Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 72

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

The article Plain Old C++ Object may be a fake

I have just improved a bit the quality of the article Plain Old C++ Object, but it seems this article looks like a fake. I need help from other software skilled contributors to check the relevance of this article.

First, it was the first time I heard about 'Plain Old C++ Object'. The term Plain Old Java Object (POJO) has been invented in 2000 (http://martinfowler.com/bliki/POJO.html). Then the term Plain old data structure (POD) has been invented. And finally the term Plain Old CLR Object (same POCO abbreviation). But I do not really see the need for such term 'Plain Old C++ Object' in C++. However, the GCC wiki mention POD and could refer to POCO standing for Plain Old C++ Object...

Second, this article has been written in 2007 by User:Kjin101, the owner of PocoCapsule software. His contributions was about adding links to his software project. This Wikipedia account has been use just for a couple a days, and has not been used to do something else.

My personal conclusion is that the term 'Plain Old C++ Object' has been invented by User:Kjin101, and he has created this article in order to add links to his software project...

We may add a banner or mention that in the article... What do you think?

Please answer within the talk page Talk:Plain Old C++ Object.

Oliver H (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

change article name

I made a typing error in the article name and I can not change it nor can i delete the articleMgha (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mgha and welcome to the Teahouse! An article with a misspelled title need not be deleted; it can just be moved to a new title. Autoconfirmed users (those with 4 days of editing and 10 edits) can move pages. As you are not autoconfirmed yet, I can move it to Cojitambo, which seems to be the right name according to the body text. Is this correct? - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I created an article and spelled it properly EXCEPT that I accidentally left the person's last name uncapitalized. So, when I type in "Augustus Constantine," it automatically goes to the article, with the improper capitalization of "Augustus constantine." Since I can't seem to create a new page with the right capitalization (as the previous poster was told to do), I'm not sure how to fix this.ProfReader (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation to improve article

Hi, I believe that the article Deine Lakaien will be improved by a translation of the German version. I prepared this translation in my sandbox, so I do not request a translation. But what do I have to do now? As far as I understood, an admin has to import the German article - is this true? And how/where do I post such a request? Sorry for the stupid question, and thx for your help, CarbonWoman (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi CarbonWoman. Not a stupid question at all - I wish more of our contributors were as concerned to get this sort of thing right! The most straightforward solution is to copy-paste the German text and/or it's translation, but add a {{Translated page}} template to the article's talkpage (and to your sandbox talkpage, if you work on it there). The template format would be as follows:

{{translated page|de|Deine Lakaien}}

There are additional parameters that you should fill in (notably the |version= and |insertversion= ones, there are details of how to fill these in at the template's documentation page), but the above code will suffice for basic attribution to be maintained. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick answer, Yunshui! Sounds much simpler than I expected :) CarbonWoman (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Clackamas Town Center Transit Center

Hi it is Dfgg again i saw that someone redid my edits to Clackamas Town Center Transit Centersection fare zone from none back to 3 and whoever did that made a mistake because trimet got rid of zones for good in fall 2012 so what if this happens again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfgg (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dfgg! Welcome back. It appears your change to the zone field got removed along with several other edits. The editer left an explanation, "Revert messed-up edits". I know that doesn't say much, but the reverting of your edits was correct. He did it per WP:OVERLINKING. That policy has many parts, but the one that applies here is you don't link something like a city name when the city name is being used as a title for something else, like in this case, a bus line. In regard to the zone thing, you would have to cite a source for that, as the article doesn't discuss it. So, just search The Oregonian website for a reference to cite before you put it back. It should be there! Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have submitted National Newspaper articles for a certain article for references, but its not approved. How do i go about it?

Hello. I have posted an article about an upcoming project of great importance, a first ever in the country, but its being turned down, even though i have cited 3-4 references from National and Regional Newspapers. How do i go about it ? Puneexclusive (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Puneexclusive! Welcome to Teahouse. I assume the article you are talking about is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Woodstock Heliport And Trauma Centre?Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Doah, me! That is the only article you've edited, so that must be it. My bad! You have four references on your article, two (three?) from newspapers and a .pdf from a government agency. The ? article is in a foreign alphabet and I can't read it. The other two newspaper articles are primarily about the expressway and not considered sources for the heliport. The government document is a primary source and does nothing to show notability. The biggest problem tho, and it kinda surprises me that neither of the reviews mentioned it, is we have a policy here at Wikipedia called WP:CRYSTAL that in short says that we don't publish articles about things until we have a firm date for their completion. As the project progresses you should be able to find more secondary sources like newspaper articles, and once the date of completion is firm, you should be able to do a fine article. I do want to compliment you on the very nice neutral tone you wrote in. That is kinda unusual for a first article and greatly appreciated. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Having a hard time getting an image properly authorized and categorized for use on a pending Wiki Page

Hi there,

I am writing/editing a Wiki Page for an actor who owns the head shot that I am using on his Wiki page. What kind of license do I need in this instance? I'm not sure if I selected the correct license. And if there is some sort of form or format that I should follow (or send to the actor that I am building a Wiki page for) if I could get a direct link to that form that would be great. Having a hard time knowing where to go to find the info that I need and navigate my way the the UI.

