Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 128

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

→

How do I combine multiple uses of a reference into one?

Suppose I wanted to use a particular source multiple times throughout an article. How do I combine each use of the reference into a single reference with superscript a, b, c, etc.? I have no idea how to do it, and now every use of the same source shows up as its own reference in the reference section. Rynoguy91 (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rynoguy91, welcome to the Teahouse. So, in order to use the superscript letters, you need to format the citation like this: <ref name="name">text of the citation</ref> (using a WP:Citation template works too). Then, when the citation is repeated, just put <ref name="name" /> as the citation. I got this info from Wikipedia:Citing sources, which is a helpful page in general. Howicus (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Note, that is how to do it in the old "edit source" editor. To do that same thing in the visual editor, just click the "reference" button, then click "use an existing reference" in the bottom left corner. Howicus (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Howicus! You're a godsend! Rynoguy91 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

best Biography

I need an exemplar biography . . . which biography on Wikipedia provides the best example of an A article?Stmullin (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Stmullin and welcome back to the Teahouse. Here is a list of featured biography articles. ^King Jakob _C2 00:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's one of my favs: Ian Fleming Checkingfax (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Demonstrating copyright on a photo

Hi,

I've tried twice to upload photos of an artist named Janet Doub Erickson. In both instances I wrote the artist and asked her for photos, which she provided me -- they were photos that she used for publicity in the past and she took them herself. But the first photo I uploaded got deleted because it supposedly violated copyright; and now I've got a notice saying the same thing about this one: File:Photo_of_Janet_Doub_Erickson.jpg (That it will be deleted.) How do I stop it from being deleted? I don't understand how I "tag" it with the license. The Whimsical1 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The Whimsical, welcome to the Teahouse. Have a look at the image as you've uploaded it, and you'll see there is a line that you included saying that "Evidence will be provided on request" - the deletion notice is just that, if you have an email from Janet Erickson saying that she owns the copyright on the image and she's happy to put it into the public domain then that email needs forwarding to permissions-en

wikimedia.org so that it can be verified. My first question would be how is she the copyright owner when she didn't take the photo as copyright normally belongs to the photographer. NtheP (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings The Whimsical and welcome to the teahouse. Just wanted to ask are you using the Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard? If not I would recommend using that it will walk you through a set of questions depending on how you plan to use the image and what rights you have to it. Also, and I apologize if you already know this but its something that confused me a while back so I always mention it on questions like this: there is a difference betwen uploading a file for specific use using the Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard and putting a file into the Wikipedia Commons which can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page For a file to go into the commons Wikipedia needs to own the copyright (and as Nthep points out there is a difference between someone owning a picture or being the subject of a picture and owning the copyright). A file uploaded via the Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard need not be one that Wikipedia has full copyrights to. The wizard walks you through various allowable uses. One other suggestion I always give is its a good idea to look through the Commons (see link above) before uploading a new file. There are lots of good images in there already, at least in my case I started going through the hassle of trying to load a new image and then realized a perfectly good one existed already in the commons. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

How do I add celebrities to TV show boxes like Arthur: "Michael Yarmush, Jodie Resther, Melissa Altro, Daniel Brochu"?

There are celebrities in TV show boxes like Arthur. How do I add my celebrity Jason Szwimmer to it?Sponge9 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sponge9. If you read the "Voice cast" section of the article on Arthur, you will see that Jason Szwimmer is already listed as a cast member. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Give reference

Hi, Suppose I have made an edit in Wikipedia and the edit is entirely done by me, i.e, the edit have information that I only posses, say, I have more knowledge about it. There is no reference for it because it is my own knowledge. For example, I have made an edit in the summary of a poem and the knowledge in it is given not from anywhere, i.e i myself is the reference. then should I give a reference? BenisonPBaby 13:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenisonPBaby (talk • contribs)

Hi BenisonPBaby and welcome. The problem with what you propose is that no-one can very that what you are writing is correct. the ability to verify what it written is central to the quality of articles on wikipedia. For that reason you can't use yourself as a reference but if someone interviewed you and published that information in an independent source that would be different. I hope this helps. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot....

BenisonPBaby 13:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenisonPBaby (talk • contribs)

Greetings Bennison. In addition to the great info that Flat Out provided I also wanted to mention that what you describe is known as Wikipedia:Original_research and as you can see in that article, it is unfortunately not allowed in Wikipedia. MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well great information. That means no original research. Good information....

BenisonPBaby 06:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenisonPBaby (talk • contribs)

Requested Articles

Hi, I was just wondering why, for such a big group of pages, why there is no 'WikiProject:Requested Articles'? Would anyone be willing to join it if I started it? Where should I propose it? Sorry if all those questions sound a little rude, I am just curious. Thanks in advance for any help! Mat ty.007 13:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matty.007 good to see you. Could you explain a little more about your proposal and what you hope it will achieve? Flat Out let's discuss it 13:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Flat Out, I was thinking like something the Guild of Copy Editors have, with specialized barnstars, and regular attempts to clear the backlog. Doing so would organise edits to the currently blue and red sea that is RA, and would encourage editors to help creating articles. Any thoughts? Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I found the page for it, thanks. Mat ty.007 14:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC) (here if you're interested).

