Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 112

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


Change Title of Page

Resolved: Danger High voltage! 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Go pano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello. I created the "Go pano" page but the title should be "Go Pano" . Can I or you change the Title so the word pano is a capital P?

Thank you, Christian J Murray<email redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian J Murray (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2012‎

Hi - as this stub has no indication of how the company may meet our notability guidelines for companies, I have tagged it for deletion. As you placed your request here while you were logged out, you may wish to follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to have details of your IP and email removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about BWI on user talk page

Resolved: Danger High voltage! 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see the comments posted by Cali4529 on User talk:Folklore1#BWI. I'm not sure how to respond and think it might be better to leave the response to a third party. Folklore1 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left a response of a kind.. Яehevkor 22:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
(uninvolved) I know of no rule on Wikipedia that if a user edits a page too much they should be stopped. FWIW, and just as an example, there is a page I have edited over 500 times. I've askedCali4529 let me know where that rule is.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

MoS question

Answered: Danger High voltage! 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I've searched the MoS and can't seem to find guidance on this. Is it appropriate on Wikipedia to use the term "Senator Smith" or "Congressman Jones"? I thought we generally do not use titles like that with the name but I cannot find where it states this. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Try MOS:HONORIFICS and the "Subsequent use" section just below that. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of Climate of Northern Ireland article without consensus

Resolved: Being discussed on talk. Danger High voltage! 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that the above page is being vandalised to redirect to Climate of Ireland. I can also see evidence of sock puppets being used but I will report that separately. There were clear objections in the talk page to this proposal, however, an editor proceeded to delete the article's contents and redirect.

I repeatedly tried to revert to the original article but offensive comments were made such as "Northern Ireland is too tiny to have a climate" and "the climate doesn't change as you cross the border" and repeatedly stating "there is no consensus" for a Climate of Northern Ireland page, which is untrue because Northern Ireland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom and is served by the UK Met Office along with Scotland, Wales and England.

If you see the discussion of the original page, there was no 'consensus' to delete the page and redirect instead. There were clear objections by several users that they did not want the page to be redirected or merged with the Ireland page. The other users set out their reasoning for the page not to be merged very clearly.

There is a second page, "Climate of northern ireland" (lower case), and that was set to redirect to Climate of Ireland yet there is no discussion on the talk page for doing that.

How can I flag that the page is disputed if the page forwards readers to another page?

I tried to compromise by providing an 'about' template with a link to the Climate of Ireland page from the Climate of Northern Ireland page, but this was deleted and redirect put in place.

Please advise on how to deal with this problem, especially regarding the redirection aspect. Seamus48 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you discussed this on any of the relevant article talk pages? – ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
(Talk page message posted) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of forum shopping going on here in direct avoidance of any attempt to engage with other editors on the redirect talk page Fmph (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo request

Answered: Danger High voltage! 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please create a listing with photos of a 1985 Yale Law Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree, in Latin, as they are issued -- and also provide the translation in English? A clear photo of any one random such degree (in Latin) would suffice. Then, perhaps, a Latin scholar could provide a proper translation into English. Thank you! WP:SIG -- DDD — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebDupire (talkcontribs) 17:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The best place to make this suggestion would probably be at the Wikipedia:Requested articles noticeboard (do follow the instructions carefully). However, you could certainly also mention it on the talk page of the Wikipedia Law project, with a link to your article request. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding context

Discussion moved: Discussion continues at talk page. Danger High voltage! 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello I made a small number of edits to the pages of an organisation, Atheist Ireland, and the page of it's chairman, Michael Nugent, and the edits have been undone a number of times by one of his followers. I've been careful to follow Wiki guidelines. The edit was reported to user Youreallycan by one of his members. Assuming I followed the correct procedure I have had no reply from user Youreallycan. What I've done is add the economic back round pertaining to writers in Ireland and secondly the economic implications of marital status relating to the death of a spouse/partner in Ireland. I'm not disputing the fact that I am personally involved since that's where my detailed knowledge stems from. However as I said I've been as careful as I can to make edits neutral as I understand the guidelines.

