Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 107

Archive 100

←

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

How to use colored text

How do I put colored text in articles, my signature, etc? Lukus (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, we do not include colored text in articles. For information on how to change your signature, see WP:SIGNATURE. You update it in "my preferences" at the top. In this namespace, you can sometimes just use templates. For example, {{red|Hello}} {{blue|and}} {{orange (color)|welcome}} {{green|to}} {{purple|the}} {{yellow|Teahouse}} yields Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Go Phightins! 20:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this explanation. I was not really thinking of using colors in articles; I was just relating to html code or whatever Wikipedia runs on. I have seen people use colors and cool stuff in signatures, and I was interested.

Lukus (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Lukus! To answer your question, yes, we just use plain HTML/CSS to color text like <span style="color: green;">Green Text</span> which gives you Green Text You can pick any color and text that you want. Keep in mind the that <font> element has been deprecated in HTML 4.0 Transitional; invalid in HTML 4.0 Strict and is not part of HTML5. Technical 13 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note though that coloured text should not be used in articles unless there are very good reasons for doing so (see WP:COLOR) and that some combinations of font colour and background colour can be very hard to read, particularly for old farts like me.--ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm guilty of WP:SCHOOLCRUFT

Over the past few days I have been editing the Hilton College page. I recently stumbled onto WP:SCHOOLCRUFT while browsing another schools talk page and think I may be guilty. I have tried to reference as much as I can and to fix many of the left over from past editors. However I still think I've gone to far with certain details. I really do want this to be a valid entry, so if somebody could please read over it and give me some guidance I would appreciate it. Regards, Mattpbarry (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matt. Wow - that's a pretty thorough article... I'd agree that certain elements of it would fall under the heading of schoolcruft, but it's still an impressive body of work. In order to prune it down to a more appropriate level, I'd recommend using a simple rule of thumb: if the infomation in the article is supported by a reliable source that is not the school itself, it should stay. If the information is not supported by a source, or is drawn from the school's website or prospectus, give it the chop. Under WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, things like lists and tables should be used sparingly, so I'd suggest dropping things like the list of past headmasters and the IEB table, and definitely the lyrics of the school song (apart from anything else, including them may be a copyright infringement). Sorry to dampen your ardour, but this sort of stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nevertheless, the effort involved is commendable, and I look forward to seeing you continuing to edit Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit harsh to chop everything that's not independently sourced, but you should be more sparing with such information than you have been, perhaps. I randomly picked out half a dozen referenced facts from the article, and they were split about evenly between being sourced to the school's website, sourced to a book that would probably be a reliable source, and sourced to a book (published by the school's alumni association, or something of that sort) whose independence or reliability might be questioned. That's not a disastrous balance, and compares very favourably with a lot of school articles out there. On the other hand, it can probably never get to WP:GA standard with that balance, just as "my" article Anthony Chenevix-Trench can't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Can one's account be hacked in WP through the use of TW?

Is there a way I could visit with an administrator to find out who or how somebody could get into a webpage and change it using my account name? I just learned about it this morning and I was able to find it a few days ago in my contributions list. It mentions using TW. The interesting thing is the page of edits uses the name of an editor who first told me about TW the following day. I took a brief glance at that page and decided there was too much info to learn right now, so I would look at it later. So, I have never used TW. SO, is there a way to have a private interview with an admin or somebody who could track down what is going on? Thank you!Taram (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but am quite experienced with Twinkle. If you would like to discuss it privately, please reply to my email. Alternatively I am sure that one of the sysops who frequent the teahouse will be happy to help.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened. You used one of Twinkle's rollback tools, which in turn is designed to place a message on the talk page of the user whose edits are being rollbacked. So no, it wasn't hacked. TechFilmer - Feel free to drop a message. 16:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to make this a little clearer, WP:TW is not just the little drop down list of things at the top of the page. It also has a couple of other features including a revert and rollback feature. I hope this helps! Technical 13 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

How to put diagonal lines in wikitables?

e.g. to put a diagonal line across a single table cell Koopatrev (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Koopatrev and welcome to the Teahouse. Could you link to something demonstrating what you are attempting to accomplish? I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for. Technical 13 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, here's a link you could use. Koopatrev (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no way to do this in HTML or in Wikimarkup. I think you would have to use an image in some way, probably as the background in CSS. --ColinFine (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay... There "are" ways to do this. http://jsfiddle.net/zw3Ve/21/ shows an example using jQuery, which is not going to be your best option since not everyone will have the script loaded (actually, you would likely be the only one). You could do it with an image that has a diagonal line going from one corner to the other and a transparent background and stretch it across the entire cell. This would work fine if nothing else was in the cell. Using it as a background via css "may" not work (I've had difficulties getting background images to work on MW myself). Assuming that you are just wishing to differentiate a cell and colors alone aren't enough, you could also possibly use some old school tricks to "shade" the cell in with ░▒▓█ or any of the other characters available here or here. I'm afraid that is the best I can offer you. Technical 13 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As it happens, the Manual of Style specifically discourages using only colour shading, diagonal lines or any other form of formatting to convey information in tables. If there's no content for a cell, the convention is simply to leave it blank. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Need feedback on article before resubmitting...

