Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 87

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90

How can I check if there once was an article that got deleted?

Whenever I click on a link and get the create article page I wonder if that was always a bad link, or whether there was once an article that has since been deleted. AND ESPECIALLY, if it was deleted, why? Today's example is "personal distance" linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics - I suspect that it was either deleted because it was too close to personal space or some other reason or that the creator of proxemics never got around to creating it. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! That article doesn't seem to be deleted. Do you mind double checking? — nerdfighter 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Bodysurfinyon, Personal distance (animals), which is the redlinked article in Proxemics, has never been created. A page that has been created and subsequently deleted will have a box with a pink background on the creation screen explaining when and why it was deleted. See My Chocolate Stinks for an example off this.NtheP (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The pink box is the answer to the question I was trying to asking in an overrambling way. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

referencing method

hi im wondering what reference method is preferred when creating an article Gareth1504 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Gareth, welcome to the Teahouse. There are a number of methods but the commonest is the inline citation method that uses the <ref> </ref> tags. In it's simplest form after the text you want to add a reference to you insert <ref> your reference text </ref> and then at the end of the article you have a references section that uses the code {{reflist}} which will display the references you added in the body of the article. What you insert as the text of your reference can vary greatly but needs to substantiate your article text. Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners gives a lot more information and is a good next stop for you but please stop by here again if you need more information. NtheP (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about using US government handout material on a page.

Hi guys! I have a question that might be a doozie. In the mid 80's I was the contractor in charge of running the x and gamma ray testing facility at Sandia National Labs called Hermes II. While there, my staff and I were called on to have the machine perform in a manner it had never been used in before. The customer wanted to extract an unguided electron beam and strike a certain target in the shielded blockhouse. Normal method is to use B-field magnetic coils, enclose the beam in vacuum extender tubes and when near the target have the beam travel only an inch or two before striking the target after exiting a vacuum foil. This is due to the fact the beam would "hose" or whip around uncontrollably via the strong magnetic and electric fields affecting it. I don't think I mentioned that the Hermes II marx generator produced a ten megavolt, 100 kiloamp ring beam with a diameter of six inches. Well, the customer brought his own staff of 26 and ignored my suggestions on how to accomplish this. The mission failed after two weeks of very expensive effort. The next Saturday I brought my crew of four in to do maintenance on the machine and fire test shots, which I was allowed to do. (I was not authorized to do experiments on the machine). That Saturday I discovered a new way to transport an electron beam without any type of guidance! The first time ever done! At last to my question: I would like to write the facts up and put it in Wikipedia. The Sandia staff got very excited when they found out what had happened. We cancelled our customers and did research on the discovery for some time. Many photos of the beam were taken and eventually copies given to me as the discoverer. I have a handout from the government at the time that was made as Public relations for all the testing facilities at Sandia. It’s nearly 20 years old but I would like to use some of the photos in it of the Hermes II facility. I would like to publish some of the electron beam photos as well. They are so cool! They are not copywrited, and the brochure was a public handout. One last interesting note; about three months later we were called over to a special meeting with guys in dark suits. They asked us what we had been doing three months earlier at night. (We had opened our blockhouse doors and sent an electron beam out into the desert by itself during the research! Talk about Star Wars!) It turns out the Russians had detected the beam and moved a satellite that was in orbit over Los Alamos and parked it over Sandia to find out what was going on! (The guys were from NSA). Hermes II no longer exists. It was torn down to make customers use Hermes III. Can I use the stuff? 24.196.255.5 (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello 24.196.255.5! The standard reliable source for scientific research is a widely-recognized peer reviewed journal. If you have the information published in such a journal, that would give you the source you need. Also, being published for "public handout" does not mean something isn't copyright. Wikipedia presumes copyright unless you can establish that it isn't, that is the original creator or publisher has released the material under a Wikipedia-compatible license or into the public domain. Without actual evidence of such licensing, Wikipedia presumes the material to be under copyright. Does that help? --Jayron32 13:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

None of the initial research information was published in any journal due to it being classified. It is not now classified, nearly 20 years later. The brochure was a publicity handout, free to anyone. My entry above did not include my post of Montykillies, which is odd, as I thought for sure I added it. Montykillies (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Quality

In the edit history there are many commons delinker edits. e.g. File: xyz has been removed, it has been deleted from commons by abc. Because: copyright violation. Does this type of edit history affect an article quality? Farhajking (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse! You even asked this question at the Help desk too. I guess you haven't seen the answer. In case you haven't, the post is located here. Anyways, to answer your question, removing copyright violations from the article surely improves the article quality. Just because a low quality previous revision exists, if the current revision of the article is of good quality, then you can't refer to the article as a bad quality article. Great examples of these are the featured articles. Thanks. --Ushau97 talk contribs 10:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing articles with "NPOV" issues.

Hello and good day. I've been editing a few articles, and being a fairly newer "contributor" to Wikipedia, I can't help but be wary and cautious regarding the nature of my edits, as I do not intend to break any policies. One of my recent edits, to the Filipino orthography article, is one of my endeavours towards "cleaning up" articles with "NPOV" issues. Is this an appropriate edit, or did I just make things less neutral?

