Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

anchor links on navboxes

I've read several guides but can't find any info regarding this. Is it true that you can't put anchor links on navboxes? Thanks in advance. Krystaleen (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry but I've no idea and haven't read every guide relevant to this. You could try it out in a sandbox to find out. -- Trevj (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being clear, by "can't" I mean "not supposed to". I added some change to this template but my changes got reverted because it had anchor links http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infamous&diff=497220630&oldid=497174657. I just want to make sure this is really not allowed because I've seen other templates using anchor links. Krystaleen (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Krystaleen! That did seem like an odd occurrence. They may have been removed because the navbox would have more than one link to the same page. I am inviting the user who removed them to weigh in here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I usually remove anchors, nonlinks, redlinks, and such because of WP:NAV. Navboxes should link to exactly one instance of one article and that instance should not be a redirect nor a section link. While it's an essay, it's pretty persuasive to me. --Izno (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think in this specific instance, the multiple links may be useful. The page says "avoid repeating links to the same article within a template". The term avoid usually has exceptions, and I think this may be one of them. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I honestly can't think of a case where you would want to anchor link. Especially given that in this specific instance, the two links would be a pair of spinoffs.... Consider this: If it's an anchor, is it really useful to attempt to send users to that page? What would that do to a template such as Template:Transformers? You get to the point where you're basically recreating the main page's table of contents... which is already automatically generated by any given article. That's just not worth the effort of maintenance and of making an inconsistent UI experience (the bolding of an article versus not-bolding of an anchor link). Again, I think the essay says all this much better, and provides further clarification. Don't get stuck on words like 'usually' when it's a point of UI consistency, if nothing else. :^) --Izno (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this, very informative to me :) I'll be following this discussion. You're supposed to bold a link to an article if an anchor link is present? I didn't know this. Krystaleen (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to bolding, what he means is that when you are viewing a page, the link to that page in the Navbox is automatically bolded rather than linked. The anchor links won't be bolded and will still appear as links. It could be confusing to some readers if they followed the anchor link and ended up on the same page. This is a very valid point, and it appears to be the reason that having anchor links in navboxes isn't desired; although, I still believe they would be appropriate in an instance where the entire page isn't linked in the navbox. Thank you Izno for clearing that up and for the very friendly and logical way you went about it :) Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Krystaleen. I suggest a different track. What is your objective? To help readers find information on the spin-offs? How about creating redirects for them? Redirects are common when a topic isn't notable enough for a separate article during an articles for deletion discussion. The information is merged into a main article and a redirect points to the section in that main article. To make the redirects, put the title like inFamous: Precinct Assault (2009) into the search box. The returned result will start You may create the page "InFamous: Precinct Assault (2009)", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Click on the red and you get a blank page with that title. To create the redirect, just insert #REDIRECT [[Infamous_(series)#InFamous: Precinct Assault (20090]] and save the page. An option to consider. Take care, DocTree (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey, ah I get it now. Kind of confused. As for redirects, I thought that's not allowed either? Krystaleen (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are allowed but not preferred, per WP:BRINT (which is guideline I think?). If you're redirecting to an article which is already in the template, then you're duplicating the link unnecessarily. If you're redirecting to a section of an article already in the template, see above. If you're redirecting to an article which is not already in the template, then the redirect should be replaced. --Izno (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined article on Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery

Dear Teahouse,

I would like to ask for some input on how to get my article on Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery accepted since it has been declined twice. I revised it so it would be very objective and give information and not sound like an advertisement. I ten added the reliable sources I could find in the web and the best I could get was 2 articles from a daily news paper (a national circulation newspaper) and a government website. It was still declined because of reliable sources. I was wondering if you could point me to the right direction. Thanks! Raynald Torres Pscs.1972 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Raynald! One issue was that your references didn't actually appear on the screen, I fixed that issue for you. I want to get one more piece of information from you and then I can assist you further. You have a lot of information on that page. Did all of that information come from one of the three references? If not, where did you get the information? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ryan,

Thanks for the review. The information was taken from members and present president. The organization, though it has existed for a long time, has just started building its website and all written information in the internet has only been brought about thru some member's websites and articles in newspapers who consulted members of the organization as resource persons for cosmetic surgery in the Philippines. The Philippine Medical Association, the official medical association of the Philippines accredited by the government has listed in their website which is a government website. Aside form these things written in the net, other information I wrote down in my article was a writing down of facts from the knowledge of members from their records which is not published yet in the internet. At hand, these are the only verifiable facts I have that are in the internet. Let me know if there are things I can do to make the article notable.Pscs.1972 (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Pscs. The article itself shouldn't be made notable - it's the Philippine Society for Cosmetic Surgery that needs to be notable. I understand the desire to create an article about your own project, but please note that writing about yourself or your organization is usually discouraged on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest or a simplified guide here. You can still do it, but you must remain neutral and follow the other guidelines mentioned there. Your article currently doesn't appear anywhere - you can use your sandbox to create a draft. You can ask the administrator who deleted it to email you the content. If put it on your sandbox and show us, we might be able to tell you if it's notable enough for Wikipedia. But please consider that you probably won't be able to use information from the knowledge of members - it needs to be verifiable to be included, so that any person could check the information is true. Good luck! ʝunglejill 17:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

not a stub

I just expanded an article. How do I get rid of the stub tag? Ranpayne (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are confident that the article clearly exceeds the limitations described in WP:STUB, then be bold and remove the stub tag yourself. Hit the "edit" button and erase it. Thanks for expanding what used to be a stub. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

