Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Thank you

Received a very helpful answer from NtheP but don't know how to respond with a thank you other than by posting this as a question. As you can tell I'm completely new to this, but thanks very much anyway...CbertCbert (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Cbert, and thank you for thinking about thanking other users (tongue-twister!). After someone answers a question, I usually add this: Thank you. All you have to do is indent your reply with ::, add {{thank you}}, and add any additional questions and/or comments.

Also, if you really appreciated the reply, you might even want to give the user some wikilove (barnstars, food, and even kittens).

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask them here or on my talk page.

Hope this helps,

Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

http://reftag.appspot.com Works well after figuring out what needs to be there includg page no.

Just a note to thank Matthew for this pointer .... it captures all the stats if any , time saver....Research and clean up continues, more hopeful with this piece than ever ... thanksCHHistory (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, it's a widget which automatically turns GoogleBooks URLs into Wikipedia-ready footnotes. It's not perfect (yo have to manually enter the page numbers if using Snippet view), but it's pretty solid. Not an official Wiki project, but speaking personally I find it helpful. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

unwanted text above infobox

I've placed a photo in an infobox on a Wikipedia page and this text appears above the photo [[File: |frameless|alt=]] I can't get rid of it. Thanks in advance Cbert (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cbert, welcome to the Teahouse. Was it the result of this edit you're referring to? If so it can be cured by re-adding the image but omit the [[File: ]] and just put the filename CAS B&W Headshot sans nom.jpg in against the |image= parameter and add the line |imagesize=200px into the infobox to keep the image to a reasonable size. NtheP (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK article's homepage crashed

Hi everyone. This morning, Ars Nova was featured on the main page as a DYK article. Subsequently, Ars Nova's homepage has crashed, and I'm wondering if there's a way to see if the crash was a result of increased traffic from Wikipedia. I've tried to log into the administrator account for the theater's site, and that's not working, either, so I can't check page statistics from there. IIRC, page views here are updated 24 hours behind--is there a way to check the amount of traffic to the Wikipedia article and/or clicks from the article to the homepage this morning? Thanks. RunnerOnIce (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the site's no longer crashed...would still like this info for future reference, though, if at all possible. :-) RunnerOnIce (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello RunnerOnIce! Not an official Wiki site, but http://stats.grok.se keeps track of wiki stats and may be worth a check. I'm not sure how many days behind they run. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MatthewVanitas. :-) The site seems to rely on the same info as the main site, unfortunately. :-( Ah well. RunnerOnIce (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Does no answer mean no can do?

Hi there. I thought I'd pop by and ask for a little bit of advice. I asked a question at the UK article [1] about a possible edit. As you can see I had a little laugh about it when I got no reply but got to thinking. Does no reply mean disagreement on Wikipedia or not? Thanks. Jonty Monty (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, welcome to the Teahouse. As a rule, no reply means - no reply; either no-one has read your message, no-one cares enough to argue or no-one has felt they had a suitable reply to offer yet. I'd recommend that you act boldly and make the proposed change yourself; you'll quickly find out if anyone disagrees if/when they revert you, and then you can have a discussion on the talk page about it. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Yunshuil. Jonty Monty (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem with references

Hi, I seem to be making a habit of coming here with questions, so sorry to bother you again! In my sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sagaciousphil/sandbox#Setter) I've been trying to sort out some bits & pieces to include. I don't know how to sort out the error I'm receiving. I think it may be to do with not having named refs properly as I've tried to take a shortcut and copied the references used in the List of Crufts Best in show winners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Best_in_Show_winners_of_Crufts) for the relevant bits? Sagaciousphil (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phil. Simple answer: you can't user the <ref name=> tag to specify page numbers. What the tag does is tell the software to look for instances of the listed name elsewhere in the ref tags, and then link to the citation in those tags; since you don't have a reference called (for example) "dogdigital80", the software can't find the citation to use. Three solutions are available: the easy way is to reformat the references (so that "dogdigital" cites pages 80-89 of the source, like this: <ref name="dogdigital">[[#dogdigital|''Dogworld: Digital Crufts Edition'' (2010)]]: p. 80-89</ref>). This means that the citations will all refer to multiple pages within the source. The second solution is to reference the article separately three times, once for page 80, once for page 84, and once for page 89 - laborious, but my personal preference. Finally, you could reformat all your references as shortened footnotes, allowing you to cite multiple pages within works listed in a bibliography (not recommended for your first outing!). I hope that helps explain things; feel free to ask for more clarification here or at my talkpage. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll give it a try! Sagaciousphil (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What some folks do is use "refname" for all cites from the same book, but after the "/ref" tag they apply {{rp|35}} (if the cite is for page 35 for example), which appears like this: . Just one more way to approach it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help, it's very much appreciated - I think I've got it sorted now and have updated the Setter article. :-) Sagaciousphil (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you cite something like this?

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5

under the above search, pages came out with the subject mentioned. This is a history collection of Guangdong Province with many volumes.

粤军史实纪要 - Page 205 books.google.com/books?id=RARyAAAAIAAJ

广东省政协. 文史资料硏究委员会 - 1990 - Snippet view - More editions 又着原驻淡水之熊略军、陈修爵师、练演雄师、罗献祥旅及翁辉腾所部作好应战准备, - Volume 54 - Page 107

books.google.com/books?id=KFRKAQAAIAAJ

孙道昌, 中央档案馆, 广东省档案馆 - Snippet view - More editions 何彤与罗献祥(一区清则司令)半年来到处奔波督 ...

