Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Told page was approved but will not go live

Please help! TAN1979 (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tandoor Chef? There have been two reviews of the draft and both have declined the article on the grounds that the notability criteria are met and/or that the article reads more like an advert than a neutrally written article. It's also been suggested that you are connected with the company and might, therefore have a conflict of interest.

To start with this last point, if you are connected with the company then unless you can write honestly and neutrally about it, then you are probably best not editing the article at all. A company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Looking at the references in the article, most of them do not seem to mention Tandoor Chef at all - so they don't really meet the criteria. The draft can be made more neutral by the way it is written - phrases like "Tandoor Chef is pleased to announce its vegetarian and vegan qualification by the American Vegetarian Association" should be rewritten as more neutral, for example "Tandoor Chef products are accredited by the American Vegetarian Association." and statements like this backed up by a reference. NtheP (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

How do I upload an image

I have some images I want to upload to my text. Could someone help me with this? I can't seem to find out how to do it - thanks in advance! Smashhits90s (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. Uploading images is most easily done by using the file upload wizard you'll find at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard but before you start you need to understand the copyright of the images you want to upload. Wikipedia prefers files that are free to use - files that are either copyright free or released under a licence that allows unlimited free use not only on Wikipedia or anywhere else. If the images are ones you took yourself you can grant that permission yourself. If the images wre taken by someone else then you will need to get their written permission before you upload the images. If you want to let us know some more about the images, for example where you got them from then we can probably help you determine if they can be used on Wikipedia and what licence to use with them. NtheP (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Technical problem

I cannot see cite button on edit page. Is it related to my computer? Can you explain please, thanks Egeymi (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed, it is about compatibility mode in internet explorer. Maybe others also experience similar inconvenience. Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not fix it. I still need help, thanks,Egeymi (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's where you should see the edit button.

Here's what you should see after you've clicked the edit button.

Hi Egeymi, and thanks for dropping in! I'm not sure what problem you're having. Here are a couple of screenshots using Google Chrome. Can you describe what you're seeing that's different? The first screenshot shows where the "Cite" button shows up in my browser, and the second screenshot shows what the button looks like after it has been clicked and the toolbar that comes up as a consequence. You can click on the pictures to get a larger, easier-to-read version. Thanks! Garamond Lethe(talk) 05:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Garamond Lethe. Thanks for answering. The problem is that I cannot see "cite" button. I use internet explorer, not google chrome. I also use mac, and I cannot use "cite" button on it, either. ThanksEgeymi (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you see the "advanced", "special characters" and "help" buttons, or are those missing as well? Do you know which version of Internet Explorer you're using? Garamond Lethe(talk) 06:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Garamond Lethe I see all the other buttons except for "cite":( The other strange thing is that "cite" button appears on the panel while editing my userpage. This stange case has occurred since last night, another strange thing. I use Vista. Thanks so much for your interest. Egeymi (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's good to know. Which page are you editing where you see the problem? If you try to edit you answer on this page, do you see the same problem? Thanks! Garamond Lethe(talk) 06:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for taking your time but it is helpful for me, thanks. Yes, I see "cite" button on this page. But whenever I try to make editions the articles, it disappears. Egeymi (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you're seeing this problem on two different platforms (Vista and Mac) with two different browsers, and you don't see the problem on all of the pages you try to edit, I'd like to rule out the possibility that the problem is with a particular wikipedia page or set of pages. Can you give me a specific example of an article you've tried to edit where you saw this problem? Garamond Lethe(talk) 07:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

For instance Turki bin Sultan while using Vista. But I have downlaoded Google Chrome, now I can see and use "cite" button. Thanks again.

Hi Egeymi! Internet Explorer for Mac has not been supported since 2003, you might consider using a different browser if you are able to :) Alternatively, you can copy and paste the Citation templates. The buttons on the editing toolbar are not required for editing. heather walls (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Heatherawalls. You are right. I will use your suggestions if I cannot fix it. Egeymi (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wireless Compliance Institute - declined

My article about the Wireless Compliance Institute has now been declined a second time for not being sufficiently formal in tone. I thought I got there on the second submission. Can I get a little more info on what I need to do to further improve the article?

Southern Artist (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Southern Artist, I checked the edit summary and it stated that the article was not written from a neutral point of view. Take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and it should assist you. Another editor may be able to provide you with more specific examples of how to improve. Using a larger number of third party sources could help too. On a different note, your article could use Wikification, which I would be happy to do for you if you are okay with it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be lovely. Wikifi away!

Southern Artist (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There weren't actually as many problems there as I thought, I just made some small improvements. I left a note on the talk page of the person who declined your submission asking for some clarification of what needs to be done. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Southern Artist (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback

Hello Teahouse, I was would like to know what the template is that you place on peoples talk page if you answer their question in the teahouse.

