Help desk
< May 25	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 26

DAME PATIENCE JONATHAN

The details provided by whoever wrote about Patience Jonathan on wikipedia is biased, uncalled for and more like a news article than a biography, especially in the OTHER section of the biography. I am sure such article was written by a hater and/or someone who is out to tarnish her image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.150.119 (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material in the "Other" section is supported by references to sources outside Wikipedia. If you still feel that it is biased or misleading, you should complain on the article's discussion page. Maproom (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a couple of things from the article that I think don't meet the BLP guidelines (I might be mistaken). The final paragraph in the "Other" section looks true (or at least supported my the BBC reference), but may fail WP:COPYVIO on the source? Several sentences seem to have been copied verbatim.--Otus scops (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to her as Dame Patience Jonathan. If she is entitled by Nigerian law or custom to be referred to as Dame Patience, a sourced comment to that effect would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wat if they say they are retire but they keep edit

some users have a sign on there page and it says "RETIRED" but then they edit. like not just a little edits. like 100s of edits in the past week. what are the consequence for this type of lying. can it lead to a ban?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retired users are free to come out of retirement whenever they wish, and is not a violation of any policy to do so. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 01:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there should be a policy, though? I think blatant lying shows poor moral character, don't you? Shouldn't they at least be required to take the RETIRED label off their talk page?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It more likely just shows that they forgot they put the "Retired" notice on their User page, and therefore didn't think to remove it when they began editing again. That's more disorganisation than lying. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know a case where a user left a "Wiki-break due to being discouraged" banner up while actively editing, along with derogatory comments concerning certain editors though they were unnamed. I agree with the IP it sent both a confused and dishonest message. (Not sanctionable, just a reflection on the personal standards of the user doing it. The user exhibited other low forms of conduct as well, so there you go.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, it is probably just an oversight. The poster should have assumed good faith (which is explicitly in policy) rather than complain about it here. A friendly note to the user along the lines of "Hi, sorry to bother you, do you realise you still have your retired notice up?" is all that is needed. On the question of whether it is sanctionable, the answer is no, unless it could be shown that it was being deliberately done to mislead, such as (a rather ineffective) attempt to avoid scrutiny, but even if that were so there would then be disruptive behaviour that was of more direct concern than the talk page notice. Spinning Spark 08:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unwanted Wikipedia

Wikipedia appeared on my Foxfire. I did not request it and do not want it. It is causing me problems trying to use Foxfire. How do I get Wikipedia off my computer? I just want it gone. Allen McRae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.144.229 (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allen - I assume by Foxfire, you mean the Firefox web browser? Could you elaborate a bit on the problem you're having? Saying that Wikipedia is on your browser is a bit vague, especially since Wikipedia is just a site. Is Wikipedia bookmarked? Your homepage? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unsure what you mean. Another possibility is that the search box in your Firefox browser searches Wikipedia instead of your preferred search engine. If that's the case then look for a little triangle in the box and click it to change search service. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be locked?

