Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 103

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


International space station

Answered: Danger (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Does anyone like space ? the ISS is an international program, and I've been trying to improve the articles neutrality, and improve it overall, with varying success, some people will talk on the talk page, some just use the edit summary, after undoing everything. It's frustrating. I could use some help, OR if I'm the problem, feel free to say so ! Plenty of my edits are left as is, and polished up by editors, but fixing the opening paragraph is a challenge as it's the first thing some people come to, not the talk page, they see a difference and don't seem to give it a chance, and revert to factually incorrect and in my opinion, biased versions..This page is a featured article.Penyulap (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, and I must warn you, I waffle on a lot on the talkpage. talk far too much I'm sure.(then again, a lot of the time, nobody uses the talk page at all, which is the problem)Penyulap (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You could try asking at WikiProject Spaceflight. Do realize that International Space Station is a featured article, so it's considered very high quality. You may want to contact the main writers of the article to ask their advice before making any radical changes. --Danger (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantum and Cosmological Issues

Answered: Danger (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I am interested in following discussions concerning physics issues, such as: universe models; ie atomist fixed frames versus Leibnizian relational entangled particles. Entry into the physics portal hasn't solved finding an overview on what's active and what's dormant for now. Assistance in my search is appreciated. As a retired electrical engineer and a enthusiastic student of the above issues; I would like to contribute. Feel it wise however to discover what areas related to the above are being developed, and wish to make appropriate contributions. Cooperative enterprizes are a key to human survival, hence my support of Wikipedia. Idealist707 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Try WikiProject Physics. The editors and pages there should provide some useful information. --Danger (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser, Malaysian Fashion Designer

Answered: Danger (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Ser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello everyone! Could you please take some time off to check out this article:

It is about Edmund Ser, a Malaysian Fashion Designer whom have contributed to the Malaysian Fashion Scene most notably in the 80s-90s. This article is about his early life, how he achieved his success as well as his life.

Thank you so much. Asiareports (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The tone is rather promotional, perhaps the article could benefit from a WP:Peer review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

repeated deletion on discuss page, non polite edit summs, no discussion.

Stale: Request unclear. Danger (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OPV_AIDS_hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am trying to address the short comings of this article. But, with edit summs that seem to fail a politeness test, and no discussion entered into, my posts on the discussion page are being repeatedly deleted. I have offered to discuss and expressed a willingness to continue assuming good faith despite the edit summs. But with no positive result to date. (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of your deleted talk page comments, because I can't find any. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Krzysztof Zanussi

Resolved: Danger (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You have missed a very important Zanussi's film from 1979 "Wege in der Nacht" or "Ways in the Night". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added it. This is the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit; if you are interested in a topic and see that an article needs expanding, then feel free to start editing. This tutorial may help. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Jamal Taslaq

Resolved: Danger (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Jamal Taslaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello, behind the picture File:jamal taslaq.jpg you can see in the article, there is an inscription that should not be there, but I don't succeed removing it. Any suggestion? Thank you very much. Aster dani (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected your article link; article names here are case-sensitive except for the initial letter. And I have fixed your problem. The proper syntax for that article's information box is described at {{Infobox fashion designer}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Listia neutrality

Resolved: Danger (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The "Features" section entry for Listia uses a non neutral voice, ie. "we", and the entire entry appears to be purely promotional in nature. I like Listia, but see no value in "promotional entries" in the wikipedia format.

JB — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone copied their FAQ and put it in the article - I'll undo that. --Six words (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

rooster saddle feathers

Answered: Danger (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about fashion and about fly fishing, but according to an article in Yahoo (, the former is putting a crimp on the latter. When I went to Wik to get some background on it, I could not find the term cited above. It seems there might be a need for such an article in Wik.Kdammers (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you could write such an article if you have some reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Answered: Danger (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I generally have little success with this kind of question, but I'll try anyway. In the interest of full disclosure, one of my pet peeves in articles is overlinking. I often remove wikilinks for common words, cities, countries, etc. More often than not, those edits go off without a hitch, but every once in a while, I'm challenged. The latest challenge is a little more interesting, and it has to do with the Hugh Jackman article and where he was born. In both the infobox and the first non-lead section of the article, it sys he was born in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia - all wikilinked. I removed New South Wales completely (from both places), and I unlinked Sydney and Australia. An editor reverted here. The quote in the edit summary comes from the introduction to what should not be linked in the WP:OVERLINK guideline. Putting aside whether New South Wales needs to be in the article at all, if you carry this editor's interpretation of the guideline to its logical extreme, all birth places in biographical articles would be wikilinked, even in places as well-known as Sydney and Australia. I think it's silly and kind of turns the guideline on its head, but honestly, I don't really know how to apply the quoted qualifier from the guideline.

Now before I get an outpouring of responses (I'll probably get none), I should say that one editor/admin, in an unrelated wikilinking dispute I had with an IP, essentially told me to get a life (he did it nicely). But I've always felt that small things (let's not forget the many, wonderful wikignomes) are important, not just at Wikipedia, so it's kind of part of my temperament.

Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I think fine polishing of detail is good. Having the details right shows that folks are paying attention, and more likely to have gotten the big things right. At the same time, I also take exception to the trivial, pedantic linking of definitions of words, every instance of a place name, etc. But in this instance I am inclined to think the first-instance of a birthplace ought to be linked. A reader might want to check out someone's birthplace, and even if it is "well-known" why should that bar a link? That is the whole point of hypertext, that one can simply click on the term without having to enter it into a search box or such. Which is not to say that every instance of a place name should be linked, but I would generally go with the first instance. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps link Sydney but not New South Wales or Australia - since both of those are linked from the opening words of Sydney. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Two comments. First, using Jackman as an example, why would a reader want to get more information on Sydney or Australia just because Jackman was born there? Doesn't seem intuitive to me, particularly when one considers the kind of information Wikipedia has in place articles. Second, what about the guideline qualifier itself? That's a much broader issue and the basis for the editor wanting to keep the wikilinks in. I think the qualifier is problematic, not just in this instance, but in others as well, and don't quite understand how we apply it. Because I think it's ambiguous, I also think it's likely to cause disputes - like here. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
John's suggestion is a thoughtful compromise. I kinda like bright-line rules myself, but I acknowledge that compromises are often more palatable.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Altynay Sapargalieva

Answered: Danger (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


Am new to posting at Wikipedia. How do I get the warnings at the top of the page (mentioned in the Subject line) removed from the page? Some references were added (and more will be), and there is a "Neutrality" notice as well.

Fisherking3k (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't unless the article meets the demands of the warnings. It looks like the article has no reliable sources to support it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

About quality of information concerning Patti LaBelle assault accusation incident

Answered: Discussion at talk page.Danger (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Patti_LaBelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks like some guy from Houston ( is giving a rather biased story about the incident. Too many quotes and claims of media are used. This is a controversial story and the information is quite misleading and subjective. In March 2011 Patti LaBelle and her entourage were reportedly involved in an assault and battery incident against a West Point college student at a Houston Airport. According to ABC News and the Houston Chronicle, [11] one of Labelle's bodyguards pushed the student, the student pushed back and the 3 bodyguards proceeded to beat him up in LaBelle's presence (some allege "at her direction"). Labelle's bodyguards claimed that King was standing too close to Labelle's luggage. Later LaBelle posed for a photo with fans only a few feet away from where King's blood was still visible on the ground. [12]. Richard King, the man who was attacked, is suing LaBelle, the bodyguards and the airport for damages. Zuri Edwards, LaBelle's son and limo driver reported that King attacked him and was verbally harassing LaBelle and her entourage. But the 3:42 minute video footage (without sound and taped by the airport), now on YouTube and local Houston news sites, shows that King had been on the cell phone during most of the time and immediately before the incident. In the YouTube video, a LaBelle bodyguard clearly initiates contact by pushing King; King brushes him back with his arm, and then three of Labelle's bodyguards rush to assault him and knock him against a pillar, causing a concussion. According to the Chronicle report, Dana King, a former airport operations security officer who was on duty at the airport -- and no relation to the victim, said he witnessed the incident. "This kid was not a threat to anyone... The guy was there with a cellphone to his ear. LaBelle's bunch was up there, standing at the rear of the limo," he said. "... Her window came down, and this guy comes over to elbow-shove him. His head hit that concrete, and after that he was basically a zombie." A police report that was filed after the incident stated the police officers could smell alcohol from King and believed he was intoxicated. King admitted on an interview that he had been consuming alcohol at the plane, but that he was not intoxicated. King also told an ABC interviewer that "I've never been in a fight in my life."

