Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 170 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_170

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. 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 main page.

Archive 165

←

Archive 168

Archive 169

Archive 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

→

Archive 175

In the first line of the article Ksitigarbha is a link " Michigan state police.gif", linking to a wikipedia article AR15 (rifle). I tried to remove this link because there is no connection to Ksitigarbha but did not succeed because this wikilink seems to be hidden. Do you have any idea how to find and delete this link? Best regards JimRenge (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Jim. You'll see similar symptoms mentioned on a number of occasions on the Help desk and elsewhere. These are relics of a number of acts of vandalism to templates (in this case Template:Infobox Chinese/Korean‎) a few days ago. Although the vandalism was quickly reverted, Wikipedia's cache is storing the vandalised versions of the pages affected. You can cure it for each page in turn by purging, with a command such as https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Ksitigarbha?action=purge , but nobody has yet found a way of globally purging all the pages affected. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! JimRenge (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to change the name of a section and would like to know if anyone is linking to that section. When I use the "What links here" page and type in the section name it seems to be just ignoring the section name. The specific section I want to rename is Message_passing#Message_passing_systems. When I enter "Message_passing#Message_passing_systems" into the page it seems to ignore everything after the pound sign. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, no What links here won't pick up section links (see Help:What links here#Limitations) but you could try using Special:Linksearch instead. Only drawback is you have to enter your search term as a full URL rather than a wikilink. NtheP (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There's an article that's going through what I would consider to be an edit war. One editor deleted a chunk of text that is major to understanding the subject of the article, citing that there are no sources for that section. Another editor added back the text, citing that the text needs to be there to fully understand the article. The original editor redeleted the text, citing WP:BURDEN. My concern is that the deleted section is a major portion of the article that needs to remain in the article at all costs, but I fear adding back the section only for it to be deleted AGAIN, and I'm not sure what would work as a source in this case. I'm at a loss of what to do. What can I do, and what should I do? What would work as a source in this case?

For the record, the article in question is Pyramid (game show).

Thanks! GameShowGeek (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, GameShowGeek, and welcome to the Teahouse. It would help if you tell us what is the article in question. The best solution would be to add reliable references to that section of the article, so as to provide WP:Verifability. You can look out for some reliable sources and include them yourself. You can find out more about doing this here: WP:Reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

GameShowGeek did actually say "the article in question is Pyramid (game show)", but didn't link it. Rojomoke (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hello GameShowGeek and welcome to the Teahouse! The reason that the other user is removing that section is that it is entirely unsourced, which is not allowed on the English Wikipedia. If you could find even a single source to back up the claims that the removed section makes, then I'm sure that it wouldn't be removed. Please see the golden rule of Wikipedia. Happy editing!!! Technical 13 (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought of a major change to the 'Rules' section of FreeCell to make it a whole lot better but since it was such a major change and I'm such an inexperienced editor, I didn't dare try making that change in case it made that section or part thereof worse and instead suggested the change in the 'Incomplete set of rules' section of its talk page. Is there a method of suggesting a major change and having it wait pending approval other then putting it in my sandbox where it's going to go unnoticed for so long. Is there anything that's sort of like a sandbox except that there's one for each article rather than one for each account where when ever I make a major edit, I can see less than 4 days later whether the change was approved, rejected, or modified by somebody else into a better edit than the one I originally made before the edit makes it's way into the article? Is there any Wikipedia Help page that I can read to make myself sometimes think up a really huge edit and be extremely sure it's not a harmful edit? Don't answer me by telling me that Wikipedia has a method of undoing all edits because I already know and I'm afraid of having my bad edits temporarily in a Wikipedia article. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're concerned about making a large edit the best idea would be to post your idea on the Freecell talk page as you have done. Since you haven't had any reply, go and ask for opinions on the Board and table games or Video games wikiproject talk pages. I'm sure someone will be happy to go over and give an opinion :) Samwalton9 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Blackbombchu and welcome to the Teahouse. If after going to the talk pages of those other groups, as Samwalton9 has suggested, you still get no answer, I suggest being BOLD and making your proposed edit. If someone objects later, they can always REVERT and then you and them can DISCUSS it in more detail on the talk page. Happy editing!! Technical 13 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I already got an answer on Talk:FreeCell and that answer opposed the change in its current form. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I had asked a question, received a response, and wished to ask a follow-up. However, the "Let's discuss it" on the response from the editor was not clickable, and now I see that the original question is gone from here, and I don't see it on my page?

