Help desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 2

I can't log in sucessfully to my account using firefox. I seem to get dumped out immediately. It still works in IE. Any ideas?

Resolved

– Deleting the cookies did the trick John of Reading (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC). Specifically, the en.wikipedia.org and wikipedia.org cookies using [in Ff] Tools/Options/Privacy/Show Cookies then select relevant cookies and remove. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using my original account, User:John Maynard Friedman with Firefox, I am unable to log in successfully. The response to my login attempt is simply the same page with the same "login or create new account" option. If I use IE, I have no problem. This problem is extant since I transferred from IE to Ff as my primary browser, importing the IE settings (favourites, cookies, etc) as per convention.

I am writing this from a temporary account, just to verify that there is nothing grossly wrong with my Firefox configuration. Yes, I can log in again at will with this a/c, but still not with my main a/c. You can see other things that I have tried and some Helpme responses at User talk:John Maynard Friedman#Helpme - changing to Firefox.

I would appreciate any suggestions that you may have. Please reply to my main account at the Helpme section.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMF-firefox-test (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted one more idea at User talk:John Maynard Friedman - bypass the monobook.js by changing skin -- John of Reading (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly can I cite, and post in an article?

I am talking to an artist who already has a wikipedia article, and he has emailed me information he wishes put up. The content would fit wikipedia standards, but I would only be able to cite the emails he sent me. How can I correctly post his requested information in this situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnipharious (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short, you can't reference emails! Information in articles needs to be verifiable and personal emails can't be! What you need is for the information to have been published in reliable sources which are independent of the subject - an example would be significant newspaper coverage of the individual, but not a press release. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 02:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then what way could I get the information from him in a way in which I can cite? He has given me complete permission to post the information given. If he were to post the information in question on his website, can I post said material, and cite his website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnipharious (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues here. First of all, subjects of articles don't get to approve those articles, or to have any special say in what goes into them (although they can, obviously, object to material that is inaccurate or controversial and unsourced, and request its removal). Whether or not this person has approved the material you wish to insert is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia - what matters is whether or not it can be verified in reliable sources. Second, the question of whether or not you could get it added to the artist's website and then cite it depends on the nature of the information and the purpose it plays in the article. If it's uncontroversial (basic factual, biographical stuff, for example: "Joe Brown studied at the X School of Art from 1979-1982; he is a sculptor who works in bronze") then such info could indeed be cited to Joe Brown's official website. However, if it is potentially controversial or a value judgement ("Joe Brown had an affair with the sculptor Mary Smith; he has been described as the best young British artist of the early 21st century") Brown's own website would not be a sufficiently good citation. The key points are (a) whether the information is potentially controversial or not, and (b) whether or not it is being used to support the subject's notability. For the latter, substantial coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources must be demonstrated; citations to the subject's own website don't count, so anything you do cite to such a source won't make any difference to the question of whether or not the artist is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about him. If it's just a matter of confirming basic biographical facts, it'll probably be OK. But do remember that this is an encyclopaedia article, not a CV or a social networking profile or a promotional site. Just because it's true and verifiable doesn't automatically make it appropriate for Wikipedia. For example, many articles about artists end up looking like CVs, containing endless bullet-pointed lists of every show they ever exhibited a work at and every book or article that ever featured a passing mention of their work. In the same way, some articles about actors become lists of every minor character they ever played throughout their career. This information may be correct, and can even be referenced back to the individual's own website, but it's not suitable in terms of form or content for an encyclopaedia article. Ka renjc 10:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, all of the information is objective (his endorsers, the equipment he uses, when and where he was born, etc), and as for notability, he has been an active artist for almost 30 years, and has a signature instrument. His musical influences is the only thing that might not be completely verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnipharious (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to re-nominate an article for deletion

So, I was wanting to propose Queef Fraiche for deletion, but someone already has today, and the proposal was instantly removed by the author of the page, and it says in the rules for proposing for deletion that you can't propose a page for deletion that has before...so how do I get the page deleted? Passionless (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:DEPROD, you cannot restore a prod once it has been removed. The only other course of action if WP:CSD does not apply is WP:AFD. Goodvac (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I used AfD...ugh. Passionless (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hackers really suck.