I may attempt to search for reliable resources eventually, although I want to take things one step at a time. I've read a few of the articles/policies/guidelines, although I don't speak Wikipedia-nese with great fluency, so I still might require some trout-slapping, from time to time. Thank you very much in advance! --regin (stalk) 08:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting the Teahouse. I looked at your edit and think your to be congratulated for trying to understand it. When someting is taged as NPOV; it should be discussed on the talk page of the article. In this case it is not... I would suggest you wait a while (few days) and see if you get any feedback. If not you might bring it up on the talk page and / or remove the tag. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much as well, for the heads-up (and the swift response!) I've noted a more significant edit on another page on its corresponding Talk page, and I might do the same for the article I referenced in my original concern, should I find no feedback regarding the change. Might be able to contact people from the parent project, as it's apparently a high priority article there. Thanks again! --regin (stalk) 09:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

stopping a revert war before it starts

title page "Rob James-Collier," bio of one of the stars of the wildly popular costume drama, "Downton Abbey." Bio originally said under "personal" that Rob has a little son, and that the name of the boy and his mother were not widely known as of 2013 (paraphrase, but close). So I did the research and came up with specific information, every sentence footnoted, about the identity of his long-term (since 2005) partner/girlfriend. This actor is gorgeous, and there are lots of women and men drooling, wanting to know if he is single and they have a chance! (Lots of places on the www to document this alleged drooling!) But in any event, SOP to discuss a movie/tv star's love/marital life, right? Check his costar, Dan Stevens. I went back today to put the footnotes in proper form, and overnight, my addition was deleted/reverted. I want my information included, but I do not want to touch a "revert war" with a 10-foot bayonet. What do I do??? Many, MANY thanks in advance for saving me from the fire!Inkless Edits (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Inkless Edits. First off, thank you on behalf of Wikipedia for having the good sense not to go straight back to the article and start edit-warring - your restraint is appreciated! There are, thankfully, other courses of action available besides simply reintroducing the content. The editor who removed it, Bbb23, did so because he felt it was "unencyclopedic" - if you disagree, you can go to his talkpage and ask him to explain his reasoning further, or offer an explanation of why you think the information merits inclusion. Should the two of you be unable to come to an agreement easily, you can also initiate discussion on the article's talkpage, or request a third opinion, to get other editors' input as well. Talk is cheap, so use as much of it as you need to; there's no deadline. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for a very quick reply! If I knew the meaning of "unencyclopedic," I might tackle the talk task, but, alas, this is jargon I do not understand. Is this term commonly bandied about Wikipedia? If encyclopedic means comprehensive, does unencyclopedic mean inadequate? I do however suspect this word, in fact, means, "I don't like your edit" (and that's the polite way of expressing the sentiment) "and I have no way to justify my opinion save with a confabulation of meaningless syllables."Inkless Edits (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The term "unencyclopedic" is often used as shorthand for "I don't think this is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia". It is also used to describe text that is not written in the style expected of an encyclopedia article - "third person", "neutral tone", "unembellished by unnecessary adjectives", etc. Roger (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
If the term "unencyclopedic" is acceptable at Wikipedia, it's proof positive we just can't take ourselves too seriously! The closest dictionary definition I could find for this (alleged) word makes a circular reference right back to Wikipedia and, in fact, describes "unencyclopedia" as a satirical website that parodies Wikipedia"! (maybe I should volunteer there instead?) And speaking of taking ourselves very seriously, editor Bbb23 responded to my opening salvo on his talk page - which was written to be inoffensive and jaunty - with a snide remark about my tone. Bbb23 comes across as angry and overbearing, and there seems little likelihood that our interaction will focus strictly on the usefulness, relevance and reliability of the information I provided. How can I get the help of a wiki-mediator? Many, MANY thanks in advance - I HATE this kind of dickering over minutiae!!!Inkless Edits (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
[BUMP] It seems there is more than one way to get the help of a neutral third party, and I wonder which way to go? Many thanks!96.232.25.103 (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Whoops! Forgot to log in. That previous nameless entry was mine.Inkless Edits (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Inkless, we've all done that at some time :-) If you think talk page discussions with Bbb23 have gone as far as they can and are still unresolved, then probably the next place to go is Wikipedia:Third opinion and ask for someone there to offer an opinion. Looking at Bbb's talk page I'm not sure that is an exhausted conversation yet, one that has certainly got sidetracked, but the original topic isn't done. For what it's worth I would probably leave his personal life as "he is in a relationship and has one son" supported by an appropriate reference. NtheP (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you NtheP for getting back to me almost faster than I could finish writing. You are correct, the talk at Bbb23 isn't exhausted and it's waaaaaaay sidetracked, but I am glad to find some humor beings here having fun. I was preparing to pack up if Wikipedia were populated with dreary self-important types. If you want an unfortunately funny (in its excess) example of a celebrity "Personal" section, visit the Alison King page. She played opposite subject RJC for two years in British Soap, "Coronation Street," which to a great extent put him on the map in UK fandom. Thank you again for your reply!Inkless Edits (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

Hello,

I am requesting assistance as a first time user of Wikipedia for my edit which has quickly bogged down into dispute. I am seeking an immediate resolution because I do not have the time or inclination for the protracted process this may involve to simply contribute what I know to be credible , useful and missing data to an article.

The relevant links are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_the_Ripper#Edit_request_on_5_March_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper&action=history

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive

I have encountered undue accusation from editors, which I regard as neither true or reasonable, who do not want to discuss content or have it considered for inclusion in a neutral fashion.

