Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 310

Archive 305

←

Archive 308

Archive 309

Archive 310

Archive 311

Archive 312

→

Archive 315

How to credit the originators of an image which has been tweaked

Hello! There's been some discussion on my talkpage, User talk:Rosiestep#Kate Brown, regarding a banner which I asked to be tweaked so that it can be used at an alternate event on International Women's Day. The conversation actually began here: Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month/2015/Images#Banner for the events in Stockholm. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk · contribs) has made the update, but hasn't upload to Commons as they are asking about attribution to the original creator. Does someone here have an answer for that? Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep. This is a bit of a tricky one because the image being modified, is itself a modification of two other images. The license (CC BY 4.0) simply provides for "appropriate credit", "provid[ing] a link to the license", and "indicat[ing] if changes were made", so there's no rote formula to follow. I suggest for the edit summary upon the upload, the use of this text (it can't provide complete copyright attribution because your characters are limited by the edit summary length):

Image taken and modified from [[:File:Wikiwomensstockhombanner.svg]] created by [[User:Sara Mörtsell (WMSE)]]; further attribution provided on project page

Then you might use this for the information template parameters:

{{Information
|description= INSERT
|date= INSERT
|source={{own}}, as modification of [[:File:Wikiwomensstockhombanner.svg]], which in turn was:
*{{derived from|Oyida Peaks riveting as part of her NYA training 1a34885v.jpg|display=50}} and
*{{derived from|Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg|display=50}}
|author=[[User:Username of person who modified the image (person doing upload most likely)]] (this file);<br />[[User:Sara Mörtsell (WMSE)]] (file modified);<br /> Hollem, Howard R., photographer (for first derived file, above); and<br />[[:m:User:Nohat|Nohat]] (concept by [[:m:User:Paullusmagnus|Paullusmagnus]]); Wikimedia (for second derived file, above).
}}

Of course, the image page must also display a CC BY 4.0 license with a link so just use {{self|cc-by-4.0}}, as the file description page for the image being modified does. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rosiestep, you can see how the creator of this pic has dealt with the attributions. Tweaking tweaked pics is like an infinity mirror, you take it one "layer" at the time and include all. w.carter-Talk 09:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all this info! @Xanthomelanoussprog: does this answer your question? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Fuhghettaboutit- I uploaded the image to Commons, but somehow the process didn't seem to allow for the addition of the attribution information. Presumably this can be added by someone else ('cos I seem to have some mental block about Commons ). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just have to say I'm super happy to see the image reused for the San Francisco event! :D Sara Mörtsell (WMSE) (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Xanthomelanoussprog: I've fixed the attribution. I think you thought it all had to be done on the original upload. For future reference, to place the above attribution material what I did was just copied what I prepared above, went to the image, clicked edit, and then pasted and saved. That's it!:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I Need Hope

Hey, I know this question won't have very much to do with editing Wikipedia, but It is (my question is) what can you have hope in this world that good will prevail over evil? Frogger48 (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can always have hope. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC).

Don't read articles like ISIS, Depression, and Death then . Try Happiness! Jokes aside, very interesting question... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as a matter of choice. I can't control what other people do, but at least I can make my own choices and that's enough to make a difference to my little corner of the world.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the work "hope" it sort of means I don't have choice or there is a lack of choice - for me I feel the word "trust" is more powerful. And in response to the original question - will good prevail over evil - there will always be a balance - it has to be in perfect equilibrium. Sometime the noise of the 'evil' is louder and we have to seek out the good a little harder. Empowering you (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself is a sign of hope. Think about how many people contributed to providing something that helps many others. A huge glass is now half full that nobody even could have imagined a generation ago. — Sebastian 17:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Frogger48: I live by what Edmund Burke is credited to have said first (and many wise men and women have quoted since): "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." So, I do something: I edit here. Among other things. w.carter-Talk 20:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Butterfly info and categories

Hi I have created and worked on the Bryna (given name) page and need some help putting it in categories and adding the correct stub type. Also for the other page I am trying to work on Bryna I can't find much info regarding that type of butterfly. I will be doing some more research and if you are to busy to help with this small unimportant article I don't blame you. Thanks Hungryce (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hungryce: I am stealing a moment while at work so hurried note: Found two sources you might use: [1] and [2]. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You have come to the right place! I am highly active in the Wikipedia project Lepidoptera and glad to help you edit and improve more articles on butterflies. I'll take a look at your article as soon as I get my computer working again. For the present time I am communicating on my smart phone and don't have all the editing tools that I need to help you do your best editing job.

Barbara Page

Thanks I started working on the Bryna page as a joke but with accurate info and ended up creating Bryna (given name). I don't know much of butterflies or names but I want to try to help Wikipedia for a long time. Hungryce (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Where should I discuss major changes to an article?