So while I was surfing around the wiki, I noticed an orange box above the article I was reading that said "you have new messages". I clicked on the link, and in some grey bordered boxes, there were edits made through my IP address that had been blocked. Several immature and awful things written in the place of an actual article are now acting against ME and reading of the site. I want to be able to edit things, like everyone else, and if my IP is being used as a mask for someone to vent their hate towards everyone, I want something done about it. Is there any way someone from the wikistaff or somewhere could remove these bad marks on my IP, and let me edit articles like a normal person would? And have a way of actually finding out what IP the hacker is using to route through mine, and into the internet, and thereby wikipedia? Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.153.35 (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to avoid having contributions you didn't make blamed on your IP address is to create an account. It's absolutely free, and prevents others from making contributions attributed to you. As far as your IP being used as a mask, it's more likely that your address is linked to multiple computers. Whatever the case, we can't remove the contributions from your IP's record, nor can we investigate any hacking that may have happened. As a side note, our logs don't indicate that you've been blocked (evidenced by the fact that you were able to post a question here), so you should still be able to edit normally even without logging in. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 04:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the box at the bottom of Special:Contributions/67.183.153.35:

All the vandalism edits were made 19 February 2009, probably by somebody who really had the IP address at the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as PrimeHunter says, it's very unlikely this was a result of someone hacking into your network; generally people dedicated enough to hack a network do so for stronger personal gain than the ability to anonymously vandalise wikipedia. It's likely you either have a dynamic IP address, which is generally the default unless you specifically know you have a static one, or you were on a different ISP and therefore different IP when that user used the IP for vandalism. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP, since your IP address is dynamic, you may find edits by other users in the same IP address as the one you're currently using. But these users are not "hackers"; like I said, this is about dynamic IP addresses. Such IP addresses may change pretty often, or sometimes. Don't worry about it, especially since the edits you're referring to were made back in 2009. Hey Mid (contribs) 13:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted Material

I am a member of the whippany railway museum (http://www.whippanyrailwaymuseum.net) I am also one of the Managers of their website... I am attempting to place accurate and complete information on this wikipedia. Information posted about the museum is approved by the trustees and can not be modified without permission. Unfortunately when I try and place information on this site it is complaining that the information is copyrighted. How do I go about removing this restriction for this one page so I can complete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichT11 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. We ask that people that represent an organization refrain from adding content or editing articles about that organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for an explanation of why not. If your organization meets the minimum requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) then you should request that someone create an article about it at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Someone that is unconnected to your museum will be along eventually to create a basic article using information you provide. --Jayron32 04:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can write a paragraph explaining the most useful concept from this presentation; it has to be in your own words.--Monterey Bay (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So someone that is affiliated and therefor able to provide the most complete and accurate information, can NOT post that information here. This is a non-profit organization. What I will do is attempt to re-word the information enough that the "Filters" will not trap it, after I get it approved of course... Thanks for the feedback, new to all this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.58.242 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about who adds the material. The core values of Wikipedia maintain that material should always be cited to reliable sources. Insofar as anyone can read the source material, anyone can cite it and add the material. Because Wikipedia also values neutrality we ask that people that have a close connection to a subject, and thus may have their view of that subject colored by their proximity to it, refrain from editing about it. --Jayron32 05:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention approval twice, I would add that the text of the article is not subject to approval of your trustees. And even if you did write a neutral history of the museum, your text would be subject to good-faith modification by other editors. —teb728 t c 10:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Wikipedia has no way to know who you are. Knowing who you are and what you know are not the same as proving your claims to distant strangers. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a site for publishing original work. Instead we only re-publish what has already been reliably published elsewhere. This enables Wikipedia to avoid the laborious nightmare of confirming the identities of our 48,479,482 registered users. The rules of Wikipedia are designed to make our identities irrelevant. To take what you know and turn it into a reliable source, you could try to find a journalist who works for a reputable publisher or news organization who will publish what you know to be true. Reputable publishers have mechanisms in place for checking facts and so on, which the vast majority of random sites on the Web do not. If for example the New York Times writes a story about your museum, we can have confidence that the story will adhere to the standards of that publication. --Teratornis (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is likely RS backing for the museum such as [1], [2] [3] etc. Collect (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Generation Bureau (kgb) article is wrong