Thank you for the help. TheUmbrellaAgencyBP (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi TheUmbrellaAgencyBP and welcome to the Teahouse! I think you would need direct permission from the actor, but I will be back with the link to the license I think is appropriate. Someone else may have to clarify, as I'm not that experienced. JHUbal27 ^{Roar! :-)} 02:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

HI, TheUmbrellaAgencyBP. Generally, when it comes to release of copyright, the subject of a photo does not own the copyright. Generally, headshots for actors are sold to them by the photographer under a limited license. To be used on Wikipedia, all rights have to be released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or GFDL. This effectively removes any way for the photographer to charge anyone for that image. So, long story short, you will probably need the photographer to release it.Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing file details regarding licensing

Hi, I just uploaded an image on wikimedia called "Esben-the-witch1.jpg", using the "old form", I put my licensing information which was to use as long as I am named as author. Then I edited the relevant page and added my image, but when I click the image now in wikipedia, the author is simply stated as the username (my wikimedia one: Kashk) and not my real name which I did put in that old form as K Karimi. It also does not allow me to edit this in wikipedia. Can someone please help. Thanks. The.Filsouf (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. The only place you can edit the file is at Wikimedia Commons - where you uploaded it. If you go to that page commons:File:Esben-the-witch1.jpg you can edit the file description to add whatever name you want - I'd suggest [[User:Kashk|K Karimi]] so that people understand that you are the person who took the image. NtheP (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey :) Please also note that by uploading it to Wikimedia Commons, you agreed that all that is needed for attribution is a link to the Commons page. Any reuser is not required to use your name. To this extent, you may wish to enable your e-mail on Commons, so those that reuse it can notify you in a timely fashion. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting references

Dear editors: I have been making a page about the Ontario Genealogical Society. When it was accepted a comment was made that the references were not properly formatted. Could someone check and see what's wrong with them? I used the YYYY-MM-DD date format, which is one of the formats allowed in the style manual, but appears to be less popular. Is it that, or something else? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the suggestion is to use one of the citation templates such as {{Cite news}}, {{Cite web}} or {{Cite book}} as appropriate.--ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I properly do footnote 3 on the entry Static Mixer? Thank you for your assistance.

How do I properly do footnote 3 on the entry Static Mixer? It is an independent lab report, called a white paper, that exists only on a website. Thank you for your assistance.Sageanne (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. You should probably use the {{Cite web}} template.--ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!Sageanne (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a BLP policy on ascribing nationality?

Is there a Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy on ascribing nationality, either within the article text or by using categories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Cameron_(linguist) This article has been ascribed both the "Scottish feminists" and the "English people stubs" categories. Although the linguist in question was born in Scotland, she has lived in England most of her life and speaks with an English accent.

Phil Champ (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phil, welcome to the Teahouse. The British/English/Scottish/Irish argument is a long running one on Wikipedia, and there's no set policy as to what's correct. The nearest we get is the Manual of Style for Biographies, which says that "In most modern-day cases [nationality] will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Make of that what you will... There's also an essay analysing the subject here, which you might find helpful. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that if reliable sources describe someone as Scottish, Welsh, English or Irish (or if they identify themselves that way) then that may be a good reason to describe them as such. If its a grey area (like Cameron above) then British is a reasonably safe catch-all! In other cases, I've often seen people described as German-American, Uruguayan-Venezuelan etc. if they're identified with more than one nation. Sionk (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit) appears when you google our company name

hi there when you search Hookson in the para underneath (edit) appears - how do you remove that?

Hooked30 (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hooked30. I've tried doing the suggested Google search and I'm not seeing what you mean - is the word "edit" in square brackets, like this: [edit]? If so, it may be that Google is somehow pulling a section edit link into its text sample - as far as I know, that's not something that can be fixed from Wikipedia's end. However, as I said, I can't see this in Google searches on either of my browsers. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hooked, I did see what you saw but since I edited the article and changed the formatting slighty, Google has picked up the new version so the edit word no longer appears in the search results. NtheP (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

captchas sometimes appear and sometimes do not

I'm curious what the rhyme or reason is for captchas sometimes appearing when saving an edit and sometimes not. I understand the rational for them. It just seems odd to me that they would be used sometimes but not all the time. Thanks, Steve Liebelt Steve.liebelt (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steve! Welcome to the Teahouse. I believe the reason you're getting the captchas is because you're just adding external links to articles. With a low edit count, and primary contributions being just external link additions, you will occasionally have to enter a Captcha so Wikipedia knows you're not a bot just adding links for the sake of spam. I hope that helps :) I hope you'll keep contributing! SarahStierch (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, this should go away in about 3 days when you become autoconfirmed. :) gwickwire^talk_edits 02:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:Log/Steve.liebelt shows it's 1 day and 17 hours from now. You become autoconfirmed after four days and at least ten edits. The days are counted from account creation and not from your first edit, which is what gwickwire may have looked at. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I need a bio page added