My article has been rejected several times, I am frustrated please help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Shaza_Zafer_Al_Jundi 109.110.100.74 (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi 109.110.100.74 and welcome. I have had a look at your draft article and the feedback you have received from the reviewers. Is there any particular suggestion you have received that you don't understand? The article is a biography of a living person and needs to meet that wikipedia policy. There is a lot written about the subject that is not sourced, and some of the sources you have used do not support the claims that are made. Please let us know what aspect is giving you the most difficulty and we will do our best to help. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Facebook, Linked in and blogs are not considered reliable sources. The article is also VERY promotional in tone and notability is questionable.Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your replay, but the problem that I am facing is that most of the reliable sources that talk about her are old Syrian newspapers from the 80s and the 90s which are not on the internet, however I have a hard copy of the newspapers and the articles collected over the years but I dont know how does that help. 109.110.100.74 (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Newspapers are normally good sources. That you only have paper copies isn't a problem, cite them but give details, like name of the paper, date, page number, article title, journalist who wrote the piece (if you have it). The more detail you have then if someone reading the article wants to track down a copy of the paper for themselves they have the information to do that with. NtheP (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

thank you, does it help if I put pictures of the articles? 109.110.100.74 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you cannot. Uploading images of the newspapers articles for that purpose would be a copyright violation. But be assured, as above, that it is perfectly acceptable to cite reliable published sources that are not online. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and welcome to the teahouse. I also took a look at the article and wanted to give you a bit more feedback. First the article as is looks rather like an extended resume. It should read like an encyclopedia article with a flow to the text and not so much bullet points and timelines. Second, your references are not in the appropriate format (this is a different issue than that Facebook and blogs aren't good references). References should be in the text not just a long list at the end of the article. The idea is that you can tell which reference supports which statements in the article, that's impossible when they are just a list at the end. Also, the refs themselves are just URLs. The idea of reference is that someone can look at it and without clicking on any links get information such as who is the author, publisher, date, etc. Having a URL so you can go to the actual reference is great when possible but not required. There is a tool in the editor to Cite references that gives you a set of templates for the most common references. It will give you a form to fill out (most of the fields are optional) and then generate the Wiki code for you in the appropriate place. BTW, I hope this doesn't sound overly negative or critical, the person seems like an interesting subject, especially given current events and the article is a good starting point, just wanted to give you as much feedback as possible to help you improve it. Good luck. MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

How can I transfer my contributions from one account to another?

Hey, I'll try to make this short. I created an account in 2007 (I think) and after a while, I was Wikihounded and quit editing and left Wikipedia.

Leap ahead a few years and I returned and did all of my edits as my IP number. Happiness! No stalking. Just productive work. Much satisfaction.

Now, to file a case, it needed to come from a registered account so I created a new one. However, all of my recent editing history is on my IP account. I use my list of contributions as a way to check back on articles and I consult it several times a day. My new account just has contributions I've made from the short time (48 hours?) since I created it.

Is it possible to associate the editing history of the IP account with the username account (the old one or new one, I don't care at all)? As far as I understand it, the same IP # is associated with all of the accounts. If this can't be done, I'll log off and continue my work as an IP editor. Thanks! Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Newjerseyliz and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, no you can't. However, I'd advise you to keep your account because you can create articles, get special permissions, and have a Watchlist. Also, your IP number can change at any time, fragmenting your contributions over 2 or more IP adresses. ^King Jakob _C2 22:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes - you can add the link to the contributions page (in the format [URLHERE my ip contributions]) to your userpage for self-reference.

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Newjerseyliz. There is no way I know of to do this so that the edit history of the IP account is listed under your logged-in account's contribution history, but you have a userpage at User:Newjerseyliz (currently red-linked because you have not created it yet) where you could list your prior edits. For example, you could place a note at the top of the page stating something like:

"I edited for a long time anonymously under the IP address ________, which you can look at to see other edits of mine back to DATE"

and you could link the IP address you supply in the blank line above to its contributions (using [[Special:Contributions/Insert IP Address Number|IP Address Number again]]). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the prompt and friendly response! It's so nice to talk with other users in a noncombative environment! I appreciate the advice. I understand that, theoretically, my IP account number could change but the reality right now is that I have logged thousands of edits with it.

I've also found it useful because other users do not "personalize" edits from an IP account because it's kind of a blank slate and people don't remember the numbers on an IP account. Already on my new username account (which I've had 2 days!), another user followed me around and reverted 7 edits I did, back-to-back, without explanation. So, I logged off and no more problem. That mess was ably handled by an Admin (for which I'm grateful) but I bring it up because it's now happened with each of my username accounts and has never happened in the years I used my IP account.

I bet someone doing Wiki Studies has probably looked into this but it was interesting for me to see the same thing happen to me twice. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and do you know why my username is always red? I kind of like it but it's not standard. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your username is red because your user page here has not been edited yet. If you want your username to become blue, simply edit your user page. Valenciano (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, again Jakob, Gilderien, Fuhghettaboutit and Valenciano! I appreciate your help! I have so many other questions but I'll direct them to more specific forums. ;- ) Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's pretty easy to punch out a list of user contribs that can be pasted into the 'watchlist'. That is, if dumping them on your user talk page is fine. Nevard (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you say more how to do this, Nevard? Newjerseyliz (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

How to Submit an Article in 'Talk'

Hi,

I created an article but I don't see how to submit it for review to be posted. I created it in the wizard but there is no submit button. Please help!