The Wikipedia page about the Knowledge Generation Bureau (542542 service) is inaccurate. Contrary to what that page says, kgb_ NEVER generates answers using an automated keyword matching system, nor does it use automated answer generating software. ALL questions are researched by real, live humans, never by a computer. This very blatant disregard for facts makes it very difficult to rely on the information given in any Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.125.34 (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked back through the page history and found that this information was added, with a source, in this edit on 1 July 2009. The source was later deleted. I have edited the article and restored the source. Can you supply reliable sources, independent of the company, that demonstrate that the 2009 source is wrong or that the company's practices have changed since then?

You may find the article Reliability of Wikipedia useful as background reading. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material and concerns of one editor's sincerity.

Hello, recently I am running into many articles that do not provide references but claim certain things which I also cannot find through my own research. I wanted to ask that should I delete the unreferenced right away or wait to resolve a conflict for every single article?

Also the articles that I had been working on were reverted if anything was unreferenced even though I have tried to reference everything. I am still concerned about one editors sincerity in watching the article Baloch people as this articles previously was full of unreferenced material but the editor did not interfere much but when I started working on the article, I was interepted which I do not mind but still I am forced to use my intelligence and ask this question that why would the editor only interfere when there is healthy work being done and not do anything when the article was full of unreferenced material and still when someone adds something to change the facts this editor does not try to help but the change was reverted by some other editor. The editor that I have been speaking about is User:AtticusX. I am happy to help you understand more of the situation. Usualphonexs (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atticus (I've notified him) has been editing Baloch people longer than you have and I note that he raised a copyright issue with you. I think we will need some specifics, in particular WP:DIFFS to help you further. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usualphonexs, the only recent interaction I recall having with you is when I tried to help you out by explaining a copyvio issue with an image collage you had placed in the article. I wasn't among the editor(s) who repeatedly had to remove your image, but I saw you struggling with their confusing edit summaries and thought you might appreciate knowing why nobody was coming to your rescue (the image was in violation of copyright guidelines). Is that why you are singling me out? Or is it something I did further back?

I don't know a great deal about Baloch people and I apologize for not being able to be helpful beyond maintenance issues. I am very sorry that you feel that I have actually been interfering with healthy work. If you can point us to an edit or edits I made that worried you, I'll do my best to explain my rationale, if need be. I know it's pointless to say it if you don't trust me, but I'll say it anyway: I don't have any ulterior motives or personal investment in the Baloch people article. It's just been on my watchlist for a while. AtticusX (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your help in maintaince of the article, just like you I am also trying to help only. I was trying to bring the situation into notice only. As you can see the previous article had contained alot of unreferenced material previously some months ago but it was not deleted that is why I was worrying. And my question is that if I come across articles that do not provide appropriate references should I delete the material of wait to resolve conflict with each one of them? Thanks for your help. Usualphonexs (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that it depends on the article, the material and the quality of any references provided. Yes, in theory, potentially controversial unreferenced (or poorly sourced) content often should be deleted. Controversial unreferenced material about living people should be removed on sight unless you can supply an acceptable citation there and then to support it. However, unless you're dealing with content that is uncontroversially libellous, misleading, provably factually incorrect or unsalvageable gibberish, consider whether it might be improved rather than simply removed. Actions may include tagging the article with {{unreferenced}} or similar templates, tagging individual problem sentences with templates like {{citation needed}}, searching for references yourself, or opening a discussion on the article's talk page. There is always a danger, when deleting sections of an article because they lack citations, that someone will interpret your actions either as vandalism or as a way of removing content you dislike, using the lack of references as an excuse. This is particularly true in articles on controversial subjects. If you do remove any unreferenced content in good faith, remember WP:BRD. If someone reverts your removal, take it to the talk page. Ka renjc 15:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on what Karenjc has written:

WP:NOCITE gives a succinct set of guidelines on how to deal with unsourced material. As Karenjc says, it depends on the context. Sometimes the ideal process is to first mark dubious unreferenced sentences with a {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} tag to draw attention to the problem. Putting a {{Citation needed}} tag on material can be your way of saying, "This material is questionable; prove it!" Or, if the issue is complicated or potentially controversial, you can go to the article's talk page and leave a short note about it there. That way, other editors have a chance to respond and seek out sources if they want. If a while goes by and it remains unreferenced, go ahead and remove it, making sure to explain why in your edit summary!