I have contributed to Wikipedia, but perhaps for the last time. Velotrain (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You deleted that question yourself, Velotrain. Perhaps that was inadvertent? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• As Cullen328 has said, you deleted the section yourself in this edit. If this was accidental, you may be able to undo your action. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a follow up comment, I think the UI for the teahouse should be given some thought. It's confusing that the way you enter the initial question is different from the way you then edit questions. Also, the fact that you can't see the various edit widgets (e.g. to make a link) is a pain. I sometimes write the question first in my Sandbox and then paste it into the teahouse. I seem to remember a general effort to roll out a better threaded discussion capability, is that still in the works? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I just finished my first article and I would like to get some feedback from experienced editors before requesting the article creation. I have it in my sandbox User:GambHerno/sandbox Thanks and any comments are welcomeGambHerno (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is essentially a biography of a living person, and must meet unusually strict standards. First, the person's real name is Nicholas Benedict. Nick Savoy is just a pseudonym, and I think the title of the page should be his real name. You might wish to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There has been some controversy about this person and his company. I also have a concern about notabiity. It also appears that most of the references for this person come directly or indirectly from the person or his company. There's a feel of sensationalist or populist propaganda to this article. There's already an article in Portuguese for him at pt:Nick Savoy.

Worst of all, a page of this name has been previously deleted from the English language Wikipedia, see Nick Savoy.

My opinion: find another article to write. Judgment has been passed on this one.Sbalfour (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. I have been trying to collect what the sources say without any bias.I have put special emphasis in gathering enough notable sources and the great majority of them are totally unrelated to him or his company. I didn't know about previous attempts, but I think it is fair to evaluate it with the current content and suggest what to modify to make it a valid wikipedia article. Thanks again for the feedback.GambHerno (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to distinguish the general content of the presentation and quality of writing (both of which are reasonable) from the standards for including an article in Wikipedia. The primary standards in question, those argued in the deletion discussion, are WP:Notability (people) and WP:SECONDARY. I agree with the previous consensus: 1) this person appears 'notable' due primarily through self-promotion and promotion of his company; 2) interviews, and etc printed in newspapers, blogs, websites, etc are not independent or authoritative secondary sources. The problem is with the nature of the person, not the nature of the article, and cannot be reasonably overcome. As a WP:first article, you faced an extraordinarily high burden getting a WP:BLP (Biography of Living Person) accepted. Now you face an almost insuperable burden of reversing a WP:consensus WP:delete decision. That discussion and decision appears to have been closed (and accepted) for several years. I understand the work you've put unto this, but I do not think there's a reasonable way forward with the article.Sbalfour (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I need help with an article that was rejected for mis-use of citations. Can someone please help me. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Florence Comite LewisDavidson (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is essentially WP:BLP, a Biography of Living Person, and must meet some very high standards. The entire content of the article is the first sentence; she wrote a book, and the rest is her credentials. The last sentence "Dr. Comite is establishing her experience and expertise..." is WP:editorializing: who says that? (needs inline citation). Every paragraph should at least have a supporting inline citation at the end, and specific facts may also need a citation. Is her entire claim to notability the publication of a book? There may be a WP:notability issue if so. As a biography, basic facts like birthdate, and place of birth, parents names (if they're notable in any way), high school and college attended and degree(s) earned should be added. Rather than telling us she wrote a book, summarize the work she did that's published in her book.