Hello, Teahouse/Questions/Archive 14. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by example (example) 10:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

^this is the template that I have copy-pasted from my talk page and used for if I answer something but I was wondering if there is an easier one that is well... much shorter e.g. {{teahouse|talkback}} or something like that. Is there a page which I can find all these templates on? ( Lunashy _{Friendship letters.}^{write a friendship letter} 05:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC))

Hi Lunashy! We have a page of templates here. We have other neat things if you want to explore the Teahouse/Host lounge. heather walls (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lunashy. I have made some similar suggestions, and just now I made a template you might like {{WP:Teahouse/Questions/talkback}} - it works the same as {{WP:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback}} except that you don't need to put the first bit in so you could just do
{{WP:Teahouse/Questions/talkback|Teahouse talkback|ts=Some user}}
to point to this section like so.

Hello, Teahouse/Questions/Archive 14. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Some user. (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Cool, thanks, Rich! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Help positining images!

Hello, I'm having trouble positioning an image. The image is in the article named "Freak Morice" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_Morice), and it's the one included in the paragraph "Performances". Can you please give me any hints about how to resolve this problem? Thanks a lot in advance. Abody97 (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Is this any better? The black bands should ideally be cropped from the image, but of more immediate concern is the question regarding its licensing. -- Trevj (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. First of all thanks for your help. As for the licensing thing, according to Instagram's legal info page (http://instagr.am/legal/terms/) the images are licensed under a public domain license; including the right for anyone to reuse and edit the images. I've seen some examples in other Wikipedia articles that use the exact same licensing, is it problematic? Abody97 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's an extract from Instagram's legal terms page: "By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Instagram Services, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content not shared publicly ("private") will not be distributed outside the Instagram Services." Abody97 (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I can't see anything there saying "public domain". So this does seem a problem, if only with my eyesight. Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

How to get stylish sign

Please see here : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#A_bad_start , How can I get a similar sign? Vivek Rai (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Vivek, you can customse your signature at the user profile tab on My preferences. Have a look at WP:CUSTOMSIG for more guidance about this. If you've found a sig you like, User:Deathlaser? then open for editing a page where you see his sig and copy the code over to My preferences. Just remember to change the names to yours :-) Hope this helps NtheP (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget to change the links to yours too ;-) once i came across an editor who'd copied a signature but only changed the name, but the links still pointed to the original user's page! benzband (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You can also add other things to the back of your sig like I have, one of which takes you to my contributions page and the other takes you to my autograph book. ( Lunashy _{Friendship letters.}^{write a friendship letter} 23:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

This seems okay to me. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  14:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting good at failure! I need help reviewing my article to see if it can possibly be accepted.

Dear peers, I'm getting really good at failure...I've submitted, amended, resubmitted, failed approval etc. multiple times. I'm wondering if someone has the time and skill to help me by reviewing my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Community_Bible_Study) and helping me with a list of pointers that I can work on (rather than going back and forth all the time).

I'm new to Wiki, have read through a lot of Help articles, but am still obviously missing the big picture.

Thanks so much, in advance! Christelle ChristelledeWit (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Teahouse, is anyone able to help Christelle with this? :) Thank you! heather walls (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First, you should take a hard look at Wikipedia's guideline on whether an organization is important enough to merit a Wikipedia article. It may be that the right thing to do is to stop trying to get an article into Wikipedia until the organization has more articles (newspapers, magazines, etc.) about it. The basic question is whether you can find enough good sources to justify having the article at all.

Second, the article is now far too long - that is, far too detailed. As a general rule of thumb, the majority of information in a Wikipedia article - and ideally, 100% of the information, would come from reliable sources. That means, ideally, that every sentence should be footnoted, showing where it came from. At the very worst, every paragraph should have a citation. If you can't find a source (other than the organization's website, which should only be cited for very basic facts) to use as as source/citation, then leave the information out of the article. (Wikipedia provides overviews, and, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of information.) My guess is that you can footnote, at best, no more than a quarter of the article. (Again, you cannot use the organization's website, or blog, or documents produced by the organization, as a source for other than very basic facts.)

Third, you need to provide more detail for each of the sources (footnotes) that you have in the article, so that other people can easily see whether they meet the criteria for being reliable. Right now all your footnotes are just urls. Here's the general format you should use:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://whatever.com/link.html | title= Whatever the title of the page or article is | publisher= The newspaper, magazine, website, or other organization responsible for publishing the information | author= The name of the person who authored the article, IF this is shown; otherwise, just leave blank | date= Date published (if stated on web page; otherwise, leave blank | accessdate=2012-05-10 [or whatever date] }} </ref>

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. John is quite correct that better citations are always good. I'll throw in another point, I removed the URL reference link to Wikipedia, and used an internal link for Stephen Mansfield. I then used the book as the reference. Wikipedia does not use itself as a reference, usually, or any other open-editing web site. Rich Farmbrough, 20:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Christelle, a key to acceptable sources is independent, second party. I Googled "Community Bible Study CBS" and had to go through many pages of church announcements before I found one at pbs.org [1]. The Public Broadcasting Service isn't related to CBS. The article provides substantial coverage of CBS although its primary focus is on one group to which a former president belonged. Look for more articles in well known independent sources like newspapers and magazines. Good luck~ DocTree (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding dates/months