I hope that in time I may be allowed to include the material for the sake of completion of the article alone.

Sincerely27.99.110.80 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

destructive revert

Hi there, I just had two weeks of edits to an article reverted based on a spurious claim that my sources did not meet Wikipedia standards. In fact all my edits have been sourced with from established scholarly sources, or primary sources in the occult literature. The article I have created has been a marked improvement over the article that was there before. In fact I began editing the article because the article called for attention from an EXPERT on the occult tarot, of which I am. The sources that I have added to the article include

  • ^ Ronald Decker and Michael Dummett, History of the Occult Tarot, London: Duckworth, 2002 ISBN 978-0715631225
  • ^ Paul Huson Mystical Origins of the Tarot: From Ancient Roots to Modern Usage, Vermont: Destiny Books, 2004 ISBN 978-0892811908
  • ^ Robert Place, The Tarot: History, Symbolism, and Divination, New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 2005 ISBN 978-1585423491
  • Ronald Decker and Michael Dummett. A history of the occult tarot, 1870-1970. London: Duckworth, 2002. ISBN 0715610147.
  • a b c d Michael Dummett. The Game of Tarot. London: Duckworth, 1980. ISBN 0715631225
  • R. Steele. A notice of the Ludus Triumphorum and Some Early Italian Card Games: With Some Remarks on the Origin of the Game of Cards,' Archaelogia, vol LVII, 1900. pp. 185-200
  • ^ P.D. Ouspensky. The Symbolism of the tarot: philosophy of occultism in pictures and numbers. Dover Publications. 1976
  • ^ Inna Semetsky. Tarot images and spiritual education: the three I’s model. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality. 16(3): 249–260. 2011
  • ^ Eliphas Levi. The Key of the Mysteries. Translated by Aleister Crowley. Red Wheel/Weiser. 2002 ISBN 0877280789
  • ^ John Beeb. A Tarot Reading on the Possibility of Nuclear War. Psychological Perspectives: A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought. 16(1): 97-106. pp. 97
  • ^ Sallie Nichols. The Wisdom of the Fool. Psychological Perspective: A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought. 5(2): 97-116. 1974
  • ^ Inna Semetsky. When Cathy was a Little Girl: The Healing Praxis of Tarot Images. International Journal of Children's Spirituality. 15(1): 59-72. 2010. pp. 59

I am relying extensively on DUMMETT who is a respected authority in the field. Can I just go ahead and undo the revert? and can I get a better explanation from the fellow who did the revert on why he would do that? Mike Sosteric PhD 23:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

the current revert takes it back to a time when wiki officials were calling for attention from an expert, when it less scholarly than it was after my intervention, and when the actual citations came primarily from occult authors themselves, and NOT established historical experts (like Dummett).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinatory,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot. Seems to be posted by User:Dr.Sosteric talk at 23:09, 11 March 2013‎ (UTC) sign added by Tito Dutta (contact) 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you'll notice that I kept most of your edit to the introduction, but not this section: [1], which if anything, should probably just be a single well written short paragraph. Note that you are expected to discuss the issue on the article talk page, as is highlighted in WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
NO, you took out a substantial portion of the history of the occult and divinatory tarot, a history that is both sourced in established historical work, and relevant to the title of the document. You have stripped out tons of historical detail, all properly sourced, all relevant to the article, and all deeply informative and interesting to a Sociologist like myself. I have been building a history of the the occult and cartomantic tarot, providing links to primary sources, building a comparison of occult and cartomantic decks, incorporating reference suggestions by other users, and generally improving the scholarly quality of the article. I am doing this as part of my own research program into the tarot, and as part of an article I am writing entitled The Sociology of the Western Tarot, which I will publish in an established scholarly journal. If the article is too long now it can certainly be shortened after completion but your reversion lowers the quality of the article.

I began editing this article because in an earlier version of that article there was a call for expert attention

{{Expert-subject}}

I thought I could contribute my scholarly expertise, training, and the research I was currently doing to improving the article. I am doing this as part of my research at Athabasca University into the scholarly utility of the wiki (see my talk page "The Revolution that is" for a research note that hopefully be published in the International Review of Research into Open and Distance Education (currently under review). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr.Sosteric#Dr.Sosteric.2C_you_are_invited_to_the_Teahouse.

You have reverted to a version of the article contemporaneous with that appeal, and removed that appeal to make it look as if the article is now an improvement over my contributions, which it is not. If you have a concern with article length you should have raised that on my talk page and asked me to deal with it, rather than stomping in an undoing clos to forty hours of research labour. You should also have identified the specific "self published" sources you refer to (there may be one, which I'm more than happy to take out). But again, a note on my talk page would have shown more respect for my work than you have shown.

You're not making a good case for the scholarly utility of the wiki when you stomp in like that and just erase the contributions of a scholar hard at work on the article. I am quite offended and put off by this.

Mike Sosteric PhD 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)\\

ok, i read the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and will move this into the talk page. I'm shacking my head though at the extra work this is creating for me just because you didn't bother to carefully check the citations I added to the document, or ask about the historical detail before you went ahead and reverted. The sections you deleted had the most authoritative sources in the entire article.