Thank you

Misee2013 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misee2013 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Misee. You can find the submit button because it already is submitted. It may take as long as 10 days for it to be reviewed. In the meantime, you may want to work on the tone a bit. It uses way too many promotional type words (we call them weasel words). This is an encyclopedia, and we write about facts. Colorful adjectives really have no place here. Also, I suspect you should read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Take the time you have and clean up your article's promotional tone and it should pass review. It is pretty well referenced. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Misee, welcome to the teahouse. I assume you are talking about this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dr._Misee_Harris Just to be clear there is a big box at the top of the article that currently says "Submission declined" and at the bottom of that box there is a button you can hit to "Resubmit" after you have made changes. Also, it seems this article may be about you? FYI, that is considered a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing a page name

Hi, I am trying to make a minor change to a page name (from Gwyn Edward Thomas to G E Ward Thomas) but I do not think that I am able to do that as I am quite new to Wikipedia editing. Is there someone on here who could help me make the change?

The reasons for changing the name are that a) Gwyn Edward Thomas is not the correct name - should be Gwyn Edward Ward Thomas b) That GE Ward Thomas never used his first two names over the course of his career and is referred to in all books and articles as simply Ward Thomas

Any help with this would be much appreciated. Guythomas10 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Guy. What matters here is what he was known as to the public. So probably, the name of the article should be Ward Thomas. SeeWP:COMMONNAME. If you can provide a secondary source showing him referred to as Ward, I will be happy to move it for you. In general, the article needs better secondary sourcing. The only source on it at the moment is a non-linked newspaper article. there is no requirement that sources be available on the Internet, but you must have enough sourcing to satisfy either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. As of now, you don't. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion that the page name should be Ward Thomas. I have plenty of sources which refer to him as Ward Thomas only. The only one I have found an internet link for is this article in the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/thomas-takes-over-at-yorkshiretyne-tees-leach-steps-down-at-television-company-1503141.html). Ward Thomas is also a member of the British Racing Drivers Club where he is listed on their database as Ward Thomas (http://www.brdc.co.uk/Ward-Thomas) if that helps. Many thanks.Guythomas10 (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

My UserPage

Hi, guys, meeting you after a long time. But see this page. This contains all my wikilove messages I've got from users. But when I try to put them in my userspace they aren't displaying. But other hidden sections are fine. Can anyone kindly fix the problem?!!--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the "wikilove" section on your userpage has no content. All you other sections, such as milestones and signatures actually has something on the page to display. Also, Wikipedia is not Myspace. Consider toning down your userpage, please. RudolfRed (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple sandboxes for new pages.

My sand box is already in use. I want to write a new article. How do I write a new article in my sandbox without deleting the old article on a different subject I wrote?Redddbaron (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Redddbaron. You can in theory create an unlimited number of sandboxes (or user subpages, which is what they really are) – they don't need to be named "sandbox". Simply type [[User:Redddbaron/name of proposed article]] and either click preview and click the link you see, or probably better, edit your userpage (User:Redddbaron) and save the link there so you will have easy access to it. You can also create subpages in your user talk namespace using [[User talk:Redddbaron/name of proposed article]]. Once such a link is saved, click on it and edit away. See also Wikipedia:Subpages. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

History OF a product

i just like to know that cant we display a page on wikipedia showing the information about some products such as eye drops and all. as i created one page and it was deleted instantly why so why a page was deleted so fast.

Gaurav Grover 20:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondeyedrops (talk • contribs)

Greetings Diamondeyedrops and welcome to the teahouse. I suggest you look at this section of the article on what Wikipedia is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertising#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles are meant to be neutral. Anything that promotes a product is prohibited unfortunately. Also, you should probably also review wikipedia:conflict of interest If you work for the company whose product was being advertised then that is a COI and you should not edit that article. Also, keep in mind when articles are created in Wikipedia no one person or group has control over them. So if there is info about your company it may end up being negative as well as positive. Neutrality and objectivity are always the goal. MadScientistX11 (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Change the title of an article?

Hi. Due to divorce, the Danish photographer Søren Solkær Starbird has decided to legally let go of his ex-wife's surname Starbird. So now his name is actually just Søren Solkær. However, the wiki article on him is called Søren Solkær Starbird. So I was wondering if/how I can change it into Søren Solkær? He is still known by most people (and very often referred to) as Starbird. But I guess it would be the most correct thing, if the article's title didn't contain Starbird. I hope it is not necessary to create a whole new article with a new title. Hope someone can help - thanks a lot! Sunshine Warrior 18:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tine Reingaard (talk • contribs)

Hello Tine Reingaard, welcome to the Teahouse. To move an article, move your mouse over the little arrow to the left of the search bar, and a "Move" option should appear, as long as you are an Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed user. Click on the move option, and fill out the fields on that page. Howicus (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There should still be a redirect for the old name containing Starbird, so that people searching under the old name find him. The lead of the article should also explain the name change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

How can I find an editor to help me fix article?

