Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 163

How to fight fandalism and why IP editors are vandalizing pages and why they are blocked.
How many ways can you fight vandalism since it happens all the time and why are IP editors are getting blocked? Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ashbeckjonathan, welcome to the TEAHOUSE! There are eleven ways to fight vandalism. IP editors are blocked for a number of reasons, but most commonly due to them repeatedly vandalising pages over a short period of time. Sometimes registered editors get blocked for this too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * People vandalize Wikipedia for reasons similar to why people vandalize public restrooms or library books. In my opinion, it is an immature form of rebellion that brings fleeting satisfaction to unfocused personalities. The best response to vandalism is to promptly and undramatically revert it, denying attention to the vandal, who craves undeserved drama.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey...I like that mistake in the header...Fandalism. Seriously...I think someone may have inadvertently coined a phrase! I see a lot of "Fandalism" in articles. Stuff that is not sourced and is basically spreading fan gossip.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh...and something I recently learned that may be of interest to editors. IP's are never idef blocked and usually have a time expiration because IPs change after a time.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Can "This article does not cite any references or sources" tag be removed after external link added?
Hi, I came by a page, Christian_Albums which have the "This article does not cite any references or sources" box/tag at the top.

I have added an external link to the current list at the bottom.

Will the "This article does not cite any references or sources" box/tag be removed or changed automatically, or is it something that I can/shall do?

/PatrikN (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello! It will need to be removed manually. I would recommend replacing it with . ///Euro Car  GT  06:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold your horse there. Hi, PatrikN and welcome. No. External links are not references. Please review Citing sources and Identifying reliable sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Miller is right. External links are not references. I would find some reliable sources to the article if you want to add a reference. ///Euro Car  GT  06:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome and the quick answers. This Teahouse is really a friendly place to be. I had figured out that my external link was no "citation", but what else is there to link or reference!? /PatrikN (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're not nice we don't get tea and cookies. ;-) Let me take another look real quick.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Preferably you would want a few different RS but if you can only manage the primary source, Billboard, then try to source as many of the lists to each Billboard release or mention that shows the list by year to be accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The listings of #1 albums can be cited to the appropriate Billboard web page. If someone outside Billboard has written about the chart, citing that would be great. The section about records of maximum number of weeks on the chart may involve some original research which isn't allowed. Ideally, you can find reliable sources mentioning these records, and cite those sources.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While this seems like an insurmountable task (as Cullen states "you would want a few different RS ") something that may be helpful is to research using the names of the artists like Amy Grant (the first name that came to mind and what appears to be the artist with the most number one Christian hits). Also, you might find this Google books search helpful. Good luck and Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input and suggestions. It's a big work and I just accidentally came by that page, so I won't do more now. But I have added a few references and changed from unreferenced to Refimprove, so I improved it a bit at least - and ain't that in Wikipedia's spirit, that anyone can add and improve!? :-) /PatrikN (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes it is!--Mark Miller (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Adding Commissioner's name to the Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball League website
The league has changed commissioners and I wanted to update the website. But in the right hand box, I don't know how to insert "commissioner" instead of president. How can that be done? Ripeditor Ripeditor (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse. The article uses Template:Infobox sports league, so you are limited to the parameters defined there. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have changed the parameter to ceo [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cal_Ripken_Collegiate_Baseball_League&diff=585164603&oldid=585156182] which displays as "Commisioner" (I looked at the template source to discover that). PrimeHunter (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added The  parameter displays "Commissioner" to the template documentation. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Storing PDF files
Hello, I was just browsing through Wikipedia and I'm trying to find a way of setting up links to pdf files. I read a bit about the Wikipedia Commons. Can I store my pdf files there? If not do you have any suggestions as to how others do it? 174.91.22.156 (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but it depends what the content of the files is, and what your purpose is in wanting to upload them. I suggest looking at commons:Commons:FAQ, which says "Commons is about multimedia content (images, video, sound), not text". In any case, you may not upload them unless they are public domain, or the copyright holder releases them under a suitable licence (which must allow commercial use): see Donating copyright materials. --ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured articles and good articles
If a featured article is promoted from a GA and then demoted, does it return to its GA status?--Typing General (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse Typing General. Good question, but...Yes. As many FA articles were never GA to begin with. I would assume (and you know what they say about assuming) that it would default to the last rating before being raised to FA.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi General, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer is, not necessarily. Some former featured articles may see such a reduction in quality that they are graded a C or B, and in general they should pass a new GA review before regaining that status. Now, on other Wikipedias this may be different (the Indonesian Wikipedia, for instance, allows articles to be demoted to GA). You may want to check out WP:FAR for examples of the process in action. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer is no, it doesn't, as it lost its GA status when it was promoted to FA. Eric   Corbett  20:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

deleting
i keep trying to put something on the mongolian death worm page about farank herbert and the sandworms of dune, but it keeps getting deleted. why? WurmRider 108.8.205.30 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history page you've been putting in controversial information with no citations, and various people have been reverting under WP:VERIFY. You need references or citations that can be checked by third parties rather than just to put in things you happen to know.  Neonchameleon (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

