Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 84

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 80 Archive 82 Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 90

Correcting mispelled word in a title

There is a typo in the spelling of the main title of the Wikipedia article about the American painter Abram Molarsky:

The 'r' is missing from his last name.

How can I make that edit?

Frank Beck fbeck@mindspring Frank Beck (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Cullen328 has moved the article. The move function is the arrow down button to the top right tab of the article. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I moved it. Sorry that something came up in the real world that prevented me from explaining the "move " function, which is how we rename articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Doping allegations on Bjørn Dæhlie (skier) page - advice?

Hi, I recently joined Wikipedia to (at least at first) work on Nordic skiing/winter sports pages. So far I have focused on Bjørn Dæhlie's page. There was recently a documentary with (in my view) not well substantiated doping allegations against him. There is now a section about it on his wiki page, some parts more or less unsubstantiated. I am not sure how this should be dealt with, and was wondering if anyone could give some advice. Nje1987 (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Nje1987, let me see if I can address this properly.
The article is about a living person. For this reason we have some very strict policies in regards to criticism. A seperated section with a non-neutral heading is not acceptable. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Balance:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

But, there is more. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.

Also, Avoid gossip and feedback loops:

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

Bare in mind however that they are a Public figure:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

  • Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."
  • Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.
We also have a guideline about using non-english sources. They are only acceptable if there is no other english source of equal quality.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.

  • When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote.

When addressing accuracy disputes involving citations to non-English sources, a translation of the relevant portions of the original may be provided in a footnote, as a courtesy.[1]

Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. When using a machine translation of source material, editors should be reasonably certain that the translation is accurate and the source is appropriate. When posting original source material, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

I am concerned here because the entire section is sourced to non-english references with no translation being made available. I, myself, would question their use in this way. One, maybe two, if they present material not found elswhere that is absolutely needed in the article for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. This seems to me to be too much. But the thing that worries me the most is that this entire section and criticism is based on a single documentary even with the references. I would say this may well be a minority view at the moment and should not be included at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply and for helping me with the edit. Following your last point, I will also endeavor to find more English sources in general. It is a bit difficult with these skiers though, since most of the attention they get is in Nordic newspapers. Nje1987 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
They are not unacceptable, but we should use care when using them. My main issue is with non english sources (for this type of article)being used for obscure information. The major issue here is whether or not the doping allegations are yet notable enough to mention. Happy editing and Welcome to the Teahouse!--Amadscientist (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. Thanks again. I'll try to use non-English sources only when English ones are unavailable. I'll continue trying to improve these articles. I agree with your assessment of the doping allegations. Nje1987 (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Links to web site in an article

Dear editors: Is it okay to have links to personal or band web sites in the middle or an article? Here's an example: Podunk Bluegrass Festival? If not, should I remove the links and leave red links? I have no way of knowing which links are to notable musicians. Is it proper to add the links to the list of external links instead? For a bluegrass festival, that link list would be very long after a few years. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, I would be strongly inclined to remove those sort of external links. At worst they look like they are promoting the musician's website. They're not links that form part of a reliable citation and they're not links to websites directly controlled by the Festival. I wouldn't add them to a list of External links either, for the same reasons. See WP:ELNO. Well spotted! Sionk (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, done. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Very many thanks for this helpful and speedy response. It did the trick!Llandafflady (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

New article "Gerald Stourzh"

I just finished an article in my sandbox on Gerald Stourzh, using partly translations from the German Wikipedia. It is now awaiting review. But the yellow box at the bottom of the article also says that the article "Gerald Stourzh" exists already, and that is wrong. If it sholud exist (could be my fault) then it is empty. HPaul (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello HPaul, welcome to the Teahouse. I am not seeing the same thing you are I guess. User:HPaul/sandbox simply shows a "waitng for review" template at the bottum of the page.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi HPaul, it might have been because it was in your sandbox and trying to move to the wrong place. I've gone ahead and moved Gerald Stourzh to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gerald Stourzh, the normal waiting space for review. The article looks great, good work! heather walls (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia flag

I was just wondering whether or not Wikipedia has a flag and if it could be created into an article if such flag exists. Thank you Americanxx (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the Teahouse! You might be thinking about this logo, which is already in the article on Wikipedia. But I doubt that the logo by itself warrants an article.King Jakob C2 13:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Or please explain, what do you mean by "flag"! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, here is a Wikipedia flag:


But I don't think this is notable enough for it's own article. — nerdfighter 02:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with missing sections of sentences