Please consider moving this content dispute to the article's talk page. If you can not reach consensus there, seek dispute resolution. Thanks — nerdfighter 01:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

I think I would be a good rollbacker, using the function to help me patrol new pages more efficiently. However, I definitely don't think I've been around long enough to apply for rollback, seeing my account is 11 days old. What would be a good time to wait before I apply? Revolution1221 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Revolution1221, to add a little to that, there are no hard and fast requirements for rollback, although like Tito said you have a higher chance of getting it if you have more experience here. The rollback granting admin will be looking mostly at your ability to clearly distinguish vandalism from good faith edits. To allow that, the more experience you have at anti-vandalism, the better. Chamal T•C 00:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

How to add interwikis (after the launch of Wikidata)

I have not followed it properly. Can someone tell me how to add interwikis now for new articles? Should I edit the Wikidata page? --Tito Dutta (contact) 21:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Go to the Wikidata entry, scroll to "List of pages linked to this item", click "[add]" then enter the language (it will provide a dropdown list as you type and automatically provide the country code), then fill in the exact name of the article on the other language Wikipedia. As soon as you save, the entry here (and at all other language Wikipedias) should display the language you added. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! And how I'll add the Wikdata entry in the new article, for example this bn:হ্যানসেন ক্লার্ক, the English article has been updated, not the Bengali one! Good wishes!--Tito Dutta (contact) 23:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
They're showing now after I purged the Bengali page's cache (I clicked edit, then change the end of the URL from &action=edit to &action=purge, and then clicked return). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

original research

I read somewhere on WIKI that you can't include original research. I'm ok with that but does somebody know where the official policy statement is? Mike Sosteric PhD 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

Mike, the page you're after is Wikipedia:No original research or WP:OR as it's commonly abbreviated. NtheP (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
THANK!! 198.53.88.157 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Houston article

Hello there,

I am wondering why this article was declined. I provided reference and links as requested. Not sure what the issue is?I have been working on this article for a while and I am very confused on the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alexis_Houston

This the first page I have ever built and I thought it would much easier.

Thanks so much Judy 2604:2000:C000:3E00:CA2:3491:6B52:16FE (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Judy. I suggest that you study WP:MUSICBIO, which is our guideline on notability of musical performers. It is important to have properly formatted references to reliable sources that give significant coverage to the performer. Almost all blogs, except those few with professional fact checking and editorial control are unacceptable as reliable sources on Wikipedia, and should be removed. Sources that discuss unsubstantiated rumors are problematic, since they reflect poorly on other people, Matt Lauer in this case. Any claim likely to be challenged must be referenced to a reliable source. It may be that this person doesn't yet meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but I am withholding judgment on that for now. Good luck and feel free to ask for clarification if anything I have said isn't clear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Judy. here you will find the Google News search for your subject. I am sorry to say I don't have the time right now to read any of the listings, but it is there that you will find reliable sources for your subject. It is of course, not the only place, but reliable sources are sources that are in some way fact checked, like newspapers (or their web equivalents), magazines or books. You can try a Google Book search, but for younger subjects, that will generally not get you many results. For the things in the websearch to be of use for showing notability, they have to be primarily about your subject, not just quoting her on another subject. And keep in mind, when we say notability here at Wikipedia, we are referring to the specific standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia (in this caseWP:MUSICBIO), not to the person's importance or fame. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, that is, we only write about what others have written about. So in order for an article to be included, you have to show that others are writing about it. I hope that simplifies this a bit for you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films:_numbers How do I undo it??

I discovered the following edit recently. Somebody had edited the list of movies and reversed the last two digits of the dates on several movies!! For example, a film made in 1907 became a film made in 1970!! Unfortunately several changes had been made on top of this change as people slowly fixed the damage. I tried to undo these changes so I could get rid of the vandalism change; however, I can't seem to undo the changes in a way I am allowed to change back the real damage. It keeps saying I need to do this manually!! Any suggestions????

23:55, 26 February 2013‎ 173.237.99.9 (talk)‎ . . (21,145 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (undo) Bobnuckolls (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reformatted your message. The spaces at the start of lines stopped us from reading the message. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I've simply reverted to the last good version before the vandalism, and reapplied the removal of the now-redundant inter-wiki language links, which was the edit done after the vandalism. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please unblock Upike students

Hey--could somebody unblock the University of Pikeville IP address? My students in the global education program are not being allowed to create accounts. My courses are duly registered with the global education program and everything. Please unblock us. I'm going to copy this message as an unlogged in editor so that you can see what IP I'm talking about.70.159.38.3 (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse. The IP you're editing from isn't blocked, and as far as I can see never has been [2]. If it were blocked, you wouldn't be able to edit on this page. You might be able to get more clarification as to why your students are having problems by posting to the Education noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
In fact, I see someone from the Education program has just responded on your talk page (User_talk:Georgiasouthernlynn#Wikipedia Education Program, Spring 2013). Did it help? Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems in multiple refernces to the same footnote