reliable medical sources
Can an entry in a popular science book be considered a reliable secondary source? Can someone delete my primary entry on the basis that it contradicts what is supposedly a secondary source?Johntosco (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. We have very stringent requirements for sourcing in medical articles. "Popular" or lay-oriented sources are not considered reliable in most cases. Any medical claim should be cited to a source that complies with medical reliable sources. The best medical sources are survey or review articles published in peer-reviewed medical journals of excellent reputation, or in medical textbooks, or recommendations published by major mainstream medical organizations. By "review" articles, I don't mean articles reporting on an individual research study. Instead, we are looking for articles that collate, analyze and summarize a significant number of research studies on a given disease or medical condition. I am not a medical expert, so I am just approximating what is needed, I hope reasonably accurately. Please read the link I provided, associated links, and please defer to our established policies and guidelines in this very sensitive area. Thank you.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  07:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations, but I am afraid that it doesn't quite answer my question. Can I include a primary source, i.e. a scientific study, in an article when there are no reliable secondary sources? When the only secondary source is a popular science book?Johntosco (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the content may not be included. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 12:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. Yes, you can include that study. There's nothing in WP:MEDRS (or WP:PSTS, which as a policy supersedes MEDRS) which says you cannot use primary sources, but you should use them carefully and realize that they don't always give a complete picture. Use a review article if it is available. II  | (t - c) 05:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , the case here is not judicious, careful use; but rather, this editor's attempts to use such a source against consensus established by several far more experienced and disinterested editors who work on a wide range of topics. These editors are not single purpose accounts. There is a big difference between something that is hypothetically true, and something that is against well-reasoned consensus.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me ImperfectlyInformed, but I don't quite understand. You say: "this editor's attempts to use such a source against consensus established by several far more experienced and disinterested editors who work on a wide range of topics". As far as I know, there is no consensus among the scientific community, and nobody here has produced any evidence that it exists. Does your statement mean that I can't use a scientific study's conclusion, because some (experienced, unlike me) editors do not agree with it, even if there is no scientific proof or consensus that it goes against any scientific studies, reviews or secondary sources? Could you please clarify wikipedia's policy?Johntosco (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring definition
I have been told that I am edit warring even when I have explained my reasons on the talk page. I have also asked for informal mediation but this has been closed. Now, the question is simple, what have I done wrong according to wikipedia?Johntosco (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the teahouse Johntosco. An edit war is when an editor continually reverts another editors work. The standard is 3 repetitive edits is an edit war but I don't think it's a hard and fast standard, even two can be considered disruptive. For more please see this article: wp:Edit war As an editor you never want to be in an edit war. We always try to collaborate. I think in your case the concern comes from your editing of the Shiatsu article. I looked over some of the comments and I think you may not be completely understanding Wikipedia policies. For example, it is not rude for another editor to point out a Wikipedia policy to you and to use that policy to explain why a change you made was not appropriate. If you don't mind some friendly advice, I think every editor has experienced a situation where we feel strongly about an issue but our opinion is not in accord with the consensus. When that happens it can be very frustrating. At least it's happened to me and I found it frustrating. But you know Wikipedia is huge. There are always other articles that need your help. What I do in those situations is just move on and find another article to work on. RedDog (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. It was concerning the article on the book 'Trick or Treatment' and I believe it was insulting, because the reason given for undoing my edit was that I should be writing my book and spending my spare time better. In the real world that would be called harassement. Furthermore, my request for mediation was closed, even when the other person refuses to give ACTUAL reasons on the talk page.Johntosco (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the Trick or Treatment talk page, and in my humble opinion, you have been a bit confrontational and unwilling to listen to input from experienced editors there. We have high standards for reliable sourcing on Wikipedia, and it is really important to have a collaborative attitude and accept consensus. At its best, Wikipedia summarizes what the range of reliable sources says about a topic, and does not advance a specific point of view on a topic. Editors who accept that principle can flourish here. Those who insist on pushing a specific point of view will have a different difficult time here, and may decide to contribute to advocacy oriented websites instead.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, my attitude was confrontational, but I don't see how this justifies other editors undoing my edits without having to justify their reasoning according to wikipedia guidelines. I think some people would call that vindictiveness. I don't see how it justifies someone adding original research, and I am not allowed to remove it, when mine was removed.Johntosco (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You asked "what have I done wrong according to wikipedia?". Looking at the thread in Talk:Trick or Treatment, I feel that your attitude, from your first post onwards, has indeed been too confrontational. Some of the other editors in the discussion are not without fault either, but you asked for feedback on your own approach, so here it is. Statements such as "Is it typical of you NOT to read well the posts ...", "Proof, evidence don't mean a thing in wikipedia, and certainly nothing to Alexbrn" and "I am also fed up with your lies" (and many more) are needlessly personal - you would do better to address the issue rather than attack the individuals involved. You need to be aware that Wikipedia has a low tolerance for personal insults - see No personal attacks for our policy on this. As to the way forwards, you could maybe try building consensus towards a more neutral wording for the points you thought were important - but I fear you have now injected so much emotion into nthe discussion that this will be difficult. I don't expect you will agree with all of this, but it is my honest attempt to answer your original question. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Johntosco You asked "what have I done wrong according to wikipedia?" I reviewed your overall contribs and the thread in Talk:Trick or Treatment.  You are pretty new here, which means you have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia policies and guidelines work, and more importantly, about the way we work together as a community to create and improve articles.   The same as any new editor.  However the way you conducted yourself on the Talk page, was without humility or acknowledgement that you are new and learning.  You were the exact opposite -- very sure of yourself, and confrontational on top of that.   You seem to care a lot about the topic and this makes for a pretty toxic brew;  combine passion, with a confrontational attitude and with a lack of understanding about Wikipedia's content policies, and you have a recipe for unhappy interactions.  Unhappy for you and for those who interact with you.  Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but competence matters.  Competence in the subject matter, and competence in understanding Wikipedia's policies.  Civility matters too.  The best interactions I have had on Wikipedia have been with editors who were competent and civil;  the worst have been with editors who are not competent and not civil.   Most interactions fall in between.  Civility is essential for Wikipedia to function, as it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and without civility, this place would be an ugly wasteland that nobody would want to hang around in.  Moving to the actual dispute, in my opinion User:Bobrayner was correct for deleting that content, and User:Alexbrn was correct in explaining that your addition to the article was original research - it is OR to read the book and website, see that there is a lack of references in it, and write content criticizing the book on that basis.  You do need to find a reliable source that criticizes the book on that basis.  Alexbrn was polite in explaining this, and you were just nasty in response, aggressively making incorrect claims and unwilling to hear or learn.  Even your section header "Who decides what is an improvement? Those who dislike statements of facts?" appears to me to be a sarcastic, rhetorical question.  If it had been a real question - if you had written that and read responses with a real desire to learn and interact authentically with other editors, your interaction on the Talk page would have been quite different, and you would not be posting here.    While I think you may have posted here looking for support, I hope you take in the pretty uniform response you are getting, that it will be best for everyone - most of all yourself - if you recognize that you have a lot to learn, and if you would be more civil - more open to dialogue, taking what other people say seriously, and responding.  There is no reason for all the negative emotion.   Best of luck to you. Jytdog (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog. Thank you for pointing out my lack of humility, etc. But you still have not answered what I think is the fundamental question. Was I right in removing something because it was original research or not? Do other editors have the right to add original research because I was uncivil? Can wikipedia articles present original research because the person pointing out that it is original reseasrch was uncivil and inexperienced?Johntosco (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