文史資料選輯 - Issues 53-56 - Page 211 etc. Please advice. Thankx CHHistory (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi CHHistory, thanks for coming to The Teahouse. There's a great template for books that you can use under the "cite" tab in the editing window. Under the "Templates" menu, you can select "cite book" to get an interface to put all the information in. As for your citations, here they are:

<ref>{{cite book|title=粤军史实纪要|year=1990|publisher=广东人民出版社|isbn=9787218003245|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=RARyAAAAIAAJ&q=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&dq=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&source=bl&ots=xnxG8QWB0L&sig=c-7VgVYBbOJ5BNsSy5VMx8mGc70&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YexxUPLtOoryyAH02YHoBw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA|editor=广东省政协. 文史资料硏究委员会|accessdate=7 October 2012|page=205}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite book|title=广东革命历史文件彙集|publisher=中央党案馆|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KFRKAQAAIAAJ&q=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&dq=%E7%BE%85%E7%8D%BB%E7%A5%A5&source=bl&ots=55V2qHM05-&sig=U9k0jcC7UyprkEfkl2Dugc8i2oE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YexxUPLtOoryyAH02YHoBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ|author=孙道昌|coauthors=中央档案馆, 广东省档案馆|page=211}}</ref>

So, just put the above citations where they are appropriate. What article are you planning on using them in? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro: Thanks for the example. Will insert and see what happens. I am working on WWII Chinese Generals, the article hopefully is first of a series.

Where do you find the ISBN no? When no isbn or author is found, do I just delete the extra brackets? Having the publisher is good enough for book citations? Thanks.CHHistory (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! As for your second question, it is mildly troublesome for an ISBN and author to be unavailable, but if you can point to a URL, that is usually sufficient. And yes, you can just delete those parameters (author= and isbn=) from the above syntax. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

For the ISBN and author, usually (at least in the English GoogleBooks) once you click on a book to see its Full/Preview/Snippet, on Full and Preview there's a hyperlink in the left margin (may need to scroll to see) saying "About book", and that will have all the statistics. If you're on "Snippet View", that info will be at the bottom of the page below the Snippet in question. Does that help find it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew: Yes, more info at the bottom of the page. isbn not on all though. 98.109.196.230 (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Jethro, your suggeston works with book citations. Thanks. Will look for the stats next ...Thank You all, CHHistory (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summary

How much detail is required in an edit summary? FOX 52 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, FOX 52. That is actually a really great question. In a practical sense, it depends on the nature of the edit. If you are doing a small change that will not be controversial, a simple, but informative, edit summary will suffice. For example, if you are changing one word to another word you think fits better in the context (but does not change the meaning), you may just want to have the edit summary "Changed X to Y". But in more complicated edits, especially edits that you think may be controversial, it will reduce a lot of the tension if you provided an edit summary that explained your reasoning behind the change and ended with something like "see source" (because any controversial change should be backed up by a source that you have added as part of the edit). Ideally, controversial edits would have been discussed on the article's talk page beforehand, and your edit summary could then say "See consensus on talk page" (which is a really common edit summary).

There are special cases where edit summaries do not need to be detailed at all. If you are undoing an edit by another user that you have determined to be vandalism, your edit summary can read "rv vandalism" ("rv" is a common abbreviation of "revert"; "rm" is a common abbreviation of "remove"). If you look through an article's history, you will see many examples of good and bad (and non-existent) edit summaries. But I think you will be able to tell which is which if you ask yourself, "Do I know what's going on here and why?" If you are looking for further information, you can check out Help:Edit summary or ask additional questions by replying to this thread. hajatvrc @ 04:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I will read the Help:Edit summary section, thank you very much for your help FOX 52 (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Trouting

Can someone explain to me what a "Trout" is? Thanks. SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure SchizophrenicDingo, it's a tongue-in-cheek method of reminding experienced people on Wikipedia that they're being stupid. See WP:TROUT. It's a big fish that you slap someone upside the head with to "wake them up" and make them realize they are being stupid. It is only given in good humor, never in anger, and only given to very experienced Wikipedians who should "know better" about something. Does that make sense? --Jayron32 03:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. Awesome username, BTW.

Yes,I think I get it now. It's just a cute reminder to keep people on their toes, is that what you're saying? P.S. Thanks for the compliment. :) SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically. It's just a friendly way of saying "You shoulda known that already, silly!" It's also not to be thrown in anger, or given to noobs who a) won't get the humor and b) shouldn't have known Wikipedia rules already. --Jayron32 04:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

what is meant by cryptic e-mail notices

I get e-mail notices about my Wikipedia editing which I can not understand in any way as they do not list exactly what they refer to only that I may have done something that is not approved. Then another cryptic note that I should refer to the guidlines for content. I have started a page on John J. Ensminger, LLM who is considered one of the leading experts on the law regarding Police dogs, Military dogs and service dogs in the nation only to find that someone has some kind of issue with his notability. It is a lot of work to track down all these references which are mostly buried in journals but I have posted enough so far that I would like someone to tell me exactly what they want. Is such a request out of line? Or impossible to discuss? Can I talk to this person? how do I do that?50.46.242.166 (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello IP! Messages sent to your personal email address, or posted on your Talk page? Can you quote these cryptic notices for us so we can figure out what kind of messages you're getting?

