Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 843

Archive 840

Archive 841

Archive 842

Archive 843

Archive 844

Archive 845

→

Archive 850

WikiProject for translating articles from foreign language Wikipedias into English Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedia, I have been contributing to the WikiProject for Requested articles for some time now and have had a lot of fun learning and contributing to Wikipedia in such a productive and progressive manner! The more I explore on there, the more I realize that most requested articles have corresponding articles in other languages. Yet, I am unable to find a similar WikiProject that directly deals with articles in foreign Wikipedias that have pending requests for translations into the English one. If one exists, could someone connect me to it? I would very much like to join on there and contribute to the best of my abilities. Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC).

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki. Is that what you're looking for? I agree the name isn't exactly what I'd search for first. – Pretended leer (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Pretended leer (talk) for your answer about WP Intertranswiki. This is a "good one" for adding to our Tips library (WP:Tips) calendar. I posted "Translating content" for October 19 tip-of-the-day. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Pretended leer! You're absolutely right, it is not a search term that strikes one immediately. Maybe it would be a good idea to make it a Wikipedia Tip; thank you for that JoeHebda, really appreciated! Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

As someone who speaks several languages, I had seen that such projects exist in several languages. So after the question had stayed unanswered for an hour, I looked it up and answered it. I don't answer questions right after they've been asked, as I'm not a Teahouse host, and I don't have now have edits on English Wikipedia to be one. There are also some questions I don't how to answer, and there can be times I ask questions myself. Of course, if I think a question is advanced, I probably wouldn't ask it here. – Pretended leer (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle

How to access Twinkle?Md.Ali25 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:Twinkle? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Bad and criticism information is given about karna.

Hello,

I need know why there is information about karna (mahabharat character )which is criticism information is given and i need to know who give that information or edited it.

I want you guys rewrite information and write information by researching about great karna.

Please block the page until you get perfect information.

Thank and reagards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:560C:65A0:92A3:CDE1:DC37:53F7 (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No bad or criticising information is given about Karna.Md.Ali25 (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The correct place to raise concerns over content and/or references is on the talk page of the article concerned. Whilst we welcome you to the Teahouse if you seek assistance in editing Wikipedia, the volunteers here cannot address specific content issues or instigate changes issues that you might want to see implemented. Whenever you leave comments requesting changes, do please cite reliable sources rather than just adding your own personal opinions on the subject, whatever that may be. Oh and please sign every talk page message with four keyboard tildes (like this: ~~~~). Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, the Wikipedia article Karna is over ten years old and has had hundreds of editors make thousands of changes over the years. This can be seen by clicking on View history, top menu bar. The article will not be blocked, deleted, or moved to draft. As noted above, if you have specific criticisms and can support those with references, take it up at the Talk page for the article. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A problem

Hi I've created a biography on wikipedia but after 3 days it has remained as draft What should I do to submit it correctly?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamidrezamodanlou (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article. The first step is to ascertain whether the subject satisfies the notability criteria at WP:BIO. If so, you need to include references to the relevant reliable sources. You would also need to wikify the draft by adding wikilinks to relevant articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And you must sign your comment on any user’s talk page or teahouse with four tides.But do not sign when editing articles.Md.Ali25 (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What is your connection to Mohseni? If you know him personally or are working for him you need to understand issues about conflict of interest and paid editing. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the supposed “benefits” of users

Hi there, when I check the edit history of pages ( yes I find it entertaining) I often see some users with the words “extended confirmed users” or “autoconfirmed users”. What makes them that, and do I qualify in any of the different user “levels”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharizardX19 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi CharizardX19
Firstly, please sign all posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp.
As for your privileges, you have been autoconfirmed since 21 June 2017 when you passed 10 edits and 3 days - you need 500 edits and 30 days for extended confirmed, so you are 403 short on edits, but have met the time requirement - For more information, please see Wikipedia:User access levels - Arjayay (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You'll find the info at WP:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users and at WP:User access levels#Extended confirmed users. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the info! Cromwell (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Create page

How do I create a page on notable person or Public figure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valmiki (Ramayana) (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Valmiki (Ramayana): Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please understand that successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, practice, and effort. I would strongly recommend that you take time to first learn about using Wikipedia with this tutorial, and editing existing articles, so you understand how things work here and what is being looked for. New users who do that are much more successful at creating articles than those who just dive right in to article creation. However, if you still want to attempt to create an article, you should read Your First Article and then go to Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft for review, where you can get feedback before it is finalized instead of afterwards. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What am I suppose to do to create new pages?