small scientific studies
What is the policy of wikipedia concerning small pilot studies? it is a scientific study with 34 patients, 17 receiving treatment and 17 in the control group.Johntosco (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the same as it is for any other study, as long as it meets the general notability guidelines and is reviewed/covered in reliable sources then it will be acceptable. There is specific guidance on finding sources for medical articles at Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and I would suggest you read that page before going any futher. NtheP (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict} Hi Johntosco - I'm not quite sure what you mean by policy "concerning small pilot studies"? If you mean will Wikipedia publish it? the answer is a definite no as Wikipedia does not publish original research. If you mean can you quote this research in another article, you can, provided it has been published in a reliable, third party publication, which for medical subjects must be peer reviewed. If you have another use in mind, could you please explain - thanks Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much both of you, Nthep and Arjayay. No it is not original research, but something published in NCBI and the Joutnal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. I'll try to explain clearly that it is a pilot study and itis about potential effects. Thank you again.Johntosco (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello all. has added this and I'm afraid it is not acceptable. Biomedical information needs to based on reliable secondary sources according to our medical sourcing guidelines. There is a recent piece in the Signpost which has a good explanation of this. Alexbrn talk 15:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Alexbrn. 1) You are afraid it is not acceptable or simply you don't like it being acceptable? 2) I have followed the guidelines. I have written about a study published in a peer-reviewed publication, and mentioned in pubmed. Exactly what recent piece in the Signpost - which you quote as if it said that my contribution is not acceptable - says is acceptable. 3) You must excuse my bluntness, but you seem to be a self-appointed guardian of a particular article, and you fight over anything that doesn't support your POV.Johntosco (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have added material sourced to a primary publication (a paper in a journal detailing the outcome of a "pilot study"). As the Signpost puts it, these kinds of paper "are papers describing novel research for the first time". What we really need is secondary sources (such as a review article or a systematic review). We would only use primary sources for health information in truly exceptional circumstances, and never (as here) against the grain of secondary sources as a kind of "debunk" of them: this is all spelled out in WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn talk 16:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Alexbrn. First of all, I know I'm not as knowledgeable and experienced as you are when it comes to editing in wikipedia, so I would ask of you some politeness, and point this things out on the talk page of the article, and not have me search around wikipedia to find out what your point is. I believe this post is for questions and not for mediation, but please correct me if I am wrong. Second, according to the source and text which you have used in the article, "Evidence was of insufficient quantity and quality" and "The only RCT included in their review was not actually a study of shiatsu but of a complex mixture of treatments including shiatsu for back and neck pain. No significant effects compared to standard care were identified in this study.". This means that we are NOT talking about a systematic review about shiatsu. A systematic review is a literature review focused on a research question that tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize '''ALL high quality research evidence relevant to that question. ''' In fact, that famous systematic review, includes only 9 shiatsu studies, but 71 acupressure studies, so, if anything, it is a systematic review of acupressure.Johntosco (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope I am answering questions: it's good we're moving to a discussion of secondary sources. After removing the primary, the systematic review you mention is one of the sources we're left with. Its conclusion in essence is that there is no evidence around Shiatsu - a "negative finding" which is worth reporting, especially as it is in line with the other sources we use (Ernst etc.). That way the article gives a rounded view of the medical/scientific consensus. Note also that because this is a fringe area the guidance at WP:FRINGE also applies - and there are some important considerations in there. Alexbrn talk 18:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you continue to be discorteous and write here instead of the talk page of the article. However, 1) You haven't answered one questiom. How something that it is not a systematic review of shiatsu happens to be - according to you - a systematic review of shiatsu. 2) About fringe theories I read: A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field, must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. As far as I know, there are ABSOLUTELY NO theories concerning shiatsu that are broadly supported by scholarship. That is why you use as a reference the website - and opinion - of an author, and not something found on medical journals, specialist academic or professional books - as I have done. 3) Even if the systematic review was about shiatsu - which it can hardly be said it is - Ernst's opinion about it is one, not broadly supported by scholarship. Where is that broad support? Please show.Johntosco (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Johntosco: as I mentioned in a thread above, there are some serious misconceptions here. User:Alexbrn's statements are not correct. There's nothing in WP:MEDRS (or WP:PSTS, which as a policy supersedes the MEDRS guideline) which says you cannot use primary sources, but you should use them carefully and realize that they don't always give a complete picture. Use a review article if it is available. Other editors can argue that the primary sources are unreliable, given undue weight, or whatever, but there is certainly no bright-line rule against using primary sources. II | (t - c) 05:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * - incorrect, I did not write one "cannot use" primary sources, I wrote: We would only use primary sources for health information in truly exceptional circumstances, and never (as here) against the grain of secondary sources as a kind of "debunk" of them. This mirrors what MEDRS says: "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature" (my bold). I am aware you are advocating elsewhere for a new, laxer, reading of this but please don't present your wished-for outcome as established guidance, especially here. Alexbrn talk 05:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, perhaps I spoke too soon. However, your first statement was simply "Biomedical information needs to based on reliable secondary sources according to our medical sourcing guideline", and you then cited a 2008 Signpost article as further support for the statement. That may be a defensible statement, but the reality is that for many areas, there are very few if any reviews and the research articles are the secondary sources, because they have a section reviewing previous work and are the only academic research available. It looks like that isn't the case here (from a glance at the article), but I think that newbies should be explained how it works in a complete rather than overly simplified way. II  | (t - c) 05:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , I believe that in this case, we have advanced well beyond the stage where this particular editor can be called a "newbie" and given leniency on that basis. Quite a few editors, here at the Teahouse and on various talk pages, have tried to explain the norms of the neutral point of view and reliable sourcing standards regarding medical articles to this editor, without success so far. I am the eternal optimist in such cases, always hoping that the editor in question will see the light, and embrace the neutral point of view which is, as I see it, the very core of this encyclopedia's legitimacy. So far, my optimism has not been rewarded.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Johntosco: WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS both emphasize the importance of basing articles on secondary sources. I do hope you read both of them and absorb the message - we rely mostly on secondary sources, because we rely on summaries of current knowledge created by experts in the relevant field. In science and medicine this is even more important. There are all kinds of dangers in using primary sources, as PSTS and MEDRS describe well. To summarize them here: creating content based on primary sources often leads to original research, since the editor needs to put that primary source into some context, and decide how much  weight to give it - an article constructed using primary sources would be the product of the editor's judgement about which of those primary sources was most important and would be the product of the editor's judgement as to which of the many primary sources to use, and which to leave out. Do you see the problem there? On top of that, in the medical field, many primary sources turn out to be dead wrong. The Ns turn out to be too small or some other error was made. While some errant papers are retracted, many remain in the medical literature and are just ignored... but they remain out there. This is why the MEDRS guideline emphasizes so much, what PSTS policy says - content should be based on secondary sources. In general, I find that when someone is really pushing for a primary source to be used to support health-related content, that editor has an ax to grind -- is editing tendentiously - instead of pursuing Wikipedia's mission to create a reliable, NPOV article that reflects the scientific consensus. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