Hello. I am trying to get this article for Changemakrs.com ready and neutral for resubmission. So, any feedback would be helpful.

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

--10:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the teahouse! This submission seems to have been accepted, and is now located at ChangeMakrs. There are some suggestions at the top of the article as to how to further improve it. (Often, the best way to deal with the COI issue is to improve the neutrality of the article and the neutrality of its wording.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the references of an article...

I'm a little confused about the sources that are preferred for citations in Wikipedia articles. I'm a student of the sciences. I read primary literature from scientific journals on a daily basis. The help articles make it seem as if primary sources are not the sources we should be using, and instead we should be using secondary articles. Is this true, or should the primary literature be used? Serotonick (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Serotonick, and welcome to the Teahouse. Especially for articles about science and medicine, secondary sources are preferred, such as review articles which evaluate and summarize large numbers of primary research articles. Primary research is not truly independent since it is written by the people who did the research. It is the later evaluation of that research by other experts with no vested interest in the outcome which provides the best referencing for this type of article. Overreliance on primary research would make it easier for editors pushing a certain point of view to cherry-pick sources to buttress their argument. We are supposed to summarize what a wide range of reliable sources say, and secondary sources also strive to do just that. I hope that this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen for your answer. I've haven't been able to come up with a way to explain why someone shouldn't put their friend's latest research paper into a Wikipeida article. This is such a clear answer that I hope you don't mind if I quote it. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, StarryGrandma, and feel free to quote any of my answers as you wish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Textbooks (college-level, not high school) can be good sources for science articles. The content is not bleeding-edge new untested theory as it has been filtered through curriculum setting processes that tends to be quite conservative and limits the content to well established theory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

copyright of images

I've been working on the Rory Gallagher page and discography. I don't like the pictures of Rory on those two pages, they are when he was older and showing some of the signs of his illness I would prefer a picture of the younger Rory, something like this: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Lgoeu4u0-lk/Trf_09KXnyI/AAAAAAAAAgg/4hH1pJAEN9s/s400/Rory%2BGallagher.jpg Is there a fair use justification for pictures that everyone has seen and that are on a million fan web sites? Or if not is there a database that is searchable of pre-approved images for rock stars? I suspect the answer to all these questions is no but thought its worth asking. Mdebellis (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Mdebellis, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia's image use policy always prefers free images over non-free images, that way they can be reused without fear of copyright breach. That a particular image appears on a zillion and one other websites doesn't give it any status for use here unless it is shown to be a free image - by free it is either out of copyright or has been released into the public domain, being widely available on the internet does not meet this second criteria; it is a specific action by the copyright holder to licence the images they own for general use. Wikipedia does allow no free use if a stringent set of criteria can be met, one of those is that free images do not exist or could not be created and if you were to upload a non free image that is very likely the criteria that you would fail under. There are a number of free images of Rory that have already been uploaded to Wikipedia's sister site, Wikimedia Commons and you can fnd them at commons:category:Rory Gallagher. I hope there is something there that you think is more suitable. NtheP (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I will check out the commons. Mdebellis (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

please help to keep this page on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatkorn_International_co,.Ltd it is a good sorce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Do do doggy (talk • contribs) 04:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, your article has been deleted (twice) as being an advert about a non-notable company and also for being a copyright violation. If you think the company merits an article and you can support it with reliable sources then I suggest you start a draft at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Repeated attempts to create the article elsewhere will only lead to a block on the editors and on any future pages about the company. NtheP (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge Request

I recently rewrote a redirect page to be its own article. There is currently another redirect in existence that is essentially for the same thing (they were both for a television episode, but one has the name of the show in parentheses while the other just has the title of the episode). I think they should be merged, as there is now no reason for the redirect, but am not sure where or how to request this. --1ST7 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

1ST7, welcome back. Can you supply links to the various articles so someone can have a look to see what can or needs to be done? Thanks. NtheP (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess you refer to Under Covers (NCIS). I changed the redirect target to Under Covers.[1] Changing a redirect is not considered a merger and doesn't have to be requested. See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for how to edit a redirect. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Script Management Urgent Changes

Hi Wiki, I work for http://www.jamesgrant.com who manage The Script. I run the bands digital media. The band keep getting asked questions during interviews based on wrong info found on this page. How do we fix this urgently or remove the page? Is there an admin, manager or wiki community member who can contact me directly. I'd be happy to arrange tickets or an album for anyone who can help manage these changes. Thanks. George James Script wiki page: Talk:The_Script — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeHOOKD (talk • contribs) 12:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse GeorgeHOOKD! I would suggest that your best chance of finding someone interested in making the changes to the band's article would be to post a request on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects interested in that that page. I would suggest asking on WikiProject Rock music and WikiProject Ireland who have both indicated interest on The Script's talk page (which I've just posted a note that someone is looking for anyone perhaps interested in starting a specific "The Script" WikiProject). If for some reason you do not get any response and can't find any help, you "could" always fix up the page yourself; however, please read our conflict of interest guideline before you do that. If you do edit it yourself, it would be in your best interest to cover your ass and declare a "possible" conflict of interest by attaching {{COI}} to the top of the article page and {{Connected contributor|GeorgeHOOKD}} to the top of the article's talk page. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for your detailed info. very helpful will do he following.