Hello, I am trying to elaborate the references in my sandbox-article on Ilona Harima. Don't understand why it seems to be impossible to add footnote nr 1 to multiple places although I'm trying to obey the instructions! Please help me Marjarau (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is quite possible and is recommended practice! It can be accomplished by giving the reference a name in the tag, for example <ref name="NAME">REFERENCE</ref>, with NAME being a character string of your choice and REFERENCE being the reference itself. Then, to use the same citation again, simply type <ref name="NAME"/> on its own, with no ending </ref> tag but paying special attention to the "/" after the name you've given it.
—Strachkvas (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I succeeded! I was trying to attach the ref tag ending too, that was my mistake. One more question: I'd like to add page number in the footnote marker of two of the notes. Is there an uncomplicated way to add it in an easy form f.example p.xx , asks Marjarau (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back! There is template which is specially designed for citing books: Cite book which you can use like this:
<ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |title= |url= |accessdate= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page= |pages=}}</ref>
There you can fill the parameters which you want and you can leave out which you don't want. For example if you want to write the page number as page 2 just fill the page field like this: |page= 2. Full documentation for this template is here .If you have any more questions just ask us again. --Ushau97 talk contribs 09:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Marjarau, if you are saying you want to add the page numbers to the footnote marker itself (the one that looks like this: [1]), you can do that by using the {{rp}} template. There are other ways to do this as well, and you can take a look at Help:References and page numbers for examples. However, most of our articles use an entirely different style, like the one used in USS Arizona (BB-39), one of our featured class articles. Of course, it's up to you to decide what style you want to use. Chamal T•C 09:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I used the last suggestion rp template. It was very easy with a clear result. My article is a short one, at least at this stage with only 3 references used. I'll save the other suggestions too, they will surely be helpful for possible future use.

Thanks! Marjarau (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

external editing

I am making heavy duty chances and additions to an article on the divinatory tarot. I would like to make the changes in an external editor, collect them over a period of a few days, and then upload a large set rather then just adding too many edits. Is there an editor I can use for that? I tried windows notepad but it through in a bunch of line feeds or something that messed up the formatting of the pageMike Sosteric PhD 21:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

Hi Dr. Sosteric. Have you considered pasting the text into your sandbox and working on it there in semi-privacy? You can create a subpage in your userspace for it if you wish by typing User:Dr.Sosteric/page name into the search box and clicking the red link that this produces.--Charles (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I did ont think of that, but what a great idea! I just don't want to bog the wiki down by adding data to an already big database. but maybe that's not a primary concern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Space is not a problem. Using the preview button is a good way to avoid saving a lot of similar pages though and saves space. By working there you can use wiki formatting and see how the finished product will look. Happy editing.--Charles (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous users blanks my page

Hi all, yesterday I started to create an article about the now defunct company Inkworks, who was the world's leading manufacturer of non-sports trading cards until they ceased in 2009. Today I realized that an anonymous user (IP address 97.101.84.99) simply blanked my complete draft. I was shocked, but next thing I saw is that I luckily could undo this form of vandalism. My question is: how can I be prevent anonymous trolls like the one above simply blank my page and delete all it's content??? Would you suggest to copy the draft to my HD for security reasons? You can view my draft here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/_Inkworks,_Inc. Thanks in advance for your help! It's much appreciated :-)Estephano80 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse! Sometimes, articles do get protected, but only if the vandalism continues for a long time or is severe. If you wish, you can request protection of your article, but you will yourself be unable to edit then, as even with semi-protection, your account will need to be 4 days old to edit it.King Jakob C2 16:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your fast reply. So I guess I leave it at this for the moment, but if the vandalism continues, I'll take your advise regarding the protection. I couldn't upload the company's logo and certain scans of trading cards last night. I guess that's got also something to do with this 4 days limit after one's registration, isn't it???Estephano80 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
As you guessed, image uploading has similar restrictions (4 days old account and a minimum of 10 edits, to be specific). Also, we don't usually protect articles unless there is repeated severe vandalism. In most cases we just revert those edits. Regarding your previous question about backing up your draft to your local HD, you don't need to do that as Wikipedia keeps a record of all past versions of a page. Regarding the image uploads you wanted to do, please note that most such images are copyrighted. Wikipedia uses copyrighted images only in very particular circumstances, and even then are controlled by a strict set of requirements. Those are a little too detailed to describe here, but you can read the details here. Chamal T•C 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chamal, thanks for your reply. I don't mind if I can only upload photos after 4 days past my registration. There's still so much text I need to add to my draft that my article won't be finished within the next 1 or 2 weeks.

Regarding the copyright of company's logos, I already read into the requirements last night. The logo can be uploaded as "fair use" because it's an article about the history of a now defunct company. Thanks again for your help. If I need further assistance with my article, I will get back to you guys on here. Thanks :-) Estephano80 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually that depends. If it is an actual logo it will have the circled "C" next to it. If there is a circled "R" it is a registered trademark and does not have the same protection. Inkworks has a trademark [3] and therefore does not have to be uploaded under "fair use", but as a {{trademark}}. For more detail see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Use of graphic logos. Happy editing!
That is completely and totally wrong. The use of TM, (C), or (R) has no bearing on whether a logo is copyrighted or not. If it's copyrighted, it can only be uploaded as fair use, regardless of whether or not it's a registered or unregistered trademark. Powers T 01:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Helsinki-Vantaa Airport to Talk:Helsinki Airport merge

Hello. This is my first time posting a question here, as I have never faced a thing like this within my 6,400 edits. Helsinki-Vantaa Airport was moved to Helsinki Airport however, their talk pages seem to be different. What to do in this situation - should I just copy/paste the old talk page content to the new one and ask talk page to be deleted? Thank you. Ilyushka ☃Talk!Contribs 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! I can see three options
  1. The talk page can be kept as it is (if the topics are different and does not suit in the other talk page)
  2. The content of the first talk page can be merged with the second talk page (as you have suggested, if all the discussions are on same topic, one can copy paste, another thing can be done- history merge)
  3. The talk page cane be deleted (this is also an option as a part of housekeeping, but I don't think and suggest this one) --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for answering. Ilyushka ☃Talk!Contribs 17:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

dashed box?