I am pointing this out because I believe his edits are more about claims and speculations rather than the the true facts about the incidents. I agree quotations should be used but not to the extent where the whole description sounds like a trashy gossip article.

The article talk page is the best place to discuss this, please remember to sign your posts using four {~} tildes. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Vaughn article help!

Resolved: Everything looks sorted. Danger (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Article which was previously written from Chris Vaughn (Jerseyboy Hero, Stiletto Film, New Jersey Recording Artist) and correctly referenced was stolen by "another" unreferenced artist with the same name Chris Vaughn. The Previous artist already had published articles that had been "received" and I wasn't aware that that could even happen. Can the former article be restored? Do administrators have back up files? Do I have to start from scratch? Please help resolve! Thanks Creditcamp (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I've got this right: there are two musicians named Chris Vaughn. One of them also calls himself Danger Silent (or has a solo project called Danger Silent, or whatever) and the other doesn't. And the article title Chris Vaughn was originally about the one who isn't Danger Silent, but was rewritten to be about the one who is Danger Silent. (Meanwhile, there is also an article Danger Silent, which is basically a bio of Chris Vaughn (the one who is Danger Silent, I assume and hope). Is this correct? So what we need to do is something like this:
  • Restore Chris Vaughn to be about the one who isn't Danger Silent.
  • Create a new article about the Chris Vaughn who is Danger Silent, taking material from the Danger Silent article and also the current configuration of Chris Vaughn.
  • Rename Chris Vaughn, and title new article about the other Chris Vaughn, so that they have unique titles, using... I don't know, their birth years or whatever the rule is. So we will end up with two article named something like "Chris Vaughn (born 1985)" and "Chris Vaughn (born 1987)", or "Chris Vaughn (bass player)" and "Chris Vaughn (piano player)" or whatever (these are just examples, I don't actually know when they were born or what instruments they play).
  • Make the article titled just plain "Chris Vaughn" into a disambiguation page.
  • Deal withe Danger Silent article, probably by making it into a redirect (after its material has been merged in the appropriate article). We probably don't need an article about Danger Silent and a separate article about the Chris Vaughn who is Danger Silent, I wouldn't think.

I believe this is what needs to be done. Herostratus (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually what we need to do is determine if either actually meets the WP:N criteria. The sources in the "original" version were things like angelfire blogs. Active Banana (bananaphone 06:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for contacting me. This is really not a complex issue. Herostratus set out the appropriate steps above. User:Tocastaway aka Chris Vaughn "Danger Silent" has a new album coming out and wanted to create an article about himself. He found that there was already an article by that name, so he absconded the article title, blanked the Chris Vaughn (New Jersey) content and replaced it with his own. This disruption is a separate issue from notability. After receiving a request for assistance, I addressed this issue by restoring the initial article and placed a 3rd level warning on the User:Tocastaway talk page following two other warnings placed by other editors.

    Now that the disruption has been addressed, we can address any concerns there may be about reliable sources and notability. This can be done directly on the article rather than in this review forum. If and/or when User:Tocastaway creates another article in the appropriate manner, reliability of sources and notability can be addressed there. At that time, we can also create a disambiguation page, Chris Vaughn (disambiguation) and list the two articles. Cind.amuse 07:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary Kendall - buried in Westminster Abbey

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Editor, Thank you for your previous response. There was a previous Wikipedia page on Mary Kendall (UK), specifically. I have seen the James/Mary Kendall page by The Abbey, but it wasn't that one. Has the Wikipedia Mary Kendall page been deleted? It was very good, I remember. Anna, Melbourne, Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I also can find no record of Wikipedia ever having had an article by that name; this includes the article having been deleted. --Danger (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Red Factions Origins

Stale: Request unclear (to me at least). Danger (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Help I want to know if i helped?

Alex 03:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilego (talkcontribs)

I'm unsure exactly what you need assistance with. Are you asking whether this edit was helpful? I've left a message with some (hopefully) useful introductory information about Wikipedia on your talk page. --Danger (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No What I want help with is I added the Unknown enemy's name and next time i check it ground zero remove's it and on the source thing on the bottom i think i am number 1 and it is in red so did i help with the name or no?

Alex 16:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilego (talkcontribs)

Glenn Danzig page

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Danzig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


I have update the Glenn Danzig page to include the following:

- - Danzig appears as himself, though fictionalized, in Ted Neely's Henry and Glenn Forever, in which Danzig and Henry Rollins are imagined to be lovers, living next door to satanists Daryl (Hall) and John (Oates).[1] Danzig expressed his displeasure at the comic [2], which Neely lampooned in a subsequent one-page splash tellingly entitled The Final Blow.[3]

After posting it, it was removed (by Danzig666 I think). I undid the edit. It was deleted again.

I don't understand Wiki very much, or the process, or the talk page, etc; I haven't contributed much to Wiki. But this is silly. Ted Neely's comic is an important contribution to the comics field, and the entry I put up is complete and objective and factual. I suspect that Danzig666 is Glenn Danzig and he doesn't want the comic listed, for some unspecified reason.

Is there a way to stop this nonsense? Or is Wiki as arbitrary as people say it is?

Some guidance please.

Thank you. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvintoronto (talkcontribs) 14:17, 6 June 2011

I believe your first step should be to go to the talk page and discuss your proposed changes. Just adding and undoing with or without edit summaries does not work. The process I have seen work best is BOLD, Revert, Discuss. The two of you haven't gotten past the revert point. You were bold and inserted new material into the article, DANZIG666 reverted your addition, now is the time to discuss the changes and maybe the two of you can agree on something. I have no prior involvement with the article or either of you, I will watch the page and if assistance is needed I will try to help. GB fan (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

please review my first contribution

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm new at this, but feel like I'm getting close to getting the hang of it.

Please review the references error I'm getting.


User:Attitor34/Attritor Mill

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Attitor34 (talkcontribs)

You need to find and cite reliable sources that demonstrate how or why this product is notable. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be another name for an attrition mill or Ball mill (have not read it), the challenge might be more in demonstrating the notability of the inventor or company you write about. --CliffC (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Abusive moderator/editor

Article -

Resolved: Parties worked it out independently. Kudos. Danger (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Turbulence (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently attempted to update an article as a class assignment. Despite that my post was legitimate and completely withing Wiki policies of appropriateness, anther user/moderator ( continues to delete my post and send threatening messages.

Why does this individual have the ability to improperly regulate content and abuse other editors in a supposedly heterarchical forum such as Wiki?

I chose to update the website of a noted artist. All of the content I posted is factual and substantiated by the sources I also attempted to post. If the problem was that I originally used sources such as Amazon, this was not done as a promotion, but rather to prove a discrepancy in claimed release dates for a particular song, which was later released on a followup album.

Please advise me as to how to remedy this problem and hold accountable the individual who is clearly abusing his Wiki editorial privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheleam (talkcontribs) 04:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, I've responded to you on the thread on my talk page and have explained why your content was removed, I have also apologized if I had caused any offence by the removal of your edits and have sent you warning templates (not threats) concerning the introduction of spammy links into articles (also explained on my talk page). I also hardly feel as if I have abused you. Thank you. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 04:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious question marks and a claim (Ryu Murakami)

Articles in question: 69_(novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ryū_Murakami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Before I could clear up this entry and add some relevant details, I would appreciate an explanation what those question marks represent, as seen in this Releases section: ( I checked Wiki guides quite a bit and there isn't any I could find. My best guess is, possibly, each question refers to a Japanese title that the editor couldn't locate? It's odd if that's the case because the title in both Japanese and romaji are already listed in the introduction at the top. So, those question marks must mean something else. Does anyone know?

I do realise this next thing is for the Talk page of the entry, but -- there is this statement found in Ryū_Murakami's biography that says "He is colloquially referred to as the "Maradona of Japanese literature"," and this has been quoted all over the English-language internet in Murakami-related articles, citing Wikipedia as a source (and, from what I see, the only source).

I hadn't heard of him referred this way, and there is no citation. To be sure, I checked all possible avenues for a link between Maradona (マラドーナ) and Murakami (村上龍之助) in Japanese. There isn't any that backs this claim up. It's not even mentioned in the Japanese edition of Murakami's Wikipedia entry: and Murkami's own site. I think the claim should be removed, but since it's cited all over the net, would removing it cause problems? Advice, please? Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat, was it a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation?

