Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 125

Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom
	<img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_%281952-2022%29.svg/220px-Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_%281952-2022%29.svg.png" decoding="async" width="220" height="213" class="mw-file-element" data-file-width="1550" data-file-height="1500"> The official Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 120

←

→

Searching for Category

I am looking for a Category of Hospitals in Dublin. Anyone knows about one? Miss Bono^[zootalk]^☆ 19:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

How about Category:Hospitals in Dublin (city)? :) By the way, I found that by starting at Category:Hospitals in Ireland, then drilling down through the subcategories until I found the most specific one. Cheers! --LukeSurl^{t c} 19:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, LukeSurl Miss Bono^[zootalk]^☆ 19:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You can find categories by going to the search box at typing "Category:Hospitals" and an auto-complete list will come up. I also use the Wikipedia:HotCat tool. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External link

I included an external link to a secure site in an article I updated (Management of Depression). Wikipedia inserted a "locked" symbol next to the link. Is that automatic, and is it "normal"? Thanks! Wordsmith17 (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

All is good! It's just an automatic little thing to mean that's a link via a "https:" web address. --LukeSurl^{t c} 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help file upload issue

I received this error after uploading an image. To the uploader: "This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each use, as well as the source of the ...." Have no idea what to do next and really dont want it to get deleted. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 16:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

For reference to other Teahousers, the file is File:Joe_"Tiger"_Patrick.jpg --LukeSurl^{t c} 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
There's really very little alternative to deletion when it comes to that image. WP:NFCC is the full policy, but the short version is this: we can only use copyrighted material if it meets a list of ten conditions. One of those ten conditions is that the image cannot possibly be replaced by a free image. In the case of a picture of a living person, it's always possible to replace it with a free image, because someone could walk up to him, take a picture, and release it to us. It may not be easy, it may not be likely, but it will always be possible.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok I get it. ThanksTattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 17:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

OTD

Hi, how long am I supposed to nominate a page for OTD before the date it is supposed to be on the main page? Thanks, ^King Jakob _C2 14:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the criteria, but I think it says where to nominate there as well... Good luck, Mat ty.007 15:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You can work on any day of the year at any time. To do this, edit a page such as Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/September_25. Happy editing! --LukeSurl^{t c} 16:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I have created an article: ArchiFM please verify and suggest necessary changes

The article was 3 times not accepted. I added references, I changed the text more neutral but still not accepted. I can see in the encyclopedia similar articles. No I am without any idea what to do... Ptuczai (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ptuczai. I would suggest finding one or two more reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. Some good places to start would be Google News, Google Books (often reliable), and professional-looking and serious websites (these seem to be fairly common). ^King Jakob _C2 14:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Grettings Ptuczai and welcome to the teahouse. I took a quick look at the article I think you are talking about: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ArchiFM Here is some of my feedback. Note this is based on a very quick look so I may get some things wrong about the article. It seems that all your references right now are internal white papers and reports. Those are OK but not great for notability. One problem is that they are inherently biased, they are a company defining their own product. Better sources would be independent journals, magazines, conference papers, newspaper articles, etc. Another issue is that right now all your references are just raw URLs. So as a user when I look at them I have no idea if they are from some guy working in his mom's basement or some PhD from MIT. Here is a real example of some editing I did to give you a concrete idea. On the article The Lady in the Lake there was a reference to a NY Times review of the movie version of the book. As it was in the article before I editied it, it just looked like this in the references: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C04E3DE123EEE3BBC4C51DFB766838C659EDE I changed the ref to put it into actual Wikipedia markup so that now it looks like this: " "Lady in the Lake". New York Times. January 24, 1947. Retrieved 16 July 2013..." You can still click on the reference to go to the NY Times web site if you want but now you can look at it and get a lot more info than just that its on the NY Times web site.(Actually a better example would have been one where the author of the article was documented but I imagine you get the idea.) So if I were you the first thing I would do is 1) Convert all existing URL refs to the better Wiki style and 2) Find additional references that aren't internal publications and hence more objective. The best way to create good references is to use the Cite tool in the editor. It will pop up a form with various fields (most optional) and then generate the Wiki code for you. Hope that was useful. Mdebellis (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I would like to know if a profile from http://www.forbes.com/ would be considered a reliable source?Docia49 (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It generally would be. There are always exception cases, so it's hard to give a firm answer without knowing exactly what you want to say using exactly what item as a source. WP:RSN is devoted to answering specific questions about sources.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add information about a medical clinic and its founder, who has a profile on Forbes. I would like to cite information from Forbes about when the clinic was started and the medical associations that the founder belongs to. Do you think it would be reliable in this case? Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you include the link? It's hard to give an answer without it. Thanks. EBY (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I was using Forbes to add a source to the lead paragraph of the Burzynski Clinic article where it states that it was founded in 1976 (Forbes says 1977) and I was also trying to add that he is a private practice physician in Houston under the section, 'Stanislaw Burzynski.' Both were removed because of "non reliable source" Here is the link: http://www.forbes.com/profile/stanislaw-burzynski/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docia49 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Burzynski Clinic. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out if the article in question is Burzynski Clinic that its a very controversial topic. Burzynski has alternative treatments for cancer. People tend to feel very strongly about him. Some think he is a dangerous huckster and some that he's a savior persecuted by the AMA and FDA. (I have strong opinions myself but trying to keep them out of what I type here) So, I think the standards for a good source may be a bit more rigorous than on other articles. A Forbes article about a businessman would be almost certainly a good reference. On someone who is making scientific claims there may be more of an issue. You may know this already Docia49 but a good place to look for these kinds of issues is on the talk page of the article, for the Burzynski article the talk page is: Talk:Burzynski_Clinic I looked there and as I suspected there is a lot of discussion. Mdebellis (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And note, we do have specific guidelines for sources for medical and health-related content, WP:MEDRS.--ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As well as for WP:FRINGE and pseudoscience related articles. N^oformation ^Talk 21:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I just used the Forbes article to source the statement,"The Burzynski Clinic is a clinic in Texas, United States founded in 1976" which is already in the article, but unsourced. I changed it to say 1977 because that is when the Burzynski clinic and Forbes state that it was founded. However, I just sourced Forbes for that statement. I also tried to add that Burzynski has a private practice in Houston, Texas under the Stanislaw Burzynski section of the article which I saw on Forbes, but that was removed also because I was told it is not a reliable source. Besides the Burzynski Clinic and Forbes, what would be a reliable source for the founding date? And, do you think it is too controversial to add that Burzynski is a private practice physician in Houston?