Hello. I am reaching out to the community because the talk page of Parsons Paris (2013) has not been responded to. There are several inaccuracies associated with the Parsons page versus Paris College of Art that I am attempting to correct but have continuously run into trouble. I have tried to reach out to other editors but have not heard back. I need an editor to review the changes I have proposed on the Parsons Paris talk page and, if needed, I can add clarification on the proof of the validity of the proposed edits or the history of Parsons Paris itself. Thank you. User talk:Mickeyallen 14:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've responded on the article Talk page. Personally, I've avoided getting too involved because the situation is quite complicated, several institutions fighting for the same name, reputation and history. The independent, journalistic news sources say that the new college has nothing to do with the 1921 college (apart from its name). This seems to be a dispute between Paris College of Art and Parsons Paris. Wikipedia articles should summarise what the reliable news coverage says about the situation, not necessarily what the new college would like us to believe. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Bonjour Mickeyallen and welcome to the teahouse. I want to add a few things to the good info Sionk provided. First, just to make sure you understand you can edit the page directly if you want to. Putting notice on the talk page is a good idea, especially for something that might be controversial but you can also be wp:bold and make the change. Changing the name of the article itself is more problematic. I don't completely understand the issues between the two schools but here is some info about wikipedia article names. The default for any name is the topic of the article. But when there are two or more things with the same name the standard is you differentiate them by putting the differentiating info in parenthesis. So based on my very incomplete understanding of the issues, I think the name as is makes sense. As I understand it the current name is Parsons Paris but there is a conflict because an older school had that name so the name with the date in parens makes sense to me and in no way makes the name look less official. Also, I didn't notice anything on the talk page of the other school. One thing to try might be to put a note there about working out any issues. As Sionk said though the consensus solution needs to be driven by what is in independent media such as newspaper articles not the agenda of either school. MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added my response to these remarks on the Parsons Paris (2013) talk page. mickeyallen 17:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

How can I obtain feedback on my article that appears on my user page please?

I'm very new to Wikipedia. I have drafted an article which is a biography of a living person and am not sure where to go now to get some feedback on the article. Thank youHamsaNE (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You can submit your article to Articles for creation. If your article is within the policies than it will be moved, otherwise the problem will be told to you so that you can fix it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 124.176.85.184 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

edit

What is the difference between 'edit' and 'edit source'?jjbernardiscool (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, could you elaborate a little as to where and how you are seeing this used. "Edit" is a tab where you can click and enter the editing window to begin making edits on a page at Wikipedia, "View Source" is when the page is locked and we are unable to edit. --Mark Miller (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings jjbernardiscool, and welcome to the Teahouse. I assume you are referring to the two options you have when editing an article or a section of an article: "Edit" and then "Edit Source". First, its an understandable confusion. The difference is what editor you use. If you use "Edit" you use the Visual Editor if you use "Edit Source" you use the original editor. As you may know Wikipedia uses its own markup language. A markup language is code that goes along with text to create hypertext (e.g. links you can click on). The Wikipedia langage is similar to HTML but much simpler and in my experience easier to use. Are you familiar with the tech concept of WYSIWYG? The Visual Editor is a WYSIWYG editor. If you use it you are essentially telling the editor "here is what I want it to look like now generate the code to make it do this". With the standard editor you are just directly modifying the Wiki markup language yourself. So in theory the Visual Editor (the "Edit" option) is easier and the text editor "Edit Source" gives you more control. You can use either one. My personal recommendation is to try using the old style editor "Edit Source" first. The reason is that the Visual Editor is still in beta testing and there are bugs and at least in my experience its slow. But more importantly, the Wiki markup language is so essential I think it is a good idea for a new editor to learn it first and then use the Visual Editor if they want. MadScientistX11 (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this accurate Mdebellis? I don't see any difference between the two when I have Visual editor enabled or disabled. --Mark Miller (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Amadscientist, Mdebellis's answer is correct without getting too technical. The VisualEditor developers insist that it is not actually WYSIWYG, and they are "technically" correct, for the average editor, it is close enough. VE, is still in beta, there are lots of bugs (try searching for it on Bugzilla and spend a couple days reading if you like), and I personally prefer to edit in the raw MediaWiki Markup Language. Technical 13 (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, although I don't see why its not WYSIWYG, sure seems that way to me but I'll stop saying it that way so as not to confuse people or create controversey. Regarding the comment "I don't see any difference" I'm not sure where you are looking but in my environment (I obviously don't have the visual editor disabled) "Edit" invokes the Visual Editor and "Edit Source" invokes the old style editor. MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On that, specifically, I am not seeing an "edit source" tab. I used to edit a great deal with raw MediaWiki Markup Language. I am not an expert, but have been editing in HTML editing windows for years online, and it was a lot more common years ago in sites like Geo Cities. I had to do a lot of looking at different pages to understand the basics but, I like the ability to use code to influence the outcome of the page for formatting and other issues and really like to be able to have more room for customization in certain situations. I would hate to lose that even if Visual editor is being used, but from what I understand, it flips a lot of what editors know about editing on its head and just frustrates some. I tend to just adjust because it is still something I am not fluent in anyway.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Two reasons I can think of you aren't seeing "Edit Source". One is that on Talk pages or things like the Teahouse the standard way to edit is still the default and to my knowledge there is no way to edit those with the Visual Editor yet. So in those cases you just see "Edit" and it takes you to the old editor (btw, I wouldn't have done it that way I think its confusing to end users) Second, on articles the "Edit Source" can be one of those options that only shows up as you move the mouse in the appropriate area. I just went to a random article to confirm. In my browser (Chrome) "Edit Source" definitely shows up at the very top next to "Edit" but if I go to edit a section I only see "Edit" by the section heading but as I move the mouse over or near the "Edit" link then "Edit Source" shows up. I imagine if you have disabled the Visual Editor in your preferences though then all you see is "Edit" and that takes you to what is now "Edit Source" for the rest of us. I wouldn't know for sure because I've never disabled the Visual Editor. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Moving a page

