Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 174

Archive 170

←

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

→

Archive 180

Is there any one who can look over my citations?

Hey guys! I'm new to wikipedia and have created a page in my sandbox waiting for submission. Is anyone able to look over my citations? I want to make sure I've done them correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bali88/sandbox Bali88 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I made several changes to your article. Your references look OK to me. Checkingfax (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey there! If a page is deleted, is it possible to at least have a history or a log of the page as it was previously? I don't want to recreate it, I just want to adapt its content to put to its source page. Thanks. I'm not there. Message me! 05:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, only admins can view deleted content. Ordinary users can see the reason a page was deleted, but more than that would sort of defeat the point of deleting it in the first place :). Maybe if you posted a link to the page here and a more detailed explanation of what you wanted to do, you might find an admin who's willing to help out. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 06:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Making proper Citation

Hi, I have the references to my article in URL format. How do i go about changing them? How may I improve citation of the article "African Leadership Network"? Rotich Giddie (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Rotich Giddie. I think that if you read our handy and useful Referencing for beginners, everything will be clear to you. Bare URLs are unpopular here, and it is very satisfying (at least for me) to transform them into fully dressed references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

An editor of our organization's page is falsely posing as a staff member. Can I do anything?

My organization, an independent school been working on branding and imaging and as part of this process, one of the things we need to do is fully update and expand our Wikipedia page. I started working on this today and noticed that a user has made changes to the page using the full name of our principal. The principal has never edited the Wikipedia page. The user has made some edits which are largely without basis in fact and in some cases, negative and/or damaging (though hardly into libel territory, just negative editorializing). I am in the process of correcting the inaccurate statements and removing the editorial bias shown in a number of statements, but I am trying to find out if there is any way to prevent this user from making further changes to the page and, if possible, flagging the account, since it is using our principal's name fraudulently to make incorrect statements about the school. Should I post to the user's talk page? I'm not even sure what the appropriate thing to post there would be, aside from noting their incorrect statements. Should I contact an administrator?

Thanks in advance for your assistance Smcs.archives (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Smcs.archives: Welcome to the Teahouse. Can you link to the article/user in question? Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Michael%27s_Choir_School and the user in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Barry.white.smcs&action=edit&redlink=1

Our principal, Barry White, has no knowledge of this username, nor has he ever edited a Wikipedia page. Please let me know if he should contact you directly. Smcs.archives (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The username is probably in breach of Wikipedia policy, as explained at Wikipedia:REALNAME. You could report it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arthur goes shopping, thanks for your response. That is exactly the policy I was looking for. Since it hasn't been active in the last 2-3 weeks, I won't be able to report it under the rules in your second link, however I will personally be keeping an eye on it as I make corrections on the Wikipedia page, and will leave a Talk message for the user.

Smcs.archives (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I agree it's not okay to pretend to be somebody else. Best of luck resolving that problem! But bear in mind that if all contributions and additions are well-sourced then it makes it easy to decide what is true and what isn't. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "branding and imaging" tool, so hopefully any future additions will be cited to reliable sources, to make editing disputes less likely. Sionk (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The article in question St. Michael's Choir School was VERY poorly referenced, I have started to add some reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly, since you said "My organization ... [has] been working on branding and imaging and ... one of the things we need to do is fully update and expand our Wikipedia page" no-one has pointed out that you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article at all. Please make any suggestions for changes on the talk page. Arjayay (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Arjayay, I did consider saying this, but went looking, and found that Smcs.archives had already had that conversation: see Talk:Theroadislong. --ColinFine (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I need to do more digging, but never think it is harmful to put that on a very public page like this (PS I think you mean User talk:Theroadislong) Arjayay (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

reference

how to add reference to my page, which i dont know to do and wikipedia is saying that my page would be deleted if its not done, how to do it??Wingchunachu (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I assume that you are talking about Sifu Liv? There are many useful links in the box at the top of the page, but a good one to start with is WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also for an easy referencing platform you can try ProveIt. Go to your preferences --> gadgets, check ProveIt gadget and then save. Next time when you edit any page, it will have an interface for referencing in the bottom right corner of your screen. Mr RD 15:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

One person nominating all the created articles by another one for deletion.

Hello, I have a concern. While going through the articles nominated for deletion today I saw that the nominator Raykyogrou0 posted all the created articles by Sky Harbor to deletion without even seeing any sign of notability of any article. The same happened yesterday too. Seems like a war is going on between the two. This is not an healthy symptom. What should be done for it? Rafaelgriffin (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Rafaelgriffin. Like you, I am dumbfounded as to how I got myself into this situation, as I was caught completely off guard. Note that prior to this, I've had minimal interaction with Raykyogrou0, if any, so while I don't think he/she has a grudge with me and I must assume good faith with respect to his/her motive, I still think this could have been handled better rather than just wantonly nominating articles for deletion. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Is my user space created?

Hi. I created my account. I think I have my user space created along with my sandbox. However I am not sure. Is there away for someone to double check this? I want to start my first article but I want to have it in my sandbox first, then ask for help on the editing. Can anyone help me?

