Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 March 26

Help desk
< March 25	<< Feb | March | Apr >>	March 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

March 26

If I agree with a fact, and think everyone else does...

If I agree with a fact, and think everyone else does, is it still OK for me to remove it if it's not sourced? For example, if I see an article that says

Many opponents to Nazism say it is detrimental to society because they are controlled by aliens,^[1][2][3] but Nazi propaganda posters claimed that research by This,^[4] That,^[5] and Also-This^[6] has suggested otherwise. Some people however, say that even if Nazis are not controlled by aliens, it is may be still possible for them to be detrimental to society.

I know that I can remove the last sentence if I disagree with it, because there is not reference to support the claim that "some people however, say that even if...", and it's obviously a product of original research. So I know I can remove the last sentence if I did disagree with it, or did know someone else who disagreed with it. But the question I'm here to ask is that IF I agreed with the last sentence, and I don't know anyone who disagreed with it, can I still remove it because I don't want it on the article, say for some other reason? I never knew whether or not it's OK, so I really want to find out. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 07:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Every statement in an article has to be verified (there would still be people saying they were benefical to society, whether there were aliens involved or not) but the phrase "Some people say..." is a weasel phrase, which are not to be used in articles. Hope this helps! AndieM13 (Leave a message!) 09:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite... every statement must be verifiable... not necessarily verified. This is a subtle but important distinction. A reliable source must exist... but we are not required to cite that source in the article unless it is "challenged or likely to be challenged". I would definitely say that the example given is "likely to be challenged", so a citation would be required in that case... but not in others.

As to the broader issue... Are you allowed to remove verifiable but problematic information from an article? Yes. There are lots of reasons to remove information other than verifiability... the material in question could give undue weight to a fringe theory for example. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

Should you remove verifiable information from an article? Sometimes yes, sometimes no... that really depends on the specifics of the situation, and can only be determined on a case by case basis. That said, in most cases there are better ways to deal with problematic material than removal (See: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM for more details). Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So I guess I can remove it, and add and edit summary "Removed last sentence. If it was sourced it'd belong on this article, but because it's not verifiable, I'm removing it even though we all agree with its claim" The article can thus be shortened, giving the same information using less lines.

Many opponents to Nazism say it is detrimental to society because they are controlled by aliens,^[1][2][3] but Nazi propaganda posters claimed that research by This,^[4] That,^[5] and Also-This^[6] has suggested otherwise.

DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Noted, Blueboar. Will keep that in mind. AndieM13 (Leave a message!) 06:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines as to how long one waits for a ^{[citation needed]} tag to become verified? How can you tell how long that tag has been there? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox

How can I publish a write up in wikipedia? I have already made a write up but it stays in the sandbox how can it get published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangonzalez1 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You would "move" the page: see WP:SYMUD But if you move User:Evangonzalez1/sandbox now, it will almost certainly get deleted as it contains no references and does not explain why the word is notable. In fact I very much doubt that the word VYQX merits a Wikipedia article: see WP:NEOLOGISM. It is possible that the website is notable, but only if it has been written about by independent reliable sources.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --ColinFine (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommend adding this code to the top of your page: {{subst:afc submission/submit}}. This will nominate your page for Articles for Creation, allowing our staff to review it for any problems prior to launch and provide advice, and give you a chance to make changes and try again. Dcoetzee 01:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The subject is The city of Tala, Jalisco, Mexico

The article is showing the wrong coat of arms, the one shown belongs to another city. Gregorio Barajas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.214.236 (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your comment so I know who you are. Editors sign with four tildes (~). Thank you. AndieM13 (Leave a message!) 09:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Linked & refactored for display. Dru of Id (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Move problem

I initially moved Henry Knighton to Knighton's Chronicon. However I can NOT get their correct talk pages to follow their correct articles. Knighton's Chronicon talk page is now Henry Knighton talk page. Can someone correct this problem for me so that Talk: Knighton's Chronicon is on the Knighton's Chronicon and visa versa?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Your problem was that Talk:KC still existed, so you couldn't move Talk:HK over it; one solution would have been to add {{db-move}} to Talk:KC and explained your reasoning at Talk:HK. I've deleted Talk:KC and moved Talk:HK to that title without leaving a redirect, so there's currently no page of any sort named Talk:HK. Is this what you wanted? If not, please tell me at my talk page that I misunderstood; spell out precisely what you want to happen, so that I don't make more mistakes. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that fixed it.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Inversion in a sphere

After two months, I have adapted an article, 'Inversion in a sphere', so that it is ready for inclusion in Wikipedia. Apparently, I have moved it, but it was immediately deleted by Michel Grenier. He says that he has sent me mail, but I can't fnd it!