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but would any editors be kind to comment on a requested page move. The request has received little attention: Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#Proposal_to_move_page_to_La_Luz_del_Mundo_Church. Ajaxfiore (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ajaxfiore. When I read the discussion on the talk page, I see you favoring the move, two editors opposing the move, and another editor neutral but leaning against the move. If I expressed an opinion there, I would oppose the move per WP:COMMONNAME, because you have conceded that the current title is the one most commonly used in reliable sources. I recommend dropping your idea for a move, as prospects for consensus supporting the move seem bleak. In the grand scheme of things, this is a relatively minor issue, don't you think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will drop the idea as you suggested. Ajaxfiore (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation and questions

I recently added an article about Masaaki Hiroi, who is a renowned craftsman and wrote a brief introduction as he is an internationally recognized personality appearing in various European and American newspaper articles. And, I added AAW's website and also US. Army interview of Masaaki Hiroi, which was made into a DVD.

And, the preposterous fact is that there is an acquaintance with no notability in wikipedia. And, the website was written by the person who made the person't official website. Obviously, wikipedia was written for publicity purpose and I cannot tell who that person is. He is not an actor. But, I would like to know what is wrong with this website.

And, I will not present my ID since I found a lot of facts about this website after asking the government officials about wikipedia. Anyway, I don't want to introduce myself because I don't know how and also it has been automatically deleted obviously without any monitoring. And, I would like to know the reason why.Mona 78 (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mona 78: I am sorry that your article was deleted. This sometimes happens to people who haven't had experience at writing encyclopedia articles. It seems that the article was deleted because it didn't provide evidence of notability of the subject. This does NOT mean that Masaaki Hiroi is not notable; it just means that the proper kinds of references to independent sources were not included. A person talking about themselves in an interview, or a profile on the web site of an organization to which he is connected are not considered independent. What's needed instead are news reports, magazine article, books, etc., in which authors or journalists discuss the person. There is an area of Wikipedia which is designed for new editors called Wikipedia:Articles for creation. You might try writing your article there. It may be declined, in which case the reviewers will tell you what needs to be fixed up, but it won't be deleted as long as it doesn't contain copyright material. Oh, yes - you are quite welcome to edit Wikipedia without revealing your identity - many people do. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cited Text

I was trying to clean up the Jonathan Greenblatt page by adding references to the information provided. While doing so, I realized that the first paragraph was taken verbatim from the white house website. I cited the source, and tried to change enough of the language to make it different. So I have a few questions.

1) was it necessary to change the language or could I have simply quoted it?

a) if it was necessary, did I change it sufficiently

2) Since I added citations, should I remove the banner saying the page lacked references?

a) what would the proper way of doing that be?

3) I suspect that some of the rest of the text might also be copied, is there some way to flag that? Thank you! Aesco77 (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Aesco77! Thanks for improving Wikipedia, and particularly for getting rid of a copyright violation. While it's possible to use short quotes in Wikipedia as long as they are attributed right in the text (for example, In his book The Longest Ball of String, Marcus Smith declared, "I collected all my string from packages mailed to me by the Post Office".) However, in most cases it's best to put the information in your own words and then add a citation. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you suspect more copyright problems, you can copy some of the suspect text into a search engine and see what comes up. Be careful, though - sometimes other web sites copy Wikipedia rather than the other way around! If you find copied text you can (1) rewrite it (2) delete it and make a note on the talk page explaining why or (3) you can report it on a help page like this one and someone else will deal with it. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Works of U.S. Federal government agencies such as the White House are in the public domain, and can be used freely by anyone for any purpose. See Copyright and Other Rights Pertaining to U.S. Government Works for an explanation from the U.S. government. Accordingly, there is no copyright issue in this particular case. However, there is an issue of plagiarism and proper attribution. Any quoted language needs to be properly cited to the original source, the White House website in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

