if it was a general rule that Wikipedia pages on people are not to be written by those people. or: if pages could be written by the person for the person given they were written in the right tone (impartial, concise) and were given the proper citation.

If the latter is the case, I was wondering if it would be possible for a Host to go over my sandbox page before I try to make it public.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

David Davidaromero (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Writing an autobiography is inadvisable for a great many reasons, even if you are able to write impartially. We advise against it. It usually goes very badly, often resulting in a bitter blow to the ego when one discovers that one is not notable. I urge you to reconsider. Very few people are successful in this enterprise. It is not forbidden, but it is deprecated. Fiddle Faddle 16:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback. Given my credentials and the references I have put together, I will proceed.

- David Davidaromero (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Davidaromero - before you start please read WP:Autobiography. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

- David Davidaromero (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Davidaromero: Expanding on Dodger67's useful answer above, you may also want to read these guidelines on conflicts of interest, notability and reliable sources. Wikipedia also has guidelines for the formatting of references - please see Referencing for beginners. Philg88 ^♦talk 17:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to note here, potential autobiography writers are encouraged to use WP:AFC to create potential articles about themselves, and (as others have said above) strongly discouraged from creating articles about themselves directly. Once you have attended to all the advice given above, your sandbox page can be submitted to WP:AFC by adding {{subst:submit}} at the top of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding potential bias

Hello, I am a new editor to wikipedia and am still on quite the learning curve with the formatting and guidelines for wikipedia. I was motivated to start an account because as a professional occupational therapist I was concerned with the content and representation of a specialized area of practice, referred to as Sensory Integration. I also felt that the information presented on wikipedia did not accurately portray the sensory integration community comprehensively. It appears that the information regarding the theory of sensory integration is dominated by information on sensory processing and sensory processing disorder. While this is an aspect of the theory of sensory integration it is not the exclusive for of practice in the professional occupational therapy community.

I tried to use up-to-date references and sources to more accurately portray the Anna Jean Ayres page (She was the originator of the theory Sensory Integration and sensory integrative dysfunction). My edits and additions to the page were deleted and changed within 24 hours after I made them. There was no reason given as to why my edits were deleted. I then double-checked my information and sources and also asked for reviews and edits from some colleagues that specialize in the field of sensory integration. I did also receive communication and confirmation of some of the facts from the Jean Ayres family and those who run her estate and own the copyright to most of her work and photos. I then re-posted my edits onto the page. In the comment section on why I changed the content, I noted that a larger community of practitioners specializing in the Ayres Sensory Integration approach and the Ayres family reviewed my edits. The same user that had originally deleted my work without comment has since expressed concern with the page having a conflict of interest and maintaining neutrality. The Anna Jean Ayres site has now been flagged for potential bias. I felt that communicating with A. Jean Ayres family for information and photos for the Biography would enhance the legitimacy not degrade it. And I am worried about the stability of the article and want to avoid an edit war with this other user.

I would like to remedy this situation and present the facts regarding the subject matter. I would appreciate advice on how best to move forward to confirm the validity of the information as well as improving the site’s rating as a good article.

I have reviewed the criteria for a good article. Here are the guidelines to be clear: 1. Well-written: a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2] 2. Verifiable with no original research:[3] a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] and c. it contains no original research. 3. Broad in its coverage: a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7] 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8] a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[9]ASI2020 Vision (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The challenge with editing Wikipedia when one is an expert in a field is that the truth about the most modern developments is not always acceptable for a Wikipedia article. WP:TRUTH will probably not amuse you, but is worth a read. WP:ACADEME is highly relevant to you as an expert in your field, too.

Our problem, if it be a problem, is that we may only record that which is presented to the world in WP:RS. This means, for example, that cutting edge material in an obscure work area is unlikely to be grist to the mill precisely because, though cutting edge, it is obscure and thus does not appear in WP:RS.

All of this means that an article may show a bias because that bias is all that is recorded in the sources we are constrained to use. If you can find relevant sources then that is the way to handle matters. Sources are king. Knowledge is secondary to sources. That is because we are an encyclopaedia, not a publishing organ for, for example, learned papers.