If I may point out a few errors on Jytdog's explanation. First of all, as I understand it, a popular science book is not a secondary source as you seem to imply. Nothing in the statements from the article in question seems to come from a reliable secondary source, if we understand this by something published in a peer-reviewed medical journal or similar. So, if "we rely mostly on secondary sources, because we rely on summaries of current knowledge created by experts in the relevant field." all those statements should be erased from the article. If wikipedia's mission is to create a reliable, NPOV article that reflects the scientific consensus", then again, most of the article should be erased because there is NO scientific consensus. Or at least, I haven't seen anyone producing any evidence of such a consensus regarding shiatsu. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Could you please explain where that consensus is? Could you please explain how a popular science book is a secondary source?Johntosco (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If I may point out a few errors on ImperfectlyInformed explanation. He or she wrote: "We would only use primary sources for health information in truly exceptional circumstances, and never (as here) against the grain of secondary sources as a kind of "debunk" of them." Excuse me, but what secondary sources? A popular science book? Not something written in a peer-reviewed publication? You also say: "the reality is that for many areas, there are very few if any reviews and the research articles are the secondary sources, because they have a section reviewing previous work and are the only academic research available" What academic research? Has anything of what that book says been published in ANY academic journal or magazine? So - excuse the sarcasm - I should see the light, and believe that NOT secondary sources (according to wikipedia) ARE secondary sources. However, and this is not sarcastic, thank you for explaining to me I should embrace a neutral point of view.Johntosco (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Two persons mis-merged into one person's entry.
There is a clash of logic/fact in the entry for the page: Alexander Montgomerie, 9th Earl of Eglinton The 9th Earl of Eglinton seems to have become confused with the 8th Earl:

Alexander Montgomerie, 8th Earl of Eglinton (Birth date possibly unknown/uncertain) but he succeeded to the title of 8th Earl of Eglinton in 1669 and died in 1701 at London, England.

