Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 8: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 8 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 7 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. |
||
Line 145:
I use my real name, and in editing Wikipedia, always have. I do partly just because Wikipedia editing is closely tied to the real world for me - I first started editing for a class assignment, and am heavily involved in real world outreach type things. I've run in to few problems with using my name, including a situation a while ago where I annoyed a bunch of lunatics who started attempting to harass me in real life - but overall I'm still quite glad I edit under my real name. (Bilby's reasons above also resonate with me.) [[User:Kgorman-ucb|Kevin (kgorman-ucb)]] ([[User talk:Kgorman-ucb|talk]]) 19:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
== Importing a Photograph ==
I am in the final stages of preparing an article on my sandbox. How do I import a jpg photo into the article? May I do it first in the sandbox? How do I format it for size and placement? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.[[User:Jmolf|Jmolf]] ([[User talk:Jmolf|talk]]) 16:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Jmolf, good to see you. Have you uploaded the image to Wikipedia yet? If you have not, use the [[Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard|File Upload Wizard]] to do so. Make sure you know the copyright status of the image - be sure not to upload anything which is under copyright. If you have further questions, please do ask. [[User:ItsZippy|ItsZippy]] <sup>([[User Talk:ItsZippy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ItsZippy|contributions]])</sup> 16:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:As far as formatting it, once you've uploaded the picture, you can put it in your article by doing this: <code><nowiki>[[File:</nowiki>''image_name.jpg''<nowiki>]]</nowiki></code>. So, for [[:File:Rainbow_trout_transparent.png|this picture]] as an example, you would write <code><nowiki>[[File:Rainbow_trout_transparent.png]]</nowiki></code>. There are many different things you can do to influence the display of the images, like making it a thumbnail, change it to display on the left or right, etc. You can find a bunch of these at [[WP:Picture tutorial|the picture tutorial]]. Naturally, if you have anything specific in mind, you can ask us, too! [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:To add to what Zippy said, to upload a photo, just click the "Upload file" link on the left of any Wikipedia page. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 23:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
== How are reviewers determined? ==
I am curious as to the process Wikipedia uses to determine who reviews articles. Do reviewers usually have some subject matter experience or expertise in an article's subject matter?[[Special:Contributions/18.36.0.62|18.36.0.62]] ([[User talk:18.36.0.62|talk]]) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:Hey, 18.36, welcome to the Teahouse! There's not really any process that Wikipedia uses to determine who gets to review and who doesn't; it's basically anyone who wants to volunteer. Ideally, the reviewer would know about the subject, but it's ultimately up to to individual reviewers to decide if they have sufficient background or not on a specific article. Keep in mind that it's also not always bad to have a layman reviewer (so to speak). Since Wikipedia's reader audience isn't focused on experts, having a user who's unfamiliar with the subject review an article can provide some good outside perspective on the article's comprehensibility and accessibility. It can also be useful for determining what should be cited; something that's clear and obvious to an expert in the field might not be so obvious to someone who doesn't have that kind of background. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 15:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::On the flipside, as someone who is a researcher by trade, it's helpful for me to have reviewers who actually ''know'' about what I'm writing about. I've had articles nominated for deletion instantly because the reviewer doesn't understand the scholarly resources, the field the person worked in, etc. So, I think it just depends. I do notice that a lot of articles that deserve inclusion generally aren't accepted. Hopefully here at the Teahouse we can lend a hand at helping new editors improve their contributions so more articles get accepted. It seems like a tough battle for those on both sides of the AfC project. [[User:SarahStierch|Sarah]] ([[User talk:SarahStierch|talk]]) 15:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Howdy! Do you mean with [[WP:WPAFC|Articles for Creation]]? If so, then it is usually, as Writ Keeper said, volunteers. Thanks, [[User:Nathan2055|Nathan2055]][[User Talk:Nathan2055|<sup>talk</sup>]] 17:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