Terms like "low T" in the text need to be defined, not just as "low Testosterone": the text needs discussion of the relevance of that issue as well as others, including of course citations to support those discussions. This article needs substantial work.Sbalfour (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote a new article about a month ago. It was however rejected since it had a lot of formatting errors. In the last month I studied extensively about how to write and format new articles. lately I edited my old article to perfection and saved it. I have received no mail or message on Wikipedia whether it is verified or even if it is awaiting verification(just as I could see the last time). I can see the article in my "sandbox" and "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation". How do I know that it is awaiting verification to go live or is it not?Ayush Khaitan (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft isn't currently awaiting review, as in this edit you deleted the feedback on the previous draft, and in doing so you removed the link which allowed you to resubmit it when ready. I have reinserted the tag, so you can resubmit when you are ready. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ayush Khaitan, and welcome. As I understand, we are talking about this article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justin Paul. When you edited the article yesterday, you also removed from the article the tag that marked the article as declined. Now, David Biddulph reinserted the tag, and the article is currently tagged as "declined on 11 December 2013". If you wish the article to be reviewed again, you should resubmit it for review. Just go to the article, and click "Resubmit" link in the pink box at the top. The article will be reviewed again, but you'l have to wait for some time. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ayush Khaitan. I polished your perfection a bit. Not too much, just a bit. Checkingfax (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring a promising editor at the helpdesk to your attention. XOttawahitech (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I responded there (the help desk)! ///EuroCarGT 02:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@EuroCarGT: I am afraid there was a misunderstanding. The help I asked for was not for myself, but for user:Nancyprancy12 who posted this: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help_for_Submitting_a_New_Bio at the Helpdesk. XOttawahitech (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Oh, thanks for notifying me. Seems resolved now. ///EuroCarGT 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I am trying to link the page about Potential Natural Vegetation with its German counterpart Potenzielle Naturliche vegetation, and the Dutch one. Apparently there is a conflict of addresses i can't solve?Velanidia Foundation 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanidia Foundation (talk • contribs)

 Done I have merged the two WikiData items. (diff). benzband (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! :-)

Velanidia Foundation 23:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanidia Foundation (talk • contribs)

Hello. Thanks for inviting me to tea. Milk and no sugar please.

Here you go! Vanjagenije (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a very basic question. When text appears in blue with a dotted (pecked) line underneath, what does this mean, and more to the point what can I do about it -- i.e. how to get rid of it. If I have already identified a word or phrase at its first use in blue so as to direct a reader to its wikipage, I don't necessarily want to direct the reader again at every repeat use of the word or phrase. Also, some of the items are so obvious to a person reading the type of article that it does not seem very appropriate to put them in blue. Hope my question makes sense.

Is a newcomer to the tearoom allowed two questions on the same day/visit ?

If so, when I want to refer to the same reference (source) a second or third time in article, how best to do this. "Opcit" seems the obvious method, but I am conscious that as articles are edited the work cited immediately above may become a long way from the subsequent reference if new material and new references are inserted in between.

I expect I could find the answers if I studied the instructions more thoroughly, but as you have invited questions.... Hope I'm not wasting your precious time.

Diakonias (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Diakonias, I'm not entirely certain what the blue text with a dotted underscore is, but I can answer your other questions (You can ask as many as you like!) :) The typical practice is to wikilink the first mention of a topic per section, so as not to overlink for almost exactly the reasons you say. You also don't need to wikilink basic and obviously well understood words.

To refer to the same reference a second time, name it the first time you use it by changing the <ref> tag to <ref name="XYZ"> and use it elsewhere by writing <ref name="XYZ"/>. Obviously change XYZ to different things for each unique source and call them whatever you like!