His son was: Alexander Montgomerie, 9th Earl of Eglinton born circa 1660, d. 18 Feb 1728/29.

The references, in the wikipedia entry, to being at the Battle of Marston Moor (which was fought on 2nd of July, 1644) is patently anachronous as the entry claims a birth date of circa 1660. Could the originator of the article check the apparent merging of these two earls (8th and 9th) and/or a warning of the discrepancy be placed on the page. (It is beyond my computer competence to do either of these things at the moment.) Thank you, EricSoons EricSoons (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. The main paragraph, including the references to the Siege of York & to Marston Moor, apparently referred to Alexander Montgomerie, 6th Earl of Eglinton (not the 8th).  A note to that effect had been on the article talk page since 2011.  I have deleted the erroneous paragraph from the article, which is now rather thin. Some of the categories may be equally irrelevant, but hopefully someone watching the article might deal with that. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 Little India Riots
Hello Wikipedians,

How do I nominate something for deletion in a convenient manner? The article I wish to nominate for deletion is 2013 Little India Riots. In addition, I would like to move it to 2013 Little India riots per grammar rules.

Thank you,

Nelson Mandela was not Batman (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding your question, "How do I nominate something for deletion", please indulge a simplistic answer; realizing I am actually answering a question you did not directly ask, but whose answer is more incumbent upon you to learn. The process to nominate a page for deletion must be learned by the one who wishes to use the process and so for you to nominate, you naturally must learn first. But why should such nominations be your first priority to learn? I suggest you first learn our username policy and demonstrate having learned its remit, by choosing a more appropriate username. Then, I will reciprocate; giving you a better reply to your query. Regarding your criticism of the title, you are correct that "Riots" should not be capitalized and I have therefore moved the page to the title you suggested. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, NMwnB! To address your original question about requesting articles for deletion: this page (DEL) has everything you'll need to know. The basic steps are: determine the reason for the deletion, add the deletion request template to the page you want to nominate, fill out the template with all needed info, and save the page. However! Make sure to look up the agreed reasons why articles or other content should be deleted, and which issues can be solved otherwise. For instance, renaming articles is a separate procedure.


 * As for your username, in my opinion there is nothing wrong with it and I don't know why John Cline above should imply it to be against out user name policy. In nutshell, user names are considered inappropriate if they are a) potentially disrupting or misleading b) impersonate persons, groups, or other accounts c) offensive. I thought about your user name specifically in the context of political offensiveness, but cannot see why Nelson Mandela would be such an inflammatory subject that mentioning him in a clearly humorous username would be against policy. --Pitke (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you John Cline and Pitke, for your good answers. I have an acquaintance from nearby Singapore, who says he knows a great deal on Wikipedia affairs. It was he who introduced me to Wikipedia. However, he is not replying to my emails; I think he is busy now. So I came here. I have already learnt much from that acquaintance of mine. I understand the policies and whatnot considerably well. However, I am unable to find this gadget which can allow me to tag pages for deletion conveniently at my preferences. And I forgot the name. I don't think nominating articles using the long method is efficient.

I think the Little India riots page should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. While there may be historical significance, the article is currently in a lousy shape, and is peppered with BLP violations. I think badly-written articles should not be tolerated.

On a separate note, I mean no offense. My username is just for humor's sake. I respect Mandela (as well as Batman) a lot. Ever since I was introduced to them.

Also I would like to be an admin some time Down the road. Can I have some advice regarding that?

