Help desk
< July 13	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 15 >

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.

July 14

Help searching

I'm trying to find all WP:GAs good articles that have a certain word/phrase in them. I looked at the search in category instructions which say to use incategory: as a search string like this, but it doesn't work for the good article category [1]. Why? Is there another way to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.147.7 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Searching#Parameters says:

incategory: – Given as "incategory:category", where category is the pagename of a category page, it lists pages with [[Category:pagename]] in their wikitext.

Category:Good articles is not populated by adding [[Category:Good articles]] to the wikitext but by transcluding the template {{Good article}} which adds the category. I don't know a way to make the search when the category is added by a template. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Symbols

I have a question regarding the use of symbols as indicators of the increase or decrease of a value or ranking in an infobox. There is widespread contradictory use of these symbols. For example, on some pages;
upward is indicated as ({increase}) Green to indicate positive and the symbol acts as an upward pointing arrow. This is to indicate an increased monetary value or a higher ranking on a list.
downward is indicated as ({decrease}) Red to indicate negative and the symbol acts as a downward pointing arrow. This is to indicate a decreased monetary value or a lower ranking on a list.

To me, this seems to be the appropriate way to use these symbols. I have found them used this way on most articles. Examples: Facebook, IBM, ExxonMobil and Chrysler.

However, other pages are using the symbols as follows;

upward is indicated as ({DecreasePositive}) Again, green to indicate positive, but the symbol is reversed.
downward is indicated as ({IncreaseNegative}) Again, red to indicate positive, but the symbol is reversed.

Here it appears that the wider end of the symbol is used to indicate "greater" while the narrow end is used to indicate "lesser", (like an upright version of the mathematical symbols), with the "greater" end indicating an increase in monetary value or a higher ranking on a list, while the "lesser" end indicates a decreased monetary value or a lower ranking on a list. I find this to be a somewhat confusing use for these symbols, (even the templates show the contradictions) and have only found them on fewer articles. Examples: Craigslist, Workopolis, Wikitravel and The Smoking Gun.

Can we determine just what is the proper use of these symbols, then set that as the standard for all WP articles? Thanks, - thewolfchild 04:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the first four articles are using the symbols to represent dollar amounts, so an increase is a good thing (

). The other four articles are using the arrows to represent Alexa rank, where an increase means moving farther from first place, so it's bad (

). To change it would only confuse readers, I think. Howicus (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howicus, if the ranking were changed top use and , do you think there would be many complaints from users who are confused? I hope that's not the case, but as they are being switched that way now, we'll have to keep an eye on that. - thewolfchild 23:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mostly what Howicus said. Sometimes less is better like moving up from 30th place to 23rd place or scoring lower in a game of gold. So, in those cases lower numbers are better. Lower = down arrow, good thing = green color. Technical 13 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook in the first group of examples uses

for Alexa rank. The second group of examples use

or

for Alexa rank. I agree this is confusing. {{Infobox dot-com company}} and {{Infobox website}} both say to use

or

. An up-arrow usually signals good and down-arrow bad. In rankings it's nearly always good to have a lower number and people know this. English also says "move up" in the rankings for getting a better rank, and "move down" for getting a worse. I agree

or

should not be used for rankings. There are other situations where they can be useful. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeHunter: "There are other situations where they [ & ] can be useful." Just curious, what are some situations where you think this might be the case? - thewolfchild 23:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good example. Thanks, I was wondering that, too! —sroc (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good example. Thanks. - thewolfchild 01:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox website#Alexa rank increase/decrease arrows. I have copied my answer there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the inconsistent use is confusing and undesirable. I think that rankings should still use {{increase}}

to indicate a higher ranking (i.e., a lower number placing) and {{decrease}}

to indicate a lower ranking (i.e., a higher number placing). For example, if a website attracts more traffic and goes from 5th to 4th placing in most popular websites (i.e., going up in the ranking), this should be represented by

. This is consistent with how the figures of the actual traffic (i.e., number of hits) increasing would be represented. It would be downright weird to have a list that showed figures like this:

Hits	1.5 million hits per day
Ranking	4

—sroc (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Template:Infobox website expressly advocates the use of {{increase}} and {{decrease}} to indicate change in Alexa rankings, I have updated the articles you mentioned accordingly. —sroc (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I guess that makes more sense, if you think of Alexa ranking like a list, with the number 1 website at the top. Howicus (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't even consider reflecting an improvement to a lower number, which is good in number rankings. (Kinda' like golf scores). But, just the same, it can still be confusing. I'm glad we have appeared to have addressed the issue and are going for a single, standardized use for these symbols. Thanks everybody. - thewolfchild 23:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild: If you find any other examples, I suggest you be bold and change them, and refer to the documentation at Template:Infobox website (or this discussion) to explain why in case anyone objects. —sroc (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem! Cheers. - thewolfchild 01:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the documentation of these various templates should be updated to provide better clarity. I've opened a discussion at Template talk:IncreaseNegative. —sroc (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In article image thumbnail

I am trying to add a picture to the article on Crown King, AZ. (Crown King, Arizona)

My photo is located at File:Crown King Saloon at dusk.jpg

When I add the photo and save, my photo is not visible on the page. instead it just reads the file name as a link. What am I doing wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93boomer (talk • contribs) 08:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you did wrong was to add the correct code, but between <nowiki> tags, so that your addition was presented as literal text. However the article already has one picture of that rather undistinguished building, does it really need a second one? Maproom (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93boomer (talk • contribs) 09:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing with the new VisualEditor on the "Edit" link. Most of our documentation is for the source editor on "Edit source". If you try to write wiki source in VisualEditor then invisible <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags are automatically placed around the wiki source to inactivate it. You can either use "Edit source" or try to use VisualEditors own system. It has a media icon at the top to insert images. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links no longer opening in new tab

It would appear that, even though my 'Open external links in new window/tab' gadget is selected, it has stopped doing it. Anyone know why? Ta --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 13:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently problems with all gadgets. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Where is Gadgets ? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for info on a cafeteria in the old typewriter building in Hartford Ct

Hello,

Born in Hartford back in the 50's my grandfather and grandmother lived around the street from Mark Twain. I have photos of my grandmother skating with Katherine Hepburn. What I can't seem to find is that my grandfather had a cafeteria " Spencer's cafeteria" in the old type write building. My father Michael Arthur Spencer is alive and well in Bolton , Ct and he shares stories. My grandfather fed thousands of people a day during the was and was an employee of a cafeteria before becoming owner. He was generous to a fault and I'm shocked that I can't seem to find any stories of his cafeteria. His WWII draft card lists him as manager at Spencer's cafeteria which shows just how humble he was. My father says that he helped so many during the war and that at the Holidays during the depression thousands were given turkeys and such.

With this knowledge I find that during those time of struggles that there wasn't something written about the cafeteria that served up to 7000 people a day. Please help me in my search.

Look forward to seeing something written about something that was of importance to many.

Sheila Spencer Meyrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.237.76 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted the question to improve legibility by removing the spaces at the start of lines. ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sheila. If you're asking for help to research information about the cafeteria, you'd be better off asking at our Reference Desk (probably under Humanities or Miscellaneous). If by "Look forward to seeing something written ..." you're suggesting a new Wikipedia article on the subject, or a mention of it in an existing article, then you or someone else is going to have to find the information in a reliable published source so it can be used to support that new material. If there really hasn't been anything written about Spencer's cafeteria, then it will fail Wikipedia's inclusion policies for notability and verifiability. - Ka renjc 15:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Typewriter Company building in Hartford burned down in July 1992. The Wikipedia article National Register of Historic Places listings in Hartford, Connecticut includes a redlink to Royal Typewriter Company Building, so at some point (presumably) that article will be written, or alternatively, information will be added to the Royal Typewriter Company article. Either would be the right place to put information about the cafeteria within the building. For example, this "We would get there early for a parking place, punched in, and you went up to the cafeteria for a coffee before you start," comes from a story about the fire. But I'm not finding much about the cafeteria, online, and I've not found any news article where the cafeteria is actually named.