Hello, Teahouse! I have been working on revising the Biotechnology article. My (currently incomplete) revision is in my sandbox. I assume it is not acceptable to simply replace the existing article with my version. My question is: What should I do to inform other Wikipedians that I have prepared an improved version and want to invite discussion and peer-review? Any help is both greatly appreciated and sorely needed. Denny1213 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Denny1213, you can bring all of this to the attention of other editors on the article's talk page. On the same page you will also find the projects that the article belongs to, post alerts there, and as you said there is also the Wikipedia:Peer review where you can make a request. Even though Wikipedia encourage editors to be bold, in this case a cautious approach, as you say, is probably best since the article is a level 3 vital article. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty with replacing large sections of (or all of) the text, is that it becomes a "spot the difference" competition - editors can be suspicious that you are trying to hide changes, and may reject the entire change as they disagree with a small part of it, which cannot easily be isolated.
Large changes make it difficult for you to explain why you feel any particular change is necessary, whereas incremental changes allow such raison d'etre.
Furthermore, you admit your current version is incomplete, but editors can only comment on, and/or criticize it as it stands - they do not know what is complete/incomplete, which could lead to frustration, by them, or you.
I suggest you propose changes incrementally, explaining why you feel they are necessary, what is wrong with the existing version, and what references you are using to justify the changes, - Arjayay (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your sage advice. I will begin by proposing my changes to the lead section in the article talk page and will proceed from there. Thank you and have a nice weekend! Denny1213 (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Unclear Citation Style

I posted a new article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrik_Giardino. There is a box on the top of the page that says "This article has an unclear citation style." I'm not sure how to rectify it. How can I get more experienced editors to fix and add to this article? Thank you.104.172.230.4 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend trying your hand at fixing the references yourself. The main problem is that the references are in a list at the end, instead of in footnotes. Help:Referencing for beginners provides instructions about how to create footnotes. Please post again here if you're having problems figuring it out! Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, Calliopejen1. When I need help with putting my references and citations in the proper format I go to this helpful Wikipedia page: WP:Copyedit . This is homebase for group of Wikipedians and who love to help people and editors with problems like yours. There's a place there where you can put in a request for their assistance.

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-new editor working on research about Wikipedia

I am a graduate student in library and information sciences and a semi-new editor and I am doing a project on Wikipedia as an information community. Would anyone be willing to do a brief interview? I will preserve your anonymity.

Thank you! Casswenze (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Casswenze it would probably be helpful to say what form this brief interview would take? i.e. email, skype, phone, via custom website, etc and if you have any conditions (number of edits, how long someone has been an editor, country...) Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The interview/survey would be through Google Docs and the only condition is that the person has somehow contributed to Wikipedia. Casswenze (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to contact me, Casswenze. I do not care about anonymity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Casswenze, happy to answer a survey. If you need a good cross section of people you'll probably need to just do some random asking on peoples talk pages. Maybe just make a good cut and paste request post with all the details.... run up Special:RecentChanges and random pick people from the last 24 hours. KylieTastic (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• If there's still a need, I'd be happy to contribute too, anonymous or not. My email is open. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Casswenze, Wikipedia has been around now 14 years and been the subject of many studies. It might help you to read Wikimedia's Subject Recruitment and other areas of the Research section. There is an interesting monthly Research Newsletter that can keep you updated on the latest Wikipedia research projects. Build on the experience of other researchers and, bonus, you can use these studies as references in your own! Good luck~ Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Experienced editor

What defines an experienced editor? I have done a range of different types of edits and created some good articles and was wondering if I could do more. But I have not made the required amount of edits or been a Wikipedia editor for longer enough. So was just going to ask what 'privileges' do 'experienced' editors do? thanks Wrightie99 (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wrightie99: If you go by Wikipedia:Service awards, an "experienced editor" has at least 6,000 edits and has been on Wikipedia for at least 1.5 years. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And there are no extra privileges that are based on length of service or number of edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to add to what has been said above, there are sooo many things you can do to here that does not require any extra 'privileges' at all. Start by reading up on the Wikipedia policy and you will find many areas that you can help in. And remember that having 'privileges' here on the Wikipedia usually means that you have to clean up messes, sort out conficts and do all kinds of not so pleasant work. There is a reason that the sign of an administrator is a cleaning mop. The only reward and 'privileges' for good work here is more work. ;) w.carter-Talk 21:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Experienced users do have the privilege of knowing things that their experience has taught them. Unfortunately, my experience has apparently failed to teach me enough to avoid tautological nattering.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wrightie99: Here at the English Wikipedia you have the same automatic user rights as more experienced editors as soon as you are autoconfirmed (at least 4 days and 10 edits). Manually assigned user rights are made on an individual basis and not determined by edit count although it may be a factor in decisions. Some elections have specific requirements. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014#Election process said "at least 150 mainspace edits". meta:Stewards/Elections 2015/Guidelines#Voters says "at least 600 edits", so you are short with your current 443. meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013#Requirements said "at least 300 edits", so maybe you can vote in the 2015 board elections. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback and answers, I understand now. Before I assumed you were either new or experienced, didn't know there were so many ranks if you like. thanks again Wrightie99 (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question, @Wrightie99: I would like to add my two cents to the fine answers above: be cautious in using the edit count to guage how experienced somebody is. One editor can spend a huge amount of time researching and writing a single well-crafted article, while another editor spends the same time correcting spelling mistakes on perhaps hundreds of articles. Both are performing a worthwhile service and building a better Wikipedia, but their edit count stats would look very different. See the article on Editcountitis for more on this.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for Sophie Hunter page