Musiccamping Musiccamping (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. You have started your sandbox at User:Musiccamping/sandbox, and if you want to you can start other user subpages at User:Musiccamping/whatever you want the title to be. I have put a few useful links in a welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Musiccamping. You have started a sandbox page, although there isn't much there. You have not yet created a user page, which you can do by clicking the red link with your name. Once you add anything there and save it, the link will turn blue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Next question. Lets see of this works.....I created an article in my user space to work on, but I don't know how to get back to it to work on it. Can someone help me?

MusiccampingMusiccamping (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You can see your own contributions by clicking the Contributions button in the top right, which will take you to this page. There you can see the pages you've edited :) Samwalton9 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I leave a message for Benzband

Hello, I would like to leave a message for Benzband and have forgotten how to do that. Please help me. Many thanks. Sofiabrampton Sofiabrampton (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you need to go to that user's talkpage, located at User talk:Benzband, you can leave your message there :) Samwalton9 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Samwalton9. I did that, supplying info on what I need to do (add a line and ref). Then I supplied the line to be inserted and the reference but these didn't show up on the message to Benzband that I sent yesterday. I thought that I'd done something incorrectly!?

I'll try to paste the line & ref again here to see if they are visible: <ref> He has also been sited for making the distinction between the documentary genre and reality-based entertainment http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/a-new-er-pulls-back-the-curtain-on-public-health-care/article16177576/ <ref> Many thanks,

Sofia Brampton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiabrampton (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sofia, the problem here is you are using double-opening-tags. Here is what you *want* to be doing, instead.

He has also been sited for making the distinction between the documentary genre and reality-based entertainment.

which will produce this at the bottom of an actual article:

Your mistake is that you are pasting <ref> ... <ref> when what you want is <ref> ... </ref> note the / in the tag#2. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: there is a handy-dandy template for references in talk pages; see: {{reflist-talk}} ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How often is WP:IAR used as a (counter)argument and how often does it actually succeed in a debate?

Remsense (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Remsense! That's actually a very tricky question, and the answer will depend on who you ask. In my opinion, the answer to your first question is "more than it should be" and the answer to the second is "not often". The reason for this, in my mind, is that if someone is disputing an action for which you would invoke IAR, you're probably not using IAR correctly. IAR is not a synonym for "I can do whatever I want and forget the rules". Rather, it's about not having to worry about whether an action that is plainly okay might be technically against the rules. Employed correctly, (and again this is just my opinion), you should never really have to invoke IAR to defend your actions, because an action within the spirit of IAR should never need to be challenged in the first place. It should be clear to everyone that it's right, even though the rules might, strictly speaking, say otherwise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you so much for the quick response! Follow-up question, if I may.

It seems that the wording of WP:IAR is worded too vaguely, either for aesthetics or for flexibility, not really sure which. What exactly defines 'improving or maintaining Wikipedia'?

Remsense (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and does anyone have a case example for where WP:IAR was used successfully? I'd like to see a legitimate use.Remsense (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

IAR is worded vaguely on purpose - it's one of the fundamental cores of Wikipedia editing, which is why it's so generalized. IAR in a nutshell is "use common sense", and that applies to anything done on Wikipedia, whether it be discussions, edits, etc.

If you want an example of a case where it was used successfully, that's also a tricky question. As Writ Keeper said, if IAR is being used correctly, there is no reason to invoke it to defend ones actions. It's not so much a rule as it is a principle to follow when editing, that allows for guidelines to be flexible and to prevent the mess that can be bureaucracy. If you see an editor doing something that's not conventional, but is still common sense, then you're looking at the principle of IAR in action. It could be argued that many of the policies today are the result of editors using common sense in certain situations, which eventually went to discussion and got implemented into policy. For example, I'm sure that some of the exemptions to the 3-revert-rule are the result of an editor reverting the edits of another editor 3+ times for reasons that were obviously warranted, but not listed under the exemptions at the time.

I think reading the following essays will better explain IAR and what it means:

• Wikipedia:Ignoring all rules – a beginner's guide
• Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means