Thank you. Nelson Mandela was not Batman (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that WP:RfD was what Pitke intended; that is about Redirects for Discussion. WP:DEL discusses the various options for deletion. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yepp. RfD is the Commons equivalent! My bad. --Pitke (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, BLP violations and bad writing can be fixed with relatively little effort. That leaves us with the "WP is not a newspaper" argument which is a good and solid one. It indeed is a policy. The problem with recent topics is that unless the topic clearly falls is clearly notable by default, it can be had to assess its lasting impact on the world and how important it will be to people five years from now. Let's see notability notes on events. If after having a look there you still feel the article's topic is not notable enough for Wikipedia, feel free to try your hand at filing a request for deletion. Even if it failed and the article was kept, you've learned 1) how to make deletion requests 2) a bit about the consensus on event notability. For future reference, it's good to check the article talk to see if its notability has been contested or discussed before and only contest notability on one or two articles at once. If you run into something that is very obviously not suitable for Wikipedia (such as utter nonsense like "fkadnfn" or typical bored-in-class stuff such as "Johnny Doe is a smelly stupidhead"), use the speedy delete template. --Pitke (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And as for becoming an admin: it's a noble goal, but not for everyone. Aim to be the finest Wikipedian you can. Be excellent to others. Don't lose your cool and know how to keep yourself in a constructive, good mood. Know when to step away from the article or the talk page, and know when to step away from the computer. Assume good faith but know when it's not relevant to assume good faith and what to do in those cases. Read the nutshell version of every new policy and guideline you run into. If you see a policy or guideline linked often on talk pages or edit summaries, check it out and read it through. Keep a watchlist and see how articles are born and grow. Witness vandalism being done, being reverted, and its consequenses. Help out newbies. Keep notes on how you think Wikipedia could be improved, and things that seem unnecessarily challenging, counterintuitive, or just plain weird for a new editor. And what people do expect from an admin, actually?
 * no heavy history of misdemeanour -- do not edit war, stay far from personal attacks; and if you disagree with someone or something either let it be or start a civilised, well-explained discussion
 * and if blocked for any reason, you have two choices. 1) Wait for the ban to pass, clean your act, and stay clear for a while. If it's a long ban, wait at least for six months before filing an appeal for standard offer. 2) Abandon account and choose to evade ban. This is of course against the rules, and if you get caught, your reputation will be quite a lot worse than before. Ban evade is an option only if you can ensure your new account has no reason (topical, stylistic, behavioral, technical) to be linked to your previous one, and even then it's immediately bannable if found out. As for adminship on a previously banned account: it can happen, and the shorter and fewer and futher down in history the bans were, the more likely it is that they'll be excused. --Pitke (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * some degree of activity on the wiki -- if not for anything else, at least to keep on board with new policies, features etc. AFAIK there's no policy stating actual numbers, but on fi.wikipedia something around one year and a few thousand edits is usually good to go.
 * some experience of actual article editing and article + user discussions -- otherwise it's hard to prove you've actually been on Wikipedia instead of just letting an account age; on top of that, editing and discussions are a very natural way to learn how Wikipedia works and its most important principles
 * on top of that, many admins (including myself) are more editors than cleaners. We tend to edit like any other user and don't stalk recent edits or new article lists, but because we're trused to not cause trouble with admin tools, we can handle whatever renamings, deletions, and vandals needing bans we run into as we edit and check our watchlists.
 * civility and cool nerves -- admins run into problematic situations and heated users habitually
 * the ability to take and learn from criticism, and to give it gently yet constructively enough
 * situation assessment skills and balance between action and restraint -- The admin who doesn't dare to ban a vandal and instead just drops another never-to-be-read warning on their talk page is a useless admin. The admin who attacks head-first banhammers and deleters blazing at the first hint of a bad-faith edit can accidentally delete valid but poorly presented content, or worse, scare off potential editors who might have failed the first time around but been open for growth.
 * good English skills -- perfection is not necessary by any means, but en.wikipedia is used by numerous ESL editors and an admin needs to understand and be understood across the barrier of false friends, lacking vocab and grammar, and foreign syntax and idioms.
 * -- Pitke (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well point No1 certainly rules out the questioner - who has been blocked for being a sockpuppet Arjayay (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

how to unload and insert pictures in a Wikipedia page
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigler_incident

I would very much like to upload and insert two pictures on this page - one picture of the German fight pilot, Franz Stigler, the other a picture of the American B-17 pilot, Charles "Charlie" Brown put, regrettably I have no knowledge of html and have no idea how I would go about adding these pictures. Any assistance from the community would be sincerely appreciated.

Roger BeltzG5guy (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the teahouse G5guy. Your best bet is to read over Help:Introduction to uploading images/1 then go to File Upload Wizard -- Moxy (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you also read WP:FAIRUSE which allows limited use of copyrighted photos of people who have died, if no freely licensed photo is available. This should be a lower resolution image, and the copyright holder should be credited.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  22:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with a small mountain of useless articles?
I could just WP:A7 the lot of them. But is there a better way?

To expand, I found the page on Umbayee which appears to have four references but no reflist and no assertion of notability. Unfortunately all four references given are to other Wikipedia pages, so thought I'd clean up the page and drop a note onto the creator's usertalk page. When I got there I found nineteen notifications under WP:SPEEDY, five notifications under WP:PROD, and another couple of deletion discussions - and no evidence that they'd even read their own talk page. WP:DISRUPTIVE doesn't qualify (even in the case I've see) where they recreated a page that was speedily deleted) - and the account appears to be fairly new so I'm worried about biting the newbie - but their contributions to Wikipedia so far appear to involve creating a few dozen pages with about two lines each, utterly mangled references where there are any at all, and otherwise adding nothing of value.

How should a situation like this be handled? Neonchameleon (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Neonchameleon o/ In situations involving users who continue to cause trouble or lots of unnecessary work for others, especially if they seem to ignore their talk page, it's best to contact the Administrator's noteboard and explain the situation there. Any user can mark articles for deletion and notify others, but in this case the issue is quite complex with the numerous articles of dubious notability and a significant history of Speedy Deletions, so in my opinion it's best left to the administrator's expertise. --Pitke (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks and done. I guessed there was somewhere to escalate it to but wasn't sure how to find it.  Neonchameleon (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Submitting
How can I get someone to submit an article for me? I have an article written with sources, but I am not having any luck getting it approved.

Carly Carb1215 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the teahouse. You need to add onto the submission. As an aside, you'll need more references (ones not written by the organization itself) to get the article accepted. Good luck. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added many new sources. How do I resubmit?