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be grateful of some assistance with a small dispute at Schrödinger's cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A2326xyz (talk · contribs) wants to make an change to the opening section saying that "contrary to popular belief it does not show that there is a fundamental flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation"

I however feel that showing a flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation was exactly what Schrödinger's was trying to do with the thought experiment, this is strongly affirmed at Copenhagen interpretation#Consequences, I have tried to explain this on the talk page, but A2326xyz doesn't want to talk and simply reverts my revert stating "information that was deleted is correct"

Free Bear (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

What you feel about the matter isn't really significant; it's what the sources show. User:A2326xyz has explained at Talk:Schrödinger's_cat#Critique of of the Copenhagen interpretation? that he thinks his version is "more precise and historically accurate". If you do not understand his position, ask to him to show his sources. If you disagree about that interpretation then you should cite sources (not blogs! nor other WP articles) supporting your interpretation. All this is best done on the article's talk page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Air Mobility Command article

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Several years ago (Oct 2008 to June 2009) the Air Mobility Command Museum tried to set up a Wiki page much like the National Museum of the United States. There is a short paragraph on the museum on the Dover Air Force Base / Museum page with a link to our web page, but the museum wanted a more comprehensive description in Wikipedia - like the National Museum. Editors at the time seemed to think our description was too long and/or didn't have enough "third party sources"?. The article disappeared. How can we get it reestablished and updated. Was it a misunderstanding that got it taken off or were we counter to the philosophy of Wikipedia? I cannot even find the revision history of the Air Mobility Command Museum. It existed on 18 May 2011 - can someone help?--AMCMPilot (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Be aware of conflict of interest. Members of AMCM, particularly when acting under official capacity should not be creating or direcly editing articles related to AMCM. Secondly I would guide you to the requirements for a stand alone article. Essentially, the topic of the article must have been the direct subject of significant commentary by some third party, published in a reliable source in order to qualify as the subject of a stand alone article. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I would recommend gathering some third party sources and leaving your request at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. EDIT TO ADD: and are generaly good search tools to find reliable online sources (if you ignore the blogs and books published by Icon which is merely a Wikipedia mirror) Active Banana (bananaphone 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

deleted article

Answered: Danger (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I see that Greg Saunier was deleted because of an expired PROD. Is there any way I can get at the article? He's definitely notable enough now to have his own article. PermanentVacay (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ease up on deleting pages

Answered: Danger (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The entirety of the Human Rights Impact Assessment page was deleted because a single file, created by Nomogaia, is seen as copyright infringed. The document, A Methodology for Human Rights Impact Assessment, is not copyrighted, so there should have been no deletion. As executive director of Nomogaia, and as the author of the Methodology, I'd like to see the page reinstated. I'm happy to take any necessary steps to prove that no copyright infringements occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksalcito (talkcontribs) 22:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the document has a copyright notice prominently on the bottom left of the front cover. It is possible to release the for use on Wikipedia by following the procedure described here. However, I am concerned that, since you excerpted part of one document that you might have done the same with others that you have written. (For example, your first sentence of Nomogaia is lifted directly from the Nomogaia welcome page. The lead paragraph of Human Rights Impact Assessment is lifted directly from the website as well.) Every document that you excerpted would have to be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia for the article; it may be much easier simply to rewrite the article without using excerpts. Because the article uses copyrighted text (we presume that it is copyrighted, since we don't have proof that you are the owner of the text), it will be deleted until that text is released under a compatible license. (We save everything on Wikipedia; if the license turns out to be acceptable we can restore the article. Please do not restore the text as is yourself.)
I notice that you have been editing the article Nomogaia. As an affiliated person, I encourage you to review our guidelines on conflicts of interest. In particular, while you are not prohibited from editing the article, you are strongly encouraged to propose additions on the talk page rather than make them directly. --Danger (talk) 06:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The article, with (at least some) duplicated text, has been recreated at NomoGaia. I would add that, in addition to the COI problem identified above, it's a bad idea to re-use text from publications of the subject of an article - even with all appropriate permissions - because it's highly unlikely that the text is going to be written from a neutral point of view. The article is, I think, likely to be deleted again very quickly without proper licensing (or a rewrite) and rather than re-creating it again it is probably a better idea to resolve these underlying issues. JohnInDC (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Current Harassment

Answered: Danger (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to report a harassment incident. I've got user nipping at my heels, pestering me, continuous lack of post signatures and making my talk page untidy. However eager the user to is to expect more from me, deter and take care of the user in any way fit if you please. Deltasim (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left an note about etiquette at the user's talk page. However, you really need to tell them to stop contacting you yourself. I suggest that if they post on your talk page again that you tell them, very briefly, that you'll get around to it when you get around to it and that you do not want them to post on your talk page again. Be polite, but clear and direct. If they continue to seek you out after that, make a post on the administrator's noticeboard. --Danger (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Gregoire_Akcelrod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved: Danger (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Type "greg akcelrod fake" and you'll understand... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I took a crack at working in the point being made by the OP here, and while it's now in grammatical English and roughly tracks the facts, I'm sure someone could improve on it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of editors have taken to adding material which smacks of overstatement concerning this fellow's soccer career and other lifetime achievements, and the article may bear a bit of watching. JohnInDC (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Article's been speedied; this one can be closed out. JohnInDC (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Help! Advice in a conflict of interest dispute.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Zack Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm trying to act as a 3rd party between two groups that have a COI. I need help to see if I'm handling this OK, if something else should be mentioned or another party should take over.

Article is about an actor named Zack Heart. Krystic1 created the page, but they work for Zack Heart. A month ago I stumbled on the page and advised them of COI among other things. here is the thread.

Another user, UrbanTerrorist, has showed up and added negative info about Zack Heart to the article. UrbanTerrorist has some valid and invalid points. I've tried to addressed his points. Oh... UrbanTerrorist had legal threats brought against him by Zach Hart's people and blogged about other legal action of Zack Heart. So, naturally, he is not entirely in a neutral view frame of mind.

He has recently stated to me how famous, experienced and popular blogger he is. He has buds at #Anonymous and Tor. His followers and anti-Zack Heart followers are watching and are not happy with me. From his blog, he is going to eventually post an entry exposing the not so nice doings of Wikipedia.

So, this is rapidly going above my Wikipedia pay grade and I need help. Talk:Zack Heart and User talk:Krystic1 contain the relevant discussion. Bgwhite (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the BLP noticeboard would be the best place for this to be resolved. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Person keeps reverting edits, removing negative facts and represents company and products overly positive

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

PocketBook_eReader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please also see

The user keeps reverting most edits, all his involvement to this date seems to be PocketBook related.

After some digging I noticed other users before me have had the same problem and even tagged the article as advertisement as well.

Furthermore Brainstenko also lives in Kiev where the HQ of Pocketbook is located and works as freelance writer and translator. I think he is somehow involved with Pocketbook because he is always painting a overly good marketing picture.

He quotes references that do not back up his claims, he uses phrases like "fastest page turns" and then adds "arguably" because he thinks then he does not have to use a real backup for his claims. Or adds "It is a long-standing leader as comes to the amount of supported text formats" even tho other readers support at least the same amount of file formats.

The other source I removed even had SPONSORED in the url and did not back up a single one of the numbers he added to the article and claimed the article as source.

Comment - about two-thirds of that article seems to violate WP:NOTCATALOG. --CliffC (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks almost like a G11 speedy to me. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Person has again undone my changes and reverted not only mine but other people changes as well. Advertisement links removed by Ronz have been readded and all the negative info removed.
But I have been warned by an admin for undo war even tho what I did last time was restoring my changes he wiped. Please advice, not using undo at this time. Curious why he hasn't been warned at the same time.
BottomDog (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have cleaned up some of the most promotional language and have watchlisted it. Instead of just accusing people. please discuss the article and what changes you would like to see made to the article on the talk page. Lets see what happens. GB fan (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