HA! That was easy. Thanks.Ranpayne (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

giving a cookie

I'm really embarrassed that I can't find the answer to this question for myself, but I can't. I had occasion to give a cookie and didn't format it properly, and the person who received it doesn't know how to format {{cookie}} either. Is there a manual for formatting cookies? 67.71.2.203 (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The proper way to give someone a cookie is by adding {{subst:cookie}} to their talk page. You can view the manual/documentation by going to the template. If you create an account there is script that allows you to give barnstars and cookies easier, it is called Twinkle. If you have any more questions leave me a message on my talk page or reply here.

Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   22:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proving a book was never published in Britain?

Hi, everyone. While researching an American book that won a Welsh award I keep finding references to the fact that it was "never published in Britain", which I think is fascinating. However, how could I verify that it's still true as of 2012? Here in the US I could get a reference librarian to help me, but is there a source for British publishing? Any idea how I could find it if there is? Thanks for any suggestions you might have. Tlqk56 (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In theory, for any book that has been published in Britain copies should have been lodged at the various copyright libraries. You should therefore find references to the book in the COPAC library catalogue at http://copac.ac.uk. However, you couldn't use the lack of a reference in COPAC as a source. You'd need to use a secondary source that explicitly states that the book was never published in Britain. However, I'm puzzled as to how the book could have won a Welsh award if it was never published in Britain as Wales is part of Britain. Or do you mean that the book was never published in England? Dahliarose (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Dahliarose. The award in question, Tir na n-Og Award only requires that the book be published in English. A String in the Harp was a US book set in Wales. I guess I can't use my fascinating fact, as I can find it in several sources, but none of them are modern enough to prove it hasn't been published in the UK since they came out. Thanks anyway. Tlqk56 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that your sources should be strong enough to say that it had never been published in Britain at the time the award was given. That should be good enough. After all, someone could publish it in Britain tomorrow, and we are writing encyclopedia articles that should endure over time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is fascinating! Let me know if you come up with something, I think Cullen328 is correct. Knowing that it wasn't published in the United Kingdom at the time of the award is hugely interesting. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

According to one book, though it was published in 1976 in the US and received the Welsh award for 1977, by 1995 it still hadn't "found a British publisher". That really surprised me, too. Think it's worth putting in that way? Tlqk56 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor feedback

This question is for some of the guests as well as the hosts since the feature was created while I was away from the encyclopedia and is marketed to new users. There is a feature on Wikipedia, I forget what it is called, which allows new users to make remarks about their experience. I would like to figure out where I need to go to review those remarks and respond to those remarks. This would be particularly helpful in helping some editors who are having a bad experience. Is anyone familiar with this? Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Special:FeedbackDashboard. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ryan. My name is Riley and I am one of the top feedback responders. When replying to feedback make sure to check the users contributions to see if they have made unhelpful edits or other things (and talk page if you are on the welcoming committee.) If you would like a list of templates that you could use, go to User:Riley Huntley/Feedback! If you have any questions or are struggling with a certain users feedback, give me a shout or message one of the other responders.

Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   18:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Riley, may i suggest your using {{tlsu}}s for the list of templates on your /Feedback page? Just thought it might provide useful links for visitors who don't know what each of those templates are. benzband (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the suggestion! Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   20:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ryan! It's also one of the tools we use to find new editors to invite to the Teahouse :) You can learn about that in the invite guide. Sarah (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your responses, you're all great! Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

