Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 107

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 100

←

Archive 105

Exploratorium

Answered

– Article still needs NPOV polishing. Danger (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm the new Public Information Assistant at the Exploratorium, an art and science museum in San Francisco. Our Wikipedia page had a neutrality dispute created, and I've gone through to edit the text of the entire entry. As I did this, I took out a lot of loaded language and redundant information. I posted on the talk page about the various changes I was making and nobody has commented on anything for over a week, so I was hoping I could get an editor to look at it and (possibly) remove the dispute tag.

The link is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Exploratorium

Best,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vansau (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

First, thank you for disclosing your connection to the museum; that hopefully will prevent some drama. You may wish to read this page, which gives some advice on dealing with possible conflicts of interest. The major issue that I see with the article is that it's mostly unsourced. Things like dates and statistics are especially important to provide sources for. I think it could use another look for tone and neutrality as well, just for what you missed the first time around. Perhaps take a look at this page first, especially the sections on "weasel" and "peacock words" for common problems with language. The neutrality tag was added by Esrever and I'm not sure what they were most concerned about and it might be useful to ask them. Since there's no active dispute about the neutrality of the article, I would feel comfortable removing the tag. --Danger (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Danger,

I'm currently giving it another read-through and will take your advice to heart. I'm also dropping Esrever a note to ask for their input as well. I'll start searching through source material in order to make sure we're properly cited, too.

Vansau (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is regarding a person claiming to be another.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Gallo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello and thanks ... I have been jumping and or redirected to many times to recall. But the person on this page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Motorhead2.jpg is in fact my half brother. and I wanted to offer my assistance. I will have to wait until the afternoon to do so. But I am allmost 100% sure my brother is not in the band "morehead". I can be reached at my e-mail is <redacted> .

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Motorhead2.jpg

sorry if I used the wrong protocal and thanks for your help tonight.

--emil702 10:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallojr (talk • contribs)

I can't see anything in the article saying he is in Motorhead. But the image says, Anthony Gallo @ Motorhead Awards "11". It has also been nominated for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My concern is what the Author’s Intent was. At"My" first glance, the picture is trying to convey the Person in the picture is receiving an Award. emil702 05:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Question If a persons picture is posted and that person doesn’t want or like the picture posted, can someone or anyone remove it?
again thanks, Jezhotwells for your help with this matter.
emil702 05:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How to deal with comments edited in a talk page?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

An anon user with whom I have a dispute has edited some of my comments on this talk page: Talk:Spin torque transfer. What's the best way to deal with this? Should I separate them out into a reply, or just reproduce my original comments elsewhere, or just revert the changes? (I think they may not know how talk pages work). Thanks A13ean (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert the changes, and then leave them a note on their Talk page with a link to Wikipedia:Talk#Editing_comments. There's also a warning template at the bottom of WP:UTM that you can use if you think the situation warrants it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will keep this in mind in the future. A13ean (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Though now that I look at the editor's other contributions I do wonder if perhaps there's a bit of trouble brewing there. This bears watching. JohnInDC (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Made a few edits to the Talk page and am engaged in what appears to be productive discussion with the editor (whose IP seems to hop around a lot - he seems to edit under 3-4 of them at least). JohnInDC (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What to do with this ?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

MySQL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I added changes to the article recently, updated them so they would fit to the rules of wikipedia, but even so, there's a person removing my changes every time, for reasons which are incorrect. The problem is quite simple, it's a technical discussion, and while the fact that the references explicitly say something, the other person does not read it that way due to their lack of knowledge of the subject. Is there any way to prevent this from happening ?

Br & thx,

Yourbane (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The references don't explicitly say what you have interpreted them to say. The references say nothing about ACID compliance, but you have interpreted them to draw that conclusion. Please read the links which you have been given, to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Remember that in Wikipedia the reader shouldn't need a detailed knowledge of the subject; the content should be linked to already published sources, see WP:V. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with David Biddulph; you cannot extrapolate something from sources that the sources don't explicitly say, even if you believe it to be true. That is original research and not permitted here. – ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, just to be sure, even if the references explicitly say the behavior is inconsistent (i.e. breach of 'C' compliance), the fact that they do not mention ACID (the word) means that they cannot be taken into account, is that correct ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourbane (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again you assume that I lack knowledge of the subject - you know absolutely nothing about who I am, who I work for, or what I do. Let me restate that all this counts for nothing on Wikipedia where verifiability trumps truth and knowledge. Hopefully you will now respect the opinion of two respected editors (David Biddulph and Ukexpat) and either seek out an appropriate reliable source or leave the content out of the article. I can understand your frustration - the same happens to a lot of inexperienced Wikipedia editors who come up against the concept of truth vs. verifiability and hit what looks like a brick wall. But that is one of the ways that the five pillars of Wikipedia are protected. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Help deleting page made on Myself By Mistake.

Answered

– Danger (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello im Yash shiroya.

i created a page on myself named"Yash Shiroya" and then later read COI and other articles. i realise that deletion of this article would be the best solution. Help me to Delete this article or hel on how to create a page on yourself.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yash Shiroya (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't created a mainspace article. All you have done is used the sandbox in your user space. You can delete the content from that, and leave the sandbox blank until you next want to use it. If at some stage in the future you become notable, in Wikipedia terms, then someone else will be able to start an article about you. - David Biddulph (talk)

While I agree with David Biddulph that you can leave this in place, if you want it deleted, just add {{db-userreq}} to the top of the page. One reason you might want to not have this in your sandbox, and actually deleted rather than blanked, is that many users develop articles in such places and then want to move them to the mainspace, but it is a problem if there is prior edits in the sandbox that remain in the page history, which should not be included in the move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

screwy font problem

Answered

– Danger (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I edited Omar Khayyám, and now the Persian template won't support Persian text. I don't know if it's a FF problem on my end, or a WP problem, but I can't figure out how to fix it. — kwami (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To me, it displays as (Persian: 1131—1048, <Russian text>). — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "Persian" is supposed to introduce the Persian, not the dates. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

a bit of oddness

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

1 AFD seems to be appearing twice in the Content list of:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 28, are they the same or different ???

1 Kuznetsov Nikolay Alexeyevich

and entry

68 Kuznetsov Nikolay Alexeyevich

Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They are the same, someone just added it at the top and the bottom. I removed the bottom one. GB fan please review my editing 20:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people

Discussion moved

– RFC opened at Talk:Zaza people. Danger (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Urgent request on the Zaza people article:

User:Wikisupporting is adding an ethnocentric point of view in the Zaza people article, which contains POV materials, using reference which does not correspond to the content. And more seriously, apart from adding POV material, the user is erasing other academically referenced sources about different theories. Another serious matter is that User:Wikisupporting, not only ignores but most importantly prevents other users editions, by erasing objective and politically neutral and other academic theories and engaging in edit wars, with other registered users on this. Unfortunately this user is abusing and violating Wikipedia policies, and his/her edition was restored before the Zaza people article became fully protected. Could this user’s edition be reverted and the previous impartial edition be restored? Another request is to monitor this article by Wikipedia users who are knowledgable on this topic and importantly nonpolitical and neutral. --Menikure (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is fully protected and a request by this editor for semi-protection was declined. The issue is now at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ~~which is where it belongs, so will any interested parties please go there and not reply here~~ (the complainant has raised the issue at various places, which is inappropriate, we need to concentrate on one venue). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't noticed that there has been no effort by Menikure to discuss this anywhere (and that Menikure has never responded to comments on his/her talk page). Any discussion belongs oat Talk:Zaza people I believe. I've closed down the discussion at DRN as that clearly states "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." If anyone wants to give the editor any assistance in general this is the place. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolving disputes of neutrality on Todd Boyd's wikipedia page

Answered

– Danger (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

{http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Todd_Boyd} TODD BOYD

We're writing to request clarification on how to resolve disputed information on Todd Boyd's wikipedia page. For years, a banner has appeared across his page declaring "the neutrality of this article is disputed." However, upon further investigation, this is based solely on one person's questioning the conferral of Dr. Boyd's Ph.D (which he did receive from the University of Iowa, in 1991). This issue has been addressed in the article's talk page and has also been brought to the objector's attention on his own personal page, to no avail. He/she has been completely unresponsive.

We are simply seeking the removal of this "dispute" banner from Dr. Boyd's page. Please advise how to achieve this removal. Thank you. Please respond to: manicoll@usc.edu. Thanks.

68.181.153.12 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC) University of Southern California Cinema Staff 68.181.153.12 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your restraint—so many people go the opposite route—but here, just remove the disputed tag. The editor who placed it is inactive, having made only one edit in 2010 and only three edits in 2009. It's no surprise, then, that he never responded to the message on his talk page about this. The disputed tag is supposed to be followed-up with a talk page discussion by the person placing it. He did say on the talk that he conducted a brief search for where Boyd got his Ph.D but that's it, and it was responded to on the talk page without further dispute. Even more importantly, it appears to be cited in the article to a Los Angeles Times story. Finally, I'm not sure exactly how questioning where he got his Ph.D resolves to a neutrality dispute in the first place. One thing: be absolutely certain to place a detailed edit summary when you remove the disputed template from the article, or you're likely to be reverted for unexplained "blanking". That being said, the entire particle does suffer from a promotional language problem and would properly have an advert tag stuck on top of it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting an Article Page

Answered

– Danger (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wisconsin Cheeseman is under new ownership. I am the new Senior Copywriter for the company, and am charged with updating the current Wikipedia article, which is very basic. Can I re-format the entire page, preserving the current information, but presenting it differently with new information? Thank you. --Eliassonwriter (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Before doing so, please read WP:COI. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This article does not seem to have citations to reliable sources. It also contains direct links within the page, instead of in the references section or the external links section.Wikfr (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Modified image used on more than one page.

