Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 27

Editors making false edit summaries, old misleading statements, Controversial when it's NOT
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostate-specific_antigen&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostate_cancer&action=history

Please review these edits and explain how I should respond. I'm using the most updated specific info. They older stuff claiming controversial. Please explain how Yobol can claim 3x when looks like he's done exactly that hurting wiki integrity.32cllou (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi 32cllou. I'm sorry to hear you've run into a rough patch here.  I've spent a fair amount of time looking over those two pages and it looks like a straightforward case of substituting passionate, good-faith editing for consensus-building.  You were trying to improve a complex, high-profile, controversial article without sufficient appreciation of the details of wp:3rr, wp:primary, wp:undue, wp:rs, wp:medrs, and most importantly wp:consensus.  As such, it's perfectly understandable that you kept making the same edits after they had been reverted.  You now have a better understanding of the limits of this approach, and that gives you the opportunity to try a different approach.


 * As to the response: arguing the nuances of the wp:3rr violation may be cathartic, but it's probably not a good use of your time.  I recommend spending a bit of time reading the archives of wp:ANEW.  If this is the first 3rr you've run into it's probably looming pretty large.  After reading the experiences of several dozen other people who have found themselves in the same situation you might be inclined to see this as a newbie mistake that you won't make again and let the matter drop.


 * Garamond Lethe 07:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the series of edits. I really want the matter to drop because there are so many articles need updating to current science.  You too, so thanks for your eyes on the issues.  I hope you saw those two trying to prevent any of the updated USTFPF from getting into the lead.  As it is, Yobol took "overtreatment" (left in overdiagnosis so you can guess he did it on purpose) out of the lead, but made sure "controversial", and the NYT vague wording was IN.  The real harm is is overtreatment the many men very stressed by overdiagnosis (including false pos), plus major side effects of treatment including killing 2  - 4 patients versus saving 1 from prostate cancer.  I see now the NYT is gone.


 * I propose leaving those specific harms of overtreatment out (my guess what they really don't want in the lead and it's covered lower), and ending the paragraph with "The USTFPF review of research studies found that "the potential benefit does not outweigh the expected harms."[6] I will take the time to read all those wiki instr pages first, thanks.  I will put that proposal in the article talk, wait for comments, and wait until tomorrow to fix the article.


 * I will not respond to jmh649 requesting I address article talk in his personal talk. We will stick to the article talk.  How do I solicit other editor eyes?


 * Different problem I have is with spelling as I never bothered to learn that spellcheck making me lazy mind. Just once wiki gave me alternative spellings with the curser on the red squiggled line under the misspelled work.  How do I activate that feature in wiki?32cllou (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I forgot. Can you rule on the TED / Ornish presentation being primary?  I will back up the Ornish speech with journal articles as well, but think users would benefit from seeing the whole presentation charts and graphs and study images and lists of foods to avoid and favor.32cllou (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's what I'll propose in talk:
 * PSA is present in small quantities in the serum of men with healthy prostates, but is often elevated in the presence of prostate cancer or other prostate disorders. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF, 2012) does not recommend PSA screening, noting that the test may result in “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” because "most prostate cancer is asymptomatic for life," and treatments involve risks of complications.  The USPSTF concludes "the potential benefit does not outweigh the expected harms." 32cllou (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First page: feedback requested
I've been working on my first page, a bio of the security expert Alec Muffett. Page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melodien/Alec_Muffett. Alec is very well known in the security community, and other Wikipedia pages reference his work, but there is no page for the man himself. I have some more material to add, and I'm trying to source a usable photo, but I would be obliged if I could get some general guidance of the page as it currently stands. For the record, Alec and I worked together many years ago, and he is aware that I am doing this - I think he's amused by the idea. Melodien (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there Melodien, welcome to the Teahouse! Honestly it's hard for me to tell if Alec would be considered suitably notable for an article, but here are some of my thoughts assuming that he is. First I think you need more reliable sources, Flickr and the subject's blog don't count as such. A few reliable secondary sources with information about what makes Alec notable should be in your references. You probably also want to avoid certain types of language like, "Alec has inherited many of his father’s characteristics, including an imposing physical presence, forthright manner and tendency to pour scorn on damn foolishness wherever he encounters it." (unless it is a quote from a major article, perhaps?) You want to be as neutral as possible.
 * A quick note on linking in Wikipedia, you can use two brackets like this User:Melodien/Alec_Muffett to produce a smaller, simpler, link called a "wiki-link": User:Melodien/Alec_Muffett
 * Good luck on the article and feel free to ask more questions any time! heather walls (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