Hey, I did 10 edits. I read the rules and regulations on Wikipedia and WikiMedia (parent owner). But still can't do nothing because I am not autoconfirmed. I have previously used Wikipedia as BJPlaya10 until my account was blocked. This is new user page (BHillJr). What can I do to succeed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHillJr (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your account also needs to be at least four days old- but since you are evading a block, your current account will need to be blocked as well. Please return to your original account and request to be unblocked there. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference and locking/unlocking pages

1.Is there a manual for wikipedia editing like TEX documentation tool has, especially adding references and all? 2. How to lock page to protect the content being vandalised? 3. Some pages haves locks, how to unlock to add new content to such pages? 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SShitole345 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome, @SShitole345: documentation is plentiful, perhaps too plentiful.

1. You can start by clicking "Help" at the left side of the page. This leads to more menus.
2. For a particular thing such as an introduction to referencing, try Help:Referencing for beginners.
3. To request an edit on a locked page, use the tab at the top to get to the Talk Page.
4. For locking an article, you can go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but better to start by discussing the question in the article's Talk Page.

Jim.henderson (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Today I learned that Shitole is a clan in western India and not ... something entirely different. GMG^talk 12:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo A second "h" makes all the difference... ;) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That it does Roger (Dodger67). I fully expected to be heading over to WP:UAA until I poked around a bit. GMG^talk 17:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the policy/ instructions on quoting a primary source?

I want to ask a question: Does Wikipedia supports reference to Primary Expert Source or accepts "ideally secondary expert sources"? Based on my recent experience I have found that secondary sources are only encouraged; Objectionable contents seems to continue enjoy support from the current policy of the Wiki where contents reference to Primary Source have been deleted. An example of Primary Source is Guru Granth Sahib, that is a sacred primary source for Sikhs all over the world. CharanUOITCharanUOIT (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CharanUOIT. The relevant policy is at WP:PRIMARY. Note particularly the sentences "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". This can be a particular problem with scriptures: where what is being discussed is the specific words in the text, or the events or principles directly stated in the text, they can be used as primary sources; but most discussions of sacred texts are about the interpretation of the text, and this always requires reliable secondary sources. --ColinFine (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, ColinFine (talk · contribs) particularly your reference to "problem with scripture" is greatly appreciated; however, I would like to explore the implication of relevant policy WP:PRIMARY Please help little bit more to locate a clear definition of what could be a reliable secondary source?

Further, what I think seems missing and in the light of what Shawn Wilson talks about “how …to live in both worlds…and what is the thinking behind what makes it possible.”(p.175)( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234754037_What_Is_an_Indigenous_Research_Methodology ). Shawn argues that we need to move beyond an “indigenous perspective in research” to “researching from an indigenous paradigm.” What I understand from Shawn note is that Primary Source reference could lead a knowledge swing and could also be insightful as a standalone source;

Finally, how open WP:PRIMARY is in situations when referencing is crossed repeatedly from the Primary Source itself to validate and build up perspective to bring insights from the Primary Source, independent of secondary source reference. Here is a reason I want to give an example to clarify what I am arguing is case of a non-dominant(n-d), minority language(s) vs. strategies adopted by dominant language literature, by producing secondary sources that create a repeatedly verifiable yet fake/biased contents about the non-dominant language.

So how far referencing, cross referencing using Primary Source is acceptable at Wiki, similar to a perspective what Shawn suggested that is looking from non-dominant/minority perspective only and validating.