How do I find what is the problem with my article? 12:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bparslow (talk • contribs)

Should be in whatever email account you have down at the bottom of the first page in your preferences. Sort of odd that it got delete with a g6 reason. (page that needs to be deleted to merge histories, reverse a redirect, or perform other non-controversial technical tasks).Naraht (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Bparslow, you made a capitalisation error; all Wikipedia page titles are case-sensitive, so User:Bparslow/sandbox and User:Bparslow/Sandbox are not the same page. You linked "sandbox" when you meant to link "Sandbox". The problem with your article was the name itself: you moved the sandbox so that it became an article — any page whose name is preceded by "User:" is in userspace, but if you remove "User:" from the page name, our software thinks that it's an article, and "Bparslow/sandbox" isn't the right name for an article. Someone else moved Bparslow/sandbox to User:Bparslow/Sandbox, and it's at that last page where you can find what you wrote; it's never been deleted. The other pages got deleted because they were essentially redirects to each other, which isn't a good thing. One more thing to remember: you're not in trouble. When I say "problem", I mean "problem from a technical point of view"; I don't mean that you're being a problem. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can't see the email, you could post a message at User talk:Michael Greiner explaining that your email is not working, and asking him to post on your talk page instead. Also, note that an article that is similar to the draft in User:Bparslow/Sandbox is likely to be deleted because it is written like a textbook, not like an encyclopedia entry, and Wikipedia is not a textbook. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More details: You moved it from User:Bparslow/sandbox to Bparslow/sandbox which is in the mainspace encyclopedia. A move automatically creates a redirect at the old title, User:Bparslow/sandbox. Then you moved this redirect (and nothing else) to the title Inversion in a sphere. If you think you saw your article at Inversion in a sphere then you actually saw it at the redirect target Bparslow/sandbox. User:AJCham moved Bparslow/sandbox (which definitely did not belong at that title) to User:Bparslow/Sandbox. Michael Greiner cleaned up by deleting the redirects (and nothing else) at Bparslow/sandbox and Inversion in a sphere. Your actual article was never deleted and is still at User:Bparslow/Sandbox. However, the formatting and style is unsuited for a Wikipedia article. I don't know why User:Michael Greiner would contact you by email. Perhaps you started by sending him an email. Communication between users is usually done via their talk pages. See Help:Using talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

He did contact me first by email. My response (also via the E-mail this user function) was that all I did was delete the redirects, that his content was available at his sandbox and that he should contract users on their user talk pages. (all as noted by Primehunter) --Michael Greiner 16:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Bparslow, my apologies for the confusion - I moved your page back into userspace as it was at in improper title in article space and all indications were that it was still in the draft stage. I thought I had posted a message on your talk page explaining the situation, and also the issues raised by PrimeHunter, but it would seem I negelcted to save it. My fault for editing late at night I suppose. AJCham 19:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Until I tried to produce an article for Wikipedia, I regarded myself as reasonably intelligent, but the hoops that Wikipedia produce completely defeat me. I have no idea where Bparslow/Sandbox came from, or how I got 'user ' in front of 'Inversion in a Sphere' ('in' not 'of' notice). Why does Wikipedia make it so difficult for contributors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bparslow (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of things seem difficult the first time you have to do them. The move form Special:MovePage/User:Bparslow/Sandbox starts by writing the existing name, "User" and "Bparslow/Sandbox". This means it as a sandbox (see Sandbox (software development) for the general concept) for your user account. You would have to change both names in the move form, to "Article" and "Inversion in a sphere". But as mentioned, the current page is not suited. It is written as a paper and not a Wikipedia article. It even says "this paper" and not "this article". It is also badly misformatted. It would still look the same as an article until somebody fixed the formatting. Two quick tips: Leading spaces cause grey boxes and should usually be avoided, and see Help:Section for how to make section headings. And are you aware that Wikipedia editors only get credit in the page history? If you write a Wikipedia article then it will not show your name, and others can edit the article. If you still want to try then see Wikipedia:Your first article and some of the links there. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Re moved it but, What is this, and how do I do it?