Don't worry about asking loads of questions; there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers ;) Samwalton9 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Diakonias. I ran into that "pecked underscore" problem myself about six months ago. It was caused by malware on my computer. It had nothing to do with Wikipedia's software. Clicking those links led to bad advertising sites. It was a struggle to remove it, with I recall three separate hard drive cleanings, each more aggressive and thorough. If I am right, good luck to you with the cleanup. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Like this?Tooltip UK (see {{Abbrlink}}). Mr Stephen (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have list of names in an article that I want to subdivide by having portions of them hidden under a [show] button. But when I use the

template, the button gets stuck way over on the right hand margin, when one would not think to look (because the names are short, and left-aligned on the page). Furthermore, if there's a right-floating image over there, the button lands in the middle of the image. That's got to be a bug. I want the [show/hide] button to work like the section [edit] button that's always just at the right place, to the right hand side of the heading. How do I do that? (This is not within a table or any other frame).184.76.111.134 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for your question. Looking over the templates used for collapsing content that are available, I've not been able to find one where the position of the "show" can be moved someplace else other than the far right margin. Other hosts are welcome to chime in if there is a workaround, but I'd recommending using a table instead. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Contents inset box on this very page has a [hide] button that is adjacent to the "Contents" header, rather than right-aligned. How did they do that?Sbalfour (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The Table of Contents on all pages is like that. Take today's featured article, for instance: Gagak Item. benzband (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The documentation of {{Show}} shows a way with a fixed width table. Help:Collapsing shows a way where the table expands to full width or the longest line:

Simple table
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet This is the longest line and determines the table width

PrimeHunter (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I had planned to write an article on an old radio and TV show, "Dangerous Assignment," after using Wikipedia's search function and finding: "You may create the page "Dangerous Assignment", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." I was surprised, then, when a Google search turned up "User:GlennRay77/Dangerous Assignment" (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/User:GlennRay77/Dangerous_Assignment) with an article on that very show.

Apparently, Wikipedia's search function does not include articles in progress. Is there any way one can search for topics of unpublished articles? If not, a person could put much time and effort into research and writing only to find that he or she is duplicating someone else's efforts.

Teblick (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Teblick. When you enter a search term, the titles of actual Wikipedia articles or close matches will appear in the results box right below. This is for the convenience of the vast majority of readers who want encyclopedia articles and not our behind-the-scenes work pages. But please notice a secondary search results box below that, that says "containing:". That search will produce a list of all Wikipedia pages, not just encyclopedia article titles, that contain that phrase. So the "containing" search will bring up a very long list of every Wikipedia page containing the phrase "dangerous assignment". That draft you found through Google is right in that specialized search.

The author of that draft abandoned it well over two years ago, and has made only four edits on Wikipedia since then. We can consider that user "inactive". You are free either to work on it yourself, or to begin a completely new article. But please don't "cut and paste" any of that material without attribution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The above reply is inaccurate. "containing " only searches encyclopedia articles by default. What you can do is click "Everything" on the first search results page. This makes a new search which searches all pages here at en.wikipedia.org. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a configuration or settings or browser issue here, PrimeHunter. I just did the "containing" search again on the words "dangerous assignment". I got article results that included those words, such as Police Squad!, Clair George, Brian Donlevy, Patrick St. Esprit and also the draft article mentioned above. Have you tried my experiment? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I described the default and I did try it. Registered users can change the default at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-searchoptions. I guess you have selected "Search in all namespaces". Regardless of the setting, "containing" searches the same places as not using "containing". The only difference is that if you don't use "containing" and there is an exact match with the title of a page then you go directly to that page instead of a search results page. For example, if you enter "assignment" then you go to Assignment. If you use "containing" on "assignment" then you get a page with search results. There is no article called "dangerous assignment" so in that case it makes no difference to use "containing". See more at Help:Searching. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am looking to create a page for comedian/magician Lee Terbosic, however my first submission was declined. Looking for help to improve my article and sources so that it will be approved in the future. I have some HTML/coding experience but would be interested to learn how to better the submission. Cmclementi (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