There is a one-sentence paragraph in Hunter's lead that could be easily merged with the first. There is no reason for it to be separate from the main one. Please be so kind to merge them please. Thank you! 180.191.69.3 (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse. Your request has already been fulfilled by Meatsgains. However, it would be better to put the {{edit semi-protected}} tag on the talk page of the page, accompanied by the details of the request, instead of placing the request on multiple user's talk pages (which may cause confusion if one user has already fulfilled the request). Nonetheless, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and you may want to consider creating an account. After four days and ten edits, you will be able to edit semi-protected (silver padlock) pages. Good luck! Esquivalience ^t 04:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

having issues with referencing, have had a couple of rejections due to lack of "validity"

I have tried editing a biography on Xiomara Gonzalez Govea and have been rejected du to referencing....hoping you could suggest some ideas/solutions to get this article published:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Xiomara_Gonzalez_Govea

64.134.178.114 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi 64.134.178.114 and welcome to the Teahouse. The article was deleted before I could have a look at it. I have left you links on your talk page, to pages that describe the do and don't in making an acceptable article. Please read them. Especially Wikipedia:Your first article. I also strongly suggest that you get an account. There are many benefits with having one that will help you write articles in the future. One of these is your own sandbox where you can experiment all you want and have other editors come and make suggestions before making drafts or articles. Reading the note of the editor who deleted your article it seems like the main problem was copyright. Remember that an article must be written in your own words and not just copied from some internet site. Writing an article is sort of like reading about something in many books or reliable sites online, and later summing this up when you tell your friends about it (that is the article). And when they ask you: "Wow! How did you know this?" You say: "I read it here, here and here" (those are the references). Well, that is the simplified version of it, I'm sure some editors would have another better way of putting it. Happy editing, w.carter-Talk 21:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And thank you, W.carter, for your nice response. Have a cup of tea. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

My article may be deleted

I've recently written an article about my grandfather "Vasily Bunelik" (please see) It has a note on the page questioning notability. He was Ukrainian so sources are in Ukrainian or Russian. The chief source is a book he wrote in Ukrainian, which describes in great depth and detail the conditions in Mauthausen concentration camp during WW2. This is important because as far as I know few survivors wrote at any length about the camp. Is this a valid point for notability and how do I get it across to the would-be deleters? I could publish extracts from the book in English myself. Would that help? Bunelik (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bunelik. I think you have misunderstood the meaning of notability in English Wikipedia (it is possible it is different in Ukrainain Wikipedia). Notability resides almost entirely in whether, and what, others have written about a subject. A work by the subject himself is incapable of contributing to notability. If there has been substantial writing (in any language) about him or the book, then those would ground an article about him or about the book. It sounds a bit as if what you are wanting to do is tell the world about something that is relatively unknown, and you think should be better known: if that is the case, that may be noble, but I'm afraid it is inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia: even for a worthy cause, it is still counted as promotion. --ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bunelik (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. Welcome to the Teahouse; have a cup of tea. I looked at the proposed article, and I noticed that one of those sources you cited there is nothing more than a blog. We don't allow blogs as sources on Wikipedia. It is this one. Also, the way to contest the proposed deletion is being discussed here. You had better go to that page and join the discussion. Good luck. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

inline interlanguage link in citation template?

I'm copyediting an article for the current GOCE Blitz. Part of the work involves converting long citations that are currently in the text of the article to references. The citation templates have an argument for the author's article. But this source is in German, and English WP has no article about the author, although German WP does.

If this were an ordinary inline interlanguage link I'd use {{ill|de|Wilhelm Pape}} to get

Wilhelm Pape

But when I put that into {{cite book}} I get this:

Pape, W.; Benseler, G. E. (1875). Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen [Dictionary of Greek Proper Names] (in German). F. Vieweg und sohn. Retrieved 20 February 2015. {{cite book}}: Check |author-link= value (help)

Any suggestions? Thnidu (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, it's usually not possible to embed other templates inside the cite templates. Among other things it messes up the metadata that they output. But it's OK to just go ahead and list the name like this: "author-link=Wilhelm Pape". That will show up as a red link, but many editors do that anyway, as a sign that it would be nice to have this article.

The other thing you could do is to create a stub of the article yourself, and link that to the German Wikipedia, so that readers can find it that way. In fact I just did that, by creating the article Wilhelm Pape. That should work as normal – Margin1522 (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And I have edited the Wikidata to include the English version in the inter-language links. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thnidu, a simpler way is to write |author-link=:de:Wilhelm Pape like this:

Pape, W. [in German]; Benseler, G. E. (1875). Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen [Dictionary of Greek Proper Names] (in German). F. Vieweg und sohn. Retrieved 20 February 2015.

Jonesey95 19:49, 20 February 2015 [relevant diff - sig added by Thnidu (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)]

@Jonesey95, David Biddulph, and Margin1522: Thank you, comrades.