Thank you!Docia49 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Notables

It seems like notability is tricky issue on Wikipedia. It makes sense why it would be. If my article was rejected based on the issue of the subject not being notable is it possible that my presentation of the subject was poorly executed? Could a better representation make a clearer case for notability? Dweeksutah (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dweeksutah and welcome. In the end, notability is judged by other editors and they will review the sources that you have used in your article to determine if they meet the standard for notable people. When thinking about sources, you may find this simple resource helpful. I have searched for reliable sources that would help you demonstrate notability for John Aziz and I could not find anything that would help you get your article through WP:AfC. Other editors might have a different view, but I think it might be best to keep the article as a draft in your userspace until reliable sources can be found. I hope this has been of some help. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

WATCHER

What is the "watcher" (under the Number of Watchers) in the Revision History area?

Does this provide an update or alert when a wikipedia page is changed? Is there such a service such as an RSS feed that will notify when edits are made to a particular page?

Thanks, 68.34.67.176 (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I posted a reply at Wikipedia:Help desk#WATCHER. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe PrimeHunter has not quite got the right idea: the number of watchers is the number of people who have clicked on the star next to 'View History', which gives them a notification when the page is changed. The number of watchers is the number of people who have the page on their watchlist, to be notified if it changes. Mat ty.007 16:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The star to watch a page is only present for logged in users. Unregistered users cannot become watchers. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

PrimeHunter: yes, but the thing on the page history is next to page view statistics, entitles number of watchers. Therefore, even is you cannot watch a page, you can look at how many watchers it has. Mat ty.007 20:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Mat ty How do I do that with my user page?? Miss Bono^[zootalk]^☆ 20:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at your page's history, find the "Number of watchers" link, and click it. You'll go to here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Miss Bono, as Neil said, go onto your page's history, and click on 'Number of Watchers'. The link goes to here. There is similarly a page view tool. I will give you a link here if you ask, but I expect you know about that. Regards, Mat ty.007 20:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the question "Is there such a service such as an RSS feed that will notify when edits are made to a particular page?", the answer is "yes", or, at least, "yes there was, as of several years ago". You'll see a number of options if you look at the "Monitoring" section of the Editor's Index to Wikipedia, in particular the "Real-time feeds" part of that section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiMedia Commons and Copyright

Hi

I'm new into the editing scene apart from odd bits and bobs anonymously over the years but I thought I'd get involved. It's quite daunting though with all the vernacular and language. However, the one thing I surely am confused about is the images within the Commons section.

I edited a page about the new Nokia Lumia 1020 and uploaded a picture from a website, the copyright section of which stated "you may copy the content to individual third parties for their personal use, but only if you acknowledge the website as the source of the material".

I did this but the photo was removed. There are lots of images around Wikipedia that credit their sources - what's the story behind what you can use and the various licences that were being thrown at me when I uploaded?

Cheers chaps. The Drof (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings The Drof and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm a new editor also so I can't give you all the details on copyrighting. While I feel that I've picked up most Wikipedia policies and the markup language pretty quickly copyright is something I still feel is complex. My first rule of thumb is to just search in the commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and as much as possible use images that are already there. There is a lot there already. My second rule of thumb is if I'm not absolutely sure that I have the legal right to use something assume that I don't. Regarding your specific case, that the image was pulled doesn't seem odd to me. If you look at what the license said it gives permission for "personal use" like uploading it to a blog. Wikipedia is not personal use. Also, one other distinction that confused me as a new user but that is important is between The Commons and uploading a file for a specific use. You can use the Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard to load an image for a specific use and there are a fairly intuitive set of forms it will walk you through to provide an appropriate justification if possible. If you get to a point where you can't answer any of the questions it means you probably shouldn't be using the file at all. The upload thing is different than the commons though. Uploading a file means there is some justification on a case by case basis that lets you use the image on one or more specific articles. Putting it in the commons means that Wikipedia has the right to reuse the image any way we want. Here are a couple more articles on copyright you might find useful: Wikipedia:Copyright_questions, Wikipedia:Copyright_violations & Wikipedia:Copyrights, cheers. Mdebellis (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that comprehensive info Mdbellis.