Hello, I am the manager of a television personality and I am trying to add her page here on Wikipedia, knowing it's not to be a self-promotional page. She is an inventor and business woman and some information is pertinent to be linked to other Wiki pages. I have tried this myself and it was deleted by a user. She tried on her own too, it was deleted. I included 10 sources of references but they were all deleted. I need someone to repost this page please as i'm having no luck. Her book was just published. — Whippet66 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks the woman is notable and writes about her here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Although that may be true RH I think there is probably a nicer way to say it. Whippit66. Have you tried the Articles for Creation wizard. That has a review process and will generally provide feedback. COI is going to be a problem though. It might be better to just ask someone to create it and provide some refs. No blog posts, facebook, myspace or things of that nature though. You need to also ensure the person meets our Notability requirements. Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

cool, that makes sense. thanks. Steve.liebelt (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this comes over as unfriendly, Whippet66, but the fact that you say "I need someone to repost this page" suggests to me that you are here for the personality's benefit and not for Wikipedia's. We all want to improve Wikipedia, but it has no deadlines, and if somebody says they have one, this tends to suggest that they are here for the purpose of promotion, however carefully they word the text they contribute. The fact that "her book was just published" makes it almost certain that the book is not (yet) notable - i.e., has not been written about by multiple reliable sources independent of her - and the fact that you mention it also suggests that your purpose here is to publicise the book. --ColinFine (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing article name to make it more relevant

I would like to change the article title of 'Helen Price (debater)' to just 'Helen Price' as I think it would make the page more relevant... Not sure how to do this. Martinstoshassociates (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Done - I have moved the page to Helen Price. Please note that there are issues with notability as indicated by the maintenance template at the top of the page.--ukexpat (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please also note that there's a potential issue with your username. I've left a note on your talk page. -- Trevj (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Userbox template

Is there any userboxes which say how much time I've been on wikipedia and how many edits I've done? If there are, what are their templates? -Yashowardhani (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Yashowardhani and welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, the userboxes do exist - they are here for how long you've been around and here for how many edits you've made. Hope this helped! - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 15:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it did. Thank you so much. --Yashowardhani (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Very early internet

I have written a summary about computer controlled communications I developed in 1967-68. I'm 81 years old and the only living person who knows and understands what was done in those early days. It's a tiny bit of history that will be lost with my passing.Lucas225 (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Could you please publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia? Wikipedia doesn't publish things that haven't been published elsewhere first. Biosthmors (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Posting information directly to an article that you cannot cite elsewhere (via a book, internet resource, article, etc.) is classified as original research, and unfortunately cannot be accepted on Wikipedia. Please, as was suggested, feel free to post your information elsewhere. Thank you for your consideration, and don't hesitate to ask any further questions.

Respectfully, Go Phightins! 04:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So ~ I'm curious (as a very green editor who has yet to contribute anything other than minor corrections) ~~

Q1. Does this mean that if he gets published somewhere (e.g. IEEE Spectrum), THEN can he create a Wikipedia article, citing the article in the magazine?

Q2. If someone is able to get a TED talk posted on the TED site, can that be cited as a source? Thanks Martian (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Q1: If he gets it published somewhere acknowledged to be reliable (and IEEE Spectrum would be such a place) then it can be cited in a Wikipedia article. But a single publication would usually not be sufficient to establish notability for the subject to have its own article, or even its own section in an article. And in any case Lucas225 should not insert any such material into Wikipedia, as he has a conflict of interest.

Q2: I don't know the answer. I would have though the TED was regarded as reliable, but I've just tried to look for a discussion of it on the archives of the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and not found anything. You could ask explicitly on that noticeboard. --ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A1. yes. i would advise you to get your history; oral history down, and archived, for example at the Computer History Museum. they would love to talk with you.

A2. a TED talk, or oral history are primary sources, and can be used with care in this tertiary source encyclopedia, normally in external links; see WP:PRIMARY. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How to resolve issues on a new wiki page

The wiki entry Women Live is an attempt to archive a women’s magazine. Because I was involved in the magazine it seems that I have a too ‘close connection ‘ to the subject. How can this be overcome?

How does one achieve apparent objectivity when involved in setting up a wiki page, when one has been connected with that project??

Gillian Young (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, Gillian, and thank you for asking the question. Wikipedia's guidance on such cases of conflict of interest is at WP:COI. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

... and I've changed the internet url in your link to a wikilink to make it more readable. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "attempt to archive" is problematic. Wikipedia is not a web host for random stuff, it is an encyclopedia with strict content rules. Roger (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am struggling to understand the responses* which seem ignorant and a little arrogant. All written by men. ‘Notable’ means worthy of attention or notice. To anyone studying subjects such as: autobiographical writing and the development of women’s magazines would find this item relevant within that context. The Women’s Library (see link) agreed to house the archive exactly because it recognises it within a historical context.

I am trying to get advice as to how to make the Women Live article comply with standards - and am gobsmacked that people can ignorantly suggest it should be ‘deleted’. More useful would be some SIMPLE suggestions as to how to strengthen it in terms of Wiki standards. Please note some of us struggle to comprehend these processes.

A magazine that cease publication after six issues can hardly be notable. If it had been notable, it would no doubt have continued being published.