• Jonesey95, I think I tried |author-link=:de:Wilhelm Pape. But unlike {{ill}}, it gives no in-line indication that there is no English article. And thanks for "Also adding |template-doc-demo= to keep this page out of the error category": I hadn't known of that parameter. Does it work in all templates? I don't see any way of searching for a description of it, other than an Everything search; there, looking at almost any of the hits will explain it, but is there a way to search for a parameter as such?
• Margin1522: Thanks much! That ain't just a stub, that's (the) genuine article! You translated the bulk of the German article :-D My German's not nearly up to that. And I tried |author-link=Wilhelm Pape, but parallel to my answer to Jonesey95,

  unlike {{ill}}, it gives no in-line indication that there is a German article.

• David Biddulph, many thanks.

So, my helpful fellow editors, you have solved the problem for now, but not for the next time such a situation arises. I think we need an additional couple of parameters that, like "template-doc-demo", can be added to any citation template (at least!) to do the work that {{tn:ill}} does: "There's a page for this on another wiki." E.g.,

|interwiki-for=Wilhelm Pape |interwiki-name=de:Wilhelm Pape

... and then, Gott mit uns, interwiki-for1, interwiki-name1, interwiki-for2..., for additional authors, editors, and who knows what else. Where should such a suggestion go? (Other than "where the sun don't shine", please!) --Thnidu (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

|template-doc-demo= is documented and works in the Citation Style 1 "cite" templates that share code and documentation, like {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}. It is used when an error is being demonstrated and should not be (wrongly) "fixed" by a well-meaning gnome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This makes my head hurt. I am going to have one of those donuts over there. GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Intervention needed

There has been disruptive editing on Sophie Hunter's page (see discussion on Talk:Sophie_Hunter#Cites_for_18_February_2015_edits) due to a user insisting of editing when all his/her rational are in violation of ALL Wikipedia:Core content policies. The version of the page is currently fine but please monitor User:Avianax as he/she has been reverting this for the past two days.181.30.6.38 (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess you should encourage User:Avianax to discuss the matter on the talk page before reverting and make the point clear or tell that constant reverting can lead to a ban.Abhinav0908 (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong place for this, I am afraid. We don't do interventions here. We sit around and drink tea and help out newcomers. At least I do. Yum. Good donut. GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

not-smart me

how am i supposed to improve articles if everything i know is already on it? Valehd (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Read outside Wikipedia and learn some more. And there are always new things in the world to write about -- new sports events , new music, newly elected politicians. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate to contradict such a respected editor as my friend, DGG, but I also recommend taking a look at older topics. As for music, any smash hit song of the past deserves an article. Take a look at 1937 in music, as just one random example. The hit record system was well-entrenched by then, and at least ten hit songs are mentioned in that article which lack articles. Those include hits by artists remembered today, such as Guy Lombardo, Benny Goodman, Mahalia Jackson, Bing Crosby and Rudy Vallee. Anyone who fears their article might get deleted can write an article about any one of those ten songs, with a high degree of certainty that an article with even one decent reference will not be deleted. Another example: according to WP:POLITICIAN, any member of a state or provincial legislature is considered notable. There are countless members of such legislatures from the 19th and early 20th centuries who lack Wikipedia biographies. Who represented your home town in 1883? Your local library and your local newspaper archives, and the history website of the legislature they served in are jam packed full of reliable sources that can be used to create these biographies. There are many highly notable athletes, such as Olympic competitors active 80 or 90 years ago, who lack Wikipedia biographies. Plenty of source material is readily available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction, that's a supplement. There are probably at least 4 million potential articles of similar significance to the ones we have here. Cullen328 mentioned some. Additional ones include every book on the NYT best seller list, everyone who has ever held a distinguished professorship at a major university, every judge of the highest court in a state, thousands of earlier athletes chose names we know and list, but where the articles have not yet been written.

And that accounts for the major English speaking countries only. The rest of the world can and should be covered in equal detail, which should add another 8 or 10 million at the least, tho we probably won't get to many with some sort of automatic translation.

I use the example of new things because that shows we will never be finished, even if we do all the 15 or so million included above. I also mention it because many of those topics will be just as exciting and important then as the most exciting and important topics now. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I like both of the above remarks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles about people who ave recently died.