Still about unsure about it though - how do other sites get away with publishing photos? Facebook for instance has millions, people just post them up. I could use the one that got taken down on there and have no redress from anyone. As this is a new device and the only photos that been taken are by either journalists for tech blogs or Nokia themselves, they are all someone else's.

Ok I searched the Commons and there has been an image uploaded since I first looked a few days ago so I'm cool to use that. The Drof (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Facebook (and any other content sharing website) has a term somewhere in it's terms of service which states that by uploading an image there a) you are saying that you have permission to use it, and b) you give (and are capable of giving) Facebook permission to use it. Wikipedia takes the more direct route of asking you for every image you upload, and pro-actively removing images when there is any doubt. MChesterMC (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO one other thing that makes this complex is that in reality a lot of the use of images on the Internet is by the letter of the law illegal. The chances of someone going after each individual that improperly used one of their images on their personal page are negligible. But the risk to a big organization (especially one that stands for freedom of information -- something a lot of people don't like) is much greater. So Wikipedia needs to be a lot more rigorous about these kinds of issues than you or I are in our personal Internet use. Mdebellis (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're right. But basically everyone on Facebook is guilty of that breach in copyright at some point. I'd love that law to suddenly be enforced - the place would be decimated and all the better for it.

Wikipedia is a more organized and respected site so the law has to be clearer and more rigorously adhered to. I respect that. Cheers. The Drof (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit counts

I need to know how many edits I've done to Main Space? ( not toolserver, I cannot access there) If anyone could take a look for me... I would really appreciate it. Miss Bono^[zootalk]^☆ 19:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that edit count is not a particularly great metric of the value of one's contributions, you have 301 contributions to the article space (or the mainspace as it's called sometimes), and represents about 6% of your total edits (which amount to a little over ~5,100). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I, Jethrobot. I still suck as a Wikipedian.... Need to work harder, but first I will have to take a brake this weekend (as usual) and tell Bono to take me to Cannes to see a movie nad walk across the Boulevard de la Croisette.... (joking) Miss Bono^[zootalk]^☆ 20:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know your edit count later, try X!'s edit counter, here [1]. Just put in your username, and it shows you your edit counts, with graphs and everything. Very nice. Howicus (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Howicus, but I cannot follow any links but wikipedia's. Miss Bono^[zootalk]^☆ 20:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Curious about what questions I can ask here

I am wondering if I can ask any questions here or if I should seek answers other places too. Sometimes I feel like I am pestering people (not that they have said I am pestering) by asking too many questions on their talk pages, I just don't want to be a pest. I do want to do things correctly. I do seek help on the help pages and descriptions of such things however sometimes I don't really understand or its too much information or it doesn't quite fit the question I have. Anyhow, I sure do appreciate the teahouse being here. Thank you TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tattoodwaitress, thanks for asking. I think anyone here would say that you are welcome to ask as many questions here as you want. Keep in mind we may not have all the answers, and we may direct you to another venue that's more appropriate. Here's a few other places for questions and when you might consider using them:

The reference desk is for asking for clarification on general knowledge such as "When was Macy's founded?" or "What country has the highest income tax?"
The help desk is basically like The Teahouse here. You can use it for how to do things on Wikipedia, like asking about how to make tables using wiki markup or how to nominate an article for deletion. It's been around for a while, and is watched by a lot of people. It also has an extensive archive of questions you can search to see if your question has been asked already.
The e-mail address info-en@wikimedia.org is maintained by a large group of volunteers, including myself, and you can ask questions here over e-mail if you'd prefer. You can direct pretty much any question to the address, but keep in mind that responders generally don't get involved in content disputes or make substantial content changes to articles. They will, however, guide you to the right places on Wikipedia to propose an idea or discuss a concern about an article. It's also common for us to do minor changes to articles (like fixing broken templates) if you are unsure of how to do them yourself.
There is also a chatroom filled with editors who are generally there to help new users with questions. The chatroom is located here, and is hosted by FreeNode. You just need to enter a username and a CAPTCHA code for access, nothing more. Most questions here are just fine, too.

