Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 151

Archive 145

←

Archive 149

Archive 150

Archive 151

Archive 152

Archive 153

→

Archive 155

adding poetry-- instructions are in Elvish or Klingon

Hello,

First, I must explain that I have been here before (yesterday, I believe) only that was under another name. I had to become a second version of myself because when I logged out, I could not log back in. My standard passwords weren't accepted and when I requested a change, no new password information came to my email. (It has been many hours, and it still hasn't come.)

Due to a burning need to fix some things, I became a similar version of myself-- adding a middle initial. This is no big deal, but I thought you should know.

Now-- my question: I would like to add poetry to the place where poetry is supposed to be located... my Dead Poet Friend has some stuff there already which someone migrated there for me as a favor. I am reluctant to ask for help, believing myself to be "self-sufficient", but I don't want to waste my time either. I have fifty poems to type, and I'd rather be doing that than stumbling through a FireSwamp all by myself.

If I can have a template, I can do this... but I can't figure out where-- how-- I'd like to have it handed to me, if possible... KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, KathrynHKlos2. It is not appropriate to include any lengthy passages of poetry on Wikipedia, since that would be a copyright violation. Perhaps you can describe where "poetry is supposed to be located"? Certainly, we have articles about notable poems and notable poets, but as a general rule, we don't host poetry itself. That is not encyclopedic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I didn't explain properly. The poetry is all pre-1889 and in the public domain. The author died in 1889 and has gone to dust. My sole reason wishing to make his poetry available is that it bugged the crap out of me that I couldn't find any of this wonderful man's poems. I spent several months digging them up in archives, some of which required expenditure of funds for travel. I have tweaked the dickens out of his original Wikipedia entry and if it is still "a stub"... well, then there ought to be a term for what it was before I touched it, like "sub-stub". Here he is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Parker_Sanborn A nice fellow named Midnightdreary moved some poems through a magical portal into a place where they are supposed to be. I have fumbled-around, trying to figure out how to put things there (in this other place) and see templates, but the language explaining how to write on them and submit them is a language foreign to me (I am older than 99.99% of those who are posting here). I do NOT wish to waste tons of time, if that is avoidable. I do not have access to a ten-year-old who can teach me. I want to spend my time typing out the 50 poems that need to go through the poetry portal. Or whatever it is called. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Guess I need to further explain that I BEGAN with the expansion of a Wikipedia entry, I expanded that, and I wanted to add the person's poetry because you simply CANNOT say that someone was a poet and then say, "well, actually none of his poems are available anywhere and we are only going by what was said at his funeral in 1889" (or whatever). I am picky about details, especially when it comes to people's lives. Yes, I am writing the man's biography, but if I die before it's finished I'd like to have some of his poetry out there for the world to see. I will shut up now. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The place where the poems went (and where I would add more) is called "Wikisource" and there is a link to that on Thomas Parker Sanborn's biography. I went there and asked for help, but the entire response was in Elvish. I don't think Klingon, because it's more gutteral, and this seemed lilting... literary almost, but computeresque none-the-less. My brain has zero room for another language, and my envelope can only be stretched so far...

While I have your attention, I also tweaked the dickens out of the article on the Secret Six (supporters of John Brown) if it's possible to perhaps maybe say it is no longer stubbly.

And I should add that when you see "The Harvard Monthly" in red, please know my work on that project has been submitted and is in review and maybe will come out of the gate not appearing too shabby. Thanks KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kathryn. As I understand it, you found that you posted on Wikisource, not here on Wikipedia. I don't know anything about Wikisource but I do want to point out that if "none of his poems are available anywhere and we are only going by what was said at his funeral in 1889", we couldn't use them on Wikipedia anyway, since that would be the same as original research. Only information published elsewhere can be used here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for all your work on Secret Six. I took the stub tag off because the article has clearly been improved. I can also fix some of your references. There's a better way to do it that might have been less work for you.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I take that back. The new procedure just looks like less work. Anyway, it's halfway done. I have to ask for help.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Please also check Thomas Parker Sanborn, as I don't think he is a stub anymore either and I am rather proud of my work on him.

I should say that his poetry isn't original research, as I see it, as it exists in Harvard Publications, some of which are scanned by Google or whoever does that to make them available on line... others I had to find the books they were in, and if that's "original research", well that's dumb. Then you don't get to have Robert Frost or ee cummings either. Maybe I just don't get it.