Unless, of course, I am not answering the question you are asking. Fiddle Faddle 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If you play multiplayer, in Sonic Boom, can you race?

Is there racing in Sonic Boom?Moved under correct heading— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you can.Project Fairy Member Grace (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi, Project Fairy Member Grace and welcome to The Teahouse. We have a reference desk for questions like these.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

discussing content

I want to discuss an assertion made in an article which I tried unsuccessfully to edit, but who can I discuss it with? moorewdan Moorewdan (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2014‎ ‎

Hi, Moorewdan and welcome to The Teahouse. Every article has a talk page which you get to by clicking on "talk" at the top of the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I see what you did. This is not something appropriate for an article. What you should do is ask the question on Talk:Planck units.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold

My Userpage was like all bold words please help the bold words on my userpage. Sri Krishna Raja (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sri Krishna Raja and welcome to The Teahouse. You do not have a userpage. Click on your name and you can start one.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And apparently this user was blocked, and the problem no longer exists because the pages in question was deleted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Upload image

Our NGO has a new logo, but the Wikipedia page shows the old one. How can I replace the obsolete logo with the current one?Wolf Haven International (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Working --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, the article Wolf Haven International now appears to have an up-to-date logo based on their website. I just lost interest in the topic, so for anything else you will need to ask someone else. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You will have to create a new account as names of organisations are not allowed as your username.Charles (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

AWB

What is the best way to leaern about using AWB? I've noticed that is used on so many of the articles I edit. I am a new page reviewer and think this tool could be especially helpful in what I do. bpage (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The best way to learn about AWB would be to just it or go here for the user manual. TranquilHope (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

bpage for AWB you have to request permission. To do this go to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Also you must have 500 mainspace edits. That means you must have over 500 edits to articles but as you have over 600 you should get permission. Hope this helps. NickGibson3900 ^Talk ^{Sign my Guestbook} ^{Contributions} 07:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Signature

How do you create a special signature with pictures, etc, and how do you create a rainbow effect? I would like my signature to be as current but have it transition from dark red to another shade of red, perhaps closer to purple. Dark Liberty (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Tea house,

For customizing your signature you will find information here, It helped me alot when I customized my signature.

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 03:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dark Liberty, in addition to the answer above there is also this page: Wikipedia:Smurrayinchester's signature tutorial where you can also find examples of signatures. Please note that pictures in signatures is a no-no "as they annoy editors or increase server load". Best, w.carter-Talk 09:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

One big edit, or many small ones?

I have a whole slew of tweaks for an article. Most of them are minor, stylistic matters, but a few involve changes in the order of paragraphs. What way of introducing them would be most considerate of my fellow editors? All together in one swoop, or one by one in separate edits? Kotabatubara (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kotabatubara and welcome to the Teahouse.
You probably need to aim for the middle-ground. We do not need a separate edit for every single minor change. Conversely, if you make all your changes as one edit, and an editor disagrees with any part of those changes, they cannot just revert the part of your edit that they disagree with, so are likely to revert the entire change. It is often better to edit on a section by section basis, and carry out any routine edits; spelling, grammar etc. first.
You have not said which page you wish to alter, but it is always worth checking the talk page, to be sure that your changes have not been discussed previously, and the edit history to be sure that similar changes have not been reverted in the past. - Arjayay (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for your question. There may not be an either/or answer. I have seen the stylistic edits done either way. Paragraphs may be better done one at a time. Whatever you wind up doing it is most helpful if you use edit summaries to explain what you are doing. Another suggestion is that you set up your own WP:SANDBOX and do all your tinkering there. When you are done you can ask other editors for their input on how your work looks. You can ask editors you know, or place a notice asking for input on the talk page for the article or the Wikiproject that oversees the article. All of this is just one editors opinions and others will have other ideas to share with you. MarnetteD|Talk 16:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, an editor can revert just the part he/she disagrees with. It's just harder because that means simply clicking on "undo" in the history won't work. Though there are tools I'm not familiar with where it would also not work.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kotabatubara

I am glad to share the same experience as you.