Sometimes I run into sentences that have missing sections and are anchored at the end with a word that I can't find a definition for. An example is an Afgani(?) word that I could not tell if it referred to a mountain, river, town or what. The sentence referred to a valley with a named river flowing through it that branched out and its branches ran to an Zurdallo. The word Zurdallo I could not find a meaning for. A web search turned up only one reference for that word, it was the very article I was editing. What methods can be used in cases like this to fix the article or do you just leave it until more info is known?Montykillies (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Montykillies, This is a common problem on Wikipedia. This is why we have Wiktionary. Could you please post a link to this article that you used as an example.
If there is and article that has very vague information, like your example, you should request the article to be deleted. I hope this helped. If it didn't, you can continue this discussion on my talk page. Hiaw777 ( Talk ) 14:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Howdy, MontyKillies. Many thanks for your contributions. I recommend a different approach. It looks like what you are seeing is variations in the Romanization of Arabic. It's a common problem when text written in other alphabets is transliterated into English and a Roman-based alphabet. In this case, I suggest that you add Template:Expert-subject, {{Expert-subject |subject name here |2= |talk= |reason= |date= }} at the top of the article above the other templates criticizing the article. Filled out for the Ajristan District article, the template would look like: {{Expert-subject |Afghanistan |2= |talk= |reason= Contest and explanation is needed for some terms such as '' Zurdallo'' |date=Mar 2013 }} and would show up at the top looking like:
That should attract the attention of a member of WikiProject Afghanistan to have a look. An explanation to give context to the word or perhaps a different translation of the word to a more common English spelling may solve the problem. To get faster action, you can also go to the Project talk page and post a request for help with an article. Sometimes a collaboration with native-speakers of each language can tremendously improve an article.
Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

How long will it take for my contribution of an article to actually become one?

How long will it take for my contribution of an article to actually become one? IM5LOVER (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for trying to create a new article. I think what you want is your draft to be created as an article. If that is what you want, all you have to do is follow the instructions in the box at the top of the draft, where it says: "If this submission is ready to be reviewed, click here and press Save page". After that in some time a reviewer will check whether your article is good enough to be included in Wikipedia. If so, the reviewer will move it as an article. Hope this helps. --Ushau97 talk contribs 12:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Awkward Images of Public Figures

This question may seem weird, but are awkward photos of public figures acceptable? Like free, legit pictures of Obama picking his nose. I have yet to see one here. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

If a wide variety of photos of a person are available on Wikimedia Commons, then the photo selected to illustrate the biography of a person should be a neutral, non-controversial photo. If it is a long biography of a person who had a long career, the lead photo should show the person at "the top of their game", when they were making their most notable contributions. Other photos may be used later in the article. In no case should a photo be selected for the purpose of reflecting badly on the person. The article about Adolph Hitler is a good example. The photos illustrate the article. They are not selected to make him look like a raving lunatic, although such photos of Hitler are readily available. It is the discussion of his crimes in reliable sources that characterizes him, not the photos.
There are many thousands of freely licensed photos of Barack Obama available, so this is not an issue with that biography.
The problem arises when only a single unflattering photo is available of a marginally notable person under an appropriate free license. In most cases, we will use that photo, until a more neutral image becomes available. If the photos is truly appalling, in my opinion, it would be best to leave it out. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Out of context images shouldn't be added in Wikipedia articles, but, they can find a "happy home" in Wikimedia Commons! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Name


I was just wondering if you can change the name of an article, it isn't published yet. It should be Evelyn not Everlyn.

Here is a link to the page:

Thanks Zoe Xlucky charmx (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. The move function is the arrow down button to the top right tab of the article. Happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, don't forget to capitalize the last name.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try that. I'll repost with a response of it it worked or not. :) Thepoodlechef (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. --xlucky_charmx (talk) 13.33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User Boxes



I was just wondering how you edit/add to your user boxes?

Thanks Zoe Xlucky charmx (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. There is an article here regarding creating the boxes for the right hand side Brancoady (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. xlucky_charmx (talk) 13.36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Using images from Facebook


I was wondering if it would be possible, when creating an article about a well known scholar, to take a picture from their Facebook profile page (an image that they have made available to the public)? Would the fact they have made this image publicly available mean it could be added as a primary picture in the article?

Also, on the topic of Facebook, would it be worthwhile linking to the individuals social networking pages in the external links section of an article? Brancoady (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brancoady! I'm not sure, but that would violate the external link policy. I've seen people use images from Flickr, but not Facebook. You should ask someone else because I'm not totally sure. JHUbal27TalkE-mail 21:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I notice that several famous people, David Beckham for example, does have a link to his Facebook page in the external links section. I think in this instance however it is probably not going to be something people are interested in for the topic. Brancoady (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to elaborate: Just because an image is "avaliable" to the public doesn't mean it's "useable" by the public. In this case, the image is still copyrighted by the person who took it. Therefore, you can't use it on Wikipedia (sorry!). Putting in a few (1/2) links to the pages is sometimes acceptable, but only if the persons actually use it actively. gwickwiretalkediting 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I had presumed this was the case, but was not sure if by physically marking an image as available to all on Facebook was a forfeit of the copyright on the image to creative commons. Thanks for clarifying this is not the case. With that in mind, how do people usually go about sourcing images for wikipedia?Brancoady (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Brancoady, welcome to the Teahouse. JHUba127 is correct. Facebook is not an acceptable external link per our policies and guidelines. To go a bit further, per WP:LINKSTOAVOID:

  • Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.
  • Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country (Facebook is actually blocked in a number of countries and as a registered site is not accesible to all)
  • Social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists
  • Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) (Facebook is a personal webite)

As far as any image you find on Facebook, it must clearly state that it is either in the public domain or has a license comaptible with use on Wikipedia CC attribution, commercial use acceptable. If not you would have to use what is called "Fair Use". See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details. The propblem is, if the subject is one that a free image could be available (as many public figures have) you would not be able to use fair use. I suggest looking through flicker for an image with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license and upload it via Wikimedia Commons.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, managed to find an image via Flickr with the license you mentioned. Have added to the article! Brancoady (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Brancoady, sadly the image you found doesn't have a suitable licence as it has the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) and the non-commercial part makes it ineligible for use either here or on Commons. NtheP (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately that was not the right license. You could always contact one of the photographers on Flicker and request they release one image as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license". That has worked for me in the past. You could even ask the figure if they would allow one of their images to be released via an OTRS verification. Good luck and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh, woops. I have emailed all of the people who have uploaded images of her to see if they will release with the correct license. Hopefully one of them will oblige! Thanks for your help Amadscientist & Nthep! Brancoady (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I went to flickr to look and got distracted when I noticed someone uploaded one of my works without permission. Grrrrr.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Spoken with the owner of the image who has very kindly changed the license! Hopefully this will now be accepted! Brancoady (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Do you need this uploaded for you or are you able to do so yourself?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, however I had already uploaded it under the old license (before I knew it wasn't allowed, of course!). So I have left a message on the page where it was nominated for deletion - is this the correct thing to do? Brancoady (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good solution. I've closed the deletion request and marked the image as reviewed. The next step is to add some categories to the image description page on Commons! Let us know if you need some help; Commons doesn't have a Teahouse yet. =) Powers T 02:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Really? Uhm... I wonder if commons can benifit from establishing one?

Happy birthday Teahouse!

One year!

KeithbobTalk 20:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Why won't my URL format correctly?

Hello again! I am trying to update the information about last evening's Canadian Screen Awards, and I can't get one of my references, to the Toronto Star newspaper, to format properly. Can someone check it out? This will be a major article shortly, and I don't want to leave it looking bad. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anne, fixed it for you but the url parameter needs the http:// in front of the www.etc to work correctly. NtheP (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have noticed that myself.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do about a redirect

Dear editors: I would like to make a page about a bluegrass band called the Dixie Flyers. The band is notable enough to have an entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia of Music. The page name "Dixie Flyers" is currently redirected to Nashville Dixie Flyers, a minor hockey team from the 1960's in Nashville, Tennessee. Since there's no real page with the Dixie Flyers title, can I undo the redirect, create the page, and then create a disambiguation page instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, undo the redirect, but you don't need to create a disambiguation page if there are only two possibilities. Just create a hatnote at the top of each page, referring to the other. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Anne, if there are only two articles with similar titles then probably the use of Hatnotes is a better solution. When you expand Dixie Flyers into an article about the band add {{About|the bluegrass band|the ice hockey team from Nashville|Nashville Dixie Flyers}} to the top of the page to distinguish the two. You can add a similar hatnote to the top of Nashville Dixie Flyers to direct enquiries about the band to the right page. If you do expand the current redirect you need to check the existing links to that page {Special:WhatLinksHere/Dixie Flyers) to make sure the links are pointed to the correct page. NtheP (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do it soon. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I created the article User:Anne Delong/Dixie Flyers in my user space, but I was unable to move it to Dixie Flyers. I deleted the redirect, but it still didn't work. I read the section on page moves and added a db-move tag to the page. What happens now? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The redirect is up for speedy deletion per your request, and it should be processed by an administrator soon. I am not an administrator, otherwise I would do it for you, Anne. I commend you for all your recent work to improve this encyclopedia. Well done! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


I've noticed that many pages on Ancient Roman senators/notables (example: Gaius Fufius Geminus (suffect consul 2 BC)) link to books on the Quaestia website, where you have to pay to read/access. Is it possible that Quaestia might be using Wikipedia as a way of directing potential customers to their online library? Would it be better to remove the links to the Quaestia site, or would that weakened the article (since those links are the sources)? Fantini (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fantini, welcome to the Teahouse. No, Questia aren't directing potential customers to their site. Questia are one of a number of organisations that offer a number of free subscriptions to their resources for Wikipedia editors (see Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library), this enables editors to have access to resources that otherwise would be quite costly. The net effect of this is that the quality of articles is improved rather than be restrained by lack of access. That other editors such as you and I do not have access to these online articles directly is not the point, there are numerous other sources used to verify articles, for example Times Newspapers, that live behind paywalls. The object is that sources that can be verified are provided should someone have the inclination and/or money to check. NtheP (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You might find WP:Resource exchange of interest. --ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