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

While improving the article Field_coil, I found the image:

File:Salient_pole_bipolar_series_field_generator.jpg

confusing, because the wires were the same weight as the pole. To reduce confusion, I shadded in the pole. The image is certainly easier to understand, however I see that the same image is also in an article on a historic work Hawkins_Electrical_Guide published in 1917.

Although the image is better, I have altered it. What is the correct thing to do?Wikfr (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You should probably have uploaded your version of the image separately with a new file name, rather than overwrite the existing image. Then the Hawkins article could use the unaltered image and the field coil article could use your altered image. – ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I will revert the image, and upload the modified version.Wikfr (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

New Article Deletion, Need Help Writing Content

Answered

– Danger (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Recently while creating wikipedia pages one was deleted and the other has been marked for deletion.

I need basic help linking the credible sources to the page and I'm asking for guidelines or actual help writing the article.

The curent article is below and I'm trying to set up a similar page for Bernd Simon's wife.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bernd_Simon

It would be great if you could be of any help.

Thanks Hero777 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that our standards of notability are set pretty high. The story of this person is moving and inspirational, but he fails our tests of notability, as do the overwhelming majority of persons who walk upon this earth. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo layout in lead

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to lay out some photos in the lead for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Frenchman's_Tower, and either the photos stack, or I get a very narrow column of text between the photos.

The mos stays the lead photos should not be over 220 px. I have two aligned images. Each image is less that 220, but the total is 405. Does this violate the 220 rule?

The page looks very different, depending upon how I adjust my browser's window size or text size. With some settings it violates the rule against a narrow column of text between photos, and with other settings it does not.

Could I please have some suggestions? This is the first article I have created. Wikfr (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In general you should avoid left-aligned images, especially in the lead section. To format your double images, try {{Stack}} or {{Multiple image}}. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't have a lot of photos in the lead and certainly not sandwiching the text. BTW the lead should summarise the whole article as per WP:LEAD. Suggest that you use an infobox such as Template:Infobox building with one image in the lead. You also need to check your spelling and avoid non-encyclopaedic content such as "In 2006 an amature photographer went for a run down Old Page Mill Road, and took photos of the tower, taking care to document his presence. He was able to climb through a small hole in the back, and found it "pretty scary inside". He posted photos of the inside of the structure on Flickr" and "In a 2010 article, Examiner reporter William Baeck described how he climbed over a wire fence, crawled past poison oak, until he reached a hole at the back of the tower. With his camera in his hand, he reached inside the tower and began photographing". If you want detailed feedback ask at WP:FEEDBACK. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I need to know. The template makes things simple. Thanks for reading the article and for your comments. Wikfr (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As suggested, I fixed spelling and added an Infobox. I also tried to clean up the bad sentences and put them in context. I am trying to demonstrate public interest in tower. This is the result:

Some articles show the writer's curiosity about the tower.

In a 2010 article, Examiner reporter William Baeck described how he climbed over a wire fence and crawled past poison oak. Then he held his camera inside the tower and began photographing^[1].

In 2006 an amature photographer took photos of the tower, taking care to document his presence. He described how he climbed through a small hole in the back, and found it "pretty scary inside". He posted his photos of the inside of the structure on Flickr^[2]. Wikfr (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

RFF article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this article has been given a RfF Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_August_30#San_Fernando_Central_Secondary_School which was not signed. Having linked the username, I get an account (Modsecalumni (talk · contribs)) that was deleted a few days ago under G11:Unambiguous promotion or advertising. I am therefore unsure if this combination of account/article has been brought to question previously, and request someone look into it, before it gets RFF any support or encouragement. Should it be deleted or reviewed? Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 07:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a definite conflict of interest here; the account was for the alumni association of the school. On the other hand, usually secondary schools are considered automatically notable, so perhaps just stubbing the article would be appropriate. I also removed a long copyvio passage, which puts into question the rest of the article, although I've not found a source for the rest. --Danger (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay that's interesting, as I suspected COI, but wasn't aware that secondary schools are auto-notable. I'll go ahead and review the RFF, and leave a notice on the blocked users page, advising him to inform us when/if he gets a new account and then he was pursue sorting the article with no false impressions. Thanks. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 12:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be moved to ModSec as that appears to be its current name, and the lead rewritten accordingly. It also needs other work - I will take a look at it later. – ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit history restored, but why?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know where to post my question, so I hope no one will mind if I post my query here so that an Administrator might help me to understand why the edit history for David Rodman was restored after I created the new article. David Rodman (ice hockey) was created as a new article on May 11, 2011, which was then moved over a redirect to David Rodman. But now I notice that the redirect edits have been restored to the edit history of the article I created. Questions: Who restored the edits? Is it normal procedure for such edits to have been restored, and if so, for what reason or purpose? It makes no sense to me, as the restored edits have no content being just redirects to some unrelated article. Dolovis (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

[1] says:

14:25, 19 May 2011 Resolute (talk | contribs) restored "David Rodman" ‎ (11 revisions restored: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 17#15 ice hockey bios)

00:31, 17 May 2011 Resolute (talk | contribs) deleted "David Rodman" ‎ (per WP:IAR. Sub-stub BLP with very little hope of being expanded or properly referenced)

21:53, 12 May 2011 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs) deleted "David Rodman" ‎ (G6: Deleted to make way for move)

Before 12 May it was a redirect. The redirect was deleted to make way for a move of the article you created at David Rodman (ice hockey). 17 May your article was deleted. 19 May the whole page history was restored. It is a little easier to restore the whole page history than only to restore the page versions since 12 May. Resolute could have chosen to spend a little more time selecting which page revisions to restore, but I see no reason to use time on that for two harmless redirects in the page history. They were only deleted for technical reasons in the first place, and there may be people who want to see the oldest history of the page. Why are you concerned about it? By the way, you could have edited the redirect (see Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects) to turn it into an article instead of creating a separate page and request a move. Editing the redirect is the normal procedure when there isn't already a page history in another page that is going to be moved over the redirect. If you had edited the redirect then the old redirects would also still be in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted post. Blocked

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor-

I hope I am doing this post properly. I tried for more than 30 minutes

trying to find a way to reach you and apologize, and ask a question.

First, my apologies for posting an article under HEALTH that appeared to have

conflict of interest in its last sentence.

My question is: If I deleted the statement that said " this book is available

at Xlibris and amazon.com, will that remove the conflict of interest portion

of my post. The reason is that the brief article I wrote (minus that last

sentence stating where the book could be purchsed from) and the new medical

concept in my book about healthy lifestyle and disease prevention is quite

innovbative and could change how perants and society deal with health and

disease prevention. This fits in well in that article on Wikipedia under HEALTH.

Please advise.

Again, I am very sorry; my apologies.

Thank you and best wishes.

Dr. PSC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.208.106 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Need information on the deleted page. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read our rules on conflict of interest, our rules on original research, and this essay on "this book could change everything" assertions. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Correcting citations

Answered

– Danger (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no way to correct a citation. Instead of the usual editable text, the "edit" button reveals only a placeholder ("references"). My name is misspelled in one.

The page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Data_driven_journalism

Thanks TedC (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to edit the section where the reference is used. Either click edit at that section, or use the Edit tab at top of the page. See more at Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Vivienne Westwood

Answered

– SPI has run and the article is semi'd for awhile. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar editing pattern on Vivienne Westwood's page. There are currently 10 SPA's (socks?) editing in a disruptive manner not sure how to handle it.Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to go with "obvious sock is obvious" here. Would you like to do the honors? --Danger (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like socks of User:Saint Artjunkie, there was another batch of socks disrupting this article a few days ago (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saint Artjunkie/Archive). January (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

SPI opened, gave the article a short semi to stop the disruption in the meantime. January (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

talk page -- what's next

Answered

– Danger (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In the article Escape Sequences I have expanded on the content to include more history and a broader definition in the world of computing. I am new to Wikipedia so I posted the content on the talk page. What happens next? How do I merge the new content? Pooderbill (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lacking WP:RS, your talk page comments are WP:OR. Look for reliable sources which express your viewpoint, and establish whether that expresses a consensus viewpoint of the material TEDickey (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

University of Metaphysical Sciences page needs protection from vandalism and dispute resolution

Answered

– Danger (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, the discussion about University of Metaphysical Sciences article has devolved into a really non-constructive situation with a user name SummerPhD at WP:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Metaphysical_Sciences and a higher level of protection and moderation is needed at this page. SummerPhD has vandalized the page and doesn't like the topic, and will not allow any references to be posted whatsoever so that the page will be deleted. I spent hours posting references, and she deleted them all, without having the time to go and look at them, and now she is trying to mess up the article really bad. I really need some help from someone a little more level headed. She just hates metaphysics and doesn't want the school mentioned here on wiki even though people search on wiki for the school, the school has 6000 students, has branches that serve world wide, and is the largest school of it's kind on the planet. With 480,000 searches on google alone for the name of the school, and plenty of references, which she deleted before anyone else could see them, shows that her calling it non-noteworthy is a matter of personal opinion about metaphysics. I would like to have some help with people who are more objective about this sort of subject. Thank you very much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalina Z (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article University of Metaphysical Sciences is being attacked by SummerPhD who has vandalized the article several times now. I could use some help. Thank you. Catalina Z (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Catalina Z

I don't see any vandalism, I do see some WP:Forum shopping though. Mt king ^(edits) 05:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Need Help ASAP ,This thing is confusing !!