TV episodes being tagged for "notability" (and other things)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A user,  Xeworlebi (talk), has suddenly gone through a bunch of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel episodes and tagged them for "notability" issues, with no explanation. Three of us have been asking and or arguing with him about this, as it is a convention that, on these shows at least, each episode has it's own page (see rʨanaɢ (talk)) . On this page: Anne and on the talk page Talk:Anne (Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode) I disagreed with this tag. On his talk page and on others, we have been trying to understand the reason (and getting a bit testy, I admit) and can't get anywhere. We need someone to give us some more authoritative feedback. My question is simply this: if it's been consensus for some time that each episode gets it's own page, do we suddenly have to satisfy one user's demand that it meet some abstract definition of "notable" that only he gets to pass as acceptable? Since he won't explain his criteria, no one can meet it, and since he won't explain his reasons, we wouldn't even know how to begin meeting them. Additionally, he has tagged many episode pages that, so far, are plot only, or mostly plot summaries, he's demanding references, when according to what I've read re WP:plot guidelines, the episode itself is the reference. They should have tags re being plot only, in need of expansion, but the lack of references isn't relevant yet. When someone fills out the page and fails to put in references, then tag it, of course. In looking back over his edits, they consist almost entirely of reverts and tags, which seems to me as though this is his definition of editing, but it's not very helpful, it just drives others nuts and doesn't improve the pages. And those who disagree with him get rudeness--he reverts any comments on his talk page from people who disagree with him and then insults them. What can we do to resolve the "notability" issue? Can one user just suddenly do this to a whole bunch of established pages? It seems more like vandalism than editing. Any guidance would be much appreciated. Thank you.--TEHodson 09:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC) A quick additional note: part of the discussion was on his talk page, but as I said, he reverted someone who disagreed with him, so you'd have to go back a couple of edits on that page to find an opinion that was, I think, useful, but dismissed and hidden so no one else can see it and comment on it.--TEHodson 10:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi TEHodson. If you have a look at the guidance on television episodes, you'll see that each episode should independently meet the notability guidelines, with significant coverage independent of the subject. For articles which are only a summary of the plot, this is an issue, and the editor would be right to tag it for notability. Whilst mass tagging can be difficult, it is certainly not vandalism - Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia. My advice would be to work on the articles to establish notability, rather than complaining about the tagging. WormTT · (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I should also point out that I've seen editors mass redirect to "list of" articles or nominate for deletion en masse too, and Xeworlebi's tagging is much more collaborative than that, as it gives you much more time to fix. WormTT · (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
What about episodes that are not merely plot summaries (he's tagged those, too)? I understand the expansion part, and there's another tag for that, which is specific to the lack of other material. Isn't the notability tag redundant if the article is already tagged with the plot only tag? Re expansion, some of the episode pages have Production sections if there's information available about those details. (I am not personally qualified to expand to such sections.) If there is no production info available, should the page be deleted rather than just sit there with a notability tag on it that no one can do anything about? I think one problem with the notability tag is that is so vague. What makes one episode "notable" and another not, and who decides? (And perhaps vandalism is too strong a word, but it is an irritation when it's done en masse by one person who does nothing else; maybe "nuisance" is a better word.) --TEHodson 10:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
But "notability" isn't vague. It's clear from the general notability guidelines that a topic is notable if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The plot only tag does imply lack of notability, true, but there are certainly hypothetical situations (1 line about an award won, the rest of the article being plot) which does not. If Xeworlebi has tagged articles which are not plot only, which have sourced independent information regarding the production or reception sections, then do mention them. I mean, have a look at a good TV episode article, like The Impossible Astronaut. 38 references, sections on production, reception, images, and so on.
Just because you are not qualified to expand a production section doesn't mean no one is. I'd be surprised if there was no production information available, DVD features, companion books, news articles for some episodes... there should be stuff out there, it'll just require a little work. Remember, there's no deadline, chip away, bit by bit. WormTT · (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
As I already said, the criteria are clearly established at WP:GNG. There's also no such consensus that each episode can have an article, such believe is wrong, as previously established at for example the Pokemon articles (See WP:POKEMON) and WP:NOTINHERITED. Although there are plenty of fans out there who believe just existing means that it can have its own article, which is also not true (See WP:EVERYTHING).
I removed the comment from the German IP, because he's an unconstructive IP hopper, who has now found it a good idea to annoy me on my talk page with plainly inaccurate statements and requests that go against the normal process for these pages. I have the right to remove any comments I wish from my talk page. For the record, the claim that I have insulted anyone is entirely made up.
It is frowned upon to list episode articles at AfD, instead WP:TVEP lines out how to deal with problem articles. There used to be a television article review process, but that kinda died out long ago, and there hasn't been a proper substitute of really dealing with articles besides tagging them since. The biggest issue being the fan-base who want to keep episode articles no matter what and not caring for policy or guidelines, even if they clearly do not meet WP:GNG or plainly violate WP:PLOTXeworlebi (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
unconstructive IP hopper -- Mate, the one who is as incompetent as he is aggressively uncivil is you. Also, could you finally explain what you are trying to say with "IP hopper"? I regard that as a clearcut attempt to insult and bait me into a personal attack. It is offensive. Please stop it immediately.
the claim that I have insulted anyone is entirely made up -- I don't forgive, go annoy someone else
plainly inaccurate statements -- Good thing you're conveniently not quoting them here where everybody could see them. Let me correct your rampant intellectual dishonesty by quoting myself here: Articles which clearly fail the GNG should be deleted, not tagged (except with a deletion template of course). Template:Notability is for cases where the tagging user is not sure whether or not the article subject meets the GNG ("may not meet the general notability guideline"). -- This is what Xeworlebi calls "plainly inaccurate statements", without of course over explaining why he thinks they are inaccurate, instead he resorts to his usual insulting tone and refuses to engage in meaningful discussion.
A good thing, too, that you don't care whether or not your edits are correct or not.
To everyone else: Xeworlebi needs to be banned, the sooner the better. Not only is he unwilling/uncapable of maintaining minimum decorum or at least the appearance of trying to be actually civil (not just following the letter of e.g. WP:TPG), he is also completely incompetent and does not enage in any discussion that challenges any of his MoS- and policy-violating edits. He engages in edit wars and he is clearly a net-detriment for the project. -- (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
IP hopping means a dynamic IP, which changes despite being the same userWormTT · (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Erm... yes, I know what DHCP is... The thing is that Xeworlebi keeps insulting me as "that IP hopper", clearly insinuating other things. I resent that because it is a clearcut personal attack against me. No, really. He is trying to undermine my arguments by slandering me with insinuations. Textbook case of argumentum ad hominem. That is what he is doing when he calls me "IP hopper". And he should stop it, or face a block. -- (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Worm, for all that. I know that others are qualified to expand, that's why the plot only tag is useful, as it'll inspire them to work on it. Truthfully, hardly any TV show episodes are even remotely "notable" by that standard, especially in a 7-season series (it's an exceptional TV episode that can carry enough information to warrant 38 references!) but they have become a convention on WP. I can think of only two Buffy episodes that reach such a high standard--rarely are individual episodes of a TV show "significantly covered" anywhere; maybe that's a reason to eliminate them, or to make the standard less exacting for TV show eps. I think the reason this got a couple of us irritated is that it was done en masse by someone who is very generous with the criticism, not so much with the hard work. I only once tagged an article in all my time here, and asked an editor whose work is first class for guideline help before doing it (it was for an article that was written as a personal analysis, with no objectivity), and I was told to be conservative and certain of my issues first, to start a conversation on the Talk page well before tagging, to explain exactly what my problem with the article was and to give others a chance to comment and repair, and that the attitude of the best WP editors re tags is to use them as a last resort because once they're on an article, it can be difficult to get them off, as the tagger usually has trouble accepting that the problem is really resolved. Giving an article four tags with no Talk page discussion at all is really off-putting. Is it your opinion, then, that even if the plot only tag is on the article, the notability tag should stay, too?
Xeworlebi, if there's no consensus that every episode should have an article, then why does every episode of Buffy have an article? If you think there shouldn't be an article for every episode, I'd absolutely agree. As I said above, I can only think of two episodes that are really notable (The Body and Hush, though I could make a case for a few others). A list would be good enough for me. My problem with you is that you've assumed a traffic cop role, and are not discussing the issues, just mass tagging. That doesn't help. At least I've started a discussion that could lead to making a better decision about how to handle the surfeit of information which you call a fan-base problem, which I agree is real. But you seem to only be able to talk at us, not with us. --TEHodson 11:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
that other crappy articleshexist and have not yet been brought into copliance with wikipedia policies is a horrible baisis for an arguement to let additional incompliant articles stay that way. Active Banana (bananaphone 11:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
re "plot tag being useful" - can you show me any examples of when a plot tag alone has actually had edtiors come in and bring in sourced non-plot material? Active Banana (bananaphone 11:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
My opinion is that the "notability" tag is probably the most important of all the tags on the page. I also believe that 4 tags is not excessive, as long as they cover seperate issues, and the multiple issues tag was created for exactly that purpose. I see the tagging as sign of good faith by Xeworlebi that he thinks the episodes are notable, but they are not currently establishing the notability., this would explain why they are not being put up for deletion, but rather tagged.
As for whether specific shows are notable, well, as I mentioned, there's likely information in the DVD commentary, in any companion guides, in books like [1] or "Buffy the vampire slayer:the watcher's guide 2". I'm not keen on eliminating the episode articles, but they do require work.
I do agree that discussions would be helpful, it's never good for a user to feel railroaded. Hopefully you and Xeworlebi can come to some agreement, I'll be happy to offer any mediation/3O at a mutually convenient venue. WormTT · (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
As I already said, multiple times now, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:POKEMON, and mainly because there are those not familiar with the policies and guidelines and create articles just for the sake of it. I already did the 'large' discussions, problem is, for every new show there's another person who wants another big discussion like you, there are to many problem articles to go trough every talk page starting hundreds of discussions and often there's a horde of fans who want to keep the articles just because, ignoring everything. There probably should be something new made like a PROR (proposed redirect), but that doesn't exists at this point, and there's currently no good way to deal with these articles, so tagging them is the only thing that can be done at this point short from redirecting them, which will bring out another class of fans. Xeworlebi (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
With regard to notability, many more episodes than that are probably notable, especially given the amount of academic attention that Buffy has received. "Once More With Feeling" and "The Body" are Featured Articles; you can probably use many of the sources from those articles to prove notability for other episodes. I imagine that, for example, "Innocence" and "Seeing Red" also have received sufficient coverage to pass gng. On the other hand, even the biggest fan must admit that there are episodes that no one really notes, but that's not really the point. The point is that notability can't be assumed for every episode and the references have to be provided to prove notability, just like for any other topic. The fact that these articles exist now doesn't mean that they conform to policy. But the GNG isn't a particularly high bar and it's not unreasonable to expect that every Wikipedia article meet it.
Everyone, let's calm down with the personal remarks. Comment on the issue at hand, not the editors involved. --Danger (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Just chiming in a bit: as I have told the people who brought this up at my talk page, I haven't seen any problems with Xeworlebi's behavior and I don't think discussing Xeworlebi's behavior is relevant or helpful here. The IP's behavior, however, is becoming quite uncivil.
As for the actual content issues, I haven't yet made up my mind what my opinion is so I have refrained from commenting so far. I think Danger's suggestion for going forward is a good one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Worm has answered the original question to my satisfaction, and I now understand the issues better. I'm not a full-time dedicatd WP editor like some are, but I do what I can when I come across a page that's in trouble. There are a few things I'm very good at so I contribute as I can, and am not attached to any particular page or having things "my way." I do think, however, that if  Xeworlebi (talk) (or anyone else) is going to tag an article that he can see someone just spent a great deal of time on and did improve, it would be nice if he could spend two minutes on the Talk page saying something, "I see you've been working on this and it's better, but it still has issues so I'm going to tag it to inspire others to help" or explaining himself when questioned. It's the difference between thinking of those who edit WP as being mere ciphers (which is a real problem here) and recognizing them as live human beings. It's decent and courteous, and would avoid a lot of bad feeling. A self-appointed expert who chastises others is hard to take in any context. Here Worm has agreed with him and instructed me, but managed to do it in a helpful and friendly way, without the condescension and stubborn insistence that I just take his word for it--in other words, without the attitude. It makes all the difference in the world. And he (Xe) states that since, in the past, he did "discuss" this issue he sees no reason to do it again, but since WP is a living place to whom new people come every day, obviously there will be a need to do so, at least in a brief and reasonable way, and spending those couple of minutes doing it would self-evidently save time in the long run. Thanks to all who helped answer the question.--TEHodson 22:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
re: "take his word for it..." I am seeing links mulitple times to the appropriate policy and guideline pages - all you had to do was click and read to see that he wasnt "just making things up to cause you grief". Active Banana (bananaphone 23:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, Active Banana (bananaphone, I was in need of further clarification, but thank you for continuing to demonstrate that arguing for its own sake and talking down to others is something that people here really enjoy.--TEHodson 01:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I linked and said basically everything Worm said on the talk page of "Anne", I've tried to get you to click on WP:GNG by clearly linking to it, so you would see what the 'requirements' are for notability, yet you keep saying that I have given no such information to you here, the "Anne" talk page and here as well. I saw you remove valid tags with the edit summary "Rmvd tags. Issues resolved." while they were not resolved at all. I wasn't aware you just spend three hours working on the page, nor do I think that to be actually relevant to the tags, I said I appreciated what you did but that the issues were still present, but if you're looking for personal validation then you're in the wrong place [the internet]. I haven't said I don't want to discuss this, (I have clearly just done so) I said I already did it, and probably will again, and it's a lot of work, work you have to start over every time you come across a new editor, it's tiresome, especially if they just ignore what you say, say that you have to contribute in other ways before you can add valid tags to an article, say you haven't answered there questions when you have, etc. Xeworlebi (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Did you not read what I wrote (above) about the differences between the way each of you dealt with me, and the issue? Even now, you just keep arguing and asserting your rightness, when I've already said I'm satisfied and now understand the issue. "Personal validation" and common courtesy are not the same thing. I don't require the first, but when the second is offered, things generally go better for everyone. --TEHodson 12:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── shall we chalk this down to a simple difference in styles of communication? As far as I can tell, the query has been resolved, there's no need to go over who said what and how ad infinitum. Now, off you go, build an encyclopedia ;) WormTT · (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for technical input about RfC