Hello, I would like to write an article about a Classical guitarist from Lubbock, Texas, but she recently committed suicide. I know of only one source at this time, her website http://www.susangrisani.com. I am passionate about the article for two reasons but the biggest reason is that I don't want her memory to be punished because of how she died. Can I proceed just by following the rules for WP BLPs? Would anyone care to work on the article with me. her name is Susan Grisanti, and she was known in West Texas as The First Lady of Classical Guitar.Lbhiggin (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You should not write about someone to punish them. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view. See the guidance at WP:NPOV. RudolfRed (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, if the only available source is her own website, she would most likely not be considered notable, which is the requirement for having an article on Wikipedia. Notability means that reliable secondary sources (ie, books and the media) have talked about her in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not mean that i wanted her punished. Actually, it's just the opposite, to me, suicide is just another form of death like a car accident. I don't want her to be left out because of suicide. Although I do understand where you're coming from about NPOV.Lbhiggin (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The criteria are at WP:MUSICBIO. If she meets them, and you can find good sources to prove it, write the article. If not, not; there are many other places on the web. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lbhiggin and welcome to Wikipedia. I think it's commendable that you want people to remember Ms. Grisanti for the way that she lived instead of the way that she died. However, as DGG points out, there are probably better ways for you to do this than Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be memorial pages per se; They are intended to be neutrally written accounts of what reliable sources have to say about something or someone. Wikipedia articles are also not owned by their creators or any contributing editors. So, if by chance you are able to establish Ms. Grisanti's notability and get an article about her approved, there is still no way for you to ensure that information about the way she died will never be added to the article. It is likely that any significant coverage, good or bad, that Ms. Grisanti has received in reliable sources will eventually find it's way into any Wikipedia article about her and stay there as long as it satisfies relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and there is a consensus in favor of keeping it. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

She seemed to be locally notable, per http://amarillo.com/news/texas-news/2013-03-05/hundreds-mourn-passing-lubbocks-guitar-lady, and perhaps the above editor can find some other WP:Reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. I applaud his or her intent and simply note that we are all here to build an encyclopedia; this lady might or might not qualify. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Page Patrolled

Hello , Is it good when you get an alert- your page was patrolled ? Or is it bad ? if good - should thank the patroller ? Thank youOptrimes (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Optrimes and welcome to the Teahouse. It's a good thing. Patrollers check new pages just to make sure they are consistent with Wikipedia's policies, and they are the front line of defence to prevent Wikipedia being hijacked by spammers, etc. So if they marked your page as patrolled, it simply means they took a look at it and said it is okay. For more information, look at Wikipedia:Patrols.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: Thank you , will thank patroller too.Optrimes (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect page question

Need some help. Stumbled upon random article (Inge Keller). Said in article her name was actually Ingeborg Keller, so I made that redirect page. Then dug a bit deeper, realized it's probably not her name, so decided to revert my good intentions by deleting the redirect page. Read about how to do it on Wikipedia:Redirect, but don't understand anything now. Need some help without messing up more than necessary. Assistance, please! Kadmium (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kadmium. Since you, technically speaking, created a new page, you can't undo that creation without the use of the deletion tool, which is only available to administrators. If you want to request an admin delete a page you created you can use one of the templates found at WP:G7 to ask that the page be speedily deleted. I'm taking this post to be an express wish to have the page deleted so I've done that for you anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot. Kadmium (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Mispelling - Instructions for editors

Bonjour from France. A couple of questions about the instructions for editors. The page says "For correct spellings not appropriate for Wiktionary, add {{proper name}} around it if it's a proper noun; otherwise add {{not a typo}} around it (for example, nonsense series of letters used as examples in puzzles or computer code).

I found a page with the word "wishstone", which in the context is a proper name, so I edited to read {{proper name Wishstone}}. Is that a correct edit?

There were 3 such entries on the same page. I changed all 3 (as above). Was that correct, or did I only need to change the first entry on the page?

Thank you in anticipation.

Kaphoen (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Bonjour Kaphoen welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. To use the {{Proper name}} template see Template:Not a typo (redirected from Template:Proper name). Also in general for any template just search for Template colon template name to find the template details. Like most templates parameters are divided by a pipe |. So in this case it would be {{Proper name|Wishstone}} which gives Wishstone not {{Proper name Wishstone}} which gives Template:proper name Wishstone. — Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
• Bonjour Kaphoen, I corrected the usage on 11th Cat and also reverted your change to 110 in the Shade as the spelling mistakes were parts of the quotes. As there is no reference the source of the quotes are unclear but could have been from the written script, or used to indicate the way the text is actually performed in the play. In general quotations should only be spell checked against the source and not correct spelling. Other places to be careful when spell checking are titles (i.e. books, plays, shows, music, ...) and file names — All the best KylieTastic (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The template tags in your question weren't displaying, so I surrounded them with <nowiki> tags. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You quoted instructions from Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss#Instructions for editors: "For correct spellings not appropriate for Wiktionary, add {{proper name}} around it if it's a proper noun; otherwise add {{not a typo}} around it".

Note that blue/purple text is links. When you see a link in curly braces like {{proper name}}, the link goes to a template page which usually has usage instructions. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of infoboxes