Hope this helps! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Remsense: I don't do it often but I will speedy a page invoking IAR where I deem it proper. Here's some examples: A public domain upload of an adolescent girl with the uploader asking people at the help desk how he can find out her name. It met the letter of no criterion directly. A patent serial copyright violator posts articles that screams copyvio, but for that one, where it was taken from couldn't be found. Or the run of the mill, absolutely blatant inappropriate article, that meets no criterion but wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AfD so we don't elevate process over substance. For example, an article about a person's pet rabbit that they bought yesterday and what they should name it. Note that some of these examples would meet policy in existence now that did not when they occurred. Numerous blatant articles are speedied every day but often (and in my opinion every poorly), people do not invoke IAR but rather invoke a criterion that does not fit (especially abused is vandalism (G3) and tests (G2)). Anyway: [1].--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Remsense, hello and welcome to the teahouse. As for your request for an example of its successful use. You may wish to consider this instance where an administrator choose to IAR. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remsense, your question is wise beyond your editcountitis.  :-)   What folks have said above was in response to your literal question, but I'm going to take a different tack, and respond to the question you did not quite ask. To me, the interesting question is not how often WP:IAR is used in debate... it is rather, how often WP:IAR is used without there being a need for debate. The answer is reasonably shocking: 99% of editors, when they first began editing, were operating purely under WP:IAR. There are a few editors who read a good chunk of the five bazillion WP:ALPHABETSOUP rules we have nowadays, before making their first edit, but these are few and far between. Most people are just members of the readership, who notice something missing or incorrect or unclear or otherwise needing attention, click the edit button up top, and then click save. They didn't need any rules. They hadn't even read any rules. They just saw something that needed improving or maintaining, and made it happen. *That* is the reason that WP:IAR is important: so that beginning editors, without registering for an account, without reading any helpdocs, can click edit, make an improvement, and click save. See also WP:UIAR, especially the two corollaries up at the top. Use of WP:IAR in debates between two *experienced* wikipedians is relatively rare, but I personally see it (not counting my own arguments :-)   at least once a month or thereabouts. Win-to-loss ratio is above 50% anecdotally. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

helping

How do i take part in an online helpline on wiki? Pixiepup (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pixiepup and welcome to the teahouse. Places like here, the help desk, and the IRC channel you were in earlier are good places to help other editors. You don't appear to have any experience editing Wikipedia however, are these your first edits? If so it will be best for you to edit more and learn about the various policies and guidelines before helping others :) Samwalton9 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

find a satellite-map for an article

I'm trying to add some satellite-mapping-images to an existing article (about a school), for illustrative purposes. I don't have such a satellite map... because well, you know how it is, my own personal spysat is in the shop.  :-)   How does one go about this task, please? Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi 74 and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I'm aware, Google Earth imagery is copyrighted by Google Inc. I'm not aware of any way it could meet fair use criteria. There's one possibility that comes to mind. If works of the government of India are in public domain and there is a government agency that makes maps (like the USGS in the United States), then such images could probably be used. I don't really know if there is a similar agency in India, but it's probably your best shot. --Jakob (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Jakob, thanks for the answer... I think GoogEarth stuff that Pratham attempted to upload is copyright navsat, and google just sub-licenses, but same difference.  :-)   That's not my question though... I know better than to use WP:GOOG proprietary stuff... my question is, where *do* I get a satellite map, sans encumbrances?

  In particular, are there not already U.S. government-provided, public domain, satellite-maps-of-the-world? See NGIA/NRO (or maybe ISR), plus of course NASA. I've never added one to an article, but Pratham is definitely thinking we must have one. <grin> If not satmap, then I'll fall back to a streetmap, or preferably, a topomap, but I've never added one of those either.

  So I guess that means I have two questions. There is an article which explains why to use or not use maps: WP:Using_maps_and_similar_sources_in_wikipedia_articles. I'm looking for the article that says, WP:So you have decided an illustrative map will help and are trying to get one for free. Is there such a helpdoc? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. On many articles about places, you will see Coordinates in the upper-right corner. Click on the associated icon to bring up WikiMiniAtlas (map) where you can select Settings and Satellite. If the article doesn't have that, and you want to add a 'coordinates' template -- then somebody else will have to assist you (sorry). ~I hope this helps, ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC):[modified:71.20.250.51 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)]

Ahh, cool. The article has the coords, and there is a mini-map inside it. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiMiniAtlas/en — this has the details, the satmap data is originally from NASA. So that answers my first question. Now that I have a datasource, my second question is, can I have an inline static WikiMiniAtlas map, as an "imagefile" in the prose of the article? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any reason why you can't. ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive creation on user talk page.

Hello again, I want help on archive creation for my user talk page as it has gone too lengthy and I don't want to delete old discussions and notifications. Please help me with the creation for the archive. I have tried earlier but have not succeeded so far. Mr RD 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am at work and something just came up, and only have a couple of seconds; I just set up archiving for the talk page. Someone else please explain. Thank you!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mr RD! Creating user talk page archives is very simple. You just create a page where you want to archive old posts (for example User talk:Mr RD/Archive 1). Then you cut old discussion from your talk page and paste them to the newly created archive page. That's it. When that archive is too long, you can crate User talk:Mr RD/Archive 2 and so on. You may add {{talkarchive}} template to the archive page(s), and {{archive box}} template to the talk page to make navigation easier. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr RD. Alternatively, you can ask MiszaBot to do it for you. Please have a look at User:MiszaBot. --ColinFine (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mr RD: Okay, Sorry about my half-assed post above with a botched signature; I was literally running. So what I set up was archiving through User:MiszaBot/config (the actual archiving will be done by Lowercase sigmabot) with a maximum archive size of 70 KB (if it hits 70 it will created archive 2); it archives threads after they are 31 days old; except that the bot will always leave the page with at least 4 threads (even if they are older than that). You can change the value supplied in the template to something else to tweak its function. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing the message about an article needing translation, after the translation is done.