I'm looking for input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#"jurisdictional" gap? about how to correctly categorize an RfC I'd like to start.

Unfortunately the RfC talk page doesn't get a whole lot of traffic, so I was hoping to find knowledgeable editors here who could help me determine how best to proceed. -- (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems creating new article

Resolved: per User talk:Kudpung#Take a look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


I am unable to access Ben Ripley. Clicking on the red link doesn't allow editors to create a new article, but rather links to deleted versions. The editor/admin responsible for these deletions is User:PMDrive1061 but he no longer active and his talk page is disabled. I created the article (rough) in my userpage which can be found here. How might I get around this mess? Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have moved the draft in your userspace over the protected page myself (any admin can do this), but I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. If you have sources that provide significant coverage of Ripley instead of short mentions, please do add them. Note also that IMDB is not a reliable source, and movieslug doesn't appear to be either. When you clean up the article, you can ask any admin to move it on their talk page. --Danger (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Article is supported by three reliable sources. Author wrote Source Code. Easily meets minimum requirements for notability. I'm curious how the admin/editor made it impossible for editors to create a Ben Ripley article. I've never seen this before. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The title was protected after a vandalism page was created there several times. See WP:SALT for more details. --Danger (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
All right. Where do I petition an end to this protection? The admin responsible is no longer active. The guy wrote Source Code, a major hollywood picture. I don't understand the problem here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The original Ben Ripley article cannot be restored. It contained no useful information that could be used for an article on Ben Ripley the movie director/screenwriter. As Danger suggests, you can consider creating a new article in your user space at Wikifan12345/Ben Ripley (draft) (click the red link to start the page), and when you have fulfilled all the requirements for notability and truly reliable sources, you can ask Danger, me, or another admin to review your draft, unlock the page name, and move it to main space. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
One good thought experiment for notability is "What is possible to write about this subject that could be sourced to independent, reliable sources?" If the answer is is less than a couple of paragraphs, then the subject is probably not notable. Of course, there are many disagreements over what the minimum bar for notability is, so if you ask enough parents admins, you may find one who will say yes. Danger (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to allow this as a stub per the discussion on my talk page, but with the proviso that patrollers might still tag it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sarmatism - issue on discussion page relating to Sarmatism, (doesn't need expert)

Resolved: It was worked out on the talk page and hugs and baby bunnies abounded. (Get it. Abounded?) Danger (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, on the talk page for Sarmatism I am in a discussion with a couple of editors regarding an edit I made to the main article, this is all in the section 'I'm sorry, BUT...'. If another editor could give their opinion, preferably a native English speaker, that would be much appreciated. Just to give you a brief summary the original text was: "In its early, ideal form sarmatism looked like a good cultural movement: it supported religious belief, honesty, national pride, courage, equality and freedom. However as any doctrine that put some social class above others it became perverted in time. Late sarmatism transformed belief into intolerance and fanaticism (but compared to countries like Sweden, Germany, Russia, France, Spain, England and others freedom and tolerance were much more common), honesty into political naivety, pride into arrogance, courage into stubbornness, quality and freedom of szlachta into nihilism." which I changed to "It has been alleged that while sarmatism initially supported religious belief, national pride, equality and freedom, that over time this was perverted into a form of beliefs conducive to intolerance and fanaticism." and I detailed my reasoning on the talk page. Reichsfürst (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk page discussion seems to be making progress. However, you must all be very careful to phrase any edits for neutrality, as it appears you have don in your version above. Nevertheless, you must either find sources for 'it has been alledged', or leave the claim out of the article. See WP:WEASEL for more information. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Randy Altsculer

Resolved: Danger (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I'm new to wiki. I wanted to add some updates to the Randy Altschuler page but to make sure i didn't mess up I posted them on the discussion section.

please assist me by adding the relevant info and source links on the article page.