Much appreciated George — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeHOOKD (talk • contribs) 13:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Part of the reason why you didn't get a quick response to your message on Talk:The_Script is that you had put the message at the top of the page, whereas the general rule on Wikipedia talk pages is that new items go at the bottom of the page, so that's where readers will look for new questions to answer. (But don't worry, as another editor has moved it towards the bottom.) Paradoxically, this page here has decided to do things the opposite way to the rest of Wikipedia, and it expects new questions to be at the top of the page. Yes, it's confusing! - David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be very confusing for this page. I monitor both ends of the page for that reason. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

submission of article on a new process

I have a useful idea that I would like to put in the public domain. It is a variation of distillation that I call "pass-through distillation". The main Wikipedia article on distillation has a section "Other types of distillation", and I would love to add pass-through distillation to that section, along with a description of how it works using links to related concepts. Is this in keeping with Wikipedia's policies?99.229.106.48 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello IP 99, and welcome to the Teahouse. The way you describe the idea makes it sound like something that you have discovered or invented. Wikipedia summarizes topics that have received coverage in reliable, independent sources. In other words, we don't allow people to share their own original research unless others have discussed the discovery. So, if I am interpreting your words correctly, the first step would be to get reliable sources, such as scientific or engineering journals, to discuss the topic. If such independent coverage already exists, please propose changes on the article's talk page. You may well have a conflict of interest and do not want to be accused of promotional editing. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing a semi protected article

I requested to make an edit on Mark Hunt page, Artic Kangaroo responded asked another question about my edit, so I responded, I am not sure if my request was approved, however the Edit option is now visible for me, does that means Artic Kangaroo gave a green light on that edit, I don't want to do something I am not suppose to and upset someone. thanks!Rapidito (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rapidito. As a result of your recent edits, it appears that your account is autoconfirmed. That means you can now edit semi-protected articles yourself. You don't have to discuss your edits on the talk page unless someone reverts you. If there is disagreement, please discuss on the talk page and reach consensus. Please be sure that any new content you add is properly referenced to a reliable source. This is especially important for biographies of living people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

When is the proper time, in an article's life cycle to add images?

Hi,

I'm new to the Teahouse and this is my first question. I did check the archives but didn't see an obvious answer so I decided to post, here.

I've been working with the guidance of a couple of WP admins to build a solid company page. As per WP policies, I'm using a subpage off of my User Page as a sandbox for article development, with the intent to publish the article to production, later, through a formal "move" command, when the article is deemed ready. In the article, I'm using an infobox that I'd like to add a company logo/image to. It appears that images don't have "state" and, therefore, there appears to be no such thing as a sandbox image that can later be "moved" to production, along with the article.

Is this correct? If so, then do I simply just upload the image to the general production space, even before the article is approved? If not, is there some other way of handling this that is considered to be preferable and/or correct?

Thanks for any assistance you can offer.

My Best,

Frank --FGuerino (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Frank, welcome to the Teahouse and thanks for asking such a great question. You are right in observing that there is no sandbox counterpart for images. In most cases, this is not an issue. If you add an image to an article in a sandbox, it will still be there when the article is moved. Nothing special needs to be done. However, you bring up a special case, which does merit further discussion. It is quite common, the usual case, in fact, that logos are not uploaded as free images, but used under our Wikipedia:Non-free content Guideline. If that is the plan, to use a logo that way, one complication is that such a logo much be used in exactly one article, and a sandbox article "doesn't count". Any other image can be added at any times, as well as a logo is it is uploaded with a free license, but if the plan is to use a logo as non-free (which I recommend) it should be done after the article goes "live".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello FGuerino! I'm glad you brought your question to the Teahouse. Sphilbrick is absolutely right in what he was telling you about. I've been spending a lot of time recently working on sandbox and afc alternatives for the policy about non-free file use. If you need to use an image in your draft to get a feel for formating and layout/sizing or whatnot, the recommended file to do so is File:Example.jpg although you could technically use any file listed in the Wikipedia image placeholders category. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello SPHILBRICK, thanks for clarifying the policies, further. I'm learning that writing organization pages is a very touchy subject so I'm glad I learned about this before I accidentally violated the WP:Non-Free content policies. For clarification, you stated that using a logo in a sandbox article "doesn't count". Could you please elaborate, as this implies that you can, both, put the logo in the sandbox and the final production article. Thanks. Frank --FGuerino (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The word choice "doesn't count" is unfortunately ambiguous - in this case it means - is not allowed. A fair use image may be used only once in only one page which must be in mainspace, so it may not be added while it is still a draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