Also, is this King.parker3, originator of John J. Ensminger? If so, it'd be great if you could log-in to your Wikipedia account so it's easier to get ahold of you to reply to your messages. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Heart Tab.

Can someone tell me how I can get the heart tab to appear at the top of my talk page? Krueg (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure that there is a way to have it appear on your own talk page, at least not one that I've found. the heart button is for what is known as WikiLove, which includes food, drinks, and barnstars. These are made to give to other editors who you feel really deserve it. If you want some WikiLove for yourself, try going and giving some to other editors that really deserve it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! gwickwire | Leave a message 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding a photo that's not my own

Hi there, I work with the Baumann Foundation, and I'm trying to add a small photo to the article about Peter Baumann that Baumann himself has provided (it's a small image, 188x234 pixels; he uses it for PR purposes). I'm really new at Wikipedia editing, and I understand that I need to prove the photo has been licensed for free use, but I'm not sure what the most straightforward way to do that would be. Meeralee (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind—I think I've figured out how to answer my own question. Thanks! Meeralee (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meeralee! Welcome, even if you answered your own question! I do want to provide one tip. To make sure that permission really is granted (while I believe you work for Baumann, others might not - and anyone can say anything on the internet :)) to use that photograph under the Creative Commons Share Alike license, we need a letter saying so. So, if you can email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org this template (just fill in the appropriate information). Then, click edit on the photograph's Wikipedia page and paste this: {{subst:OP}}. That will let Wikipedians who monitor for illegal uploads know that your email is waiting review. Feel free to state her when you send that email in - also make sure you send it from your work email - and then we'll get it approved. Thank you!! SarahStierch (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, thanks! The foundation (or one of its initiatives, anyway) has an official Flickr stream. Would it be equally effective to have the image uploaded to that stream and licensed with a Creative Commons Share Alike license? That's what I thought would be the simplest solution. Meeralee (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

tag

How do you remove the Help improve this page tag at the bottom of an article? (Libby995 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Libby, welcome back. There are several possibilities but probably it's some template suggesting that the article needs improving. Can you supply a link to an article where you are seeing this that we could look at. NtheP (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is Catherine of Aragon, it has been improved over the weeks and I thought the template should be removed if it can. thanks (Libby995 (talk))

That is not a template. It is Article Feedback tool. It is being gradually implemented on all Wikipedia pages. On the top of the talk page, you can see a link "View Reader Feedback". That will display the comments given by readers of the article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Libby, if you don't want to see this message any more on any page then you can switch off the article feedback tool by going to the Appearance tab of My preferences and ticking the bottom box Don't show the Article feedback widget on pages. NtheP (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reliable References

Hey! Im planning on revising the page "Education in Haiti" and I've been working on collecting references/sources. I'm having trouble finding substantial articles in scholarly journals. So now I've just been doing a google search and I've been finding a lot of info. My question is how can I be sure that the articles that I am finding are reliable?

Kdumelle13 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

V byenvini, Kdumelle13! That's always a great question, and on controversial subjects folks can spend a lot of time debating which references take precedence over others. Generally speaking, the issue of "peer review" and accountability come into play: if the New York Times publishes inaccurate info on Haiti, their reputation takes a hit and they loose money, so that adds to their Reliability. "Caribbean Quarterly" or whatever academic journal has the articles reviewed by other PhDs, so we'd tend to trust those since they've been approved by the larger body of academics. If a book is published on Haiti, we want it to be from a) someone who's cited by others who write about Haiti b) a book carried by a publisher with a good reputation for being choosy about their books. That's the short-sweet of it; have you read WP:Reliable sources yet?

If you haven't already, also try searching just on GoogleBooks, which is often a great way to find Reliable material. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

how to add an image to an existing page?

honest, i have looked hard through a lot of the Help pages but can't find how to get started ... thought i would add some photos to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parc_Ph%C5%93nix&action=history if possible. thanks, Bill (tennisjazz) 96.54.179.62 (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bill, you must be a registered user to upload images. I take it you have photos that you personally took of the park? In that case, permissions are very easy. I'd suggest logging-in to Wikimedia Commons (since you can upload your pics for Public Domain everywhere), and just follow the instructions there, which are pretty straightforward for photos to which you own the rights. The main issue is just that you have to log-in first. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of my first article

How long does it generally take before articles gets reviewed? I've submitted my first article and it has been declined several times in the summer. Now I've made a bigger effort though, so I am excited to see if it goes through! Tine Reingaard (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

_{Tine's article is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Søren Solkær Starbird}

Hej Tine, I took a quick glance, and though I think it looks good I'm not spun up on photography issues, and can't read Danish. I suggest you also post this same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Denmark, and ask them to come here to the Teahouse to help advise us here on the Danish sourcing. Just make sure you use a clear title on that page so they know what you're asking (generic titles easily get passed over). MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MatthewVanitas, I'll try and get some danish eyes on it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tine Reingaard (talk • contribs) 07:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of new article for NPOV