I think that about covers everything. In short, you're not bothering anyone by using The Teahouse often because you're using it in a way that it was intended to be used! Thanks for stopping by, again. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all the links of where to ask questions and once again for being here. I will definitely use the teahouse more often.TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 19:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

People here are cool!! :) I love all of them. I, Jethrobot you rock! Thanks for being there when newbies like me need it... Miss Bono^[zootalk]^☆ 19:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Miss Bono! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Miss Bono^[zootalk]^☆ 20:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why my submission was rejected

I kept my page as generic as possible in order to just get the page built out, then I was going to add to it. What was wrong with Dan Pirro's House of Flapjacks?Dankay3 (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dankay, your article was rejected because it lacked any sources. We need to know what the sources are to (1) prove the information is true (2) prove the subject is notable i.e. widely known/important. Good to knwo you were trying to keep the article simple, but in this instance you made it slightly too simple, haha! Good luck! Sionk (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dankay3. I see no evidence online that this business actually exists. Can you provide links to newspaper coverage, or a website, or listings on restaurant review sites? I hope that you aren't playing a joke here. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't find sources for an existing article that is supposed to be about a rock album

I also posted this at the Rock project discussion thread but haven't gotten any replies there. I was wondering if anyone had any input: I've been working on various Rory Gallagher albums. I've done all the major ones and am starting to look at some posthumous releases, etc. One that I've found is this article: The_G-Man_Bootleg_Series_Vol.1 The current article has no references. I couldn't find the album of that name on Allmusic, Amazon, or on Gallagher's official site rorygallagher.com I also have the one and only Gallagher biography on Kindle and I did a search for that name and found nothing. There is an album with a similar name that also has an article (and that I can find in all those places) but the song lists for the two albums are totally different. I googled it and I found a few sites that look like this: http://www.last.fm/music/Rory+Gallagher/G-Men+Bootleg+Series,+Volume+1 I think what this is is a site where people create their own playlists. I think either this is someone trying to advertize their personal playlist or it was an actual bootleg album. If its the former (I think more likely) I would say just delete the article. Any ideas? Mdebellis (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mdebellis and welcome. It seems to have been a genuine box set release. Does this help?

Yes, this is why its good to have other people give feedback. I did find that Amazon page you linked to before but I dismissed it as something different because the art work was different and I couldn't find anything at all about the CD on that amazon page (e.g. to compare the track listings). But as I look at it more carefully, I think you are right, they probably are the same thing. I can't figure out why this box set though wouldn't be on Gallagher's official site at all or in Allmusic. I wonder if it actually was an actual bootleg? Not sure if those can get released on CD legally and be sold on Amazon. Anyway, still not sure what to do with this but that helps, thanks Mdebellis (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable sources, but it seems to be an official release Flat Out let's discuss it 13:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Using the new editor - HELP

Hey everyone, hope all is well! I was recently editing an article, but used the "edit" button instead of the "edit source" button. I wanted to put an internal link, but when I saved it the code was written in the article. The problem is, when I try to fix it using the "edit source" button, the whole article loses its links and all the codes are written in. Can anyone help me fix this problem? This is the article I've been editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinterest Many thanks! Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the teahouse. I'm not familiar with the new visual editor but it seems like there was some 'nowiki' tags. If you wrap <nowiki> and </nowiki> tags around wikicode then it is rendered simply as text. Eg. Search Engine becomes [[Google|Search Engine]] in nowiki tags. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! Hope you have a good day! Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome and have a good day yourself too Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As I hinted in another thread on this page, the Visual Editor apparently has its own way to add wikilinks. I don't know what it is, as I've never used the VE; but if one tries to wikilink by adding double brackets around a term in the old way, the VE automatically adds nowiki tags around it. Deor (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You actually have to highlight the text and click the link button at the top. I find it a big pain. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 11:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Thanks. You learn something every day Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that either. Thank you numbermaniac! Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

citation style

Is it best to put citations at the end of sentences when there's heaps of them? This article I'm working on is getting hard to read because of all the mid-sentence citations. see: [2] Haminoon (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse. Regarding the citations, consider if you have citation overkill. The easiest way to resolve this would be perhaps citation bundling where a large number of citations are moved to a single footnote. Technically there's nothing wrong with many inline citations but that's a good way of making it neater. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Haminoon and welcome to the teahouse. This question actually came up on another question recently. I'm just going to paste part of a response to an earlier question: In the section Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations "As in the above example, citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas. For exceptions, see the Punctuation and footnotes section of the Manual of Style. Note also that no space is added before the citation marker.

The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. If an infobox or table contains text that needs citing, but the box or table cannot incorporate an inline citation, the citation should appear in a caption or other text that discusses the material."

So to paraphrase, usually refs go at the end of a sentence after punctuation but in special circumstances they should go directly next to some text they support or that is contentious. Also, I've never seen an article where I thought "too many references" I'm not saying its impossible, I'm sure it is but my strong preference is when in doubt more references are always better. (Assuming of course they are accurate and relevant to the text they support) Mdebellis (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is the content box so wide

I have a few questions. Why is the content box so wide on this? Joe "Tiger" Patrick II It wasn't like that at first. Did i do something wrong with the category code, there is two for living people (i only put one though). When you go to edit source is all the coding correct at the bottom? Or should there be some things removed? It just doesn't look quite like what I am used to seeing when editing other articles and I am not real sure what to change or how to fix it. This is whats there " comment ( Just press the "Save page" button below without changing anything! Doing so will submit your article submission for review. Once you have saved this page you will find a new yellow 'Review waiting' box at the bottom of your submission page. If you have submitted your page previously, the old pink 'Submission declined' template or the old grey 'Draft' template will still appear at the top of your submission page, but you should ignore them. Again, please don't change anything in this text box. Just press the "Save page" button below. --> And the there is more re: persona questions? Thank you.TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 22:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything unusual in the formatting. What are you calling a "content box"?—Kww(talk) 22:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The box that says "contents" and list the sections? At the top under the lead (not in editing mode). Has this text in it(