Request unclear

– —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Im trying to find out Why I been BLOCKED from Editing from a MR KRABZ and recived a block notice saying " SPAMMER SPAMMER DRUGS ". I been trying to submit my definition of "ROKSTA" Just like how it pops up the first thing on GOOGLE. I'm a featured artist on things like EMPIRE STATE MIXTAPES VOL 4 HOSTED by YOUNG MONEY JAE MILLZ so I'm pretty sure I'm not spam . Please fix this ...Thanks !! (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roksta (talk • contribs) 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain a little more what you are trying to do and what the problem is. This request is the only edit that you have made. I can not find a User:KRABZ or User:Krabz that might have sent a block notice to you. Additional info would helop us to address your concerns. GB fan please review my editing 22:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly this person was adding spam links as an IP and got blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the band (or person?) Roksta, and you yourself are Roksta (or a member of it, if its a band), then you should 1) be aware that we're regularly inundated with musicians wanting to promote themselves, which is not what the Wikipedia is for, 2) read WP:NMUSIC and see if you pass its requirements, and 3) read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. None of this is to say that Roksta isn't notable by our standards -- I don't know. But you should be aware of all this before you press forward. Herostratus (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have also been unable to find the situation you describe. "SPAMMER SPAMMER DRUGS" has no search hits other than your post here, and it doesn't sound like the kind of notice we give. I have not found a username resembling MR KRABZ with edits since 2008. This is the English Wikipedia. Did it occur here? We have millions of articles, including many about unrelated websites. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Scratching my head at this one. The best I can come up with is that Roksta was editing from an IP that had gotten a level 3 or 4 warning for spamming in the past from Eugene Krabs, and had also been blocked (IPs can be blocked for quite a long time). May even be that this editor is hitting an autoblock. But this is all speculation; I can't find anything to back this up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Title request change for article "D. Scott Peterson"

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am Scott Peterson's producer at CBC. We would like to change the title of his article from "D. Scott Peterson", to just "Scott Peterson." He does not go by his first name initial, but rather is known by just "Scott Peterson."

We would like his page to be easier to access by viewers who know him by "Scott Peterson."

How can I change the title?

-- Jacnichan

Well - he can't be "Scott Peterson" because that name already has a primary tenant (and whose notoriety sadly is likely forever to eclipse the fame of your client). "Scott Peterson (journalist)" might do the trick, and it's a pretty simple maneuver. How does that sound? By the way - as his producer, you should be very careful about editing his page or that of any other person with whom you share employment. When you have a spare minute or two, go and give the conflict of interest guidelines a read. JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Scott Peterson (journalist)" would work well! How would I go about changing it? And yes you're right, the other Scott Peterson definitely takes the spotlight away from our Scott. Thanks for the conflict of interest link - I'll give that a read! (Wikipedia editing is very new to me!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacnichan (talk • contribs) 14:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. I also added his name to the disambiguation page here. Thanks for checking out the COI thing. While you're at it, give the page on neutral points of view a look as well. It will help you understand how Wikipedia is intended as a repository of neutrally-presented information. I don't want to sound like I'm carping just as you're getting underway but I do want to help you avoid one of the more common pitfalls for new editors here! JohnInDC (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you for changing that! And thank you for the extra link. I'd rather learn ahead of time than make mistakes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacnichan (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Need 50 copy-edit helpers for WP:GOCE backlog

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure where to ask for 50 editors to join a backlog-editing drive, this time for copy-editing (grammar, punctuation, wikilinks) during the month of September:

WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/September 2011

That project page (above), from Wikiproject WP:GOCE, explains the process for editing articles (from 2010-2011) to correct the grammar, tone, and "References" section (etc.). For example, there are over 100 articles which need to be updated from April 2010:

Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit_from_April_2010

Currently, there are 30 editors who quickly signed up to help with the editing, but it would be good to have about 80 editors (50 more people). Each article takes about 1 hour, and with 80 people, then each could edit less than 10 articles, if possible, during September. I wonder where else I could post a message to ask for helpers. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Try posting at the WP:Community portal's bulletin board. --Danger (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

New oldest living person

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

http://io9.com/5837020/earths-oldest-living-resident-will-celebrate-her-birthday-this-weekend

Maria Lucimar Pereira is currently the oldest living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcbootleger (talk • contribs) 04:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You could post this information at Talk:Oldest people, the discussion page for the article. You might want to find a more reliable source, that one looks a bit "fringey" to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See also List of living supercentenarians - although I doubt whether this case would meet the reliability criteria used at that page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Need help fixing spelling mistake

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I often look things up on Wikipedia, and sometimes find spelling and other mistakes. I'm not an editor, but I've always been able to fix these unless an article is locked. Today I found an article, and for some reason I'm not able to fix a mistake in the first paragraph. There is no edit link for that section on the page.

The article is: 'Hubble Space Telescope' located at URL: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

The first paragraph contains the line, "Five serving missions have repaired, upgraded, and replaced systems on the telescope over its lifetime," but the line should have been written as, "Five servicing missions", not 'serving missions'.

I've tried going back a few times, but I can't find the edit link for the first paragraph containing that line. If any editors are able to help fix this, or know why some portions of articles can't be edited, and who I would need to contact, please let me know.

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.213.164 (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2011

Thank you for catching that error; I've fixed it with this edit.

One way to edit the lead section, before the first section heading, is to click the "Edit" link at the top of the page, where it says "Read / Edit / History". Another is to click the "Edit" link for one of the other sections in the article, and then adjust the URL in your browser's address bar to read "&section=0". One of the preferences available to registered editors adds an extra "Edit" link to the heading at the top of the page, making it easy to edit only the first section. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Potential issue on James Reilly (Irish politician)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There looks to be a potential weird situation on James Reilly (Irish politician) and I'm not sure how best to address it, so I'd appreciate it if another editor took a look. There was a mass addition of content a few times that looked like vandalism to me, but on closer inspection does at least actually pertain to the person involved (this is more clear with the most recent edits than with older ones.) I'm not sure how best to handle this and would appreciate it if someone else took a look. (I - mistakenly - claimed a 3rr exemption for reverting it, but by the time I realized it was not straight up vandalism I could not selfrevert.) 98.248.194.216 (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that this pasted-in correspondence and medical detail does not belong in an encyclopedia. I have restored yesterday's version. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur with the removal. Seems like a fairly straightforward application of the concepts in WP:PUS#Personal communication (was also mentioned in WP:V until it got axed as "instruction creep"). Even if the correspondence is published, it's a primary source for... whatever it seeks to establish. Finally, at a glance I can't even tell how it's related to the subject, other than containing his name. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Civic Center (Miami) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a dispute with another editor concerning the proper boundaries of a Miami neighborhood. I contend that the boundaries of "North 20th Street" and "West 14th Street" are accurate to Miami's street grid system, converging at Northwest intersections. The other editor (User:Comayagua99) insists the streets and avenues are all "northwest," which is factually logically incorrect based on the fact that "NW [Northwest] 20th Street" also encompasses the Northeast quadrant of the Miami grid system and "Northwest 14th Avenue" is also a "Southwest", a part of the grid system continuum. A proper, objective look at this would be greatly appreciated.

en:User:FrickFrack 21:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you use the article talk page, Talk:Civic Center (Miami), to discuss this? That is why talk/discussion pages are provided. Attempting to communicate via edit summaries is not very useful. As it says above, "PLEASE consider discussing the issue on the article's talk page if not already done so." Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Trying to update

Answered

– Danger (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi I new to Wikipedia, and am trying to update Good Neighbor Pharmacy and received 4 warning. I am not sure what I am doing wrong or violating. Would you please let me know what is wrong with what i am trying to update? See below:

About Good Neighbor Pharmacy

Good Neighbor Pharmacy is a network of more than 3,700 independent pharmacies across the United States. Our mission is to offer competitive pricing on a wide range of over-the-counter and prescription medications, while providing the personalized service that people have come to expect from a neighborhood pharmacy. Good Neighbor Pharmacy is part of a program offered by AmerisourceBergen, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical services companies serving the United States, Canada and selected global markets.

Good Neighbor Pharmacy in the Community

Valley Forge, PA (June 13, 2011) – Good Neighbor Pharmacy was a sponsor of the TODAY Show’s “Lend a Hand” program from June 13 -17. The program’s series traveled to five cities across the country, in five days helping support five community charities. This year, Al Roker traveled to Anchorage, AK; Las Vegas, NV; Houston, TX; Birmingham, AL and Charleston, WV. Good Neighbor Pharmacy supplied first aid kits, personal care items, bottled water and other items based on the needs of the charities. The charities also be received a financial donation from Good Neighbor Pharmacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxwriter (talk • contribs) 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason that these edits have been reverted is that, as you state, the text is cut-and-pasted from another, copyrighted website. As a result of this the text you inserted is in violation of Wikipedia's Copyright policy. Please feel free to update the article but make sure to use your own words and then cite the websites from which you got the information. Thanks RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 14:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reason is that the text is totally promotional. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

List of countries by intentional homicide rate

Answered

– Danger (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with information supplied on Nigeria is that the Nigeria Police tends to depress figures and it might be more reliable if supported with Non Governmental Organizations' Human right and Crime reports as well as local crime journals.