Carb1215 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Jakob just told you: add to the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , your references need to show that the group is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Two of the references are press releases, which don't establish notability. One is a routine announcement of a youth soccer team merger. There is a news story about a minor controversy about privacy and birth certificates for youth soccer team players. The references are poorly formatted and in my opinion, do not establish notability.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Putting it simply (and this is just my personal understanding) the question about notability can be expressed as "Why would anyone go to an encyclopaedia for this?" Your article doesn't answer that.  People who know about the Utah Youth Soccer Association already are going to go to the relevant web page.  So an article needs to be written for two groups of people.  People looking for a place to start finding out about a subject, and people randomly browsing for interest.  And frankly, your page there doesn't help either group.  If I'd been looking for the Utah Youth Soccer Association I'd know almost no more after reading that page than before it.  And it doesn't make me care or think I want to know more.  And it doesn't make me think that it is important to more than the players in the league even if I have no personal interest.  If it helps, I've added wp:notability tags to most of the other youth team pages (they are no better than your submission) and I'm considering wp:PRODding them all.  Neonchameleon (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The notability of sportspeople and sports teams is usually pretty easy to assess. The rule of thumb is, if a player or team has ever been at the top, it's notable. What exactly qualifies for "top" varies a bit, but as long as it's an organised, established sport, at least every national champion and participant to international (or internationally highest available level) events such as world championships and the Olympics is easily notable, including age-restricted leagues and such. With sports of sufficient local importance, all national championship competitors and teams can also qualify. WP:NSPORTS helps us further. --Pitke (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Single Wikipedia Editor
The non-profit association I work for has an initiative to encourage our members to edit Wikipedia articles relevant a member's area of expertise. We think the participation in the effort could expand if we provided more support related to learning Wikipedia's language for coding. One way we have thought to do this would be to identify a team of editors who would make the edits for a class rather than the students making their edits directly. We'd certainly disclose that on the article's talk page and identify the class source of the edits. Is this OK? Apsweaver (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Apsweaver, thanks for your question. One way of accomplishing this is to reach out to editors on the article's talk page using the edit request template, which can be done simply by typing in:
 * Edit requests are typically used for pages that are under protection, but if an editor explains they are still learning the interface or may have a conflict of interest with the material (although that may not apply to all contributors at your organization depending on what they edit), another editor can evaluate and implement their changes.  Still, most edits that just involve adding content should be relatively straightforward to perform, so I encourage your students to try to tackle those ones independently.  Do any other hosts involved in the education programs here know of other resources that Apsweaver might be able to use?  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 16:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia allows editing only by individual users acting on their own individual behalf. We do not allow group editing of any type, although a more experienced editor can, of course, give technical advice to a less experienced editor, as we do here at the Teahouse. Please refer to WP:NOSHARING for a detailed explanation.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia allows editing only by individual users acting on their own individual behalf. We do not allow group editing of any type, although a more experienced editor can, of course, give technical advice to a less experienced editor, as we do here at the Teahouse. Please refer to WP:NOSHARING for a detailed explanation.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  04:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

How to Submit an Article?
I have finished an article in my sandbox. Now need to know how to Submit an Article?
 * Sufidisciple (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the teahouse!  Simply add  to the top of your draft and save the page and someone will review your draft.  They will give you ideas for improvement and/or move it to mainspace for all to see!  Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! - Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufidisciple (talk • contribs) 20:17, 7 December 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Assuming that your draft is User:Sufidisciple/sandbox/Choto Moulana, I see that you added rather than the  that Technical 13 recommended, so your draft is not currently on the list for review.  In fact, you didn't need to go through the process of adding  as you already had the  box at the top of the page, which provided a simple link which said "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." so you just need to click on that when you are ready to submit.


 * More significantly, I fear that any review will be unsuccessful as you have very few references in a long draft. You therefore haven't satisfied Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability. 11 of the sections of text have no references at all. If you wish for your article to be accepted, you will need to find sufficient published reliable sources to verify the content of the draft and to demonstrate the subject's notability. It is not encouraging that a Google search finds only one mention which itself seems to be a Wikipedia mirror. While online sources are not essential if material published elsewhere is available, it does give an indication that you may have a struggle to demonstrate the significant coverage in independent published sources required to demonstrate notability. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark Miller for your wise information helpful suggestions It is true that, most publication of our country still remain out of digitalization. The country government initiated digitalization vastly to the people since later 2008. Even to say, Bangla Academy still working to cover its own publications as well as the whole nation are coming forward. Hence, the Subject of my wiki article is related to Sufism. It’s specifically representing a Sufi Order named MAIZBHANDERI. Now days, It seems, unless the history of this Sufi Order, the philosophical perception and history of the nation should remain undone because they have followers all across the territory. This defined “Choto Moulana” is the second prominent among them. I actually, have tried, gathered and submitted a numbers of Books and other materials. But most of those are still remained in paper format. Thanks once again for your suggestion and I am in quest. Sufidisciple (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's fine to add references which aren't online, for example a book or news article you have read. Try reading Help:Referencing for beginners for details on how. If you need more specific instructions, leave a message on my talk page and I will help you out.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 03:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)--  Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 03:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Brainy J if necessary, I shall knock you here. Sufidisciple (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Why my article gets deleted for being an advertisement when others don't?
Hi, I have been working on an article about DURABOOK since there is an article about Panasonic Toughbook and Getac on Wikipedia. But my article was taken down because it is said to sound like an advertisement, when it isn't.