== how do you move an article from sand box to page to share? ==
how do you move an article from sand box to share??[[User:Yuzenasjohnston|Yuzenasjohnston]] ([[User talk:Yuzenasjohnston|talk]]) 12:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:Hi Yuzenasjohnston, to move a page from sandbox to mainspace you need to "[[WP:MOVE|Move]]" it. You'll find an option (titled 'Move') at the upper right side of your screen (for default vector skin, at least), click on it and follow the instruction.[[User:Bill william compton|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#009900"><sup></sup> — Bill william compton</font></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Bill william compton|<font color="#000000">Talk</font>]]</sup> 13:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
== Declined article ==
Hello, Can someone please point me in the correct direction so I can get an article submitted? ".Net_Gadgeteer" [[User:Sjj698|Sjj698]] ([[User talk:Sjj698|talk]]) 10:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse. Looking at [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/.Net Gadgeteer]] the article has been reviewed and declined three times so far all with the same reason that the article lacks relaiable sources. Reliable in this instance meaning independent of the source. There aren't any sources quoted that aren't related to platforms developers and while they are non promotional there isn't an independant opinion being offered up. Are there any reviews in mainstream media i.e. not hobby blogs etc that comment about the platform, what it offers etc? if there are and you can add those and resubmit the outcome will hopefully be more positive. [[User:Nthep|NtheP]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 11:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::Hello, thanks for the reply. I am having trouble seeing what sort of reference is required. It is a Microsoft project, but there are 3 independent implementers and a book on amazon. Only a few citations are MS. It is a young project and there is not much out there except blogs, (I have a few peer reviewed projects/papers - but thery are part of my work - can I add them?) [[User:Sjj698|Sjj698]] ([[User talk:Sjj698|talk]]) 12:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Hi Sjj! If the papers are vetted peer reviewed scholarly resources you can use them. But, if it's your own research, you can't. Actually, after Googling a bit I found some sources you can use for the article, which hopefully can replace the Microsoft based sources: [http://blogs.technet.com/b/next/archive/2012/02/15/what-we-didn-t-show-you-at-ces-microsoft-s-net-gadgeteer.aspx][http://www.engadget.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-researchs-net-gadgeteer-steps-out-into-the-light-sh/][http://www.slashgear.com/net-gadgeteer-looks-to-draw-tinkering-geeks-away-from-arduino-04169531/][http://www.gizmag.com/net-gadgeteer-microsoft-toolkit/19437/][http://devhammer.net/blog/what-can-you-do-with-.net-gadgeteer][http://www.extremetech.com/computing/91990-gadgeteer-microsofts-open-source-net-alternative-to-arduino] All of those should help you flesh out something! Good luck! [[User:SarahStierch|Sarah]] ([[User talk:SarahStierch|talk]]) 14:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
== Repeatedly declined by different reviewers for different reasons ==
A new article that I submitted has been repeatedly declined. The first time, the reviewer said that in-line references are required. Fair enough, and the references were put in place. The second reviewer felt that the "submission reads more like an essay" than an encyclopedia article. After re-working, on resubmission, the article was again declined, now by a third reviewer, because the "context" may not be clear to a reader not familiar with the subject. I don't quite agree, because: the article is on a Malayalam (a vernacular language of Kerala, South India) litterateur and only someone familiar with and interested in the subject will look it up.
The article on the same person in Malayalam Wikipedia (not submitted by me) was accepted without hassles. Obviously, the reviewer must have been a Malayalee.
I think the issue is that an article in queue is tossed to just any reviewer available at that moment. Is it not possible to have the same person reviewing an article every time?