This is regarding the use of an infobox on articles that are about "Death of..." or "Disappearance of..." Specifically the article Death of Kendrick Johnson. I'm having a discussion with another user. They feel that infoboxes should never be used unless it's a biography. I feel like "Death of" articles are close enough to a bio to be used, there is a long standing wikipedia tradition of using them in these articles, they're helpful, people like them, and there are no good arguments against it. What are your thoughts on the topic? Bali88 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Bali88 I've seen similar issues on several other pages and I've always been confused. As far as I'm concerned I think every article should have an infobox as long as their is enough information (i.e. more than just a name and image, in which case just use a picture). The reason people don't want one is often difficult to ascertain, but often it appears to be along the lines of just a declaration its not appropriate from "this" type of article or "the information is in the text, people should just read the article". An infobox (along with images, good section titles, and good formatting) can help catch people interest and thus encourage people to start reading, and they are (IMHO) unobtrusive enough if you don't feel they add anything you can just ignore them. Unfortunately the policy WP:INFOBOXUSE states "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article." hence these disagreements. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks KylieTastic. I'd love more opinions on the topic too if anyone else want to comment. If anyone wants to chime in on the talk page, that would be great too. Bali88 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There are hundreds of infoboxes. The mentioned disagreement is about whether to use {{Infobox person}} on Death of Kendrick Johnson. We don't have an "Infobox death" but many different infoboxes have been used on death articles depending on circumstances. Some are irrelevant here but {{Infobox event}} is fairly general and has been used on some deaths, for example Death of Jeremiah Duggan. The idea is that the infobox should be about the death like the article and not about the deceased, although there are also many death articles which do use {{Infobox person}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't add an infobox if one is not already there on the article, and don't take one out if it already exists. Their use is controversial.. See Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's only an essay. There is a guideline at WP:INFOBOXUSE. Most articles have infoboxes and in most cases it is uncontroversial. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Twinkle mobile

Is there any way to revert vandalism using twinkle on mobile? Because it irks me to see edits I cannot revert. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If your mobile browser supports JavaScript, then you should be able to use Twinkle. If you can't use Twinkle on a mobile browser, try checking the settings to see if JavaScript is enabled. Esquivalience ^t 14:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

reference problem

I've messed up the reference for Mongolia in the Central Asia section of Drunk driving laws by country#Asia and am not sure how. Could somebody expalin this to me? I have also included the same reference several times- is there a way links to this can only lead to one place so it isn't featured in the reference section multiple times?Rubbish computer (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Rubbish computer it looks like Fuhghettaboutit has already fixed things up in that article with this edit. Hopefully looking at the changes they made will give you the answers you were looking for. looks like a missing opening curly bracket on Mongolia, quotes on you ref names, and removing redundant duplication (once the first ref is named you can just use the name without the ref contents again. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both this has solved the problem for me.Rubbish computer (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)@Rubbish computer: Hey Rubbish computer. All fixed. When you use a named reference that has spaces in it, you must enclose the name in quotation marks. So, for example, if I named a reference: <ref name=some intuitive name> it will break and must be instead <ref name="some intuitive name"> The second issue is that the point of naming a reference is so you can use it again and only have it appear once in the reference section To do this the first time you place it you give it a name and the next time you want to place it you just use the named part with a closing forward slash. Here's an example of a first use:

     <ref name="The Onion">{{cite satirical newspaper|newspaper=The Onion|title=Cat General Declares War on String Unwinnable|date=January 10, 2007}}</ref>

For all subsequent uses you would only type:

     <ref name="The Onion" />

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but how do you get those straight speech marks while editing? I can't get them. It's okay I've got them now (Shift+2.)Rubbish computer (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) @Rubbish computer: Hmm. When you use your keyboard to type them in the usual manner (shift and then the key next to enter) they are automatically rendered as smart quotes? Is so, that must be some program/setting operating on your computer. Never seen that before but if you're using a Mac with Maverick, I just found this One other possibility. Many word processing programs are set to autocorrect dumb quotes to smart quotes. Are you typing this in a word processing program first as a draft and then pasting? If so, there's the problem, which you would have to fix by either turning off that autocorrect feature, fixing the quotes after pasting them, or by stopping using it. Anyway, if none of this is useful, tell us what OS you're using; whether you have any programs that are set to change the appearance of type; anything else you might think relevant.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I had this problem when using someone else's computer (rather rude to change their settings), but overcome it by using the symbols menu at the bottom of the edit window (which I only normally use to get the right Em-dash/En-dash), rather than using the keyboard - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Trouble finding sources

Dear Experienced Editors,

I am working on the creation of a page called Dance Marathon at the University of Florida. My article has been declined because it needs more notable sources, and it is suggested that I "add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject."

This is my first article on the subject, and I thought my sources were okay compared to other pages that talk about this event at other schools, but I seem to be struggling. I was wondering if any one could help me with sources? I also feel like my citations on the page look strange.

Thank you so much for your helpKallaben (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Your references are very high quality, particularly so for an AFC draft. I think the issue that reviewers are identifying is that the event doesn't seem to have garnered notice outside of the Gainesville area. All of the sources you've provided (at least based on my brief overview) appear to come from Gainesville news media or UF-related organizations. What I think the reviewers are looking for is coverage of the event that goes beyond simple local reporting of its existence and outcome.

That said, I think the reviewers might be being a bit too strict here. The event certainly appears significant (in participation, results, duration, etc.), and articles with far less claim to notability routinely make it into the encyclopedia.

-- Powers ^T 21:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

unreliable anyone can edit?

would it be unreliable if ANYONE can edit?...... 115.64.122.116 (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is in fact considered an unreliable source for academic research and articles are also not reliable sources for other articles. However, it can be relied upon for low-stakes, non-academic purposes. It's also useful as a starting point for research and can point to useful sources to use in the actual research. --Jakob (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You may find Reliability of Wikipedia to be an in-depth and interesting read. While Wikipedia does allow anyone to edit, and while it most definitely is far from being a wholly accurate source, it does have it's own system of requiring sourcing to help keep content verifiable. It's the sources you find in articles that you should check to ensure the content you're reading is accurate. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

New page, rookie problems, notability?