I'm creating an article, I was wondering about redirection of a page. for example the current page is Joe Blogs, however if i just search for it as joe bloggs the page doesn't register. Rachel L Fisher (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Rachel, welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia searches aren't case specific so Joe Bloggs should show if you typed joe bloggs. However spelling does matter, so you can create redirects from plausible alternative spellings like Joe Blogs to redirect to Joe Bloggs. NtheP (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thanks for that. much appreciated. what code/tags do I use for a redirection? Rachel L Fisher (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Make a new page with whatever you want to redirect from. Insert the following code: #REDIRECT [[Joe Blogs]] Now it should work :) — nerdfighter 18:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hidden entries in template


For some reasons, few entries of this template Template:Swami Vivekananda are not being displayed. To see this, go to edit mode and see |group4=Works and philosophy. There are 7-8 entries, but, in template, only 4 are being displayed. Any idea? --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Tito! There was a stray set of double brackets ("]]") in that line, which was causing the rest of the list to not get rendered. Should be fixed now. Writ Keeper 15:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Getting information

Hello, I am currently working with some people on creating an article about a person. I was just wondering how much of the factual information I should rephrase, or can I directly use the information, given I reference it? Thanks, Elir9 (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Elir9. Use your own words. "Facts and ideas cannot be protected by copyright, but creative expression is protected." See See creative expression for more detail. Write your article in your own words, your own "creative expression." You should still credit the source of the factual information, usually at the end of a paragraph or section. You can use short quotes from sources either enclosed in quotation marks or in a blockquote with the source cited immediately after the quoted text. You must avoid violating copyright and should avoid plagiarism. Those links lead to dozens of other pages of policy, procedure and practice in Wikipedia but don't be overly concerned about reading all of them now. If you continue to work in Wikipedia, you will learn more as you go along. Hope this helps. If you have a more specific question, come back again. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 13:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, it makes things clearer!Elir9 (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Using sandbox as a group

I am new to Wikipedia and I am working in a group to create an article, we have been advised to use sandbox as a was to create a draft before submitting an article, is there a way we can all use one of our sandboxes to add information and edit and if so how would I link my sandbox to the rest of the group? Thanks Staceysavage1991 (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That's very easy. You could choose anyone from your group and use that person's sandbox. For example, if it is User:Staceysavage1991 then just type in in to the address bar. Or the user who's sandbox is chosen might provide a link to other users on their talk page. --Ushau97 talk contribs 11:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Stacey. Welcome to the Teahouse and the world of Wikipedia. I'm guessing that you and others noticed that {{my sandbox}} takes everyone to their own sandbox, not to yours. You or any of your collaborators can create a sandbox and provide the address. Just type in the address. For example, right-click on User:Staceysavage1991/Sandbox and open it in a new page. Type anything in the blank page and save it. Then reload this page and you'll see that the redlink turned blue because it now exists. Once your sandbox exists, you can add to it. For example, User:Staceysavage1991/Sandbox/ArticleIdeas and User:Staceysavage1991/Sandbox/DraftArticle. Take a look at my sandbox as an example. Once created, you and your collaborators can all put a link to the sandbox on their userpage like [[User:Staceysavage1991/Sandbox/article_name|Draft Article]]. Then they can just click on the blue "Draft Article" and go straight to the draft. Everyone will be able to edit the draft. Hope this helps, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 12:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you started! To make the link to your draft, have your collaborators copy-and-paste [[User:Staceysavage1991/sandbox|'''-Mark Griffiths draft''']] onto their user or talk page. It'll look like this: -Mark Griffiths draft and clicking on it will go to the draft. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 12:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for all the feedback! Really helpfull Staceysavage1991 (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding audio to an article

Hi, i'm new to Wikipedia. I just wanted to know how one would go about adding an embedded media player onto an article that would play a short .mp3 audio track? Mogzilla91 (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mogzilla91; welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia doesn't support MP3 formatted recording; you would need to upload the file as an Ogg Vorbis file for it to be usable here. If you are able to convert the file to .ogg, then you can upload it using the "Upload file" link in your Toolbox menu (←over there); just follow the step-by-step instructions. Once uploaded, you can use the file in an article using the {{listen}} template: add the code {{listen|filename=pagename of your file, including .ogg suffix|title=title of your file|description=description of the audio}} and replace the italic text appropriately. Yunshui  11:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Mogzilla91 (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about referencing