Gillian Young (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gillian. Like many activities, Wikipedia has some jargon of its own, and one of the terms that is not immediately obvious is "notable". As you say, its normal dictionary meaning is "worthy of note"; but for the purposes of Wikipedia it has a specific and somewhat different meaning: "already noted by multiple reliable organs independent of the subject". Clearly there is a considerable overlap between the meanings, but there is also some disparity. Something can be very popular on the street, or regarded as important by a particular group, but if no reliable newspaper or publisher has noted it then it does not meet the criterion. (Conversely if several scholarly books have discussed a topic it meets the criterion even if hardly anybody has heard of it). The criterion is in a sense a practical one, because if no reliable sources have said anything about a topic, then there is no reliable information which can go into an article. (Information available only from sources close to the subject is not regarded as independent, and is not generally allowed in articles).

What this means for your question is that if there exist the substantial, reliable, independent references necessary to establish notability, then inserting those references in the article will be enough to save it from deletion - any other problems such as tone or formatting can be fixed at leisure. But if those references do not exist then there is nothing you can do to the article to save it from deletion.

I don't know who inserted the starred comment above, but I think it is wrong and ill-judged. It is perfectly possible for a magazine to achieve notability in Wikipedia's sense in one or two editions, and then fold for purely practical reasons.

I hope this explains things to you. --ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I get my sandbox back?

Today the article that I had been working on in my sandbox was moved into the encyclopedia. Now I would like to use my sandbox again to start another article. However, the title of the page still says Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandolin Society I found the Move button, but the move page warns of deleted logs and dire consequences, so I though I would ask first, what is the procedure to put my sandbox back to the way it was before? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne. Easily fixed - when the sandbox page was originally moved to Articles for creation, it left a redirect (a page that automatically follows a link to a different page when loaded) behind. I've fixed this for you by removing the redirect; your sandbox is now good to go! Yunshui 雲‍水 05:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I remove web sources that no longer exist?

I've seen a couple articles now that I am interested in trying to improve that contain web sources in the reference section that are now dead links. Usually newspaper web sites that have removed or moved the article. Should I be removing these or leaving them alone as I try to add new sources etc... ? Derekeverett (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Derekeverett! Welcome to the Teahouse. I think it would be better to leave them, as many times there are archive sites that will have a copy of it. If you know how to find a replacement, by all means, replace it. But if you are just going to remove it because it is dead, best to leave it so someone else can try to find an archive copy.Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Derekeverett. That's a good question, the answer is pretty simple. First, if possible, you should try to locate the original source, and then update it to the new URL. Second, if you can't update the original source, you should tag the reference with the template {{deadlink}} inside the reference tags, right next to the dead URL. That will alert people that the URL is dead; there are services (Wayback Machine) which allow you to find archived copies of dead links. Thirdly, you can add additional sources which provide further support for the text. However, it is rarely a good idea to remove a source merely for being a dead link. There are reasons to remove a source (if it is unreliable, irrelevent, or if the source does not support the text in question) however merely having the URL moved is not one of them. Wikipedia:Link rot contains further tips for dealing with dead links. Does that help? --Jayron32 05:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! Derekeverett (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of running Checklinks (a handy tool for this sort of thing) on the Willie de Wit article, and it tagged the three dead links. It also searched for archived versions, but neither WebCite nor Wayback have archived versions of the pages:

No matches from the Internet Archive.

Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived.

~Sorry about that, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed tags...

I'm going through the Cleanup listing for the Metalworking WikiProject, specifically the section listing Articles with links needing disambiguation. Metalworking is listed, and the link in need of disambiguation is Centrifugal casting. There are two links, one for centrifugal casting on an industrial scale, and the other on a smaller scale for silversmithing. Since the main article deals with Metalworking in general, and they are both articles about casting metal, I don't know what I should do. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 03:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey :) Thanks for the work on disambiguation you've done! We appreciate it a lot! Personally, I'd switch it to the one of the two that has the most information. Not necessarily the longer one, but the most information. Make sense? gwickwire^talk_edits 03:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 03:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixing a mistake

I was surfing different pages related to World War II and I came across a notice bar in the "References" section talking about not using constructs like "Ibid". I fixed the problem, do I now remove the notice, or leave it there?

Sirwins5550 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sirwins and welcome to the Teahouse! The great thing with Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, so be bold when editing! (I don't know if te link works.) If you feel you've fixed the problem, remove the notice. The one exception to be bold is to not vandalize Wikipedia. And try not to cause an edit war. Again, I'm sorry if the links do not work, but if they don't I'll find the correct link. Happy editing! JHUbal27 ^{Roar! :-)} 01:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sirwins, if you feel like you've adequately addressed a problem, then feel free to remove the notice (those are usually called template messages, or tags). Make sure you understand the meaning of a notice first, to ensure you've completely addressed the problem, but if you are sure you have then removing it is exactly what you should do. As JHUbal says, be bold! Thanks for making constructive contributions, and please continue to enjoy Wikipedia. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 03:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How can we tell if a website is reliable?