Thanks a lot again. CharanUOIT (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine (talk · contribs)...some more thoughts: what I am trying to make a case for is similar to what Peirce calls "abductions under difficulties", how to keep a check on "circular thinking" and "how the consequences fit into fact" how to theorize so that open collaborative platforms like Wikipedia provides a "voice to the voiceless" insights of diversity perspective get shared that could otherwise be silenced by producing a large number of "circular thinking" secondary source references engendered and engineered by the dominant, majority group to provide a wrong/ incorrect understanding /image about the scholarship of minority groups.

In my case - I am requesting a review of the page on Gurmukhi that has several errors and needs to be seriously inquired into, as it also violates neutrality, an existing Wiki policy; it has been flooded with multiple secondary sources to support erroneous perspective of majority group that has remained unchecked in the colonial and post colonial literature referenced as secondary resource; Allowing the use of Sikh Primary Source: Guru Granth Sahib with abduction methodology, will provide fitting into facts, and will greatly enhance the quality with novelty about Gurmukhi page on Wiki.

CharanUOIT CharanUOIT (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CharanUOIT. I'm sorry, but this is not the place for extended discussion about a particular article. It should be discussed on the article's talk page, and if consensus cannot be reached, then dispute resolution explains what the next steps are.

I have not read what you have written above, and I do not intend to, as this is going far beyond my knowledge and interest. What I do notice, however, is the words "multiple secondary sources to support erroneous perspective". The only way on Wikipedia to establish, or even to argue, that a reliable source is "erroneous" is to present another reliable source which makes that argument. It is perfectly acceptable for an article to note that there are reliable sources which disagree or conflict with each other. It is not acceptable to attempt to resolve that conflict, except by drawing on another reliable source which explicitly makes that resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Formatting and verifiable sources

Good afternoon, I had my latest submission declined because it did not have any reliable, verifiable sources. The draft is Foundation for Professional Development. So I have added a few - perhaps too many! If the editor feels there are too many, then I can work them into a paragraph rather than just as a list. And another thing (which might become irrelevant)... I want to put each Partner on a new line but not double spaced. How do I start a new paragraph - I know that I am supposed to use the letter p with some sort of code attached, but I am not sure what that code is. Please help. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niki Moore (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Niki Moore (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Oh, sorry, and another thing. I loaded the logo of the university onto the Wikipedia Commons, but it was deleted because I did not have copyright. But it is a copyright free logo. I have already apprised the deleting editor of this, but had no response. Niki Moore (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Niki Moore. I recommend you read referencing for beginners. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what any subject (person or organisation) says or wants to say about itself, or what its associates say about it; so the "about us" link is useless for establishing notability (in Wikipedia's sense). Linkedin is not regarded as a reliable source. What you need to find is at least two or three places where people who have no connection at all with the Foundation have chosen to write about it at some length (not just a passing mention) and been published in reliable places. Unless you can find these, there is literally nothing to put in an article.

As for the logo, the Foundation's website says "Copyright © 2017 Medical Practice Consulting (Pty) Ltd. All Rights Reserved. Based on TRISCOMS technology." at the bottom, and I see nothing which exempts the logo from this. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article for review vs. article for creation