There are many Christians in the world, and most of them would be antagonistic towards Barbara Thiering if they knew about her. Those who do are inclined to stick with their own interpretations of the Bible and reject hers. So the article about her cannot maintain its neutrality in the face of so much opposition, and can never make any progress towards representing her point of view. Its history ought to make that pretty obvious. In the interest of fairness, can it be protected somehow from the hordes of opponents so her friends can edit the article (neutrally) without interference? I've lost all her books, but will buy them anew if I get any encouragement. --Marshall "Unfree" Price 208.54.85.173 (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not lock articles so only 'friends' can edit them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody help solve this problem? --Marshall "Unfree" Price 172.56.26.202 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Solve this problem"? I see no problem. I hold no Christian beliefs, but I see the article as well-written and balanced. Maproom (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, I can't contribute anything. This article is of utmost importance to me, but whenever I tried to expand it, I ran into trouble. The section on "critical reception" might not be biased (except that it contains only negative criticism), but it surely shouldn't be the bulk of the article. The historical discoveries Thiering has made are vast, if you accept her theory, but I cannot even begin to elaborate on them without interference from other Wikipedians. Of course you don't see any problem, but if you went to her website, you might get a glimpse of the treasure trove of information she's found, all in plain sight between the covers of the New Testament, but all hidden, deliberately, by its authors. The validity of her theory can't be examined without delving into the substance of it, and as I said, her enemies are legion. It's well written because nobody cares about that, but it's not at all balanced, because it doesn't include her side. When I've attempted to contribute, I've been thwarted on every occasion. Funfree (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have only just created this account and it has no edits in the article, if you want us to look at why your particular contributions were rejected you will have to point them out, preferebly with a diff. However, there is only one edit to the article for all of this year [1] made by an IP in the same range as the OP, which I assume is you. This was reverted by user:Dougweller for a very good reason, please read his edit summary [2]. As for requiring us to go read Thiering's website, we don't base our assessment of the academic worth of an article subject's work on the claims made, or the arguments deployed, by the subject. Rather, we base it on the analysis of independent reliable sources. If you have such sources that can help balance the article then discuss the issue on the article talk page and I'm sure you'll then be able to improve the article.

By the way, User:Unfree claims to have the same real-life name as the one used by the OP here. If you are user Unfree then you should mark the user page of both accounts with the information that they are the same person along with a legitimate reason for creating multiple accounts. You can find suitable templates for doing this here. Spinning Spark 09:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This comes up from time to time, usually on fringe articles such as this one. In a similar debate, another editor commented "Per No original research, "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."" Our articles rely on what sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY say about a subject, and we use sources according to our WP:NPOV policy and in this case WP:Fringe as well. There are relevant discussions at both Talk:Richard C. Hoagland/Archive 3#RfC: Should article be trimmed down where material is likely to be removed because it is just selective analyses of Hoagland's work with no secondary sources, and at Talk:Bart D. Ehrman#Entire "Works" section in WP:OR. I stole my quote from the latter discussion. So if sources can be found that analyse/explain her work, then they can probably be used so far as the use follows our guidelines and policies. But editor's deciding what is important about her work and adding that is not a good idea. Almost forgot, I'm not a Christian either. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitable problem?

Hello, I recently asked a question about Wikitables. I got an answer to my question, but that created a new problem. I would like to put an expandable section in the Wikitable on my List of World War II puppet states page. More specifically, I would like to make the "Country" section have an extendable section (I have found Template:Collapsible list to work best), where you can click "expand," and it will show you the name in whatever language. Now, however, my new problems arise. For some reason, the expand tab blocks part of the text. Also, in the section after country, for sections with background color, the bgcolor=lightgreen doesn't work properly. Thanks for any help, Cnd474747 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The collapse template tries to write the title in one line, it no longer wraps within the table cell. You can solve this by manually putting a line break within the table, by making the table column wider, or both. The css for the background was not working properly because you had started a line with a double bar (||) instead of a single one. Example of fixed table code below. Note that a blank line is required at the top of the drop down if the title has been manually wrapped. Spinning Spark 10:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Created	Disestablished	Puppet State	Country/territory	Notes
1921-08-14	1944-10-11	Tuvan People's Republic Tuvan: Tьвa Arat Respuвlik Russian: Урянхайский край	Tannu Uriankhai, part of China	Also known as "Tuva," Russia had been sending people (mainly farmers and fishermen) in to Tuva since 1860. In 1921, Russian-backed Bolsheviks stormed Tuva, after recently having declared its independence during the Mongolian Revolution of 1921. It was later annexed into the Tuvan Autonomous Oblast, per request of the "Little Khural," the executive committee of the Great Khural.^[1]

^ Kolarz, Walter (1954). The Peoples of the Soviet Far East (PDF). Great Britain: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., Publishers. pp. 161–166. ISBN 0208007016.