This is a homework question, but it is related to Wikipedia. I know for a fact that Wikipedia is not reliable because anyone can edit its content. I'm not sure what would be a good one-sentence answer. Can anyone help me with examples? Thanks. JHUbal27 ^{Roar! :-)} 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is improving every day, and in the same sense refers to reliability, each person can edit Wikipedia, it is true, anyone can add content, but the reviewers or patrol are responsible for reviewing, that the information has been placed on any item , is reliable, for this we must find sources, reliable websites,where what content says is being supported,if it turns out to be false, would be eliminated as soon as,regards! Carliitaeliza TALK 00:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Because identifying reliable sources is such an important part of what Wikipedians do, we've written quite a lot about it! You might find some inspiration reading Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The fact that it's available at a website is actually less important than other factors that apply to all sources, like whether it was self-published, how good the publisher's fact-checking is, whether the publication has a well-known bias, and so on. Dcoetzee 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source is reliable because it has generated a reputation for being reliable, that means that it is known for its thoroughness and its fact checking and editorial control and that society at large trusts it because it has proven to be reliable in the past. Major newspapers (New York Times), magazines (Newsweek) books published by academic presses (Oxford University Press), peer-reviewed journals recognized as leading journals in their fields (Journal of the American Chemical Society), and online sources which are held to the same standards as all of those generally qualify. Conversely, unreliable sources are those which have little to no reputation established in the world at large, which are not widely known for quality reporting or fact checking, and over which there is little editorial control. The reason why Wikipedia will never be a reliable source on its own is because it lacks that. Now, Wikipedia is aiming to be based entirely on reliable sources, but even when that happens, Wikipedia still won't itself be a reliable source. But it can be used to find reliable sources, because once everything is sourced, well, there they all are! --Jayron32 00:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Article class question

Hi all, I'm just wondering a couple things about article classes. First of all, what exactly is the relation between GA class and A class for articles? I've seen an article that is listed as a good article, but is considered to be A-class by a specific WikiProject. I noticed that A-class has it's own logo, I don't believe B-class or C-class do.

Also, what exactly is the FM-class? Is it for featured images? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

These are seperate classes determined through different means. The A class is a project assessment class determined, either through a bold edit or a consenus discussion on the talk page or project page. These are rated: stub class to A class for quality and low through top quality for importance. A GA is a Good Article listing that is done through a peer review using GA criteria to improve or decline an article for a GA rating. Wikiprojects can determine their own rating on an article and they don't need to match but a GA rating is supposed override the other quality ratings. Best look to see if the project objected to the review. Template work is very much like writing aticles. Some have very different editors and don't want images and some have just never had them introduced. I am not sure what FM class is. There is an older class chart that had a longer list of classes.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Featured media. I wanted to check before i said anything.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe my confusion is as cleared up as is necessary. WikiProject Baseball does not appear to use A-class, so I probably don't need to be too familiar with it. Thanks again, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? I know that they have all the assessment pages etc.. [1]].--Amadscientist (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but those are all empty. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Socks placed upon hands

move along, move along

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If no "improper purpose" exists or is proven is it a sock puppet?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a sound? MultipleAccountsAllowed (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts are permitted for legitimate uses, see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses.--ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Multiple, and thanks for dropping in at the teahouse. A better answer might be that while multiple accounts are allowed in very specific circumstances, if you're new enough to not understand what those circumstances are then you really have no business using multiple accounts. If you happen to break one of our many, many rules using just one account people will tend to write it off as a learning experience of a new user. If we suspect a sockpuppet is involved, though, we expect that you've been around long enough that the infraction was deliberate and all of your accounts will be blocked. So probably best to leave this feature alone. Garamond Lethe 20:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific question - does disruptive editing and/or policy violation have to be shown in a sockpuppet investigation? Rules say yes, but application varies wildly and at times blocks appear punative in lieu of preventing further disruption (i.e. the specific language of the policy). Thoughts gents?MultipleAccountsAllowed (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it there are two distinct classes.

1) If an editor who has never been a puppetmaster uses multiple accounts, then some sort of disruptive editing must be shown in order to begin the sock puppet investigation. In this case the bar for disrupted editing can be very, very low.

2) If an account is suspected of being controlled by a known puppetmaster, that in itself is a violation regardless of the behavior of the new sockpuppet.

I'm thinking of one recent case in particular where the sockpuppet was not being disruptive but, in the judgment of the responsible admin (seconded by several other editors) there wasn't a need to make a technical argument: the behavioral evidence was more than sufficient to block the sock puppet indefinitely. No argument was made or needed to be made to the sock puppet account. And in my opinion, that's the way it should be. Garamond Lethe 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, I now see how you do the indents. Where in the policy does it say 1) and 2)? Seems like opinion, not policy.

MultipleAccountsAllowed (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked for using an inappropriate second account. Closing this discussion. --Jayron32 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I change the title of an article that is up for review?

My article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mandolin Society really should be called "Mandolin Society of Peterborough", but when it was moved into the talk page it was mislabeled. It was my fault; I hadn't written the first paragraph clearly. Is it a good idea to change it, or will that mess things up while it is in the queue? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That can probably wait until the article is moved from AFC to the main article space. Actually I think it's ready to be moved now, so I will take care of that.--ukexpat (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ukexpat, sorry to be such a pest, but I have learned a lot by asking questions and also reading the answers to other people's questions. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Done - article is now at Mandolin Society of Peterborough. No problem, you are not being a pest, we are here to help!--ukexpat (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

How do you speedily delete a page? DavidCitron (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi DavidCitron. What type of page is it? There are many different types of speedy deletion for different types of pages. Here's a table of some of the common types:

"Code"	Name	Description
G1	Patent nonsense	Incoherent and gibberish text. For example, pages with something like "sdfklasnfkjsdanf".
G2	Test pages	Tests. For example, pages with something like "Bold text".
G3	Vandalism and hoaxes	Pure vandalism and obvious hoaxes.