Could someone please review my company's article for Neutral Point of View so the Conflict of Interest tag can be eventually removed please? I would appreciate it. The article is PARISOMA Msingularian (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done as requested. Thanks for coming to The Teahouse, Msingularian. I think you've done an excellent job writing a neutral and well-sourced article about your company. This is a very unusual experience on Wikipedia in regards to people making articles about their own companies. I've made a few small changes to the article, but I am very impressed with your work. I hope you will continue contributing. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Cut and paste question

Is it permitted to cut and paste (and then correct the language) when we see this instruction "this article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia." ? - Yorkshiresoul (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yorkshiresoul, welcome to the Teahouse. Short answer: if they're under the same copyright licence as en-wiki (and to my knowledge, they all are) then yes, it is. However, you should fill out the {{Interwiki copy}} template and add it to the article's talkpage, to maintain attribution for the content. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Also credit the source with a link in the edit summary for the edit which adds the content. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Clickable button

How did the Teahouse make their clickable buttons clickable anywhere on the button? The {{Template:Clickable button}} template is only clickable on the link. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole button is inside the link. It uses code in Wikipedia:Teahouse/Question-form2 and MediaWiki:Gadget-teahouse.css. Below is a simplified version not needing the gadget css to avoid the external link icon. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

<span style="cursor:pointer;" class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions|action=edit&section=new}} {{Clickable button|Ask a question}}]</span>

Ask a question

Thank you as always, PrimeHunter! –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you happen to know what that button style is, or is a part of, and if it's something that should be used? That set is probably the most aesthetically pleasing I have seen on the project, but the only places I've really seen it used are here (well, the template, rather) and special:newpagesfeed. -— Isarra ༆ 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The button is a template called Template:Clickable button, and it's very easy to use. Since it's a template and it's used here, I'm pretty sure it's fine to use. The thing I was asking about, however, was how to make the button link by clickable in the entire button, because the default template does not allow that. If you have any more questions about the button, please feel free to ask here. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually created the clickable button template based on what was started here. I used to use it on my user talk page to link to a random page in the category of unsourced BLP's. PrimeHunter, would it be possible to use a named parameter of sorts to make the entire button clickable? I'd think it would be some combination of the if function and a named parameter to the page you want it to link to. Ryan Vesey 22:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I modified the code for the clickable button, but it broke the Teahouse links. The sandbox version at User:Ryan Vesey/Template sandbox works fine. Does anyone know what's wrong? Ryan Vesey 22:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to test the sandbox version, you need to provide two parameters. full=yes and link=(page) I thought that modifying the template wouldn't affect anything else because I created it to only change if full=anything was provided. Ryan Vesey 22:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... please keep us posted on any further news about the button, Ryan Vesey. I might be able to help/test if needed. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't examined your code but it's certainly possible if the template doesn't get a piped link as one parameter. I posted to Template talk:Clickable button earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The template appears to be using javascript to actually become a button (and thus apply the styles) - any idea how that works or why it would also be ignoring red, orange, green and blue button styles? And is this completely the wrong place to be asking that? This is, isn't it? -— Isarra ༆ 17:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

New Article - Chip Chick

Hi there, I'm struggling a bit with this one - would you be able to give me some advice and guidance on how best to improve this entry so it is strong enough to consider for publication? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2003/Chip_Chick G2003 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there. As far as your article goes, I think it's a bit short right now. If you could get more information on it for the article, it would probably help. Thanks for asking! Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I agree with Discuss-Dubious! It is rather short, but, that doesn't mean it can't be in Wikipedia! A few tips:

• I'd advise against citing the actual Chip Chick website, like you do in the first paragraph. I think it's okay, as long as there are reliable sources, to mention the founders, and if anyone notable (who, for example, has their own Wikipedia article) writes for it. But, it's not really encyclopedic information, in my opinion. I'd just remove anything that can't be cited using reliable sources. (Or someone else might do it!)
• Please make the two bottom external links into citations, like you did the other two listed in the reference section.
• Any claims stating that the blog is one of the first needs to be backed up with a reliable source, a few, if possible. Uncited claims will be removed.
• I'd also italicize Chip Chick, throughout the article, since it the title of a blog. You can do that by highlighting the name and clicking the I button.
• Remember, the more reliable sources (media, news, not blogs unless it's the New York Times or something) you have the less problems you will have :)

Great start, and thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! I hope you'll continue to contribute! SarahStierch (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice All - really helpful. I'll keep working on it!G2003 (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Start new Sandbox

How do I start another saandbox so I can start fresh. I am lost in my efforts and feel I am best to just start again. Want to get rid of all the errors on current Sandbox and start fresh. It keeps going back to the old sandbox Sandrasmission (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Sandrasmission! To start a new sandbox, I recommend you create another page titled /sandbox1 (or any number). Also, if you need help clearing your current sandbox, please let us know. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

different people get different results from the same URL?

some very simple url's such as www.animallaw.com which I have attached to an article return a different website or no website or an error message depending on which of my friends tries it on their computer. What should I do?King.parker3 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, King.parker3! What web browsers are running on those computers? Is the website you are linking to working if you type it in directly to your web browser? I have looked at your links and they do not appear to be incorrectly formed.

You might also want to get help at the Computer Reference Desk.

–– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Creating an article with few formal references

I was thinking of creating an article on a quite prolific author and editor of children's books who does not, yet, have a page at Wikipedia. I am married to her daughter so have direct access to lots of information on her life, career and an almost complete collection of her books. However I have very few, if any, formal references to work from. As far as I know there is very little biographical information on her other than that included on the dust jackets of her books, certainly no actual biography. So any information I include will simply be what I am told by members of her family.

Would such an article be OK on Wikipedia? What is the correct way to "reference" such a page if the sources are purely interviews with people who knew her? Thanks for any help.MJLemin (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi MJLemin, Welcome to Wikipedia. It is highly recommended not to create such an article. As per the policy Wikipedia:No original research, you should not write an article by conducting interviews yourself. All information in wikipedia articles should be referenced from reliable published sources. Further, there is also a guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, that discourages family members or friends to write an article about a person. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi MJLemin, and welcome to the Teahouse. The short answer to your question is that no, unfortunately such an article would not be permitted here. The slightly longer answer is that Wikipedia articles must concern subjects who meet the notablility criteria, which are quite specific. To be included in the encyclopedia, a subject must have been discussed in independent, reliable sources, that is to say, newspapers, magazines, books (but not her own books), web articles, TV programmes and so forth. Personal recollections, unless published in such a source, are not sufficient.

In addition, even if sufficient reliable sources exist to establish notability, Wikipedia's content must be verifiable. That means that readers must be able to confirm the information by checking with the source, which is not the case for things told to you by the subject's friends and family. Biographical details can be drawn from published sources (and, assuming notability is met, to a limited extent from sources published by the subject), but not from unpublished interviews.

I'm sorry if this reply appears harsh, but I'd hate to see you waste your time painstakingly building an article only to have it deleted within minutes of it going up. If you have a few references that you think would meet the guidelines laid out for reliable sourcing I'd be happy to look them over for you and give you a more detailed analysis; feel free to contact me on my talkpage if this would be useful. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. This is a great idea and would be a valid addition if the author satisfies the notability requirements (e.g. WP:AUTHOR). But without at least some published references in reliable sources, readers will have no assurance of the article's accuracy. I sometimes wonder, for example, about whether anything was published about Jayne Fisher, but who knows.

Anyway, in this specific case you could perhaps consider any article entries on her books as a starting point. Publishing information on Wikipedia (e.g. as a result of speaking with family members) would be classified as original research and would be questioned by other editors. However, if such interviews were to be published in multiple independent sources, then that may be a starting point. Are any of her works still being printed? If so, then you may be able to garner some media interest, depending on just how notable such media consider her to be.

Sorry to disappoint and I'd encourage you to consider things further before pursuing the creation of the article you propose. -- Trevj (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup template

Hi, a few days agao I started having problems with the cleanup-linkrot template. When I use it, the system says:

Please sign in (top right) and click "Save page" below when done.
If you get a blank screen or an edit box you did something wrong.
Vote for Bug 32013 so Wikimedia fixes this.

If you take a look at the this edit y'll see what happens now. Anyone who has an idea on what to do? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

moved this heather walls (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Is Bug 32013 (to which no comments have been made since Apr 2012) directly related? For signing in and usingToolserver's Reflinks (as advised at {{Cleanup-link rot}}), does the "Get my credentials" bit work? -- Trevj (talk) 10:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Trevj, I used the "Get my credentials" and now it works perfect, as you see from my last edit. Thanks a lot. Lotje (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Starting a Project

I had a Wikipedia deleted and need to start it over I would like to start with a name and add from there.

Also I still have the old one if one would like to proof it and help me improve it Thanks in Advance.

Drofmicrocaps (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like your last article was deleted because it another user judged it to be an attack page on a living person. It also like you want to rewrite the article in a more neutral tone, which is definitely the right way to be going. It's fine to have opinions about the content in which you are writing, but your opinions must not come out in how you write about the topics in the article, and particularly not about the living person. You might want to start by submitting your article to the New article wizard to get it reviewed. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Renaming an article / deleting page

I have accidently published a page which is not finished in any shape or form - I do not want them to appear in that format .. help. Francesca JFERG0001 (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, JFERG000! The article on which you are working is currently in your own userspace, meaning it's page name has the User: prefix. This means that it is not considered part of the encyclopedia a this time, and no one will find it unless they are looking at your userspage. I would advise moving your work-in-progress to your sandbox, which is located at User:JFERG0001/sandbox. If you move it there, it will not be easily visible to anyone unless you give them the link. You main userpage, which is where your article is right now, can be used to tell other editors something about yourself, such as in what academic areas you are interested or what your education has been. You can see my userpage at User:Hajatvrc for some ideas. If you have further questions, please reply to this thread. hajatvrc @ 15:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will look at this tomorrow but note that a google search of Andrew Thompson Ferguson shows the page eeeeekkkk... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JFERG0001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFERG0001 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You are concerned about the Google indexing so I have moved User:JFERG0001 to User:JFERG0001/sandbox and added {{User sandbox}} which prevents search indexing by Google and others respecting noindex. A page move leaves a redirect behind but I have removed the redirect from User:JFERG0001 so people coming in from a Google search will see a blank page and not be redirected to the sandbox. We don't control Google directly but they should remove your user page from searches on Andrew Thompson Ferguson when they visit the page next time and don't find the text there. If you don't want the page to be indexed by Google at all then you can add {{NOINDEX}} to it. All saved pages can be seen by everybody but few people should now notice the existance of the sandbox. If you don't want something to be visible at all then you have to work on it off line. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Encouraging academic editing

Hello again and thank you to everyone who has been encouraging my efforts to help bring about large-scale increases in the number of academic wikipedia editors. I have one more question:

1. Is it OK to create a factual page about a current academic (incl area of research and most notable publications?) [not about myself though].