MC Narayanan 06:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MC Narayanan|MC Narayanan]] ([[User talk:MC Narayanan|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MC Narayanan|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:MC, you need to follow the specific instructions given by each reviewer, including the latest one. Also, please read [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:NOTPROMOTION]]. --[[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 07:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you've done a decent job on your current submission. I'd accept it, especially because no one is going to perfect their first article the first time around. But, I don't do Articles for Creation review, so sorry! Also, the two links that Soft shared about, I don't think you need to worry about those here (you aren't writing about yourself or a relative, from what I can tell). Anyway, the figure seems notable to me, and I'm not Malayalee. IMHO, if the article is on Malayalam, and after looking at the article history, it has had no problems, then I think it should be included on English Wikipedia. The context is obvious - he's a [[popular science]] writer and has won notable awards from India. I don't get a lot of hits since I only speak English. Any problems let me know MC, you can ping me on my talk page. Good luck, I hope it gets accepted this round!<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User: SarahStierch | SarahStierch ]] ([[User talk: SarahStierch |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ SarahStierch |contribs]]) 14:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::I agree with Sarah here. [[User:Chicocvenancio|Chico Venancio]] ([[User talk:Chicocvenancio|talk]]) 17:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Accepted. Congratulations :) [[User:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover'''</span>]] [[User talk:Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Talk</sup>'''</span>]]<sup>·</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Nolelover|'''<span style="color:Gold"><sup>Contribs</sup>'''</span>]] 17:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Huzzah! [[User:SarahStierch|Sarah]] ([[User talk:SarahStierch|talk]]) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
== View History --- numbers in parentheses ==
{{see also|Help:Page history}}
Hi all,
I'm obviously a newbie at Wiki editing. In an edit log, what is the number in parentheses that comes after the bytes of an edit? It is usually preceded by a plus (or minus for vandalism)? Here's an example of an edit log:
(cur | prev) 05:14, 31 March 2012 All Hallow's Wraith (talk | contribs) m . . (7,233 bytes) (+1)
What does the (+1) correspond to?
Thanks in advance!
TIWILY
PS I ask because I edited an entry and got a (+77)...not sure if that is good/great/possibly bad(???).
[[User:TIWILY|TIWILY]] ([[User talk:TIWILY|talk]]) 21:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
:Hey, Tiwily, and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse! Those numbers are the difference in size that the edit in question. So, the +1 means that, overall, that edit increased the size of the article by one byte. For your edit, you added 77 bytes to the article. A negative number, of course, means that the size went down as a result of the edit; if it says -50, that means that 50 bytes were taken out of the article. Don't worry, it's not a grade or anything! (Nitpicky: I'm not actually sure if it's bytes or characters. They should usually be the same. Either way, it's the same idea.) [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 21:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
::Good question Tiwily! It took me way longer than I care to admit as an editor to finally figure this one out :) [[User:SarahStierch|Sarah]] ([[User talk:SarahStierch|talk]]) 21:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
:::I've had this question too, but, if your interested Writ Keeper, it's measured in bytes. [[User:Dan653|Dan653]] ([[User talk:Dan653|talk]])
::::That's what I thought; thanks! [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 00:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
So a follow-on question, in case others are thinking it, too, and just too bashful to ask... What's the difference between a byte and a character? --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|talk]]) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:The number of bytes is roughly corresponding to the number of characters. A '''[[byte]]''' usually consists of eight [[bit]]s, and ''"historically, a byte was the number of bits used to encode a single '''[[character (computing)|character]]''' of text in a computer"'' (from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia :)
:You can find ways of customizing this feature at [[Wikipedia:Added or removed characters]]. [[User:Benzband|<span style="color: green">benzband</span>]] ([[User talk:Benzband#Top|<span style="color: black">talk</span>]]) 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:{{Ec}}Ah, well that's simple enough. A byte is a unit if digital information, which happens to be the equivalent of one ASCII character (letter or number). In fact, that's historically where a byte comes from, it was the number of bits that are required to encode one character. And if you're curious, a bit is a binary digit (a 1 or a 0), so a byte, made up of 8 bits, could be represented by a number between 0 and 255 - or allowed up to "256" letters. Woohoo! [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span> ([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 14:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
::Jeez, edit-conflicted twice. I give up. ;) [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Thats because we all want to answer that question! Itching for someone to ask it... [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 3px 3px 2px;"><font color="#000">'''''Worm'''''<sup>TT</sup></font></span>]] <span style="font-weight:bold;">·</span> ([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|talk]]) 14:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
== Question about Wikipedia Etiquette / Oversight ==
An article, which I have been contributing to for two days, was just excessively edited by somebody. This removed 10 references from the article and destroyed work by previous editors. Is there an oversight for things like this? I am amazed how this self-appointed editor in chief commits a 'clear cut' and destroys other people's contributions. Any suggestions? see: "Copy edit" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:What_Must_Be_Said
Additionally, so far I found two occasions where facts misrepresented by this editor. [see edit history]
[[User:Thetilo|Thetilo]] ([[User talk:Thetilo|talk]]) 06:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
:Hello Thetilo. Thank you for coming here. I see on the link given a disagreement between yourself and one of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia. That is not to say that you are automatically wrong. It may be a matter of what can be found in reliable sources as opposed to what you yourself "know". Wikipedia goes with what can be verified above what is true. If you want to get wider involvement in looking at the issue go to the talkpages of the various WikiProjects to which the article belongs.--[[User:Charlesdrakew|Charles]] ([[User talk:Charlesdrakew|talk]]) 09:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
well, between the lines you are saying that I'm wrong, referring to reliability of sources, which is not even applicable here. So how comes that 10 reliable sources were deleted and facts were misrepresented?