Contents

   1 Walks
       1.1 A walk for people lost in 9/11 attacks
       1.2 A walk for U.S. service members killed in the war
   2 The memorial panel

So the code that says "Just press the "Save page" button below...." is suppose to still be there with the persondata box not having anything in it either?TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 22:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Ahh Just for the heck of it i went to view it in a different browser and it looks fine in ie but not firefox.. very weird i didnt make any changes to content box.TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 22:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tattoodwaitress, my best guess is that the "Contents" box gets wider when you add a very lengthy section or subsection header. So if you are concise with your section names, the box will be narrower. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I and some other users also had this problem. Wikipedia updated some software today. The problem should go away if you bypass your browser cache. --LukeSurl^{t c} 22:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both I shall try those two suggestions and see what works. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 22:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep ctrl + f5 worked (i tried that first) Thanks a bunch TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 22:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Google-Chrome browser goes to full-width; IE-8 has the narrower text box. I like the wider one better. LOL. Refreshes make no difference with the Chrome. Checkingfax (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe it may be a bug. It just started sometime this morning, US west coast time, and is apparently only affecting chrome. It makes a mess of previously thought out layout issues. Anyone got a bugzilla account to report it? Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed it sometime this morning (UTC+10), but it's fixed now. -- ^t numbermaniac^c 03:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually no it isn't. :P -- ^t numbermaniac^c 11:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes, changes and yet more changes

I'm sick of all the changes which have been wrought of late. We now have "Edit source", the contents section runs across the whole page etc. Why do we need these changes, without asking us whether we want them. It's really annoying to have them forced on us without even asking us first. Has Wikipedia never heard of democracy? You may continue doing this kind of thing (making changes) without consulting the ordinary folk amongst us, but if you do I won't be interested in being one of your editors any more. Jodosma (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not the only person you has made similar comments. FYI, you can disable the Visual Editor from appearing with an option on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. You'll get back the plain old 'edit' button. :) Revent (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia democracy Checkingfax (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is, you're not talking to the right people. There may be one or two teahouse hosts who are involved with programming the software, but I rather doubt it: in general, we're in the same position as you. I'm sure the changes have been discussed extensively, but not somewhere where I regularly look. (most like at the village pump). --ColinFine (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I am having the same problem with the content box, however, it started today and i have had the visual editor on for quite some time now. So not sure what the deal is. TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 22:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Jodosma, the contents box thing is not a development. It's a caching problem some browsers (including mine) are having with a small software update today. It will go away if you bypass your browser cache --LukeSurl^{t c} 22:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I've followed your suggestions and all seems to be ok now. Much appreciated. Jodosma (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Collapse

Hi everyone,

I've a question -

How to collapse a part of the infobox like the alternate cover section only?

Article - Look at the soundtrack section

Thanks in advance

---$oHaM ❊ আড্ডা 10:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sohambanerjee, welcome back. Looking at the template {{Infobox album}} which is the one in the section you linked to, I think the answer is currently no. A look at the archives for this template and the collapse parameter was included at one time (about 6 years ago) but subsequently removed. In the article you're talking about it doesn't go miles past the bottom of the text so persnally I don't think it's a big problem if it stays the way it is. NtheP (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NtheP for the reply. The album has four singles each of them with their own respective album arts that I want to include (there are 2 more) but that would make it too long. Also the singles themselves were released yesterday so they don't have much of background information or popularity so I can't create them as articles. Also If I include four of them as it is then some obnoxious editor would come along the way and remove them citing too much non-fair images in the article about which I cannot do nothing.

---$oHaM ❊ আড্ডা 11:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be obnoxious of that editor at all: there's no justification for adding four single cover images to an album article. The editor that removed them would be quite justified, and an editor that inserted them while being fully aware it was against policy would be risking getting blocked. A "collapse" option wouldn't do anything to make the images acceptable.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I knew the policy but didn't read it but I eventually did after you reverted the edits with link to policy. Thank you, I my attachment with the article might have affected my thinking. I don't know how I can repay you this debt but I sincerely hope to. Today I know how important Tea-house discussion is and how it can save a new editor's life. Sorry for my remarks, I wasn't thinking straight. Hope everyone understands. As you can see I didn't revert the edits.

Thank you

---$oHaM ❊ আড্ডা 06:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

User pages

I'm a recently-added user (yesterday). I see that a user page is highly useful and went to look for mine. I'm told that "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Chrismorey." It doesn't tell me how to create it though. I tried the Purge function as suggested, also the lookup which identified that I was a user. What am I doing wrong? 121.99.64.8 (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you are remembering to log in as Chrismorey.—Kww(talk) 06:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was it Chrismorey (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Chrismorey: you may want to see this page for userpage designs. Enjoy! Mat ty.007 14:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:User pages for user and user talk page guidelines. Have fun, :) ~XapApp(Talk·Contribs) 02:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources problem and dissatisfaction with formulaic rejections