me again--on contacting administrators

Sorry I keep popping up in here, but I'm worried about a potential edit war over this [1]. In case one starts how can I get the administrators involved? Guyovski (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If an edit war was too occur, you could report it to an administrator at the edit war noticeboard. If you have anymore questions, dont be afraid to ask! Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   02:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I investigated a bit and found a very useful article on dispute resolution. It was highly informative even if my Swiss cheese memory didn't retain most of it. But there might be another, unrelated issue. There appears to be a disagreement between me and a longstanding, highly experienced editor whose talk page suggests that he's been involved in some very nasty exchanges in years past, and has been disciplined for them. Am I permitted to take that into account in deciding when to seek dispute resolution? Guyovski (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Guyovski. When an edit war occurs between two editors, by definition both are at fault. My suggestion to you is simply do not fall into the trap of edit warring. Try your best to steer clear of conflict with editors known for "very nasty exchanges" and remember that nastiness can sometimes be contagious. I have 17,000 edits and have never had to go through formal dispute resolution, because I stay away from fights. Those who misbehave eventually get blocked or banned. Avoid those folks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not really tailored for the particular issue here (because the post you removed are quotes that are not attributed through inline citations, and thus patently properly removed pursuant to verifiability policy and here, WP:BLP) but more in the way of general advice. The best way I know to avoid edit wars is to slavishly follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and to remember while you're following it that the article will still be there tomorrow, so if the other person's edit remains for a few days while the cycle is ripening, Wikipedia won't implode. If there is no response to a polite talk page post about the brewing issue, then you revert while specifically leaving an edit summary that speaks of the un-responded-to, talk page discussion. If reverted again, keep seeking to engage, and if there is no response, you can ask for a third opinion, start a request for comment or otherwise act without warring. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's something to consider though: blogs can be used as sources when they only mention claims about their author, and there's no doubt that the material is authentic. I had a quick look and posted my opinion on the talk page. ʝunglejill 07:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Jill is absolutely right. I deleted everything out of ignorance and because my judgment was clouded by paranoia about a potential edit war. None has occurred, but I lack the skill level needed to review the old version, check the bare link that was embedded in the article for reliability, and restore some of the missing content. I'm going to figure out how I can make hidden notes for myself on my talk page or user page and make a note to go back to that article once I have a better idea of what I'm doing. (I assume that I can just use <hide>material</hide> but, if not, I'll figure it out.) Thanks to everyone for their help. Guyovski (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Having a hard time adding a reflist in Ukrainian Wikipedia...yes, that's right!

Oh Teahouse! You are our only hope! I am at an edit-a-thon helping a new editor work on an article and we are trying to add a citation to Ukrainian wikipedia. The article is w:uk:Біочіп (biochip). You can see we're having a problem, it's basically adding a reference list. Anyone who can help..we'd appreciate it. We're both having a hard time :) (Sometimes even if you can't speak the language you can figure it out...but we can't). We wanted to add a footnote but we had to resort to just a reference list. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Sarah (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I found the documentation for the reflist template in Ukrainian. It's here. From what I can tell with bad translation software, it seems that it's pretty much the same as en.wiki. Does that help? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keilana! Huh, we actually tried to use the similar {{reflist}} and it didn't work. Looks like we just might have to wait for someone to clean it up for us who speaks Ukranian. thanks :) Sarah (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ways to learn Wikipedia rules and procedures

I have very spotty memory retention. Out of a 300-page book, I remember only two or three phrases that jump out at me. This made high school and college very difficult in the early 1980s. But I'd still like to be able to review the various Wikipedia rules and procedures and become familiar with them. So far I'm doing it on a case by case basis: as I need to know something, I either dig for it or ask someone. Is there a more efficient way? Guyovski (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski! I'm very glad that you are interested in learning the rules and procedures. The first thing that I can tell you is that a lot of the learning will come from experience. In order to remember important policies, guidelines, and essays you should create a list on your userpage. If you like, you could hide the list, or make it a scrolling list if you don't want to have the entire list showing on your page. (I could help you with that) A good example of an editor who has utilized a portion of his userpage for helpful links is User:BarrelProof. Look at the bottom half of his page. You may even want to use some of those links on yours. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On another note, I do run an adoption program and would be more than happy to take you on and help show you the ropes. You can take a look at it at User:Ryan Vesey/Adopt. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ryan. I finally decided to put myself up for adoption. I had a look at your adoption page and it looks like you recommend traditional study methods and administer tests. Both high school and two years of college were hell for me because they used that precise approach. So, not intending to hurt your feelings, but I don't believe that we'd be a good fit. Another editor told me he used to adopt newcomers until one adoption went all to hell, dozens of editors wasted many hours of time, and the adoptee ended up being permanently banned anyway, so he doesn't want to risk adopting anyone again. But I've used the template and hopefully somebody will come along who's interested. All the best. Guyovski (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Guyovski! I found some articles that summarize the rules in a simplified way: Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset is an official policy. Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:8 simple rules for editing our encyclopedia are essays. Maybe one of those works for you. For me, the most difficult part is remembering the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I use Ctrl-F to search through that article, but it still slows me down sometimes. I think Ryan Vesey's suggestion is great: keep a list of useful pages on your userpage. I have such a list on mine, but it's very short. Other than that, it depends what kind of learner you are. Are you an intuitive learner? If you spend a lot of time reading Wikipedia's best articles, at some point you might have an intuitive grasp of how to contribute. You could concentrate on reading articles in your field of interest. Also, here's a tip that took me a bit of time to figure out: to search Wikipedia project pages, place wp: before your search query. Good luck! ʝunglejill 14:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Took you a bit of time? It took me 1 year 3 months and 24 days. Thanks Junglejill! Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Guyovski. You already have great answers to your questions, and I'm going to follow down some of those links Junglejill mentioned. But I guess I do something a little different, so I'll throw it out, too. I was overwhelmed with info at first and I hated the time I wasted trying to find something I'd read before. So I keep a set of files on my laptop, just for WP. (I use Onenote, but any word processing program that let's you organize files would work.) I keep the program open pretty much whenever I'm on WP. (It's set up just like a three-ring notebook from school days.) I save info for my articles in it, but I also have one just for WP, with tabs like WP editing, MOS style, etc. WP editing is divided into sections like: Categories, Layout, Images, Templates. These sections have subpages, so I can go directly to any bit of info I need. If I find something I can't use right away but want to save, I just copy it in my notebook and Onenote save the link automatically. It has saved me a lot of time, and I'd probably cry if I somehow lost it. LOL You'll find a system that works for you, I'm sure. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski! For a list of Wikipedia's policies (not guidelines), see the exotically named Wikipedia:List of policies. benzband (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for putting so much effort into being helpful. :) I had a look at User:BarrelProof and believe from experience that lists of long documents don't help me much because I still have to search through the documents. The suggestion is appreciated, but I've tried that kind of thing before and it didn't work for me. Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset does look like it could be extremely useful even if it doesn't cover every possibility a la Roman Law. I've bookmarked it in my Firefox so I can pull it up whenever needed. Taking notes would also probably help with memory retention (although I don't use Windows and therefore don't have access to OneNote). Other than that I'll be researching stuff as it comes up and hoping to remember how to do things--and the appropriate things to do--with enough repetition. Again, everybody's input is very much appreciated. Guyovski (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you got some help. I do find taking notes, even on the computer, helps me remember. Believe me, you are ALWAYS welcome to come back here and ask a question -- and no question will be considered too dumb. (I know, I've asked some real doozies myself.) Tlqk56 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