Hi I'm a relatively new editor here on Wikipedia. I've recently started a draft via the Article Wizard. In the past I have submitted drafts to Articles for Creation but this time I submitted it to new articles for review (by accident). New articles seem to be in both. First, I'm wondering what the difference is between articles for creation and new articles for review. Second I'm wondering if at this point the article is in a place where it could be reviewed and created. I don't mean the fitness of the article or whether it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Is the article in a location on the site where it can be reviewed by another editor and created if it's sufficient for publication? Thank you for your help! If it's possible I would prefer it be moved to Articles for Creation but I'd welcome feedback anyone has. Thanks again! Regards, Nannochloropsis (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article for Review is for articles that are in the mainspace (for example, John Smith) but have not been reviewed. Reviewing allows the article to be indexed (I think), which allows the article to show up in Google results. More importantly, though, it allows inappropriate articles to be seen and tagged for improvement, or in extreme cases, deletion. Article for Creation is for articles in the draftspace (example Draft:John Smith). Approval here consists of being moved into the mainspace, where they can "grow their wings" as a fully fledged article, so to speak, having lost their training wheels. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nannochloropsis: And to answer your second point, I would say that your draft is only eligible for creation right now, but it would be eligible for review after passing creation. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nannochloropsis: as soon as an article is in main space, it is liable to be deleted if it does not establish that the subject is notable, or if it appears to be unredeemably promotional: it is not a draft, and will be judged by the full weight of the policies. Draft articles in Draft (or User) space are judged much less stringently, and will usually only be deleted if they are copyright violations, personal attacks, or appear to be solely promotion in intent. --ColinFine (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all @A lad insane: @ColinFine:. When I created my article (Draft:Claude Fuess) via the Article Wizard and clicked "publish page" it put the article under new articles for review rather than articles for creation (which is what I expected). Is there any way for the draft to be moved to articles for creation? Based on your replies it seems more appropriate there. Nannochloropsis (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the unreviewed article tag from the top of your draft, and replaced it by a tag which gives you an AFC submission button. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Revert

How to revert vandalism? 114.124.228.151 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Vandalism. And I saw you only did vandalism and it has been reverted. Please do not violate Wikipedia.Md.Ali25 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

After 4 reverts, what will happen? 114.124.199.39 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Since you specified 4 reverts, it sounds like you know what will happen. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

And...blocked for 31 hours. David notMD (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This is because of the three revert rule. - 182.0.132.12 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC

Unblock

What does it takes for the unblock ticket request system takes? 182.0.132.12 (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:UTRS and Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks for more specific information. Moreover, if you're using an IP account because your main account is currently blocked, then you should stop doing such things since it will be seen as block evaision and might make it that much harder for your main account to be unblocked. See Wikipedia:Teahouse#What am I suppose to do to create new pages? for an example of what happens when you try to evade a block to ask a question at the Teahouse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest.

Hi, I want to ask for the withdrawal of the conflict of interests in Bia Mustafa Alloush page, because the complaints have already been settled by both parties. How can I do that? User:KarenLima33 16:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, KarenLima33. Welcome to the Teahouse. Forgive me: I've tried (and probably failed) to understand the very complex interactions that have taken place over this article that you appear to have initially created a week ago, and over which one user account has already been blocked. Can you confirm that you are an entirely separate person from the individual operating Bilalrahal? To me, you're edits look to overlap a lot (see here), and this diff shows Bilalrahal applying {{db-self}} to your sandbox page, which you, as KarenLima33 blanked a couple of hours later. I'm pinging the blocking editor (Huon) who might have some greater insight on what has gone on.

That said, I think the conflict of interest notices have not really been fully resolved yet. Or, to put it another way, perhaps the dust has not yet settled on the issues, and that templates should stay in place for the time being. I can see that you did originally declare your conflict of interest/paid editing, but have now removed it and have decided instead to request all future edits to that page, instead. I find it odd that you had an identical early version of the article in your sandbox and that a third editor, Mostafaelgammal had it in their userpages a few days later. So I was left wondering how many people, and how many paid editors (declared or undeclared) have been involved in this complex page creation process, and if any of them are - or were - sockpuppets. It is, as I say, quite a complicated story that I haven't fully delved in to, but would recommend not pushing for the notices to be removed until things really have settled down to everyone's satisfaction. I'm not sure if my reply helps at all, but normally I would have contacted the person who put the COI template in place to remove it themselves if they now feel reassured that any concerns they may have had have since been correctly addressed. Right now, I'm not confident everything has. Sorry I can't be of more help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: As suspected, KarenLima33 was part of a sock farm, and has been indefinitely blocked, whilst the paid-for article has been WP:PRODed. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Advice on how to improve my article

My draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SKYPEACE) got declined. Could someone give me some advice on how to improve it? I thought because this is the cheapest game on the Nintendo eShop to date, it was worthy of an article, but that isn't enough?

Sorry, I'm still kinda new here...