"This sandbox is in the article namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template."

Wikipedia seems to speak in a foreign language. When I saved this page, a block appeared which was equally incomprehensible. can you give simple clear instructions, as to an idiot child.

The template message above has appeared because your article still has a {{User sandbox}} template at the top (left over from when it was actually a sandbox article). Wikipedia's software only expects to see this template in userspace, but since the article is in mainspace now, it shouldn't be tagged as a userpage draft. As to the odd block of indented text, this has appeared because you have indented your text with a space at the start of the line - it's an easy mistake to make. If you want to indent text on a talkpage (as I've done with this paragraph), use a colon at the start of the line, rather than a space. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've wikified the article to the best of my ability, whilst preserving as much of the original text as i could. It is still in dire need of cleanup. There's a faint possibility it might be a subject worth writing about, but at present there's a very strong case for deleting under WP:NOTESSAY. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much Yunshui, It looks great, I will try to improve it, as directed. it must be easy if you know the way, I was lost. 10:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

IPhone app

Crazy that you can't email pages from the iPhone app — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.119.23 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an iPhone app. Other people have made them and you'd have to take your issue up with them. Not Wikipedia. Dismas|^(talk) 13:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it appears we do. See WP:IPHONE. The normal Wikipedia doesn't have a "Share by email" feature either. There is a current discussion about a share feature at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Share button. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh! Well you learn something new everyday around here.  :) Dismas|^(talk) 13:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Simply use your iPhone to access your email account, copy the URL of the page in question, paste it into the email, and send the email. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

André Simon Wikipedia page

On the André Simon Wikipedia page, there is a footnote to an article Working with André, by Hugh Johnson. The link doesn't work. I have the article. How can I get it linked.

I can copy and paste it to this page - would that help? 14:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faye Wilson (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be a copyright violation. See WP:CITE for how to cite the original magazine or newspaper appearance of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Translation assessment required

What is the proper place to request a translation from a Japanese source? I've tried posting at Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English but it seems to be for whole articles rather than sources, and it doesn't look very active anyway. I've thought of posting at Wikipedia talk:Translation but that's for new articles too.

We're trying to assess the quality of a previous available translation of the source at Talk:All your base are belong to us#More accurate English translation. Any advice on how to find help for that? Diego (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Augmentation of existing page "Robert Hughes - Swimmer"

I was recently involved in the research for a book entitled "Bob Hughes - The True Story of a Legendary Waterman", and in doing so, discovered remarkable facts about this Olympic athlete that were not included in the Wikipedia page about him. I have made several attempts to augment the page, and my contributions have been removed, repeatedly, by the same User (Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ as she assumes my contribution have been a conflict of interest (which they have not).

The page had been grievously lacking in the achievements of this 2 time Olympian and World Record holder, and it has been my intention to complete the information previously listed on the page...in no way embellishing the facts beyond that of any other similar athlete featured in Wikipedia. It is not my intention to exaggerate or advertise. All facts contributed by myself have been verified with links to other Wikipedia pages and outside sources (including the USC and USA Waterpolo websites), and a reference to the book recently published.

As per Wikipedia protocol, I have made a polite attempt to contact this User User:DoriSmith to resolve the issue, but have not had the courtesy of a reply. In her hasty removal of, and thinly veiled sarcastic messages to me, it almost appears she has made it her sole objective to vandalize my contributions.

Please help! This is an 80 year old Olympic Athlete who has recently been chosen to be inducted into the USC HAll of Fame, and it would be heartbreaking to wait until he is dead before proper credit is given to his achievements.

Dina McCrum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artfuldagger (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please make sure that any material you wish to add is coming from reliable sources, a category which does not include other Wikipedia article, and shows a neutral point-of-view (something which may not be found in a book with a smarmy title like Bob Hughes - The True Story of a Legendary Waterman. We need good, solid verifiable sources for our articles. Also note that we are not here to glorify (or disparage) the subjects of our articles, and any messages which seem more concerned about making the subject look good than about making sure the asserted facts are reliably sourced and verifiable will hinder your efforts. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

However, somewhat disagreeing with my grumpy orange colleague here :) if your book is well researched and published by a reputable publisher, by all means use it (not the primary research) to cite the facts in neutral language. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you're not sure about whether your content fits with Wikipedia, you can post it on the article's talk page and then other people can see it and consider whether to incorporate it into the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The book is probably not be a valid reference per Wikipedia policies. The book seems to be self-published, not published by a mainstream company. I say this based on Artfuldagger publishing's website. To ensure the reliability of facts, we place restrictions on what sources can be used as references.