I think senior editors should act with seniority and respect for other people's contributions. It is extremely discouraging if somebody rewrites a complete article based on their personal choices as if it was their own personal project. Others have spent hours contributing to the article - their efforts deleted or changed beyond recognition. Makes it feel like wasted time. I don't think this encourages regular users to keep contributing to Wikipedia.
[[User:Thetilo|Thetilo]] ([[User talk:Thetilo|talk]]) 11:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
:Hi there Thetilo, thanks for dropping by here. I am very sorry to hear that you've had difficulty with an editor. While Charles is right in saying that SlimVirgin is a very experienced editor, but that does not mean that his opinions should be valued more than yours. I have had a look at the talk page and it seems that you've been having a positive discussion with SlimVirgin - I can assure you that, just like you, he wants to improve the article. Being able to work with other editors is a great part of Wikipedia, so I would suggest that you continue the discussion with SlimVirgin on the talk page so that you can come to an agreement. Also, while your opinions are certainly as valid as his is, I do suggest you listen to what he says regarding policy - it may be that parts of your disagreement are down to different understandings of Wikipedia policy, so listen to what he has to say about that. On that note, if your discussion raises any policy issues that you don't understand (or even disagree with), please raise it here - we'd be delighted to talk with you about it. [[User:ItsZippy|ItsZippy]] <sup>([[User Talk:ItsZippy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ItsZippy|contributions]])</sup> 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
:To add to what ItsZippy said: it kind of looks like you're concerned about the propriety of ''general'' removal and editing of content by others, not this specific instance of it. Free editing is one of the foundations of Wikipedia. If you submit work to Wikipedia, you're explicitly allowing it to be modified or removed by other editors without warning; that's just how Wikipedia works. It's even legally enshrined; all the text you submit to Wikipedia is irrevocably licensed under [[CC-BY-SA]] and [[GFDL]], which both affirm that others are able to remix and modify at will. Underneath every edit page, there's a disclaimer that reads, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I know it can seem discouraging at times, but trust me, it's one of the best things about Wikipedia. We couldn't have gotten this far without it. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 13:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Just passing through. I wanted to point out that SlimVirgin is female (wrong pronouns used above). Thanks. [[User:Valfontis|Valfontis]] ([[User talk:Valfontis|talk]]) 01:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
*Hi Thetilo. If you disagree with edits made by a good-faith editor, especially if they haven't been explained to your liking in the edit summary of each edit, it's best to start a conversation (or ask the question[s]) on the Talk page of the article. That way, the issues and concerns and opinions can be voiced in one place, with the ability of other interested editors to join in as well. If you still have concerns and you still feel strongly about something and it wasn't resolved after several days' discussion on the Talk page, you can click the link at the top of any Talk page box that says "dispute resolution". Hope that helps. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the responses. I talked to SlimVirgin. The process to discuss or talk in Wikipedia seems pretty cumbersome and "offline". This sort of slow communication process can add to conflicts and misunderstandings. IMHO Wikipedia as an editing tool, with the current processes and 'talk' capabilities, feels very "1990" to me - e.g. like archaic web technology. Would be nice if Wikipedia would upgrade to current day web technology. (I am knowledgeable in that subject) ;-) [[User:Thetilo|Thetilo]] ([[User talk:Thetilo|talk]]) 13:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
:Well, there quite a few changes in the works on that direction (A WSIWYG editor being the biggest). The discussion part is definitely not ideal, but this Teahouse is certainly an improvement, maybe we can expand some of its functionality to other areas. Anyways, the project is very open on its technical side as well, your help will be appreciated. [[User:Chicocvenancio|Chico Venancio]] ([[User talk:Chicocvenancio|talk]]) 02:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
| |||