Also, MOST local murders may end up being classified as cases of missing persons due to a high rate of ritual kidnappings and murders which are highly covert and well syndicated in these parts.

Omoobagberume (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you bring this up on the article's talk page. I have left some links on your user talk page that I hope will be helpful as well. Danger (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on an article (Dixon, New Mexico)

Answered

– Danger (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

and in there are several links in the article that look sort of like wikilinks (except they have those little arrow thingies) but that actually take one to a website (mostly or all commercial ventures) outside of wikipedia. I have often seen these at the end of an article but am a little perturbed by finding them in the article. My question is, is this kosher, or is it bad feng shui ? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are inline external links, which are generally frowned upon, and moreover in this case seem to exist only to promote businesses. Take a look at WP:ELNO for a guideline on how to determine if the links don't belong (hint: none of them do, nor does the single link in the external links section). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Guidance on Getting My Article Posted

Answered

– Danger (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have contributed a new article: Agustin Blazquez

It has been in here since 8/20/11 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_August_20

I have read through the instructions for contributing new articles. I thought the proper procedure was to put it in Requests for feedback, but nothing has happened since putting it there.

I don't know what I should do next.

Thanks!

Jaums <email redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaums (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your article showed up as a red link. This means that I can't get to it. Go ahead and publish it, it will appear as a blue link and then we can get to it. Go for it. Carptrash (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is at User:Jaums/Agustin Blazquez. It needs referencing and rewriting in an encyclopaedic tone. If it is put in main space in this form, it will be quickly deleted. I have placed some useful links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And I just found it and began wikifying it. It needs work, but one way to get the work done is to post it and see what happens. Carptrash (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is moved to mainspace without any sources cited, it will be proposed for deletion per WP:BLPPROD. – ukexpat (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess some middle of the road specific advice is to go find a couple of sources which substantially cover Agustin Blazquez, put them into the article as references, and then put article into mainspace or ask for help in doing so. Then keep improving it (especially adding sources). North8000 (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User removing MacOSX from our wiki page

Answered

– Danger (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the Deluge developers and maintain the wikipedia page. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Deluge_%28software%29.

Twice now I have had a user with IP address 90.184.200.238 that has deleted reference to MacOSX from the page. Deluge does run on MacOSX and although I can understand the user's personal frustration with not getting it to work, it does not justify removing the OS from the page.

Does this count as vandalism?

Cas07 (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's sort of a slow edit war. Basically, if there's a reference saying it supports OSX (hint hint), it would help support the statement. And for the other side, if that support is in some way flawed, and there's a reliable source stating this, it might be worth including in the article. Take a look at WP:V and WP:CITE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Also take a look at WP:COI while you're at it. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Legal married status of gay men and lesbian women

Answered

– Danger (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia,

Great site. Important. Missing one thing, as far as I can see. In the short form biographies on the right side of entries, the legal married status of Elton John (for example) is not given, nor is his status as a legal parent. Would Wikipedia consider making changes to the short form biographies?

Marc Cote Toronto, Ontario, Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.1.10 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you post this suggestion at Talk:Elton John for the consideration of editors there. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox musical artist}} doesn't have a partner - or a spouse for that matter - parameter. I'm not sure if there's a way to put John's partnership with David Furnish in the infobox. Maybe I'll ask at WP:HELPDESK, although it's probably been asked before somewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The folks at WP:IBX, the manual of style for infoboxes, may have something to say about it as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A conscious decision was made some time ago NOT to have a "spouse/SO/lifepartner" parameter in that particular infobox. I'm sorry I don't have a link to the discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

just curious how long ago? Bouket (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure; see the note at the top of Template talk:Infobox musical artist. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some links to some previous discussions. GB fan please review my editing 14:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

looks to me like in the most recent discussion only 3 people bothered to get involved, and one of them only said that consensus was already reached. cant consensus change though? anyway i dont care about the spouse field so im not going to do it but looks like you might get it to happen if you got everyone involved interested at once instead of one at a time, where they bring it up and everyone whos a regular just disagrees? Bouket (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a regular on that page, but the reasoning given in the summary at the top of the page seemed so sound to me that I'm not interested in a re-hash of the prior discussions (thanx for the links, GB fan). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry i must have missed what youre talking about can you be specific? Bouket (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Check the talk page of the template again (it's in the orange box on top). Prior discussion has determined by broad consensus that fields like "spouse" will not be added to this infobox, as they are not pertinent to a person's career as a musical artist in the vast majority of cases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

oh ok. its hard to believe that if theres no link to the discussion. but do you know why spouse is included for actors then? i dont think its more pertinent in those cases. Bouket (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think the summary conclusion makes no sense. We include spouses in all sorts of infoboxes. Why is a musical artist different from anyone else?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You can read the previous discusions here. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the notice warning from the Talk page of the template. Given the current discussion of the field on the Talk page and pointers to past discussions, it is inappropriate to have the warning. If a consensus is reached, the warning, properly worded, could be reinstated. I've also voted on the proposal to include the field.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

granddaughter needs editor for Konrad Bercovici page article

Answered

– Danger (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Konrad Bercovici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am noted author/sociologist/screenwriter Konrad Bercovici's granddaughter. There is a page up for him that is very thin/sketchy and I believe an automatically generated type deal, not really intended as a full account. There is SO much in his life...50 books, literally 1000s of award-winning short stories, screenplays, journalism for the Nation, NY TImes...just so much not mentioned. I am working on a book about him and the intro to the work contains what could easily be a Wikipedia page. It contains quotes from articles and reviews, lists of people he knew, published work, etc. It is written but, frankly, the rules of how to get this into format are quite daunting for me, even as a writer. I would really like somebody to help get this into shape and get the page up. As I understand it, this is mainly volunteer...but am willing to pay. My mother...his last living child...died this past December, so I feel it is so important to keep the legacy alive. Please help me do that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbrmc (talk • contribs) 13:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. You can join and edit yourself, I have placed some useful links on your page, you may also wish to ask for help at WT:WikiProject Romania. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Gak Jonze

Answered

– Danger (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm search of help with editing the page for Gak Jonze. He is a recording artist from the United Kingdom with a really big background in music and Television. I'm having problems with what information I'm allowed to include and whats deemed valid. Trouble is a few quotes have changed recently, e.g. "Gorezone magazine" have just dissolved, Gak Jonze along with his band City Boy Soul, Rex Big Brother and others did a celebrity ghost hunt which was featured on LAVATv and the Gorezone website (which no longer exist's). Same issue with "The Best Man's Speech" Tv show, once again I saw it with my own eyes but can't find it in the channels archives or a strong writeup on the net.

Any help with this would be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Casey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.141.243 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much there to establish notability. Some of the references don't mention the article subject, several forums are used which are not reliable sources. If you want more input, try WP:FEEDBACK. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Huyton College alumni

Answered

– Danger (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have spent a fair bit of time looking up Huyton College alumni in public life and adding them to the entry about this school - we are talking Dames of the British Empire, one of the first female members of the Privy Council, patrons of national charities, published authors interviewed on national radio and so on. We're talking big stuff here. Only another editor keeps removing them on the grounds that these people are 'not notable enough'. Am I doing something wrong??? Is there some sort of definition I am missing? What should I do about it?

SandyShlg2 (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If the people in question are notable, then there should he articles about them. I will note that not all authors are notable, nor are patrons of societies. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to 1/3 disagree with Orangemike, but agree with where they ended up. With respect to notability, the standard for a stand-alone article is a higher bar than for inclusion in an article. So the real standards here are wp:undue, and what is really worth putting in there. IMHO a list of alumni would probably fail that test. A particularly noteworthy few alumni, with a sentence establishing each, IMHO yes. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My approach,because I don't like lists filled with red links) is to start stubs of the naaames of folks that I think are notable and then let the chips fall where they may. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been pretty much established that alumni lists such as this should only include persons notable enough that there either already is, or clearly should be, an article about them.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OM, I think that we are saying the same thing. No red links and new bllue links have to meet notability standards. Which can usually be done in a stub. Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

RTInation

Answered

– Danger (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please help me figure out why this article Rtination (RTI nation) is subject to speedy deletion? Regards Dropnote (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted due to criterion A7 for speedy deletion. This means there was no assertion of notability for the subject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Book

Resolved

– Danger (talk)

I don't see a way to edit the disambiguation section of the disambiguation page for The Green Book. This section should include a pointer to Ayatollah Khomeini's collection of fatwas, http://prophetofdoom.net/The_Little_Green_Book.Islam and/or others. Ferren (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added it. – ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

ARTCLE DELETION

Hi,

I write in reference to the deletion of the Crown-Berger Kenya wiki page. I request that you explain what i did wrong so that i may not repeat the same errors while re-doing the article.