What to do when you spot a cut-and-paste hatchet job?
Hi there, I was doing some research to fill in the citations needed on Jimi Hendrix's wiki, when (quelle surprise) I found that one of the references I found was actually pasted in full, as regular text in the wiki - this is the Thin Pillow reference. There's one word changed - technically, I guess it's not violating copyright but it is in principle. Is this fine like this - to cut and paste and just change a word or two? If not, what's the best thing to do? Add the citation and rewrite the paragraph and start a topic on the talk page mentioning that the material was copyright with a reference to a wikipedia rule about this? It's been done at least twice (that I've found) in Jimi's wiki - stereophonic phasing. There may be more occurrences of it - unfortunately, I don't have the time just now to check the entire text. Any thoughts appreciated. Cheers,Charlie Inks (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Changing only one word doesn't get around copyright laws, or Wikipedia's policies on copyright. Even close paraphrasing can be problematic. I can't access the online source so don't know how much (or how little) of it has been copied. If it's substantial I'd advice either re-writing it or deleting it. I tend to spot copy-paste situations by the non-neutral or chatty language, which often means it has been copied from a promotional web source. Sionk (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Charlie Inks, and thanks for stopping by. If you can tell which editor added the problem sentence(s), it would be appropriate to mention it to them on their talk page. If you do so, keep the wording friendly, as the editor may not have been aware of the issue of close paraphrasing, and may have thought that changing a word or two was sufficient. Hope this helps. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sionk and Rosiestep, I really appreciate both of you sharing your thoughts on this. Unfortunately, no I don't have time to go back through the editing logs to figure out who contributed these sections. That said, I'm grateful for the guidance on this. If you or someone else can point me to the section in wikipedia's rules on copy and paste, I'd be grateful. I'll add the citation and delete/reWrite (the citation is clear), and leave it at that. Once again, big thanks for this. Cheers, --Charlie Inks (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Charlie. What you do is remove the infringing content immediately and without a second thought (which I have done, after secondarily confirming that it is a copyright violation; the link you posted is no longer displaying the content but the book is available online through other links). Thanks for finding this. Finding the responsible editor can be done relatively easily by using the WikiBlame tool. The content was added in February 2006 by an IP so there's no warnings or anything that can be usefully applied here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather unorthodox request for help improving a page
I was watching TV today and Jim Shoulders was mentioned rather prominently in a new show on National Geographic. I expect there to be a decent amount of page views, and the article is currently unreferenced and could use some improvements. Anyone want to to help out? Ryan Vesey Review me!  01:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ryan, I'd be glad to have a look at it today. Myrtle.

Myrtlegroggins (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, there's some good sources in the edit history at . I found some copyvio and let  clean it up but she only brought over the sources for information she retained that was still unsourced. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  21:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heya, Ryan, see what you think - The article could be expanded now - preferably by someone familiar with rodeo - ie definitely not me (smiling and bows to teahouse hosts). Myrtle.

Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

why cant i find my article?
wrote an article on wikipedia, but cant find it on the internet108.15.43.136 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. What was the article called?  Because you're editing from an IP address, it has changed since you created the article so we can't tell from you history what the article was. NtheP (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

the article is called "severn christian school" and when i go on the internet i cant find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severn586947 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

hello? little help, simple question. wrote an article on wikipedia,like four sentences, what do I do to make it appear when I go online, very new here so simple answer pleaseSevern586947 (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Severn! The article is at Severn christian school. It might take a while for it to be picked up by search engines such as Google though. benzband  ( talk ) 20:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks, deeply appriciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severn586947 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Diplomatic way to add a new section to an existing wiki
Hi there, I know this can be a thorny subject, so before I go ahead and add something currently bubbling away in my brain and various bookmarks to an extensive wiki about the greatest rock guitarist EVER, is there a best practices way to approach this? Would it best, for instance, to start this as a subject on the wiki's talk page? Or, just dive in...? :) Or...? I'm asking in particular, because the wiki in question is in some ways, somewhat limited in terms of the portrait that emerges (I'm being very diplomatic, and trying to be sensitive here on racial issues.) I don't believe it was deliberate, but a lot of who he was racially, ethnically, culturally, and how that affected both his career, how he was sold, his music, his style...there's some of that, but not so much. I'm developing references to the cultural and political dimensions of his life as an artist and musician (some of which is in his own words). To further complicate matters, it's not completely clear to me from the current structure of the wiki, where I might place it. Under "legacy", new/changed subtitle to "cultural and political legacy"? I really really hate segmenting off race as a separate part of a person's life - as a person of colour myself - because it can become a judgment and a limit. And in the case of this guitarist, it's so clear that he was all about a very different reality. But where to put this? Maybe it'll be two places.... Anyways, FYI, I did look back in the wiki history to the earliest listed editor - who from what I saw, doesn't appear to be the person who created the wiki, btw. Unfortunately, and I feel sad about this, he no longer contributes :( (His edits go back TEN years!!!! Amazing!) otherwise I would've very happily put a post on his talk page, to ask him what he thought. I know stuff like this can get very contentious, and you know, having been on wikipedia before for years, and left, and now coming back, I kinda like my uterus walls and other body parts just the way they are...and really don't want to be dealing with a nasty situation (I'm sure I hardly need to elaborate on that to the experienced editors who may read this....). Any suggestions about this? I just don't want to get into a major conflict with anyone... but, at the same time, yes, I'm convinced based on my research, that what I'm developing adds a whole new dimension to the wiki, totally referenced of course, and based in verifiable facts. All thoughts, suggestions, very welcome :D Charlie Inks (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings! First I would like to say that your restraint in making changes you know will be controversial is admirable.


 * In my humble opinion I would suggest creating a draft of what you want to add in your sandbox and then posting on the talk page of the article in question and ask the editors who watch it for their opinions on what you have done. I just think that if you go to the talk page before you have anything concrete, the dissent from other editors will merely be a matter of throwing wild speculations back and forth without getting anywhere. Unfortunately, people tend to take ownership of the articles they have worked on and are apt to think them best the way they are. If you have something concrete, and the editors involved in the article seem not to want to listen or start making personal attacks, you will be in a much better position to go to previously uninvolved third parties for their opinions. In that case, if you were REALLY motivated, you may want to follow the habits of certain editors of sifting through the many caverns of Wikipedia to find editors who have proven themselves in the past to be fair, rational, and civil and inviting those editors to take part. This is because posting on noticeboards, especially the dispute resolution noticeboard, often invites users (who hang around those projects because they just like to argue) to escalate the problem even further until it goes to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and people get blocked. The best way is to get some level-headed people (there are many right here in the Teahouse) to do what they do best, which is to interact with people rationally.