Anyway, it has been a joy to work on this stuff, even if I stumble from time to time. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. You made it sound like the poems weren't written down anywhere accessible to others.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't really spent much time on Thomas Parker Sanborn, but I do see an obvious problem with the references. You used Kindle locations in some but not all references from one book, and I assume you intended for there to be Kindle locations for all of them. If you could add that, I'm working on making it possible to use Kindle locations in references.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Two more obvious problems: we can't use colorful language unless it's quoted. Your description of how the man died is going to have to be made more boring. Sorry, but that's the way Wikipedia is. And the last paragraph before the heading "Legacy" contains unsourced speculation. If there is a source, it needs to go at the end of that paragrpah. If it is not, we can't use it because that really is "original research".— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that colorful description of the man's death looks like unsourced specutlation as well. Other than that, it all looks really good. I don't really have the time to look at it in detail.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will clear up the Kindle locations problem The description of Tom's death came from newspaper accounts, but I may have added something... will delete if so. I am hoping newspaper accounts aren't "original research"... they are available on-line, I just located them and put it all together.KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper accounts are published, so as long as it's not a trashy tabloid, you'd be fine even if they weren't online. I also found a way to use the Kindle locations.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again and thanks for all your work on the articles I modified. I don't know if replying here is the best place but I have trouble figuring out how to respond to people... if I go into "edit" and type there or what.

Anyway, the Clark book I used is only available on-line-- and I found a way to download it to a Kindle app which made it easier to read and snag citations-- where I didn't put a Kindle citation it's because I was reading the book in another on-line format (which didn't have pages or locations).

I'll add the title of the Newspaper article-- good to know to do that.

Thanks for your work and encouragement. KathrynHKlos2 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Takslist for diagrams to SVG

Hi, I remember that (about five years ago) there used to be a task list of diagrams in PNG (or worse) that needed conversion to SVG.

Now I'd like to see it but can't seem to find it. Does it still exist? Or are there generally better ways of looking for such tasks (like, for example, not necessarily just diagrams, e.g. flags as well)? Apart from language-neutral or a very simple Central-European, I'm able to handle English, Czech and Slovak.

Alois Mahdal (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Alois, there are loads of images that need converting to SVG, bets place to start is the categories found at {{Should be SVG}}. NtheP (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, NtheP, that is exactly what I've been looking for. Alois Mahdal (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My creations aren't being created!

Hello there!

My name is Ben, and I have tried to create two pages: 1-Amy Blankson, and 2- Dolphin Parenting...

I think they are properly cited, and ready to be approved, and I may have them in the wrong place (no one seems to be helping me get them live!)

Can you help me??

User: Whiteben

Whiteben (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Whiteben, you submissions are both in the right place - at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation - and are awaiting review. As reviews are undertaken by volunteers, you'll just have to be patient and wait for a reviewer to get round to them. NtheP (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Add, someone has already reviews Dolphin Parenting and declined it because they are not sure the topic is notable enough. NtheP (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NtheP!

I resubmitted Dolphin Parenting (added more sources/citations).. I guess I just sit back and wait to hear if they pass this round?

Thanks again,

Ben

Whiteben (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

White ben your Dolphin Parenting has been denied because one article already exists as NtheP said. Because of that it can not and will not be accepted... for now. My advise to you is to go to the article that already exist and just edit what you believe is false or needs to be changed.

Regards,

Asdfghjklcss Asdfghjklcss (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I declined your submission because the two references you have don't establish notability of this. You need external references to back up your claims. See WP:42. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 10:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

how to edit in footnotes into article on "important" person

I have written an article about my Dad, a famous musician and inventor/Mattel...I also have listed the sources for the article: patents, music lists, films and so forth. I have been asked to apply proper footnotes by number to include into the body of the article but don't know how to do that. Can anyone help? Thanks a lot...Roger...Article is Theodore Roosevelt "Ted" Duncan76.9.88.84 (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft article was declined last December and is at risk of being deleted since it hasn't been edited in over six months. Please read Referencing for beginners. If you create an account, it will be easier for other editors to interact with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Roger. I'm sorry to break this to you, but we strongly discourage people from writing articles about friends or family members, because it is likely for them to find it hard to write in an acceptably neutral way. You can read more about this at Conflict of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Hi, on references, in the publisher section, is that the website, the owner of the website, or something else? Thanks, Matty.007 11:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@Matty.007: Welcome back to the Teahouse. This might be easier to figure out if you could link to the external link and the article you're using it in. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 12:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In ProveIt GT, I am unsure if the website name should be going into the 'Work' slot or the 'Publisher' slot. Thanks, Matty.007 12:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I typically use "work" in those instances and leave "publisher" blank. I use "publisher" if a site is republishing the work of others (for example, CNN reprinting a Reuters news article). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks to both of you for the speedy reply. Matty.007 12:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have created an article, how to go live?

Dear HelpDesk Team I have created an article in the user area. It is the biography of Amherst Barrow Whatman, my version is in English but there is also a short version in Norwegian language. My question is: 1-How can I do th efinal touch to make it look like wikipedia? 2-How can I link my creation to the Norwegian entry? 3-How can my article go live? Many thanks in advance Ernesto163.1.79.188 (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I think what generally happens is that on the left, there is an arrow pointing right. Click that, then 'Add links'. Then fill it in, and that should be that. Thanks, Matty.007 11:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

But I am not sure what you mean by "the final touch". Your article, if it is in the 'mainspace' will be publicly viewable, but it may be at AFC (providing your username would help to see if the article is 'live'). Matty.007 11:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Can you provide us with a link to your article? Currently the only edit listed for 163.1.79.188 is your asking this question - I assume you made the edit when logged in to an account. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A search of "Amherst Barrow Whatman" in all namespaces gave User:M0KLB which was edited today, so I guess that's it. I have added {{Userspace draft}} to the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answers. I haven't finished my draft yet.