To be a little more technical... A fair use image can be used once per page for every validated fair use rationale template applied to the image's page as listed in the template. If this is confusing, don't feel bad as it confuses many. I'll point you to the policies and a couple examples of fair use of one image on multiple pages. Just let me know! Technical 13 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Technical 13, thanks for the workaround. I'll use the example.jpg as a test to make sure things work. My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

FGuerino, per the policy: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions." That means that using non-free content in any namespace other than article (if it has a : in it, chances are fairly high you are not in article) is not allowed. The exceptions it mentions are extremely rare and I wouldn't even attempt to apply for one without a real good reason. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, again, to all who helped. I appreciate the timely and detailed responses. My Best, Frank --FGuerino (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Genes

Hey everyone, I was pondering writing an article about a gene in Drosophila melanogaster (several of whom just flew by my head...need a fly swatter) and was wondering if anyone could point me to the notability guidelines for nonhuman genes (if there is one). This gene in particular has been written about in dozens of papers and scientists generally think it's quite important for insect development - so the article could be really well fleshed out. I'm just not sure where we draw the line for nonhuman genes and don't particularly want to deal with an AfD this week. Thanks much! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Keilana, welcome to the Teahouse. Fascinating question, I don't think there is a specific set of notability guidelines for nonhuman genes. Certainly I couldn't see one referred to anywhere at Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics so I think it's the general notability guidelines (GNG) that apply here. Just because it might appear to be a fairly obscure subject to a lay reader is not a reason for non-inclusion if the subject does meet the GNG. There are other articles on non human genes like DmX gene so I'd say go for it. NtheP (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NtheP! This is why I love the Teahouse. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed you've answered it yourself - "has been written about in dozens of papers" (presumably in mainstream scientific journals) so that's the notability requirement met right there. I'm sure the folks at WP:WikiProject Genetics would be happy to help you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Differentiating language uses

Hello everyone, I have a question regarding codes for editing articles. I was trying to edit an English article, and it's title is written in different ways in American and British English. Browsing Wikipedia, I found this article in the PT Wiki that has a code to make the grammar distinction clearer: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multim%C3%A9dia . The code is {{PEPB|Multimédia|multimídia}}, however, when I tried inserting it on the English article (as AmEBrE) it did not work. Does anyone know how I can write this code for English pages? Thank you very much, Zalunardo8 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the code was transformed when I submitted the question. I put some spaces so you can see it written down!! Here: { { PEPB |Multimédia | multimídia } } Thanks! Zalunardo8 (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse Zalunardo8! {{PEPB|Multimédia|multimídia}} is what you are having trouble with, and if I understand you correctly, that is not an enwiki template, but can be found at pt:Template:PEPB, is that correct? I am at a loss considering my unfamiliarity with any language other than en-us (don't laugh at me ). Perhaps based on my links here though, someone who is familiar will be able to assist you better. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Technical 13, thank you so much for your answer! That is exactly what I am looking for, but I wanted to find the same code to differentiate American English and British English, but I only found Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese :( This link already helped me a lot though! Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Zalunardo8, this topic was discussed recently at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 111#British English / American English converter? where the consensus seems to be that it's unworkable when the different uses of words, not just spelling, between British and American English (let alone any other variant) were considered. There is a section in the WP:Manual of style called WP:ENGVAR that attempts to lay down the best way of achieving consistency in articles. Basically if the subject has a leaning towards a particular English speaking country then use that variant of English otherwise use the variant of English used in the first non-stub version of the article. Where titles are concerned then the use of redirects is called for, example Colour (Brit Eng) redirects to Color (US Eng). Hope this helps. NtheP (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

any thoughts on my post

I am writing a bio on someone who is a key contributor to the internet industry in the Gulf and the middle east. could you look at the draft and let me know if it looks ok as it will be reviewed by Wikipedia team soon and I hope it would be accepted amr.Amronasr (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Amronasr. Welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at your article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wael Nasr. He seems interesting, but you have done nothing in the article to show his notability. Encyclopedias like Wikipedia are tertiary sources. That means we only write about what others are writing about in reliable, fact-checked secondary sources. The sources you have on the article right now are either non reliable (one of the ones in Arabic appears to be a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources due to no fact checking), or they are primary. (eg, the UN paper that he authored) If you can find newspaper articles or books that cover him in a substantial way, that is what you need to show notability. Altho I am a reviewer, I did not review your article as I would have had to deny it. Please work on it, and let us know here so we can critique it for you before it gets reviewed. Happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

well, there are around 4 or 5 news paper articles there but mostly in Arabic because there is where he was mostly covered. any thoughts?Amronasr (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly writing the article in the Arabic Wikipedia would be a way to start. As more references are developed it could be translated to the English Wikipedia. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Although we prefer English sources on the English Wikipedia, there is no rule against using non-English sources. The key consideration is that they must be verfiable like any other source. So by all means use the Arabic sources and cite them using the {{Cite news}} template (completing as many of the parameters as possible) so that a reader can find and verify the source if they wish to.--ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Months ago there was a picture contest . . .