 * But, of course, you may only be met with constructive advice or no replies at all in a reasonable amount of time (maybe a week), in which case you may Be Bold! and add what you have written to the article. Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 03:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Hajatvrc, A Big Thank YOU for responding here.... You've been very generous and kind to me - by being straight up. I really appreciate it! I know I'm kinda opening several cans of worms at once, eh? (race, long-standing wiki, controversy, who knows what else?) First, my restraint comes from previous experience (Yes, I'm Experienced! :D ) Also, scars teach a person many things. I just started filling gaps other editors identified, then as I continued to read, and research, I realized certain dimensions to the man's life aren't represented! I was kept up many nights when I was a kid by my big brother playing this guy's tracks on his guitar in the room next door.... I didn't listen to Jimi's music for years, and then, I don't know. I happened upon his wiki and I'm like, wait a second... what about blank blank and... wow... where's blank? And all of sudden, I'm Burning a Midnight Lamp, All Along the Watchtower in a Purple Haze looking up references, seeing through research other dimensions to who he was, and how life unfolded for the guy who kept me awake when I was a little girl, just trying to get some sleep. :D It was a Long Hot Summer Night! I very much appreciate your suggestions, especially about what could happen, good and not so good. I'm not trying to change the world...it's just like there are a few other threads, and bits and pieces, not through anyone's bad intention, malice, or even oversight, that just are not represented here. And yes, I do feel strongly about this, even if I'm livin' on a Little Wing. Thank You for the support and encouragement. I reckon I'm gonna do the Wild Thing, and as you suggest, (draft in sandbox), and see what goes down. Wiki Love right Back At ya!! :D

--Charlie Inks (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate way to reference article in an edited book?
I want to clean up some of the articles on Raymond Chandler and on his books.. I've found a great book the world of Raymond Chandler, edited by Miriam Gross with all sorts of chapters about Chandler by people who knew him. So for example I want to reference the chapter Lost Fortnight by John Houseman in the book The World of Raymond Chandler edited by Miriam Gross. I tried looking for example of such refs and couldn't find them and I looked at the help docs and although I probably missed it couldn't find it there either. Mdebellis (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You would normally list the author of the book as Miriam Gross Ed. and, I suppose, for the page references you could also list the Chapter No., if you have one, as well as the page range e.g. Chapter 4 pp. XX-XX. Sionk (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mdebellis! has inbuilt parameters for editor(s), chapter and page(s).  benzband  ( talk ) 09:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c with Benzband) Good suggestions but that leaves out the author of the chapter. I think they should be listed in the author field since the content being cited comes from them, and by using the chapter parameter, it's pretty clear that the author listed is being cited as author of the chapter. Here's my suggestion for the specific chapter you mention Mdebellis:""
 * Obviously here, the page number(s) and chapter number are meant to be filled in. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Outstanding! Thanks for the clear and prompt responses. I realize it was a fairly basic question, I confess I also wanted to just try asking a question to get used to how that works. Thanks again. Mdebellis (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How to stop someone from harrassing me
I have been posting an edit on the Anesthesia page under the subject providers. User Yobol has taken my edit down at least 5 times today. I have properly cited my edit and Yobol only told me once that he didnt think my edit was appropriate but gave no other reason for taking my edit down. I sent him a message on talk, and asked him to stop taking my edit down without a better reason than his own personal opinion. He continues to remove my edit without giving a reason. As a new user/editor I find this very frustrating, almost to the point where I'm going to delete my account. I thought it would be fun to participate but it seems like there are people here who think they own the place. Is there a way to get him to stop harrassing me? or should I just give up and quit editing?

Thanks for any help.

DMD453DMD453 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. The best thing is to engage on the article talk page. You will see that Yobol has left a note there. Note that Yobol is not the only editor to revert your text, due to concerns that this section contained text copied from another website.  That is likely to be a complete showstopper, unless you can demonstrate that this text has been released under an appropriate license.  We tend to take copyright concerns very seriously. Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Question on "List of episodes" articles
What is the minimum number of episodes/seasons required to warrant a "List of episodes" article? Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nathan, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't think there is a definitive answer to this.  I would look at it this way - if I added this list to the article on the parent series, would it make it too large?  If so then I'd consider a separate article. NtheP (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, thanks! --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If in doubt, be bold - the worst outcome is likely to be a merge back to the parent article. NtheP (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice board etiquette
I was participating in a discussion on a noticeboard yesterday. However, I have been away from my computer since yesterday evening and today the discussion has moved on quite a way. There have been several new comments added by several contributors. I want to reply to some of those comments, and to some that have already had replies to them and replies to the replies! I was wondering what the rules are here. Can I break into the text and add replies directly following the pint to which I want to reply, or will that be considered as rude or against some polcy or code of conduct? I can't see how I can fit in all I want to say otherwise. Please advise, I'm a bit wary of making a faux pas and and antagonising someone. Ornaith (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ornaith. Well, generally it is normal to add to the bottom of the discussion because it goes chronologically which makes it easier for reading, but nobody will think anything of it if you reply part-way down.  Rcsprinter  (converse)  @ 19:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ornaith and thanks for your question. Let me add to Rcsprinter's great reply, that you could also consider starting your initial reply with the "@" sign, as in @Rosiestep, then create another reply which starts with @(someone else) and so on. Hope this helps. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Rcsprinter, Rosiestep, thanks for your help. I took heed of your advice. Ornaith (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other thing to note is how people indent replies with ":"s. This means that you can add items into the appropriate point in discussions, by using one more level of indentign than the person you are replying too.  I'm sure there must be a good diagram of how this works somewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 23:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