Are we supposed to only list the month and year even though the exact date is known? Sorry I can't explain more clearly but you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Backstreet_Boys&diff=491084725&oldid=490652936 someone changed exact dates like "On April 29, 2012" to "In April 2012" Krystaleen (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Krystaleen and thanks for stopping by with your question. The short answer is, "it depends". In some cases, such as ate of birth and date of death, when known, are left as exact dates. But other dates, especially when there's a question of exactness, might be changed to month/year. I hope this helps. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So for other dates even when the exact dates are known (no doubt about its exactness) it's still better to just use month/year, Is that correct? Krystaleen (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Krystaleen. No. We normally use full dates and there is a style guide called the Manual of Style as to how they should be shown. There is also the US/British day and month thing to be aware of. Some articles are in US style, some in British or Commonwealth style and should be consistent.--Charles (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay, I get it now :) Thank you! Krystaleen (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, WP:MOSDATE is silent on the matter of whether full dates are or or not preferable. And speaking as an experienced editor, I often delete days of month. For example, the sentence "Smith began working at XYZ company on October 12, 1957" would generally be better (in my opinion) if it ended "in October 1957", because the day of month is excessively precise. On the other hand, if the sentence was "Smith quit her work at ABC News on September 30, 1999, and began working at NBC News on October 5", then of course the exact dates are important.

Consider this: when you ask a friend or family member how old he/she is, you expect something like "50 years old", not "50 years, 5 months, and 4 days old". That's because the number of months (except for infants) is irrelevant, as is the number of days (except for newly-born). Similarly, newspapers use "early 1992" or "the summer of 1992" all the time, rather than "February 12, 1992" and "July 14, 1992", because exact dates are normally distracting. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove misleading redirect to make room for new entry

Hi,

I have tried to get a new entry on Libertarian Paternalism accepted but twice got the editor comment that I should instead edit the exiting entry on Soft Paternalism to which "Libertarian Paternalism" now redirects. However, this entry does not properly describe libertarian paternalism and the two concepts are anyway quite distinct (though there is a minority use of Libertarian Paternalism that has some overlap with a minority use of Soft Paternalism so I can see how this happened).

As it happens, the entry on Soft Paternalism is misleading or incorrect. I have sort of mended that by describing the concept more correctly in a section in the entry on Paternalism. So it would actually be best if the Soft Paternalism entry was deleted, but if I could just have my entry on Libertarian Paternalism accepted that would at least provide a possibility for people to find some proper info on that concept.

Not that it matters but I am actually an internationally recognized scholar of these concepts so I feel rather confident about the substance of this, though not at all about the wikipedia culture, norms, rules etc. that seem to be getting in the way (maybe for good generic reasons).

Thanks!

Filofil (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you already started a draft of the new article in your sandbox or userspace? If you do this to develop the article sometimes it will make it more evident to those not familiar with the subject that they are distinct. If you have can you link to it? Kumioko (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is written. What's a sandbox/userspace in this context?

Here is my question in generic form: How do you remove a misleading redirect? This must be a common problem. Filofil (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to submit it for deletion or move it to the proper name. If you could tell me what the title is and what it should be I would be happy to give you a detailed explaination of what is needed to fix it. Kumioko (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The title is libertarian paternalism. I have a new entry on it ready but the misleading redirect to soft paternalism seems to cause reviewers to reject it. I would appreciate any help. Ideally, the entry on soft paternalism should be deleted entirely, as it is an incoherent mix of three distinct concepts. Filofil (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. To be honest I don't know much about that subject and wouldn't know the difference if it were sitting beside me with a sign. I think this is a little different than simply deleting or moving a redirect though and it will require more discussion. Have you tried starting a discussion about splitting the article into the three separate pieces on the articles talk page? There are some instructions here about how to do that. Although this outline does say its ok to be bold, given what you have said I would recommend against it before discussing it on the talk page first. I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Portal links

Is it ok to place a link to a portal in the "External Links" section? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I have figured this out. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What is a "welcome message"?

Hello, I have been working with an editor for a few days on an article Deborah Berke & Partners Architects and am hoping the flags can come off of it. The latest message I have received says I "needed a new welcome message." Can someone please tell me what that means? Thank you! Meredith at DBA (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meredith! I think DoriSmith just wanted you to feel welcome after you made a new username. "Your page didn't have a welcome message, and it looked rather sad without one, so I added it." The welcome was just for you, you "needed" it to make your page less empty, not because you need to do anything or did anything wrong. Good luck, and thanks for your transparency! heather walls (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I am really hopeful that the flags will come down. DoriSmith seems ok now with the article. She did a great job! Meredith at DBA (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How to patrol specific recent changes

Is there a way to patrol recent changes for only particular subjects? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello AutomaticStrikeout. Some WikiProjects have a recent changes list for their articles.--Charles (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try that. Thanks for your help. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Insignificant, but I would like to know