Best wishes to all and many thanks Open Research (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• So long as the article is referenced to reliable third party sources, is written neutrally, and the person passes this guideline. I've written several myself, including Mely G. Tan and Leo Suryadinata. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh *Wow!* I didn't know there were guidelines for this - the link you gave me solves the puzzle completely. Thanks very much Crisco. Open Research (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Open Research , not in general medicine articles most likely. All sources would need to be considered reliable and articles would need to pass notability. If an academic is notable per guidelines, that might go on their individual pages. I can't speak for others but I'd need a clear example of what you're proposing to tell you exactly. An article like Research in sports and social media would probably be viewed as unencyclopediac. Long story short: I'm confused by the question. :( --LauraHale (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Laura. My question is about whether it is OK to create pages like this one. Specific, not general. The link that Crisco posted gives the criteria I was looking for :) Thanks both. I'll avoid general medicine Open Research (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Glad you found it useful, Open Research. To clarify Laura's note, medical specialists (i.e. biographies) are fine and don't fall under the guideline Laura was referring to. Some medical articles which are not biographies also don't need to worry about it, but those are generally only tangentially related to medicine. The example I'm thinking of, NSFW of course, is a series of photographs of an intersex person dating from the 1800s. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I was thinking more of an article titled Research in cerebral palsy or Research in vaccinations. These sort of articles would run afoul of of WP:MEDRS in some cases depending on how they are formatted. Articles about academics need to pass WP:SCHOLAR, and then comply with neutral point of view and living person guidelines. --LauraHale (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

where did my answer go

I got a message that my question was answer but i cant find it, can you help me? Zeroro (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I would think you need to post pictures. Does this happen to be the right one? Rcsprinter (rap) @

Hi Zeroro, it was archived a while ago, you can find it here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 46#how to post pictures. In the future you can see the archives (click where it says Previous questions) to the right of the questions above the list of current questions (which we call the table of contents). Hope this helps! heather walls (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I found incorrect information in an article.

In the article on "Custos Brevium" a person is listed as serving in that position, but there is evidence he never served. How do I contact the editor of that item to give the correct information? 131.191.20.199 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 131.191.20.199! Nobody owns any article on Wikipedia and anyone can edit (almost – not if it's protected) any article. Because of this, you can make the changes yourself. However, do keep in mind that content must be verifiable – confirmed by reliable sources. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them here or at my talk page. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a really helpful video as an introduction too. Open Research (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Continued assistance readying "Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant"

Good afternoon, Teahouse,

I wanted to see if any experienced editors might be available to help finalize the page referenced here - Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_40#Assistance with finalizing page for Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant

I've made several additions and changes as suggested by DocTree, but hoping there's someone with more experience editing for Wikipedia who might be able to check for anything else I missed and help it be submitted and approved for inclusion.

Thanks again to the community for all of the help to this point.

J brown99 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, J brown99, and welcome back.

• I made a couple of minor punctuation/ref correction in the article that you should check out.

• At the moment, you have the following sentence in your draft:

There are numerous species of both [http://www.iisgcp.org/catalog/downlds_09/iap.pdf plants] and animals that can be considered invasive, but special attention has been paid in recent years to Asian carp, Eurasian watermilfoil, round goby, zebra mussels, and other [http://ri.ijc.org/node/2714 plants] and animals that can have a negative impact on ecology, industry, and public health in and around Lake Michigan.

This renders as follows

There are numerous species of both plants and animals that can be considered invasive, but special attention has been paid in recent years to Asian carp, Eurasian watermilfoil, round goby, zebra mussels, and other plants and animals that can have a negative impact on ecology, industry, and public health in and around Lake Michigan.

As a reader, it's not clear why you're pointing me to a pdf on plants and to a different "plant" link later in the sentence. Both of these appear to be reliable sources, so I think you would make the draft significantly stronger if you treated them as references instead of links.

• Next, the external link section could stand a bit of explanatory text for each link instead of the bare url.

• Perhaps a "selected publications" section, although you'll want to take care and list their more important works rather than a random sampling of the search results. (Let me know if you need a hand doing this.)

• It looks like you've gone to the other extreme in not having any links at all to other wikipedia articles. You might want to make a pass and wikifiy terms like watershed, Sea Grant (but look at the source of how I wrote that link, it should point to "National Sea College Program" not "Sea Grant"), water use planning (but verify that to make sure it makes sense), etc. (Definitely invasive species, watermilfoil, Round goby, Zebra mussel.)

• The "healthy lawn and landscape practices" needs a citation. Yes, I know you intended the link earlier in the sentence to be the cite. I've had my knuckes rapped for the same problem.

• You have two cites for "invasive species research and prevention" as examples of that work rather that stating that the work is done. It's a small point, but that might be a little more clear if you had "invasive species research (e.g., zebra mussels<ref>)...."

• More nit-picking.... cite for the 30th aniversary?

I'm happy to take a look at your next draft. I don't stop the teahouse as often as I used to, so don't be shy about pinging my talk page.