I'm on page Category: French Women Writers and ....
This page is basically an alphabetical list of names / links to articles about each author. I noticed a nineteenth century author that is missing from the list. When I click on edit, it takes me to a page that is not workable for simply adding the name/link (there is a Wikipedia article on this author) ... So I am stymied as how to proceed. How do I add an author to this list? Is this a closed page even though there is an edit link at the top? Is the link broken? Other edits I've made seemed simple in format. What am I missing, if anything? - Nug Brenec Nug Brunec (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Nug, welcome to the Teahouse! To add the category, go to the person's article and click edit. Next, go to the bottom of the article and you should see a list of catgories. Add to the list and then save the page. -- Neil N    talk to me  18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nug, if it's any consolation, I used to have this block about this. Now I just remember you add categories to articles, not articles to categories. NtheP (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN - That Worked! Henry Greville added. --Nug Brunec (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What would be the course if there were no already existing Wiki article from which to link? --Nug Brunec (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You would need to write the article first (a stub is ok). Do you have an example in mind? -- Neil N   talk to me  18:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN. None that specifically come to mind, although a book I added to a list some time ago had no wiki article, even though it was well-known in the genre. However its author had an article. It was just a stray thought, as I am a used book dealer and sometimes come upon obscure things and personages that I am researching that have no wiki articles. Thanks, again, very much for your assistance. --Nug Brunec (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome! Wikipedia is nowhere near complete so any additions are greatly appreciated! -- Neil N   talk to me  18:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are often complementary "list of" pages, some of these are deliberately limited to entities that have a WP article, others are wider ranging. Rich Farmbrough, 23:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Hi again
What if an editor accuses you putting your opinion as a fact, although the info put is sourced? Is there any action against such "editors"? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Egeymi. Start by discussing it on the talk page. If you are sure of your facts and problems continue take it to the Dispute resolution noticeboard--Charles (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Charlesdrakew. The problem seems not to continue, even though I am still unhappy with it. Egeymi (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How to make or insert a family tree in a new article? I want to write in Wikipedia
How to make or insert a family tree in a new article? I want to write in Wikipedia94.15.214.17 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good day and welcome to the Teahouse. In general, Wikipedia does not include genealogical entries.  There are some alternative outlets suggested by Wikipedia for family tree information:  WikiTree and Familypedia.  There may be other ways to present your material if the subjects meet Wikipedia notability standards.  If you create an account here and draft your proposed article in the account sandbox, we can take a look at it and make suggestions.  Hope to see you around more, DocTree (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. On the other hand, if it's legitimate sourced notable encyclopedic content, you could try looking at WikiProject Genealogy. -- Trevj (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. 94.15.214.17 (talk)R A Malik94.15.214.17 (talk)
 * Note: a tree of ancestors for a small number of generations can be easily produced using the ahnentafel template family - see . The  tempalte family can be used for more standard family trees. Rich Farmbrough, 06:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Tables and virtual editing.
How do you add stuff to templates and is there a visual way of editing tables?Sport and politics (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sport and politics. "Adding stuff" is and expression that leaves it rather wide open as to what you mean. Many templates have existing parameters where you can tailor the template by following the instructions on the template's documentation, usually available from the template page itself. But you might mean adding functionality, additional parameters and the like to templates. That's a big issue and I can only refer you to Help:Template for you to explore and then come back with specific questions. There are many templates that employ "intricate syntax", which makes adding to them quite difficult if you are not quite familiar with how to code them already. Regarding tables, the tool at WikiEd can convert text and tables pasted from Microsoft Word. de:Wikipedia:Helferlein/VBA-Macro / de:Benutzer:Duesentrieb/csv2wp_(en) / http://area23.brightbyte.de/csv2wp.php / https://bitbucket.org/JanKanis/wiki2csv / http://sourceforge.net/projects/csv2other/each provide functions for converting Excel and/or CSV tables to wikitable formats. See more at Tools.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How to edit the location of a Facebook page populated by wikipedia.
Some Facebook pages are populated by wikipedia articles. However, many of these pages are given improper information regarding the *location* of the page, or in my case, the University.

How do you edit this information?

It is properly listed in the wikipedia article but improperly listed on the Facebook page.

Please help.

173.8.25.114 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. That has been coming up quite a bit and it is a problem but unfortunately [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|20px]] Facebook community pages may incorporate content from Wikipedia— such use complies with Wikipedia policies on reuse of content. We at Wikipedia have no control over how the content is included nor can we help to remove it. Facebook does have a topic on Community pages and profile connections on their Help Center.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

re:talk pages
I ended up in a bit of back and forth with several IP editors over an edit I made at Bicycle. Amongst the dialogue was an assertion that one of the IP's friends could "guarantee" an articles approval if I wrote it. All this dialogue occurred on my talk page. Wanting nothing to do with it, I redacted the whole section. Was I wrong for that? Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Gtwfan, welcome back! If it was on your own user talk page, then you're fine. People are granted some pretty broad freedoms to remove comments from their own talk pages as they see fit, per WP:OWNTALK. Now, if it were an article talk page, or someone else's talk page, that would be a different story, but in this case, you should be fine. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TYVM Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

How to measure undue weight of pseudoscience?
An editor has recently been adding citations to (I suspect) his own work in several diverse articles. These have been reverted as WP:FRINGE without controversy in all but one article, where it may actually be appropriate.