Hi! I think I may have succeeded in establishing the notability of my subject after some difficulties with this, but am now being blocked over the issue of reliable sources. I've asked the most recent editors, Techatology and Arctic Kangaroo, to specify which references they consider inadequate. Techatology seems to have been suspended and Arctic Kangaroo has a note saying he's away until October 2nd. Some early editors were clearly constructive and helped me greatly in improving my article. More recently I have the sense that there are rules of thumb being applied without full consideration being given to the issues involved in this particular case. I find myself wondering whether the editors read the article or simply check the references. I make it clear at the start of the article that my subject was opposed to self-promotion and claims of authorship for reasons that were integral to his practice. This has meant that there is not all that much information about him. What he has left are a couple of books that have remained in print in English since the 1950s, and there were various references to him and accounts of his work in a few journals. Interest in his ideas is kept alive on a few websites. Such information as there is, and these references to him and his work, are detailed in my article. I can't see what the editors are asking for. I am extremely critical of the custom whereby editors give a formulaic rejection without providing specific details. Is there an appeal process built in to Wiki? Latterly I have not been impressed by the quality of editing. FGrahamR (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a few adjustments in style and layout, but otherwise appears sound. This is a good example of why the Afc process is one of the most pathetic projects on Wikipedia. I will do a little tweaking to the article myself. Keri (talk) 10:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo gives feedback when requested and it is a pity they are not available to do so at this time. I'm sure they'll get back to you as soon as possible. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed, accepted. It is imperfect still, but Wikipedia is a work in progress: "Remember, there is no deadline. So, if you rely on Wikipedia so much in its current state, that's your problem. We're not done with it, and we never said it would be any good — we only said it would be free (Wikipedia • The Free Encyclopedia). If you aren't satisfied with it now, help improve it, or come back in another six or seven years and take a look then. It'll be better. We promise." Keri (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am curious as to which article is being referred to here? I am in the process of writing my first article (using the word "my" loosely) and its still in the draft stages. I am looking for examples of new articles or articles with feedback to get a better feel of what I need to correct before submitting the article officially. Also what is the "Afc" that is referred to here? Thanks TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 13:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the article being discussed here is Hubert Benoit (psychotherapist). As you can see, it's helpful when asking a question about an article to give the name of the article! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular reviewer at the Afc project. In spite of what Keri says above, there are many of us who feel that it is important that Wikipedia be as "good" now as we can make it. In response to the discussion above about lack of sources, Wikipedia has policies about which topics can be in the encyclopedia, and one of them is that the topic must have been written (or spoken if it's radio/television, etc.) about in a number of published sources with editorial control. Saying that there aren't any doesn't mean that the article doesn't have to cite them, it means that the article shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. Now, there are many thousands of editors who take part in creating Wikipedia, and they all have their own unique perspectives. The above policy represents a "consensus", but of course not total agreement of everyone. However, if an article is moved to the main encyclopedia too soon without demonstrating notability, sometimes it will be deleted rather than just declined as happens in Afc. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary; this Afc was declined on the grounds that it was "unsourced or contains only unreliable sources" (my emphasis) - and yet it was sourced to multiple auhorities including peer-reviewed academic journals and works by internationally renowned experts in the field of pyschotherapy. This, I believe, is the crux of the original complaint above ("I am extremely critical of the custom whereby editors give a formulaic rejection without providing specific details.") It would appear that some reviewer(s) lack a basic understanding of what does and does not constitute a "reliable" source. As for whether the subject was "notable" or not, again see the multiple sources within their field; when authors of the stature of Aldous Huxley discuss and promote your works, you can begin to suspect that you are, indeed, "notable." Keri (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

FGrahamR, I see that you had another question that wasn't answered. You wanted to know if there was an appeal process at the Afc. Each time an article is declined, the notice says that you can ask for help at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. There you can not only get a second or third opinion about your article, but you can see the advice that has been given to other new editors. This is often better than asking the specific editor who declined the article because he or she may be sleeping or at work or even away for days. If you have been unfairly reviewed by someone who is particularly critical, the reviewers at the help desk will recognize this and rectify the problem. Also, invitations to the Teahouse are sent out, and I see that you found your way here an got some help. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.TattØØdẄaitre§ lĖTŝ tÅLĶ 15:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and apologies for not providing proper details of the article I was griping about. I am very grateful to you, Keri, for your help and for getting my article into shape for Wikipedia. It was a moment of delight for me to see HB up among the bright lights. I have felt for months that I was going round in circles. It's partly because I don't understand the system, but you have let in the oxygen and I can now get on with something else and see how HB fares on his own! Thanks again.FGrahamR (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I recently (as in today [July 19, 2013]) encountered this problem as well. The article is about a book I myself have written and wrote the article in a non-bias manner. It simply states the facts pertaining to the book. Under "Reference" I simply put the URL as the reference and then inserted a link to the respectful source for that referece. I do not understand how that is considered to be "not a reliable source." DaffydLandeggeDaffydLandegge (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE TO CREATE A BIOGRAPHY ON WIKIPEDIA?

I'm working on the biography of a Romanian art critic and essayist following closely one of Wikipedia's many models.

Please advise on the way of working within a Wikipedia site, and all the steps toward having the material validated and for the public use.