Before submitting it, I want to make sure that the wording follows the wikipedia editing guidelines.163.1.79.188 (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving File:GordonRamsey.jpg

If this isn't embarrassing. I vaguely recall asking for help to move a file before, but now I seem to have forgotten how to. I can't find any "Move" button on File:GordonRamsey.jpg. I would like to rename it to GordonRamsay.jpg. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bonkers. The file is on Commons, so that's why the file move button is missing. I'd do it for you as a file mover, but I can only move files on Wikipedia , not on Commons sadly. You'll have to request a move over there. Check out Commons:File renaming for more info. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ooh cool, done. Thanks, Jethro. So I'll have to get permission to move files here? Awh. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you go to commons:File:GordonRamsay.jpg you'll see on the tabs at the top of the page the rightmost one says "move". Click that and follow the process through. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I JethroBT, your link above appears to lead to a nonexistant page. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• That's because it should have been commons:Commons:File renaming (since it is in the Commons namespace, we have to double the word "commons" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. That looks absolutely dreadful, but I suppose that's just the way it is. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Yes it does, but you can just pipe it: [[commons:Commons:File renaming|Commons:File renaming]] (which formats as Commons:File renaming).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:File renaming is now valid as I just created a redirect as it is easy to forget that it needs double commons: Technical 13 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Why have I been invited to the TeaHouse?

Hi. I am TravelureAjay. Why have I been invited to the teahouse? Thanks 122.176.209.52 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You were invited to give you the opportunity to ask questions, to get a friendly welcome, and to help you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines better, in the hope that you will become a long term, productive contributor to the world's greatest encyclopedia. Welcome! Feel free to ask any questions about editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Lost a couple hours of writing

After working very hard on a project, I "saved" and was told [can't recall the exact wording] there was some hang-up and I should log out and then back in. The piece I was working on then reverted to the previous less-than-satisfactory garbage I had worked hard to clean up. I have now learned my lesson and will first write everything out on a wordpad and save that, so I don't have to be up until 5am re-creating what I just did. IF I can remember it all... or is the Universe telling me my changes were unnecessary, and I should go to bed?

What happened-- just a "typical internet thing"? Or something I did wrong? Do others write everything out somewhere else and then copy/paste it in place? (Sorry-- I don't read all the instructions because I'd rather learn by making mistakes, I guess...)

One thing I maybe should explain is that I am old. Everyone I know who is my age is afraid to own a computer, or if they have one it's for email, and facebook scares them. Some of the wonderful advice I've been given on my Wikipedia projects seems like Elvish or Klingon to me, and there's no ten-year-old under my roof to translate. So, I learn by goofing-up and having to re-do.

Well, onward, I guess... now that I have that off my chest.Kathrynklos (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Kathrynklos. I, too, am fairly old (61) and have also had the experience of losing work in progress. To minimize that, I recommend lots of small edits, rather than a single massive edit. You can also develop content in your sandbox and then copy-paste it into an article when it is ready. When using these techniques, a lost edit might be just a few words fresh in your mind, instead of a brilliant treatise tough to recreate when you are mad at your computer, and yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks-- I re-wrote things and it may be better anyway. Still needs tweaking, but I need to take the dogs out. I'll be baaaaack... Kathrynklos (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I always back up any articles I am working on as I write, using Word, as well as saving regularly within WP. I have learnt the hard way to do that. BTW I don't think you are old at 60+. Remember the famous saying, 60 is the new 45. Well, maybe not famous, but very relevant to me - I'm 66. Melbourne3163 (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

None of you gentlemen are old when compared to me, for I turn 180 this December. Either that, or 181. I can't recall. :/ ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Decoding Ancient Languages

Steve F Colamaio t48246 23:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC) t48246 ~ 1st. Thank you Buffbills7701. Question I posted may not be as Clear or defined as to understanding my request. The question was and is simple. File: Planisphaeri Coeste .jpg (star maps file) Behind the star chart is U M which to my knowledge was left out of main text, (why)? Planisph ae ri U M C oe leste. I wish to decipher but need the full ribbon of words/letters. To prove my point: In ancient times Capital "M = important figure and is always the first as to describe person talking. Letters following main letter is the conversation. Also * note, M in ancient times represents a female laying on her back/legs spread. W is the male which also when separated represents 2 peace signs. The name Mnvika ellinika is Greek. Greek- Reads God Ra EEK. Philosphy, reality, being, world, Greek. Aristotle= Meaning of life. Real Intelligent= Universe. So ? is, how do I find the full ribbon text mentioned above? Or does it not exist is fine because I can still decipher just having any misrepresentation clarified. Thank you. Steve F Colamaio t48246 23:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight Steve (talk • contribs)

The text on the banner is PLANISPHÆRIUM CŒLESTE, with the final two letters of the nominative singular neuter noun planisphaerium (see Planisphere#History) appearing in the central "fold" of the banner. I've changed the Latin in the file description of File:Planisphæri cœleste.jpg accordingly. It might be clearer to have the file moved to a more accurate title as well, but it's probably not necessary. I'm not sure what you mean by your comments on the letters M and W, but they have nothing to do with the title of the celestial map in the image. Deor (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

When is a stub no longer a stub?