To mark a page for deletion, just add {{db-<the code>}} at the top of the page. For example, a vandalism page would be marked {{db-g3}}. If you would like the full criteria, please see WP:CSD. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello David. The Anonymouse is right, but an easier way is to install Twinkle under gadgets in user preferences. Twinkle can welcome users, mark a page for deletion, and more. If you clear your browser's cache, you will see "TW". Click on that and then click "CSD" when you get to the page you want to speedily delete. Twinkle makes your life so much easier. JHUbal27 ^{Roar! :-)} 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

the rodney king riots

Hello there, back in '92 during the Rodney King riots on the west coast NYC got hit by a rash of riots as well primarily on the upper west side of Manhattan which lasted about a week. I can't seem to find any reference to that riot. I also seem to find that most people have never heard that this incident occurred. If you have anything on file I'd like to please take a read of it, as I was there at the time in crutches and had to get to my car out in the street to prevent the hoodlums from rolling it down towards a bonfire of cars set ablaze on Broadway of 141s street where I lived at the time. 74.232.65.16 (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for dropping in at the teahouse! I do see the 1992 Washington Heights riot on our List of riots, but we don't have a corresponding article for that incident yet. This page is (mostly) for answering questions about how to edit articles. For more general questions such as yours, you might want to check out our Reference Desk. Good luck! Garamond Lethe 16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia in 2013?

Will Wikipedia introduce new formatting Styles for our contributions in this year 2013?

-

Writeindia Writeindia (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Writeindia. Almost everything in Wikipedia, including styles of all kinds, are determined by consensus among editors (which means, anybody who wants to get involved). Personally, I see no reason why things should change just because we are in a new year; but if you want to make suggestions of this sort, I recommend you go and look at WP:Village Pump. This page (or rather, pages - there are several different areas) are where people discuss proposals for improving Wikipedia as a whole, and if you present a good case for change, you may find other editors will support you. --ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe I edited that one in this morning. Soon as I did the search, that showed up74.232.65.16 (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Do Talk entries remain pending for approval?

Or is there some kind of caching going on?

I made an entry in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dirichlet_integral#Complex_Integration yesterday, and I could see it immediately. I forwarded that link to the person I had been discussing it with, but she could only see the old comments. I realised that when I cleared my browser history and refreshed I could only see the old comments myself. Logging in and refreshing made the new comment appear.

I would expect Talk to be unfiltered - and anyway the topic is hardly a controversial one. And if there is some kind of pending status, it would be nice to know.86.24.142.189 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That was me - I forgot I was still logged out. BobHatt (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob, welcome to the Teahouse. In the last couple of days Wikipedia underwent a server move which has caused other reports of experiences similar to yours. By logging out, back in and refeshing you'll have purged the page so you see the current revision. The oerson you sent the link to hadn't purged the page (and why should they know to do so?) so only saw an old revision. The issue has now gone away. NtheP (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NtheP - I just had another look with browser history cleared and my words are still not visible on the main Read tab. Oddly they are now visible under Edit. I suppose this is a continuation of the caching problem, so I just have to wait for it to be sorted out.BobHatt (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It may also be that you asked someone to add it on the talkpage, and not on the article page. :) gwickwire^talk_edits 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation of Pages

Hi there, I speak more than one language and would like to contribute to Wikipedia by translating some English articles to Portuguese. I was wondering, is there a specific way to do that? Or should I just log in the PT Wiki and edit? I wouldn't like it to seem like I am coming up with material, rather than just translating existing content. Thank you very much! Kind Regards, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Log in to the PT Wikipedia and add the translations. As long as material is properly sourced, there should be no problem. I have done hundreds of translations from Spanish WP to English WP myself. I am sure the PT Wikipedia could use more detailed entries in some existing articles as the English version is generally (for some reason) more complete and detailed. When it is the other way around (as I found in some Spanish language history articles, I've done as I said. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Alexf, thank you so much for your response!

So just to be sure, should I have to reference EN Wikipedia anywhere or simply just translate it and edit?

Best, Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Zalunardo. Add the template pt:Predefinição:Traduzido to your translated article on the PT wiki and insert the EN wiki article you have translated from. NtheP (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you NtheP! Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you, or anyone else, should want to translate English articles into German, German Wikipedia prefers you to first request administrator action to import the articles to a German user subpage in order to retain the history (see de:Wikipedia:Importwünsche). --Boson (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Policy on unsourced lists?