Regards, Freakiwiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakiwiki (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about User:Freakiwiki/Crown Berger Kenya Ltd. I can't see any record of any page under that name being created and / or deleted in main space. The draft in your user space does not do anything to demonstrate the notability of this company. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The article at Crown-Berger Kenya‎ was deleted under section G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It was a clear case of promotion of a non notable company. Articles about companies must meet our criteria at WP:ORG and be supported by reliable sources. Please follow the blue links for further information, and if there is anything you do not understand, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor changing others' talk page comments

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Frietjes (talk · contribs) has made large number of recent edits to Talk pages, changing comments made by other editors. He seems to be changing templates like {{Usertc|Example}} to {{User|Example}} Possibly because there is an AfD on Usertc; regardless it's annoying (as it pops up on my watch list) and unnecessary. Barsoomian (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Usertc}} etc. is apparently redundant with {{User}}. I suppose he shouldn't do it, but he's probably just trying to be helpful. Have you tried asking him to stop? Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I notified him stop changing my comments, but I noticed he was doing it en masse, to many other editors' comments. If the template is deleted it can be fixed then, and hopefully in a less intrusive way. Barsoomian (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A. Misharin: controversies

Stale

– Danger (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

At Alexander_Misharin#Controversies, I (initially) translated the Controversies section from the Russian version of the article. That led to a clash with User:Ssr, who is working for the subject of the article. In turn, that led to a COI dispute:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Alexander_Misharin http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#WP:COI_on_Alexander_Misharin

At the moment, I did my best to rewrite everything in neutral tone and to back up facts with references to press/publications. User:Ssr keeps blanking the section. User:Phearson suggested WP:EAR.

Disclaimer: contrary to claims of User:Ssr, I do not feel like I am a member of some conspiracy, but I am quite close to being persuaded that I am. Gritzko (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly would you like us to do here? Danger (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally welcome any feedback on the "Controversies" section. Gritzko (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Need help with Emotional Freedom Technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Answered

– Keep this on the talk page. Danger (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In spite of recent improvements to the intro, this page is remarkably poor.

Mastcell and bobrayner, possibly colluding, have immediately reverted any improvement I've made without explanation eg [[2]]

It seems to me that they revert any edit that reduces the overwhelming negativity of the article and try to bully new editors into going away.

Current edit war concerns a 2003 study which the above feel should be referenced in the intro. The study itself describes a process that deviates largely from EFT and as such is a barely credible source.

I asked in the discussion page what should be done (2nd entry). In spite of multiple references to it, it has not been addressed.

So my questions are twofold: 1. What is the appropriate way to deal with this study? I do not know of any published rebuttal beyond that of Gary Craig who removed all content from his website. 2. What can I do about two editors who are seemingly determined to maintain an overwhelmingly negative article on EFT as long as possible? --Mindjuicer (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looks like they've done a solid job on this article, and in dealing with your efforts to make it less impartial and more credulous. Please re-read WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. We are under no obligation to go out of our way to pretend that scientifically-unsupported "therapies" work just because their advocates are, well, advocating them. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks to both of you for your replies.

You think the article is actually good? Is it anything like as informative as it could be? Does it eg say how many people use EFT? Does it say how long it takes to learn and how much it costs to learn? Does it say anything about EFT therapists? Does it say anything about Gary Craig taking down the emofree.com site?

The issue is not whether EFT works (in spite of repeated wrong assumptions that my edits are designed to promote such a view). The question is whether the article should strongly imply it doesn't work when the early scientific research is tending more towards it having some small benefit beyond placebo - if we take the 2011 study being the only credible one.

Currently, there are zero psychotherapies proven to have a large benefit beyond placebo. The following success rates are pretty standard.

Let's forget EFT for the moment. Assuming homeopathy is a placebo, imagine it works ~40% of the time for some diagnosis. Imagine CBT has the best efficacy, working 50% of the time. Homeopathy may be worth considering as a 2nd treatment option if CBT doesn't work for a patient.

Lastly, I don't believe my question of how to deal with a peer-reviewed study that any reasonable person can easily conclude is highly-flawed has been dealt with. --Mindjuicer (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources calling into question the 2003 study. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." WP:V The "issue" here, such that there is one, is that you don't want to include one of the few reliable sources we have here. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orange Mike here. This is a fringe topic for a theory that makes extraordinary therapeutic claims, without extraordinary evidence to back it up. Personally, I'd apply WP:MEDRS here and label the pseudo-scientific claims as such. A mishmash of various fringe theories (EMDR, Thought Field Therapy, Energy medicine, etc.) immediately has me thinking "nonsense on stilts". The lack of a theoretical basis pushes me into the realm of "there's no reason this should work, is there any evidence it does?" Failing that, I'm strongly inclined to question all attempts to soften evidence concluding it's bunk. If it ducks like a quack... In any case, the edits you seem to be concerned with are best explained in Wikipedia:Fringe#Pseudoscience_and_other_fringe_theories. This article, IMO, reads as "Generally considered pseudoscience". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read my reply to Orange Mike first.

Thinking it's "nonsense on stilts" may be a reasonable conclusion to draw given that you don't have the resources to investigate all weird therapies. But ultimately it's a conclusion based on almost no evidence.

What if you're wrong? What if, as the 2011 study indicates, it does actually work to some degree? Do WP editors have the right to authoritatively claim that it's nonsense thereby depriving suffering readers of a potentially valid treatment option?

How can the balance of the article be anything other than 'Placebo has been shown to be responsible for nearly all of the effectiveness of 'proven' psychotherapies. While EFT may simply induce a placebo response, a 2011 study shows it may have some small benefit above placebo'?

You might want to note that EMDR has gained a lot of scientific credibility. --Mindjuicer (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if and when it ever does gain any such credibility. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC) (not holding his breath)

What if I'm wrong? I give up: What if I'm wrong? The sources that meet WP:MEDRS indicate no effectiveness. The uncontrolled 2011 study produced results below those of another fringe "therapy" (EMDR). If it "does work to some degree", we'll see that in reliable sources. Until then, we can only report that the only controlled study available to us found that "EFT was no more effective than either a placebo or modeling control procedure." The claim that EMDR "has gained a lot of scientific credibility" is moot. If it turned out that EMDR was the greatest thing since sliced bread, a treatment based in part on it can still be nonsense on stilts: evolution is the basis of both much of modern biology and the pseudoscience of eugenics. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say is true. When one solid study says it's nonsense on stilts and an uncontrolled preliminary study says it needs to be studied further, THAT'S WHAT WE REPORT. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree if there was a solid controlled study. But there isn't. My comments from the Discussion Page:

"The 2003 study is so seriously flawed that I don't think you can even claim it's testing EFT. Probably the most important flaw is that the phrase used is backwards. The subjects affirmed 'solution' then 'problem', something any half-decent therapist would raise an eyebrow at. I recall from Craig's site that the researchers insisted that the breathing intervention wasn't made up, but Craig claimed it had never been part of the EFT protocol.

In my opinion, the study has zero credibility and should be removed entirely from the Intro, with only a passing note in the Research section. Does any published criticism still exist?"

The 2011 study seems to be the only reliable, independently-funded, peer-reviewed study in a major journal. As such, the article should reflect that. And I again ask, how should the unreliable 2003 study be handled? --Mindjuicer (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source that calls the 2003 study unreliable, or otherwise criticizes it? - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 study isn't available to the public. I'd love a copy if anyone could get hold of it.

I would be surprised if none of the newer studies (ie those funded by supports or published in alternative medicine journals) criticised the 2003 study. The only other source I know of was a rebuttal by Gary Craig on the site emofree.com before the site was partially archived and moved. --Mindjuicer (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Absent any specific sourced criticism (A self published rebuttal by EFT's founder is not sufficient) we have to leave the study and its conclusions in the article, even if we think they are wrong. Remember, the threshold here is verifiability, not truth. - MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your unbiased opinion. I initially took this as a major failing in WP policy but now I notice that WP:V is highly disputed. A much lauded alternate draft seems to address what I'm talking about, if not fully.

"If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight). In many situations, a simple rewording to present the information as an opinion rather than as an accepted fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information."

I presume until WP:V changes, I should be looking for a reliable source of criticism of the study. --Mindjuicer (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the 2003 study was published in a recognized, peer-reviewed journal and passes WP:MEDRS. In my opinion, your opinion of the study's protocol is your opinion and has no place in the article. The uncontrolled 2011 study produced results below those of another fringe "therapy" (EMDR) and the article should, of course, reflect the findings and the provisional nature of the findings. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You might overestimate the scientific rigour applied to published articles in recognised journals.

Can anyone else validate my criticism of the study? If you have any passing knowledge of EFT it will take you 2 mins. Otherwise you will need to compare with the EFT manual.

