Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 247

There is a section in an existing article that I feel merits an article in its own right. The original article is John Travis (physician) and the section is the Illness-Wellness Continuum. This is a model that has been (and still is) widely used in relation to wellbeing and I feel it is sufficiently notable to move into its own space. I have expanded the original section - currently residing in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fbell74/sandbox

As I have a connection to the creator of this concept I wanted to get the views of editors on this to see if it maintains neutrality.

Any help would be gratefully received. Fbell74 (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fbell74, I'd like to strongly recommend that you discuss this issue with the subject specialists at WP:WikiProject Medicine - they will know how best to deal with it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roger (Dodger67) I'll check it out 112.205.139.48 (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to propose an extra facility on Edit watchlist pages which would allow me to put a comment there to remind me when and why I put a page there but what I've read at the Village Pump doesn't seem very helpful - too technical for me. Can anyone tell me where I should put such a proposal. Seems to me that such a change may require a modification to the wiki software. Jodosma (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jodosma: Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse. Here we answer questions about editing Wikipedia rather than potential changes to the software framework. I'm afraid Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is the relevant board for your proposal—just post your suggestion there—no one will bite you. Good luck!  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Phil, I had looked at the Idea lab and Technical; neither seemed appropriate so that's why I came here. I just needed a nudge in the right direction! Jodosma (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have really appreciated the helpfulness of teahouse hosts, however, if it takes me several days to check this site, I have trouble finding the answer to my question. The clickables seem to be the name of the person who answered, talk, and teahouse itself. Thanks!Juamari (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi !Juamari - If you look at the top right of the page you will see a menu that includes "Contributions" - that links to a log of everything you have ever done on this site (with very few exceptions) listed in chronological order. All the log entries link directly to each edit. So you can just look it up and click your way back to it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

More specifically Juamari, it depends how long ago your question was asked.
If it was some time ago, you can put your name in the "Question Archived?" box, under the contents panel of this page, it will then come up with all the posts including your name in the Tea-house archive. Currently there are none, as all of your posts are recent and still on this page, whereas my name occurs 67 times, and the active teahouse hosts will have several hundred.
As your posts are recent, when I do a "Find" (Control F on most browsers) for your name, I see your name currently occurs 12 times on this page (It will be 13 when I save the page). You can do this and then reputedly click "next" on the find, to run through all the uses until you get to the one you want. - Arjayay (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Friends How one can see someones contributions? Usually we see his/her user page and talk page. Thanks and regards Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 11:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple - just go to that user's userpage or talkpage and select "User contributions" from the "Tools" menu on the left of your screen. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Yunshui

I am really very very grateful

You people are great

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 11:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. You can also access a user's contributions by putting their username into the Special:Contributions page, but personally I find doing it from the Tools menu to be quicker an easier. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui hello again

I tried both, you are right first method is easy

Thanks once again

Aftab Banoori ^(Talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

hi, my entry is currently up for review. I'll need to redirect searches to it. Is that something I can do during the review process? Or something I need to wait until the entry is approved?

Thanks, Vero VeroOvid1 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi VeroOvid1. You'll need to wait until your article is "live" before creating redirects to it, otherwise the redirect pages will be deleted as having no target (if you redirect them to the draft, it will cause problems when the draft is moved into mainspace). Wait until the review has been done and the article moved before creating redirects. When you get to that stage, actually creating them is very easy; just start a new page under the alternative title with the text #REDIRECT [[name of target article]]. There's more information at

WP:REDIRECT. Yunshui ^雲_水

14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vero and welcome to the Teahouse! Wait for a decision on your article for both; if it's accepted then you can set up redirects and upload images. Images won't help your article be accepted, and redirects should point to existing articles in article space rather than sandboxes. When your article has been accepted you can set up redirects by creating an article at the redirecting name with the following: #REDIRECT [[Your Article Name]]. Hope that helps. Sam Walton (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I created a new article concerning the 18th century Native American chief Nemacolin, who blazed an important trail to the Ohio River Valley--and for whom a number of places are named, especially in Pennsylvania. I inserted wikilinks in a number of historical articles concerning the leader, including in Nemacolin's Path, but they all redirect to Nemacolin, Pennsylvania, a census designated location named for the chieftan. I don't think eliminating that redirect and adding the article would be controversial, and remaining the sandbox to something like Nemacolin (chief) seems silly. Still, I can't seem to figure out the requested move process. The "be bold" suggestion didn't work as it normally does from my sandbox. Adding the suggested template at the beginning also didn't work. Thanks for any help you can provide.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorted it for you. I've also added an {{About}} template to deal with searchers who are looking for the place in Pennsylvania. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed your question here in the tearoom and found it interesting since I am from Western Pennsylvania. I have looked at the Nemacolin's Path article and found it quite fasinating. You did a great job and your article has the potential of becoming even better. Would you like me to help find more references for you?