I've been tweaking some subjects that I know a bit about-- adding significant text (with citations) and images-- and I'm wondering if these now would no longer be considered "stubs". Does my work on them need to be brought to anyone's attention, or are these things monitored? At any rate, I'm having fun with this! Kathrynklos (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kathrynklos! Having fun doing this is important. Probably the most important thing. If editing Wikipedia isn't fun, I would suggest you take up knitting or stamp collecting! As far as article ratings go, take a look on the articles' talk pages for the Wikiprojects that are monitoring them. They will be linked in the box at the top of the talk page. Altho all the projects criteria are similar, there will be a guide to rating articles for each individual project. These will guide you, and usually there will be examples of what each level article should look like. Also, most projects will have a place to list articles for re-evaluation. You can list the articles you have worked on there for re-evaluation. After a while, you will be able to just re-evaluate them yourself! Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I tell people this is my new hobby... I used to knit, but research and writing are much more fulfilling! Kathrynklos (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Kathrynklos: I generally consider the stub boundary to be 1000 bytes. The bite size of a page can by foundb in the history page of a particular article. Also, remember to indent your posts using colons at the beginning of each line, adding one new colon per response. Thanks! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 04:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

whats the teahouse?

(198.237.49.192 (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a Wikipedia question and answer forum on Wikipedia. Any user can ask a question, and experienced users will try their best to answer. —(っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 19:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what else to do?

I've tried to submit a page twice, and both times it was declined. I did what was asked, and it is still not good enough. The first declination was because of the references I used. They needed to have information "about" the subject and not "from" the subject so I made the changes. This time, I'm being advised that the references that have information "about" the subject isn't credible enough and not reported by "reliable" sources. I don't understand. How can the information not be reliable? It is readily available for viewing on sites including the Huffington Post. Please, help me. This is very frustrating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JustMe_DiM/sandbox JustMe DiM (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

For Wikipedia to have an article about a person, they need to be notable (one would not expect an encylopedia to have an article about every person alive). The criteria for "notability" have been determined by the community, see Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria. Specifically we need to see "substantial coverage" about the person himself in reliable sources, not just mentioning him in passing.

The article, as it stands, does not suggest that Ritchie meets the criteria. It looks possible that he simply doesn't, and nothing you can do on Wikipedia can change this, however good you make the draft. There's an essay Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability which, unfortunately, seems to apply here. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Page move

I want to move an article that is a GA. Will the GA review page too move by default or am I supposed to move it separately? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 15:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sriram! You can request for the move in here and it will be dicussed in tha talk page whether your requested name is needed or not. If the move is necessary for the page means, it will be moved by a sysop. Thanks! --    L o g  X   18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Sriram. It will not be moved automatically if you do it. However, if you make a formal requested move, when it is is closed and the move is performed, an admin sees a button marked "Move subpages of talk page (up to 100)". When this is ticked, which is almost always, the GA page, all archives, and any other pages that have the same article talk basepage name will be moved automatically (unless the target name already exists and is other than a redirect pointing back with only one edit). In other words, you don't need to even mention the issue when making the requested move. If it doesn't get taken care of upon the move, then you can either hit up the closing admin on his or her talk page, or make a (much easier) technical move request. If you think the move is thoroughly uncontroversial, you can simply make the initial request at the technical moves page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite interviews of managers who work at the company you are writing about?

This is a question regarding to primary source. If there are limited information online, and want to gain more information, is it possible to cite interviews of managers who work at the company? For example, if I am writing about company ABC, can I say cite Mr. Johnson, Manager or Marketing, as a reference to what I write? Would this look promotional?

2450jk996 (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to tell you that is not allowed. Even if you were to interview someone not connected to the company at all it would not be allowed. We only publish what others are writing about. No original research of any kind is allowed. Everything must be sourced to some already published reliable source. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleting an article