Hi as stated a lot recently on Teahouse I am engaging in a project for a Psychology of Internet behaviour course. If you look at my groups sandbox user:saoul91/sandbox my question is in my contribution on "human animal bonds" should the referencing method be the same as the rest of the article and if so then how do I reference in that same style? Liberum Conscientia (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liberum Conscientia. You've currently formatted your citations as external links, which, as you've surmised, isn't right - you need to use the citation template, as your fellow students have done. This short essay will help you to do so; it's pretty straightforward. Best of luck, Yunshui  11:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done that. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Dear editors: I was reading the article about Stonehenge, and I noticed a reference that seemed to be a blog[1]. When I looked at the blog entry, it said the source was the National Museum of Wales. I realized that the article had been copied from this press release: [2]]. Should this entry be removed? No copyright material has been added to Wikipedia. Are press releases intended to be copied and so okay? The paragraph in Wikipedia has another source anyway. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, in theory, press releases probably are intended to be copied, although they cannot be copied here as the original page says quite clearly © the National Museum of Wales. But since, the material isn't copied to the WP article itself, I'd simply remove the blog source (almost unvariably unsuitable as a source) and directly reference it to the official press release. Or, just leave the non-blog source if that one's sufficient. Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article For Education Keeps Getting Deleted

Hi guys, i was wondering if anyone would be able to help as i have a situation where a particular user keeps deleting an article i am creating for education purposes with a group of individuals. We are using an education banner in the code text but nevertheless this user keeps on deleting our page. We are writing about the Psychology of Internet Behaviour if that makes any difference. Any help would be appreciated.

Many Thanks!

(Lewishiley (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I can not find any deletion notification in your talk page. Could you provide the list of affected articles? --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
He's referring to Laura Widyanto, an article which has been repeatedly recreated with the content "more to come". Since we don't host placeholder articles, I've (repeatedly) advised the page creator, User:Seth Fasnacht-Conn to use his sandbox to construct the page. Yunshui  10:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is no article by the title Psychology of Internet Behaviour or any other close name. I have even checked the deletion log for any article by that name but there is no deleted article by that name. This page shows that only 1 of your edits have been deleted. Furthermore I don't think admins will be deleting pages without any reason. Could you please be more specific in your question. --Ushau97 talk contribs 10:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I've thrown up a basic stub at the page in question, to help these two students get underway. There are probable notability issues (I can find very little on the professor in question), so it may not meet the inclusion requirements in any case, but at least there's something there now. Yunshui  10:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Referencing guidelines

When referencing an article sourced from the internet, what would be the preferred referencing guidelines to use on a wikipage? Daniel.Frozenwind (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse! You'll get help from here Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated! Daniel.Frozenwind (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

List of deceased admins!

Do we have a list of deceased admins somewhere? --Tito Dutta (contact) 09:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! You may be looking for Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians or Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Cheers --Ushau97 talk contribs 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replies. 1) I know about "Copying within Wikipedia", I don't need to give any attribution when I am copying my own post (in this case my question somehow got posted at the bottom of the page, so, copied it to top). 2) No, I am not looking for those two lists, I have been editing those two articles. The complex form of the same question is: as far as I know, as token of honour, deceased admins' admin flags are not removed. I am interested to learn, do they keep any list, so that those deceased admins' names are not included in "inactive admins list"? --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Strikethrough one portion --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Content edit

Can text be copy and pasted from outside sources aslong as it is referenced? Rachel L Fisher (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia and the Teahouse. The answer for your question is yes. As long as the license is compatible with Wikipedia you could use it. But be aware that you cannot use the exact text from sources which are copyrighted. Instead you could just change the text and then use it as a reference. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia and we hope that you will help Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --Ushau97 talk contribs 10:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rachel, just to clarify, there are relatively few types of sources that are free to copy. These are: text from works originally published before January 1923, text from works published by the US government, text from works (including websites) which carry an explicit statement releasing them into the public domain or explicitly bearing a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. But not all Creative Commons licenses are suitable. If they specify no alteration of the text or no commercial use, the material can't be used here. Also, many non-US governments do not allow commercial use or do not allow copyring at all. If you are in any doubt about the text you want to use and its licensing, you can ask advice at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. It's OK to quote a sentence or two from a non-free copyright source, but it must be clearly marked as a quotation and attributed to its source with an inline citation. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

is it possible to delete a "review waiting" box?