I'm a longtime editor but I can't seem to find the right policy here. I came upon the article List of Iraqi technical colleges and institutes, which is a list with almost all red links and no sources. Is that grounds to proposing an article for deletion? What is the right course of action? Andrew³²⁷ 07:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Unsourced lists are covered under What Wikipedia is not, specifically Not a directory and Not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Manual of Style also requires list entries to meet Wikipedia's usual requirements for inclusion; see WP:Source list for the appropriate section. Regarding the page in question, I would definitely consider taking it to Articles for deletion; with only one entry having a linked article, this list doesn't need to exist. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, another option is to consider converting it into a navigation template if, and only if, you think it is a topic area where you think the number of redlinked articles is likely to decrease. NtheP (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Now at Afd here.--ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate the help! Andrew³²⁷ 18:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Section

Hi Dfgg here again everyone How do i make a section like in willow creek transit center and beaverton central and in fuller rd max station pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfgg (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dfgg. To make a section in an article, just type something like this: == Name of section ==. To make "lower-level" sections, just add more equal signs, like this === Name of deeper section ===. For more detailed info, you may want to read WP:Sections. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Life

Is life a precious gift? FantasyGirl21 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The Teahouse is for asking questions about Wikipedia only. Please ask your question at the reference desk. However, I'll answer your (very hard) question. I believe that every one of God's children is a precious gift because He gave us the joy of life. He has a plan for each and every one of us. We get to decide what to do with that life, and every one of us has different talents and abilities. Life is a precious gift because from fertilization, we began the joy of life. (I'm no writer or motivational speaker and my thoughts are very randomized). JHUbal27 ^{Roar! :-)} 02:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi FantasyGirl21, I certainly believe that life is a precious gift, but that is neither here nor there, as Wikipedia is not a forum. You are welcome to edit and improve articles related to Life and Meaning of life however! We can always use help in those areas. Thank you! If you have any questions about how to edit articles, that is what we can help with here.

Go Phightins! 03:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my bad! FantasyGirl21 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

adding images to just one page

Dear editors: A helpful user added the official logo of the Ontario Genealogical Society to the page that I am working on for that organization. I'd been wanting to do that, but I understand that images in Wikipedia have to be public domain or licensed by the owner. I know that this organization has a policy that the logo is not to be used without permission. I'm sure that I could get permission to have this image on the page, but I know that they would not give a general license for any use whatsoever, since it's the corporation logo.

Is there a way to add an image to just one page without licensing it for general use? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That was me. I uploaded the image pursuant to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria so it does not require the consent of the copyright owner. Obviously freely licensed images are preferred but if the copyright owner does not wish to license on acceptable terms, we have to fall back on non-free use.--ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anne, in cases like this you can upload images under the Non-free content criteria or as it's commonly known "fair use". The upload process is no different except that you must upload to Wikipedia not Commons (Commons is only for free content) and instead of a licence you add a non-free use rationale - for a log this would be {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. The other very important point is that the fair use criteria have ten components, all of which must be met for the fair use to be allowed. It's no good meeting nine if you can't make out the tenth. For an organisation's logo it's not difficult to make out the rationale but if you feel unsure please come back here and ask for someone to check it out for you. NtheP (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my concerns. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to be careful though - Wikipedia's non-free content criteria are actually more strict then "fair use" as that term is used in copyright law. So a use that may legally be "fair use" may not necessarily meet the NFCC.--ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please take look at the below url: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

This infograph clearly explains you all the terms and conditions to upload a image.

Just shared that image, bcos images speaks thousand times better than words

- Writeindia Writeindia (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

article needs slight edit, but i don't feel qualified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding makes a statement: "Folded proteins usually have a side chain", when in fact, each of the amino acid residues in the protein have sidechains, if you count glycine's H. TY.67.185.135.172 (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TY! We at the Teahouse ponder a great many things while sipping our tea (or hot chocolate, in my case). It is my understanding that the statement might be true when considering the quaternary structure protein folding. ~ However, a better place for discussing this, and for help finding references in case you'd like to edit the article (and cite reliable sources) is the Wikipedia: Reference desk /Science. Don't worry about being "qualified" because "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit". If you need help in citing sources, or have any other questions regarding editing, we'd be glad to provide assistance. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

[Disclaimer: I'm not a Teahouse host, but I play one on TV. ~E74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)]

How to add a reference.

I would like to make a minor edit to an article. But the addition calls for a reference (footnote) and I can't figure out how to add that.

John J. Landers108.48.38.106 (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 108.48.38.106! The simple way to add a reference is to simply put <ref> before the reference and </ref> after the reference.

However, there is a specific reference formatting used in Wikipedia, and so using the "cite" templates can help you to figure that out. I assume that you are using RefToolbar2.0b. Do you see where it says "Advanced" and then "Special characters"? All the way to the right it should say "Cite". Click on the word and there will be a dropdown menu underneath where it says "Cite". It will say "Templates". Click on that and you will get the options of "cite web", "cite news", "cite book", and "cite journal". Click on one of those and fill in the information that you need. Then press "Insert" and voilà! You have a citation! No need for the ref tags, either!

The reason for the "cite web/news/book/journal" is because these four are the most common citations. There are other places to get your information, too. You can go to Template:Citation Style 1 and look at the various different citation options. You can copy and paste the format where you need the reference and fill in the information. However, with this copy-and-paste technique you will still need to add the ref tags separately to either side of it.

Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello John. Just to add one little thing, Wikipedia has a guide called Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners that will walk you through the basics. I hope that helps. --Jayron32 23:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, John. Thanks for coming to the Teahouse. I have left you a illustrated guide to referencing on your talk page. If anybody else wants it, just copy and paste this on your talk page : {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}}. Hope it helps! Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

An article for a blog is considered spam?