Kirlian Photography is both a legitimate technique for capturing electrical coronal effects as well as a body of pseudoscience and paranormal healing claims that have grown up around the technique. For example, a publication of I. Ignatov is cited in the article to the effect that the Kirlian technique "provided evidence for the origin of life in hot mineral water". To the best of my knowledge, that text is accurate and neutral with regard to the content of the article.

Does this cite fail the WP:UNDUE clause?

If this work was cited in an actual science article the fact that it was not peer-reviewed and the absence of follow-on work would be sufficient cause to remove it.

While it could be cited as an example of pseudoscience, I would be more comfortable if there was a reliable source that stated the work was pseudoscience rather than just relying on my professional judgement. I doubt any such published judgement will exist for work this obscure.

So, fellow Teahouse members, can a citation to pseudoscientific work in an article focused almost entirely on pseudoscience fail WP:UNDUE? Is it appropriate to say "Your paper must be cited by others to be mentioned, even if the citations are from other pseudoscientists"? Or, in this case, does its utility as an example allow an exception to the Undue rule?

Many thanks,

Garamond Lethe 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings. The answers to your questions are dependent upon the context, as I am sure you know. I have read the paragraph to which you are referring, which talks about Ignatov's claims. I do not think this small paragraph is an example of undue weight. It would be undue weight if the idea had its own section, as it is not nearly notable enough to warrant that. But, the section in which this paragraph is located clearly states that many of the claims to follow are pseudo-scientific, and I think Ignatov's claim is a good example of what pseudo-scientists are trying to do with Kirlian Photography.
 * But this is not a matter for one editor to decide. I would welcome other Teahouse watchers to read the last paragraph at Kirlian_Photography and give their opinions. Hope this helps. Happy editing, hajat  vrc  with WikiLove @ 17:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Causes for an earthquake
i heard that there are many lines or tables of water flow underground. on drying or lowering of water level, will it cause an earthquake.?Erkarthikn (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Erkarthikn Please do come back if you have a different kind of question. For this one, Symbol_move_vote.svg Have you tried the section of Wikipedia's Reference Desk? They specialize in answering knowledge questions there; this help desk is only for questions about using Wikipedia.  For your convenience, here is the link to post a question there: [ click here] . I hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I think what you have heard about is the possibility that extensive fracking is causing tremors in some places. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Proper format and content for a hard boiled novel The Little Sister page
I've been making minor edits to pages that describe books by one of my all time favorite authors Raymond Chandler. So far its been cleaning up minor errors and adding references. I feel ready to make bigger changes. I added a reference to the page for The Little Sister the other day. Its funny, I never really bothered to actually read the whole page until just now. I know the plot so well I didn't bother. Its terrible! The plot description stops about a third of the way into the book and then just ends with a story about how Bill Wilder inspired one of the minor characters in the book. I plan to make the plot description complete but I'm wondering what to do with the anecdote about Billy Wilder. I actually think it adds a lot to the article. I know a lot about Chandler but I didn't know that story until I read it here on Wikipedia (I got started editing by providing a proper refernce for that story). My question is, is there a good example page on another book that includes such a story? Something I could use as a template? It clearly doesn't belong in the Plot Summary. I think it needs to be in another section but I'm not sure what to call that secion? I think one of the interesting things about this book is that it reflects Chandler's (mostly very negative) experience as a Hollywood script writer and would like to create a section for further references to support that. Mdebellis (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I would be inclined to create a section called "Inspiration". If someone comes up with a better title they can change it, after all! Sounds fascinating. Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC).


 * Howdy, Michael. Since you express an interest in books, may I suggest you go farther?  Join the WikiProject Novels.  The project created a Manuel of Style for Articles about Novels that suggests a Background section to answer questions like, "Did the author model a character on a 'real life' person?"  When you finish fixing up the article, list The Little Sister on the Project Novels Assessment Page.  A member of the project will take a look and get the article out of the stub quality assessment class. Take care and BE BOLD, DocTree (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Both are good ideas, thanks, I like the novel template idea, I thought there might be something like that. Also answers another thing I was wondering about, how to get the article looked at and upgraded once I've improved it. Mdebellis (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User page etiquette question
I am kinda new here, and think I will be for awhile, with the enormous amount of information to wade through. I was browsing the do's and don'ts for user pages and wondering if my user page is ok? There is a section that that talks about the non use of templates on User pages. I have one that helps me to find some things I need such as the article I was reviewing again this afternoon. Not sure if I am understanding the rules correctly. Can someone help me with this? Thanks  Ț ♥ ttØØd Ẅ ♥ itre§   22:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Your user page looks fine, I'm not sure the section you are referring to, maybe it concerned other user's talk pages? Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC).