I'm new, and I don't want to ruffle feathers or get my page deleted. I posted a page about a private school in MD, but then received notice it had "notability" issues. I guess the problem I have is that based on the "notability" of its public school peers etc. it would be moreso. 1. Is there a standard that has to be met or the page will be deleted? 2. Who decides notability finally? 3. What is the difference between "sources" and "external links"? I can prove that the school exists (Maryland State Department of Education). I can use a local magazine as well. Do pictures help this? brianmarkzockolljr (did I sign that right?) Brianmarkzockolljr (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Brianmarkzockolljr:, and welcome to the Teahouse. I presume this question relates to Faith Baptist School (Salisbury, Maryland). In Wikipedia (WP), the term "notability" is used with a quite specific meaning that is a bit different from the outside world. Not every school (or person or company or anything else) warrants its own article in an encyclopedia, and "notability" is the term for this in WP. And it is not directly to do with how "important" the subject is; rather it has to do with showing that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The general concept is explained in detail at Wikipedia:Notability, and there are more specific criteria for organizations (including schools) at WP:ORG. So your job is to collect independent coverage of the school: not what the school community says about itself, but what others say about it. The article already has some references where students have made the press, which is a great start. It would be good to find independent coverage of the school itself. A good starting place for your search is the list of resources at the bottom of the "Notability" tag that was placed on the page. That "Notability" tag gives you time to work on this - it won't be deleted straight away because of that notice. "References" are the verifiable sources that support statements made in the article, and the article currently seems to be using those correctly - it just needs more of them, especially to good quality independent coverage. A few "External links" are allowed to supplement the article with links to things like the school's official Web site, and again the article seems to have that right. I hope that is enough to point you in the right direction; please feel free to come back to the Teahouse if you have more questions.--Gronk Oz (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Recover an article? Vicious loop!

Draft:Ronald Gonzalez (Sculptor)

I, Jpspano, request the undeletion of this Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. Jpspano (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. This was a copyright violation, containing text copied and pasted from this site, and as such will not be undeleted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Vicious loop! Material deemed copyrighted is owned by the person the article is about? Webpage was updated with text from draft Wiki entry?Jpspano (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I be pointed in the right direction to work towards understanding what happened here and how to correct it? If this is not the forum for this type of question, please let me know!Jpspano (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your draft is still here Draft:Ronald Gonzalez (Sculptor) Theroadislong (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jpspano, Theroadislong, Amatulic: To be clear, this had been deleted under G13, but was recently restored after some admin shopping (and I've just deleted it again). A first request at WP:REFUND for restoration was rejected per my text above (which was not reproduced with the link to the site the text came from [3]), but a second request was made and another admin didn't realize I had already identified it as a copyright violation and rejected the request.

Jpspano: you seem to be claiming here that this was a "backwards copyvio" (i.e., the external site actually copied from the draft and not the other way around resulting in a vicious circle). That would be a good reason to revisit this, but that is not the case. I can see some of the infringed text through the Wayback Machine already existed as of June 20, 2013 and some from this page as of June 18, 2013.

The reason why this text cannot be used right now, even if you own the copyright (or the owner approves of its use), is that we can only use such material if the copyright holder releases it to the world under a free copyright license that is compatible with our licenses (or into the public domain) – it cannot be licensed for use just here, while the owner retains non-free copyright, and that text release would have to be done in a verifiable manner. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions on how that might be done.

if the process of copyright release was done properly, I or someone else will be happy to restore. But you might just be better off starting from scratch, and this time not copying any copyrighted text.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add a Notable Celebrity & Extensively Published Photographer (now 82) to Wikipedia

I'm doing some research on how to properly create a "page" for this woman and will continue to do so, But if I could get direction I would be immensely grateful to save from making a mess of this endeavour! Many thanks in advanceTmcourtney (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Tmcourtney: welcome to the Teahouse. There is a lot of good advice at Wikipedia:Your first article and at the other link in the welcome message that someone left you on your user talk page. If you want more specific advice, feel free to ask here again. —teb728 t c 03:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

orphan

Hi there i have problem to make this link [[4]] can any one help me to solve the problem ? im new at Wikipedia. please advise me . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahan khomamipor (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, @Mahan khomamipor:, and welcome to the Teahouse. Can you be more specific about which link you are trying to create? I took a look at the article Mutiny of colours and I can't see any broken links. I will convert the bare URLs to make them more usable, but which one are you trying to change?--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Mahan khomamipor:. I bet you are asking why Mutiny of Colours is tagged with the {{orphan}} tag. That is because there are no other articles that link to it. It is not essential to have links from other articles, but it is good because it makes it easier to find the article. Please leave the tag on the article as a reminder to you and other editors to look for links. —teb728 t c 03:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mahan_khomamipor. You can add Mutiny of colours to the pages List of documentary films and List of Iranian films of the 2010s. Keep looking for other pages you can link, as it can help readers seeking the article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Users who have extreme opinions in Wikipedia (rephrase of my former question)