Hi!

Whilst editing my user page, I have fond that in one of my sections I now have a light blue dashed box around some of my text and was wondering what it is and how I can get rid off it?

cheers Rachel L Fisher (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Rachel, I think you have fixed it for yourself but what you had was a line of text that started with a space and the software interprets this Ada command to tray all following text as a simple string with no formatting, line breaks etc, just a box outline. If you do want to indent text then start the line with a colon or series of colons. Each one will indent your text one step. NtheP (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In other words when you spaced down you indented and that created: 

this

To avoid that always remember that if you want an indent to appear like

this

always remember to add a colon like

:this

The more colons you add like

::this

the further indented it will be like

this

We add a colon to indent to make a first reply to a comment and add more each time another comment is made to see the flow of the discussion. Generally you stop indenting to start a fresh unrelated post within the same thread.

--Amadscientist (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, cheers I did fix it by myself but seriously Thanks for the reason why it happens it helps better to understand the workings of Wikipedia Rachel L Fisher (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mistakes

I had made many mistakes in the past when I was new to Wikipedia like leaving edit summary empty, experimental editing on articles , uploading copyrighted images that gets deleted after sometime by commons delinker. But now, I am well familiar with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Does these types of mistakes affect my account reputation. Farhajking (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Course not, everyone was a new editor at one point in time. — -dainomite   08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
With 50 edits and a few months of participation, most would still consider you new. What matters is the future. I suggest that you devote yourself to improving the encyclopedia in a genuine way, and minor errors of the past will be forgotten. When you have made significant contributions, you will be evaluated on those. Welcome, and I wish you luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Guidance

As i am new comer in writing article on wikipedia. i just need some one to guide me in what structure article has to be created and how many references do i have submit for that article.. ?

Thanks Vishnuram7 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Vishnuram and welcome to the Teahouse.
This is far to complicated an issue to answer in a single post. I suggest that you would benifit from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse! For the structure of the article, WP:MOS will be of great help. WP:REFB is the best place for referencing. --Ushau97 talk contribs 07:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks -Amadscientist. I just try it out. That will be fine for me to learn. Vishnuram7 (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks -Ushau97. For references which will be useful for me. Vishnuram7 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How to remove ip address if you edited without logging in

How to remove ip address if you edited without logging inMaggieneal (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Oversighters have the technical ability to suppress usernames and IP adresses from article histories. I cannot promise that this will work because oversighters have to be very careful what they suppress. — nerdfighter 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Contact the oversighters privately, and they are required by their policy to oversight the IP address for you :) This means that nobody except the small (no more than 30ish) Oversight team can view the IP, and they're trusted with the tools because they won't release it to anyone. Don't worry, it happens to me too sometimes :) gwickwiretalkediting 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am copying the relevant part of Wikipedia:Oversight/FAQ for your convenience

Q: How do I request oversight or suppression?
A: Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight which may be summarized:
  • Use this form if you have a Wikipedia account with Wikipedia email enabled (click here to enable account email);
  • Use your normal email and write to oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org;
  • Contact an oversighter personally, ensuring you do not repeat any sensitive information on-wiki.


Q: I have a Wikipedia account, but I forgot to log into it before editing, and now my IP address is attached to my edits. Can you remove it?
A: Yes. The IPs of account-holders are considered private information. You may contact an oversighter to request suppression of your IP. Please note that this courtesy is not intended to allow registered editors to edit logged out to avoid scrutiny of their actions; it is intended only for accidental use of an IP rather than an account.

I hope this will help you. Thank you···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 18:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Best principles when creating an article about a person

Hi wiki users,

What are the best principles to follow when creating an article about an author to ensure the article doesn't get deleted? MatthewBeech92 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! The first thing to do is to find enough reliable sources (newspapers, books, etc.) to support the subject's notability. If there at least a few of these sources, the article should be able to stand. If the subject of the article is still alive, it is especially important to use sources. There are one or two other guidelines to follow, like maintaining a neutral point of view. Good luck, King Jakob C2 17:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Guys (Gals?)