Asking every editor to vote on different pictures every week or so, what happened to these galleries? Would love to save the links to a few of these pics. Thanks in advance. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Marketdiamond. I'm wondering if you're thinking of the contest at our sister site, the Commons: Commons:Picture of the Year/2012. See also Commons:Picture of the Year/2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006, as well as Wikipedia:Featured pictures. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, thats it! Great work! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Video Screenshot

Hello everyone...again. Can I upload a screenshot from a Musical Video to add it to the main article of that song, with the proper licensing for this kind of files?? Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If the video is copyrighted then a screenshot from it will attract the same copyright as the video, so you will only be able to use it if it meets the licensing requirements at Commons or the non-free content criteria here.--ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Miss Bono and welcome back to the Teahouse! Might I suggest that such questions might be best answered by the copyright questions page? Copyrights can be tricky and I think you would be the safest by asking those people. My belief is that screenshots of a music video are still going to fall under "derivative works" that we talked about before, but I'm not an authority. I would hate to give you the wrong information.  :) I would be happy to help you ask the copyright people if you wish. :) Technical 13 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you both. I already asked at copyright questions Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you will get the same answer at MCQ as I have given you above.--ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The main point that can be hard to interpret from all the technical language is that you cannot add it as decoration. It has to be a circumstance where adding the image from the video is actually necessary to understand some important aspect of the song.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Badgeometers

Every time I post the code on my userpage. Everything gets messed up. Can someone help? Pokebub22 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Pokebub22. I have organized your userboxes using the templates {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}}. If you don't like this, this doesn't address the issue you were having, or this does but you have any problem taking the example and working from it when adding more just give a holler. P.S. I gave you an example of how you can play with the colors; see web colors if you want to fiddle with this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Did You Know nominations

How do you nominate an article for "Did You Know?" stuff? --XndrK‽ 18:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• First check if the article meets DYK criteria, then create a new subpage for your nomination. See details, write hook and other things asked in that page, transclude it in the DYK page.
  You can inform me when you'll be ready to nominate one article, I'll try to be there to show you things step by step! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering about that. In case you were wondering, the page is Violet, Texas. (Give me a few minutes after I post this. I'm still working on it.) --XndrK‽ 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

All right! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey XndrK. Unfortunately, the article does not qualify for DYK (at least not presently). A new article (one created or moved to the article mainspace within the past five days) has to have at least 1,500 characters of prose, and a preexisting article has to have not only that amount of prose, but have been expanded at least fivefold from its former content in the past five days – you can check the length using this tool. The current article would not be long enough if it was new (it has 1,133 characters of prose currently), and it had, preexisting, 863 characters of prose. Thus, it would require 4,315 characters of prose to meet a fivefold expansion. Accordingly, you would need to expand it to at least this length on or before 18:08, May 28, 2013‎ for it to qualify. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

My browser's Wikipedia javascript

It seems for some reason javascript is not working in my Wikipedia account. Any script, formatting toolbar is not loading and can not perform any javascript task. I am using Firefox, Option>>Content>>Javascript is turned on. I have checked w3school's JS tutorial, there it is working. So, it is not a problem of Firefox settings. I thought it was a Wikipedia issue, I asked another editor here, he told he did not face any issue. The only settings/script related change I have done recently is this --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yo, Tito. It's probably that script that's doing it, then; it's really old, and looking at the source, I'm nearly certain it doesn't work any more. Try removing the script and see if things come back.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Wonderful catch! Uff, I did not expect it. Thanks a lot for quickly pointing the error. In addition, I found the script's suggestion at Wikipedia:Tools/Editing_tools#secEdit. --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I award a Teahouse Answer Badge?

Hi, I read the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Answer in order to understand how to properly use the answer badge. It clearly states how to add it to your page (if it's awarded to you) and states how to earn one. However, the article does not mention how to award one. I'd like to award an answer badge for a clear answer I received to an earlier question. Could someone please help?

Thanks,

Frank --FGuerino (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello FGuerino. Just go to the user's talk page and paste {{Wikipedia:Teahouse/Badge/Answer|size=|message=Optional message|signed=~~~~}}. Cheers! --Glaisher (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's simple enough. Frank --FGuerino (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate Sources vs. Superfluous Sources

Hello! I have a question regarding an article I have been trying to get approved for the last month or so, although I have definitely made progress in better representing the organization's notability, I still need assistance in deciding which of my sources are necessary, and which are not helping my cause in the long run. The article I am trying to create can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Policy_Studies_Organization, as well as the two comments I have received from 2 separate editors.

I have significantly edited down the section on the house/museum of the article, (by more than 1,000 words), and have provided multiple sources that prove the notability of the org such as a JSTOR article, several books, a SAGE publication, and APSA references. I would appreciate any help and or advice you would have to help me on my quest to approval!