173.32.2.10 (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello 173.32.2.10, and welcome! There's a page titled Wikipedia:Your first article that has some pretty good tips on how you should prepare to write your first article. There is an "optional" validation service you can find at Wikipedia:Articles for creation where experienced users will review your article before it is published. However, once you create an account, there is no technical hurdle to creating an article at any time; but beware that articles may be deleted just as easily as they are created, and new users often make common mistakes (the three most common are probably 1) copying text from elsewhere, 2) Writing about articles where there is no reliable source material about the subject of the article or 3) Writing an article whose tone is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. However, if you can avoid those pitfalls, no one will stop you from just creating your article right away. I'd not recommend it; but you're allowed to do it. --Jayron32 00:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

How to add footnote to bibliographical citation--

In adding a title -- a collection edited by the publisher, not by the original author -- to a bibliography I have the publication data, but no indication of editor. So I queried the publisher, Bloodaxe (a major UK publisher), and received response, which would be provideed as footnote in this way:

"Query to Bloodaxe Books, in the UK, re. publication data received response from Neil Astley with this about this volume:

"Selected Poems (1986) had no editor as such: the book was edited by Bloodaxe Books in consultation with Denise Levertov, with helpful suggestions made by Linda Anderson and Cynthia Fuller. It was originated by Bloodaxe Books for publication in the UK and there was no corresponding US edition. It had no introduction or preface."

How would I add that as a footnote to that title?

JNagarya 00:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNagarya (talk • contribs)

Welcome to the Teahouse, JNagarya. If there is no editor specified by name, then list no editor. If you are using a template, just leave the field blank. This is analogous to citing an unsigned newspaper article. Unsigned articles don't need a writer's name. Provide all the other information for the citation, but don't worry about the lack of an editor's name, and don't feel the need to explain it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of Cover art

Hi Teahouse hosts and everyone,

Now to my question - Recently I came across a few articles where album arts were used which exceeded the 300 pixels thumb rule of low resolution policy and were around 500 by 500 pixels in size, some were even bigger. Now that would be copyright infringement as far as I know since when usually someone buys music online (Amazon.com, itunes or even for that matter Flipkart's now defunct Flyte) they get an accompanying album art generally 500x500 or 600x600 pixels in size.

So if a pirate knows how to tag mp3 (which in most cases affirmative) he can use these images found in wikipedia along with the pirated music. That would lead to financial losses to the recording label or producer since most of the buyers of digital buy them for album arts.

I immediately uploaded a resolution newer version of the files I saw infringing the rule so the files would not be available at-first sight. There is one problem though I cannot delete those files since I'm not an admin, what should I do NOW? Should I request an admin to it, if so then to any admin?

The files

P.S. - Please leave me Talkback for an answer

Regards

---$oHaM ❊ আড্ডা 16:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Where are the new versions?—Kww(talk) 16:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the lower resolution ones. Thanks for the help.

Regards

---$oHaM ❊ আড্ডা 04:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

How come this user space article

How come this user space article doesn't have the banner that says "This is not a wiki article... work in progress" template? Is it suppose to? Tattoodwaitress (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting observation. Well I moved to We Heart It per ignore all rules. I think the article was finished, but if not it's too late now! Cheers! ~~JHUbal27 09:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm, thank you. The only reason I came across it was because I was looking at "recent changes" for vandalism and when I went to that one (due to all the social media links) I was highly confused. I couldn't figure out if it was someone's user page or an article in the making. Ha ha. Anyway that "ignore all rules" rule is rather interesting itself. Thanks for the clarification. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The article is in main space now. There are many ways to create an article. Some of them are "wizards" and the Articles for Creation procedure, and such semi-automated procedures may place a template on an article. But if someone starts an article draft in user space, and no one else notices it, then no one else will template it. Here's where I make a confession: I have started over 60 articles, and I just moved every one to the main article space when I thought it was ready, and not a one of them has been deleted, though I had a couple of close calls in my early days of editing. I spent a couple of months studying policies and guidelines before opening my account and making my first edit. I suspect that few new editors were as well prepared as I was when I started. I tell this story just to illustrate that there is more than one way to create a new article, and that knowledgeable editors don't need to go through AfC. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Getting a Pic in an Infobox

I *thought* this was going to be easy, as there is a photo icon in the toolbar. The pic resides at Wikimedia Commons. It is the arms of a royal person for whom there is no extant portrait, so it would be going into Infobox:royalty. I clicked the photo icon & inserted the URL & centered it & added a caption. I got a lovely box that had the caption under a red link, so I canceled the edit. I looked at Help & it was not helpful. I do not understand what it's on about at all. Would someone be so kind as to slip me whatever additional coding is required to make this be an actual picture & explain how it works? TYVM. ScarletRibbons (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, you might want to add the link to the article you are talking about and the image too. I might be able to help you. Or you could go here: Help:Infobox Just dropped by to add my own question and saw you needed help. If you have any more trouble someone will be by shortly to help you. I am hitting the sack. Good luck. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2013

Hi there Scarlet and welcome to the Teahouse! Bare URL's will not work. Can you give us a link to the image? To put it quite simply, I will use wikicode. It's not the right Infobox, but you'll get the idea. ~~JHUbal27 09:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Click to see code

{{Infobox royalty

| name = Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom

| image = Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (1952-2022).svg

| image_size = 220px

| caption = The official Coat of Arms of the [[United Kingdom]].