Hello, I'd like to delete the "review waiting" box from my User-sandbox and thus be able to continue editing further my article-to-be - to continue on a "clean table = without this yellow info-box. Is it possible? This would remove the text from the review-queue. Or is there another way to do it? Marjarau (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Marjarau, welcome to the Teahouse. You can just delete the {{AFC Submission}} templates and resubmit when you are ready or you can edit it while it's still waiting for review. There is nothing that says that the version reviewed has to be the same as the version when you added it to the review queue. NtheP (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Marjarau. I looked at your draft article on Ilona Harima. From my Google search, she is notable and deserving of an article in en.Wikipedia. I also saw that at least some Finnish sources provide summaries in English. I reorganized your draft article so it is more like other en.Wikipedia articles. If you prefer to do the work yourself, revert my edits. Otherwise, I would enjoy spending some time collaborating. More on your talk page. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, DocTree - thanks for the clarifications, I'd be glad for collaboration. I succeeded in erasing the review waiting box.

External link is still to be done. I hope the sources-section is acceptable. The one reference is the only one in wiki with a good English summary. All other texts are in Finnish only.Thanks, Marjarau (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello DocTree, thanks for the answer on March 4th. Now I have added further reading and external link. And erased sculptor from infobox. Ilona Harima (my mother) made too few sculptures to be noted here. I hope the general reference-level is enough to this short article. I am a biologist-librarian, retired. I went through kindergarten and middle-classes in the English School run by American nuns, here in Helsinki. Am trying my best to keep up my English! Marjarau (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Just a remark about references. Sources used in English Wikipedia articles do not need to be in English, you are welcome to use Finnish (or any other language) sources here as references. Roger (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia visited link's color : needs to be changed


I noticed that the current color for visited links makes visited links hard to spot after being visited. I strongly recommend that visited links stay the SAME color as unvisited links. (I'm not even color blind)

I'm not sure it's something that can be changed easily...

Also, talking about links, I would also like to suggest that:

-Links color be change to a more visible and contrasting color. It can be hard to distinguish a link from plain text, especially on aging or older LCD monitors (or users).

-Hovered links could also change color, no just be underlined. It would provide a stronger visual "haptic" feedback.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirusdark (talkcontribs) 08:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is determined by your browser or computer's settings. Try looking there - hope this helps. Mono 23:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing Semi-Protected Pages

My account is autoconfirmed, but I don't seem to be able to edit semi-protected pages - I'm still seeing the little silver locks. I was under the impression that being autoconfirmed was the only requirement, so am I missing something? Thanks! Caseylf (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you kindly tell me what was your registration time at 2 March? Tell the UTC time.--Pratyya (Hello!) 03:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey Caseylf! Seeing the locks on a page doesn't necessarily mean that you are prevented from editing it. It simply means the page has been protected in one form or another. If you meet the qualifications to edit the page, you'll still see the lock just the same. The locks don't disappear if you are able to edit the page.
The most common locks are silver (semi-protected, as you noted), gold (full protection, only admins can edit), red (total protection, usually Wiki policy pages) and green (move-protected, only admins can move them). Hope this answers your question!
McDoobAU93 03:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Well that was a total "duh!" moment, haha. Thanks! Somehow I just didn't notice that the "edit" button actually WAS there now... Caseylf (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

misc. questions on editing a discography

I've been doing some work on Rory Gallagher discography I'm pretty much a novice and as I've been working have some random questions.

1) Is there any policy about copy/pasting from Wikipedia article to another? I started by copying some relevant text about Gallagher's recordings from his main page into my sandbox and then modifying it as needed to make it appropriate for the discography. But I found that some sections pretty much worked as is with minimal editing. I'm assuming that is OK and that some repetition is logical in an encyclopedia.

2) Some of the text that I copied seemed to be formatted a bit strangely. I've already cleaned most of it up (and plan to look back at the original and clean that up as well) but I was wondering are there, there must be, automated tools I can run over a page to find common problems (e.g. links to disambiguation pages) too many line breaks, etc. before I publish the page? For any programmers reading kind of what Lint does for C programs.

3) Is it permissible to reference album liner notes? If so any good examples of such a reference?

4) As I was linking to other pages I came across this page power trio It makes sense to me that there is a page for this topic but IMO the current page doesn't meet Wikipedia standards at all. It reads like original research (much of which I don't agree with, I love John Lennon but Plastic Ono Band is a Power Trio?) and there are really no reliable references. My first instinct was to just delete most of that page and replace it with a boiler plate stub of text that has the basic definition for a power trio (IMO it should only be bands like Cream and Jimi Hendrix Experience) but I don't want to get into a war with whoever wrote all that text and I also feel if I'm not able to write anything substantial on the topic yet I shouldn't delete all the text that is there. Any opinions?