Many thanks, Whitney Shepard (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, you need to have a source for every controversial (or likely controversial) statement in the article, especially if it relates to a living person, active organization, etc. However, it is a good general practice to provide a source for every non-obvious statement in the article. This doesn't necessarily mean you need an inline citation for every statement - a general citation, perhaps located in the "External links" section or listed generically under "References" can be used if there's a single source (a book, a very informative webpage, etc.) that covers a lot of the information in the article. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How do I eliminate all cell borders and background colors in a Wikitable?

Hi, I'm working on an article and trying to incorporate a Table of Related Countries. I've been able to use the class Wikitable to create and center the table but I can't get it to eliminate all borders and background color. Here's the example...

Table of Related Countries

Bosnia and Herzegovina	Canada	Kenya
Malaysia	Mali	Vietnam

Does anyone know how to eliminate borders and background color?

Thanks for your help.

Frank --FGuerino (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back to the Teahouse Frank! Simply remove the class="wikitable" which is what causes that formatting like so:

Table of Related Countries

Bosnia and Herzegovina	Canada	Kenya
Malaysia	Mali	Vietnam

Hope that is the answer you were looking for! If you need more details or assistance, let me know! Cheers! Technical 13 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Technical 13,

This is a very simple and clear answer. Thank you for it.

Frank --FGuerino (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Newsworthy vs. notable

I have a question about newsworthiness vs. notability. There is a heated discussion going on on the Suburban Express talk page, and one of the points of contention is whether a single half-page suburban Chicago newspaper article is evidence of notability. It is significant coverage, but in only one source. I have a COI so I might not be seeing things clearly, but is this enough evidence of notability? Sorry the talk page section I linked is rather long and might be too much to read through for people unfamiliar with this article. AlmostGrad (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi AlmostGrad, I'm very happy that you brought this to our attention. The issue of Newsworthy vs. Noteworthy is an issue that, in my opinion, is at the heart of why Wikipedia has so many issues with gaining acceptance as a reference-able source, itself.

By legal standards, a judge would tell you that even if there is less than a sentence that refers to something, in a document published by what would be considered a reputable source, it is both Newsworthy and Noteworthy. However, this being the case, I think WP admins and article contributors are really arguing about "What is the minimum standard for Notability so that a source can be cited in an article on Wikipedia?" I would love to see this get resolved with a clear and documented set of standards so that "opinions" matter less than facts.

My Best,

Frank --FGuerino (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they are not arguing about "What is the minimum standard for Notability so that a source can be cited in an article on Wikipedia?". Any source with editorial oversight can be added once a subject is determined to be notable, I believe. They are arguing over whether this company which has been in the news due to a recent controversy was notable enough to be on Wikipedia before the controversy, since there is only one source pre-2013 that covers them in significant detail. Some people are saying the content of the older source (about fare wars) makes the company notable, since they say that a fare war was a big deal in the 1980s, but how do we know that this claim is true without additional sources confirming that this is indeed true? How is notability determined on a case-by-case basis?

This is only an academic question at the moment because ~2 dozen sources about recent events have established notability, so this is more a question of due weight. However, the issue of whether it was notable earlier came up, so I was wondering what uninvolved third-parties think about this. AlmostGrad (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi AlmostGrad,

You wrote: "Some people are saying the content of the older source (about fare wars) makes the company notable, since they say that a fare war was a big deal in the 1980s, but how do we know that this claim is true without additional sources confirming that this is indeed true? How is notability determined on a case-by-case basis?"

Since there seems to be no documentation that clearly states something like "It must be a minimum of 3 notable sources", I believe one is enough, so long as that single source meets the criteria of being a solid reference. Anything else seems to be someone just making things up, based on their opinions.

Determining notability on a case-by-case basis, with no clear standards and based on nothing more than conflicting opinions, is what leads to inconsistent article quality and to poor faith in the ability of WP admins to govern, properly.

Am I wrong about this?

My Best,

Frank --FGuerino (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I also wanted to add that I believe there is nowhere, in any definition of what is or isn't a cite-able source (both, on and off wikipedia), that clearly states and says that the topic in the article has to be written about in the source you want to cite, for it to be cite-able or noteworthy. All that source has to have is the data or information that proves what is being written about, in the topic that intends to use such data and/or information.

Am I wrong about this and, if so, can someone point me to the clear and written statement that proves otherwise?

Thanks,

Frank --FGuerino (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will then accept notability based on the fact that there is an article with significant coverage, not because fare wars were important in 1980s - this is not evident and this claim is not sourced. However, then I think anything which receives a half-page coverage in a newspaper becomes Wikipedia-level notable - and I don't think that is true. Generally, multiple sources are needed to establish notability - see WP:GNG.

The material does have to be written about in a secondary source. A source that contains the data or information that proves what is being written about (like court records, Yelp reviews) is a primary source and is open to interpretation, so it is not acceptable in general unless what is being written is simple factual information that is unchallenged. See WP:PSTS AlmostGrad (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Subsection link

Is there any guideline on usage of subsection links? You know, the wikilink at the top of some subsections that direct to other articles. Pass a Method talk 12:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pass a Method. The only guideline I know of that is directly relevant is Wikipedia:Summary style. See also the documentation for {{main}}, {{details}} and {{Main list}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pass a Method and welcome to the Teahouse! Are you perhaps looking for WP:SECTION#Section linking? Technical 13 (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wondering why my article was declined.