}}

Help needed adding content

Awhile ago I tried to add a bio and other info for my husband, Jaime P. Gomez, who is listed as an actor on the TV series Nash Bridges. The content was rejected based on copyright infringement as the bio was on another website. That website was for a film festival my husband was attending and they posted the bio I gave them. I provided that content, it's on IMDB as well. How do I get around that to add my husband's bio, etc.? 76.208.163.6 (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

When you wrote material for another website, a copyright was created, and that copyrighted material can't be used here on Wikipedia unless the copyright holders (which may well include that website) freely license that content for use on Wikipedia, and also by anyone else.

You face a number of challenges. First is the question of whether your husband is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Please read WP:NACTOR for a guideline for actors. Another major issue is conflict of interest. It is very difficult to write from the neutral point of view when the topic is your husband. This style of writing is dispassionate and completely different from something written for a film festival. If your husband is notable, you should team up with a more experienced Wikipedia editor to do the article right. At least that's my opinion, and I am fairly experienced here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

On the copyright issue, if you are the copyright holder (and haven't, for example, implicitly assigned the copyright to that website) then you may explicitly choose to license the material in a way acceptable by Wikipedia: you will need to follow the procedure described in WP:Donating copyright materials. But Cullen's points are important, and I advise you to deal with them first. --ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Qualifications and Controversial topics

So what does wikipedia do about authors who properly cite, but who's primary concern is to proselytize. Controversial topics like, Eichman in Jerusalem and eugenics often have criticism and controversy sections bloated with irrelevant and redundant material. Often this material would belong in a separate article in an actual encyclopedia. What methods does Wikipedia use to fight (even better prevent) proselytization legitimized by citations? Aetherist (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

One of our core policies is the neutral point of view. Briefly stated, this means that a well written Wikipedia article summarizes what the range of reliable sources say about a topic. You are correct that some editors are quite skillful at pushing their own points of view at the expense of others. The solution is for editors who make improving the encyclopedia their top priority to work on improving problematic articles, and for the community to work to change the behavior of problematic editors, or if that doesn't succeed, to prevent them from disruptive editing by topic bans or blocks if necessary. We have a wide variety of administrative noticeboards, where such matters are discussed and debated, sometimes in mind-numbing detail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section "Inapplicability to the Holocaust" from the Milgram Experiment on the grounds that it rested on a single biased citation. It was restored (I do not know if a user or a moderator restored it). I questioned the POV of the section 2 weeks ago, and no one rebutted my complaint that the source is biased on the talk page. How would I find out the argument for the restoration of that section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aetherist (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have moderators, so your opinion on whether the material is included is as valid as anyone else's opinion.

You can see who restored the material, and the edit summary they gave when doing so, by looking at the edit history of the page. (You normally go to the history by clicking View History at the top of the page.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've left a talk page note for User:Poeticbent because I didn't find the edit summary in question to be constructive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please look at Aetherist contributions before making further judgement calls. Aetherist first blanked the section as an IP, on 1 July 2013‎ 68.1.70.40 without summary. Created a single purpose account. Blanked a section at Banality of evil on 30 June 2013, and on 1 July 2013 again, by wheel-warring. Blanked the section again at Milgram experiment on 20 July 2013 with misleading edit summary claiming "noone has defended it"‎ while in fact no-one has supported his ideas in talk. Now, wheel-warring again, by completely misrepresenting the source which in fact gives the book a thumbs-up. [3]. This is unacceptable. Poeticbent talk 15:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

(You mean edit-warring not wheel-warring, I think.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I have provide three academic sources. I would be glad to debate this in a civil manner on The Milgram Experiment talk page. I am currently in the process of adding material to clarify my point. This is not a single purpose account. I identify as an empirical skeptic and choose to limit my contributions to topics I have pondered for years and read several books on even then I try to qualify my claims, so as to avoid hubris. I look forward to discussing this in a calm manner with you, PoeticBent. Aetherist (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

How many section-blankings does it take, before a spade can be called a spade? Furthermore, the repetitious section blanking at Milgram experiment devoted to Holocaust inapplicability, looks more like Holocaust denial to me, especially when performed with misleading edit summaries. This is enough. Poeticbent talk 15:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

If anyone stops to read the full book review, "Human Nature Abhors a Vacuum", they will discover that the statement "[it] in fact gives the book a thumbs-up" is an equivocation of "thumbs-up". Here "thumbs-up" has two definitions: Waller illustrates his thesis, Waller proves his thesis. According to the book review, Waller does in fact illustrate his thesis but this definition is equivocated with the definition of proving. The book review does not claim that Waller proves anything. PoeticBent, I would appreciate it if you stopped the ad hominem attacks on me and attacked my argument instead of calling me names. Aetherist (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Aetherist for raising this here for advice, and thanks to Poeticbent for updating this discussion with the reasons for their edits. This is obviously something of a fraught issue and the Teahouse is not the best place for dispute resolution. It might be better to continue on the talk page of the article - perhaps with a WP:RFC? - or at WP:DRN. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)