bpage (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, what's the difference between cite web and ordinary ref tags, and which one should be used, and under which circumstance? I noticed that cite web will automatically place quotes around the reference. How do I use the cite web tag, and what program do I use? Dark Liberty (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dark Liberty, welcome to the Teahouse! Technically speaking, you put {{cite web}} and the others inside the <ref>...</ref> tags, like this: <ref>{{cite web|...}}</ref> The difference between using {{cite web}} and writing out the source information from scratch is that {{cite web}} formats everything automatically for you.

Wikipedia does not require you to use these in any case, as long as you keep the formatting consistent within an article. If you do want to use them, though, you can use the

RefToolbar or enter them manually. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs

) 05:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that the tool that administrators use? I find cite web quite burdensome and difficult to use, it's much easier to just put in a ref although I prefer to use the cite web interface because it allows for more information. Dark Liberty (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty:, admins are no different from the whole pool of editors and some do use the CS1 citation style which includes {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} etc and others don't. As Anon126 says as long as an article is consistent in the referencing style used that is all that is required. Personally I do use the CS1 templates and I enter them manually, perhaps because I'm sad enough and been around long enough to remember most of the common parameters so filling them in by hand is fairly easy for me. Other people find the RefToolbar to be a great tool and use that. Nthep (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I like to look at references in my sandbox before I use them in an article. There is a template that you can use in your sandbox editing window. At the top of the editing window, you will see the words  : "Advanced, Special Characters, Help, Cite". If you click on "Cite" you will get a drop-down menu. Click on the box at the far left called: "Templates". You will then get another drop down menu that will let you select the most common sources used in Wikipeia. You can select "cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal". When you select one of these options a 'fill-in-box-type' window pops up and lets you enter the relevant information to create the reference in the correct format. I never have to try and sort out the information and get it into the right places in the cite template in the body of an article when I use this tool available in my sandbox.

bpage (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I edited this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians

There were several problems:

1. Notable members of this community (it's an ethnic group) are not mentioned- such as supreme court justices, and chief ministers, and central government ministers. 2. Unknown and unimportant minor celebrities are listed. 3. None of it is cited as often is difficult in list pages. 4. Isn't structured well.

A more experienced editor, with mysterious motives decided to revert my version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=622563030

He argued that not everyone listed was given citations.

This is absurd because the new one had as many citations as the old one if not more. Many of the people I added have wikipedia entries which show that they are members of this ethnic group. The new version in all ways was better organised and more encyclopedic than the old version.

Further many of the people listed are famous and are well-known to be from this particular ethnic group.

Why this is absurd:

-A more organised article was reverted to an absurd one. - Instead of improving the list by providing citations etc. it was blanket reverted. - The burden of citations is far excessive. I am not sure any other list page has the level of citations or evidence that the editor demands.

Since I am new to wikipedia editing, I would like to ask what can I do regarding this case?

I am persuaded my contribution was a positive one, and if this is the nature of editing in wikipediawho wish to destroy articles using pretexts than constructively improving them,then I susppose I have reason to leave this community. What should one do?

Jutsis (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed by looking at the history of this article the same user Sitush has done the same thing before: he has reverted a much more decent list to an absurd useless one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=589127793

It seems to me that this editor has an axe to grind regarding this page, since there are many lists on wikipedia which doesn't have citations for every entry.

Further the same user has edited another related list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Christians

Jutsis (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jutsis. Welcome to the Teahouse. Please do not presume that a difference of opinion over content is vandalism. It is a

failure to assume good faith

and assuming good faith is important to this community.