Today, I saw green stars on my watchlist preceeding the title of the article that has been edited. Not all edited articles on the page with this green star. Can someone explain what it means? Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, glad I'm not the only one to notice green stars on the watchlist page. Thought I had taken some funky pills but apparently it's not me. Earlier today some of the articles on the watchlist were bolded (that looked horrible) but now it's the green stars. They look nice enough but I haven't the foggiest clue what they're about. --Wolbo (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there is some experimentation going on with showing up pages in watchlists that have changed since you last visited them. The bold title is how it's been at Commons for some time. The green stars looks like another variation. NtheP (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if a legend were included on the page explaining it. It sure isn't obvious. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There's quite an animated discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). NtheP (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WARWICK EVANS - DESIGNER - UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND WIKIPEDIA PROCESS

Trying to contribute an article about Warwick Evans, Designer. I just cannot understand how this Wiki thing works. It is very clunky and unfriendly. Can anyone give me a simple answer to how I can add references about subject matter to an article, please? For example, a simple link to: 'add references here', would be so helpful. Thank you. Jhoward Jhoward2003 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry you are finding it difficult. The basic code is to add <ref>{{cite web |url=http://whatever.com/link.html | title= Whatever the title of the page or article is | publisher= The newspaper, magazine, website, or other organization responsible for publishing the information | author= The name of the person who authored the article, IF this is shown; otherwise, just leave blank | date= Date published (if stated on web page; otherwise, leave blank | accessdate=2012-05-10 [or whatever date] }} </ref> immediately after the text you want the reference to apply to. Towards the end of the article you need to add

==References==

{{reflist}}

this will add a list of all the references you have added. The software take care of numbering so you don't have to number your references 1, 2, 3 etc.

If the reference you want to add isn't something on the internet e.g. from a book there are other templates such as {{cite book}} that will do the job for you. NtheP (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The simplest way to add a footnote reference is to put it in the text between <ref>&l/tref> (called ref tags)for example here.

You then need a {{Footnotes}} in the "References/Footnotes/Notes" section - there is probably one there already.

• To be smarter use the "cite" button to fill a form with the usual stuff (title, author, page etc.) between the ref tags.
• If you just want to add something as a source of further reading you can put the details after a * in the appropriate section. You can either just type them, or use the "cite" button again. You do not need "ref tags" for a simple list.

Footnotes

Rich Farmbrough, 19:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC).

How to get rid of flags on an article once the editing issues are resolved?

I think the article is ok now but the flags are still all over it. How can those come off? they make me feel so bad... Deborah Berke & Partners Architects Meredith at DBA (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Meredith at DBA (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meredith at DBA (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Meredith, assuming we're talking about Deborah Berke & Partners Architects then probably is my opinion but I haven't been involved in any of the discussion. I see you've left a note on the article talk page for the editor who added the tags, that's the best place to discuss and resolve it. NtheP (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How to add photos of Bikes/Cars to articles?

How to add photos of Bikes/Cars to articles? I mean the actual bike/car is copyrighted but the photos especially taken by me are not so how do you upload that and under what category?

110.93.205.130 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. You should use Wikimedia Commons to upload them to. If they are taken by you in a place that is usually open to the public there is no copyright problem. You will be asked to licence them for sharing when you upload. You will find categories for most things already in existence at Commons by using the search box or the menu of categories.--Charles (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How to add a PDF reference that isn't online/How do I track a Photo request

1) How do I add an article in Hebrew as an additional reference that is in PDF, but not online

2) As we discussed, I hope to add a photo to my contribution. I went to the original source and he has applied to Wikipedia Commons. How do I track the progress. The request came from Mike Flint and the photo is of his father, Mitchell Flint and Prime Minister Netanayu of Israel?

(ChirsRehr)

ChrisRehr (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

1. If the article is from a reliable source then it can simply be cited by title, publisher etc. even if it's not online. Other editors should assume good faith, i.e. that it does say what you say it says - unless they have good reason to believe otherwise.
2. I'm guessing the photo is File:Israel 60th (115) Benjamin Netanyahu with Mitchell Flint.jpg. All seems to be in order there.

-- Trevj (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi TrevJ/DragonFly/Heather

Thanks for all your help, guys.

1): How do I specifically add the citation -- is there some specific coding for a citation line. This is a 4 page article from an Israeli newspaper: Our Man Flint by Menahem Zilberman July 10, 2008 Publication: "Yedioth Ahronoth"

2) Once the photo mentioned above is approved, how do I move it to the Mitchell Flint page on Wikipedia?

(ChirsRehr)

ChrisRehr (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Some caption

Hi, there is a template {{Cite news}} that is ideal for this purpose. {{Cite news|title=Our Man Flint|author= Menahem Zilberman|date=July 10, 2008|work=Yedioth Ahronoth}} which comes out as: Menahem Zilberman (July 10, 2008). "Our Man Flint". Yedioth Ahronoth.

To use the image just do [[File:Israel 60th (115) Benjamin Netanyahu with Mitchell Flint.jpg|thumb|left|Some caption]]

If it is wanted in an Infobox then just use the file-name where it says "image ="

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich, Mitchell Flint doesn't have an Infobox yet and Chris might not know what that means. Should that article have one? How would Chris go about adding it? Thank you! heather walls (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Heather/Rick

Correct, I don't know what an info box is. What is it? How do I use it? What I wanted to do was create a box on right side of the article to put the photo in -- is that the Inbox you are talking about?