I think i also must aim for larger edits instead of minor ones. I'd be happy if we could work on this together. :) Many thanks...Flora xxx

Flora786 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

When can I blank my own talk page?

I was blocked a few days ago, and the block has expired. However, the info about the block (and my failed appeal) is still on my Talk page. Am I allowed to blank my Talk page and remove the info about the block, given that the block has expired? Or am I required to keep it on my Talk page permanently or for a certain period of time? Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course! Go right ahead and get rid of it.Mirror Freak 16:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Hi Mitsguy2001 and welcome to the Teahouse. I've checked and your block has expired so you can blank the page according to this guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) @Mitsguy2001: Hi Mitsguy2001. Please see the section of the Wikipedia:User pages guideline known by the shortcut WP:REMOVED. In short, you may not remove "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices." Since you advise your block is no longer active, it does not fall within the prohibition. However, this issue has led to contention many times in the past – other users reverting such removals, so I think it would be prudent to invoke this guideline language specifically in your edit summary. For example: "removing as my block is no longer active, as I am permitted to do under [[WP:REMOVED]]". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How to make my page look better

So I've learned how to put userboxes, but how am I going to put them where I want them to be ? Right now they are just spread everywhere on my user page. Denizyildirim (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you want them on the left side of your page or on the right. I can set them up for you.Mirror Freak 13:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

DoneMirror Freak 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks a lot ! :) But if you could tell me how to do it myself, that would be great. Denizyildirim (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Denizyildirim and welcome to the Teahouse. There are so many ways to design your user page. All of them use the same kind of "code" as the articles in the Wikipedia. The WP:MOS is the place to start if you are looking for ways of improve a page. This is where you find links to all kind of "how to" pages. And while fixing up your own page, you might also improve your knowledge about editing articles. :) Another way is to look at the pages of other users (click on the "edit" tab) and simply copy codes from them to experiment with in your sandbox. Just be sure not to alter anything at the user page while copying! Happy learning! w.carter-Talk 18:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

reference format

Is it better to cite book author page number ect. or a url in google books?Naytz (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Naytz:, and welcome! You do both. If you would like, there are citation templates to help you. When adding a reference, use the "cite" menu in your edit window, and select "cite book" as the template to work from. Enter as much information as you can, including author, page number, publisher, etc. THEN, in the URL field, you can add a link to the google book version. More information is always better. If you want more help with citation templates and using them, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --Jayron32 19:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing

Hello hosts, I tried my first edit yesterday and it didn't go so well. I was sent a message saying that one of my words was a 'peacock' word. Could someone please explain to me what that means. I would like some help as how to edit articles. Thanks so much and I am so grateful to any hosts that help me. :)Flora786 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flora786 and welcome to the Teahouse. All will be revealed when you read this guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for the warm welcome :) Unfortunately the guideline you told me to check didn't answer my question. :( Flora786 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Flora786. In your edit you wrote "5 great science laboratories" and "A lovely coffee shop and cafeteria". The words "great" and "lovely" are the words in your edit described as "peacock" words. Words like these may seem harmless, but may not be used in an encyclopedia where the text should be totally neutral. Someone else might not think that the cafeteria is lovely. :) Peacock words are often marking your own (or someone else's) personal opinion and must be avoided. If the laboratories are thought of as great and renowned by many people and this is written in a paper or on a website, you could write "5 noted science laboratories". Even the word "helpful" in "with helpful interactive smart boards" is a "peacock". You might find them helpful, but others might not. I know that it is sometimes hard to resist using such descriptions, but try to look at things from an objective point of view when you edit, that is the way to avoid "peacocks". Best, w.carter-Talk 19:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying W.carter. I've already replied to Flora786's further message at my talk page. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 19:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jorma Kaukonen