Best,

GaramondLethe 06:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you much - I have made nearly all of your suggested edits and sent a message to you as well. I have submitted the page for review and am hoping for better success this time around. Thanks to everyone who has helped with editing and advice.

J brown99 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

topics covered not so well, or not much?

Hi. I want to encourage local academic research professors to contribute to Wikipedia, and I would like to focus on subject areas that are not covered well (or much) currently. How do I find data on the topics that are covered well, and not so well? best wishes, Open Research (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Open Research. Welcome to the Teahouse (and it's an especially warm welcome, because what you're proposing sounds like a really good way of improving the encyclopedia). I would suggest you begin by taking a look at Requested articles; it's organised by topic so should make it easy to find subject areas that are of interest to individual researchers. There are also numerous subject-specific projects which list articles in their topic areas that are in need of improvement.

You may also find it useful to have your charges read Wikipedia editing for research scientists, which will give them a sound introduction to the basics of Wikipedia editing in their professional capacity. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If I can add to that, Wikipedia's list of vital articles shows areas where we haven't been able to fully develop core concepts - there are a lot of gaps there. I find academics can often bring both knowledge of specific areas and an understanding of how to build up the more general topics.

Keep in mind that they don't have to edit in their core areas of interest, although many do. An academic is also, by definition, a person who is good at research, so they can help in areas outside of their strict academic interests. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Yunshui and Bilby! This is really useful information. Exactly what I was looking for. It looks like that if I focus on areas that have lots of C class articles and stubs on vital articles I would make a bigger difference, yes? And that Wikipedia editing for research scientists will be a great help reference to develop further. Many thanks. Open Research (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Are there any quality data for subject categories? A recent survey done? Data mashups? Open Research (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any hard-core statistical analyses done, but I can tell you that, having worked here for a long time, subjects where the coverage at Wikipedia is relatively complete and universally of a high quality across the whole subject is actually the exception, and not the norm. Some subjects have the (rather arbitrary) benefit of having people around here who have been active for years on Wikipedia and have a passion and/or expertise in the subject. I can think of a few subject areas, some rather broad, and others narrow, where we have consistently great articles like Tropical Storms or Military History or Anglo-Saxon Kings of England. This is largely because a small group of dedicated editors maintains those projects (sometimes as few as one, but never more than a half dozen or so, from my observation). The Tropical Storm project is particularly well known, if for no other reason than such a large fraction of our featured articles are about tropical storms that a disproportionate number of them appear on the main page as the "Today's Featured Article" entry. They're great articles and deserve to be recognized, but we always get a complaint or two of "Not another Hurricane article!!!". Our response is usually "Well then, you find another field to improve a bunch of articles in. The Hurricane articles are usually great!" Which they are. Sorry for the long, rambling explanation here, but just trying to give you some insight into how Wikipedia works. Keeping an entire subjects worth of Wikipedia articles up to the highest quality requires a certain level of dedication and passion. We would absolutely welcome such dedication from anyone who is willing to give it. One area I can think of, off hand, that really needs help is articles in the technical or scientific fields. Physics (especially higher order physics like quantum theory, particle physics, astrophysics, etc.) and Chemistry articles are especially esoteric in their presentation, and mostly are impenetrable to anyone who isn't an expert in the specific field of the article. If I can think of an area that needs the most help, it is in adding to or rewriting parts of scientific and technical articles to make them accessible to the lay person or non-expert. --Jayron32 13:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Open Research, I'd just babble that the importance of academic articles working on vital articles or higher level topic articles is great. Most people may have familiarity with a topic, but not enough with the complete body of research to write about it well. Picture trying to write about Cancer. What does the literature say? How do you avoid undue weight on a topic? I'm in the process of completing a PhD on sport in Australia and so I occasionally on that article. I've got probably 200 books that connect to the topic. I talk to other specialist. I can tell you that the organisation for that article like the one used in this article isn't actually supported by the research and literature, which uses completely different breaks and doesn't have Kickball, but would integrate that into the narrative differently. As for mashups being done, not sure? I'm doing a postdoc on women's sport in Australia and Wikipedia. I've made some blog posts about parts that will appear in my final research on things like websites used as sources and types of sources, languages translated, Olympic effects, editing nodes and category nodes, and mentions on Twitter. I also wrote a summary of relevant data for the London 2012 Paralympics related to this content for the HOPAU projects, where amongst other things, I went to London with another Wikinewie and assisted in publishing 70 news articles that fed to Google News. Understanding what is happening often requires multiple data types. --LauraHale (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both very much, this is great - good to get a wider view of article quality, as you say, and the need to use multiple data types is also very helpful. I am going to ask two more questions further up, then I will stop pestering you guys for a while and I will... be bold! :) Open Research (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I split an article?

How do I split an article? There is an article on it: wikipedia:splitting, but it does not actually give a step-by-step guide to doing it. It tells when and when not to split, and not to just cut and paste.

So, if we're not supposed to cut and paste, how do you split an article?

I posed this question on the talk page a few days ago, underneath almost exactly the same question from another editor, who asked it a year ago, without a response.

Thanks!