next steps for Notability/Noticeboard?

Hi Teahouse! The Deborah Berke, Architect has been idle for several weeks; there is a comment from User talk:Waggers that says the "article you've written needs a fair bit of work, and you need to be very careful about conflicts of interest and advertising - but as far as notability is concerned I think you've done a great job at establishing that Deborah Berke has it." I am not sure if this comment means the article has passed the notability test, and I wonder if someone can elaborate regarding what kind of work the article needs? And what are the next steps? I wish to avoid a COI and am trying to follow all of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. I posted this question on the Noticeboard and on the User talk:Waggersuser page but so far have only seen this response: "oooooo im scared" (I'm not sure why or what that is about!) — Thank you Meredith at DBA (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Meredith. You are dealing with several challenging issues. It is very difficult for a new editor to write an article about their employer, (Deborah Berke & Partners Architects in this case), and if you were just starting, I would advise against it. But now you are in the midst of it. The best advice I can give is to defer to the opinions of more experienced, disinterested editors, and several have been working on the article. When a single editor such as Waggers expresses an opinion, that is just one person's opinion. That being said, Waggers is a very experienced editor and that usually carries some weight. No one has yet challenged the notability of the firm, and others who participate in that noticeboard have moved on to fresher topics, so you should just move on as well rather than expecting some definitive opinion from the powers that be. That often doesn't happen.

You should be aware that a person's own writings do not establish notability, but only what reliable, independent sources write about that person. I believe that it is best, when listing sources to show notability, to select a smaller number of the indisputably high quality sources that clearly devote significant coverage to the topic, rather than a very long list of everything but the kitchen sink, which few editors will have the time or patience to study thoroughly.

The "oooooo im scared" comment was added by an anonymous IP editor and should be disregarded as graffitti or mild vandalism. If it was my talk page, I would remove it. Let Waggers handle it.

As for improving the article, just do your best to make the article better. I think that it needs more sources that discuss the firm itself in depth, as opposed to those briefly mentioning its various projects and awards. It would be good to establish why this particular firm is particularly notable, as opposed to similar firms of similar size and age. Many (but not all) editors believe Wikipedia should cover distinctive and unique businesses, rather than every business that has won the routine awards given out by trade associations in every field. So, in the case of awards, I would highlight those considered most prestigious among architects. I hope these thoughts prove useful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jim User:Cullen328, thank you so much for taking the time to comment on my question regarding how to go from the Notability/Noticeboard to writing a biographical article about a living person. Your points are terrific and helpful, but the article in question is a biography of a living person, not about a firm. The article is here: User:Meredith at DBA/sandbox and also on the Deborah Berke, Architect. Thank you again for your time and interest. Meredith at DBA (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Meredith, most of what I wrote about the article about a firm also applies to an article about the individual who is principal of the firm. You still have a COI, since both firm and individual will be seen as your employer. You still have to meet notability thresholds, and it is still important to select the highest quality reliable, independent sources for your article, and to write, always, with the neutral point of view in mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing 1st paragraph of exisiting article

I wish to edit the 1st paragraph of an existing article to include a link to a new article I have created but cannot "see" the edit button for this 1st paragraph. The article I wish to edit is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_House_Children%27s_Book_Award

The article I wish to link to is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federation_of_Children%27s_Book_Groups

How do I edit that first paragraph? (I can see the edit buttons lower down the page and have edited fine via them, but can't find a way to reach that very first paragraph...)