Mdebellis (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I don't have the answers but have been wondering some of the same things as a bit of a newby myself. Particularly with regard to basic discography style information, which is usually simple facts like the album even existing, or who played on it. Do you need to cite the liner notes to be able to state something as simple as 'musician X released album Y in 2004'? Or 'musician A played bass with band B on album C'? Album reviews don't always list who played on the album, so sources aren't always easy for this kind of thing, which is otherwise pretty simple information. Maybe using the discogs or allmusic listing is another way to cite album information? gwickwire, I don't know if you get notified if I mention you, but this relates to the article I created that you just declined. Footnote73 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
To answer question 1, you can, as long as you include in the edit summary something like "copied from the page you copied from". For number two, there are tools, like AutoWikiBrowser, that may help. Question four: I would suggest that before you delete 90% of the page, do a Google search or something to try to find some sources for as much as you can. – Ypnypn (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Ypnypn is basicly correct but it should state clearly what article is being copied from and what article is being copied into (the latter being the article being edited) for full attribution in the edit history that will always be there.
Thanks. BTW, I just noticed in the editor there is an Error Check icon. Don't know how I missed that. On the need for the discography, most things I can find better references for but there are a few misc. facts that I think add a lot to understanding the music and aren't documented anywhere that I've found so far but on liner notes. For example, the fact that the Photo Finish album earned its name from the fact that they managed to get it released just under the wire before the deadline. Mdebellis (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Since I've been editing a lot musicians' pages, I'd like to know why the discography is being moved to a separate page? Is there a convention about this, as in when to or not to do it? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The only guideline about whether to maintain discographies as separate articles is consideration of how long the discography is? If it is very long or disproportionately long compared to the rest of the article about the artiste then the suggestion is to split it off into a separate article. If discographies are an interest to you then there is a wikiproject - WikiProject Discographies dedicated to the very subject. NtheP (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How to reference pictures

Hi I'm new to wikipedia editing, how do you reference a picture on your article and are there any restrictions on what format of the picture to be used? Thanks in advance.. (Dinisabila (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dinisabila,
Firstly I recommend that you upload the picture to Wikimedia Commons. It helps you through the uploading process and pictures from Commons can be easily used in Wikipedia articles. The most important thing to keep in mind is the image should be free to use—either released under a licence that allows you to use it, your own work, or old enough that it has fallen out of copyright in the U.S. (1923 and before, I believe). Exceptions can also be made if you're granted permission by the image creator. For a list of accepted formats, check out this link. Pictures are a tricky part of Wikipedia in my opinion, so let me know if you have any more questions.
Strachkvas (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That link is bad so go here. As for referencing images...they do not need a reference but any claims made in the caption text will.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Right hand side box of an article


I was just wondering how you create a box at the right hand side of an article, with the authors date of birth, occupation etc.

Thanks ZoeXlucky charmx (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! What you are talking about is called an "infobox". Usually you can find them by searching "Infobox (subject)". For this instance you would want to search "Infobox author". Hope this helps! — nerdfighter 15:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The one you want can be found here. — nerdfighter 15:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok that's great!! Thank you for your help. xlucky_charmx (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Article references


I am currently creating an article as part of a University project, but haven't published it yet. I have found a reference that I am wanting to use, and it is an interview with the person I am creating the article about.

I was just wondering if you can directly quote the person been interviewed like I have done, or I will have to change it, because I don't know how I would go about changing it.

Here is a link is the article to show you what I mean, it is in the 2nd paragraph.

Thanks Zoe Xlucky charmx (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Zoe: a good question. Yes, you can quote a small amount of text as long as you make it clear that it is a quotation and you give the source; which you have done. However, you must be careful not to make any commentary or analysis of what you quote, unless you are citing a secondary source which discusses the quotation; because that would be original research, which is not allowed.
I observe that only one of your references at present is independent of Ellerman and Athabasca: to establish that the topic is notable in Wikipedia's special sense, you really need more independent sources. But good going, so far. --ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Am I okay keeping the sources that aren't independent of Ellerman, as long as I add more that are notable? --xlucky_charmx (talk) 14.54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they are considered reliable (and individuals are usually considered reliable sources about themselves). Powers T 22:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Decode Wikipedia Articles stored in Wiki Code

I want to write a app for offline wikipedia reading! But Wikipedia Articles was stored in Wiki Code.How can i decode them! Caizixian (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You can use the Print/Export function in the menu to the left of the page to render the articles as PDF documents. Roger (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Blue link? Red link? Something looks dodgy