An inline link to the article would greatly facilitate editors' responses. The rejection reason is primarily for WP:notability, so the problem is not with the article (though some work may be needed there, too), but with the person. This person appears to be a local celebrity, rather than a generally known person. I agree with the assessment that this person is not a suitable article for an encyclopedia. A living person needs to be very notable to make a worthy encyclopedia article.Sbalfour (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the link for the page: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Lee_Terbosic

He recently appeared on national television and now has an IMDB page set up with the corresponding information, which I feel would "beef up" the references on the Wiki page, however that info was not available at the time of my first submission. Do you think adding something like this, in addition to published work, would be of a great benefit? Cmclementi (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Recently I am translating Shm-reduplication and also reading some of its references. I read from this article(http://www.academia.edu/209796/Metalinguistic_shmetalinguistic_The_phonology_of_shm-reduplication) that "Southern (forthcoming)suggests that shm-reduplication arose in Yiddish from a mix of Turkic Echo m-and East Slavic sh-. The Oxford English Dictionary on the other hand sees it as anEnglish-internal development, “derived from the numerous Yiddish words that begin with this sequence of sounds”. The existence of early Yiddish forms inshm- supports the former theory over the latter (cf. Weinreich (1980:623-4), who seems to think that the construction goes back several centuries in Yiddish.)Southern for example cites Yiddish shmallig , employed in a manuscript of c.1600 to disparage hallig ‘holy’.," But when I searched "shmallig" in google I got no results except copies of this article. So is this part of article reliable enough to say that there existed such a "shmallig" manuscript, which relates to Shm-reduplication around 1600?--chaoxiandelunzi (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The best place to discuss possible changes to an article is on the article's talk page, in this case Talk:Shm-reduplication. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I crated a new page, and I was making sure no promotion, but still I got this message, I can not find any promo in the page. Please help. Thanks

KhalidCalgary (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Teahouse! Portions of the page you've edit contained promotional text. The editor removed some text according to avoid mission statements and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. ///EuroCarGT 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello KhalidCalgary, and welcome to the Teahouse. Here are examples of promotional language: You wrote that the group has a "dedicated team". Do you mean to imply that other such groups have less dedicated teams? How can you prove how dedicated they are? Is there an objective measure of dedication that this team has passed? What is the evidence for that? You write that the group "offers both depth and volume in terms of programming and experience to facilitate the successful introduction and integration". How deep? What volume? Who says so, other than the group itself? That whole phrase is marketing speak and management jargon that is simply not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328: While I agree that KhalidCalgary needs a source for the phrase "dedicated team" I suspect (because it is a computer programming team) it was used in the same IT context as "dedicated server". That is to say a server (or team) whose assigned function is 100% focused on a single specific task/project as opposed to being a general resource shared among a number of different projects. Outside of the IT world such a team might be called a "targeted team" or even just a "taskforce". This phrase is less a case of promotion and more an issue with JARGON. DOH!

On the other hand the second example ("depth and volume") is quite clearly marketing speak and needs to be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 09:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't about computer programming and "dedicated team" was a description of the whole organization. The discussed section is at [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DOH! That kind of "programming"! Thanks for the diff link. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 16:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings in the New Year, and thanks in anticipation, I copyedited Azis, the contemporary Bulgarian singer and this is the result: Myrtle's version. Olsonspterom systematically reverted the copyedit without any discussion and this is the result : Olsonspterom's version. I can handle the reversion, that's ok - there is now a version archived which gets it off the 'articles waiting to be copyedited' list and can be read or reinstated later. However, my concern is that the current article does not reflect the importance of the artist in contemporary social terms. At the moment, a reader would just see something like a fan page. Is there a good way to handle this? any advice would be received gratefully. Regards, Myrtle (getting herself into hot water, yet again. <smile>). Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Myrtlegroggins, after taking a look at the changes I have reverted Olsonspterom's changes and left a note on their talkpage as well as at Talk:Azis#Vandalism. benzband (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, Benzband, Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick question, can footnotes or notes can be duplicated like references do? Thanks! FairyTailRocks (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi FairyTailRocks, yes indeed they can! Here's an example:

Bla bla bla.<ref group="note" name="foonote">Little footnote here</ref> Bla bla. Bla bla!<ref group="note" name="foonote" /> There goes.