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for! Cnd474747 (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cnd474747, Please make sure you consult MOS:COLLAPSE. There is a specific exception for Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text...; I do not know whether your proposed plan is covered by this exception.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, thank you for letting me know. It is not hiding references, pictures, or image captions. It is also not a spoiler. The information that is hidden is also not covered in the main text. I am not sure if it can still be accessed by users without CSS or Java. Originally, I was planning on incorporating the added text into the side section, but it did not always incorporate well. All I am adding is a translation in whatever language is needed. Thanks, Cnd474747 (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at Premise (programming language)

I have raised issues of notability, promotion, conflict of interest and original research on the new article Premise (programming language), mainly edited by user: Piagetmodeler. Other than adding some problem tags, which Piagetmodeler has removed three times, I have not edited the article itself, and have confined myself to a discussion on the article talk page. Piagetmodeler has accused me of editing in bad faith, having a personal interest in removing the article, sock and/or meatpuppetry (via User:Soimort), and “trolling”. I’m going to step back and would like some other editors to have a look. Thanks. Rwessel (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of completeness (I had not seen the latest edits on the article before posting the above), Piagetmodeler has restored the problem tags after his last removal, but has also removed a PROD tag added by User:Soimort. Rwessel (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also sent an e-mail to info@wikipedia.com regarding this dispute asking them to intervene to resolve this matter. Piagetmodeler (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article appears to be original research. It provides no evidence that the language is used; or even that it has been implemented. In the talk page, Piagetmodeler appears to acknowledge this, but to argue that Wikipedia's rules on original research should not be applied. Maproom (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTRS (info@wikipedia.com), where I am a volunteer responder, is unlikely to intervene in what appears to be a content dispute - this should be resolved on-wiki.--ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully, Maproom, you'll see that I said several times on the talk page that the Premise language is available for anyone who wants it for evaluation purposes. Simply send an e-mail request to the address on the talk page and they will respond with a copy of the language file which you can run and evaluate. It's only 170K. And it works. Please do that if you doubt the existence of the language. I also said that all programming languages start out as original research. That is true. Piagetmodeler (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept your word that the language has been implemented. And yes, all languages start out as original research; a fraction of them later become notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Maproom (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that it's not available. The issue (or one of them) is whether the programming language is notable enough to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Existing and being available, sadly, doesn't make it notable in itself. The subject needs reliable independent sources about it. Personally, I don't see how a programming language invented last year can possible meet this criteria.--Otus scops (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP

Hi, I'm not sure what the correct procedure is for dealing with the IP editor 69.219.216.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He has made disruptive, possibly libellous edits to Talk:chessgames.com and Talk:BoxRec, and restored them after they were reverted. Certainly a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM and probably several other policies too. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a warning on their talk page. If they continue, place a stronger warning (warning templates can be found here) and finally, if they do not respond to multiple warnings, report to WP:ANI where they will likely be blocked for a period. Spinning Spark 10:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing creative commons to copyright

How do I change the creative commons on the file I created to copyright instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheArmyGrows (talk • contribs) 03:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean this file [3], you still own the copyright - though you have released it under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows others to copy, distribute and/or modify it, under the terms of the license. As far as I'm aware, once something is released under such a license, it can't be revoked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump is right – if TheArmyGrows released the copyright in this image, he can't withdraw it now. But I suspect that it was not his to release. The image shows a number of works of art. Unless TheArmyGrows holds the copyrights in these works, he should not have uploaded the image (and Commons should not have accepted it). Anyway, a better place to ask may be the Commons help desk. Maproom (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do own the image of which I am the photographer. I and Fumero are the founding fathers of Grafstract Expressionism. Jointly we agreed upon uploading the jpg. TheArmyGrows (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents Keene, NH

Add screenwriter Robert Rodat, born in Keene 1953. Wrote screenplay for Saving Private Ryan, Fly Away Home and others . Currently has TV program Falling Skies on TNT network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.160.24 (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for suggesting the edit - note that you can always make edits yourself. I've placed Rodat into Keene's list of notable people, since the subject meets out notabilty guidelines and has his own article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia be deleted?