If anyone is going to help create the article Royal Typewriter Company Building, perhaps it would be the Hartford Historical Society. I can't think of anyone else having the resources to find historical documents pertaining to the cafeteria (and, more importantly, to the factory, which is clearly notable and deserving of coverage in Wikipedia). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding vandalism

I duly submit here that since sometime, a miscreant by the username AgraNewsObserver has been indulging in cheap mischief by inserting malicious content on the homepage of dayalbagh, a pilgrim place. The sole purpose of the editor is to defame the place He is time and again inserting irrelevant information about an untoward incident on the homepage,which simply shares basic information about the pilgrim place. Whenever I or any other person tries to remove the content by editing the page, the wiki editors revert it back by undoing our edits. Please i request the authorities to take notice and stop this vandalism asap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anami6ka (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has little to do with vandalism. Instead it is a content dispute, regarding the question as to whether a murder apparently committed on the premises of Dayalbagh should be included. For now, I have removed the section, as it was poorly worded and sourced largely to uploaded scans and other inadmissible sources - a violation of policy. I suggest that rather than edit-warring, those involved in this dispute familiarise themselves with policy (particularly WP:RS and WP:BLP) and then work towards coming up with a compromise which accurately reflects the sourcing - assuming that such sourcing justifies inclusion at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge your timely intervention and help in the matter sir, but i would like to bring your attention again to the page, which unfortunately has yet again been edited to include the unrequisite piece of information, by the same user AgraNewsObserver. Though im not aware of what enmity the person could have with the religious place, yet one thing quite clear is that the person is not doing so in good faith, as to how could the news of some incident be relevant enough to be included on the homepage of an organisation? I hope you would again provide us with your useful editing help

To my utter dismay, i just observed that the page has been maligned to such an extent, that even the references included talk about the incident. The forementioned user has apparently modified the page so largely without getting caught,in the disguise of mentioning positive changes in the edit summary. Please i request you to take serious cognizance of the issue and protect the page from blatant misuse. This is very essential for reinstating our trust in wikipedia. Regards Anami6ka (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I revert to old editing method???

Hiya,

really not liking this new wysiwg editing malarkey, it won't even let me edit half the time.... how do I change my settings so I can go back to the 'wikitext' type of editing??

Sdrawkcab (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)sdrawkcab[reply]

Under preferences->gadgets, there is a box to turn off the visual editor. You can also use the "edit souce" tab to use the normal wikitext interface when editing a page. RudolfRed (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Sdrawkcab (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)sdrawkcab[reply]

Alternative Referel sources

I have created a wikipedia page for a site named moviereviewband.com , but it is rejected and asked for to enter an alternative referral source. Could u plz mention the name of such sites .

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudion (talk • contribs) 16:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the links in the rejection, you will see it explained that in order for a subject to pass the notability test, the article must show that it has substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Your draft at present references only itself. The rejection is not asking for "an alternative referral source": it is asking for any reliable source with no connection to moviereviewband.com which discusses the site. You need to find where the site has been covered in major newspapers or magazine, or in websites of reputation equivalent to major newspapers or magazines (not blogs and other user-generated sites). If the site has not yet been discussed in such places, then it is not at present notable, and may not have a Wikipedia article.

Besides the points that Minna Sora no Shita mentioned, the article at present does not read like an encyclopaedia article, and in fact appears to be wholly promotional. This is not permitted in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Men Without Hats template?

I can't figure out this weird problem. When you go to the page for No Hats Beyond This Point, the album Sideways appears in the template list at the bottom where it should, and then disappears! How do we keep it from disappearing? As far as I can tell it only happens on the page for No Hats Beyond This Point, which suggests there may be some subtle code error on that page . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorx0079 (talk • contribs)

I see the same at No Hats Beyond This Point and Template:Men Without Hats:

Rhythm of Youth (1982) • Folk of the 80s (Part III) (1984) • Pop Goes the World (1987) • The Adventures of Women & Men Without Hate in the 21st Century (1989) • Sideways (1991) • No Hats Beyond This Point (2003) • Love in the Age of War (2012)

The only diference is that No Hats Beyond This Point is bold instead of linked at No Hats Beyond This Point (this is normal for links to the page itself). What exactly do you see? What is your browser and skin? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing odd on the page either. --ColinFine (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. When I saw the problem I was using an older version of IE going through a proxy. Using IE 10 without a proxy I don't have a problem. Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know which IE version? Did you see the year (1991) for Sideways? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was IE 7. It was all there and then it vanished. Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I can only test with IE9 where "Sideways (1991)" displays normally both with and without compatibility mode.