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPSPC (talk • contribs) 04:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi SPSPC. It's great to have you here at the Teahouse, and thanks for your question. For what it's worth, I think you laid out your draft article quite well. The problem, unfortunately, is the key one of notability. The fact that this software is cheap and available doesn't mean it merits a page here. Otherwise, every single piece of software and every single book ever produced would expect to have an article on Wikipedia, and that's simply not appropriate. We're an encyclopedia of important things, not just a plain directory or listing of everything that ever existed.

For more information on the significance (or otherwise) of computer games and programs, please see this essay on the subject: Wikipedia:Notability (software). I hope you aren't too disappointed by the rejection of your draft, but I really do want to thank you for genuinely wanting to contribute towards this amazing encyclopaedia. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply! So, if I understand this correctly, this means the article needs more reason in order to be worthy to be put on Wikipedia? I'll try to look into it a little more and keep this in mind when posting something new. Thanks again. SPSPC (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

How to have rollback permission?Md.Ali25 (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ROLLBACK for more specific details, but you've only been editing for a single day and advanced tools such as rollback are typically not given out to very new users. My suggestion to you would be to get some more experience editing by trying to improve articles (perhaps you might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors) and establishing through your edits that you have a good understanding of Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. It will be much easier for you to be granted permission to use tools like rollback once you've better established your reliablility as an editor, -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

My article does not appear on google

Hello I contributed this article Rison (singer) to Wikipedia yet still I do not see it on google. I am wondering why and need answers and support. MrOrhin (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Awaiting NPP review, see the answer which you received at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 838#How long does it take an article to show on google?. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TheWikiWizard/October 2018 Activities

Why can't I add any categories to this page? Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 01:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Thegooduser and fancy seeing you here in the Teahouse.

I don't see in the edit history of that page where you attempted to add any categories. If you've tried, what happened that made you think it wouldn't work? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Science

Donna Strickland. Simply the best?

Hello I was wondering if someone could make a page about the best scientists of the century if you can that would be great. thank you THEGREECEPEACE 07:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greecemaniac2005 (talk • contribs)

How would you define 'best'? What criteria should we use to select them? Is it actually the role of encyclopaedia editors to make that selection? Who decides who goes on the list, and who is excluded? Yassas, Greecemaniac2005, and welcome to the Teahouse. Whilst we do have a wide range of scientists named in various lists, (see Lists of scientists) it's not Wikipedia's job to decide who is 'the best' at anything. By some standards of assessment, many of the 'best' scientists simply wouldn't meet our Notability criteria. (Even mainstream news media still fail to understand this reality. e.g. the appalling and widespread naieve criticism of Wikipedia in the press last week regarding the rejection last May of a new article about laser physicist, Donna Strickland, who, back then, failed to meet our notability criteria until the point earlier this month when she jointly won the Nobel Prize for physics. These well-respected papers criticised Wikipedia for gender bias, whilst failing to appreciate that it was actually their own failure (as Reliable Sources) to write about these women scientists in depth that contributed to Wikipedia's inability to retain articles about them. Whilst there is undoubtedly a bias in Wikipedia content and contributing editors, that was not the cause of that particular article being initially deleted.) Anyway, having got that off my chest, I should also say that it's not the role of the Teahouse to dictate or prompt new articles to be created. Ours is one of supporting editors who encounter difficulties whilst actually trying to edit. If we can help you in that regard, just let us know. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject

How do you become part of a WikiProject? Does someone have to invite you or can you just join. Northatlantic320 (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Northatlantic320. I think many WikiProjects have a member list somewhere on their main page, so all you do is add your name to the list. Many also seem to have a userbox that you can also add to your userpage. I don’t think there are any invite only WikiProjects, so even if there’s no list or userbox, you can just start helping out if you find one that interests you. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Userpage Design?

Can someone please help? I would like to design my userpage and add a user infobox or the like, but I'm not really sure how. I've looked at all the templates and I can't find a truly suitable box. Help? angelblossom1^talk 22:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Angelblossom1 and welcome to the Teahouse. Your signature has a problem. Please fix it immediately. More details on your talk page.