Zoetoft (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The side of the page edit buttons are for section editing. Click on "Edit" at the top of the page to edit the entire article. Alternatively, if you want to edit just the first section, click on one of the side edit links and then change the end of the URL to section=0 You can also add the section edit link to the first section by going to your preferences → Gadgets → Appearance, and then tick the box for "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

AH! Got it! I see the edit tab at the top rather than an edit link at the side... knew it would be something obvious. Thanks so much for quick response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoetoft (talk • contribs) 05:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to use 4 tildes at end of my reply... Zoetoft (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. By the way, before they made a major change to the interface some time back the button at the top said "edit this page"; we got a lot of these questions since that change, showing the old button was much easier to see.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Citing oneself as a source

I was a Primary Source Resource for an article on Robert Garrow - I was involved in the car searches that took place in his capture. How do I site myself as a person that was involved in the local searches? In the Robert Garrow page, I attempted to site myself as a Primary Source. I received errors. Thank You name redacted Castev2929 Castev2929 (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello there, and welcome to the Teahouse. In answering your question, please note that we have no way to verify that you are indeed who you say you are in connection to this article. Tohis is not meant to accuse you of lying; on the contrary, it goes to our policy of verifiability, which is knowing that information posted here can be checked by others. Giving the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you are indeed connected, there also lies the problem of conflict of interest, which means the same thing here as it does in real life ... being too close to the subject to write about it in a neutral manner. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to leave them here and either I or another Host will respond. --McDoobAU93 03:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Castev2929, and thank you for your efforts to do the right thing. We have stringent standards here about biographies of living people. Any negative material pertaining to legal issues has to be cited to reliable, independent sources. If you were involved in these searches yourself, then surely you are not independent. You can comment on talk pages, but I recommend that you avoid direct editing of any page pertaining to areas of your direct involvement. Feel free to ask more questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What just happened?

I added some basic information about the specifiacations of this helicopter and then these errors came up did i do something or what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-76 Shashenka (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shashenka, this is a tough issue and I can't figure it out easier, I suggest undoing your edit and adding each thing one at a time to figure out what caused it. On another note, you could leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. The second will have more watchers. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to look at who are the author(s) of Template:Aircraft specs and ask them for help. PS. And of course, check if the documentation page of the template or its talk won't have an answer to your question. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If he does add them piece by piece, I should be able to figure out if there is something wrong in {{Aircraft specs}} it may be possible that {{Aircraft specifications}} is a better template. I will discuss it at the wikiproject later, if one should be deprecated. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, tables have some weird issues. I always use the preview button whenever I touch them. I undid your edit, I'm on my way to bed, but if I can figure it out quickly I'll fix it. :) ʝunglejill 22:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Found the issue - multiple conflicting entries were given for "range". You only have to fill the stats in for one unit of measure, and it's automatically converted to the other units of measurement. The previous range listed is 411 nmi, which translates to 761 km, and you wanted to enter 748 km. Other than that, your other additions are in place - I left the original range and you can decide which range is more accurate - just make sure no conflicting data is entered. ʝunglejill 23:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unflagging/tagging

So I think I have made successful corrections to "Bpeace." When will the banner up top reflect this? Did I make appropriate fixes? Help is greatly appreciated!!!Kkl12489 (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you believe you've responded to the concerns made by the editors who posted the tags on Bpeace, be bold and remove the obsolete tags yourself. However, don't be surprised if another editor may not fully agree with your reasoning and decide to add it back. At that point, you should go to the talk page and discuss what you believe has improved or respond to what they think hasn't improved. --McDoobAU93 18:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks McDoob for pointing out the be bold aspect! Kkll2489, I attempted to de-orphan that article (meaning you have to link it to other Wikipedia articles) and was able to add a few links, I also double checked your work and removed the tags. Great job :) Sarah (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

→ De-orphan means you have to link to it from other Wikipedia articles. benzband (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Gah, that's what I meant :) thanks ben. Sarah (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thought so, just didn't want to be rude by modifying someone else's post. benzband (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are fantastic!!! Thank you so much for your speedy help and very clear responses! Kkl12489 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Kathryn

How do you add an extra line for tables?

For example for vehicles fording depth or for planes and helicopters gross weight just examples but how do you add another line for those things to a table? Shashenka (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Shashenka! I think the simplest guide to tables is this page, and the information there is usually enough. Then there's this page, which really goes into detail about every kind of table. Another option if you're working on an existing table, is to try to imitate the format that's used for the previous rows, and use the "preview" button to check if you did what you wanted. I've noticed that tables have some weird issues sometimes, so if you need more information, you can give a link to the page that needs the addition, and I'll answer specifically. You could also try to create a new table, just as an example to understand how they work. When you edit a page, there's a button above the text window that adds a table - after you click it, a dialog box asks you to choose the number of rows and columns, then it adds the formatting for you, and you fill in the text. This wouldn't help with modifying an existing table, but it will make it easier to understand how they are formatted. Hope this helps, and please don't hesitate to ask for further information. Good luck!

btw, I changed "specifications" to "tables" in your question's title, so other users with a similar problem can find it easily ʝunglejill 20:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Shashenka (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How to check on the progress of a new article.