Re: Shenmo ??? Is that right? Hello. I have created an article, but I would like to delete it. I still need to work on it on my userpage before I publish it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baudelaire Serene (talk • contribs) 05:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the article. How do I delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baudelaire Serene (talk • contribs) 06:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Baudelaire Serene, and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at your article, and notice that it already has four references that appear solid at first glance. If the topic is notable, why would we want to delete the article about it? Instead, I encourage you to continue to edit the article, improving and expanding it, and adding references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope to write a more polished article before publishing it. What sort of options are available for deleting articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baudelaire Serene (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It is already published. "The horse has left the barn." In order to delete it, you would have to argue that the topic is not notable, or that a hoax is involved. My recommendation is to simply focus on polishing the article, not deleting it. There is no difference between improving an article in your user space, and improving one in the main space. The process is identical. Visibility is the only difference. We don't delete articles about notable topics. Instead, we improve them. So, go ahead and improve it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Baudelaire Serene (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Baudelaire. As noted, we don't normally delete such content but I think the best solution here would have been for you to move the article to a subpage of your user space (a sandbox) so you could work on it more before 'going live'; what it seems you wanted without any deletion involved. Since you copied and pasted the content to your sandbox and already worked it up further, I have acted on your G7 request. Just be aware of that move option, which preserves the page history, whereas copying and pasting to a new location does not. This was acceptable only because you were the only author of the content and are preserving it. But had there been any non-trivial edits by others to the content, this would present copyright problems because the content would not be just yours. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing music critic scores on Wikipedia...

Hi there, I just joined Wikipedia, my username is MarcelsMusicJournal, and I'm a recognized music critic. I review albums on my Blog, Marcel's Music Journal (on Tumblr), and I was interested in editing the page for the album Is Survived By, by the band Touche Amore.

I was editing in my professional rating that I awarded the album in my recent review, it was up on the page along with the other scores for 5 minutes then it disappeared.

Do I have to be a verified music journalist before I can add my scores on Wikipedia? If I did something wrong, I'd like to know.

Thank you kindly, Marcel (President of Marcel's Music Journal) MarcelsMusicJournal (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, MarcelsMusicJournal. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a social networking site where people are welcome to promote their own ventures. This is a neutral encyclopedia. Setting out to add references to your own work will be subjected to scrutiny. I have been a published freelance writer for 35 years, an active Wikipedia editor for four years, and have cited my own work only once on Wikipedia, and that was only after asking for approval from several administrators. Self promotion is frowned upon here.

Wikipedia is based on summarizing what reliable sources say about a given topic. Those sources should have professional editorial control, and an established reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Very few blogs qualify, except those by professional journalists which have editorial oversight. In general, we don't allow self-published sources on Wikipedia, except under very limited circumstances which don't seem to apply here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing the taxobox

I have some trouble with editing taxoboxes.I don't know anything about editting the Automatic taxobox.It looks a bit complicated.I can perfectly edit the italic title but I can't add the clade parameter. Paleocemoski (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Paleocemoski. As far as I can see Taxoboxes don't have a parameter called 'clade'. Have you looked at the documentation, at Template:taxobox? --ColinFine (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Paleocemoski. I don't have any personal experience with them (and yes, the automatic taxobox is very complex), so I can only point you to a few pages that might help, if you haven't seen them already: the template itself has documentation, though mostly it's a list of further reading, including Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/new and Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/taxonomy pages (both of which mention clade). At the bottom of the second link, the author of the automatic taxobox specifically invites users to ask questions at a few pages: "here or here or even here". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Rejected article--Advice??

I am trying to submit an article for my company's new educational website and was rejected the first time. I've stripped out anything considered promotional and have added plenty of third party references. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rschingel/sandbox

Thanks, RebeccaBOB.tv 20:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschingel (talk • contribs)

Hello, Rebecca. I'm sorry, but you have in no wise stripped out everything considered promotional - and this is why we strongly discourage people from editing articles where they have a conflict of interest, because it can be difficult to see what is promotional and what is neutral.

Right from the beginning, the article is promotional in tone. An encyclopaedia article starts by saying what kind of thing the subject is, not with an advertising hook ("Bob.tv means Best of Business"). In the next sentence, "It is the online learning destination" is advertising speak for something like "It is an online learning system" ("destination" is an empty bit of puffery, and that innocent-looking "the" sneaks in a bit of evaluation, which is never permitted in Wikipedia articles unless directly sourced to a reliable independent source). Your "plenty of third party references" are three quotations which, while you have attributed them, you have given no indication of where they were published, so a reader cannot easily check them; and four items in the references section of which two are bxb's own and a third one is from a bxb press release, so there is at present precisely one usable reference to an independent source - and you have not attached that to any particular information in your draft article.

Bob.tv may well be notable (in Wikipedia's special sense: that it has been substantially written about by several reliable sources independent of it), but your draft does little to establish that it is. But the whole article is (in my view) irredeemably promotional and would need to be rewritten from scratch, preferably by somebody who did not have a conflict of interest. In fact, looking at your contributions, I see that this is the only article you have worked on, which leads me to suspect that you are here for the sole purpose of promoting your company. If that is not the case, and you wish to help improve Wikipedia, then please find some other articles to work on. --ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking for Feedback on NAREIT wikipedia article

Hello everyone,

I am wanting to receive feedback in regards to the revisions of the wikipedia article for the NAREIT Organization. The article can be found in the sandbox link here: User:Joethsmow/National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts

I am looking for feedback as I have added a number of revisions and references to the article since my last visit to the tea house.

I look forward to whatever assistance you can provide.