;Footnotes

{{Reflist|group=note}}

Which should produce:

Bla bla bla.^{[note 1]} Bla bla. Bla bla!^{[note 1]} There goes.

Footnotes

1. ^ ^{a b} Little footnote here

I hope this helps! ~ benzband (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And one last question, how can you put references inside duplicate notes? FairyTailRocks (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you rephrase this question or give an example of what you mean? F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 19:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@FairyTailRocks: because you can't directly put reference tags into eachother (simply doing this: <ref group="note">note<ref>reference</ref></ref> doesn't work), you would have to do it using the {{refn}} template instead. Here's the same example as the one I used before, but with a reference added inside the note:

Bla bla bla.{{refn|group=note|name=footnote|Little footnote here<ref>A reference for the footnote.</ref>}} Bla bla. Bla bla!{{refn|group=note|name=footnote}} There goes.

;Footnotes

{{Reflist|group=note}}

;References

{{Reflist}}

Which should produce:

Bla bla bla.^{[note 1]} Bla bla. Bla bla!^{[note 1]} There goes.

Footnotes

1. ^ ^{a b} Little footnote here^[1]

References

1. ^ A reference for the footnote.

You can check out Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: embedding references for more info on this technique. Is this what you meant? benzband (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that is what I am looking for. Thank you! FairyTailRocks (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been an issue with an editor owning a page and acting very defensively with other contributors. This issue has been ongoing and newer editors are concerned but don't know how to resolve or report it. What should be done? -AslanEntropy (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read up on Dispute Resolution, and follow those procedures. F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK

Thank you, User:Formerly6697! :-) That is the kind of help I was looking for. --AslanEntropy (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

AslanEntropy: To be fair, I was just repeating what Cullen328 said above. I think his words just got lost in all the crosstalk.

F6697 ^{FORMERLY 66.97.209.215} _TALK 03:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

How can i insert historical information about the village i live in96.45.5.34 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Find one or more reliable sources that discuss the history of your village. Books from established trustworthy publishers would be best, but newspaper and magazine articles are also acceptable. Read Referencing for beginners to learn how your references should be formatted. Then, go ahead and edit the article, citing the information you add to the sources you have found. Good luck, and feel free to ask more questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have never come across this type of editing before but find it personally offensive and invasive and wonder what, if anything I can/should do? On 4 January 2014, I left a message on an editor's talk page (User talk:124.184.225.32) explaining why I had reverted his inaccurate and unreferenced edit to the Molly Meldrum article. Some time later on the same day, I discovered that he had edited my message to him, changing my words to suit his original assertion. I have left him a (firm but polite) message protesting at his actions, but I feel that is not enough. Is there are process to address such a situation. Any comments appreciated. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors may delete or archive talk page comments, but editing them is not allowed, see WP:REFACTOR.Flat Out let's discuss it 10:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your speedy response and comments, and your message to the other editor. Regards. Melbourne3163 (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries Melbourne3163, we Melburnians need to look after to each other :) Flat Out let's discuss it 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Today was my first day as a user/member. I completed two wikipedia pages with succes but when I wanted to upload a picture I got this : "You do not have permission to upload this file, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users." When will my account get confirmed? I must wait some time or I must do something in particular?Catalin19 (cata) (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Catalin19 (cata), and welcome to the Teahouse. Only logged in users with autoconfirmed accounts can upload images. This means that your account must be at least four days old, and you have made at least ten edits. As I see, you already have more than 10 edits, so you only have to wait 4 days. If you don't want to wait for 4 days, you can also request someone else upload those images here: Wikipedia:Files for upload. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