Is there any way to check on the progress of a wiki submission? It looks like approval can be a slow process, but since it is my first article, I am a little excited, and want to follow it as it moves up the queue (from its starting point at 814th in line... !) BThomascall (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi BThomascall! Welcome to the Teahouse. I just took a look at your article and it's great! I approved it. Well done :) Looking forward to see it expand and your contributions continue! Sarah (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

p.s. there is often a lengthy backlog of articles that need to be reviewed. So, for the future, just be patient! But, you can always ping specific folks for their input and review, including those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology - you might even want to become a member there :) Sarah (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No reference for quote

Hello, There is a quote in an article I've been WikiGnoming that seems to have no reference whatsoever on the internet. It is also a Latin quote with no translation mentioned. Another user believes that it should remain in its current state, until someone fixes it. I think that it should be removed, rather than potentially display false information. What would be the best approach? Silvrous (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Silvrous! Could you provide a link to the article in question so I can investigate this in depth? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your help. I am referring to the Iași article, Etymology and Names section. It's the quote by Ovid. Silvrous (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit solved the problem. In the future you can add a {{citation needed}} template. If you doubt its reliability and it may be controversial make your intentions known on the talk page that you intend to remove it in a few days. If you do not doubt its reliability, my personal opinion is that it is better to include the information with the citation needed tag than to remove the material. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Is this about Iași? In that case I have sourced the Ovid quote (which still could use a translation with a source for the translation). To answer your original question though, all quotations must be cited through an inline citation to a reliable source per the verifiability policy. However, unlike if this was material in a biography of a living person, for example, the material would not need to be removed immediately. A {{fact}} tag could be added and would have been called for in this case rather than simple removal. Then, if no action was taken after waiting an appropriate time, removal should then take place. That is my advice on best practice, but note that per WP:BURDEN, once you remove uncited controversial or challenged material, the burden is on those wishing to retain the material to source it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. benzband (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

which tree species are recently discovered??

pleeeease help me. its for my science project. WHICH TREE SPECIES ARE DISCOVERED RECENTLY?? Asheequa (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Asheequa! I'm afraid that the Teahouse is for assisting editors with Wikipedia, not for factual questions such as this. I would suggest asking at the Science Reference desk or WikiProject Plants. Cheers, benzband (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Need Help Editing New Article Please!

Hello,

I've been trying to upload this article a few times but have been unsuccessful. Can you edit this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Good_Neighboring_Campaign so that it can be approved. I've been receiving comments about how the article is not in a formal, neutral tone and uses peacock terms. So, any assistant is gladly accepted! Thank you!

Joshualee38 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joshua! I'm really sorry your article was declined - that's disappointing, I understand. One thing that you could do to help its chances is to find an outside source that talks about the Good Neighboring Campaign. Has it been mentioned in newspapers or magazines? If you want help with formatting the references correctly, or anything else with your new article, please feel free to ask here - we're happy to help! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Unsung Heroes (Band)

The_Unsung_Heroes_(Band) could someone review this article and help save from deletion, feel free to remove Parts and edit to help improve chance of article being kept Hollyroouk (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hollyroouk, and welcome to the Teahouse! You could also seek help at the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron or any of the WikiProjects related to the subject of the article (you can look at the article's talk page to see if there are already any project banners). benzband (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Unsung Heroes (band) was repeatedly speedy deleted (see log) and was therefore creation protected as a result. Hollyroouk is therefore clearly a sockpuppet of User201212, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of User201212 Valenciano (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Film title has taken up one topic - but don't want to be rude! how to edit?

Hi there,

I wish to write about a subject that interests me - Gandha - it is the ancient practice of using fragranced products as part of hindu ritual. I have lots of information about it as a yoga scholar.

The problem is that there is a new (great!) Indian film called Gandha - and they have taken up all the space for Gandha - should i edit - or create a new page with the same name?

Thanks, SineadJaneMacC (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If there are multiple subjects with the same title, you can differentiate by adding a bracketed identifier. In this case, you could you create an article titled 'Gandha (ritual)' or 'Gandha (practice)' etc. -Cntras (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jane! I have moved the article about the film to Gandha (film), so that Gandha is now a disambiguation page. As Cntras just said, you can create an article called Gandha (ritual) and then link to it from the Gandha disambiguation page. benzband (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Will give that a go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneMacC (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding coordinates to a page

How do you add coordinates to a page? For example, University of California, Davis has the coordinates (latitude, longitude, etc.) included in its infobox and when clicked it mentions something about geohacks. I would like to know how to use a program like this to add coordinates to a given page. Thank you.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi TylerDurden8823, you can go to WP:GEO and take a look at the drop box labelled 'Quick Geographical coordinates how to'. -Cntras (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cntras that worked. Much appreciated! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