Article name:

Playwrite.

Wikicandyman (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking at the Teahouse! The reviewer indicated here that more references were needed. Please look through the links given and try to provide independent sources regarding the subject. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Wikicandyman! Wikipedia is not designed to have individual articles about everything that exists. Instead, Wikipedia is designed to have articles about subjects which other people have written extensively about. That is, before something is to be the subject of an article at Wikipedia, it first needs to be the subject of extensive writing somewhere else, and that writing can't just be written by people connected to the subject. That is, creating a webpage about yourself wouldn't qualify you for being the subject of a Wikipedia article. If, however, a well-known biographer wrote a long, extensive book about your entire life and it was published by a well-respected publishing house, it's likely that you COULD be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Now, back to the specific subject in question: You've written an proposed article about a piece of software, but there is no evidence that the software has been written about by anyone other than the people who created it. Since that is the case, there's really nothing to create a Wikipedia article from: we have no independent, reliable source texts that we can cite for the information in the article, just a rehash of the very much NOT independent text that's been published by the company that's also created the software. The relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines you'll want to read to learn more are at Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. I hope this helps. --Jayron32 04:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jayron,

You wrote: "Wikipedia is designed to have articles about subjects which other people have written extensively about."

I believe your use of the word extensively is inaccurate. For example, I went through all of the references (i.e. Wiki Policy Articles) you cited, above:

• Wikipedia:Notability
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations

In no policy, above, was there a single sentence that said that the topic of a Wikipedia article had to be written about extensively, before it could be covered as an article or topic in a Wikipedia article. In fact, the only mentions are that a source that references a topic within an article needs to be reliable and that the topic has to be noteworthy for the author that wrote about that topic in source being cited.

If this is incorrect, please point us to the actual WIkipedia policy that documents the requirement for extensive coverage of a topic before it is worthy to be written about in Wikipedia.

My Best,

Frank --FGuerino (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The first bullet point of WP:GNG says:"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." That basically covers it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was paraphrasing with synonyms. Extensive, significant, non-trivial, in-depth, more-than-superficial, detailed, etc. all cover the idea. Whichever of those close synonyms works for you, go with it. The idea is that, if something is to be the subject of its own Wikipedia article, then that article needs to be more than:

• John Doe is a human being. He has a job.

So, an article needs enough details to be useful, detailed, and engaging, and if Wikipedia articles are going to be useful, detailed, and engaging, and if everything written in Wikipedia articles needs to be verifiable by citing it to outside sources, then there needs to exist outside of Wikipedia enough writing to actually write a detailed article here. Thus the need for extensive (significant, non-trivial, in-depth, etc, etc.) sources. --Jayron32 17:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

tags fix

hi the tags are fixed on the article how do I get rid of the cleanup tags from the article there are threeuuu 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MovieDYSP (talk • contribs)

Once the tags are fixed, you may remove them by clicking edit page, and there should be the tags at the top of the page, simply remove them. Cheers! JackFrost2121(Frostbitten?/ My Work) 03:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed two of them, but have left the COI template, for obvious reasons. If no further edits are made that fall afoul of copyright or promotional guidelines, eventually that will be removed, too. But I'd caution user MovieDYSP about making non-neutral edits as a WP:SPA. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Talk Pages

I occasionally ask questions on talk pages. Sometimes I get responses soon, other times never. I am wondering why this is... Do people just like to ignore me? Balgontork (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Some pages are watched more heavily than others. Some of your questions might have easier answers. I'm guessing it's not because people are intentionally ignoring you. --Onorem (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Balgontalk, welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is... it depends. Some article talkpages are watched religiously by hundreds of editors, others are barely watchlisted by anyone - if you comment on one of those less-frequented pages, chances are no-one will notice for a while. In some cases, other editors may read your comments but decide that a response isn't necessary - we are here to build an encyclopedia rather than chat about it, so if the issue you're discussing is resolved, uncontroversial or just plain trivial, there may be no need to discuss it. If you want to get a response from a specific editor, you can leave them a {{Talkback}} message to get their attention, directing them to the page where you've commented. Otherwise, just wait it out - and if no-one replies at all, you can assume that whatever you're proposing is probably going to be okay. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just add the information needed to Isotopes of Xenon, then. Balgontork (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Balgontork and welcome to the Teahouse! When you ask questions on talk pages, you are at the mercy of the number of people that are watching that talk page (the article's page more specifically) and how active they are. Sometimes, no-one is watching a page, and you feel like you are getting ignored. That is not the case, it is simply a matter of being not noticed instead of ignored. There is some good news! You can often add {{Help me}} to the top of the section followed by your question, and someone "should" be by within half an hour to an hour to assist you. If for some reason, no-one stops by to help, you can always ask your question here, at the help desk, at one of the village pumps, or if it is a general question not related to editing wikipedia itself you could ask at the reference desk. The last alternative if you are in a real hurry to get an answer, you can always click on the link at the top of this page to go to the IRC help channel. I hope this helps and good luck in future endeavors! Technical 13 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Just want to clarify one thing that might have slipped Technical 13's mind; {{Help me}} is to be used only on your own Talk page, nowhere else. It's effect is to attract an admin to respond to your question, which you should post right after the Help me template. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of the namespace conceptions surrounding the help request related templates and there is a discussion (that I wouldn't be surprised if it is a perennial) that {{Help me}} should be used anywhere that I have seen brewing up. There are fragments of it everywhere, so I won't list all of the discussions here. I'm actually thinking perhaps an RfC might be appropriate here and will draft one up in the next day or so. As for it being used to get an administrator, no... that is what {{Admin help}} is for. ;) Technical 13 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If there is no response on the talk page, try taking the your queries to the articles WikiProject talk page. This is done by clicking on the WikiProject link at the top of the talk page, for example WikiProject Cities, then goi to the talk page of the wikiproject you clicked on and post there. Do not forget to mention which page you are talking about at the wikiproject. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Userbox Towers