I translated an article from French to English. This article in English Wikipedia still bears this message: "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia". Can this message now be removed?Phormium (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Phormium, good job expanding that, thanks! I removed the template. It's perfectly ok to remove task templates after doing what they say needs to be done. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Now that you've finished, you should add a template on the talk page to "give information about content imported into the English Wikipedia from a non-English-language Wikipedia". Please see: Template:Translated page. It seems somewhat complicated; perhaps one of the helpful Teahouse hosts could assist (I'm just a Teahouse busboy). ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I drafted a new article, is it ok?

I read a lot of helpful articles about writing your first article, notability, citations and how to start out on Wikipedia. I think I got the basics down and created a draft article in my sandbox. I'd like to now ask for advice, review or help to make it more appropriate. I read that asking for help is the best way to learn and I don't want to get blocked again for not knowing the guidelines. Emlass Emlass (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Emlass to Teahouse! I've read the sandbox draft on your userpage, it seems like a good start for an article. I would recommend playing The Wikipedia Adventure, it is an interactive tutorial and helpful guide for beginners, you'll learn many features and how to start an article! ///EuroCarGT 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Answered my own question

Hi again. Right after posting my question, I saw a link on the right margin for notability standards for writers. I'm going there right now. Byron Laursen (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

One more woops.

Okay, now I figured out that it wasn't a link, just a summary of the question I'd just posted. I'll sit still a few minutes and hope to learn. Byron Laursen (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

notability standards for writers

Hi. Can you please help me access information on what standards a writer must meet to be considered notable, and thereby worth of a Wikipedia entry? Byron Laursen (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Byron, the basics are at WP:AUTHOR. Fundamentally, the key is getting reviews in wikiReliable Sources like newspapers/magazines/teevee/academia (can be online or offline && can be English or non-English... but must be fact-checked-by-professional-editorial-board and/or peer-reviewed-by-independent-professional-academics). See also, WP:GNG. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

created to article with same name now dont know what to do.

hi, I have created two articles by the muazzam beg, This is living person biographies. one article created directly on page. i don't know on which page i have to do work.Vikassingh0111 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. I see that you have made 3 attempts:

• Muazzam beg was tagged for deletion for a variety of reasons, and has now been redirected to Muazzam Beg.
• Muazzam Beg has been tagged for deletion as it includes no references.
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Muazzam Beg is the sensible place for you to work. You need to take account of the advice you have already received, particularly regarding referencing, and you will receive further advice until it is ready to be published.

--David Biddulph (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem adding references in new article

I have created the BS 8878 article. This contains a reference to a British Standard. However when saving the page I get a message saying:

There are ref tags on this page, but the references will not show without a reflist

But I have included the reflist tag.

Can anybody tell me what I'm doing wrong.

Thanks

BrianKelly (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem sorted - missing end ref tag. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisbk (talk • contribs) 09:14, 15 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Glad you've sorted it. I've taken the liberty of changing your single brackets to double brackets, as that makes it a wikilink to the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Article as master degree for an MD

Hello I am working in a specialized laboratory about a certain disease (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura - TTP). We found that an article about it already exists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrombotic_thrombocytopenic_purpura). This disaese has a hereditary form that is aslo mentioned in it - "Upshaw-Schülman syndrome" (correct would be Upshaw-Schulman synsdrome). As our local swiss enducational system demands a short scientific work to graduate from medical school we thought about writing an articel about this rare disease form. The scietific work is called "master" but comes nowhere near a master degree work in other scientific fields like biology or similar regarding its size. However we are often approached by patients and their family members all over the world who want to know more about especially due to an international study we are doing about it. As my student would write this work together under my supervision and the supervision of the labs superior we asked ourselfes if such an article goes along with the Wikipedia policies and if an authorship consiting of more than one pearson is possible. There is no money involved and no new theories about this disease, just a review of what is already known. Magnus Mansouri (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Magnus, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that Wikipedia emphatically does not publish original research - before an article about the syndrome could be created, it would need to have been covered in multiple reliable sources (and those sources would also have to meet the more stringent demands of the medical sourcing policy). Put simply, you need to get your research published elsewhere (ideally in a reputable medical journal) before it can be written about here. What you propose is certainly an interesting idea, but it wouldn't work on Wikipedia - you might want to consider publishing at Wikiversity, though. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Yunshui

we would not like to publish any original research. We would like to give an overview from a neutral point of view about this disaese with using references from original research works from peer-reviewed journals in a way a peer reviewed work has to be presented in the scientific field. We won't add anything we can't find already in literature and won't include anything new facts we find out with our study. This certainly belongs in a reputable medical journal. 130.92.244.173 (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I clearly misunderstood your question. What you propose sounds fine. With regards to authorship, the relevant policy states that accounts cannot be shared - if you and your student both want to work on the article, your student will also need their own Wikipedia account. There is, however, no prohibition against editors working together on articles; it is in fact, encouraged - you may therefore find that other users will edit and amend your work. I don't know what implications that would have for your student's qualification - whilst each individual edit can be attributed, the eventual article might easily end up being the work of several authors who are not involved with your real-life work. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. We are looking forward to contribute to Wikipedia with this article. The more reviews we get the better it'll be and it would still qualify for our student. Thanks again you for the consideration.