 * Hi Tattoodwaitress, welcome to the Teahouse! Your user page is fine (and is quite nice looking!). There are some templates designed for articles or article talk pages but you don't have any of those. -- Neil N   talk to me  23:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome thank you so much for your help.  Ț ♥ ttØØd Ẅ ♥ itre§   23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It think maybe you saw the advice at WP:UP. That just means you shouldn't place templates on your userpage that are specifically intended for use in articles and policies, like placing at the top of your user page the template that say "this page is an official wikipedia policy".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Simple English Wiki
Hi, does the Simple English Wikipedia follow the same guidelines as this one does? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, AutomaticStrikeout. Pretty much, but they're still all documented there because of minor changes. Have a look.  Rcsprinter  (talk to me)  @ 17:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Article rejected
HI there,

My article keeps getting rejected and I'm not sure why. Can someone help? Here is the article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/World Music Network

Thanks - any help much appreciated.Wiki5252 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Wiki5252 and welcome to the Teahouse. I think the problem with your article is that it reads too much like a review of the label not an encyclopedia article.  As the reviewer said it isn't really maintaining a Neutral point of view.  You are using phrases like "is one of the leading forces on the world music scene." - in whose opinion?  If this is a statement that can be supported by references then fine but otherwise this is an example of what on wikipedia is known as a peacock term or puffery. "The Think Global series combined the ideals of reducing poverty, defending human rights and protecting the environment with collections of music from around the world." is another example of a claim that isn't supported by references.  And it extends to section headings such as "The Story" are similar - it's not a story but a history.  Sounds boring I know but wikipedia is after the facts not the hype.
 * If you go through and moderate the tone of the language used AND support the article with more Reliable sources then it might meet the necessary criteria. I'd also suggest dropping the discography and just mention any issues that are notable in their own right. NtheP (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Created article but still don't see
I created an article earlier this month but still don't see it on main page. How do I check it's status? Thanks! Audieb70 (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a feeling that you want to check ITS (not IT'S) status. (See my Userboxes, particularly the last group, the one that includes "It's, its.")  But that sorted out, I did take a look.


 * Is this [] the article you're talking about? It looks a little like a professional resume.  The references (none specifically backing up any statements in the article) are a bibliography of papers coauthored by the subject of the article; they're not independent sources at all, and they're not likely to back up the facts you present regarding his CV.  And there's no real indication of notability for the topic.  I don't think Wikipedia looks for an article on every individual who happens to be successful in his or her profession.  Uporządnicki (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Audieb, and thanks for dropping by the teahouse. You article in in the WP:Articles for creation queue, looks like there are 485 pending submissions there.  So be patient and a volunteer will review your article eventually.
 * To expand on AzseicsoK's comment: there are very specific guidelines for whether a topic is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article.  There are two in particular you should read, notability guidelines for academics and for people in general.  At a first glance it's not clear to me that the combination of awards and publication will be sufficient for notability in this case.  Garamond Lethe  18:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

crerar's de luxe ginger beer
Hi< I am Vivienne Steenkamp, living in Pietermaritzburg KZN. SA. I read an article in your Wikipedia:Reference dsk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 November 7. Content No. 1.17 Secret Ingrediants - Sandman30s written 9 November 2006. I was wondering if I could get into contact with him on FB or email? I have been lookin online for this product & manufacturer but have come up with nothing. I would like a bit of history. I part own a club in Pietermaritzburg & we opend a cellar that we think has not been opend in many years. All we found were 3 of these bottels. The sias "Crerar's de luxe Ginger Beer. Established 1900. Phone No. 23972. I wold appreciate if anybody can help me as I am also looking for any history on the club as well. Thanking you. Vivienne41.135.89.30 (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome Vivienne. Sandman 30s edited in May last and so may still be around. You can leave a note on the editor's talkpage. Email does not seem to be available for that editor. That is the best we can do.--Charles (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability and Reference to Primary Sources: Warning Attachment
Hi,

When an article is created, it usually gets a "Notability and Reference to Primary Sources" warning notification attached to it. Are there any guidelines regarding the retention and/or deletion of the notification?

Is there a review process? Can an editor remove the notification if he/she believes the article has been improved sufficiently?