Michael Berk

Perhaps I'm confused, but the article about me is only a couple of lines long and very incomplete. So I edited an accurate, complete article about me. Unbiased, completely backup up by the information about me and my career on IMDB. But someone keeps taking it down and replacing it with the inaccurate and incomplete article about me. I received the message that someone too close to a subject (or the subject himself) can't edit an article. This makes no sense to me as who better to write about a subject, or a person, that someone who knows the subject and the person intimately.

So if I am prohibited in edited an accurate article about myself, how can I get an accurate article about me on Wikipedia? When you search my name on Google first up is IMDB, then Wikipedia. If people search me - or research me - and they go to Wikipedia and do not get the full story of who I am and what I have accomplished, such as creating the TV series Baywatch, and other movies and TV programs, then my incomplete and/or inaccurate profile on Wikipedia is hurting me. How can I work with Wikipedia to resolve this? Thank you.

Sincerely,

Michael Berk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Jerome Berk (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. You should read the advice at WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Editing about your self is very strongly discouraged. You should leave a note on the article's talk page with the changes you want to make and mark it with {{edit request}}, and then a neutral editor can make the changes. RudolfRed (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, IMDB is not considered a reliable source. See WP:RS/IMDB. Dismas|^(talk) 21:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any material you think should be added to the article should be supported by reliable sources. As already mentioned above, IMDb is not usually regarded as reliable for Wikipedia purposes. But books about you, or articles in national newspapers or reputable film industry journals and the like would be likely to be seen as reliable. By the way, the material that was removed appeared to others to be very far from unbiased, and was an excellent illustration of why people are discouraged from writing about themselves here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that this editor asked a question relating to this on the help desk last week (here) and apparently never even looked at the responses, so I don't know how useful it is to respond here. Looie496 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Aslan

Dear Folks:After listening to Reza Aslan on NPR this a.m. I looked him up on your site and I have a couple suggestions. First, he has a new book out," Zealot,the story of Jesus the Man, not the Messiah. Second, in the interview this a.m., he defined himself," not as a Christian,but as a follower of Jesus."His bio, however, states that he is a Shia Muslim.There seems to be a conflict there.

Very Sincerely, Elizabeth Keranen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.134.142.11 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims consider Jesus to have been a prophet, but not the Messiah or the final prophet. There is no conflict there. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source for it, you are welcome to add the book to the article; alternatively, you can suggest it on the talk page Talk:Reza Aslan. --ColinFine (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

poems/songs

Hello

My question is in relation to poems. Although I have tried to type up a poem/song from the 1800s into wikipedia it has been taken down due to copyright. I don't believe there is an issue with copyright on this song otherwise Poems such as Wordsworth's 'daffodils' aka 'I wandered lonely as a cloud' would not be listed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Wandered_Lonely_as_a_Cloud

Kind regards Suzanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.134.161 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What poem are you trying to add? RudolfRed (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the text of poems and songs does not belong in an encyclpaedia, though there are exceptions. It might be preferable to enter it into the sister project Wikisource. --ColinFine (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

template expansion caching

Hi, a while ago I edited wyvern to change the IPA pronunciation to the correct one. My edit is still there in the source however the rendered page still shows the incorrect pronunciation. Given that a month has passed I'm beginning to wonder wether the template expansion cache will ever expire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.129.150 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to a page itself are always displayed immediately in that page. You must refer to [2]. I don't know IPA but Template:H:IPA says ai aI ye eye ī all display as aɪ: "long 'i' in 'bide'". This means your edit has no effect on the rendered page. Do you think that is wrong? PrimeHunter (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding IPA. The symbol you have copied from M-W (ī) is not IPA, but is use there to represent the sound written in IPA as /aɪ/ (because it is a diphthong consisting of an /a/ sound followed by an /ɪ/). (I may remark that when I looked at the M-W entry you linked to, I thought it was saying to pronounce it "weevern", because that's what ī suggests to me. This is exactly why we use IPA.) --ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Commons/Meta account with a different name