New user getting used to policies/procedures/etiquette

Hello, I'm attempting to update a few pages related to the company I work for, and I'm brand new to Wikipedia as a contributor, so struggling a bit as I go. In the interest of transparency, I named my username/account "UWPCE Communications," since I provide communications support for UWPCE which is University of Washington Professional & Continuing Education. But immediately it seems an editor had an issue with that, so I'm not sure how to proceed? I'm cautiously attempting to keep requisite neutral tone, and correct factual information, but there may not be citable sources for everything so I'm not sure how to proceed. Any help would be appreciated. Updating pages for accuracy and clarity seems to be cumbersome, so thanks for any guidance!UWPCE Communications (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. For the sake of transparency and accountability, Wikipedia does require that each account belong to a specific individual, and forbids "role accounts" - accounts that seem to indicate that the account may be controlled by a particular group/roll (like UWPCE's communications team) rather than by a specific individual. Normal best practice is to make an account under your real name (or if you feel like it, a pseudonym,) and then clearly identify your institutional affiliation, generally by posting a disclaimer on your userpage. It's also often desirable to include some reference to your institutional affiliation in your username to make it obvious to passersby, while still having one account per person - e.g., if you are named Bob, you could create an account named "Bob (UWPCE)" and then say on your userpage "Hi. My name is Bob. I'm a communications specialist for the University of Washington Professional & Continuing Education program." There are other peculiarities about contributing when you have a conflict of interest, but since most Wikipedians consider the naming thing to be big, it'd be best to get that taken care of before worrying about how else to proceed. It is technically possible to rename your account, but since your account is new and has very few edits, I would suggest just creating a new one from scratch. Thanks for disclosing your connection, it is appreciated. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that one of Wikipedia's core policies is that any information in an article is verifiable by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you cannot cite reliable sources for the information you want to add, then it cannot exist in an article here. --Drm310 (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My article is constantly been declined. Help please.

I have created my company's article but its being rejected constantly. I have added references in it. Even the matter is not at all copied. Please someone help! Karansingh8 (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone please give any suggestion!! Karansingh8 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to add material to your article that comes from reliable sources that are independent of your company, things like newspaper articles and articles from business journals.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Karansingh8. Your draft article has been deleted twice now because it included copyrighted material from the company's website. Extensive use of copyrighted material is simply not allowed on Wikipedia, unless the copyright holder licenses its free use in writing, using the correct legal language. Even if the website content was licensed properly, it is almost certainly not appropriate for extensive use in a Wikipedia article. Corporate websites are written using marketing language. This encyclopedia is supposed to be written in neutral language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk: You have new messages

What do I have to do to get rid of the orange block announcing the arrival of new messages? I am signed on a registered user, so I thought that method of announcing messages was gone. But, there is it. And, if I go to my User Page to see what someone has posted there, there have been no changes in many months (other than one where I just deleted some stuff as long as I was there). What is going on?ProfReader (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. It's a bug, see WP:VPT#Random "Talk: you have new messages" messages?. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

authority figures

I've had several encounters with people who claim to be authorities on Wikipedia policies, have repeatedly sent unwarranted template warnings which are threatening, and upon reviewing their pages have found that they were blocked in the past. I've read the information on sock puppets and believe I may be the victim of a group of sock puppets . . . how do I identify the good guys? Stmullin (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking through your talkpage, I haven't seen anything that's obviously worrying. What types of warnings have you gotten? Links to diffs would be helpful. It's certainly possible that one user who doesn't like you is using sockpuppets for harassment, but let's not jump to conclusions. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this about your work on the Stewart Hase article and discussions on your archived talk page User:Stmullin/Archive 1? Notability for an academic like Hase depends on what other people or institutions have said about him, not what he has published. See the explanations on the Stewart Hase talk page. These explanations are right. These are Wikipedia policies. His bibliography does not belong in an encyclopedia article. (However many professor's articles have them. We are trying to fix this.) Has he received any awards? Have any review papers (by other people) analyzed his work? Is he active in any professional or academic organizations. The word notable refers to being "noticed" by others in his field. Good luck. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Requested Articles

Hi,

I am in the process of re-designing the WikiProject Requested Articles in my sandbox. However, I was wanting to copy the Guild of Copy Editor's system of drives and blitzes, albeit on different things. However, I also wanted to implement the barnstar system of rewards for participating in the drives and blitzes. Is there someone to ask, or can I just adapt them without attaining permissions?

Thanks, Mat ty.007 08:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Matty.007. You need ask no one. But, everytime you make a new template or import any copied content you should provide in the edit summary an attribution note with a link. For example, if you are copying a template, the edit summary would be "Attribution note: copying content from [[Template:Name]]" or taking content from the project, it might be "Attribution note: copying content from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives]]" etc. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Mat ty.007 12:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation of book

Help is incredibly unhelpful! There are so many templates for citing a book as a reference that I have not a clue which to select. I'd like to cite this: Cockayne, George Edward (1912). The Complete Peerage, edited by H.A. Doubleday II. London: St. Catherine Press. Do I really need to pipe this a gazillion times for last name of author, first name of author, etc? Is there an easier way? TYVM if you can assist. ScarletRibbons (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There are gadgets you can get, such as ProveIt GT, in which you input the information in the various slots, and it puts it into Markup for you. Hope this helped, Mat ty.007 09:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi ScarletRibbons, there is also the Wikipedia Citation tool, which once you locate any book on Google Books makes the citation for you and you can then simply copy and paste the ref from the bottom into the article. Hope that helps! SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Very helpful, TYVM :-D Awesome tools. Now why doesn't Help point one to the kewl stuff that makes life easier? ScarletRibbons (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

how do you insert a picture into an article?