On the other hand, if the unsourced material is obvious vandalism, if it is inherently unverifiable, or if it is a harmful statement in a biography of a living person, it's best to just remove it immediately. If you have access to a reliable source that contradicts the unsourced Wikipedia material, by all means, replace the unsourced, incorrect material with correct, sourced material! The more you can back up your edits with reliable sources, the more you establish the credibility of your edits. And again, explaining your reasoning in your edit summaries always helps clear up misunderstandings. I can see from your edit history that you've been very good at using your edit summaries to explain your intentions.

The reality is, of course, that there is a lot of unreferenced stuff on Wikipedia. Not every sentence needs a source; some need sources more than others. So we have to prioritize based on our expertise. Articles like Baloch people can go for months or years full of unreferenced material because there are relatively few people who know the subject well enough to know which sentences are dubious. Looking back at my own edit history, I actually started watching that article a few months ago when a user named BalochMedia started making drastic changes that were unsourced, very messy, non-neutral, and lots of copyvio at first. But he knew the subject well. His reaction to other editors' attempts to help him adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines was negative at first, but eventually the quality of his edits improved and many of them form large chunks of the article now, for better or worse. (He appears to have stopped editing, otherwise I would advise you to try to engage with him, since you are working largely with material he generated in the case of Baloch people.)

In short, you're raising a good question whose answer depends on the situation. If you have specific examples of material lacking appropriate references where you are not sure what to do, let us know. AtticusX (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong page link - Toot & Puddle / Holly Hobbie

Good day wiki Yesterday I created a "Toot & Puddle" article and now that article is showing up under "Holly Hobbie", a related page. While setting up Toot & Puddle, which was supposed to be a link off Holly Hobbie, it seems I may have "moved" it there inadvertently. See: -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Hobbie -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toot_and_puddle Will you please help me fix the links so that the individual URLs call up only the named articles. Thank you wikifood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifood (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page you created today was in your user space User:Wikifood/Toot & Puddle, not in mainspace. The mainspace pages (including the redirect) have been there for some time. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toot & Puddle is currently a redirect to Holly Hobbie. This means that if you go to Toot & Puddle and click "Edit" then you are editing Holly Hobbie which I guess is what happened. I have reverted your edit to Holly Hobbie. If you want to replace the redirect at Toot & Puddle with an article then click "(Redirected from Toot & Puddle)" at the top of Toot & Puddle before clicking Edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David Biddulph and PrimeHunter. Your information was extremely useful to me as this is the first time I actually attempted to create a wiki page on my own, PRACTICALLY from scratch. I eventually moved the page from my user space and I believe it now stands on it's own even as a redirect. I have another question though. The name of the show, Toot & Puddle, includes the ampersand "&" so of course that means that the URL would include additional characters "%26" >> "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toot_%26_Puddle". I have been searching the HELP pages for a way to change the URL so that it would be simply "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toot_&_Puddle". Is there a way that that can be done, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.185.1 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this can't be changed. The ampersand character has a special meaning inside a URL. See Query string. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wiki table quirk

I have a wiki table at Narcissism#Impact_of_healthy_v_destructive_narcissism_on_organizations which strangely causes the title of the next section Narcissism#Empirical_studies "Empirical_studies" to not appear in the text even though it appears in the TOC. Any ideas ? --Penbat (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by removing align=right from the table.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thx --Penbat (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computing win percentage in sports

This error is all over Wikipedia. In total points sports championships the correct way to calculate win percentage is:

Points / Maximum Points

For example:

If an NHL team has 3 wins, 1 tie and 1 loss (wins=2points, tie=1point) then the teams winning percentage is:

6 win points + 1 tie point / 10 points (maximum, 5 games x 2 points a game) = 0.700 win percentage.