On Wikimedia Commons and other Wikimedia sites, my username is still User:Seahen, but on en.wikipedia I've had my account renamed. How do I get the Seahen unified account merged into the NeonMerlin unified account for purposes of e.g. rendering preferences? Neon Merlin 20:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is to confirm that I control both accounts and want them merged. Seahen (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to request username changes locally on each site. You may be able to get it done globally at meta:Steward requests/Username changes. Mdann52 (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up on Mars

On 29 June, an editor complained that his posts about the exploration of Mars were being censored by another editor. His use of the term "censorship" was incorrect, because there was a content dispute. The topic was taken to a project talk page and the Help Desk item was closed. After some research, it became clear that there were two problems. There were content disputes, and there were user conduct disputes making orderly resolution of the content dispute nearly impossible. I have had to open a Request for Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mars. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False edits in Cancer. Collusion? 3RR rule?

Please see the following [[3]]

What I wrote in Cancer is:

Mutations rarely have large effects on cancer risk in the general population (<0.3%), and "account for less than 3–10% of annually diagnosed cancers" at a few specific sites.^[1] Phytochemicals from dietary plants and spices have been shown to prevent cancer initiation, promotion, and progression by exerting anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative stress effects, and have been shown to induce apoptosis in cancer cells and suppress tumor growth in vivo.^[2]

Replaced by Jmh649 and Zad68 with (which is absolutely not supported by the reference):

Approximately five to ten percent of cancers are entirely hereditary.^[1]

Please see their source material [[4]]. The 5 - 10% they falsely cite pertains only to breast cancer, and the review finds essentially the opposite conclusion compared to what Jmh649 and Zad68 write. Genes are actually not very important, according to the source they cite.

How can I make corrections and additions with editors don't read the source they cite, inaccurately use a citation, and seem to use other editors (so very quick to jump into a subject they rarely edit) to possibly circumvent the 3RR rule?32cllou (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't engage in an edit war. I don't see that any of the exceptions at WP:3RR apply here. Follow the guidace at WP:DR to resolve this dispute. RudolfRed (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

32cllou, you seem to be making two different changes in the same edit - which makes discussing the matter difficult. If the existing sources are being misinterpreted, that clearly needs correcting. However, you are also adding new material, relating to phytochemicals, and apparently citing a single primary source for this, which is unlikely to be acceptable per WP:MEDRS policy. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with this policy, and then go back and discuss the two issues separately on the article talk page. It is unsurprising that your edits have been reverted, given that you seem not to understand policy, and have approached the matter in such a confusing way. I see no evidence of 'collusion' or anything else in the way your edits have been reverted, and it is entirely normal that significant edits in such an important article need to be discussed, and consensus reached. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source I cite is a review. I have read MEDRS. I started out by deleting the incorrect text. JMH reverted. I went to Talk and presented. I read JMH's citation. I then tried to use correct from his cite, and my review cite on phytochemicals. You do not address the main issues, which are implicitly his violating 3RR, lack of using Talk, forcing less important information into the lead, deleting important review information into the lead, and not using a review to support your text (as required). Jmh's citation is a simplistic cherry pick of the research, and is not a review.32cllou (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you try to deal with two different issues at once, you can expect problems. These are unrelated issues - discuss them separately. And as far as 3RR goes, it can't be a problem if you do as you are expected to, and discuss the issues after your edit is first reverted. Furthermore, there is a discussion on the talk page now, involving several contributors - take part in it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Expert09 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Shu, L (Sept. 2010). "Phytochemicals: cancer chemoprevention and suppression of tumor onset and metastasis". Cancer Metastasis Rev.: 483–502. doi:10.1007/s10555-010-9239-y. PMID 20798979. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[Expert09-1] Cite error: The named reference Expert09 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] Shu, L (Sept. 2010). "Phytochemicals: cancer chemoprevention and suppression of tumor onset and metastasis". Cancer Metastasis Rev.: 483–502. doi:10.1007/s10555-010-9239-y. PMID 20798979. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]