I'm not clear of your relation with Artfuldagger publishing, but if you have any commercial relationship with the firm, your user name probably violates Wikipedia:Username policy, and you should have it changed.

You may also like to read read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners before you make any changes to articles. Material should be supported by inline citations (footnotes) to reliable sources (not self-published books), whereas your edits had no references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable residents (moved from reference desk)

Guidelines for "notable residents" states:The person must be notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia

What about people who are notable enough to warrant an article but are mentioned in lists?Fasttimes68 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Remove them. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A followup question. What about articles that were deleted and redirected to the list? Delete those notable resident entries as well?Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So the link in the list redirects back to the list? I'd say delete the link at least since it's circular. Dismas|^(talk) 14:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, say the article Foobar was deleted and redirected to list of blobs. Another article XYZZY had Foobar listed in its notable residents. Since Foobar no longer exists, is it fair to remove Foobar from XYZZY? In my original question Foobar never existed. In the followup the article got deleted and redirected.Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I really need to remember that WP:RD/M does not go to the Mathematics desk; imagine my surprise at going to that link, immediately hitting the "End" key to go all the way to the bottom, and seeing this discussion :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If the reason for the deletion or redirection of the article about the person was a lack of sources establishing notability, per WP:N or related guidelines, I think that it's obviously been determined that the person isn't "notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia". If the article was deleted for some other reason (copyvio, say), it's a judgment call. Deor (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is this guideline? Do you mean Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable_people? Warofdreams talk 15:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Does notability ever end? If a person was a notable baseball player in the 1920s, for instance, but nobody remembers him now, are they still notable? If a person was a notable personality (radio, TV, etc.), retired, and left no legacy, are they still notable? --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Notability is not temporary. Note this whole discussion would be better at WP:Help desk Nil Einne (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or isn't THIS the 'Help desk'? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

moved from ref desk to her per request.Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OIC (sorry, my bad) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(Nil Einne)So, you're saying that, if at any time, someone was notable, they will always be? Forever? --Tim Sabin (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say so. That's the point of history. If someone has an impact on the society of their time, that reality remains true forever. HiLo48 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

More to the point of what WP:N says: source material doesn't ever disappear. If someone has indepth writing in reliable sources which is in existance today, that writing cannot unhappen. Once a journalist, author, or researcher, etc. publishes something, that event cannot simply get undone, and since a person's notability is judged at Wikipedia by examining what journalists, authors, or researchers, etc. have written about them, notability does not go away. --Jayron32 18:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Google translation of (Official) site

I put a Google translated link to an 'official website' on the External links section of this page; but am unsure: a) if this a proper thing to do, b) if it is formatted correctly:

• Official website (in German); Google translation of Official website (in English)
  

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Machine translations are notoriously not reliable sources; and we have no reason to recommend any particular translation software or service here. Just link to the original German-language website, and let people figure it out for themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See User:Manishearth/sidebartranslinks for a user script that will add translate links to the interwiki links. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

help!

Hey, I'm new to wikipedia and I need help. I'm a student at USI and we have to write an article about a journalist. I just need help getting started because wikipedia is very confusing to me. I think if you can help me get started then I will be able to figure it out from there. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achamilton 17 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Your first article? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you have rules or guidelines on it, but you may find it easiest to copy/paste the entire text from an existing article on a journalist to your 'sandbox' and then just change the details to match yours. I don't know if they have their own 'info box' template. I found it easier to learn from example that way as opposed to reading the how-to and starting from scratch. You should still read the 'your first article' page, as well as the linked pages there. There are certain things like 'categories' that shouldn't be used in sandboxes, etc. so just delete all but the basics until you get sorted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is extremely poor advice - you must not copy-and-paste content from another Wikipedia article like that, unless it is attributed - and if you are doing this as an assignment, USI may consider it plagiarism. But why would this help, anyway? Look at the way Wikipedia biographies in general are written, then write in your own words, based on the sources you have, with the aim of producing something that is informative, to the point, and written in encyclopaedic language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Better idea is to have multiple browser 'tabs' open to various sources etc. (Read a lot of stuff, put it in your own words, condense, go back to your sources to make sure you did it right.) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I was misunderstood. I meant delete all the info, but just keep the infobox and format. The page would be blank as to information, but in a form the same as other BLP. Then it would be just a matter of filling in the blanks. Are there 'blank' templates for BLPs and other types of articles etc? If there aren't these may be easier for newer editors to learn from. They could have inline wikilinks to pages such as citing, POV, etc, as well as verbose how-to notes. This may also help to standardize articles in wikipedia as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