I just want to know if there are Userbox Towers here on Wikipedia like there are in other wikis. Thx if anyone replys to me. Pokebub22 (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Pokebub. Thanks for stopping by the Teahouse. I am not sure what you are speaking of. Do you mean the userbox organizer thingie like I have on my userpage? Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is what I mean, how do I make one? Pokebub22 (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Place {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} on your page, and between them place the userboxes you want, including their curly brackets (e.g. to add the userbox at User:Dr.UserBox/Red to your page, place {{User:Dr.UserBox/Red}} between the {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}} templates. You can find many userboxes, sorted by category, at Template:WP:UBS, though there may be other userboxes that are not listed there. If you want more information on userboxes, including on how to creat your own userbox, take a look at WP:UBX. Happy editing! – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, just took a look at your userpage and you seem to have it figured out! – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Acronyms

I am drafting an article on 'object-based attention'. As this phrase will be used extensively throughout the article, may I use an acronym (such as OBA) to save repetitive use of the phrase? Thanks. PilgrimB (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello PilgrimB, and welcome! Yes, I believe that, so long as a) the acronym is used frequently in the sources you are using when you cite all of the text in your article (that is, you aren't inventing the acronym yourself), and b) you use the full name early in the article, and tie the acronym to it, like this: "Object-based attention (OBA) is...", you should be fine. Wikipedia uses an in-house style guide known as the Wikipedia:Manual of style, and the specific section that deals with this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, which states "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)." I hope that helps! If you have further questions about how to format or organize your article, the Manual of Style (MOS) is fairly comprehensive, though it can be daunting to get through it all, so if you need help finding something, you can always ask! --Jayron32 00:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Is there some rule that says you can't submit two DYK hooks (for two different articles) at the same time? ^King Jakob _C2 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kjc2! No, there is no such rule. You can submit as many as you like, except that after you've submitted five, you need to start reviewing as well as submitting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Changing Page Name of a Wiki page

I'm new to editing a wiki page & I'm trying to learn about whether or not it's possible to permanently change the title or page name of a wiki page. Does anyone know if it is? If so, how would I as a user make this change?

Any guidance around this issue would be helpful. Thank you.

Kendra Porter kendra (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Kendra, welcome to the Teahouse. Pages can be renamed by the process of moving them but to do that your account has to be a few days older. After this weekend your account will be old enough and you will have the ability to move articles. If you have an urgent request you can post it here, including why you think the move needs to be carried out, and someone here will consider if the request is correct and carry out the move for you. NtheP (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

For background, user Porter kendra has several times deleted sourced content, added unsourced or promotional text, and been notified of COI guidelines. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Groove and Grove: common misspelling?

A month ago I found that the Groove disambiguation page had an unexplained link to Grove in it. Since "Grove" has nothing to do with "Groove", and no one would come to the Groove page looking for Grove, I removed it.

Recently the editor who originally put in the link from Groove to Grove (User:TheTruthiness) reverted my edit with no explanation. I posted on his talk page at User_talk:TheTruthiness#What_does_Grove_have_to_do_with_Groove.3F asking why he thought the link was appropriate, and noting that if the reason is a misspelling it's unlikely someone would make that mistake. After three days with no response I removed the Groove->Grove link, along with a corresponding Grove->Groove link.

User:TheTruthiness has just reverted my edits again, citing "as per MOS:DAB for Misspellings". I reviewed the policy on misspellings, which says "Common misspellings should be listed only if there is a genuine risk of confusion or misspelling". I feel that few or no English speakers would spell "Grove" with two "oh", or "Groove" with one "oh", so his linking is inappropriate. However, I don't want to start an edit war.

So, my questions: 1) Should these links be left out? 2) If so, how should I avoid an edit war?

Thanks, Dan Griscom (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the Teahouse! I'd say that the best way to avoid an edit war if TheTruthiness does not respond is to request a 3rd opinion from someone and if that fails, try Mediation. ^King Jakob _C2 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)