Wikipedia is

not a directory of people in general and only people with their own Wikipedia article should be listed as notable. The burden of adding reliable sources lies with the person adding material. It is not reasonable to expect others to do it. If you have further queries about editing that page you should raise them on the talk page for that article.Charles (talk

) 21:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jutsis. The editor you have criticized, Sitush, is one of our most respected editors in the highly contentious area of the castes and ethnic groups of India. Your first step is to discuss the matter with Sitush, in a friendly, collaborative fashion, not in a confrontational way. If approached this way, I am confident that Sitush will explain his reasoning. By the way, you should never, ever use the word "vandalism" in this way. That word refers to deliberate, unambiguous efforts to damage the encyclopedia. Sitush is not a vandal. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi

consensus of the community is that the reliable source(s) must demonstrate that the person being written about self-identifies with the claim. A newspaper might say that a famous actor is a Hindu, for example, but unless the newspaper is quoting the actor it will almost certainly not be acceptable as a source for the statement on Wikipedia; similarly, although many newspapers have mentioned the caste of Amitabh Bachchan

, we know from interviews with him that he rejects the very idea of caste and refuses to be identified with one.

The problem with your contributions, and with those of many other people who add names to India-related caste and religious lists, is that they didn't even satisfy the general verifiability requirement, let alone the more stringent BLP one. I understand that you meant well but you simply cannot do this, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not understand why list of Indian groups need to have a more stringent criteria than nearly every other page of lists of people other groups such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_European_Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_West_European_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latter_Day_Saints https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Americans

and many many others.

By above criteria most of the above lists and many many others should be deleted completely. This all seems very arbitrary and dubiously so. The reason why I edited the St Thomas Christian list was because I thought such lists were of some value.

Anyway I intent to create a new page of something of the nature: List of prominent people of Kerala with christian heritage or ancestry, and by-pass self-identification and other problems. Jutsis (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not fix the problems that you say exist in those other articles? I can assure you that the India stuff follows policy, even if some other lists may not. I'd also advise you against creating the new page that you propose: not only would it fail to avoid the issues as you hope but it would probably fall foul of

Articles for Creation process. - Sitush (talk

) 09:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Covered in

What Wikipedia is Not.  Philg88 ^♦talk

15:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Philg88. There are times when even a fairly experienced contributor like me just gets lost amidst the proliferation of policy pages. A timely reminder, I guess, of just what sort of hurdles newcomers face. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

When I'm reading something I always see little blue numbers in brackets at the end of sentences. I began editing Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric and Sonic Boom: Shattered Crystal and when I went to the part about those numbers, there were many words and brackets and stuff that I couldn't understand. Is there a shorter way of putting those numbers? JethroBT (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC) (TheRedBlur (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello TheRedBlur and welcome to the Teahouse. Those little blue numbers are called references. You can read all about them at Help:Referencing for beginners. No, there is no shorter way of writing them. The references are there so that the readers can see were you got your facts and that the facts are solid. In fact, the more info there is in a reference, the better for the article. Why don't you do The Wikipedia Adventure and learn even more about how to write an article. Look for it a bit further up this page. Best, w.carter-Talk 18:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to do the one time suggestbot thing on my talk page. Where I have to paste this {{User:SuggestBot/suggest}} there. I just can't do it. It is the phone I am using. I don't have a computer. Can someone do it for me or do I have to do it? If someone does do this for me I only want the one time one. Thank you in advance. --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I did it for you. You just have to wait for a bit. TranquilHope (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm the operator of SuggestBot. Adding the template to another user's talk page won't work, the bot requires the owner of a page to make the edit. This check is done to prevent abuse.

There is a shortcut available. Go to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Suggestions, click "Get suggestions", then ignore the instructions and click "Save page". Adding WikiProject categories is only necessary if one wants suggestions related to a given WikiProject (or set of WikiProjects). Hope this helps, let me know if there are any questions! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

why my page is being deleted??59.89.64.145 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since you made this edit either after your IP address had changed, or while not logged in, the only edit we can see made by you, either live or deleted, is the one asking this question. Giving reasons for a page's deletion is highly contextual so there's not a lot we can offer without knowing what page this is about. Nevertheless, please see Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?, and please visit the links (words in blue, like those earlier in this sentence) in whatever notice is in the page stating it is up for deletion, or which appear in any notices posted to your talk page to inform you about the deletion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

should I just go for it and create it in the article namespace rather than using "articles for creation"? Although I already have some editing experience, this would be my first time creating a new article (I'd be using the article wizard of course). I've already got some sources for the article.