I've been trying to insert a picture into an article for so long, but i couldn't manage to do it no matter how hard i tried. could someone please explain to me how to do that? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Exoplanetaryscience. Assuming the picture is already uploaded the basic format is [[File:name.jpg|thumb|caption]]. This works for images stored on Commons as well as this wiki. This places the image on the right by default. Adding |left| puts it on the left. Size can be specified but should usually be left to users' own preference as set in "preferences". There is lots of detail available at WP:Picture tutorial. I hope this helps and do ask again if anything is unclear.--Charles (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

what if the image is not on commons or the wiki?

exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Exoplanetaryscience, welcome to the Teahouse planet. This is a question that comes up a lot. There are two ways to get images into a Wikipedia article. One is to use the Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard and the other is to load the image into the commons. The upload wizard is what most new editors use. The difference is that for a file to go into the commons Wikipedia needs to have full copyright access, which is a lot more hard to get than you might think but to use a file via the upload wizard you only have to provide a truthful justification for the way the file will be used. There are exceptions to copyright that let you use some images in restricted ways. The Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard will take you through a series of questions, if you've ever seen a flow chart its like that, and if you get to a point where none of the options apply then you can't use the file. The best thing is to search the commons first: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page there are lots of files there but it sounds as if you've done that so the upload wizard may be your best bet. FYI, the wizard to upload to the commons is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard but I recommend sticking to things already in the commons or using the file upload wizard to start. MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

ok thanks!

exoplanetaryscience (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Right Exoplanetaryscience. click edit source , then write something on these lines : [[file:filename|thumb|caption]]. BYE . jjbernardiscool (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I put 'nowiki' round Jjbernardiscool's code, so that the code would appear rather than the non-image! --ColinFine (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Griefing attack on a Wikipedia definition

There is an obvious attack on the reference "Parkour," as someone has referred to it as "penis game" and gay in the first line of the post. I highly doubt this was an intentional post by the members of wiki as it is in very bad taste.

98.246.83.13 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)A friend98.246.83.13 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

@98.246.83.13: - Sounds like Vandalism. ^King Jakob _C2 22:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The vandalism was reverted in about half an hour. There were actually two acts of vandalism, and the other lasted less than a minute. The person who vandalized has done nothing else on Wikipedia. This case seems to be a one time thing.

Whenever any good faith user sees vandalism, they should feel free to correct it immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, 98. Please remember that en-Wikipedia crosses many cultural boundaries as it serves every English speaking country in the world. As an American, I have no clue what "Griefing" means. I am curious because i saw the phrase in an edit summary yesterday and thought it might be a personal attack. Could you enlighten me? Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gtwfan52! This is not a regular English term, but apparently it is commonly used by players of on-line games to refer to the process of following someone around and spoiling their fun on purpose. YOu can look it up at WP:Griefing. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

IF I may, this is an instance of PLEASE be a giant dick so we can ban you which is a sub page of wikipedia Dont be a dick.......It is of course, interpretation as the key. We must of course assume good faith and as it proper, attempt to address the issue with the party involved. Assuming that a person has a soul of dogshit or the heart of a serial killer, will not resolve anything...Just my 2 cents Coal town guy (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

why my article appears to be written like an advertisement?

Hi, my client is having a wiki page- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niit_technologies which is showing a warning message- "This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links."

Can you please suggest how we can improve it so that it does not look like an advertisement.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.Agarg82 (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Agarg82, I've had a quick look at the article and a big problem in my view is the large amount of information that is sourced from NIIT and its press releases. Wikipedia articles should concentrate on what independent, reliable sources say about the subject.

On the other hand, I couldn't see many 'buzzwords' (I've removed the list of "industry verticals") therefore I've removed one of the warning templates.

You say you're working on behalf of NIIT. Bear in mind you should be careful how you contribute to Wikipedia if you have a conflict of interest.

Well, hope that helps you a bit. Sionk (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sionk, Thanks for your quick reply & corrections.

This article has been created a long time back. I have started my work with NIIT a few months back & found some warning messages so thought to correct them.

Is there any way by which Wiki contributors can help us in removing the remaining warning message? Or can you please suggest what we can do to make it a perfact page as per wiki's stands.

Thanks once again. Agarg82 (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the remaining tag is about lack of independent sources. This is a serious lack, because sometimes articles are deleted if there aren't any of these. Look for news or magazine articles that have been written about the company by journalists and other authors, not by publicists, and add references to these to your article. If you can't find any, meaning no one has written independently about the company, ever, then the tag can't be removed, and the article may eventually be deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