Jorma Kaukonen has a wiki page which I am trying to link to a page I am setting up every time I do and save and go back to preview it the system tells me that Jorma Kauk"a"nen has no pg even though I am typing in Jorma Kauk"o"nen who has a wiki page Can you help pl Kilkenny2999 (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to link to another wikipage you have to add brackets like this [[]]. Once you do that you type whatever wikipage your trying to link to, in this case Jorma Kaukone. So it will look like this, Jorma Kaukonen Mirror Freak 16:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kilkenny2999, and welcome to the Teahouse. The error might have something to do with the auto correction in the editing area. Sometimes the software alters the spelling in unfamiliar words as you type. This happens so quickly one does not always notice it. I saw that you at least had been successful in one place with the "o"-spelling. Check, and correct if necessary, just before you do the preview or save. Things like this happens to me all the time when I'm typing Swedish names so it's my best guess. Or, it could just be that you forgot to alter the spelling on the left side (the link side) of the "|" inside the brackets. Btw, don't put the commas inside the brackets, this might also complicate things. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kilkenny2999: One more thing: Skip all the "_"'s. You don't need them when linking inside the Wikipedia. The links should be written [[John Lee Hooker]] not [[John_Lee_Hooker|John Lee Hooker]]. w.carter-Talk 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks folks

Kilkenny2999 (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

creating my own page

hello sir, how can i make my own wiki page, Do i must be a celebrity to do so? Sahil paudel (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability Breedentials (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And, Sahil paudel, also see autobiography to understand why, even if you do meet the criteria of notability, you should not create a page about yourself. --ColinFine (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Linking to a person

How do you link to an article about a person for whom there are multiple entry for people with the same name? JA2230 (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi JA2230, thanks for your question. Subjects that share the same name are typically disambiguated to include something in parentheses to distinguish them. For instance, the singer is James Brown (musician), and the actor is James Brown (actor). In the rare case you want to link to page that lists all people with the name James Brown, there is usually a disambiguation page, in this case James Brown (disambiguation). Hopefully that answers your question, but if not, can I ask what article are you trying to link to? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JA2230. I, JethroBT is right, but missed out something. If you write [[James Brown (musician)]], it will link to the right article, but it will appear as James Brown (musician), which is probably not what you want in your article. You can get round that by using the "pipe" character '|', and putting what you want to appear in the article after it, so [[James Brown (musician)|James Brown]] links to the same place, but appears as James Brown. Further, this particular need is so common, that there is a short cut, called the 'pipe trick': If you just put a pipe character '|' at the end, it will leave out the bit in brackets, so [[James Brown (musician)|]] also appears as James Brown, but still links to the specific article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think everything is pretty clear above, but just to avoid a possible confusion: James Brown may not be the ideal example, because the article on the musician is actually already at the undisambiguated title (because it's the primary topic). That is, the article on the musician is at the plain title James Brown (and James Brown (musician) is a redirect to it). So, if you wanted to link to the actor, whose page is actually at the parenthetically disambiguated title: James Brown (actor), and you didn't want that link to appear like that, you'd type [[James Brown (actor)|James Brown]].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Did my question get automatically submitted when I entered the four tildes?

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @AmandaWhyte99: - nope! Typing in the four tildes doesn't automatically save the page and submit your question. The four tildes are simply a "placeholder" that is replaced with your signature only when you save the page yourself, which is done when you click the "Save page" button at the bottom of the page. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It was weird, as soon as I entered the four tildes, the box disapeared. I guess my computer just dumped it.

AmandaWhyte99 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing

Does my wikipedia flow well when reading? I updated it to my best ability. It's been a long journey in creating an accurate and well written piece for the world to see. Thanks, Dino Wells (David R. Wells Jr. (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse and Wikipedia. I have to say....you may not exactly understand what your user page is for. It is not supposed to be used to promote yourself or your acting career or be written as if it were an encyclopedia article. It is for showing your interests here at Wikipedia and the talk page for collaborating with editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@David R. Wells Jr.: For future reference, it's also frowned upon to edit your own article. One great way to assist with the page is to edit the talk page, suggesting corrections, additions, etc. to the article and allow someone else to do the edits. Otherwise, it's considered a conflict of interest. Right or wrong, people will naturally assume that you will edit a page about yourself to promote yourself, highlight achievements, and eliminate negative information. Welcome to wikipedia, happy editing! :-) Bali88 (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)