May I suggest starting with Wikipedia:User page design center? Having a fancy user page is not required, nor are userboxes. It would be much better if you started making useful contributions to the encyclopedia rather than fiddling with your user page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

-I fixed my signature. Also, I do want to make good contribs, but I'm not sure where to start. User:Angelblossom1^talk 12:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Holding Shift in Editor makes me write from right to left

Title is fairly self explanatory but sometimes when I press shift in either editors, it resets my typing position to the left side of the screen and typing anything makes me start typing from right to left. I'm putting this here because its only the editors that this happens in, no other text box anywhere; not on the in-site search bar, nor external programs, and I've tried looking for keyboard shortcuts if they were the issue but none of them have anything like that on them. – ijre 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijre (talk • contribs)

Hi Ijre, welcome to the Teahouse. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

What is your browser? Ctrl+⇧ Shift or Ctrl+⇧ Shift+x can change writing direction in some programs. It may matter whether the left or right Ctrl and Shift are clicked. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey PrimeHunter, thanks for replying. I'm using opera, it will happen if I press left or right shift, and I've made sure I wasn't pressing anything else before I asked this question, so I hope you can help. – ijre 16:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijre (talk • contribs)

@Ijre: I cannot reproduce this and don't know what causes it. Can you give an example page and position where it has happened? PrimeHunter (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: This morning I rechecked my settings and disabled the GoogleTrans gadget and now it seems everything's working just fine, thank you for helping me! – ijre (Talk, Contribs) 14:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Very old notes when a page needs something

I have been an occasional reader of Wikipedia for many years. It's interesting that so many pages have a note such as "This article needs additional citations for verification". some of those notes were placed 4 or 5 years ago.

My question: Is that just the way things go at Wikipedia? If no one adds citations for a decade, does the note stay, and the article stays untouched? Right now I am looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciphertext_indistinguishability. It seems like every third article I stumble across has the same note, placed a looooong time ago.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.141.141 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if the problems noted have not yet been fixed, the note stays until such time as you fix it. Once you have fixed the problem yourself, remove the note. In this specific case, citations for unreferenced text do not magically appear after some arbitrary amount of time. If you haven't fully cited all of the text in the article, please don't remove the note. It alerts people who want to fix the article what still needs fixing. --Jayron32 15:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Automatically retrieve username markup when mentioning users possible?

Some users have fancy markup associated with their username. When I want to mention such users, linking to their user page doesn't pull in the associated markup with the username. While it could be done manually, I find it cumbersome. Is there any trick or workaround for this? Chaos1618 (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I recommend just linking to their userpage, and ignoring the markup. Maproom (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

How to add references to a draft article?

I have created a new draft Bhumikanya but it needs references so how can I add it?Md.Ali25 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

See Help:Referencing for beginners. The draft should be based entirely on information from references, hopefully the ones that you referred to in order to write the draft. In case you did not, please note that drafting an article from "what you know" first, and then looking for references to support it, is the wrong way to go about the task, and rarely results in an acceptable article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}90.217.102.65 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Referencing and citations

Hi there,

I have a question about referencing. If I was to create a company page, could I use the company's own website as a reference? For example, to use their 'about us' page to verify company information?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.207.234.66 (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you could use it for uncontroversial information. But it would do nothing to help establish that the company is notable. Maproom (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

To expand on what Maproom said: Wikipedia is basically not interested in what the company says about itself, or what it wants to say about itself. The "uncontroversial" information that Maproom refers to is not just factual: it needs to be the kind of information that any reasonable person would regard as acceptable to be sourced from the company. The location of its head office would be an example, and probably the name of its CEO; but not much about its products, and nothing about its goals, vision, or strategy. --ColinFine (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

There are two coat of arms that are incorrect. We have people downloading what is on Wikipedia for publication use. However, they are using the wrong images. How do I get the right coat of arms to whoever in editing our page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.232.88.194 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Anonymous user. It would be much easier to help you if you would tell us which Wikipedia article you are talking about. (Note, by the way, that it is not "your page": it is Wikipedia's article about your organisation). --ColinFine (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Uploading a photo

Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-001

Hi; nice to be invited to the teahouse! Thank you!