Rich, I was going to add that Israeli newspaper source to after the second line in the first paragraph, but when I tried it, no reference number came up. I would be just as happy to just list it in the references. Where and how can I add it to the Mitchell Flint bio?

Thanks.

(ChirsRehr)

ChrisRehr (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there should probably be one. I'll find the appropriate one and add it in. The reference will need &ltref> tags around it, I'll add that in so that you can see how it works. I'm hoping we can get a slightly simpler system working sometime. Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

 Done I used "Infobox person" - just fill in what makes sense. Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Thank you Rick, for citing the reference -- perfect. I thought that was how it was done, but I supposed I could have just added that cite news line to the references, and that would have been another way to do it?

I am still a little dense about how to place the photo in the inbox. What I would like to do is put this in there: [File:Israel 60th (115) Benjamin Netanyahu with Mitchell Flint.jpg|thumb|left|Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and 101 Squadron veteran Mitchell Flint at 60th Anniversary of Israel Gala -- May 5, 2008]]

Do I simple drop it in there? I looked at the inbox folder for the "image" line you referred to, but that wont allow me to add the caption.

Sorry for my density  :(

(ChirsRehr)

ChrisRehr (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just put the bare file name in without the File:--Charles (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A good way to learn is to look for similar articles and click the edit button to see how the formatting works. If you want an infobox for example you can copy/paste one then adjust the details for the page you are working on. Cancel the edit when you are done.--Charles (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Charles, I should have thought of that before.

I have one more thing to do, and that is to add a second photo. Assuming that photo is approved by Wikipedia Commons -- Looking at another template, it seems I need to add a bracket after the first infobox and then the second photo image and caption. Is that correct?

(ChirsRehr)

ChrisRehr (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. The picture tutorial (ultimately linked to via 'upload and use images' in your welcome template) should be a great help here. On a related note, use of the current photo within the infobox of Mitchell Flint is likely to give undue weight to any proposed connection to Benjamin Netanyahu. A cropped image of Flint should be included in the infobox, with the joint Netanyahu picture used lower down in the article if the Israel 60th event is verifiable by citations in the text (maybe that's already there in the sources - I've not checked). -- Trevj (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Trev for the heads up and suggestion. I trimmed wording in the caption until I get verification. Thanks.

ChirsRehr)

ChrisRehr (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

well-received?

(I know this is a small thing, but I'd like to get it right.) Someone changed took this opening phrase, "The Moffats was well received..." and inserted a hyphen after 'well'. It didn't look right to me, so I did some reading. Mostly, sources say you don't hyphenate it when it comes after the noun, which "The Moffats" is, being the title of a book. WP:Hyphen says that, and also says "if the compound is a familiar one, it is usually unhyphenated". What's the consensus? Can I remove the hyphen, or is there some greater rule that says I should leave it in? (As it's an article most likely to be read by children, I'd like to remove it and keep it simple.) Thanks for your opinion.Tlqk56 (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the Chicago Manual of Style, compounds with well, ill, better, best, little, lesser, and least, are hyphenated before the noun (well-deserved award), not hyphenated after a noun (the award was well deserved), and not hyphenated when modified by an adverb (very well deserved award) ref:(Chicago Manual of Style 14th edition). But WP:HYPHEN #3 bullet #5 says "A hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used attributively (a well-meaning gesture; but normally a very well managed firm, since well itself is modified); and even predicatively, if well is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective rather than simply intensifying it (the gesture was well-meaning, the child was well-behaved, but the floor was well polished)." So you pays your money and takes your pick, I think it should be hyphenated as per WP:HYPHEN as well alters the sense of received. NtheP (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not what I wanted to hear, :) but I'll accept your verdict. I actually didn't see that point. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't particularly the answer I was looking for either. NtheP (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the MoS. A play can be well received or poorly received, just as a floor can be well polished or poorly polished. "Well" does not alter the sense of the adjective in either case. The MoS points out the special cases of "well-behaved" and "well-meaning", but this is not a license to hyphenate every occurrence of "well" compounds when used predicatively. Chris the speller ^yack 17:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you check macmillandictionary.com (which I have found to be a very good and thorough guide to hyphenation of compounds), you will find "well-received" before the noun, but "well received" after. Chris the speller ^yack 17:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Two pages - one title - how do they get the redirect thing at the top.

I have written and had me first wiki page accepted. It's about the film titled "Rape Culture" the page is Rape_Culture_(film)".

There is also the page about the concept of "Rape culture" - Rape_culture.