130.92.244.173 (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Idea: List of Performers by Activity by Year of Debut

Hi, I've noticed lately that it has been possible to automate list-making; presumably someone comes up with an idea for a useful list, (1938 Births, Musical groups by Year of Establishment) and if the data is on wikipedia in the correct format, the list can be assembled by a bot or script. A bit over my head, though it gave me an idea. Most articles for sportspersons and entertainers include Year of Debut in the formatted data inset at the top right of the page. A list could be assembled so that you could select by year, say, musical groups categorized as blues first active in 1970 or pro wrestlers who debuted in 1983. In addition to providing a snapshot of what was happening that year in that sport or genre, such lists could also help point out by exclusion performers who merit an article but don't have one.

I had the idea that perhaps Google could be harnessed to perform this categorization as a search, but this fails because while syntax is consistent within an activity, it varies from one activity to another, and does not narrow down results to that activity. 75.187.45.179 (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, person with an IP, and welcome to The Teahouse. If it can be done, ask at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Where does Wikipedia need help?

Hi all, at some point I noticed there were lists of WP articles that need editing for various specific reasons (a list of articles that need grammar help, a list that need citation help, etc.) Can someone give me a pointer to these lists? I realize I can edit any article, but some days I'm in the mood to just do grammar. Thanks in advance! GuineaPigC77 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

To GuineaPigC77, SuggestBot can "mail" you a list on a periodic basis. You set the period. To set up this service, go to your talk page and "Edit source" ... drop this tag in to your edit screen:
{{User:SuggestBot/config |frequency = weekly }}
This will set up a weekly interval. Hope this helps. Checkingfax (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi GuineaPig, welcome to the TEAHOUSE! There is also WP:BACKLOG which has some lists similar to what you describe. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your help! Found WP:BACKLOG and was able to knock off an article from that list. I'll check out the other resources as well. Thanks! GuineaPigC77 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Flagging Problems

How do I flag problems on certain articles? For example, I was reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Grimaud and noticed most of it was unsourced (there were also a lot of grammar issues). If I don't have time to make the changes myself, is there a way to "flag" the page for clean up? Is that helpful? Thanks!Tino1994 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You can click on the talk link at the top of the page and enter your comments there. You can also place a {{cleanup}} tag at the top of the page. I agree with your assessment, by the way.--agr (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Hello Tino1994, and welcome to the Teahouse!

Articles are commonly flagged to indicate problems that need attention. This is done by editing the article and placing a template at the very top. Templates are defined by using double "curly brackets", such as {{cleanup}}. It is good practice to add details, for example — regarding grammar issues: {{Cleanup|reason=grammar needs improvement|date=January 2014}} results in the following tag:

Although some tags are self-evident, it's useful to describe the issue on the talk page, and perhaps suggest an approach to fixing it. Many tags can also be specified for individual sections, and inline tags can be added to specific text. Regarding the need to improve references, {{Refimprove}} could be used for the entire article, or {{Refimprove-section}} for a section, or {{citation needed}} can be added after the specific text in question. Note: adding |date=January 2014 parameter is optional (a bot will add it later). If you need more detailed information, just ask; or see:   Wikipedia: Tagging pages for problems  &  Wikipedia: Template messages (index of templates). ~Cheers, ~Eric F:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Misspelling in headline

I misspelled a name in the headline. How do I change that? Thx (Evie.breck (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The process to move a page is via the "Move" option on the drop-down arrow towards the top right of each page. But to do it your account needs to be autoconfirmed, which needs the account to be more than 4 days old as well as having made at least 10 edits; I have therefore moved it for you. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Is my article clear and well organized?

I summarized a court trial in an article I wrote. I am very familiar with the case so it's tough to be objective regarding how . Would anyone like to read over it and tell me if it makes sense and is organized well? Point out any information that is unclear or confusing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bali88/sandbox Bali88 (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that your draft was moved 10 days ago from User:Bali88/sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Third trial of David Camm, and is awaiting review there. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to read the whole article, but I've noticed two things. First, some sections are too short, many of the just one sentence. The sections should be re-organized so that very short sections are merged together. Second, the lead section is not quite good. The lead section's role is to define the subject of the article, and also to summarize the content of the article. Your lead section does not. In the first sentence you should explain what is the subject of the article, ie. what is the "Third trial of David Camm". You does not explain that. Your lead section also does not summarize the article, but it does not.