Regards, Joethsmow (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks very good to me for a first article thus moved to National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts. I see there was a problem with notability before...this was in error. Should talk about the 12 percent return they had for sometime. Lost of history can be added...lets see what others think. -- Moxy (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Account Creation

I am trying to create an account, but it won't accept my email address 70.90.216.154 (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I used to have an email address that started with an underscore (it's a great way to avoid spam; many spammers work alphabetically so if you start with something like that, you get far less). Anyway, I had a lot of problems with various sites where the software would not recognize it as an email address. Maybe you have something like that? Anyway, can you tell us a bit more? Like the exact error message you are getting, what page you are starting from (if anything other than Special:UserLogin) and maybe provide some detail on the email address (without telling us what it is), such as if there is anything unusual about it like non-standard characters and/or punctuation. If it turns out that this is a purely technical issue, you might try posting to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Become an administrator

Well my question is, what can I do to become an administrator? Is there any easier way? I know I have to work hard, but I just wanna know if there is any simpler way. I want the answer from a highly experienced administrator.
— ITeachThem (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! At the moment, the only way to become an admin is through an WP:RFA. If you work hard, and make lots of good edits, someday someone will nominate you, or you can nominate yourself. —(っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 14:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the reply!!!!! — ITeachThem (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, ITeachThem and welcome to the Teahouse. An effort to become an administrator is unlikely to be successful unless the editor in question has many thousands of productive edits over time, a clean block log, an editing history that shows a level head and a knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and deep involvement in specific areas of the encyclopedia where administrative tools are useful. Those who show an open desire early in their editing career to gain advanced user rights are likely to be subjected to extra scrutiny, as many experienced editors are reluctant to support anyone who seems to be seeking status symbols. My advice to you, then, is to be a really useful editor here for a long time, to help others, to participate in resolving disputes rather than inflaming them, and to learn over time just what it is that good administrators do here on a day-to-day basis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

why cant i write an essay?

Today i tried to create an essay with the heading "if i were the president of Nepal".But i failed to creat it.it was also very short.Haa.Hoo.Huu (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and essays aren't normally parts of the contents of encyclopedias. The only essays allowed on Wikipedia are essays on the internal working of Wikipedia (usually written by experienced editors). See Wikipedia:Essays. Bishonen | talk 08:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC).

Fine to make this article?

Yesterday i made a article called List of incidents of animal sexual abuse, interestingly, i found that there are many many cases regarding Necrophilia, so i can make a article like "List of incidents of Necrophilia"? It won't breach any wikipedia policies, right? OccultZone (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion to any editor who is interested in this question, is to read about single purpose accounts and trolling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles are different from each other though, whole different subject. OccultZone (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not your proposed list article breaches any WIkipedia policies or guidelines will depend on its content and how it is written. The other article that you mention, List of incidents of animal sexual abuse, has two potential problems that I can see. First, its selection criteria are not stated - it appears to be an arbitrary selection of reports of animal sexual abuse without any indication that the individual cases or the list as a whole are notable. Secondly, some of the items mention charges or allegations against named people without saying whether they were convicted. This could be a breach of our WP:BLPCRIME policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"alleged offenders have faced arrest or prosecution", mentioned there. It's pretty much same as the rape statistics page, stats or incidents are not made up of the proven guilty or proven allegation, but only guilty or just alegation. OccultZone (talk) 06:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How to combine two pages

Hi there,

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing (did a Women's History Edit-athon last year), but I was trying to work on the Indigenous People's Day page. I noticed that othere is a "Native American Day" page with the same info (though not cited as well as the other page). Some cities/states use "Native American Day" while others use "Indigenous People's Day." I think the "Native American Day" page should just re-direct to the "Indigenous People's Day" page, but I have no idea how to make that happen. Any ideas?

AngieLittle (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your edits there. I created the original article and it's been growing since then, so thanks for joining and helping out! There's some discussion of procedure at WP:MERGE. Basically, it's considered polite — and necessary, in case anyone disagrees — to post the proposed merge tags on both articles, see if anyone objects, and if no, just go ahead and do it or encourage others to help. If a subject is encyclopedic but not notable or there's not enough sourced material for it to stand on its own, it is better to include it in as part of an article about a larger topic. Other times, two articles may be about the exact same subject under a different name, in which case you want to start with the better article and then combine in stuff from the weaker or smaller one. It's hard to tell if these two are about the same subject exactly — Indigenous People's Day is a general article about the overall phenomenon in America; Native American Day seems to concentrate on a few specific state instances. That distinction isn't really too important. Sometimes, even if a subject is notable, the article is so slight, or the subject is so closely connected with another subject, that the best way to present the information is as a sub-part or just some extra text in an existing article. When you do that, per WP:PRESERVE it's best not to delete useful links, sources, content, the goal is to increase the state of knowledge in the world and make it more accessible, not just to organize things. So best to make sure that anything useful in the merged article gets added somehow to the surviving one. Also, if you think it's uncontroversial you can just be bold and do it, creating a "redirect" from the old article to the new one. Usually nobody complains and that's fine. Sometimes someone objects and restores the old version, at which point it's best to discuss the matter on the talk page, see if anyone else is watching, and reach a WP:CONSENSUS on what to do next. Occasionally people get hostile and even do something called biting the newbies. That's heavily discouraged here, and if that happens please don't take the bait and get into a tiff with others. Just be sincere and polite, as everyone here is a volunteer helping to build an encyclopedia, and knows we're all kindred spirits. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

How to make multiple references to one source

I have an article that I reference one source multiple times but I don't know how to make the references have the same number Geo310Rose (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Geo310Rose! Yes, this is something that everybody needs to know. You do it by giving your reference a name, so that it looks like this:

<ref name=whatever>reference data here</ref>.