How can i know if have improved an article

Hi, am a new user and was wondering if it's possible to know whether i have improved an article after editing it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabithamuiru (talk • contribs) 10:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Tabithamuiru, welcome to the teahouse. Sorry, it took a while for someone to notice your question, we are all volunteers here so some things take longer than others. I looked at a couple of your changes and they definitely looked constructive! One was basic editing (fixing punctuations, making pronouns neutral rather than gender specific, etc.) There are a lot of ways you can get feedback in Wikipedia. Here is a page that goes over some of them: wp:feedback BTW, that is one trick I learned fairly recently (I'm also a pretty new editor) if you are interested in some topic pertaining to Wikipedia just type "wp:" before the word before you search the encyclopedia. So if you want to know about Feedback (say you want to play the guitar like Jimi Hendrix) you just type in "feedback" to the search box, if you are interested in feedback in Wikipedia you enter "wp:feedback". That is a great little trick for finding policies, projects, etc. In general editors are encouraged to be wp:bold If you do something wrong someone will probably notice fairly quickly and if no one complains chances are what you are doing is good but even if its not its OK to make mistakes, as long as we stay polite about corrections and are collaborative that is what matters. MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Tabithamuiru! Welcome to Teahouse. Editor MadScientistX11 gives you good advise above. A really good way to see if your edits are helping is to be sure to put any page you edit on your watchlist and check back from time to time. You can automate that with the "Watchlist" tab under preferences. If no-one reverts your edits or changes them, it is likely a good edit. If someone does, you can perhaps see why and learn from the edit summary, or you can politely ask the editor why they changed it on their talk page. Make sure if you do that to word your question in a way that the editor you are asking knows that you are new and trying to learn and not that you are challenging him (or her) for changing it. Most Wikipedia editors are more than willing to help newcomers. And if you ever have a question about a specific edit, you can always come back here and ask us for help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Newbie issues

User:Jonathan.bluestein has no experience in basic editing style and is continuing to re-add inappropriate material to Haredi Judaism. This includes umpteen infractions of OR, RS and POV. His latest edit undid a lot of work which attempted to fix these issues: [1]. Please can someone have a word as I am not experienced in dealing with this. Thanks Chesdovi (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I took a very quick look at the edit history of Haredi Judaism It seems you and User:Jonathan.bluestein are having significant disagreements about the article, verging on wp:Edit warring I want to make it clear I didn't spend enough time to have any opinions on the disagreements between the two of you. But from my quick look it didn't seem obvious to me that User:Jonathan.bluestein "has no experience in basic editing style and is continuing to re-add innappropriate material" Again, I could be wrong, just saying from the quick look his changes seemed to be well documented, they had good descriptions and I saw about an equal amount of rhetoric from both of you. My advice is to review the guidelines on wp:Dispute_resolution and go through the various steps in that article: request for comments, mediation, and ultimately if all else fails wp:arbitration. MadScientistX11 (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A quick review of my user page would reveal that I am not a Wikipedia newbie, and have been involved in very large extensive edits before. Another look at the history of the Haredi Judaism article and its talk page would easily show that my case is sound, and why Chesdovi is so stressed out... This is merely Chesdovi's response to my complaint of his behaviour here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Chesdovi_reported_by_User:Jonathan.bluestein_.28Result:_No_violation.29

Recapping my report (in case it'd be deleted sometime):

"Hi folks. Sorry for not using the acceptable 'codes of report' - it looks kinda complex and I wasn't sure how to do this right. I did put the "Edit Warring Notice" tag on the reported user's page.

I wish to report user Chesdovi for his continuous pursuit of altering the page 55 in favour of his view of the subject matter. He has been deleting contents off that page, by myself and others, every day, for at least several days now. He dismisses any claims on the talk page and would not reach compromise. Whenever an additional reference is added, he dismisses it as well, with claims such as: "advertisement", "state-funded conspircay against Haredi Jews", "illegal under Israeli copyright law", etc. His common method of action is deleting the parts he wishes to delete slowly, bit by bit. He'd wait a few hours to a day after discussion on the talk page, and would then start deleting again. Sometimes he'd appear to have agreed to keep some material, but would delete them two days later. I myself have refrained from deleting any of his materials (!), and have only edited small parts of them - slightly changing phrasing or providing additional content - also mentioning the reasons and discussing matters on the talk page... Which he had refrained from doing. Whenever I have myself undone any of his deletions, I kept his added materials and made sure to mention it. His presence on the page is somewhat vandalistic. I have no means with dealing with his excessive deletions, which are heavily based on his own self-proclaimed agenda ("to act against those harassing and spreading hatred towards Haredim"). Even when he discusses, he later ignores. =\ The talk page and edit notes on the page's history would easily reveal the nature of the problem. I thereby wish to request some form of intervention on the matter. Thank you."

The result of this report from Yesterday had been:

"No violation - there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There appears to be a content dispute on the page though. Consider dispute resolution".

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not the time or patience to deal with this. I suggest and ask that Jonathan.bluestein add the material he wishes to add at talk for discussion first. Chesdovi (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of the materials I have added have been discussed on the talk page already. Whenever Chesdovi has issues with stuff I add, he immediately deletes EVERYTHING I have added prior, at the excuse of 'this has not yet been discussed. Chesdovi - I'm glad to hear you have no time to deal with this - Because I do have time. Plenty of it, actually. I will continue to answer your questions, improve the text, add references and re-introduce the valuable information you have been deleting due to your personal agendas. Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We cannot simply let new additions of POV, OR, RS and a host of other problems be left on the page. Build consensus first. And adhere to policy. Chesdovi (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, guys. This is the Teahouse, a place where we strive to keep a warm and friendly environment for newcomers to come and ask questions. I'm going to ask you to take your argument elsewhere, and to remember that the whole Wikipedia editing model is built on the fact that reasonable people will sometimes disagree. It isn't a big deal. Talk about the edits, not each other, and if you get to a place where you can't work things out, either disengage or ask for some form of dispute resolution. We are here to help you work out how you go about dealing with edit disputes, not to solve them for you. Either of you are welcome to come ask questions here, but please take your dispute elsewhere. Thanks, and happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)