The reason I'd rather use this method is that I fear that it might take a while for the article to be reviewed if I submit it via "articles for creation".Lupine453 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely!

new page patrollers

should be kind.

If you'd like a middle option, you can try creating the new page in your Userspace. That will allow you to tweak and edit rough drafts before moving it into articlespace, without fear that a patroller will come by and tag it before it's ready.

-- Powers ^T 22:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks Powers.Lupine453 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any polls or discusions I can take part in? I did this manually because if I use blue ask a question button it is at the bottom of the page, Why? I already asked that 2nd one but nobody has answer it yet probably cause it hasn't been seen. --DangerousJXD (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @DangerousJXD: and thanks for stopping by. There are several places where you can find discussions related to Wikipedia going on. Wikipedia:Village pump is a place where Wikipedia business is discussed; you can find ongoing discussions about Wikipedia events, policies and procedures, etc. Wikipedia:Reference desk is a place where people can ask for, and get, help answering questions using references inside and outside of Wikipedia. If you'd like to get involved in other ways, Wikipedia:Community portal has a variety of other places you can help, both with article work, and behind the scenes. There are always lots of discussions going on, and the more perspectives, the better! Good luck! --Jayron32 18:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello DangerousJXD, yes, there seems to be a glitch in the way the questions appear here at the Teahouse. Others have noticed this as well and alerted people who can fix this. Let's hope it's done soon. Most of the discussions at the Wikipedia are about articles or groups of article. If you like to participate in a discussion you simply click on the "talk"-tab for the article in question. If you are interested in say Marvel Comics you find the discussion at Talk:Marvel Comics. On that talk page you can also see that the page is part of several projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics were you can find more discussions about all kind of comics. Happy hunting! w.carter-Talk 18:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32, Thanks heaps!

w.carter, Are you a mind reader? Do you have specials powers I should know about? Can someone let me know when that is fixed? I prefer the button at the top. Thank you both. --DangerousJXD (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course DangerousJXD, you may call me "Charles Xavier"! No, seriously, I looked at your user page before answering. It's always easier to relate to and example one is interested in. And... since I'm a huge Marvel fan myself ...well... Cheers, w.carter-Talk 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

hi,

I just wrote my first article and want to submit it for review, I don't see the move tool.

Any thoughts would be helpful. Oh, I've only been a user of wikipedia for 2 days now.

Thanks, Vero VeroOvid1 (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Vero!

After you save your changes and return to the page you have created, there should be a message that says "This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work in progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable." with a blue triangle picture on the left. Below this text box should have a green button that says "submit draft for review". just click on this button and you should be fine. I'm not really sure how long it could take for a response (i'm new too and i submitted an article) Hope this helps! Ireallyliketrains (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@VeroOvid1: Hi there. I've added the requisite template to your sandbox draft. All you have to do now is click the big button that says "Submit your draft ..." Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 18:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new to editing here at Wikipedia. I can't really say that I have any clear idea on how things work here, but I'm trying my best to observe the way they do, and apply them as guidelines to guide my own involvement here. I was wondering if anybody could tell me whether drafts that you post in the sandbox will be visible to everyone on Wikipedia, or only visible to you until you "submit them for peer review." Thanks. --Aleydis Sinclaire (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aleydis, and welcome to the Teahouse. Drafts, in the sandbox or anywhere else, are visible to everyone, even people who don't have Wikipedia accounts. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Arthur goes shopping. (: Personally think the lack of privacy here sucks a little bit, but I guess I'll just have to get over that. Thanks again for answering. --Aleydis Sinclaire (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Arthur goes shopping,first please excuse me my poor English is not my first language. I made a draft(you can say something about it if you want https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_de_Andrade ,I know I have a lot of work to do on it).My question is: what is the steps for an article before to appear on the search engine on the web (google, yahoo, etc), even in Wikipedia engine? I mean: first step is to write in sandbox, after that to submit the draft, etc. I want to understand the procedure standard. Thank you very much.Leedskalnin (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to make an article about a Technical Death core band called Suffokate they're not ophiliated with me... so this isn't for personal gain it's a famous band the only article for them on Wikipedia is in a different language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Merrick (talk • contribs) 22:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I think I can help you with that!