Is there a template to apply to have a section at the top of each page redirecting to each other - or does the redirect have to be requested somewhere in the maze of Wikiland? Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Media-Hound! Try {{about}} you can leave another message if you need help using it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Media hound, I don't think you mean a redirect which is what's used to link a plausible title to an article (example Waterloo station is a redirect to London Waterloo station). I think what you want is either a hatnote or a see also section. In the article on the film you don't need either as you already have a link to Rape culture so no further linking is required. In the article on Rape culture you can add a section towards the bottom (before the References section called See also and list and link the film article under there using this code

==See also==
[[Rape Culture (film)]]

Or if it's appropriate to the article on Rape culture you can build into the text a sentence or paragraph about the film and link to it that way. NtheP (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys - easy when you know the jargon. I just wish some of the wiki explanations had a few worked examples for the none programming oriented users. It can get so esoteric! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello to new answerers!

Welcome and thanks for being part of the Teahouse!

I want to point out two quick things,

1. We have a few tips to help keep the Teahouse friendly and stuff, check them out if you haven't seen them.
2. We also have some fantastic time savers for letting people know you've answered their question (and other things). Writ Keeper in particular has given us these really awesome scripts that I find really helpful, maybe you will too!

I have learned so much from you all, the guests and the experienced editors, thanks so much! heather walls (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Hello,

I stated in my article that a person received an honorary award but the statement needs a citation. I have a picture that displays the person received the award. Can this picture be uploaded and used as a citation on Wikipedia? DJ Mell Starr (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC) article title DJ Mell Starr (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, I'd be very surprised if they was only a photo and no written citation to support the award - either on the internet or in print. Who is the person and what is the award and perhaps we can find a source to cite. The problem with just a photo is that it isn't necessarily conclusive and could be almost anything. NtheP (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The picture is of DJ Mell Starr & a member of the organization that gave him the award holding the emblem that he placed around Mell Starr's neck. I haven't been able to locate an actual written article so I was just wondering if a picture displaying the the two persons with the emblem would suffice. If it doesn't, then I will remove any mention of it happening from the edited article. Please advise. DJ Mell Starr (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more details, but no, an uploaded personal photograph is not acceptable as a reliable source. What is is something from a newspaper, magazine, journal, or book with a reputation for reliability. Something has to be previously published in such a reliable source to be used to support a statement at Wikipedia. In other words, for something to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it needed to have been mentioned somewhere else first. If there is no published, reliable sources which cover such an award, it probably can't be in the article. Also, I would highly recommend that you read the page titled Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, as Wikipedia rules generally frown upon people writing about things that they have a direct interest in promoting, such as themselves, their clients, and their businesses. --Jayron32 18:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank You. I have read the COI rules & Reg. Greatly appreciated for your response and suggestions.DJ Mell Starr (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Saw this and have been wondering about sources. It is an changing issue given the way culture and web are moving. Does the award have a name? Exactly what is the name of the organisation giving the award? Do you have any date window to search for? I'm not called hound for nothing! I'll see what I can sniff out!Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

About the article Eilenberg-Ganea theorem

I have written an article on Eilenberg-Ganea theorem. This theorem is well known in literature and almost 70 years old. Also its not related me or my research work. I have given the reference of the original paper and the books where this theorem has been stated and proved. But this was not accepted and the reason stated is "The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations". I am really clueless about why it has not been accepted. Please help me about what should I do to resubmit it. Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Eilenberg-Ganea_theoremKabiraj.arpan (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kabiraj.arpan! Thanks for dropping by the Teahouse. The basic problem is that not enough of your information is cited within the article. For example, nothing in the definitions section has an inline citation. You could take a look at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and should be able to improve your references easily after that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks Ryan. Now I understand the problem. Actually the definitions stated in the article are already in wiki, that's why I thought that they might not need reference as I have redirected them to the corresponding wiki pages. I will try to add more references and cite the definitions. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.106.211 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and although the problem exists with inline citations, I actually believe the reviewing editor was too strict. It is easy, when you are reviewing an article you know nothing (presumably) about to catch it on a technicality. At the same time, I don't have nearly enough knowledge to be able to say if the article is ready or not so I left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

signature issues

I am experiencing signature issues and no one seems to be able to help me. What can I do to get this fixed??? DJ Mell Starr 15:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse DJ Mell! Let me see if we can help you. What happens when you type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posts on talk pages? Is it not displaying correctly or providing the proper links? --McDoobAU93 15:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct! my signature does not provide the proper links and I have done everything to try to figure out why but nothing that i have done seems to have corrected the issue. I will put four tildes and provide an example at the end of this sentence >DJ Mell Starr 15:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

Okay, let's see what we can do. Go to "My preferences" near the top right corner of this page (you might want to right-click and create a new tab/window so you can have both pages open at once). You'll see a section labeled "Signature", and in that section is a field with the code used to generate it. Can you copy/paste that here, please? --McDoobAU93 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, there's a checkbox right underneath the field that McDoob is talking about; the checkbox is labeled "Treat the above as wiki markup." Can you tell us whether this is checked or unchecked? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The box next to signature is blank, there isn't a code. The Wiki Markup box is checked. DJ Mell Starr 15:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

Try unchecking the box, and then signing something, and let's see what happens. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I unchecked the box & clicked saved. DJ Mell Starr (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally...IT'S WORKING! DJ Mell Starr (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Thank you DJ Mell Starr (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, and happy editing! And thanks for the back-up, Writ Keeper! --McDoobAU93 16:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Create Page

How can i creat a page of my department (Shahjalal University of Science & Technology). Recently i have created it but it is removed.Yamin.sust (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yamin.sust. There were a number of problems with your creation, the largest of which was the fact it was a direct copyright violation of this site. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which means we can only accept contributions which have been released under the creative commons share alike licence (or a broader one). This means that we cannot accept copy & paste text from the internet, but rather submissions that you have created yourself.