Why is it called "the Bureaucracy?" That word has some pretty strong negative connotations. Is it a matter of reclaiming the word so that the way it is generally used changes? Guyovski (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guyovski! I am puzzled by your question as i can't figure out what you mean by "it". If you mean Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Otherwise, i'd be glad to help if only you could reformulate your question. Cheers, benzband (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: look up bureaucracy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. benzband (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The word Bureaucracy is from the french bureau meaning office + -cracy meaning ruled by. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I wasn't very clear. I thought I had seen a part of Wikipedia identified as "the Bureaucracy" but now I can't find the reference. I am pretty sure, however, that there is a senior Wikipedia position title called "Bureaucrat." All I'm asking about is why use that word when it has such negative connotations? Guyovski (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you Wikipedia:Bureaucrats? These are users who have been trusted with a special set of permissions to execute a number of specific tasks within the community. In the real world, a Bureaucrat is

"a member of a bureaucracy and can comprise the administration of any organization of any size"

and a Bureaucracy is

"an organization of non-elected officials of a government or organization who implements the rules, laws, and functions of their institution"

. benzband (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See also meta:Bureaucrat. benzband (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a rather large number of titles associated with various Wikipedia functions. The Highest Lever is Founder. The lowest level is a Global Blocked User who is in addition blocked from account creation, editing their own talk page, or e-mailing other users.

One of those titles is "Bureaucrat", but it should be noted that the very first thing on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats page is "For the "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" policy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

A list of Wikipedia titles involving special access is at Wikipedia:User access levels.

A partial list of Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) titles involving special access is at Wikimedia Special Global Permissions. There are titles not listed there, such as Developers.

There are titles such as "arbcom member" (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee) and "medcom member" (Wikipedia:Mediation Committee) that involve careful selection, others (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) with less formal selection, and others (Third Opinion, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or Wikiquette Assistance) where pretty much anyone is welcome to volunteer to help out.

In addition, there are informal titles listed at Wikipedia:Service awards.

A user can have multiple titles, for example, I am an Autoconfirmed user, a Reviewer, a Rollbacker, a Volunteer Clerk/Mediator at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (Not to be confused with Medcom Mediator or Wikimedia clerk), an Editor / Grognard Mirabilaire], and technically I am a MediaWiki_hacker, but I only make changes on a local corporate Wiki, not a Wikimedia Wiki. --Guy Macon (talk)

Link spam on page Indonesia

How to report link spamming on pages Indonesia on Wikipedia (in history there are many link spammer)? Thanks. Dede2008 (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dede! WikiProject Spam is a group of Wikipedians dedicated to removing spam links from Wikipedia. You can go to their project page and click the big red button, file your report following the instructions given in the edit notice, then click Save page. Cheers, benzband (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How to go from sandbox to article

I wrote my first article, probably really a stub. I put it in my sandbox, worked out all the bugs, and hit 'save.' So far, so good.

But it isn't an article yet, right? It seems to just be my sandbox. The title of the page seems to be "User:BThomascall/sandbox" instead of what I am writing about, the Wopmay orogen.

So my question is probably "How do I create a title that will actually appear?"

BThomascall (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey BThomascall. The article looks great! What you need to do is move the file to the correct title. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for information on how to move it. In order to activate the "move" function, you need to be "autoconfirmed". Getting "autoconfirmed" is easy: it happens instantly when your account is 4 days old, and you have made 10 edits to Wikipedia. Looking at your contributions to Wikipedia, your account is over 4 days old, but you haven't yet made 10 edits. Just make a few edits to a few more articles, or perhaps play around with your userpage, and the "move" function should automagically appear for you, allowing you to move your article to the correct title. If you have any more questions, or need any more help, feel free to ask! --Jayron32 18:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a great answer. I am starting some edits now. And thanks for looking over the article and providing feedback. I really appreciate it. I'd like to ask another question: I'm mentioning a dollar amount in an edit. My wording is misleading, but I don't know how to fix it. I am trying to convey that the US government's contribution to a building project is going to be $400 million, but that the overall project is expected to stimulate the local (German) economy by a much larger amount, about one billion dollars. However, since many countries have a dollar currency, I tried to say that this reflects the value in USD, but then it comes across as though the US is contributing the entire amount. If you have any suggestions... Here is the actual phrasing as it now stands: "A new hospital would have several advantages over renovating the existing hospital and is expected to stimulate the state's building industry, with estimates of putting up to one billion US dollars into the local economy. In 2008, the proposal received approval for a $400 million project; the proposal is contingent upon congressional support for the funding." Thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BThomascall (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What about something like "The U.S. is donating an amount of US$400 million, while other countries are donating additional amounts to bring the total investment up to US$1 billion" or something like that. Something that makes a clear distinction between the denomination of the currency and the source of the donations? --Jayron32 20:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I can now move the article, but it seems like it will take my sandbox with it? The instructions say that the old page, my user sandbox, will redirect to the new page. That's not quite what I'm looking for... BThomascall (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Once you've moved it you can blank the sandbox, which will remove the #REDIRECT [[ ]] code. benzband (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a great support site! Thank you everyone! I have submitted the article, and it is 814th in line for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BThomascall (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One more question, please. Is there any way to check on the progress of a wiki submission? It looks like approval can be a slow process, but since it is my first article, I am a little excited, and want to follow it as it moves up the queue (from its starting point at 814th in line... !) BThomascall (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Isobel Waller-Bridge