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Buzfuz, though your wariness of copy-pasting is well-founded and appreciated, that mostly applies to moving an entire article to a different title, etc. Things like that. In the case of splitting, you do end up copy-pasting old content into a new article, but the main thing you want to do is make it very transparent that you've done so. WP:Splitting shows the templates you apply to both the Talk pages of both articles, and the edit summaries of the changes you make, so it's clear to everyone where the content came from. I realise it's a lot of templates and a little dense, but fundamentally you're using them to say "Hey guys, I'm splitting off part of Smith Dynasty to make a new article King Smith III. Hey readers of King Smith III, bear in mind this article was split off from Smith Dynasty on 13 October 2012. Hey readers of Smith Dynasty, I split off King Smith III from this article on..." etc. You get the basic idea.

I'd say go ahead and make the split, but past the new and old articles here for us to see what you did and make sure it's templated right. As you do it, just do the best you can to make the moves clear in edit summaries and Talk pages, ideally using the templates in "Splitting". But be bold and give it your best shot. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Writing wiki page for a company you work at

Hello,

This is the first wikipedia page I have contributed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maluuba Unfortunately it got flagged for deletion rather quickly. I want to make it an informative article for the company, and I kind of feel like an employee would know more about the company more than any outside source would. Is this type of thing generally frowned upon or is it encouraged? As long as I could stay most neutral and informative on the topic.

I also look at it's current state and I see some editors defending for the page to stay alive as well, but it is still a rather poor article. There are many different citations for it now I could add and make it a higher quality page, I am just curious if it would be worthwhile if it is doomed to be delete anyways.

Pdatnic (talk) 02:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pdatnic, the article you created was flagged for deletion rather quickly as we have a policy on the company's notability. Apparently, the company you wish to describe isn't notable enough, which is why it is flagged for deletion. Cheers! --Hydriz (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! If I can add to the above, the question in regard to notability isn't whether or not the company is important, but whether or not there are independent sources that people on Wikipedia can get access to in order to develop the article. The problem with relying on personal knowledge is that it isn't available for other people to use and check. In many cases, as in yours, that means Wikipedia has to miss out on good articles, but on the other hand it means that if someone invents negative comments about the topic they can't argue that it is personal knowledge and therefore must stay. So to develop the article, you need to dig up coverage of the company in some independent sources (such as newspapers, trade magazines, journals, and the like) that will provide contributors with a solid foundation on which to build. If you have those, then great!

From the above, I'm not sure if you were saying that you were an employee or not, but if so that raise's a bit of a complex issue. If you work there, some people will argue that you aren't truly independent, which tends to raise concerns. So it is generally recommended that people in that situation make suggestions on the article's discussion page rather than making major changes directly. That said, having their involvement is always much appreciated, and I'm not sure if that is the situation in which you find yourself. - Bilby (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Pdatnic, and thanks for dropping by the teahouse. Let me expand a bit on what what Hydriz said. Notability is (roughly) being mentioned in reliable sources of information, broadly construed as sources where people will go out of their way to get their facts straight. Blogs and press releases (generally) don't count. Newspapers and magazines (generally) do. If/when you start getting that kind of coverage then cite those sources and that should take care of the notability issue. For a sense of the details I've elided here, see WP:Notability, WP:CORP and WP:RS.

There will also be an issue about conflict of interest. This is an area I'm much less familiar with, so rather than summarize I'll just point you to WP:COI. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask here. GaramondLethe 05:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please make the changes and get it aprooved

Dear,

Thanks for your assistance. The link is:

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

Althoughm the changes have been done by me. If anyone can help in at least getting this published would be nice. The guitarist, on which this article I'm publishing is one of the prominent one but unfortunately unable to get it published since long time.

Would request an expert to review, edit or remove (if required)to at least get it published first as lately we may plan to add more content of his profile.

RegardsMrnit (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Mrnit, thanks for swinging by the Teahouse. I've done some copyediting of the article to make it more in line with article formatting. What the articles needs right now are independent sources that talk about the subject in-depth. All of the sources right now are primary sources, meaning they were created by the subject. In order to support the nobility of this person, they or their music needs to be discussed in other, reliable sources not created by the subject. I hope this answers your question, and helps you get your article into publication! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: the ZeeNews website crashed my browser with all its pop-ups, unresponsive scripts, etc. so I advice other editors don't click it.

Hello Mrnit, I've done some further formatting, and put a comment at the top of your article with some suggestions. Your current references aren't too strong; the ZeeNews once seems decent, The Hindu is only a passing mention in part of one sentence, the Broadway World ones seem decent, but not sure how serious a publication that is. Can you dig up a few more refs from major news sites?

Also, you need to tweak your citations, because as they're written now it makes it look like they were all written by Kapil, so you need to credit the proper author, and make sure the titles given in the citation are the proper titles of the article, that citations include the proper date of publication, etc. Hope this helps! MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How to retreive the last wikipedian's declined article' suggestion?

Sub: Can you guide on how to retreive the last wikipedian's declined suggestion?

Hello,

I am creating a page of an Indian Guitarist but unable to retrive what was suggested last due to which it has been declined?

I guess it was containing a point wise suggestion of it.

regardsMrnit (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, Mrnit! Since this is the first edit you have made with this account, we cannot see which article you are talking about. If you could link us or otherwise point us in the right direction to the page of which you speak, we could see what the problem is. Usually, when an article is declined the reason for the decline appears in a large box at the top of that page. If you cannot see this, we would need to know which page you are talking about so we can help you out. hajatvrc @ 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)