Regards

Ggreybeard (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ggreybeard. There's no formal procedure for the review of the maintenance tags. Any editor can remove the notification if he or she believes that the issues have been addressed. - CTS  talk  03:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks CTS! Ggreybeard (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How to make signatures?
How can I make a signature like advanced Wikipedians with all different colors and fonts? Thanks. IamReallyReallyCool (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi IamReallyReallyCool! Thanks for starting to edit Wikipedia!  I can certainly see your enthusiasm.  Creating your own signature requires a little bit of knowledge of some complex wikimarkup; however, one of the easiest things you can do is find a signature you really like and replace their name with your own.  You can even do some testing in your sandbox.  Do you see the "My sandbox" button at the top of your screen?  Once you create one that looks good, you can go to "My preferences" at the top.  Then, in the signature section, paste in your desired signature and check the box that says "Treat the above as wiki markup".  Just make sure it contains a link to your user page and/or your talk page.  On another note, I'll be watching your talk page so I can help you along as you get started, if you are having trouble figuring out what to edit or how to edit it, let me know or ask your question here at the Teahouse.  On another note, I made this image, File:Sebastian Lake talk page.png, to explain some things about the talk page edit window to another editor.  You might want to take a look since it will help you along. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania? :)
There's a thread on the host talk page about Wikimania. Sarah and J-mo and myself are here! Anyone (not just hosts!) want to meet up at lunch time tomorrow? That would be Friday, and that would be awesome, please do. heather walls (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that one's sandbox was a private space
Up until this evening, I had thought that one's sandbox was a private space. Then this: happened – somebody that I had never even heard of before now. I feel invaded. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Gareth Griffith-Jones. According to WP:UP, "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space belong to the wider community. They are not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. They are part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier. Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you . . ." If you dislike the change, then feel free to revert it. Also, your "sandbox" page looks a lot like a talk page, so the other editor may have felt that the change was appropriate. In conclusion, there are no truly "private spaces" on Wikipedia, though most editors will leave most of your user pages alone, except for talk pages. Hope this helps.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. What's more, I posted on the editor's Talk page and received a satisfactory explanation this evening.  Thank you for your time, User:Cullen328.
 * Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I, too, appreciate your kind words, and I am glad that I could be of some assistance.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted edits, what are they?
In edit counter tool I found that I have three deleted edits. What are deleted edits exactly? It can't be undone edits because I've got more than three edits undone by other editors. Krystaleen 18:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome, Krystaleen. It isn't undone or reverted edits, as a tool can't detect them. It is similar to deleting entire pages, except it's only one edit to the page. This can only be done by oversighters and means nobody can see the diff of what the edit was, except administrators. See WP:SUPPRESS for more information of deleted edits.  Rcsprinter  (tell me stuff)  @ 18:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just that though. Rcsprinter is describing revision deletion and oversight, but the "deleted edits" count also ccounts other things.  Spefically, it counts edits when the entire pages are themselves deleted later.  The important thing is that it doesn't mean that your edits were a problem.  Like, if you see a bad article and tag it for deletion, and it gets deleted, that tag addition will count towards the deleted edits.  So, for example, I do a lot of speedy deletion tagging; since I'm making a lot of edits to pages that get deleted, I have a lot of "deleted edits" (about 1,360 at my last count), even though my edits weren't problematic. (At least as far as I know!)  So, don't worry about those three deleted edits; it doesn't necessarily mean you've been doing anything wrong. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Krystaleen, The deleted edits were your dabbing of a link in List of BMG Music Club's top-selling albums in the United States, which was deleted as the result of Articles for deletion/List of BMG Music Club's top-selling albums in the United States, and two minor edits you made to List of best-selling boy bands, which was deleted as the result of Articles for deletion/List of best-selling boy bands. By the way, can you please link your name in your signature to either your user or user talk pages? You could do this, without changing the appearance of your signature at all, by going to your preference and changing it to:

The reason the policy requires such a link is because it makes it easier on other users. For example, here, I had to go to the page history in order to know what your username actually was in order to look for your deleted edits (I could not assume it was plain Krystaleen because many users pipe their names to a variant or something different, and even if I had assumed I would have had to copy and paste it and type in "user:"; more difficult than just clicking a link). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, all of you. I was wondering what it was. I didn't know about revision deletion and oversight, I didn't know such things existed. Will read some more about them. So in my case it was because of deleted pages, thanks for telling me. I know I had 2 deleted edits for the longest time, but yesterday it became 3 and I was just so curious I just had to know what it meant :D and thank you about the signature too, I've replaced the codes. I wasn't aware it wasn't linking properly.--  Krystaleen  03:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

copyright clearance on images
Hi, I recently uploaded two public doman images to WP Commons. However, I am not certain if I have to submit proof of their copyright status or only if challenged. I would prefer to do it now, then I know there won't be problems down the line. I don't want some other editor, or a bot, to come along and tag the images for deletion because their public domain status has not been confirmed where it needed to be. It might help if whoever answers clarifies generally on when you have to submit your support for the relevant licence and when you don't have to. Thanks!  David_FLXD  (Talk) 17:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi David! Your proof should come at the same time as you upload.  It appears from your uploads that you received permission from the author, is this correct?  If you did, tag them with OTRS pending and send an email to  permissions-commons@wikimedia.org showing that you have permission.  You can follow the advice at Donating copyrighted materials for anything you are still unsure of.  Thanks for your contributions! Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ryan. Just for perfect clarity:
 * we should always send the email (or other confirmation) at the same time we upload the images
 * for ANY licence (the licence type doesn't matter).
 * And then, in that situation, tag the image information page (not the article page) with the tag
 * whether on Commons or on WP itself (depending on where it was uploaded to).
 * Have I got it straight?  David_FLXD  (Talk) 18:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, an OTRS permission isn't needed if you are uploading an image when you own the copyright for that you would release it using Self (or pd-self if you were willing to release it into the public domain). In addition, an image that is already in the public domain just needs an applicable public domain tag, but you may sometimes want to prove that it is in the public domain (i.e. linking to something that states an image was published before 1923 when using pd-1923).  Finally, if you are uploading an image that someone released using a creative commons license on their website, you should link to the page where they state they release the image rather than sending an email to OTRS.  Other than that, you are correct in that any time someone gives you permission to release their content, and it isn't stated somewhere on the internet, you should send an email to OTRS.  This applies to Commons and WP; however, the images should be primarily uploaded to Commons.  Feel free to ask more questions, copyright is one of the most confusing issues on Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  18:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's great. I'm going to keep this around to refer to!  David_FLXD  (Talk) 18:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

why do we see dreams?
why do we see dreams?,and in dreams if we remember some incidents (or feel so)is it a part of our dream or is it a part of our memory Ann mary ajay (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ann mary ajay! I suggest you read our article on dreams. Also, the Teahouse can (usually) only provide help with editing Wikipedia; please ask any factual questions at the Wikipedia Reference desk. Cheers, benzband  ( talk ) 13:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

my wiki account not appears on google as previous
hello, my user named chetan singh jadaun.Please help me to know Why my account appears as below