I also do not understand why is the article titled "Third trial of David Camm" when it also writes about first and second trial, not just about the third one. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The reason I summarized the first two is because I thought it was relevant and necessary to understand how the case got to where it is, why they're trying him with so little evidence, etc. Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the header? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Saving two copies of the same article

Can I save two copies of the same article and link to them from different pages so that one is a reference only I could possibly know about and another a reference or link the public will always see? For example, after translating an article from a foreign wikipedian article, I'd like to keep the original translation for "peers outside wikipedia" to proofread but then keep a public article which I wish to expand upon through further research so that the article can pass wikipedia verification in the english wikipedia and get promoted. I believe my question is not confusing? Is that possible? I can see that articles have revision numbers but that was no help to me. thanks Emekadavid (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Emekadavid and welcome to The Teahouse. Let's say you created the article Dr. Emilio Bombay, a real article I intend to create when I can find the sources. That could be the one you want to expand, and you would leave it as is, expanding it later or letting others do it. Someone may disagree, but it is possible you could keep the "peers" version as User:Emekadavid/Dr. Emilio Bombay. That could be edited by others but it is unlikely. There may be policy reasons why that won't work, but no one else has answered, so I thought I would try.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Emekadavid: interesting question. You could do as Vchimpanzee suggests, but if you do you should probably put a note at the top of your workspace copy explaining why you are keeping it. It will be visible to the public - all articles in Wikipedia are - but if you add the template Template:noindex, then it won't get indexed by services such as Google. (I'm not sure whether it is necessary to use the template to achieve this on a user-space page, but it won't do any harm). Alternatively, you could only have one copy, but as soon as you have made it, use the "Permanent link" tool from the page to save a link to that revision, and keep it somewhere (for example on your user page). Then that version will always be findable, and hence readable (but not editable) to you and anybody who finds the link. --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Emekadavid, if you want to keep a saved page that you and others can use as a resource that is fine. That is IMO actually a good example of why Wikipedia has wp:user pages above and beyond each user's sandbox. Because, sometimes it can be beneficial to save a page indefinitely as a resource for future work. I actually did that a while ago myself, I recovered some text from an article that another editor had deleted (wrongly IMO). I wasn't ready to merge that text into the current article though but I kept it as a resource for myself and also put a link to it on the talk page of the article so if someone else wanted to merge it back in they could. However, there is a caveat: user pages are NOT part of Wikpedia, not part of the actual encyclopedia. So you should not have a link to pages like that from actual articles. From talk pages OK but from articles No. And I'm not sure I understood exactly what you have in mind but when you say "link to them from different pages" if you mean user pagers or talk pages then fine if you mean actual articles I would say no. IMO having two versions of a page that are both linked to the actual encyclopedia is a terrible idea. It creates potential confusion for revising and editing going forward. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I meant user pages and talk pages. I want the original translation as a reference and then the revised and edited one to be indexed by the wikipedia for public editing and reading. thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont unterstand why my article will be deleted

My article of TrumpSC will be deleted. Can somebody tell me what is wrong with my article?Lyrla86 (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You need at least one reference to a reliable source, such as a newspaper or magazine article. On line blogs and the like are not good enough sources.--agr (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

We need coverage in independent reliable sources, Lyrla86, not sources controlled by the subject of the article or by affiliated people and organizations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

if you google for Jeffrey Shih (nickname: TrumpSC) you will find that the links given are somewhat "contentious". You can see that it is far opposite to the word "reliable" which we all wish/want wikipedia to be. thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Password

Hello, I am User:Nahnah4, but I'm signing as a IP address as I forgot my password. I went to Special:PasswordReset, I wrote the e-mail, and then I don't receive a single mail from Wikipedia! I think I signed it up with another email, but then it's been 1 day and they say, "A password reminder has been set for the first 24 hours..." blah blah blah. So what should I do? XP --182.55.180.34 (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nahnah, have you checked your email's spam folder? Samwalton9 (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

i encountered a similar problem myself recently; it was an email conflict problem. i have more than one email and kept checking the wrong mailbox. when i opened a second mailbox, i discovered the password reset email. try it. and also, the username is case sensitive. Emekadavid (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

wiki translate question

as part of the global wiki translate project, i am working on translating en wiki math pages onto the macedonian wiki. assuming the en wiki page is perfect, this still entails a great deal of techo problems individual to EACH page that once i solve (or not :)), i would like to be able to share with others so they dont waste this time.

question: where can one put this type of talk? i very, very much hesitate to put a section on the talk page on the individual page to write up the problems, concerns, possible solutions, ... i am concerned that this will not be considered proper talk and removed.

specific example to illustrate: on sine page there is used a lovely template template:function. the code in the template itself is a bit hard to read as it is a single paragraph (not source formatting) and also templates are notoriously difficult to translate since they contain code and links to pages which must be generated on the local wikipedia site and ... so the problem is dual. there is the techno difficulties of translating the template itself and there are the problems of using the template on the pages, which e.g. here might be the naming and linking to the page on the "period of a function" (as opposed to say "periodic functions", "periodicity" - currently the link in the template links to a redirected page....)

these difficulties in different forms come up on every page. any suggestions? it would be lovely (but i know totally impractical) to have a "trans-talk" page on each article so as not to bother the "talk" pages.

i hope this is a good place to ask this question; I was told this is the place to ask awkward questions. I do not want to engage the en wikipedia math communitity with this question. Thank-you.