Does Wikipedia allow users who have beliefs that align with the ideas in religious fundamentalist or hate groups or sexual positions and subcultures that are controversial (skinheads, necrophiles, zoophiles, pedophiles, etc.) or people who come from other stigmatized social groups who won't use wiki to harm or convert others, vandalize pages to support their beliefs, or to engage in criminal activity as well as it doesn't prevent the specific users to talk say that they are (neo-nazis]] or pedophiles, etc. but not promote their ideas on their talk pages in a friendly non-hurtful way.? I an kinda scared to ask this Question. Don't be upset at me for saying this.Frogger48 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a forum. Any user who abuses editing privileges to use Wikipedia as a forum (which includes some of the activities you appear to describe) can be blocked for that. Generally speaking, of course, one's beliefs aren't really relevant or interesting to the community as a whole, and while some editors choose to advertise certain beliefs, many do not. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Centering text in a table

Regarding this edit I made to a table. I wanted to get rid of the br tags for accessibility reasons, but no combination of templates and styles have been able to keep the text center-justified. I'm out of ideas. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Xaxafrad: welcome to the Teahouse. I think this change may be what you want. The main difference is that I used the list_style parameter rather than style. —teb728 t c 06:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Anti-Pedophilia bias on Wikipedia needs to be addressed.

Hey. I find Wikipedia to have a very strong anti-pedophilia bias. It's policies seem to call all pedophiles "Child molesters" which isn't correct. Frogger48 (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Frogger48: If you have a question on how to edit Wikipedia, feel free to ask it here. If you want to discuss policy, the forum for that is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). —teb728 t c 06:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you on about? If you want to correct some terminology somewhere go ahead. I can't think of a more loathsome topic to champion. Believe me, this is me biting my tongue to not be more brusque.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back again to the Teahouse, Frogger48. As I think that you already know, but which I will repeat again for your benefit, the Teahouse is a friendly place for editors, especially newer or inexperienced editors, to ask questions about the techniques and procedures of editing Wikipedia. We are usually lenient about occasional questions straying into more philosophical questions. But you seem to have fallen into a pattern of asking increasingly disruptive and tendentious questions that are not at all about the mechanics of editing Wikipedia. Respectfully, I request that you stop this behavior now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pedophile are not rapists

I personally hate it when Wikipedia mixes the term pedophile with child rapist It isn't acurte. Frogger48 (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Frogger48 nice to see you again on the Teahouse. What you said was true. But I don't know what you meant by "Wikipedia mixes terms..". As you can notice Wikipedia has separate articles for both pedophile and child rapist. If you read them you might notice how Wikipedia describes the difference between those two terms. I assume your accusation is regarding an editor. As you already know Wikipedia has lots of editors. Their beliefs, experience and knowledge varies relative to the fields they mostly contribute. Due to this nature most editors hold consensus before making a significant change to an article.--Chamith (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello.... Erm welcome? I guess to clarify, yes they are two very different things that are often paired with one another for obvious reasons. But if you see the wrong term being used, feel free to go ahead and fix it! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, you can always discuss the matter on article/user talk page before posting it here. On Teahouse, editors will only answer questions/issues regarding editing Wikipedia.--Chamith (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What I am meaning is the Wikipedia:FREE page, as well as Wikipedia:Child protection.a link to Wikipedia's "Child protection policy" has a description of this link that makes that faulty assumption. The page on the child protection policy definitely confuses the words "pedophiles" and "child molesters". Frogger48 (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop your tendentious and disruptive editing right now, Frogger48. This is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference problem (different to before)

On this page Drunk driving law by country I created reference 16 meaning reference 1 through a grammatical error but I now cannot get rid of it.Rubbish computer (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Rubbish computer: You left out one of the 'i's in 'limits' in "apps.who.int Legal BAC limits by country" two places. I believe it is now fixed. —teb728 t c 04:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. I made a bigger change, however: with such a long name ("apps.who.int Legal BAC limits by country") it's easy to make mistakes. With the new name ("BAC") that's less likely to happen. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help.Rubbish computer (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Fre speech on Wikipedia

What are the limits to freedom of speech in Wikipedia? Wondering.Frogger48 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, and welcome to the teahouse. The complete detailed answer to your question can be found here at WP:FREE SPEECH. Basically while Wikipedia strives to be open and free, they can and will moderate things written here. Remember writing on Wikipedia is not a right, but a privilege. More importantly hate speech or libelous writings will result in a permanent block. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project to build a free encyclopedia, as you well know, Frogger48. It is not a social network, a blog, a computer bulletin board, a place for advocacy or a soap box to stand on. More narrowly, the Teahouse is a place for asking questions and giving answers about the procedures for editing Wikipedia. It is not a place for random free speech musings. There are thousands of other places on the internet and on street corners for you to exercise your free speech rights. But not here. This is a place to build an encyclopedia, and nothing more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I apoligize for these things.