I'm brand spankin' new to this...hate to say I'm unsure how to reach an oversighter. Just went to the page and tried a few (hit talk). Advice on getting a message to one?75.84.246.254 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope the above section #How to remove ip address if you edited without logging in would help you too.···Vanischenu「m/Talk」 18:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
If the we are talking about a living person or anyone who has died within the last 115 years we have a policy page that covers the manner in which to deal with Biographies of living persons. There are many guidelines, not just one or two. No direspect to King jakob. Please take a minute to review our policies and guidelines. If you have any questions or concerns you may ask on my talk page. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Contribution to article

Is there any way to convince the readers to improve a particular article?Farhajking (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the most common way would to put a "complainer" template at the top of the page addressing a particular issue, such as Template:Expand article, Template:Copy edit, Template:Refimprove, etc. You could add a desperate plea to the talk page as well, but not many people read talk pages. The only real way to get things done, imo, is doing them yourself.
—Strachkvas (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That is actually an interesting question. You see we seperate "reader" from "editors". There is really a conserted effort to keep that seperation. A reader is someone who comes to the encyclopedia to look for information contained in an article and an editor is one who creates that content. If you are interested in encouraging readers to become editors you may have a real uphill climb...but I encourage it myself. Good question. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
On this subject I have a related question. A recent, and confirmed, news article has arisen which I believe is significant enough to be added to the Wikipedia article for Dennis Bergkamp. Within the talk page for this article I have asked the wider community for their thoughts on the development before any changes are made to the article. However, should no one respond am I able to make this change myself given I have links to credible, official and usable sources online too? Cmhardi1 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

How many sources for notability

CLOSED
The following discussions have been closed. Please do not modify it.

I submitted an AFC about a perfectly notable film with tons of google hits and plenty of reviews in The Guardian, The New York Times, etc., and existing mentions in other Wikipedia articles. I was surprised there was no article.

The AFC was declined because there was an insufficient number of sources.

I get sent to a link about notability that says nothing about the number of sources.

How many sources do I need? 5? 17? 29.5? It doesn't say anywhere, yet, here my article on a notable topic is rejected because I don't have the right number of sources.

I no longer care about the article.

I would like a number for future references though. 7? Is that enough? Is 16 too few?

How many sources, and, of course I would like a link to community consensus about the number.

Thanks, -68.99.89.234 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse :) There's no set number of references. It's however many it takes to prove to us that it deserves an article. A general rule of thumb is longer articles need longer reference lists, i.e. more references. Hope this helps! gwickwiretalkediting 03:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
If there is no set number, stop telling me there is. And, since you don't want to talk to IPs, please don't continue participating in this discussion. It's rude. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
A "general number" is not a set number. Stop making accusations about my communication or this conversation will be stopped. gwickwiretalkediting 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not having a conversation with you; your hostility is obvious, and I asked you twice to stop contributing and let someone else help me out in this. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi and welcome! I am confused by the article in question; if I were the reviewer, I probably would have accepted it as it seems reasonably well cited to me... especially compared to some other articles, but that's beside the point. Perhaps you could ask the reviewer on his/her talk page why he/she rejected it or did not feel the topic was notable. As for a general number, I think four independent, reputable sources that dedicate non-routine coverage to the topic is plenty, though that can definitely vary on a case-by-case basis. Thanks for the question, and sorry for your disappointment! Go Phightins! 03:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
I can't ask the reviewer anything on his talk page because the reviewer does not allow IPs to post on his talk page--so, he should not be doing AFC. The film is quite notable, extensively reviewed by major newspapers, and the article was a fine stub on the topic. I will just crowd the director's article instead. Random number, 4? No set number elsewhere? Two is okay in one policy page? Again, just hostile to non-members, imo. And now The Guardian and The New York Times are questionable sources? You don't want to work with IPs, then please don't. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I have a notice at the very top with a link to a page you can post on if you'd like to. I will respond there as if it were my own talkpage. They didn't cover it in the depth and as many sources as I felt was needed. You blanking the page angrily and walking away in a huff didn't help either. gwickwiretalkediting 04:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't walk away in a huff. I am still sitting at the same computer. I also didn't blank the article angrily; I blanked it with purpose. I didn't see any notice on your talk page, and is that just to keep IPs separate? It doesn't change the issue; you don't want conversations with IPs, you won't allow another letter to assist me with this matter. You won't say what number is required, and it's not your decision anyhow, it's supposed to be community consensus. And, as for blanking the page, it took me longer than it took you to speedy it. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm supposed to edit the red link to post a question to you? I'm an IP, I can't edit red links. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
The article only had two, questionable sources before I declined it the first time, added tons more, then blanked the article. gwickwiretalkediting 04:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course I blanked the article. That's all I was interested in was including an article on a notable topic that is missing. You want a relationship, with someone you won't allow to speak to you on your talk page. I can't win. I have to blank the article now that you're involved, because the article is off the table with you. You sure got that speedy up mighty quickly, too, didn't you? -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
This is getting a bit heated. 68.99.89.234 please don't take offense, we are all just volunteers trying our best. There are "several" options available to you please see WP:AFTERDELETE.Moxy (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Nothing has been deleted, so I don't know what this post is about, but at least it was to a subheading. Thanks. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Go Phightins! for the answer. I would like to know the number here. This is supposed to be a friendly place to ask questions, and User:qwickwire is anything but friendly and cannot take me to community consensus to support anything he says.

I asked quickwire not to respond, because he is curt and is citing pages that do not offer the information I am seeking. I know we are all volunteers here; in spite of the way I am being treated by qwickwire, I am a volunteer here also. And I was trying my best to create an article about a topic with hundreds of thousands of google hits, being surprised none of them were the Wikipedia article, a useful place to go for quick general information.