Besides the copyright violation, we have a problem with "notability". Wikipedia has drawn a line in the sand to say what is notable enough for an encyclopedia topic, and the general rule of thumb is "covered by multiple independant reliable sources". This means we require the department to be discussed (not just mentioned) by multiple peer-reviewed sources, independent of the department. In general, most departments of universities don't quite meet that critera, though the overall University does. If you want to have another go, perhaps try using our Articles for Creation process, where you will get advice as you go along. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. The note regarding Department of Chemical Engineering and Polymer Science on your talk page refers to the presence of copyrighted material. What this means is that it was felt that text had been copied/pasted from elsewhere (http://www.sust.edu/departments/cep in this case) rather than being written by you for Wikipedia. Another potential issue is notability. It may be that the individual department is not notable, unless for example it's cited in numerous sources (specifically, addressing the department, not the university as a whole) for good reason. In the short term, it might be simpler to add information (based on reliable sources) about the department to the main Shahjalal University of Science and Technology article. If you're sure that the department is notable then you could submit a new article at WP:AFC. I hope this is helpful. -- Trevj (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Listen to Trevj, he clearly knows exactly what he's talking about! Worm^TT · (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL - is an SPI needed? NtheP (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Tracking a change to a page

What is the best way to find when a certain piece of content was either entered or removed. On a tawdry note, I was linking a friend to the page for Steven Tyler of Aerosmith and his taking custody of his 16 year old girlfriend from her parents and impregnating her. Yes it is dirt that many probably don't want to hear. But it is well sourced and admitted by him. So the section was removed by an IP (anonymous) editor. The edit was hasty leaving an orphaned sentence still referring to the woman. It was the only edit activity from that IP and had no explanation. It was a big chunk (roughly -3300).

So I went hunting for it by first taking large jumps back in history and then ping ponging to either side of the edit in smaller and smaller jumps to isolate it. Jump back 500 edits...see if still there. If not, reverse, but jump just 250..etc

Is that how you do it? Or are there better tools for isolating an edit (omission or addition)?

Similar question for talk. Is there a way to search an entire talk history of a page? Many pages seem have talk bundled into chunks or archives.

Finally I was not BOLD. I'm super new. See my contributions. So I used the help desk to have it reversed by user DondeGroovily. I didn't want to bother Dondegroovily any further but my question would have been this. Should I have simply used "undo" on that edit? It was deep within the history and my gut told me that undoing something so deep in the history might just create more problems. What is the best way to do that? Is there a way to find out what Dondegroovily did? Did the user simply undo?

Here's the help desk post about it all.(yikes no editor tools in this box)

[[2]]

Mavaction (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mavaction, welcome to the teahouse! You've actually raised a lot of interesting points there in one swoop, so I'll see if I can tackle them all.

• One of the most important thing that we have to deal with on the encyclopedia is Biographies of Living People (you'll see the acronym BLP a lot). Now, the thing about living people is that what is said on wikipedia can hurt them in a very real way. Don't forget, Wikipedia is the 4th most popular website on the internet (last time I checked) and because of this millions of people can see any defamation of people very quickly. To make sure that we do things right, ethically (and legally), we have a strong policy on BLPs - which is actually very similar to our other policies, but much more stringently enforced. We must not only consider things from Stephen Tyler's perspective, but also the girlfriend. In this example, it does look like a well written, well sourced paragraph.
• It's important to remember that anyone can edit Wikipedia. New editors, and anonymous editors, don't necessarily know the policies and the benefits of using edit summaries to explain their changes, so we try to assume good faith on all edits. If a well sourced section is removed without explanation, putting it back in is reasonable, to stimulate discussion on the talk page. It's possible that the editor will never come back and revert it, or that the editor will come back and discuss it. I wouldn't classify it as vandalism, though, because it's not clearly designed to harm the encyclopedia - so an undo with an edit summary saying "unexplained removal of material" would be the best course of action (make sure you don't lose other stuff).
• Finally, isolating edits. It's not easy to see where information was removed - you generally have to go through the history in the same way that you suggested. I use navigation popups, which mean that I can hover over a diff and see what was changed there. It makes things much faster when looking through histories. Another tool I use to find out when information was added is WP:WikiTrust, which breaks down articles by the edit made. It means that if you double click on a word you can instantly find out when it was added and by who.
• Oh, as for how - if the edit is too far back in the history, I'm not 100% certain what undo would do - probably best to manually re-add the information with a reference to the place it was removed... You can always ask DondeGroovily, most editors are very open to follow up questions.