But it is usually better to upload pictures to Wikimedia commons if possible, so that they can be used on any Wikimedia project; and I believe that commons does not have the requirement of autoconfirmation. The only case where you can't use Commons is if the image is not freely licensed, in which case it can be uploaded to Wikipedia but only if it is immediately used in a way that complies with all of the Non-free content criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Vanjagenije, did you know about that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course I knew, I find this question a little bit offensive. I assumed the user wanted to upload a fair use image. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'm editing Acanthurus leucosternon. I noticed that it didn't show a "references" section in the article, but when I went to edit the page, the section was included in the code. An "external links" section was also present, but didn't appear on the page. I'm not sure how to fix this problem. Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you David_Biddulph for fixing my problem! Bananasoldier (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The following two sentences I found under "Polar Vortex": "The U.S. Government, who illegally manipulates the weather, creates such distractions each and every time President Obama is under intense scrutiny. Examples include in 2012 with "Superstorm" Sandy, in 2013 with "the spring that never was" and also in early 2014 with the most recent so-called "polar vortex"".

My name is Paul Gilmore (Carlisle, PA, USA, <redacted>) I am not a qualified editor but I believe these two sentences above are not appropropriate let alone factual. 98.237.52.78 (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, mr Gilmore, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for giving us this important information. What you witnessed is a clear case of vandalism. Vandalism is a very frequent problem in Wikipedia, but is usually discovered and removed quickly. Wikipedia is free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so it is natural to experience such problems. The vandalism in the Polar vortex article was made today (11:03, 4 January 2014) [2], and you've noticed it on 11:26 (Greenwich time), only 23 minutes after it was created. It was removed on 11:31 by User:Jim0214 [3]. So, it actually stood for less than half an hour. Next time you witness such a vandalism, feel free to remove it yourself. You don't even need to be registered. If you are not sure how to do it, you can read this manual: Help:Editing. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Gilmore I was the one that removed the sentences from the page Polar Vortex. Wikipedia is not the place to voice your personal views on any topic. Although that person's statement may fit under the topic Super Human Powers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim0214 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a clarification: Jim0214 is actually making a general statement, not chastising Mr. Gilmore, who apparently did not introduce the vandalism but merely pointed it out.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi - I've seen a couple of articles that use primary sources (books) to justify claims in the lead that are, arguably, controversial. Is this acceptable? I am aware of more appropriate secondary sources that make the opposite claim. As I'm new here, I've been asking a lot of questions to get the lay of the land, so to speak. AuburnMagnolia (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AuburnMagnolia. It would be helpful if we knew which articles you are talking about. Not all books are primary sources, and actually most aren't. In an article about a book, that book itself is a primary source. In an article about a person, that person's own autobiography is a primary source. A Wikipedia article should summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about the topic, emphasizing the scholarly consensus and also including significant minority opinions without giving them undue weight. So, if the topic is controversial, it may be necessary to evaluate many sources to present a fair picture. Your concerns should definitely be discussed on the various article's talk pages. Be prepared to explain in detail why some sources are "controversial" and others are "more appropriate", as you say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It is often accepted that information in the lead does not always need to be referenced when the same information is covered in more detail later in the article (where it is referenced). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations However, if in doubt, I think to provide references is good practice. Thincat (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Is the page on Sally Kern POV? I'm not sure. Frogger48 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Frogger48, welcome to the Teahouse. I have read the article and I agree that it does not quite meet Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view. I'll do some editing tonight, and you are welcome to help. Be sure to read Neutral point of view before starting. Many thanks, Ross HillTalk to me! 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

i recently removed a dead link from a school page and a bot reverted the change saying i should mark them instead. how should i do that?Mhveinvp (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mhveinvp, welcome to the Teahouse. You can use {{Dead link}}. See more at Wikipedia:Link rot. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Welcome to the Teahouse, Mhveinvp. The first step is to try to revive the link, by using your online research skills. Please read about link rot. If that effort fails, then add the tag {{dead link}} right after the dead URL in the reference. Even if the link is dead, it shows that the information was once verifiable, and someone else may be able to reconstruct the reference in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

good, thanks. i'll try it right awayMhveinvp (talk) 05:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Or should you stop after three reverts, in order to prevent yourself from ending up in an edit war?