I never included my opinion of the study, except on the Discussion page. --Mindjuicer (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The standard here is WP:MEDRS, not your opinion of peer-reviewed journals. By repeatedly removing the only peer-reviewed, controlled study available based on your opinion of the study, you have (in effect) been including your opinion. In fact, the only criticisms we have of the study are yours and the guy who put forward the fringe idea the study found against. (A single researcher saying most researchers are wrong is ... wow ... words fail. It's like the mother going to see her son in his first parade and beaming, "Look! Everyone's out of step except for my Johnny!") Long story short, the study is a reliable source. To remove it, you need to show otherwise. You must demonstrate that it is not reliable. Proving it is "wrong" is pointless: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You are arguing for inaccurate information to be included provided that it's been published in a reasonably respectable journal that pays anonymous people to 'review' it. As such I don't think it's worth my time answering your other points. --Mindjuicer (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The 2003 study passes WP:MEDRS. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick alt text request

Resolved

– Danger (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello all, I just need help writing alt text for an image I really, really cannot describe. Any suggestions? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Complex, heavily eroded dark grey limestone rock formation of the kind known to geologists as a 'karst formation'"? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be sufficient, thanks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

someone shadowing my edits, with intent of vandalism

Answered

– Danger (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

September_15#Births (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I was editing September 15 births, had the page open for an extended period of time, and was previewing my edits before saving. Someone, obviously as a prank, added a crude and obscene entry, which I assume would have been saved under my name if I hadn't noticed the vandalism. I deleted the offensive line (something about a twat tickler with one testicle), and saved my changes.

Can two people be editing the page at the same time? Would the second editor's edits be shown in the differences page under my edits? Should I assume my account has been compromised?

Turtlens (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)-

Yes, two people can edit the same page at the same time, and the software does its best to sort out the mess - see Help:Edit conflict. The vandal's edits show up separately in the recent history of the page. There's nothing here that indicates anyone is shadowing your edits or that your account is compromised.

I suggest that when you work on a "current" page like September 15, you try to save your edits more frequently. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Error in the page

Answered

– Danger (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Im Srikumar from India , Im a devotee who visited Tirupati ( World's Richest temple ) recently,I wanted to know about the temple history in detail so I went thru Wikipedia page link : http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tirumala_Venkateswara_Temple .

here there is information which is contradictory :

Ancient history : "........the Chola Dynasty (300 BC–1279) vastly improved the temple and gave rich endowments"

Data on the Right hand side : below the map shown ( Date built: Earliest records date to 300 AD (probable) )

So the Point need to be made clear weather it is 300BC or AD.

request you to edit the date to AD or BC as per your Knowledge and experience.

Im a regular user of Wikipedia and really appreciate the level of service and information shared in the site.

It is very help ful.....

Thanks Srikumar.S Email : ^{[details removed]} Cell : ^{[details removed]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.12.122 (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the Ancient history section of the article is saying that the Chola dynasty started to rule in 300BC, not that the template was built in 300BC. (I have removed your contact details to protect your privacy). -- John of Reading (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

THe best place to post about errors or comments on the article is at bthe article talkpage where those interestede in the article will see it. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Gippsland Soccer League

Answered

– Danger (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find any thing in wikpedia regarding Gippsland Soccer League Inc. or GSL as it is abbreviated too.

Its previous name was Latrobe Valley Soccer League — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.118.238 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

doubtt that this league meets our notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

List of tribute bands Invader -Tribute to Iron Maiden not listed?

Answered

– Danger (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a list of tribute bands and Invader -Tribute to Iron Maiden is not listed. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Tribute_bands

Here is Information on the band:

Invader Tribute to Iron Maiden is based out of Modesto, CA and formed in 2009 with the goal of recreating the sights and sounds of an Iron Maiden live show. The band focuses on performing songs from the 1980-1988 era, some rarely played live. Along with a themed stage set and of course Eddie, each member was selected with the intention of not only recreating the sound but also portraying Bruce, Steve, Dave, Adrian and Nicko in appearance and performance in a live setting.

Invader makes the effort in using the same musical equipment as Iron Maiden whenever possible. All of these details are a big part of recreating the Iron Maiden live show experience. Without a doubt the most Authentic Tribute to Iron Maiden there is period.

The band is currently celebrating and paying tribute to Iron Maiden's successful Somewhere Back in Time Tour 2008-09, while keeping it fresh by including favorites not played on that tour.

The Band: Jeremy Crothers/Bruce Dickinson Mike Garcia/Nicko McBrain Stephen Jester/Dave Murray Dan Orth/Adrian Smith Damian Rincon/Steve Harris

Here are links to Invader -Tribute to Iron Maiden including news articles

Website: http://www.invadermaidentribute.com/

http://www.myspace.com/invadertributetomaiden

http://www.tribute-band.com/band/invader

http://www.tributecity.com/band.php?rsn=4724

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Invader-Iron-Maiden-Tribute-Official/130716056944862

Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi5Z79X4BL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zUevQj6Tg

News Articles:

http://www.ironmaidencommentary.com/?url=tributelinks&lang=eng&link=links

http://events.news10.net/Invader_Tribute_to_Iron_Maiden/219298121.html

This is being submitted by Stephen Jester (e-mail (Redacted)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.161.30 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Stephen. The problem here is that the "list" you mention is not technically a list of tribute bands, but a list of tribute bands with articles on Wikipedia (a category, see Wikipedia:Categorization). This means that the band has earned enough notability to pass our guidelines on music notability without inheriting it from the band they are a tribute of. Wikipedia does not (at present) have an article on "List of tribute bands" - so the band you mention would have to show notability through (usually) significant coverage from reliable sources - something I am not seeing from the sources you have provided, but that is not to say such sources don't exist. Also worth mentioning, is that is seems you have a conflict of interest here, so I would not recommend creating such an article yourself. As a principle, someone will, in time, create an article for a band if it is indeed notable. Eventually. Яehevkor ✉ 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My text submission about tiltplanes

Answered

– Danger (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jlawren3&diff=cur

I realize now that what I submitted (about tiltplanes) is too much a one-sided advocacy for my new concept. I want to try again. I expect that it will be more of a total re-write than light editing, so please free to delete what is presently there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlawren3 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published WP:RS reliable sources, not on 'new concepts' proposed by editors. Unless and until your ideas are published in mainstream sources, no article about the concept will be permissible here. Frankly, though, the idea isn't 'new' anyway - see the Heinkel Lerche concept, the Lockheed XFV and the Convair XFY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Table position error

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The table was missing the close table symbol : |}. I added it to the end and the table appears in the right place now. Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of italics in ship name

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've made an error and tried to italicise the article title to "Spirit of the Dawn" (ship) by doing the standard formatting. It's not come out right and I can't find out how to fix it... Can anyone give me any clues? I want to get the name right before I go through and update other articles with the link to the new article... islandbaygardener (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Although that's the standard formatting for italic text within articles it doesn't work for article titles; see WP:ITALICTITLE. I have moved the page to Spirit of the Dawn (ship), without the quotes, and have added the {{Italic title}} template so that the software does some magic when displaying the name at the top of the page. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Page Move Ban

I am not certain where to make this request, so I am placing it here with hope for editor assistance. I am requesting that the indefinite “Page Move Ban” that was imposed against me over 2 months ago, on July 13, 2011, be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and I request that my editing history be thoroughly reviewed to confirm that there is no need for such on-going editing restriction. I wish to continue to work to rebuild my reputation on Wikipedia, and I appreciate the thoughtful consideration of my request. Dolovis (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As you received this ban at ANI following this discussion, I presume you should ask at WP:ANB. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My edits keep getting reverted. What should I do?

My edits keep getting reverted. What should I do?

The article in question relates to a community. A caste. The article contained material about the place of this caste/community in the hierarchy of castes in Kerala. By the way the caste system has been abolished. An attempt was made to show the caste in poor light since another caste considered them as untouchables.

My points are

1. The caste hierarchy is not shown in any Wikipedia article about Hindu communities/Castes. This is a very sensitive issue. Again how one community considered another is not relevant in an article about the community.

2. I have repeatedly been pointing this in the talk page. I have also given links to the other community pages.

The discussions page would make the issue clear.

Repeated attempts have been made to bring back the content denigrating the community. The edits are done anonymously and recently by two editors.

Thank You.

Sankarrukku (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous editor has not contributed to the discussion on the article talk page yet, and they do not appear to have been invited to comment. Please consider leaving a message at User talk:218.186.16.225. If that fails, please repost your problem at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

About Ohnoitsjamie

To whom it may concern:

I included more than once the matrilineal genealogies of Queen Beatrix and Queen Margrethe; I do this, because the paternal and maternal line of any individual is of historical/genealogical/genetic importance. I am also doing research on maternal lines and mitochondrial DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is the part of genetic material that is passed from mother to daughter and can be use for genetic research.

This person "Ohnoitsjamie" makes is appoint to delete the information, without giving a reason. The information I provide is taken from Wikipedia ancestry of these Queens and the Wikipedia links found there.

I am trying to gather information and provide information for women studies and genetic studies. I consider the actions of "Ohnoitsjamie" harassment from a bully who has no intelligence and very little education.

There is nothing wrong with my contributions. How can I stop this mindless harassment?

John Freeman Wikipedia account: john ralph free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.23.40 (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for your changes, ie third party sources, not other Wikipedia articles? – ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MIDLAND VALLEY RAILROAD - OKLAHOMA/ARKANSAS

Would appreciate anyone making the corrections to the Midland Valley history. What is posted is only partially correct and to who owned who, non-existent track-age rights, and the actual routes - The Midland Valley also owned the Oklahoma City and Atoka RR, the Kansas, Oklahoma, and Gulf (KO&G)

Not going into great detail except I and two partners attempted to purchase the RR in the mid 1960's from McAlester Fuel, the owners, but was outbid or outmaneuvered by the Missouri Pacific who violated the ICC agreement in not maintaining the "RR" but was never enforced.