I thought about making a Wikipedia article for my blog on the idea that "if it doesn't exist in Wikipedia then it doesn't exist", but when I was reading the guide to my first article I realized it might be considered as advertising, which would make itself be marked as spam.

I'm not trying to sell anything, since my blog doesn't even have ads, but I truly don't know if it's wrong to upload the article about it.

Thank you.

Luis Carlos de la Garza

Lcdelagb (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Luis and welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse! The key to being included on Wikipedia is passing our rather stringent notability guidelines. In lay man's terms, your blog needs to have received coverage from third-party sources (e.g., newspapers, other reputable websites, etc.). If it has, it will likely pass our guidelines and be able to be included; if not, it's probably not notable and therefore won't be included. Whether or not the article meets our notability guidelines, you need to remain extraordinarily conscious of keeping a neutral point of view where you have a conflict of interest. Go Phightins! 22:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get the picture of what kind of notability it would require to be informative beyond advertising.

Thank you for your time.

Lcdelagb (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Luis! Remember that encyclopedias are tertiary sources. We only publish what others are already writing about. So if your blog has received reviews in reliable sources, then yes you can write an article about it. If not, you can't. Also, writing about yourself or things you are directly involved with is discouraged on Wikipedia, because it is hard for you to maintain a neutral point of view about yourself. See WP:COI for more on that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia toolserver

How often are the lists created on the toolserver updated? I just went through a lot of articles listed in the Metalworking WikiProject cleanup listing, and I want to see my progress. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 14:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. I for one don't know, but that might be a question to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Best. Biosthmors (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult editors

Hi. Lately I've been working on some fairly controversial articles and (not unexpectedly) there are a lot of difficult personalities. I'm curious if anyone has advice on how to deal with them. The first type of editor cries "POV pusher!" at even the slightest provocation. In my experience once I get that "POV pusher!" accusation everything grinds to a halt. The second type of editor cares little for discussion and simply reverts whatever they disagree with. I want to observe BRD and avoid an edit war so I try to draw them into a talk page discussion, usually with little success. The problem with both of these types is that generally they haven't done anything bad enough to get blocked but they still manage to gum things up and frustrate the heck out of me. Lately my solution has been to just walk away, but it bothers me that that just rewards bad behavior. I wonder if there's a better way. Thoughts? --Nstrauss (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nstrauss. I'm sorry to hear that youo've found yourself in a heated situation. Thankfully, there are further recourses beyond talkpage discussion if two or more editors are unable to agree on some aspect of an article, and no consensus seems to be possible. Wikipedia has developed a number of processes for resolving such disputes. In rough order of escalation, these are:

Third opinion. If only two editors are involved, they can request that another uninvolved editor examines the dispute and gives their opinion. This is not binding, but the fresh perspective can sometimes break the deadlock.
Request for comment. Starting a Request for comment (RFC) on the article's talkpage will attract other editors who are not involved with the dispute - basically, a whole load of third opinions. RFCs are usually constructed around a simple yes/no proposal, e.g. "Should content about the subject's hairstyle be included in the article", which editors either support or oppose. RFCs typically invite comment for a month before closing. The results of an RFC are not technically binding, but they are generally considered to be indicative of consensus and so are usually adhered to.
Dispute resolution noticeboard. Reports posted on the Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) are viewed by numerous editors who will try and mediate the disagreement. The DRN is often used for disputes which are more complex than the simple support/oppose mechanism of an RFC, such as disputes involving accusations of sockpuppetry, multiple pages or several interrelated content issues.
Mediation. The Mediation Committee is a small group of trusted editors who will formally oversee a structured debate on a disputed issue. All involved parties must agree to mediation, and are expected (though not obliged) to abide by any successful outcome.
Arbitration. If all other options in resolving a dispute have been exhausted, the case can be brought to the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). This is a panel of editors (almost always highly experienced administrators) who have been elected by the community to provide a final resolution to disputes. Decisions made by the Arbitration Committee are binding, meaning that users who edit in defiance of an ArbCom ruling may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. You probably won't need to go this far, hopefully!

I hope that's useful; my advice would be to start by asking for neutral input using the Third opinion process and then progress from there. I wish you luck; contraversial articles can be fascinating to edit, but sometimes every comma you add opens a whole new can of worms. Try and assume good faith on the part of your detractors (disagreement isn't necessarily bad behaviour), and keep a cool head; remember: at the end of the day, it's only an online encyclopedia we're editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oy, I could spend all day going to DR on these, and people would really hate me given how many of these stupid little disputes arise. Lately I've seen DR as a last resort since it's so time-consuming. Any other suggestions? --Nstrauss (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

With the one editor, the one who's constantly disputing neutral point of view, bringing in a third opinion should fix it. If consensus is established by the third opinion, then go with consensus; if that editor continues to make noise and disruption then, regardless of how small or inconsequential each incident is, he's asking for blocking.

With the other, the one who's just reverting things, action definitely needs to be taken. If no responses are made to your attempts to discuss them on talk pages (even the editor-in-question's user talk page), then bring it up to an admin that this person is edit warring. If you have, at each step of your own actions, attempted to be civil and open in explaining your own actions and the other person hasn't (and especially if that other editor's contributions appear to violate WP:NPOV or WP:COI), then it should go your way. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 15:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful! --Nstrauss (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)