If someone ads garbage to an article, and you revert it and warn them, then they revert your revert, should you keep reverting & warning them till you hit level six, or stop and try to find someone else to revert the vandal, so you yourself aren't technically part of an 'edit war'?

Moosehadley 07:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind! Sorry everyone, I just found the exception list.

I'll copy-paste it below, for anyone else interested.

Moosehadley 07:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:

1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and pirated software.
7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

Welcome to the Teahouse. Although reversion of vandalism is an exemption from 3RR, rather than continuing the edit-war indefinitely it is generally better to give escalating warnings to the vandal and then (if the vandalism continues after final warning) report them to WP:AIV and wait for them to be blocked before doing the final reverts. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry David but I disagree, at least where the edits at issue are clear vandalism, copyvios, etc. A million reversions is not "edit warring" and, while escalating warnings should be given and reporting at AIV done absolutely, such edits should be removed immediately and continuously to keep the pedia free of such content. I emphasize that this is only where the edits one is reverting are patent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism should indeed be cleaned up as speedily as possible regardless of how many reverts needed.--Charles (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Moosehadley, one caution worth considering is that some editors are prone to charging "vandalism!" when edits are part of a content dispute, or a misguided attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." Calling even misguided good faith edits "vandalism" is not a defense against a block for edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, this is my first post here. I created the article "SOTA Mapping Project" yesterday and I believe it contains no syntax errors - it runs and looks OK.

When I enter the name of the article in the Wiki Search box, I would expect the name to appear in the list of search results as I type - however, nothing similar appears. If I enter the name in lower case, I am taken to a page which states that the article "sota mapping project" does not exist, would I like to create it? If I enter the name exactly as "SOTA Mapping Project", I am taken to another page which states that an article exists on the Wiki with that name.

If I do a search on Google, the Wiki article appears on the first page of Google search results.

So, what am I missing here? Does it always take a while before an article appears in the Wiki Search results? Is the article waiting to be approved by some editor somewhere? Did I forget to include something in the article code?

Hope somebody can shed some light on this, RobThePoor (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, RobThePoor. Yes, with 4.4 million articles, it takes a while for Wikipedia's search function to pop up the name of a new article like it does an older one. Expect to see that in a day or two. Your article shows #6 on my Google search right now. If the article is expanded, it may well move up the Google rankings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thank you for the explanation! I guess I'll just have to exercise a little more patience ;-).

As far as the Google search goes, I'm not so concerned where the article appears in their rankings - I was testing to see two things really: 1) how quickly Google manages to index things these days (I remember the "good old days" in the early 90's when it could take weeks for something to be indexed by the search engines); and 2) whether the new Wiki page could be indexed at all, thereby giving me _some_ indication of the article's "existence".

Cheers, Rob RobThePoor (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

These days, Google will usually index one of my new articles during the time that I stand up and stretch after I take it live. Sometimes when I write about a "niche" topic, my article is the #1 hit on Google while I am proofreading. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's amazing! RobThePoor (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was using a site named 'International Economics', run by a Hong Kong professor, to source a list. Yet, the site has now vanished; all I get is server not found. However, I can access a cached version here. Is there some way of immediately saving the page, so that it can be viewed? Best, Matty.007 11:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The internet archive has an archived version of the page here :) Samwalton9 (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that is a life saver. Thank you very much! Matty.007 11:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)