If the wikipedia edtors got together and the overwhelming majority of them voted that all of Wikipedia should be deleted, could it be deleted? And how?--166.137.85.69 (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany for deletion, anyone? /joke

In seriousness, Wikipedia, in the end, is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation who has final say of the project. If for some super weird reason all of Wikipedia revolted and wanted the site shut down, it would be up to the Foundation to make that decision. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the likeliness of that happening anytime soon is roughly zero. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

m:Proposals for closing projects:-0--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are referring to English Wikipedia, the answer is a hypothetical yes. You would have to persuade a significant majority to clearly support such action. The last time I checked there are about 130,000 active enwiki editors, and with this being a very serious matter, you'd probably need a supermajority like 99%. Best of luck with that. :) Green Giant (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a bazillion forks and archived versions of Wikipedia, so even if Wikipedia got deleted its content would still be available, and its license means you could create a new encyclopedia project and use all of Wikipedia's content.AioftheStorm (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NEW KURT COBAIN DEATH SCENE PHOTOS

hello I'm Spaceman1978, these pictures were released by the PD, I fail to understand why you won't change that one fact on Kurt Cobain's wiki page? A user told me to come here, the Kurt Cobain page says the photos will not be released publicly but the PD did in fact release them & they are on Ultimate Classic Rocks website, just google it. I think its rediculous that these photos were released over a month ago & you people ignore it. In fact here's the link http://ultimateclassicrock.com/kurt-cobain-death-scene-distrubing-photos/

Spaceman1978 (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to discuss this is the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spaceman. You treated a quotation about release of the photos by a third party as if it was Wikipedia speaking. The quote remains correct; the person did say the photos would not be released. The fact that they were later released does not change that the person said they wouldn't. That is not "bullshit" as you described it, an it's not Wikipedia speaking, as you've treated it. If a person was going to add something to the article about that, it would not be by commenting in the article on that statement as if it were wrong. It might be a decision to remove that content and replace it with a cogent, composed statement about the release cited to a reliable source. Or it might possibly be a sentence following that quotation, left intact, saying something like: "Despite the initial statement that the photos would remain under seal, on [insert date], the Seattle Police Department released ____ images showing..." etc. ... or something else, cited to a reliable source. It would not be SCREAMING UPPERCASE LETTERS in the article breaking the fourth wall to speak at the reader and at Wikipedia as if it was a person, and as if you had proposed good encyclopedic text to add, with a proposed source, that was denied. Wikipedia doesn't work the way. Content is added by people who are interested enough to do so, writing or suggesting appropriate text to add. That has not happened.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watercolour Painting

I teach watercolour painting at the Ruskin School of Art, Oxford University and elsewhere, and belong to the Global Network of watercolour painters. I would like to contribute to the page on watercolour painting. Is it appropriate to add the following links:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca Hind (talk • contribs) 10:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, no. The guideline for what external links should be added can be found at Wikipedia:External links. All three of the these fail #1 and #4 of the Links normally to be avoided section of the guideline. GB fan 10:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

israel

well victor kattan is absolutly wrong. internationally jerusalem is recognized as the capital of israel. many countries keep their ambassies in tel aviv but recognized that israel capital is jerusalem. just not to fight with the arabs. the map snoe israel boarder is 1948 today its much bigger. regarding ethnic group 81% jewish plus others your writing is full of incorrectness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.215.227 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should be making these comments on an article talk page rather than at the Help Desk. Second, be very careful in editing in that area, because it is subject to discretionary sanctions under ARBIP, and be sure not to engage in edit-warring or tendentious editing. If you want to report edit-warring or tendentious editing about Israel and Palestine, go to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-breaking spaces