Lfahlberg (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Lfahlberg (talk) 08:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you go ahead and use the article talk page for this purpose. I see nothing inappropriate in doing so. --agr (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for your reply. I decided to be brave and try :) Lfahlberg (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lfahlberg. I suggest that you enter "Category:Wikipedians living in the Republic of Macedonia" into the search box. You will find 15 editors there, some of whom may be interested in your project. A similar search on Macedonian Wikipedia may yield editors there who also speak English. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello cullen. Thank-you for your reply. I work within the mk wikipedian community. My focus and question here is different. When i go to translate a page, after reading the en page, i also look at the translations of these pages into other languages. Many times I see that the translators are having the same apparent dillemas that i am having. I would like to give and get input here and yet not be directly involved in the content of the actual en wikipedia pages as this is extremely tedious. (For example, the problem with the template i mentioned above took me about 4 hours to sort out. For sure, en wikipedians do not need to solve these problems. So i left a tiny note on the talk page on the template that if anyone wants help to contact me on my talk page. But this talk has not yet been patrolled. It can be a concern on the page with consistency in images and notation. It can be a problem that there are no citations and if we just translate the page without citations, the bots reprimand us. It is my 60 year experience that all math people -including myself- are extreme nitpickers and reasonably good (as opposed to none) resources for our users are lost in this process. I see that in the past 6 months the translate wikipedia action is gathering momentum. So e.g. I would like to leave or ask for a list of possible citations or other references somewhere, but absolutely not be involved in whether or not anybody likes them, wants to use them, wherever. Rather like a metadata page for the wiki page. That is my question. Where to ask for or put information in a totally neutral environment? As always, i am verbose :) Lfahlberg (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

just a note to say thank-you for this teahouse and your responses. just putting my thoughts down here help me see how a decidedly neutral metadata approach in the talk pages should help with the problem of not having a dedicated forum for translation-talk. i appreciate your time. Lfahlberg (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How to tag objectionable image files

There are two image files on the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) page that need to be renamed. I have brought it up on his talk page, but gotten nowhere. How does on go about tagging something like that? If they can't be renamed, they ought to be deleted. Lightbreather (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. If you want to tag the images for renaming, you can go to the pages for the image files, namely File:Robert Spitzer Political Activist.jpg and File:Politics of gun control book cover - written by activist Robert Spitzer.jpg, and add the code {{rename media|new name (without "File:")|reason}} to the descriptions. Someone will review the images to see if they meet the criteria for renaming and do so if needed. Hope this helps. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked, but could only find tags to do with text. Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

They have shown up again with the disputed labels (activist and advocate) in the filenames and/or descriptions again. They are being used on a BLP, and the subject objects to use of these terms, which could harm his reputation as a scholar. They should be deleted. How can I escalate the problem? The editor who insists on using these images (I don't know where she got them) and modifying their names and descriptions is Sue Rangell. There are several discussions disputing this at the subject's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Creating Maps using KML

Hello. I am trying to confirm whether or not one can post non-copyrighted KML to Wikipedia (or other wikis) in order to create a map. If so, how is this this done? All instructions I have found so far regarding maps concern SVG, GIF, or PDF files. Assuming the KML is not under copyright, under the public domain, or has a CCBY or similar license, is there a way to create maps in wikipedia using KML?

Many thanks. Thousec (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, there is no way to create maps on Wikipedia using KML files. You could try looking for a website that will create it for you and then upload that to Wikipedia. But keep in mind that KML files only have locations, not actual visual maps. Those may be copyrighted. --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Will this page be published?

I am creating a new page to talk about Universal Cards, a term that has come up in the past year to describe a new type of payment technology. I would appreciate some advice from those more experienced than I am on whether this new term can be published, and how to make it better before sending it in. The first draft is below. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UBrandon/Universal_card UBrandon (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

To prevent reader confusion, you should rename the page: universal credit card. Just some suggestion. if you check on wikipedia you'll find that the companies, Coin, Protean and Geode do not have any pages created for them yet. you can redlink them, although I'm not an expert on that for now since there are more than one pages with reference to Coin, Protean and Geode. My suggestions. i think the article is original and should be a wikipedia page. thanks. Emekadavid (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, UBrandon. It looks like a good start to an article. You've got enough reliable sources to establish that it is notable, I think, which is the first hurdle to overcome. One thing you do need to do is to format the references better: please see Referencing for beginners. You could simply move the page from User:UBrandon/Universal card to "Universal credit card", and I don't think it would get deleted; but a better approach might be to request a review: when you've tidied the references, edit it to place {{subst:submit}} at the top, and that will add a template to the article and put it in a queue for a review. --ColinFine (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with my signature code?