Could someone help so I can reload it and get it approved? Or is it because Panasonic paid Wikipedia so its article, also sounding like an ad and a spec-filled sheet and at the same time not 3rd party verified, can stay on Wikipedia?

Ticdb (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, . The reason is very simple.  The reason any subject can have an article on Wikipedia is because it is notable.  The simplified version of what that means is this:  The subject has been written about in detail in reliable sources.  The article in your sandbox, which is I assume the one we are talking about shows no referencing whatsoever to reliable sources.  If the product has been the subject of reviews in newspapers or magazines of general circulation, or has been discussed in detail in books, on TV or radio news, or in respected scholarly journals, you should cite those writings.  If it hasn't, then it is not notable.  The vast majority of web content is not considered reliable sourcing. In other words, it is not about anything that may concern the products you have mentioned vs. the product you are trying to create an article about.  It is a difference in what has been written about those other products and the one you are trying to create an article for. John from Idegon (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading the article in your sandbox I have one major question. Why should I care?  Because seriously, it reads like a press release.  It's incredibly doubtful that Panasonic paid for those articles (Wikipedia goes to a lot of trouble to stay independent) but is very likely that no one caught them going through.  This is no reason to put more press releases on Wikipedia (see wp:OTHER) - but the two articles you mention are already there even if they need substantial rewrites. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OCLC image copyright
Does anyone happen to know if OCLC Worldcat's cover images are generally in copyright? I assume they probably are since it doesn't say otherwise, but it's a significant enough website that I figure someone has probably already checked on their status. Thanks!

SarahTheEntwife (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A notice of this question has been posted at Media copyright questions. -- Moxy (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That depends entirely on the publications, and where and when they was published. you should propably assume everything is copyright unless you know for sure otherwise, such a pre-1923 US published books. ww2censor (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Would an image of the cover of a public domain book be out of copyright, or can someone hold the rights to the photograph itself? SarahTheEntwife (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The text of the book and the design of its cover will have different copyrights. So, copyright on the cover will depend on either when it was published or when the artist died, depending on circumstances. However, on Wikipedia (but not Commons) using a low resolution image of a copyright book cover is regarded as fair use in a WP article about the book. see WP:NFCI, item 1 and WP:NFCC. Thincat (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you! SarahTheEntwife (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

submitting article/cleaning sandbox
I had been working on an article about Mary Kittamaquund on and off for a long time in my sandbox when I noticed it when googling. I then did a quick cleanup and attempted to post it, including the new page template and futzed around some more. Today I wanted to start a new article on a completely different topic, but this article was still in my sandbox. My attempt to clean the sandbox resulted in the deletion of the article, so clearly I did something wrong and reverted the edit.

I understand the Mary Kittamaquund article still needs work, and I'm trying to figure out how to get a photo from the Maryland State archives to include (an author last weekend said he had to pay $110 for the image, which I've also found on Maryland Public Television's site as part of an education module--ice, wintry mix and now snow have interfered with my traveling to and thru Baltimore). However, I'd also like to be able to work on another new article--either the one I wanted to start this morning about a historian, or perhaps about her son Giles, which could cut some of the speculation in the article's last half. Thanks for any suggestions.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the Teahouse. What User:Jweaver28/sandbox contains is not the Mary Kittamaquund article itself, but a redirect to it.  If you get redirected, just click on the link at the top that says "(Redirected from User:Jweaver28/sandbox)", and it will take you here where you can replace the redirect by whatever you want the new content of the sandbox to be.  Alternatively, you can create any number of individually titled user subpages, see WP:USERSUBPAGE. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Loooong article name
Hi, I'm in the middle of reviewing queued articles in the New pages feed - and there's one article title that is quite long The Last Battle: When U.S. and German Soldiers Joined Forces in the Waning Hours of World War II in Europe. It's the full name of the title of a book.

Is is best to keep the long title - or shorten it (e.g., The Last Battle (book))?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 03:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a subtitle (titling). Subtitles are usually omitted. See Naming conventions (books). The book cover at also writes the subtitle in far smaller print, and the reviews omit the subtitle. The problem here is that we already have articles at The Last Battle and The Last Battle (book). The Last Battle (Stephen Harding book) would be a possibility. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I like The Last Battle (Stephen Harding book). I cannot think of anything else better - thanks - and thanks for the location of info about subtitles. Makes sense!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 03:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have moved The Last Battle (book) to The Last Battle (Cornelius Ryan book), changed the former to redirect to the disambiguation page Last Battle (we have 3 book articles called The Last Battle), updated Last Battle and some incoming links to The Last Battle (book). PrimeHunter (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thanks PrimeHunter.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 16:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone want to walk me through the vandal fighting process?
user:8.37.225.5 (not logged in) has come up with the great game of either editing BLP nominations (they turned one of mine from Dec 10 to Dec 01 and I caught them by sheer fluke) and adding misdated BLP nominations. The admins page said I was meant to put warnings onto their talk page before giving it to the admins? Although there's already a warning or two on there (which I had to undelete after they blanked their own talk page). User talk:8.37.225.5

Where next? Neonchameleon (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . When warnings don't stop vandalism, please file a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism, following the instructions there. Thanks.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)