Everyone seems to calculate it as: 3 wins/5 games = 0.600

Anyway to make a mass correction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.38.226 (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no error. Your figure is properly called points percentage. You are correct that it is not used in Wikipedia, because the articles covering the only league it applies to (NHL) do not use percentages of any kind. Xenon54 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And we compute it based on custom. For example, until about 1970, the NFL did not count a tie as counting in won/loss percentage. After that, it counts as half a win and half a loss. MLB does not count a tied game in the standings at all (say, called on account of rain or darkness) even if not replayed, though the statistics count.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right but, regardless, in sports using "points", the win percenate (wins/total games) is not used. Point percentage is the one that is used, and as such, coaches and teams in these sports should have their win percentages computed as a ratio of the amount of points available. I challenge you to find win percentage (NBA/MLB style) in any "point" sport. Using MLB/NBA percentages penalizes their records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.38.226 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The non-misleading way to state the record of a coach, team, or player would be to list the numbers of wins, ties, and losses, and let the reader calculate whatever percentage he or she likes. If the actual record is correctly stated then the record is not penalized. If an article or an infobox states a percentage, the descriptive text should link to the article that explains the definition of the percentage used (for example points percentage). Please give an example of article that you find misleading. --Teratornis (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I translate an English article to Korean and make 'Korean(한국말)' appear on the left sidebar(Languages)?

How can I translate an English article to Korean and make 'Korean(한국어)' appear on the left sidebar(Languages)? How can I do all of this at once? For example in an article, 'Editor war' from the English Wikipedia, there is a sidebar on the left side of the screen. Inside 'Languages', there are the same articles in different languages, but there is no '한국어'(Korean). How can I make this appear on the left side, too, and also, if there is no Korean translated article for this page, how and where do start translating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungjooKim (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to generate the Korean article at ko:, and include a link at the end of the English Wikipedia article to [[ko:your Korean article name]] - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And see Wikipedia:Translation, WP:EIW#Translate, and Help:Interlanguage links. If you don't already have an account on the Korean Wikipedia, see WP:SUL and Special:MergeAccount. --Teratornis (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing of User Page

How would I know IF a User has at least viewed a message I left on their Talk Page? example: User talk:Bchumak.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. However, if they have edited since you last left the message, you can be sure they got the little orange bar notifying them of it. --Jayron32 20:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., thanks. As far as I can see they have only edited once, ever!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Al Hashimi

Yours Truely, MK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.202.60.223 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

This is the Help Desk for asking questions about using Wikipedia. Do you have a question? -- John of Reading (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese/Japanese character differences

A few Chinese characters are (or should be) rendered slightly differently depending on whether the language is Chinese or Japanese. You can specify the language using the "lang" property in HTML, like this:

<span lang="ja">令</span> produces 令

<span lang="zh">令</span> produces 令

Hopefully you will see, as I do, that the form is different even though the characters are identical and the fonts are identical. The default, for me anyway, seems to be Chinese-style. My question is: Is there any way to set a default language for a whole article, so that all the characters will automatically be displayed correctly and we don't have to mess around hand-crafting HTML? I suspect this issue may have been overlooked in some of English Wikipedia's articles about the Japanese language. 86.173.171.67 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The {{lang}} template should be used to separate non-English text from English text. This deals with the "span" magic and also protects the text from semi-automatic spelling fixers and such like. {{lang|ja|令}} produces 令 and {{lang|zh|令}} produces 令. I don't know any way to set a per-article default. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City sources

For articles about cities, are sources from the city's website allowed? Us441(talk)(contribs) 22:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how likely it is that the information is going to be challenged. If the city X website says "If you relocate to city X your business will thrive", that's clearly an advertising puff and unreliable. If the city website says "There are five public parks within the city" that's probably a good enough source. -- John of Reading (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have included a link to WP:SELFPUB -- John of Reading (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]