Hello there. I recently created an article for an emerging composer, Isobel Waller-Bridge but it has been quickly nominated for deletion. One comment was that she has not worked much, but only done short films, when there is evidence on the internet that she has worked in theatre, film (as an arranger) and radio, and has had commissions from orchestras and ensembles. I created the page because i think she is an interesting artist. What's more, i feel guilty now that i've created this page about her and now there are these deletion nominations and proposals which she has nothing to do with! I read that the deletion proposals would be resolved within a week, but it has been at least one month now? I think the person/article is valid, particularly as there are a lot of people out there who have achieved much less and are present on wikipedia! I am grateful for 'Trevj' who has sourced more information about this artist, and i will happily keep updating the page when its appropriate. Any advice is welcome. Many thanks Noeline1984 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Noeline! The biggest issue with any new article is that there is adequate evidence that the subject of the article has been written about extensively in reliable, independent sources. That is, in Wikipedia, "notability" of a person is not measured by what a person has done, but what people have written about a person. If people have not written about Isobel's life and work, then the information that you might put into a Wikipedia article cannot be properly verified, an as such, there really shouldn't be an article at Wikipedia about her. If such sources do exist, then you need to make such source material clear. You may find Wikipedia:Notability to be a good place to get more information about this concept. Good luck, and if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask! --Jayron32 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you also read the policy at WP:DELAFD (linked to from the deletion notice currently in place at the top of the article)? -- Trevj (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

resubmit page after donating content

Hello, I submitted a page that had copyright infringement and the author of part of the infringement agreed to donate the content with the Creative Commons License. Now the rewritten article is in talk:Heart Pine and I don't know how to resubmit it or if I shouls have it approved somewhere else first, sorry totally new hereSpringmata (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. A question could then arise as to whether or not the donated content may be an infringement itself. Therefore, it's probably safest and easiest to rewrite the content, as already suggested. I hope that makes sense. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I did rewrite it and added that note on the heart pine page, but no one has responded, should I just go ahead and edit heart pine with the new content I wrote? Thanks Springmata (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be simplest for Writ Keeper to review and comment on Talk:Heart pine/Temp. It looks as though you've followed the guidance, but the article should use inline citations (see WP:INCITE) and would also benefit from some additional references. I'm dropping a note on Writ Keeper's talk page. -- Trevj (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply at the article's talk page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How do I add the Reflinks tool (Toolserver) to my Toolbox menu?

Hello, I find this Reflinks very difficult to understand but I am determined to try.

As a start, would someone please tell me how to add the Reflinks tool to mt Toolbox menu?

Much appreciated.

sofiabrampton user:Sofiabrampton ````

Moved from the talk page. heather walls (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sofia. Go to Special:MyPage/skin.js. Copy and paste the following code:

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=20&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

Save the page. Now clear your cache. It should now be accessible If you have any problems, please tell us.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My article needs to be "wikified(?)"

I am active in codependents anonymous and I noticed about six months ago that the article on the group was terrible. It hardly talked about the group at all. So I composed a new article and posted it and it is still there. But I don't know how to do things the wiki way (it took me half an hour to find this place to ask this question!).

Now there are notices on the article requesting revision to wikipedia standards. I do not intend to do other work on wikipedia in the near future so i would rather not spend several days to learn how to bring the article up to wikipedia standards. I think all the needed content is there in MLA style, I believe, but that does not meet your standards, I understand.

Is there someone who can help get this article into shape?

Thank you for your attention. I too work as a volunteer keeping our organization running and would like to focus on that work.

Sincerely,

John Rose174.60.152.81 (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi John! I am actually a coordinator of WikiProject Wikify. I will be more than happy to Wikify your article, but note that it may take me a few days and I may change much of the content of your article. If you have issues after I make changes. You are welcome to add them to the talk page and I will take a look. Thanks for your contribution! Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your additions to the article were too promotional and violated our policy that articles need to be written from a neutral point of view. I had to restore the original content of the article. I suggest that in the future, you focus on making smaller changes and request your edits on the talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, how could you go back to an article that does not address the subject of the article? And the reference to the "38 item scale" is just plain wrong as is the reference to a definition of codependency. This organization is careful to maintain a distance from professional tools such as definitions and assessment scales, so to restore that information is simply misleading to any readers. I state in my version that CoDA does not define codependency and I cite documentation to that effect. I fail to see your reason for accusing what I offer as biased. Everything comes from their literature except for personal observations clearly identified. Like 12 step groups generally, (except AA because of its size) there is simply very little independent documentation on CoDA. I know, I searched the web extensively and have the only book ever written on it, some 20 years ago. I came across a wikipedia principle that provides for personal experience when other sources are unavailable. Your action is contrary to the wikipedia goal of accurate information on the face of it. Have you read both articles? John Rose174.60.152.81 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)