Then the next time you want to use the same reference, just put <ref name=whatever />, and the wiki software will combine those two into one number. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Procedure for citing annotated bibliography

How do I cite part of an annotated bibliography? I've done some research to improve the Ogden Nash article, and some of the information I've found comes from an annotated bibliography which primarily summarizes book chapters from books unavailable in my library. When I'm citing information obtained from these summaries, should I mention the author of the book chapters summarized in the annotated bibliography? --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 00:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lunar Jesters. I'm not sure of the whole of the answer, but I do know the principle that you should never cite something you have not seen yourself. If you know it only from the bibliography, then I think you need to cite the bibliography, though presumably identifying the work cited will be part of identifying where in the bibliography you are citing. --ColinFine (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Short answer, cite the book you've actually read :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - that's very helpful! --Lunar Jesters _(talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Should I include IPA pronunciation?

Hello. I am working the article for La Luz del Mundo Church and debating whether to include the IPA pronunciation. The full name of the church would be [i´ɣlesja ðel djoz ´biβo, ko´lumna j a´poʝo ðe la βeɾ´ðað, la luθ del ´mundo] and the shortened form would be [la luθ del ´mundo] in Castilian Spanish. Including the pronunciation could perhaps clutter the lead. Ajax F¡ore_talk 23:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ajax. I can't find anything that says when to include pronunciation (though the existence of the template Template:pronunciation needed suggests that some people think it is desirable with foreign names). I would advise including it WP:PRON#Placement has some suggestions on where to put it. --ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine, the pronunciation has been added at the bottom of the infobox. Ajax F¡ore_talk 16:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