not sure I understand deletion process

The problem is with Pre-melter. Several attempts have been made- & denied- for this page to be created, then lo!, it appears. Another user put a delete notice on it, but this appeared not to have been transcluded & the article was not listed on the pages to b deleted log. replaced it, following the instructions, ie placing {{subst:.... on the page. Still no result. The page in question is basically an incomprehensible bit of promotion for some bit of pizza-making machinery, full of spam links & written by a native speaker of jargo. I did fairly savage copy edit on it, removing inline links to youtube promotions & putting in a bit of plain english: the page creator has revisited the page & restored it to it's previous state, and I do mean state. Creator has no editing history apart from this bit of probable spam. What's the form?TheLongTone (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The page is correctly marked for Proposed deletion, and is listed at Category:Proposed deletion as of 23 March 2012. An admin will consider the deletion on 30 March if nothing else happens before then. Two things could happen before then: if anyone removes the "proposed deletion" notice then you will have to take the article to Articles for deletion, or someone might tag the article for speedy deletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I must get either my eyes or my brain tested, couldn't see it on the list, sorry.TheLongTone (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK to tell someone to f*** off on Wikipedia?

I just want to get this cleared up because I recently had a conflict where this term was used? Advice? Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. In most cases, I would say no. Calabe1992 20:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a polite thing to say. But equally, it's not going to get the person who said it blocked if that's all they said. It's kind of a grey area in that respect - it's not like swearing at a teacher, more like swearing at another student in an undergrad lecture. It's not cool, but there isn't the mechanism that there was in school to keep the offender writing lines in detention. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Any judgement like this is always going to be subjective. I've worked in places where I was criticised for not saying fuck like everybody else. Obviously it varies between cultures and between countries. Absolute views on it are just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's impossible to judge without knowing your own behavior. What did you say to them? Read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux incorrectly tagged an article for deletion - basically just made a mistake - and was instantly dubbed "an ignorant American" by another editor. Hghyux apologised, but he naturally took offence, and an argument ensued when he asked for an apology and was ultimately told to fuck off. No action was taken, which is something of a disgrace. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Shirt58 has already warned User:Bwilkins. But User:Hghyux has issues of their own. I'm concerned about User:Hghyux/Blocked where they threaten to "warn" and "report" users who they don't like if they ever comment on their user talk page for any reason. I understand their frustration but respectful interaction with these users may become necessary in the future and should not be met with such hostility. Dcoetzee 01:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Farra or Farrah or Farraw - a grain crop. Maybe another spelling

I am looking for information in relation to a grain crop called Farra - spelling may be incorrect. It was on a cooking show but I have never before heard of it and can't find it spelt correctly to research it. Any help appreciated?

Farro?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Farina? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If in doubt, choose this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cuban economic reforms

I'm surprised fact that there is still no article on the Cuban economic reforms (Cuban economic reform or Economic reforms in Cuba) from the last couple of years. The government’s goal is to have up to 40 percent of the island workforce of 5.2 million in non-state jobs by 2015. They probably deserve the attention of somebody with expertise in the area. I've added the article to the Requested articles, but would anybody be willing to create a stub? Thanks. 85.50.248.154 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Does that need a seperate article? How about just adding a section to the Cuba or Economy of Cuba articles? RudolfRed (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

How to change a talk page to a regular, searchable page

I created the following page on March 19th: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Grow_Communications

It is still listed under "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grow Communications" and when i search for "Grow Communications" my contribution does not come up. What is the process and requirements for getting a page to go live so it can be seen by everyone? And how long does this typically take to happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrowComm (talk • contribs) 23:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case it will not be happening, because it was deleted as an obvious advertisement (for a non-notable firm, I might add). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)