Hopefully that answers some of your questions, but do feel free to ask if you've got any more! Worm^TT · (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to add there is a tool you can use to help you locate which edit added text. It's called Article Blamer and can be found here. It won't tell you which edit removed text though. NtheP (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you much for your lengthy answer. Gaining confidence here Mavaction (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Flagging a profile to require objective content

Hi, The profile (link shown below) seems to be a glowing review by a fan (or the individual?) that lacks references :) How may I flag editors to substantiate the claims on it? Should I: 1. Simply note it at the top? or 2. enable some sort of box (which I do see on some profiles)?

The profile in question is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zouhair_A_Khaliq

Truealpha (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Truealpha. You can use the {{POV}} box. It is helpful if you add a comment on the talk page, so that people will have a good idea when the problem is resolved, but it's not essential. Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Another good one for this sort of article is {{Resume}}. Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

If you're new to Wikipedia, I recommend you visit User:Pluma/adoption and work through his six required tasks. In a few hours or less, you'll learn the basics of editing, patrolling for and reverting vandalism, patrolling and tagging pages (which is what you want to do) and even some fun stuff for your user page. If you prefer, I'll tag the page for you. DocTree (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Truealpha (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks again for sorting out the above. I did a bit of search and found the profile matches this: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/zouhairkhaliq and I cannot find any details of the "Who's Who 2007" (but then again I often receive offers for that in my inbox, so I guess it is essentially a paid directory!) What intuitively makes sense to me is that wiki is not for self-aggrandizement or a mere resume site unless it is someone who is widely recognized. The above does not meet the wiki notability requirements but at the same time BLP of relatively lesser-known individuals is covered in the guidelines albeit with "high quality secondary sources" which I cannot seem to find yet but will continue to search. I may have misinterpreted the guidelines so can you clarify if my understanding is correct please? PS thanks for the advice for the six "required tasks" and hope to work through them this weekend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truealpha (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Truealpha (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Confusing

Why is the site so complicated? Even just answering a question or action seems to be complicated to an extreme.To a point it is intimidating with people who seem to be super users of sorts deleting and changing things in a most unpolite manner. Whereas a number of years ago when I updated the narrative on my home town the tone of the admin users was helpful and constructive. Kind regards Terry250478.149.175.25 (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Terry2504 and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry you seem to be having a frustrating time with something. Hosts at the Teahouse are happy to give assistance and support, is there anything we can help you with? heather walls (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Terry, your question is a difficult one. I think a lot of editors find their initial experiences on Wikipedia to be a bit abrasive. That's why we created the Teahouse, to counteract that. The best answer to your question I have is that people put a lot of effort into building the encyclopedia. Many of those people become overprotective of it, which causes them to act slightly more impolite than they should. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if need to need to a create new question. From a technical view point I was told I had updated a DAB whereas I should have created a new page. So my question is how do I? Also slightly disagree with the over protective bit.As a person who has spent 35 years working for companies such as IBM it also seems there are no clear guidelines and education on how you might assist a new user, though I have seen forums that encourage good behaviour. From my point of view it would have been a better experience if the person had introduced themselves and then made an offer to help before any action was taken.Terry2504 (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Terry. I'm new here myself and will defer to the more experienced folks here for your questions about how to create an article. I did want to let you know, though, that your edits did not disappear into the void. Very briefly, the name "Hook" refers to many different wikipedia articles and there's a "disambiguation" page that shows up when you search for "hook" that lists all various meanings wikipedia knows about. If you go to that page (click here if you like) and then click on the "View History" link, you'll see several entries that represent the changes you made. I took a quick look: your additions begin with "Hook surname is perhaps the oldest 'English' surname" and ends with "entitled to the crest fought against the French", right? That looks like the beginnings of a solid article; the other folks here will be able to help you make sure it goes in the right place. Garamond Lethe(talk) 06:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Most (in fact, probably all) policies and guidelines exist for good reason, although obviously not all editors agree 100% with every single one of them. And although we try not to link to them too much here at the Teahouse without further explanation, I think that WP:PEOPLE and WP:LISTPEOPLE may be worth referring to, if you've not already done so. I hope this helps and that you won't be too discouraged from making further edits. PS Your text is here. It may be worth following the current discussion/outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grimshaw family, which is somewhat related. -- Trevj (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Terry, yes it has got more complicated - my pet project is hiding the complexity, to keep editing a simple as possible. One of the things that happens is that, as the encyclopedia grows, people become experts in what are small areas compared with the whole encyclopedia, such as disambiguation pages (DABS), they then become tetchy explaining the same thing for the 1000th time. Very human, but something we want to avoid. Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

Hi.All thanks to all for help. Rich the level of maturity in terms of complexity and ease of use it is very reminisant of when word processors and PC's became available in that it all made perfect sense to anyone who worked in technology, along with all the acronyms made it a bit of a special art. The beginning of making matters easier in IBM came from influences such as Microsoft/Dell etc but also listening and acting on countless surveys with the people whom you wanted to contibute or were the end users. Best of luck in the journey. I will keep on contributing as being a bit thick skinned can put up with people's good intentions however communicated but very much appreciate good practice when applied in a constructive way.Terry2504 (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)