United Workers Cooperative in the Bronx( #57 on list) All the information is incorrect. It starts out by putting these houses in the South Bronx. That page has to be corrected it's not in the South Bronx. Also, the Table of Content and the information is wrong. The United Workers Cooperatives also known as the Allerton Coops is located in the North East Section of the Bronx. Community Planning Board #11 not #2. Therefore, all the information on this page is incorrect. everything explains the South Bronx and not the true location of these buildings. The area can be referred to as The Williamsbridge Section. But these houses sit in Community Board #11.These houses are boarded on Arnow Ave, Allerton Ave. Barker Ave and Bronx Park East. If it was one or two remarks that were incorrect, I might be able to make the corrections myself. This is a whole page of missinformation for these houses because they are not in the South Bronx. The Transportation information for these house are incorrect, Schools, Library, Cultural Institutions and etc. Can someone in your organization please correct this. Thank you, Brenda NeumanCymon231 (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Brenda. I'm afraid I can't tell which of our four million pages you are talking about. I've found United Workers Cooperative, but that doesn't seem to match what you are saying. In any case, if you can improve an article, you are welcome to do so, preferably with citations to reliable sources for any information you insert (that's what we mean by "The encyclopaedia anyone can edit"). If you are not confident in doing so, the best place to make suggestions is the article's talk page (Pick the "Talk" tab from the top of the article). --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brenda. As ColinFine says, United Workers Cooperatives doesn't say anything about the South Bronx or Community Planning Boards. Are you sure the page you are seeing is on Wikipedia? StarryGrandma (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

```Hi 'Thank you for responding so quickly. 'I'm sorry I was not clear- I'm new at this. Hear are my Steps. I went to United Worker Cooperative then in the middle of the page I clicked on the Link National register of Historic Places, Under the heading : Properties Listed I clicked on the Link: United States National Register of Historic Places Listings. On the next Page I click on New York and on the next page I click on The Bronx. The next Page Heading: National Register Historic Places Listings in Bronx County New York. I went down to line #57 click on Hunts Point and you will see I what I saw.' I hope you can help me Thank you, Brenda NeumanCymon231 (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Always best to give a specific link to the page you're talking about; in this case it's apparently National Register of Historic Places listings in Bronx County, New York. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Brenda. Getting clearer, but still not quite there. You ended up on the page Hunts Point, Bronx (I made that a link by putting it between double square brackets thus: [[Hunts Point, Bronx]]), but I don't see any of the stuff you're complaining about on that page. I wonder, is it simply that Hunts Point is the wrong city/town for this building, and the link in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Bronx County, New York article should be to a different part of the Bronx? If so, you can easily edit that article to correct it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's it; the United Workers Cooperatives are nowhere near Hunts Point. They're in the Bronxwood neighborhood of the Bronx. I've changed the entry in National Register of Historic Places listings in Bronx County, New York accordingly. Deor (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

fixing a reference - when used several times

hello, while editing, fixing wiki links & references, on '2004 Palm Island death in custody', I must have done something wrong- to a reference used multiple times. It's something to do with abbreviation after initial citation,I don't understand how to fix, even after going to the help page-message is: Cite error: The named reference weekend-04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). thanks in advance, Andys'edtits 16:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs)

Hello, Andy. It wasn't you: it was User:Theonesean who broke the reference by removing the name ('weekend-05') from the first time the reference was used - the occasion when it was defined. I reverted it (but AnomieBot got in before me and rescued the undefined reference by finding a definition. This means that there are two separate references to that source, one of them used twice; rather than one used three times. I don't think this is a big problem). --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what & how it happened ColinFine, Now I'll try to remember what to look for if it happens again Andys'edtits 13:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs)

I've taken the liberty of moving the paragraph above (Andys'edtits' reply) down here from where he put it at the top of the section before his original question. ColinFine (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to correct the founding dates and founder

This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill%27s_Pet_Nutrition I have references and have added comments to the talk page. When is it appropriate to change this info?

FYI I have personal knowledge on the subject as my Great grand father was Burton Hill the founder of Hills Pet nutrition.

Vincentdavis (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Vincent and welcome to The Teahouse. There's no clear answer on when you should do it. The references look like they would be proper, though they don't look like I could easily access them since they're not online or you didn't give links. I assume there would be no objections because it's not a very active article. You could wait a couple of days to see if you get a response. Otherwise, be bold. Your personal knowledge, however, cannot be used as a source since that would be original research. What you know would help you find what others have written, but until what you know is published in a reliable source, we can't use it here.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I have added link to the references. They are mostly found on google books. I have original documents that I can scan and upload, can those be used as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentdavis (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. People have asked and the answer has been no.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Separate articles for Royal Observatory Cape and South African Astronomical Observatory?

I have drafted an article on the Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope) but it is rejected for now in view of its supposed duplication of an existing article on the South African Astronomical Observatory South African Astronomical Observatory.

At present the SAAO article contains some historical information about the Royal Observatory and its other predecessor, the Republic Observatory, which has a separate wikipedia article of its own: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Observatory‎.

The Royal Observatory was an institution with a lot of history and has a 193-year old campus which now serves as the headquarters of the SAAO. This campus has just been given Grade I Heritage Status and will almost certainly soon have National Heritage Status. Its history is very comprehensive and much written about, as the oldest scientific institution in South Africa and possibly in Africa.

The SAAO on the other hand is a modern institution, very active as an astronomical observatory with a large staff and a record of frequent publications. It has a field station at the remote site of Sutherland, where observations are now carried out.

My feeling is that the two wikipedia articles refer to two very different entities and should be separate.

If this is thought desirable, some historical material currently on the SAAO wikipedia article could be moved to the Royal Observatory article.

Your thoughts on this issue would be welcome.

Thank you, Capester41.177.37.227 (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have changed internet URLs to wikilinks to get rid of the ugly white space. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Capester. The reviewer was wrong and you are right. While Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope exists, it is just a redirect to South African Astronomical Observatory, not an article about the observatory. On the other hand, the article needs to be rewritten a bit to be an encyclopedia article. The history needs to be in prose, not bullet lists. I'll add a comment to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope explaining. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The point the reviewer is making is that since the page Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope exists (even though it's a redirect), there's no need to create a new article with that title. 41.177.37.227 can just copy their article from the edit window of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope and paste it into the edit window of Royal Observatory, Cape of Good Hope, replacing the redirect code. Deor (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Deor, but that would not be acceptable. It would be known as a "copy and paste move", and it is not permitted because it loses the attribution history of the contributors to the AFC draft. If it needs to replace the redirect, it needs to be done by a proper move, not by a copy and paste. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Until StarryGrandma made two minor edits yesterday, the entirety of the text of the article was the work of Capester. Capester's copying of that elsewhere would not need attribution history; it would be similar to when I wrote an article on Bernard Silvestris's Cosmographia in my sandbox and then copied it over the redirect at Cosmographia. (It was subsequently moved to a different title, and the Cosmographia page was made a dab page; but that's irrelevant.) It might be argued that StarryGrandma's edits were too insignificant to require attribution, but even if they're not, Capester could attribute them on the article's talk page. Deor (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"move" sounds very complex. How would I move the new page to the existing Royal Observatory page, given that it is still "for creation"? Capester (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)capester

I disagree with Deor, History is useful not only for attribution, but also for seeing how an article developed over time. Capester, when your article is ready, let us know and one of us can go set up the code to have the Redirect that's tying up that title deleted, and your draft moved over into mainspace. For your future reference, the code you put is {{db-move}}, which you place on the blocking redirect. That code means "Admin, please delete this noncontroversial page so I can move something else here". But for the first time it's probably easier one of us does is, so just clean up your draft and let us know when ready. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)