The first part works ok, but the second part doesn't link to my talk page. What's the problem? ADREY talk

ADREY talk 23:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It works here, but not on my talk page. ADREY talk 23:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Adrey! That's just because you can't make a wikilink to the same page that you're on. For example, if I try writing [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions]] anywhere else, I'll get a link to this page, but here, it just looks like: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. Wikipedia automatically senses that you're trying to link to the page you're on and gets rid of the link, so you don't have people clicking on links that don't take them anywhere. It is simply the same thing for the links in our sigs. So, your sig is fine; there's nothing wrong with it! Does that make sense? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrey (talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How do I create links from a wiki page to one I created?

The link I created to the target page does not work, whereas the links I created from my own wiki article work finePaulcapri22 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please mention your intended target-page here? That way, I might be able to see what is wrong. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe this relates to a circular redirect (Raphael's Ephemeris), where there are two different characters used as an apostrophe; this should redirect to the article (which has the "slanty-apostrophe" in its name) → Raphael’s Ephemeris. Note: I believe it should be visa-versa (the article should be renamed). ~Eric F:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This one is not circular: Raphael’s Ephemeris. Checkingfax (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. This one is: Raphael's Ephemeris ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Should work OK now. Checkingfax (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Global renaming

Is it possible to be renamed on all Wikimedia projects without having to be renamed at each one? --Jakob (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Jakob! Nope, not yet; right now, renaming is handled strictly at a local level, so each of your accounts will have to be renamed by the 'crats at their respective wikis, and then merged for SUL. Globalizing renames has been a Foundation project for some time now (which would effectively eliminate local renaming by 'crats, moving it to the stewards at a global level); it was supposed to be released earlier last year, but has since been postponed (indefinitely, I think) while things are ironed out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Is creating a new template a "policy" decision?

Hi,

I enjoy reading about mathematics on Wikipedia, (I have no real math background myself) but find that some articles are very good in teaching me how to "speak aloud" the math notation Well-founded_set is a decent example of one of these, IMHO, and conversely Fundamental_theorem_of_arithmetic fails to do this. I find it MUCH easier to understand the pages when this kind of beginners help is provided. Although some pages are tagged as "too technical", that doesn't really give enough of a hint for the authors to improve.

I was thinking of starting to create both a template and an advice page, and start tagging pages as "Needs more explanation of how to speak this notation". Is this something that would need to be taken to the "Policy" section of Wikipedia, or can I just forge ahead without stepping on toes?

Thanks in advance.

Lcuff (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lcuff. If this is something that's specific to mathematics articles, you may wish to bring it up on the Wikiproject Mathematics talk page, first to make sure that something like this doesn't already exist, and secondly to get a consensus of interested editors before beginning. Remember, you can always add a request for improvement on the talk page of an article, and then a template is not needed, and you can explain your ideas from improvement in as much detail as you want. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is "Pulse Drip Irrigation" listed as an "orphan"

I noticed that the article "Pulse Drip Irrigation" is listed as an "orphan" because "no" articles are linked with it. However "Low-flow irrigation systems" is linked with it.Qmmckenna (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Qmmckenna. When the tag was put on the page, no other articles had links to it. However, since then, it seems that you have found a page that has a link pointing to it. The tag has to be removed manually, so why not go ahead and remove it yourself? Thanks for noticing. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First article declined. How do I adjust the copy?

Good morning,

I need some help in rewriting some company text to make sure it won't be declined.

Thanks in advance

Abkuijerfrance (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Abkuijerfrance, and welcome to Wikipedia. I assume the draft article that was declined is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trailermatics. To successfully create an article about a new word such as "trailermatics" you would need to include references to several reliable sources which use the term you are writing about. Unfortunately, your draft article does not contain any external references (the links in the "References" section are to other Wikipedia articles). Also, there are parts of your article that read like an advertisement for the companies that you mention - phrases like "a major player in the European space industry" and "one of Europe’s leading equipment services providers" will ring warning bells for a Wikipedia reviewer. To improve tha article I suggest you do the following:

1. Add external references that show how the word "trailermatics" is used.
2. Shorten the article by taking out the details of the companies - make the article more about the word and the concept itself and less about specific suppliers.
3. Read our Manual of Style, and try to follow the standard article layout, section names etc.

Good luck with your editing. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gandalf, this helps a lot. I will work on it and make sure it stays on track this time! Best regards, 83.153.112.94 (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You will have seen that the draft has now been deleted as a copyright violation, so you need to read the links in the message on your user talk page. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

An Idea

I had a cool idea to start putting images on Disambiguation pages. I think it would be cool. What do you think. ZSpeed (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) is a good place to get feedback on your suggestion. You might also be bold and implement your idea on one disambig page to give others an idea of its pros and cons.--agr (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Years ago, I made a proposal to add maps (images) to dab pages such as 1080 AM. It was shot down. The rationale is that dab pages are not intended to be content pages, but merely an intermediate step to help readers find the right content page. I largely agree with that, but think maps on radio frequency dab pages would be useful. I'm mentioning this so you will understand why your idea might not get traction, but please let me know if it does get support.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)