Denny User:Chetan singh jadaun - http://en.wikipedia.org/w... July 3 from Wikipedia - Recent changes... - Comment - Like - Share I never connect to this above site. Chetan singh jadaun (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Chetan and welcome to the Tea House. The page you found is on FriendFeed. That website automatically tracks recent changes on other websites, including Wikipedia. I'm afraid Wikipedia has no control over it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding pictures
How do you add a picture to a page you're editing? I've read the embedding, but I am very confused about how I can get pictures from my desktop into the article. Help me please! 2xDoubleHelix (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi 2xDoubleHelix, Welcome to Wikipedia. You have to upload the particular photo via Wikicommons here. Follow the prompts, and make sure that you are aware of the copyright status of the given image. - CTS  talk  06:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi 2xDoubleHelix. I agree with Cntras but only if the image is under a free license compatible with our the free license Wikimedia content is licensed under or is in the public domain. If the image is copyrighted and non-free then it's still possible it may be used here under a claim of fair use but it's intended use must strictly comply with each part of the non-free content criteria and must be uploaded locally, to Wikipedia rather than to the Wikimedia Commons. We might be able to offer more targeted advice if you tell us the specifics about the image – its copyright or lack of copyright and intended use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello all, your help is very much appreciated. I've figured out how to do the photos. Thanks to all!2xDoubleHelix (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

how can i deactivated my wiki account
Chetan singh jadaun (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Chetan. If you never intend to edit Wikipedia again, you can apply to "vanish". Courtesy vanishing explains how to go about it. A less complicated solution is to add the retired tag to your current user page and simply stop editing. If you want to continue editing and would like to change your user name to a different one, you may request a change of username at any time. Changing username/Simple has information about how to go about this. Voceditenore (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify though, you cannot delete your account, since every edit ever made has to be traced somewhere, whether it be a username or IP address. As Voceditenore says, account renames are possible, so its easy to rename to something random, which may have the same effect as dropping your account.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

YouTube citation: the wikipedia rules are?
Hi there, I've been working on Jimi Hendrix's wiki on and off the last few days, and recently another editor deleted a citation that used a YouTube video. The comment was that it was "poorly sourced". Isn't it considered primary source material? It's documentary evidence of the following: Pete Townshend was the person selected to unveil the first blue plaque dedicated to the presence of Pop/Rock Star in the UK, and the plaque was for Jimi Hendrix - and here's what he said. I found no less than three YouTube videos confirming this. The other comment of the editor was that the additional info was too long for the wiki's intro - fair enough. But if I decide to develop an Awards section for Jimi, is this cat going to take it down again if I quote Pete on how Jimi was The Game Changer? I'm not making it up - Pete and several others have said it - on video. Just askin' and wondering. Because the big people who run wikipedia, may want to give some thought to how we're going to be sourcing articles once the destruction of journalism is virtually completed. I.E. we'll have to rely on video and other sources, much more than before (ailing papers can't afford to keep archive content posted without charging for it...or they just get rid of it altogether). Also, what does "rm" stand for on wikipedia? His entire comment was "rm inappropriate to lead...." Any thoughts anyone? Cheers,
 * Charlie Inks (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Charlie! First, many editors are confused as to how to deal with YouTube sources.  It is a misconception that YouTube can never be used.  This is because most YouTube sources shouldn't be used.  In many cases, it is impossible to determine the identity of the uploader, so information presented may or may not be reliable.  In this case, the material is reliable and would be a primary source.  As such, you could state exactly what happens in the video, but you couldn't explain why something may have happened.  As for the edit summary, "rm" is short for removed.  A lead section of the article should summarize the contents of the article.  Nothing should be presented in the lead that is not in the contents and quotes are generally not included in the lead.  This doesn't mean that the editor won't still try to remove it if you include it in the body.  If he does, you could leave a note on my talk page or bring the issue to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Ryan! As per instructions on your Talk page, I'm responding here. First, Thank You for stepping up to help me - I'm on a Little Wing here! Good to know other people are a little confused about YouTube too. I mean, there's stuff on there that who knows where the original is? I appreciate you adding the detail on suitable info for intros. It did look long when I added this material in. I thought it was significant for a couple of reasons. 1. It's Pete Townshend talking about how big Jimi with English musicians even when no one knew his name. You can see in the clips: Pete is TKO that he's the guy English H. asked to unveil it. Considering what was going on around race, politics, and music back in the day, it's so clear in the clip: he's honoured, humbled, and as he actually says, "so proud to be able to pull this bit of string." 2ndly, I found out (in later research) this was the Very First Blue Plaque in the UK ever devoted to a pop/rock star - and those nice English Heritage people, they're not exactly throwing them at buildings connected with people of colour, let alone black Americans who knocked around the Big Smoke for a year or two, and cut some records, no matter how great they were. Yet, they put the FIRST ONE on the home of a brother called Jimi Hendrix?!! Honestly, I'm astonished and impressed. What do I know? This: it's a Big Deal. Thanks for the tip re putting it back in to a new section for awards, and your offer to help me if this source is challenged. :D Cheers,
 * --Charlie Inks (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Other problems with YouTube vids, Charlie, as you yourself alluded to, are that (as you said) "there's stuff on there that who knows where the original is?" Some YouTube vids are copyright violations, and may be taken down at any moment; others are unclear and may have been edited and altered to such an extent that nothing on them can be relied upon to be accurate. One of our central principles is Verifiability: we don't put stuff in that cannot be fact-checked and discovered to be accurately described. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)