The Midland Valley owned extensive mineral rights in both Arkansas and Oklahoma which was the primary reason two partners wanted to purchase - mine was to end up with the actual operating system minus the mineral right.The scheme of the Missouri Pacific was to get their hands on the KOG, not bother with the rest of the property/system, and of course abide by the agreement they had with the ICC.

Someone likely can re-edit or expand on the whole history - there's a lot to be added for historical purposes - seems they also had a short branch to Greenwood, AR but no pictures etc. appear to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.211.123 (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you post at Talk:Midland Valley Railroad. It would be very helpful if you can point to newspaper reports or other reliable sources giving the history - title, date, page numbers, authors and such like. Your personal account cannot be added to the article, because Wikipedia requires that readers should be able to check what they read for themselves. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Biography question

Hi there!

Currently there is only one Chris Marsden and he is a footballer.....I on the othetr hand am I successful radio and TV voiceover artist and broadcaster!

How does one get my info placed upon the World of Wiki?

I am mentioned on the Famous people of Worksop page, but then it directs people to the footballer? I don't want to edit his page, but to add my own!

Prey tell, as it looks all a bit too much for me?

Cheers

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Marsden (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

After you've read the conflict of interest page, you can consider the creation of Chris Marsden (broadcaster) or use some other qualifier, and put a {{for}} hatnote on Chris Marsden pointing to the new article. You could also request a move of the existing article to Chris Marsden (footballer) so that a disambiguation page could be created at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TWODABS, a disambiguation page is not required in these circumstances. – ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a common misreading. If there is ambiguity and no article is the primary topic, a disambiguation page is needed, even for only two articles. It's only when there is a primary topic that a disambiguation page can be skipped, replaced by a hatnote on the primary topic. There would have to be consensus for the current arrangement (the footballer as primary) to be changed, however. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides the conflict-of-interest page, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. If you think can satisfy that, the main question is: has somebody else written about you? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ice sculpture

Can someone please add this to their watchlist, it keeps getting spammed. 86.7.36.50 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I already have over 600 pages on my watchlist... It'd probably get lost in there. But I encourage you to create an account, so you can monitor the changes yourself.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If its a long-term problem, you could file a request for page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Film US

I've been looking for the appropriate forum, and this is the closest I can find. What is the reasonable time to wait for an available editor to address an {{editprotected}} request? I haven't been able to find any guideline or policy regarding this.

I've requested an edit to a protected template almost 48 hours ago, which isn't really that long. However, I'm really reviving a request from 2010 that was never addressed by an editor, either thumbs up or thumbs down. The consensus on the talk page in 2010 was to remove an automated feature that runs counter to Wikipedia's guidelines for categorization. The protected template affects the category American film, which currently contains 24, 191 articles, not counting those articles in the subcategories. Please advise. Cheers. Encycloshave (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, your edit request isn't yet ready for an admin to make the edit; instead it needs more discussion involving bot owners, script writers and WikiProject Film members. To get more eyes on the discussion at the template talk page you could post a notification at WikiProject Film and/or Village Pump (technical). -- John of Reading (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

review of notability and sources notice

Resolved

– Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote an article about the artist Marina DeBris. At the early stages, someone posted notices about 'needs additional citations for verification' and 'establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic.' Since those were posted, I revised the entry and added a lot of new references. I asked a couple of other places for someone to review, but no results yet. Could someone please review this entry and let me know whether those notices can be removed? Just to mention, I used a lot of non traditional sources, because the artist, Marina DeBris, is a non traditional artist. I hope that will be considered. I also added bunch of references to Tomoko Takahashi. Could someone review that page too?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs)

Thanks to one person for removing the 'verification' notice. Further question, though. The notability message is still there. I'm really not yet clear on this. I did some research on some other artists and added citations, so now their notability messages were removed, but not for Marina DeBris. Some examples of other artist pages I contributed to were Rodney McMillian and Joe Rush. Notability messages were removed from these pages. By the way, I also added a few references to Guillaume Bijl and Tomoko Takahashi. Could someone take a look at those pages and let me know if that is sufficient? Socialresearch (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the citation notice, as there were definitely enough citations for the material there. I was not confident enough to remove the notability notice at the time because a google search for "Marina DeBris" doesn't exactly work that well... But, I reexamined the sources, and have determined that, at least as far as I'm concerned, Marina passes the GNG.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 13:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Discussion moved

– Discussion occurring (as is proper) on the article talk page. Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains the following sentence, "Many Palestinians nowadays believe that Israel is not committed to reaching an arrangement, but rather interested in continuing to control the entire territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River". I have commented in the Talk page that this is unverified as well as being factually false as Israel does not control "the entire territory from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River", as the West Bank is under the political jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority and Gaza is governed by the Hamas government. I am reluctant to remove this line as it would leave the paragraph unbalanced with a POV. How should I proceed?

I would say that both sides probably feel the same on each other. Many Israelis feel that the Palestinians do not want to come to an agreement that will see Israel as the Jewish country. But both claims are not verified unless you can find official credible surveys to quote. Without it just remove this sentence as it is really irrelevant and is adding nothing of substance on the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.246.137 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance and supreme judgment on the legacy of the concept of "Big Bang Theory""

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia that shamelessly plugs in "fads" or isn't it, or should it be one that promotes higher concepts?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory_%28disambiguation%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.9.143 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this counts as a 'request for assistance' as such. And while I can sympathise with your point (if I actually understand it correctly - you haven't been particularly explicit), it may well be the case that more people looking for a BBT article on Wikipedia are after the TV show than the cosmological theory. As always in such cases, this is an editorial decision, and probably never going to be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Of course, the cosmological theory might turn out in the long term to be a fad too... Meanwhile, we try to meet the contradictory needs of our readers - or at least, I hope that is what we are trying to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And we also try to discuss viewpoints at the pages involved, as I've invited 70.27.9.143 to do at Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) and Talk:Big Bang Theory (where the prior discussions have taken place) -- when editing this page, it even urges "PLEASE consider discussing the issue on the article's talk page if not already done so." (which 70.27.9.143 hasn't done). But to answer the question: Wikipedia doesn't promote concepts -- it's a reference tool for readers, not a promoter. Still, Big Bang and Big Bang theory both "promote" the science concept (as do more redirects, while Big Bang Theory and The Big Bang Theory (and others) "promote" the pop culture concept. Neither is prima facie wrong, although either might change (as the capital-T change took place late last year). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop being a bully hiding behind your editorial privileges, where are the statistics that support your so claimed consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.9.143 (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks and start assuming good faith. See WP:NPA, WP:AGF, Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) and Talk:Big Bang Theory, and if needed, engage in the discussions there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had good faith, which is why I edited that page, you are the one making personal attacks because your behavior indicates that you were the one doing personal attacks. You have not produced an iota of evidence supporting your self-proclaimed consensus! Where are the statistics and unbiased analyses of those from all relevant pages over all "wikipedia-time"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you just did a little bit more research as I assume you are supposed to do, the person who squatter-ed (sic) the page The Big Bang Theory is heavily biased on tv shows, how does your claim of not a promoter stand up now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Prove your so-claimed neutrality, if wikipedia is to be a true reference tool, as you so claimed in your own words, then wikipedia should therefore strive to be accurate! support and execute the move! http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move_to_promote_clarity.2C_minimize_confusion.2C_and_make_wikipedia_a_better.2C_accurate.2C_and_precise_research_tool.21

Rationale: 1) Precedents: e.g. Glee_(TV_series), Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series), Lost_(TV_series) 2) Speaking of precedents, the show owes its name to its namesake, not to mention that the cosmological model should have historical precedence. This is at the very least, I think, because I am sure there are still skeptics out there, and as a great wise man said, only one convincing experiment is sufficient to prove a theory wrong. 3) It is quite a shame that variations of big bang, big bang theory, the big bang theory redirect to the tv series without giving users a warning, or at the very least a true unbiased choice. 4) Request for page move to promote clarity. 5) Request for page move to minimize confusion.

This is not the place to make arguments. We will help users here, but not so far as deciding the outcome of content disputes. Instead, maybe you should imagine a Wikipedia in which articles got changed every time a single editor demanded as much. And what would happen if two such editors disagreed! No one is telling you you're wrong or even that your argument is bad. We'd just rather you follow the appropriate paths (dispute resolution, for example), so we don't all kill each other. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:Someguy1221, I actually got to this page from the dispute resolution page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

commonname policy

Issue:

1st comment about article content not about article titles:

Phrase should be translated properly as alternate phrase

Responder agrees that alternate phrase is correct but

your comment that phrase should be translated as alternate phrase runs against WP:COMMONNAME for what we think should be the term is always secondary to WP:COMMONNAME,

My reading of the policy is that it only appplies to article titles. Who is right? Eschoir (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Without more context, I have no idea. The policy WP:COMMONNAME only refers to article titles. However, novel translations are WP:OR (original research), especially when another translation is in wide use in the literature of the topic. (Example: I personally think "suffering" is a very poor translation of dukkha, but Wikipedia must use the translation in wide use.) Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) threats to user Taninao0126 and insertions of false factual info in Jennifer O'Neill bio by user MikeWaznowski

I (Taninao0126) have already discussed these issues on my talk page of Taninao0126, and also the talk page of MikeWaznowski (but he deleted them on his. It would appear that user MikeWaznowski either is very close to engaging in an "edit war" with me without any justifiable basis. He keeps tagging the article as having "multiple issues" when several cites just needed to be updated or corrected.