I've rustled up a little something for you

First things first, so Happy birthday, Teahouse! And thanks for being always at the coalface. Now, thing is, on "New articles feed", I came across an article about Geoffrey Connor, M.D.. I went to its creator's talk page to leave them a note, only to find that a suspiciously similar article (Geoffrey Connor, MD) was proposed for deletion last November - and deleted, I assume? Is something fishy going on or am I being paranoid? I'd be grateful if you could look into this. Cheers, CocoLacoste talk 12:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Coco. Same guy, looking at the deleted page, but different text - the version deleted last November was killed of for being a copyright violation, whereas the new version has entirely rewritten content. Same creator, though, and he's never worked on any other pages, so I'm inclined to assume there's a conflict of interest issue here. If you want to have a crack at improving the article (it need proper sources and a substantial rewrite for neutrality, for starters), go for it! Yunshui  12:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I've tidied it up somewhat and relocated it to Geoffrey Connor; feel free to work on it further if you like. Yunshui  14:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
(e/C)Hi Yunshui, ta for the quick reply. I'd have a go at that but the more I look at the article, the more it seems downright self-promotional waffle. I can't access ref 1, but a quick Google search of the "sources" provided churns out pages relating to "business and legal issues" (ref 9) or info for consumers ([3]). Besides, if Twitter accounts are anything to go by, this chap hasn't even got many followers - I thought at first he could be one of them sleb physicians. I'm not quite sure he meets the Notability criteria, but then I'm not quite familiar with the ins and outs of this policy. If you think the stuff is legit, let me know and I'll copy-edit the article. Cheers, --CocoLacoste talk 14:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree on the weak sourcing; virtually every mention of him stems from ASC Communications (Becker's), and a lot of it is little more than listings. Personally I reckon it would pass AFD in its current state (I'd be a Weak Keep !vote), but it could be close; if he's notable, it seems pretty borderline. Better to improve than delete, though, so a sound copy-edit (and some additional sources) would be welcomed. Yunshui  14:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Borderline indeed. Anyway, I'll do a tidy-up. Thank you muchly again. Cheers, CocoLacoste talk 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Proper format for a disambiguation page

Dear editors: I am making my first effort at creating a disambiguation page at User:Anne Delong/Dixie Flyer (disambiguation). My question is, should I move this article to "Dixie Flyer(s) (disambiguation)", or move it to "Dixie Flyer (disambiguation)" and create a redirect page "Dixie Flyers (disambiguation)" —Anne Delong (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I recommend that you should move the article to Dixie Flyer (disambiguation) per WP:DABNAME (4th point to be precise). Then create a redirect with this title: Dixie Flyer. You can't create a redirect with the title as Dixie Flyers since it already exists. After moving the page, you should change the This article is about the bluegrass band. For the ice hockey team from Nashville, see Nashville Dixie Flyers. at Dixie Flyers page to direct to the disambiguation page. Also you might like to add {{Disambiguation}} at the bottom of your page. Cheers. --Ushau97 talk contribs 12:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, done. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends at the Teahouse

Dear friends at the Teahouse – I contacted you a couple months back regarding my Wikipedia article on actor Zack Norman, with which I was (and still am) having difficulties getting accepted by your editors. At that time the primary issue was that I was using the Internet Movie Database ( as a reference to verify many of the article’s claims, as I was unaware that Wikipedia did not consider the Imdb to be a reliable source. Once you informed me of that fact, I then asked the Teahouse whether the New York Times was a reliable source, and you informed me that yes, it was. So I switched all the reference footnotes from Imdb to New York Times and resubmitted the article, only to be rejected once again by the (new) editor checking the article, who claimed my New York Times sources weren’t valid. As you can imagine, I am at a bit of loss here: on the one hand I have Wikipedia associates telling me one thing, only to have the next associate tell me it isn’t so. It seems we all need to get on the same page here. Another problem is that the editors rejecting my article all seem to have an issue with whether or not the subject Zack Norman is “noteworthy”, which I truly do not understand. If you look up any of the over 30 movies that he has been in, say Romancing The Stone, Cadillac Man or Festival in Cannes, nearly all the other actors – even those credited well below Mr. Norman – have their own Wikipedia articles, most of them citing barely any references at all.

Here is a link to the most recent version of the article:

By the way, as I’ve mentioned before, I’m a writer who is interested in becoming an actively contributing author and editor on Wikipedia, and chose Zack Norman as the subject for my first article for submission simply because I feel he is noteworthy and is not yet on Wikipedia. I had no idea the process would become this involved, though I am still willing to do whatever it takes to have an article accepted for publication, so your advice on how to proceed is, as ever, greatly appreciated!

Thanks so much, Matthew Weiss Matzohboy (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi there Matzohbo! I noticed that you are not using articles from the NYT (which are almost always considered reliable and contribute greatly to notability), but a part of their website which duplicates the function of AllRovi and IMDB... which is less indicative of notability and not necessarily reliable. I'd try finding articles about him, perhaps using Google News — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello Matzohboy. Just to empathise with you. How annoying it is to have an article rejected! It's happened to me as well, and when I tried my best to do what they said, and other similar articles were so much worse. I ended up being so annoyed I left Wikipedia for a while. But when I tried again, it did make for a better article when I re-wrote. Could you come at the subject from another angle - if you need to cite articles or books, to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, try looking for ones about the director or other actors in the same movies to Zack Norman, instead of directly about him. There might be references in there you can use. Good luck. Penguin2006 (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Courtesy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).