So search up what you would call the article, in this case the band name, then it will say there is no article with this title, you can then make one by clicking what is says. (Something like, would you like to make one?) Then away you go! Let me know if you get started. Also sign your posts by writing four of these: ~--DangerousJXD (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi

the talk page for WikiProject Metal. The members in those projects work on these kinds of articles all the time and they might be able to find the sources your need to help establish the band's notability. Good luck. - Marchjuly (talk

Please take a look at this RfC about watchlist and notifications. Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are my questions appearing at the bottom when they are supposed to be at the top? I use the blue button for every question I have asked. --DangerousJXD (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD:. Not sure; I just tested the button out in this edit here, and it posted to the top of the page for me. Can anyone with more technical knowledge than myself address this? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether it makes a difference, but @DangerousJXD: is using a mobile phone. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

With this page, mobile edits shouldn't make a difference. It posts to the bottom, which looks fine to me. Did it work differently here before? (Flow will replace talk pages soon, so feel free to test if you're into beta things. Dunno whether it's mobile though.) --Gryllida (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm new at wikipedia. So with which kind of articles I should start writing? Buddhi Prakash Meena (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @

your first article. Feel free to ask about anything else! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs

05:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Spikequeen (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Thank you for including me. I am happy to be here. I am trying to edit an Article on "Amanda Eliasch", every time I add things it get removed or I am told the page is up for deletion, yet there is so much on her that is not in the article. I want to do a good job. Can a lock be put on the page? Also if there are awards should they be put in a box like other film makers. I think the article is worth keeping as Eliasch seems to work all the time. Can you help you these three questions, vandalism, correct editing and boxes for awards.Spikequeen (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)spikequeenSpikequeen (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello spikequeen, welcome to the Teahouse. To me, Amanda Eliasch seems easily to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, because multiple independent reliable sources have written about her or her work in detail. Some people seem to disagree, but in that case it is their responsibility to make a case at Articles for Deletion that Eliasch is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. At present no such case has been made, so the article stays.

Anyway, just because someone disagrees with us about the notability of the topic, does not mean their edits are vandalism. Wikipedia is a collaborative work, so if there are disagreements then everyone should discuss them on the article's talk page Talk:Amanda Eliasch ... we do not respond by locking the article from editing ... otherwise you wouldn't be able to edit it either!

On the subject of correct editing, yes it is important for the article to be correct and accurate, because it is about a living person. And finally, if you think it is useful to add boxes for awards or similar enhancements, you may wish to take a look at some existing recognised Wikipedia Good Articles in the category Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Actors, directors, models, performers and celebrities to see what wiki markup is used to lay out such features in those articles. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I search up an image and use is in an article? Probably stupid but heh best to ask. Example: Can I take Family Fued 2014 Australia logo and put it on its wiki? The pic is [[1]] I think or search up what I said. At the results its the logo. I wrote this awfully. Soz. --DangerousJXD (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It would be useable, but do read up on the

WP:NFCC guidelines about using non-free images. Remember also to complete the fair use rationale when uploading. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin}

04:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

1. All images are assumed to be under non-free copyrighted unless you have positive evidence they are under a free copyright license
   compatible
   with our licenses;
2. In practice this means that unless you find a copyright notice associated with an image that lists it as under a suitable license, the image cannot be used (except under a claim of fair use, see below), except that;
3. Some images (without a specific copyright license associated with them) we can determine to to be in the public domain and use them if we know certain information about them, such as, for an image of U.S. origin, that it was published before 1923, or is a U.S. federal government work;
4. We can use images under a claim of fair use in a particular article (and never outside of an article in the
   mainspace), if its use meets certain strict criteria set out at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (which can only be uploaded to Wikipedia — never to the Commons
   );
5. While you must meet every aspect, the most common reasons an image will not meet the criteria are replaceability and free equivalency; if it can reasonably be replaced with a free image or if a free image already is available even if it's not as good, fair use will not apply. So for example, if it's possible for someone to take a photo of the subject and then provide a free license to that image, a non-free image will not do, which in turn means that;
6. Images of living persons will very rarely meet fair use because a photograph can always be taken in the future if one is not available for free now.