Long island bob (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you figured everything out. I'm going to leave a message on your talk page with some (hopefully) links with more information about Wikipedia. A lot of it you've probably seen, but I think it's nice to have them handy. Danger (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Franco-crosti boilered 9F BR locos

Resolved: Danger (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

BR Standard Class 9F 92020-9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Sir or Madam,

There is a contradiction concerning locomotives 92020-9 which were built orginally at Crewe Works with Franco-Crsoti boliers. These boilers were not successful and all these locos were rebuilt with conventional boilers but retaining the smaller pre-heat boiler but this was blanked off. On the page dealing with these 10 locos there is a photo of 92022 [taken in 1964]and the page comment is that although the special chimney (on the fireman's side - that is on the opposite side to the side shown in that photo)cannot be seen, there is steam coming from it. When that photo was taken 92022 had been converted to a normal loco two year EARLIER (see your notes) and the steam is actually coming from the safety valves of 92022; also one can see exhaust coming from the chimney at the from of the loco. Again your notes indicate that when 92020-9 were originally built, the place where a normal chimney was placed on a normal 9F locomotive in the case of 92020-9 it was ONLY used for lighting-up purposes. On the Franco-Crosti locomtovies this was shut off when the locos were ready for use.

If you check your notes on the articles dealing with Franco-Crosti boilered Standard 9Fs on British Railways some 45 years ago, you will find that there is this ocntradiction. However,your Wikipedia provides some very intersting insights into various subjects.

Thanking you,

Ken J. Mumford <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Mumford! I've redacted your email address; this is a highly visible site. Thank you for letting us know about this. Wikipedia, though, is the encyclopedia that you can edit, so I encourage you to be bold and fix the mistake yourself, making sure to cite reliable sources (like books or magazine articles). I will, however, leave a message on the talk page of WikiProject Trains so that someone with some interest in the topic can take a look. --Danger (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I have amended the relevant page. Please note that if you are unwilling to make the amendment yourself, the best place for noting errors and discrepancies is on the discussion page of the article concerned, i.e. in this case it would be at Talk:BR Standard Class 9F 92020-9. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of fair-use images from WDTN by user "Delta" User:Δ

Discussion moved: To Talk:WDTN. Danger (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a number of non-free fair-use images in this article. User "Delta" keeps removing these images for some vague "overuse" policy and warns blocking me for "mis-use of non-free images" and for edit-warring -- but aren't Delta's edits reverts themselves?? I also notice that Delta has been blocked (although later unblocked) for incivility in the past. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3 requires as little non-free content as possible be used, and that it pass specific standards for inclusion (see WP:NFCC#8) In this case it does not meet either requirement. ΔT The only constant 10:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've moved my responses to Talk:WDTN. Since this involves use of logo images in a television article, could an editor from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations please get involved? Thank you. --Chaswmsday (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The place to ask that would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll make a request there. --Chaswmsday (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

misplaced actors

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Under "Remo williams The adventure begins" movie, you have Anthony Hopkins and Angelica Huston as being in the movie. They were not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthaymer (talkcontribs) 19:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This was vandalism from last month. I have fixed it but you can edit articles yourself. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). PrimeHunter (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fatburger picture error

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The image for the state of Georgia and its flag is incorrect. It is showing the flag for the COUNTRY of Georgia and not the US State of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted! This is now fixed. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Main Page Vandalized

Resolved: Main page is again safe for human consumption. Danger (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just went to the main page and the link to "Machu Picchu" calls up an overlay to scat porn. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just looked and there's no Macchu Picchu related pornography... I'm not sure what the matter was but it looks fixed. In the future, if you see a problem with the main page, you can report it on Talk:Main Page, which has 100x as many watchers as this page, so it'll get fixed more quickly. --Danger (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Robina Suwol

Answered: on my tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia. Noted request for links, added them. There is commentary at the top of page that should be discussed and considered for removal. I tried to reach editors who added the comments, but have not connected. Thank you, CentralAbe (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Central Abe

Checking... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for addiing sources. References should confirm biographical information about the subject - a fleeting mention of what the subject may have said does not comply with policy for reliable sources. Notability should be asserted according to Biographies of living persons and WP:BIO (self-published sources are generally not acceptable. Please take a moment to check again against these policies the links you added, and meanwhile, I think the maintenance template should stay on the article for a little while longer. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested editorship

Answered: --Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been repeatedly engaged in bitter discussions over the content and tone of this article with another editor, and I would like very much to have a third-part editor who could act as referee in order to settle ongoing controversies about how the "established" article should look likeCerme (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Try requesting a third opinion or informal mediation if it's as much a personality dispute as a content matter. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
That article needs some serious help - the vast majority of it is enormously POV and makes very little sense. Reichsfürst (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird redirects, maybe a bug?

Answered: --Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

How come this shows Wikipedia:Dead external links/404/d as redirecting to Dealey Plaza? Normally, if I see a redirect that unbelievably stupid, I just STFU and fix it, but when I go to that page, it turns out it really redirects to Wikipedia:Link rot which is not unbelievably stupid. Is this some sort of bug? (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a bug that is what was decided her, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dead external links/300. GB fan (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw that, but why does it show up as an incoming link to Dealey Plaza? (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Well disregard what I said, I misunderstood your question, I don't know why that is like that. GB fan (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The page used to link to Dealey Plaza until this 26 May edit, so perhaps a background process isn't updating the "what links here" info fast enough. I've purged the redirect page - maybe that will fix it? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I done goofed... edit incorrectly marked as vandalism

Answered: --Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I was clicking the "undo" link when the Twinkle "vandal revert" button showed up right where undo was, resulting in this revert being marked as vandalism when it isn't. I don't want my mistake to reflect poorly on an editor... can the edit summary somehow be changed or removed? I didn't think this was nearly serious enough for WP:RFO. XXX antiuser eh? 00:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary can not be changed, but you can make a null edit and make a new edit summary. GB fan (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. I wasn't sure null edits were still kosher. XXX antiuser eh? 00:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I use the script Advisor.js when I need to make null edits. It suggests (generally) extremely minor formatting fixes, but at least the edit is mildly useful. --Danger (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I just added an extra space at the end of a sentence before a linebreak. :) XXX antiuser eh? 00:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

School Science and Mathematics Association (SSMA)

Answered: --Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I am President of SSMA.

In May, we produced an article on SSMA following the format for NCTM and NSTA.

For some reason, "editor" Jac16888 deleted the entry under SPEEDY DELETION. G11 Now, only the SSMA logo appears on the site.

Please consider reinstating the article.

Dr. Don S. BalkaP— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donbalka (talkcontribs) 12:59, 14 June 2011

I can't see the deleted article, so can't comment on it in detail. But the FAQ page for organisations may help you to understand the reasons for the deletion; and this other page may help you decide what to do next. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You should also read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Based on what you have said above you havea conflict of interes. GB fan (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
And also this page about "we" accounts. – ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Both of these points are covered in the FAQ page for organisations -- John of Reading (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The deleted article read like a blatant promotion for the organisation, including the huge logo. All the references were to primary sources. All regular editors may tag an article for deletion. The physical deletion may only be done by an administrator on review of the article tagged for speedy deletion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirection problem with NMIMS University article.

Answered: --Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

NMIMS University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a student of NMIMS University also known as Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies University. Intitially, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies was just a management institute (business school). However, now it is a deemed university and is officially known as NMIMS University.

Recently, the NMIMS University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article has been redirected to Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, which is incorrect. Ideally, it should have been exactly the opposite.

NMIMS University now has an engineering institute, a pharmaceutical college etc but the Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article only covers the old entity which was only a business school. The NMIMS University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article had all the relevant details which are now lost and I don't know how to regain them.

I request you to restore the NMIMS University page and redirect the Narsee Monjeee Institute of Management Studies page instead at the earliest OR provide the contents of NMIMS University page in Narsee Monjeee Institute of Management Studies page.

Refer to the official website of the University for details.

Salilpawar1 (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Salil Pawar (salilpawar1),

Salil Pawar Mumbai, India.