A beginners question; how do I upload a photo to an info box on a wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zugger69 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Zugger69 and welcome to the Teahouse. There are two possible interpretations of your question:

1. How do I upload a photo that I own onto Wikimedia Commons for later use here and on other language Wikipedias?
2. How do I add an existing image already available on Wikimedia Commons into an article's infobox?

So I'll take each one at a time. Firstly, to upload an image, you must either a) own the copyright as the image-creator, b) it must have been published with a clear licence allowing others to use it for non-commercial and commercial use, or c) it is so old that any copyright claim has expired. (i.e. you can't just take a picture from the internet and claim that you own it). Then, please follow the instructions at Commons:First steps/Uploading files.

Secondly, having searched for and found an image on Wikimedia Commons, (this one) copy the filename (without the File: prefix and simply add that to the infobox where it says "image =" (i.e. it should end up looking like this: |image = Leptosia_nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-001.jpg You can then add a caption at the infobox line which says "Caption =" Note that had you wanted to insert the image as a 'thumbnail' picture into an article, but not within an infobox, you would need to paste in slightly more information. You get this by looking for "Use this file" next to the 'W' icon, just above the image on Wikimedia Commons. This would give you [[File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-001.jpg|thumb|Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-001]], as I've inserted here. You can then change the caption text (which is the second half of the line of text. If you change the first half you destroy the link to the file, and it won't work) Please let me know if this makes sense and if it gives you what you needed to know. Oh, and do please remember to sign all your talk page posts - just use four keyboards tilde characters (like this: ~~~~). Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Can an editor create a page such that clicking internal links or footnote URLs open in a new tab or window?

Hello! I am finishing up my first draft article here. Is there a way to have an article in which this happens: when a link is clicked, leading to an interwiki page or an external web page, the article page stays visible and the clicked-on link opens in a new tab or window? I can't find this discussed anywhere, including in tutorials so any assistance or answers would be most appreciated. I can state reasons why this may be warranted but will shut up for now. :D PaulThePony (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Paul

@PaulThePony: Hold the <ctrl> key when clicking and you'll open a new window. You can also change your Wikipedia preferences under the appearance menu to enable page previews with a mouseover. Not quite what you were looking for but you may find it useful nonetheless. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings PaulThePony, and welcome to the Teahouse. In addition to what TimTempleton said, right-clicking a link will also bring up a popup window allowing the user to choose to follow the link in either a new tab or a new window. I don't believe there is a way to force this behavior (and I am not sure I would recommend it, as experienced users should be able to expect links to act normally), but there are a number of options that are available within the various browsers to accomplish it as long as the user knows how. CThomas³ (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, TimTempleton and CThomas³!! Those are good things to know! I really appreciate your input here. PaulThePony (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Paul

How do I find pages that need some editing, or that have not been recently updated?

I am new to this community, and have no idea where to start at. All I know is that I want to update pages that have not been recently cleaned up. Is there a way to filter pages to get links or names of pages that have not been recently edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekysylveon (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Theres a button at the top of this page called Articles to Improve which will filter articles according to your interests. Thats one way. Another way might be to use the page for Today's articles for improvement. Lots of other ways too, which I'm sure a more experienced editor than myself will be along shortly to highlight. Hope this helps. ThePastoral (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

A weakness for cruising articles that are neglected or need improvement or those where a Citation needed has been added, is that you end up looking at articles for which you know little/nothing about the topic. Another path is to focus on topics you already have a knowledge and interest about. David notMD (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

If you would like to add information to articles, I suggest that you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types and follow links in any subject areas that interest you. I have used that approach to add material to many articles. If you are more interested in making improvements in areas such as grammar, spelling, references, etc., Wikipedia:Maintenance#Maintenance and collaboration resources will give you lots of options. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)