All this is to say that the image you asked about cannot be used because it appears to be non-free copyrighted, not in the public domain, and would not meet fair use for a number of different reasons, including that it depicts multiple living persons. But you can search Google for compatibly freely-licensed images. See this search as an example. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, top notch stuff. --DangerousJXD (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Although the Wikipedia info on PressEurop is accurate, I see no mention of its successor, Voxeurop. Perhaps I have missed this 'link,' or perhaps it needs to be added2601:7:A00:5B9:E50E:6BEB:C212:4B5B (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, person with an IPV6 address. Voxeurop is mentioned in the article

reliable sources, independent of it which are an absolute requirement for an article about it. On a quick look, there seem to be plenty of announcements of the launch of VoxEurop, but they mostly appear to be from press releases, and so not independent. --ColinFine (talk

) 12:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

2/ A full point ends a sentence; so, it is very ackward to put it before references rather than after, as I see it systematically been done on the wiki?! Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Michel, welcome to the Teahouse. We sign our posts on talk page and noticeboards (like this Teahouse page) - we do not sign them on encyclopedia articles.

References are not part of sentences, they come after the sentence. So yes, the full stop comes before the references, with no space in between. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, you made me laugh of myself! :-)

About references, you must be wrong; indeed, in all scientific articles, references are just beside the very word or part of sentence they refer to. This rule is even applied in the wiki concerning parts of sentences. It is only not applied at the very end of sentences where the point is put afterwards in a very bizarre way, I'm afraid. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely fine to put a reference after a sentence or after a part of a sentence. This is not different to how scientific articles or other scholarly works are laid out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't place periods (full stops) after references because it looks awkward to have the punctuation just hanging out there with space on either side of it (the footnote is superscripted, so it has space beneath it, adjacent to the period). Powers ^T 17:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the syntax that brings up the email box. I'm on the mobile version and I don't know where to put the Special: statement. Thank you for offering help. Jan Janvermont.Janvermont (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

About half an hour later I truncated the form I was given that contained the username and went directly to the email box. Now I have a way to do it and I don't require an answer. I appreciate the teahouse generous offer of help.Janvermont (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing an article draft and saved it but now I can't get back into it to keep working on it. How do I bring it up again? Dukey123 (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Click on this link Draft:Barry Moores You can also find it by clicking on your contributions link next to the log out link at the top of the page. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There is an ongoing disputed in an article between me and another person, and I want other peoples opinion on that. And an admin of course. Which templates can I use or How can I call for an admin ? Denizyildirim (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Denizyildirim and welcome to the Teahouse. I'll take a look and get back to you.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Denizyildirim: Ok, I've left a note on the relevant talk page. Cheers,  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it isn't the case that of course you want an admin. If you are having a dispute, it is wise to get the opinion of an experienced editor, but there's no particular reason to ask for an admin. Any editor can help, but an editor with experience is more likely to know how to help. There are many, many highly experienced editors who are not admins.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I was asking if you could upload the Finnish translation by Jaakko Juteini and Teemu Honkanen of the Kaiserhymne aka Deutsche Kaiser Hymne. Thank You Marzia151.76.100.118 (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Upload it where? Why? From where? Why should we want a Finnish translation of something on English Wikipedia? I'm afraid you'll have to clarify your request somewhat more. --ColinFine (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Uuuuuuuum (it's a big um), don't we already have an article on this at Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser? Is that the same topic you're posting about?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC) 23:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh puns. Is there a list of all the bots on wiki? I'd like to know how many there are and what they all do. I've seen Suggestbot and Cluebot among others. Thanks Teahouse. -DangerousJXD (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, DangerousJXD, I see what you did there. :) Yup, there sure is: check out Wikipedia:Bots/Status. You can also follow this link to see all the user accounts that have the "bot" flag set, but that may not be as accurate or up-to-date, as there are some bots that purposefully aren't flagged as such. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a lot of bots! :) -DangerousJXD (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)