It appears to me that the name of the instition is actually Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, as evidenced by the institution's own website. It is not actually called NMIMS University so it appears that the page naming is right. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There was an internal problem with the article titles called a "double redirect" that might have been causing problems for you, but I've fixed it. I agree with Jez that the official title of the University seems to be "Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies", and thus the current name is appropriate. Even if people usually call it NMIMS University we would probably use the official name. Compare with University of California, Los Angeles, a school I've never heard referred to as anything but "UCLA". We still avoid the acronym.
Query to more savvy editors: Can anyone figure out why the software didn't pick up the double redirect? --Danger (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture removed

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I - author of the article, of which copied the picture. Article is open access. Nevertheless picture removed. What else is needed to confirm the rights? Thank.--Solikkh (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Computer for operations with functions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You would have to ask the copyright-holder to give up some or all of their rights in the pictures. They would have to send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation as described at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I can't see the deleted pictures, but, for example, if they were part of the first reference document then they would be covered by the copyright notice "(с) Б.Н. Малиновский, 1995" on the first page. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • But Im the author of these pictures! Whom ask permission?--Solikkh (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
If you created the images yourself (not just scans and crops but the original images) for the book that they're published in, then you can donate the images, basically by following the instructions at the link John gave you. In this case though, you are the copyright holder. So you'd need to follow the instructions in this section. --Danger (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

editor review process

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeking guidance on an editor review for the two articles listed below. I've posted a comment in the "talk" area after making edits to the first article in response to guideline concerns, but it appears that the user who originally flagged the article is no longer an active user. I do not see any comments entered since I made the edits in late May and invited feedback in response to criticism of the earlier version. I welcome feedback and input for the articles. Jeffbean 92128 (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Jeffbean92128 and

Hi. You can get an evaluation of an article at Wikipedia:Peer review. If you would like feedback on your own work as an editor, you can get it at Wikipedia:Editor review, but with only 7 edits to date, this would probably be meaningless. Please remember to sign you posts on talk pages by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~. You can also use the 'signature' button on the edit window tool bar. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Technically Peer Review is for articles nearing good or featured status, so the more appropriate forum is Requests for Feedback, but that appears to be defunct. Danger (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Iridology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Faridasharan (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)faridasharanFaridasharan (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Hello,

This page is factually inaccurate and written by someone who is seriously biased. I tried to correct inaccuracies on the page (I have been an Iridologist for more than 25 years and have studied with many of the pioneers of Iridology including Dr. Christopher, Dr. Jensen, Dorothy Hall, Farida Sharan, Denny Johnson and Willy Hauser) and 'joshua' one of your editors deleted seven hours of my work because my username faridasharan matched the name of Farida Sharan, a leading pioneer in Iridology and author of the primary textbook of Iridology. No Wikipedia page on Iridology could possibly be complete WITHOUT mentioning her for a great number of reasons. Joshua then went on to show extreme prejudice towards me and my efforts to correct the page, and ultimately stopped responding to my efforts to resolve the situation. Joshua knows nothing about Iridology and to automatically delete seven hours of work like that and refuse to engage in a meaningful legitimate conversation about it is abusive. I feel it is an abuse of power and profoundly unkind. I would like assistance in correcting the Iridology page which is currently being used as a form of abuse for an entire profession. It is factually inaccurate. Would you please help me with this matter. Thank you.

(talk) Faridasharan (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)(talk)Faridasharan (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A simple question. Are you Farida Sharan? If you are then you have a WP:COI in making any edits which promote your work, and if you aren't, your username may fall foul of Wikipedia:Username policy, in that it might be considered impersonation. It might be as well to clarify this now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Pseusosciences are a delicate subject and it is often not easy for contributing editors to remain objective both in support of, and in denial of the science. An editor with no subject knowledge is often best placed to evaluate an article for neutrality, accurate fact reporting, and for balance of well sourced research and opinion, and should assume good faith all round. Nevertheless, edit warring is not an acceptable solution and breaches of the strongly enforced WP:3rr rule rapidly meet with edit blocking of all involved parties who have overreached the limit of reverts. In my opinion, it appears to be a reasonable assumption that User:Faridasharan is indeed the iridologist Farida Sharan, and author of the cited work. In this case, although the work may be a relevant source to be cited as a reference , there is a clear conflict of interest - please see the Wikipedia sub section on 'self-cite' policy. If talk page discussion cannot resolve the issue, in order to avoid continued disruptive editing the matter should perhaps be taken by either party for community discussion and clarification at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello AndyTheGrump - No I'm not Farida Sharan. I don't like to put my real name on something like this, much like yourself. If I need to change my name let me know. As for Iridology being a pseudoscience, just because someone comes online, who is not an Iridologist, and cites two studies, one with three Iridologists participating and one with five Iridologists participating in a study that seeks to find out if Iridologists can diagnose disease, when no trained Iridologist would ever say that is what Iridology tries to do in the first place, doesn't not mean that person is a qualified person to have that opinion. Iridology has been labeled as a profession to be 'pseudoscience' by someone not qualified to label it and who is making statements that are factually incorrect and whose clear goal in coming online and discussing Iridology is to discredit it. Can you see, by reading the article, any other reason for what is posted there? Do you see any information there that is of value regarding the work itself, or its history, that isn't biased towards discrediting the profession? What you have here is a page that abuses an entire profession with dramatic statements NOT backed up by facts, and wikipedia is fighting to keep this page. I don't understand the hostility of the editor Joshua. It was absurb how rude and unwilling to talk normally he was. Why? This is my first foray into Wikipedia and I am honestly appalled at how I have been treated. The Iridology page is abusive. It shouldn't be up like that. So what next. It is morally wrong to allow that page to stay as it is. Something has to be done about it. Faridasharan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

Hello AndyTheGrump - one last thing - I read your conflict of interest page - this is my point. The person who wrote that page has a personal axe to grind. The wikipedia page that is there IS personal interest personified. The author has a personal anti-Iridology agenda and it is not acceptable and not based on facts. At the very least the page should say what Iridology is. Currently it doesn't. It is describing what the author wanted you to think about it. No trained Iridologist would agree with even the basics of that presentation - as evidenced by the fact the the author attempts to discredit Iridology by says it fails to succeed in an area that Iridology does not claim to succeed. This is wrong and you are supporting someone who is abusing Wikipedia for personal interest by keeping that page up. You may wonder who would have personal interest in discrediting Iridology - in the field of natural medicine this is common. There are companies that PAY people to do this. Please help Faridasharan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

This username has been blocked as an admitted impersonation of a living person. WP:BOOMERANG strikes again. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging by comments by the foregoing user on this Talk page, the account User:MiloStevens/Farida_Sharan would appear to be the same person (with largely the same username problem). JohnInDC (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright issues too - compare the User page to . I am reluctant to blank another user's page without giving them a chance to do it first, and left a note on the user's Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought policy and practice was to delete copyvios on sight? I have tagged User:MiloStevens/Farida_Sharan for G12 speedy accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I misread the advice on editing other user's pages. JohnInDC (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article at User:MiloStevens/Farida_Sharan was written by the same person. She admitted it here. Both user accounts were just used to promote Farida Sharan and I tried to explain that to her but she decided to spend two hours leaving heated messages on my talk page and then opened this thing here. And for the record I didn't just stop responding to her. A dude has to eat and sleep occasionally. I wasn't even on here. PTJoshua (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

She claims that her real name is Bonny White. I think the 'my own work' she is referring to is the work on the Wipedia. Nevertheless, there does appear to be COI, COPYVIO, and most definitely the sockpuppetry and possible impersonation has now been resolved by both accounts having been blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about Succession Boxes

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am having a dispute with an editor and would like to have a third party editor look into it if possible please. I keep having a Succession Box deleted from Kristine W's "Fade", even though it states there is no consensus on the use of these boxes here. I would like it reinstated as it does lend itself to the article without having to undo it and have my account revoked for doing this. It is used as a navigation resource for these songs hitting #1 on the US Billboard Charts. If it would be preferred to only use one, the one being deleted would be the best choice in this case! Thank you! IndyLogan (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The place to begin to resolve this dispute is at Talk:Fade (Kristine W song). The talk page has never been used yet, I suggest you mention your concern there. You may consider putting a talkback notice on the talk pages of the concerned editor(s), linking to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!!! IndyLogan (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeated addition of poorly sourced and potentially libelous content

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Southwestern Company‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User: and User: have three times added the same paragraph accusing the subject company of various criminal activites.[2] It is sourced to an "exposé" of the company published by "local online news site" The first of their series of four articles starts out "The group operates a web of companies and employs hundreds of independent contractors who are used to disguise their criminal activities."[3] I reverted the first addition here with edit summary "an accusation is not a fact; source appears non-neutral and not a reliable one by Wikipedia standards". The second time I reverted with edit summary "see talk page" and posted Talk:Southwestern Company#Accusations of criminal behavior.