I would appreciate response from anyone besides qwickwire so I don't run into this again. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(restored post) Have you tried talking to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Film about this? They are a group of editors that have an interests in this topic overall. Give them a shout out - tell them about the movie. I will join you there and help with references and lets see what they think. May get a few involved and have a great new article if they believe its notable.Moxy (talk) 11:32 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Moxy, thanks for the idea. I don't know why you deleted it, but I did post there. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I misunderstood what was going on. Will meet you there.Moxy (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Please don't argue here. The Teahouse is not a place for disagreements. It is rather a friendly place for new or (experienced) users to ask questions. As for the AfC submission, I don't think it should have been declined with Needs more sources to establish notability. The submission have got enough reliable sources. And I don't think it have got a notability issue. And once again, please stop the arguments here. Thanks. --Ushau97 talk contribs 04:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Who's arguing? Moxy posted a great idea, I took him up on it, qwickwire finally stopped posting. A bit of a dead horse overall. But, yes, the film is completely notable and should not have been declined in the state I submitted it. The film folk, however, have offered, through Moxy, to take care of it. done. 68.99.89.234 (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. That's great that you have moved the issue to WT:FILM. And I see that User:Floquenbeam have also declined the speedy. That means you have got good chances to submit it back and move it to article space. Maybe I might think of reviewing it, if you submit it back with good faith. Regards. --Ushau97 talk contribs 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, I think the film folks are already on top of it. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
FWIW, I made the link at the top of glickwire's page for IP's to use live. I am sure that his intention was not to avoid talking to legit IP editors especially those creating articles at AfC. He has had some persistent vandalism on his talk page from IP editors, so it is semi protected so IP editors cannot post there. As I am sure you know, blocking is not a very effective tool to use on IP editors who commit persistent vandalism; changing your IP is as simple as unplugging your modem and plugging it back in! so when a page is hit with persistent vandalism from IP editors, it is semi protected, which stops all editing from IP editors. To date, no-one has found a better solution, and talk pages are only semi protected in extreme cases, so I am sure someone had been vandalizing glickwire pretty heavily. You could have actually made that link live too, but no-one is knocking you for not knowing that. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately because it is redlinked on his page, it was not obvious that I could have edited it. A lot of editors include somewhat rude jokes on their pages; I have seen fake "You have a new message" signs, and encountered a joke redirect from an editor, etc., etc., so I didn't bother to click. Blue-linking it might help. It is something to consider when an editor has so much vandalism from IPs that they have to block IPs from editing their talk page, maybe they should take a break from AFCs for IPs until the vandalism quiets down. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up, though. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry folks, if this offends anyone, but this needs to be carried on elsewhere if more needs to be discussed. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Taken where, where it was already taken five hours ago? Why did you call stuff extended content that wasn't and hide it? Friendly often means respectful. I am offended to be told to carry this on elsewhere after it had obviously been ended here and taken elsewhere. It seems unfriendly and unnecessary.
I created a fine article, I got told randomly to read one long page, directed to an unrelated page, told I could edit a red link, then told, no, I should have read another long page that isn't relevant to the problems with the article that don't exist, now I'm being criticized for my judgement on another page, for my judgement about an article that I read and the critique didn't read, you close my comments as "extended comments," and now you tell me that I need to carry on a conversation elsewhere, when the conversation ended hours ago, because it was moved elsewhere on on the solid advice of a helpful editor, which it clearly states here.
If this is not a friendly place, don't claim it is. -68.99.89.234 (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


I am done here, now, officially, no need for anyone else to criticize me about anything here. The criticism has been moved. And I stopped participating in it in its new place. -68.99.89.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I believe no further discussion should take place about this issue here at the Teahouse and hence I have closed it. 68.99.89.234, your article have been created and no need to talk about it further if you don't want to. If anyone wants to further discuss this issue, discuss it at the appropriate place. If you don't want further discussion, fine, then stop. Once again, if there is anyone who wants to discuss about this issue, please do not continue it here. Thanks. --Ushau97 talk contribs 12:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverting multiple instances of vandalism at once

Hello! I have noticed some users reverting multiple edits, all of which containing vandalism, in one edit of their own. This is presumably not only more efficient, but leads to clarity in the history page. Is it possible for a regular user to do this simply, or does it require other privileges/automation? Thank you! BertyRussell (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse!. A 'normal' user can do this. Go to the history of the page, choose the edit before the first edit you wish to delete, and the last edit..... create the diff(erence) between them. Select revert above the most recent edit -- the right column--, you will be asked if you intend to revert multiple edits - accept that. Wahla! Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Ooh, thank you! BertyRussell (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

How to change an erroneous photo of a historic person ? The Bancroft is wrong !

This is in reference to the 'Darius Ogden Mills' page. The photo shown is of his brother Edgar Mills, not Darius Ogden Mills. I happen to own an original photo of him and know of many other websites which also have the correct image of him so his identity is not in question at all. Please advise the best means for correcting this error. He's an important figure in California and Gold Rush history. I've been attempting to get the Bancroft to correct their image for over a year to no avail. They acknowledge the error, but are stuck in bureaucratic soup insofar as effecting the change.

Please advise....

Thanks -

Michael Mercvapor (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Michael. Did you mean this image? Uploader collected the image from this page which states the same thing. You can start by proposing the change at article's talk page and WikiProject California noticeboard. If you can somehow show the image you are going to upload is actually the image of Mills (like any other reliable site, any book etc which mentions the image), that will be very helpful! --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_87&oldid=1070055639"