If you go to his user page of MikeWaznowski, you can see that other users have similar complaints about him in that he engages in a persistent pattern of deletion, tagging, and editing even after users (like myself) have done further editing in order to address the points he brings up.

You may go to the wiki article on actress Jennifer O'Neill, and see the revision history there. In fact I have also consulted with user WikiDan61 (an editor who has 100,000 yes one hundred thousand edits) as you can see from the revision history, and he does not seem to have any problem with my editing at all. And you can see from the comments of another user GoingBattyTalk, he has said:

"Hi Taninao - the article looks much better than the last time I saw it. I made a few minor changes. If you have titles and authors for the People and New York Times articles, that would be good information to add. It would also be helpful to add another sentence or two in the lede (the first paragraph) to summarize why O'Neill is notable. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)".

So you can go to the Jennifer O'Neill revision history, and talk pages of Taninao0126 and MikeWaznowski to further full specifics.

What do I want ? For ANOTHER third party to tell MikeWaznowski to just take a deep breath, slow down, and just "cool things down".

Thank you for your time. Taninao0126 (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This user has constantly removed maintenance templates from this article without actually addressing the issues - I gave her a final warning tonight for removing to tags relating to peacock language, primary and self-published sources. As you can see from this comparison, all this editor did was add one reference (which was a duplicate of one already in the article), but did nothing else. The issues were not addressed. This has been her pattern to date on the article - see [3], [4] for further examples. This editor has been a WP:SPA in regards to this article, adding overblown and promotional language backed up by questionable references, many either from the subject or written by the subject. I tried explaining this to her yesterday, but she just went in and removed the templates again. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tanina -- Mike's problem with the article is that much of it relies on O'Neill's own autobiography and personal websites, which are considered primary sources, and hence not reliable. Citing such material from independent sources is preferred. With regard to the published autobiography, I take some issue with this policy, since a published autobiography such as O'Neill's has certainly been through an editorial review policy, so one can presume that facts in the book have been vetted, but this is an argument for a different forum. Simply removing the templates without addressing the issue that the template raises is considered bad form. At the very least, the matter should be discussed on the article's talk page to reach a consensus about the validity of the maintenance templates.

Mike -- Tanina is a relatively new editor. You might consider being a bit less bitey. (This coming from a person who has been accused of this once or twice myself!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

youtube as a source

One article Black History Month uses youtube as a reference. Is that an acceptable source? By the way, for this particular reference, that youtube video, whatever it was, has now been deleted from youtube. One youtube video, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvj509qB0qU&feature=youtu.be is a news station story about an artist. So it's youtube, but its a news station story. Is that a valid reference? Socialresearch (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC) This story also uses youtube as a reference Paper Planes Socialresearch (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No it can't be used per WP:COPYLINK. Bidgee (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Youtube is not the publisher in this case, just a repository for the information. You're free to cite the news story ({{Cite video}}) and just leave the the link out of it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Pole Fitness article deletion

Why was the article on Pole Fitness deleted? It has been a growing fitness regimen for several years. It is not "Pole Dance" it is "Pole Fitness". I remember that there once was a very informative article about it and now it is gone. Replaced by three articles concerning the IPDFA, Polenastics Ltd & Pole Dance (the only non-promotional article). Indeed, it seems your "editors" have been kept busy deleting the subject - once in August of 2006 and again in January 2011. Pole Fitness is an exercise/sport NOUN as surely as Zumba, Jazzercize, Pilates or Yoga! You need only Google it or search YouTube for Pole Fitness to find that it is much more than nasty dancing! Pole Fitness has a long history (since the 70's) and deserves to be available to the public. Also, there have been many more contributors to the sport than the IPDFA & Polenastics - why not have an impartial forum/article on the subject? Please undelete the previous wiki and if needed remove what you feel is self-serving or promotional - or send it to me and I'll fix it. Thank You. John Keltner ^{[details removed]} --99.44.33.184 (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume the article in question is Pole fitness. According to the deletion log, it was deleted on 14 January 2011 by NawlinWiki under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). The appropriate forum for this is Deletion review.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Tlonca

Tlonca has been reverting my removal of syndicated shows on various TV stations. This is irrevelent information. If they want to find what syndicated show is on a station, their answer is not wikipedia, they can just go to the TV network's website. I want you to take action on Tlonca. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat what I told you on your talk page. Your opinion is not special. You have an opinion. Tlonca and neutralhomer have opinions. They are not the same. Deal with it. Start by asking them on their talk pages why they disagree with you, or invite them to a discussion on the talk page of one of the affected articles. There is no policy that editors are banned from Wikipedia because they disagree with ACMEWikiNet. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the side of Tlonca and NeutralHomer as an editor of WP:TVS; we have syndicated programs in articles because they make up what the station is. They aren't adding problems to the articles at all. They are easily sourced by the station's website. The last thing we want is for someone to come upon a station article and wonder why there's nothing about the syndication schedule in the body of the article; Wikipedia doesn't has a set page number limit. Compared to the cruft involving slogans and music cruft we've dealt with as of late, syndicated programming is way down the list of problems of "irrelevant information", and is in fact, relevant to the strength or weakness of a television station. Nate • (chatter) 06:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If I can chime in on this: I've been here less than a year and I've been more of a quiet observer. But in my opinion, the syndicated programming mentions add very little to the articles because the programming is the same across the board. There is very little that is unique in this regard. If the reader whats to know about what programs a station airs then they should go to the station's website or check one of the online program guides (Titan TV or Zap 2 It). Adding info about current syndicated programs will only open the door for fan-crufty editors to include either full-blown schedules or nearly every syndicated program the station has aired. That's not encyclopedic, and that's my opinion. DreamMcQueen (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This has also been brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but looks like it's going to get directed to WikiProject Television Stations because it hasn't been discussed on a talk page yet. So editors who are interested should watch out for the discussion there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Entry about ME.. Tim R Newey...

12th February 2012

RE: Living Persons' Biographies

Dear Wiki,

I think you Should Have an Entry on myself... Tim R Newey

And perhaps your Living-People-Biography Teams could be "Notified"?!

It IS easy enough to reach me but you Will find enough contacts to complete the article?!

I can Cite, at Least, 10 Disciplines in which the Entry would fall "Nicely" Into?!

Yours hopefully,

Tim R Newey Wikipedia User

I shall wait a little longer; Patiently..

ALL Fondest Regards.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.247.188 (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Google Books didn't find anything under "Tim R Newey". Can you point to a couple of reliable sources? Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Article - Varanus Albigularis Ionidesi

Up until January 26, 2011 this article read that this monitor grows to 1.5 metres. On February 25, 2011 the length was changed to 2.1 metres by SWAMPDONKEY79. During the time-period leading up to those dates the government of British Columbia was in the process of revising its Wildlife Act to restrict the ownership of lizards that exceed two metres in length. I've been a member of our B.C. Reptile Society for 38 years, and a long-time member/friend has owned an adult lizard of this type for years. It was originally not in the restricted category because, firstly, it is fully-grown at just over a metre, and, secondly, the Wikipedia page for V. A. I. has regularly shown the maximum length as 1.5 metres. But the government suddenly placed my friend's lizard on the restricted list apparently because of the change on the Wikipedia page. I say "apparently" because no other reason has been given. The figure of 2.1 seems too precise to be scientific, and the suggestion of a sudden increase of 60% in the size of a well-studied animal seems incredible. It's as if the maximum height of a giraffe was historically recorded as 18 feet, and then having the figure revised overnight to 29 feet. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to know if you can, or wish to, determine the identity of SWAMPDONKEY79 and request the scientific basis for the huge change in the size estimate, but I can't help feeling that there may be a connection between the 2.0 rule and the almost-unbelievable change to 2.1. I could be mistaken about a connection, but its an unusual occurence otherwise. Is it possible for you to look into the background of this situation to determine the scientific validity of the posting of 2.1? Or, if no scientific information is forthcoming, can the article be changed back to its historical figue of 1.5? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylrac (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If your goverment is basing legislation upon what it finds in wikipedia articles, you have bigger problems. I used 1.5 originally, but a zoo in England lists them at 2 meters. Since that's all I have right now, I am going with that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That change was the only edit made by SwampDonkey79 (talk · contribs), so we're unlikely to get any response to the question at User talk:SwampDonkey79. Unfortunately the original figure, 1.5 metres, was not backed up by a reference to a reliable source either, so as things stand neither figure can be trusted. I have left a message at User talk:Mike Searson, who created the article in 2008 and is still active.

If you can correct the article with information from published sources (books, journals...) then please do so, giving the source of your information. If you don't feel confident to do that, I suggest you post the data and sources at Talk:Varanus albigularis ionidesi. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Piracy in the Atlantic World

Piracy in the Atlantic World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is currently tagged as being a personal reflection or essay, and I would like some assistance in determning which sections (or the whole article) are in violation of policy and suggestions on how to revise these sections. Thanks.--Michelledavison (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference Baeck was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Chan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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

[Chan-2] Cite error: The named reference Chan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]