The salem-news articles about Southwestern are an opinionated hatchet job that should not be cited in Wikipedia. A quick cruise through the rest of the site will show that they are far from a neutral source on many other subjects.

The IPs show no sign of giving up, so I'm requesting some administrator involvement. --CliffC (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now reverted them again and directed them to the article talk page. They responded with
"Please point me to the written policy of Wikipedia against writing that someone or some organization has accused some other person or organization of a crime or "criminal" activity. If that policy exists, then I agree, this section should be edited to comply with it."[4]
I am certain that we do not allow such accusations, especially based on such a biased source, but can someone please provide me the Wikipedia chapter and verse that says so? Thanks, CliffC (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:RS, mostly, if you make a solid case against the reliability of the source in question. I'd also add WP:UNDUE, if it's coming to dominate the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
And to complement WP:RS, please see also: WP:V. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Prostitution in South Korea

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Prostitution_in_South_Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Most of Chinese prostitutes are legally staying in Korea by getting greencards by marrying Koreans, or visas for study, travel, work. About 20,000 Chinese women marry Koreans every year and a quarter of them disguise their marriages.[4] Most of these women are engaged in the prostitution businesses in Korea.[5][6]"

None of the sources claimed that most of the Chinese women legally resident in South Korea engage in the sex industry. The three reference pages were talking about fake marriage, questionable college graduate certificate, and Massage industry with no apparent focus on Chinese women. If you do not read Korean, you can try a machine translation.

I therefore deleted part of the text which I believe to be false or misleading.

I left my reason when doing the editing and I have already participated in the discussion page. However, another member just undid my deletion without any comments.

I would agree to restore it only if the editor provides solid statistical data or reports from reliable resources.

I do not think that generalizations without statistical backup should be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruemignon (talkcontribs)

First, thank you for bringing this here and not edit warring. In the future, a good place to discuss controversies like these is on the article's talk page. I looked at the section that you talked about and I think that you are correct. I've left a note on the article's talk page about it.
Nothing to do with Wikipedia, but does phrase for false or fraudulent marriage in Korean involve stomachs or guts or something like that? The machine translator seemed to trip over an idiom that made one of those articles unintentionally hilarious. Danger (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see that you did leave messages on the talk page. It's possible that the other editor didn't see those and didn't realize that you were trying to use the talk page. When starting a new topic on a talk page you should put the message at the bottom. I know that there was a section about Chinese prostitutes already on the page, but since it was so old (from 2008), the discussion was stale, and starting a new section would draw attention to it. Does that make sense? Danger (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So-called "edit warring"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

On the Alan Dershowitz page, three users have tried to hide a section (concerning the historical event, the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair), in a list of Views: Gamaliel in his Revision as of 06:27, 17 June, Brewcrewer in his Revision as of 05:43, 17 June and SlimVirgin in his Revision as of 20:18, 27 May.

When I asked them why and reinstated the common-sense improvement of separating the historical event from the list of Views, I was accused of "edit warring". Please will you confirm that an historical event such as the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair should not be hidden among a list of "Views"? (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment left on IP's talkpage.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Change wrong information within the overall view of topic for America's Next Top Model

Answered: . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


America's Next Top Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My problem with the introductory section is this...the section that states, "The opening theme was performed by Tyra Banks and is produced by Rodney "Darkchild" Jerkins.

This statement is false and untrue. As it states on the sideline facts of the show, The theme was composed by Les Pierce and David Thomas. However, the theme was also produced by Les Pierce for each and every year.

I would like page edited to reflect this and have Rodney "Darkchild" Jerkins removed from this section, as he played no part in the composing or production of the theme to America's Next Top Model.

The correct sentence should read...The opening theme was performed by Tyra Banks and is prodcued by Les Pierce, composed by Les Pierce and David Thomas.

Verifying music supervisor for the show is Matt Kierscht.

Lornaleep (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please either discuss this on the article talk page, or be bold and make the corrections yourself - duly reliably sourced of course. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the DodoBot

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Something called the DodoBot is running around tagging all the Transformers related articles as being part of the Animation wikiproject, even if they article has nothing to do with animation. I don't know what to do with a bot, but many of the articles it's tagging are not appropriate, like article about fictional characters who only appeared in comic books. Mathewignash (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Contact the owner of User:DodoBot, User talk:EdoDodo, to report the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Right after I commented, DodoBot improperly classified a Talk page that I watch, so I've reported the problem to EdoDodo myself (and mentioned your report here on EAR). Don't know if admin action is required to stop the bot. Maybe Edo will react quickly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
From what I can tell DodoBot is editing over a hundred talk pages an hour by adding Wikiproject animation to them. It has a stop button, but you have to be an Admin to push it. Mathewignash (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The request was made at user:Xenobot/R#WP:ANIMATION; the bot is tagging based on this category list. –xenotalk 23:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. And my guess is the category list includes subcategories. Based on all this, I'm going to put the bot's change back into the Kunis Talk page (article I am watching).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I see that the categories "277.Category:Transformers (franchise), Transformers series, Transformers characters and Transformers stubs" is there, but not all Transformers appeared in animation, some are solely toys or comic book characters. No reason to tag a comic book character or a page about a comic book as part of the "animation" project. Mathewignash (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're probably right. Suggest leaving a message at the bot request section linked above and/or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation. The project members can decide how to tackle the detagging of the out-of-scope pages (whether manually or bot-assisted).. –xenotalk 02:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like the category list the project gave me was a bit too broad in scope and so the bot tagged some pages that it probably shouldn't have. I'll ask the project how they would like the detagging to take place (I can either have the bot detag all of the Transformers-related articles for them and then they can manually re-tag the ones that are related to animation, or they can manually de-tag the ones that aren't related to animation). Apologies for not responding faster, the bot was running automatically. - EdoDodo talk 08:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked on the project's talk page and Jj98 said he'd take care of removing the unrelated tags. - EdoDodo talk 10:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Friendship NGO

Answered: . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


```` Dear Editor, I am working in a Non-Government Organization named Friendship( in Bangladesh. Our organization is willing to have an article of their own in Wikipedia. As an MIS Officer I tried to publish an article on Wikipedia but the automated filter deleted it time to time. That's why I need your assistance to have an article of Friendship in Wikipedia.

Rehards Md. Ishfak Azam Chowdhury MIS Officer Friebndship <contact details redacted> Web: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efh2008 (talkcontribs) 10:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. your article was deleted (twice) for the following reasons:
1. because it does nothing but promote some entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. See WP:CSD#G11.
2. as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. See WP:CSD#G4.
If your organisation can meet our criteria at WP:ORG, and notability can be proven by citing reliable sources, you may recreate the article in your user space, without all the advertising slogans, and when it has been reviewed by an administrator it may be possible to move it back to article space. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot publish my entry because it says....

Resolved: User blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


I cannot publish my entry because it says that I am using "duplicated text", but when I ask what it is, it includes the name of the school that I attended, the city where i live, etc. The name New York City can't be used? I don't know what to do... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauradaydesign (talkcontribs) 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

When you created the page in the first place, it included that warning - I am assuming that you just copied the code over from the prior, now deleted page Laura Day (Interior Designer), which in its earlier iteration did include text copied directly from TLC. You can remove the template yourself from the top of the page - it's the text surrounded by curly brackets ("{}") that's right there first thing. Fixing that will still leave you with a couple of issues that you need to consider, however. First is that if you are Laura Day (as your user name suggests) then you have a conflict of interest and need to take great care in editing the page about yourself. Second, before you offer up the page as an article in Wikipedia, you should ensure that the subject of the article, i.e., you, meets the general Wikipedia notability requirements, as established by independent and reliable third party sources. It can be tricky business, writing articles about yourself. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes; and perhaps more importantly, once the article goes live, you lose control over it. Check out Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of for some possible pitfalls! JohnInDC (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
User has been indef blocked as a publicity / promotional account. JohnInDC (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help with article move

Resolved: Danger (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to move Knee-capping to Kneecapping to correct the spelling (it is unhyphenated: see Oxford English Dictionary as well as but I am blocked because the latter article already exists as a redirect. Can someone perform the move for me, please? — O'Dea (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. In the future, the proper place to request page moves is here, but it's no big deal, just something to keep in mind. --Danger (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Danger. I have been editing Wikipedia for years and finding the help I sometimes need seems to become a more laborious search as time goes by; there is so much of it; so much to read. I took a shortcut by asking for help, and thank you for it. — O'Dea (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)