I made this edit but it was only to remove the word "of" as part of MoS date changes. I did not add the non-breaking spaces ( ). Does anyone know how these got added to my edit? One of my tools or plug-ins perhaps? I'm slightly worried that these changes are associated with my name when I'm not even sure I agree with them. --Jameboy (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit did not add the non-breaking spaces, it replaced some non-standard non-printing characters by non-breaking spaces. I have no idea why it did that, nor what those non-standard characters were, nor how they got there. Here is a bunch of the things. Maproom (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are non-breaking spaces, character  . I suspect that they got there when somebody copy-pasted text from elsewhere into the article. It's now listed at WP:CP for copyright processing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely not the result of a copy-paste. Jameboy's diff clearly shows that they were inserted into already existing text (but no comment on whether or not it is a copyvio). This would seem to be a bug to me and should probably be reported to Bugzilla. Apparently, the software is programmed to replace spaces in front of punctuation with non-breaking spaces. This is useful because in some languages and dated English a space is sometimes required, for instance, before a colon. The nbsp prevents the colon wrapping to the next line. However, this causes numerous other problems and there are a whole heap of bugs on Bugzilla asking for exceptions to this rule, this one for instance. I note that nearly all the replacements are replacing one space of a double space at the beginning of a sentence. I suspect that this could be due to one of these fixes having unforeseen consequences. I habitually type with double spaces for new sentences, as do many people who have been taught to type properly, and I have never noticed this before, so if it is a bug, it is a new one. Report it and see where it goes. Spinning Spark 18:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is most definitely not my field of expertise, so I expect you are right. What I did: I copied one of the highlighted "invisible" characters that got replaced from the left column of the diff above, pasted it into Pages, and selected Show invisibles. It showed up as bullet-point with a circumflex over it, which is the symbol for a non-breaking space. If I copy a space from elsewhere on that page (say, the one between "Warner" and "has") and paste it in the same way, it shows up as an ordinary space (blue bullet-point). As Maproom has already said, some kind of hard space was replaced in Jameboy's edit. What kind, and why, and whether it should be reported as a bug, I don't know. But since much of that article was apparently created by pasting in material copied from elsewhere, I think it's a reasonable guess that that is how those things got there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding References - in my page

Hi,

I have just created a new page for the Italian model 'Renata Zanchi' and just added some references at the end of the page as requested (articles, newpapers links, etc). However, I just got a message that tells me that altough on the page there are 'ref' tags I need to add something else, but do not understand what, could you please help me?

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Thank you.

Acr8 (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the error message says is "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page)."

The words "help page" are in blue, indicating that they are a wikilink, in this case to Help:Cite errors/Cite error refs without references. That is the page you need to read to see about including the {{reflist}} template.

You also need to read WP:Referencing for beginners to see how to provide inline citations to give specific references for particular statements in your article. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add References on new page

With reference to my previous mail, this is the message I got: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acr8 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 May 2014 UTC

See WP:CITE. There is no one method that is required, but it is considered proper to place citations close to the material that is being supported, rather than putting it all at the end. Also, just giving the URL of a web site is not considered good practice. A normal scholarly citation should be composed, which would include not only the URL, but the author, date, title, publisher, and similar information about the web site. Have you written papers before that required citations? What method did you use? Jc3s5h (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jc3s5h I think it is a bit strong to say it is "considered proper to place citations close to the material ". I use WP:LDR, and place the bulk of the reference at the end, so that it does not clutter up the text. There is a piece of the reference next to the material being cited, but the way you phrased your answer might lead someone to conclude that List Defined References are not proper. Frankly, I think they are much better than what most people use.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that there should be some kind of in-line indication near the material that is supported by a particular citation that allows the reader to determine which citation supports the nearby claim. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Jc3s5h, and user:Acr8 was doing it incorrectly, but many editors, even long-time editors, do not know about List Defined References, so I wanted to mention that option.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, user:Acr8, I looked at Renata Zanchi and that is not the right way to create references. I also note that it was deleted, not simply because it had no references, but because it was written in a style that is not encyclopedic. I urge you to look at some of the featured articles to get a sense of the style and tone desired.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NB Renata Zanchi has been deleted per G11 for being too promotional in tone.--ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Kolarz, Walter (1954). The Peoples of the Soviet Far East (PDF). Great Britain: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., Publishers. pp. 161–166. ISBN 0208007016.

[1]