Thanks Frank Fexro (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

First, please do not add your signature to edits that you make to articles. Second, your edit to Michael Nugent was unreferenced, and, frankly, I did not understand its importance - he wrote some stuff and benefited from a tax exemption. Is that notable? – ukexpat (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
With respect to Atheist Ireland, you appear to have some personal involvement. In view of that, please discuss the changes and gain consensus on the article's talk page before adding to the article. – ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Same goes for my interpretation of the situation. Topic ban is in order for Fexro from these two articles. Youreallycan (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You are now edit warring - please stop. Use the articles' talk pages to discuss. If you continue to edit war, there may be consequences. – ukexpat (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the place for preaching--Non-neutral material in "Glossolalia" article

Answered: Sometimes I wonder why we even bother with the edit notice. Danger High voltage! 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm very new to editing Wikipedia articles, and don't know how to deal with this particular situation. I noticed in the article "Glossolalia", in sections on Christian glossolalia, that there are highly ambiguous Biblical quotations given specific interpretation as though the only correct possibility. It's really just preaching a particular interpretation, and not neutral.

It's also not neutral in that it's saying that there were various "miracles", rather than just stating that this is what some Christians believe.

How should I report this? I've noticed that some articles have a note saying that the neutrality of its content is disputed. I don't want to get caught up in a dispute with evangelical Christians, I just wanted to report it to somebody from Wikipedia who knows more than I do, to take a look at it.

Thank you.

Deluno (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the place to raise this issue. – ukexpat (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Urine Therapy

Answered: Danger High voltage! 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, there is an issue in the page Urine Therapy. Can somebody please help since there's a dispute between me and another user on the section Islam? Thanks. Inai09 (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion that is underway at Talk:Urine therapy.Bear in mind that any possibly contentious content must be well referenced with reliable sources. If after a while there is no satisfactory conclusion, consider asking at the WP:3O noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

External links in Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2014

Answered: Danger High voltage! 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to put up links to external sites (blogs) for this entry, and they have been removed three times - hadn't realised I wasn't supposed to revert them, so sorry for that. The edits were taken down because:

   Item 11 at WP:ELNO:
   "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:
   11.Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.) ..."
   - David Biddulph (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 

However, my feeling is that this article needs at least some reference to the opposition to the Games. These two blog sites represent the bulk of information about opposition to the Games and the reasoning for opposing the Games. As Item 11 states "one should genearlly avoid" I don't take this as an absolute (i.e, it does not say "one should always avoid").

The page is here: [1] The links removed are: Don't Back the Bid! and Games Monitor 2014

thanks Lazenbee (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If they violate WP:ELNO you will ideally need consensus on the talk page to include them, you should initiate discussion there and state your case. However, Blogspot and Wordpress sites are self published and rarely acceptable. Яehevkor 15:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it'll be more helpful for the readers if some text is actually written about the opposition to the games. Currently there isn't any information about opposition on either 2014 Commonwealth Games or Glasgow bid for the 2014 Commonwealth Games, so some related information may be helpful. Of course, care should be taken when using self-published sources; but in general the inclusion standard as a cited source is more lenient compared to being used as an external link. --Deryck C. 17:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Catullus 73

Answered: Danger High voltage! 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I recently submitted a translation of Catullus 73, a poem whose translation is not in the Wikipedia or Wikisource library. My submission was declined due to a lack of sources. However, the only possible sources would be the actual poem and a dictionary. Is there anything I can do to submit this post successfully?


Pjtdewire (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC) pjtdewire

Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for original translations of literary works. Wikisource may be appropriate, see this page. – ukexpat (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Found art, which artists can be listed?

Answered: Danger High voltage! 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Found art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Question: I added a link to Marina DeBris, as a found art artist, on 15:50, 31 December 2011, and it looks like a short time later Modernist removed the link. I am not clear on the rules of which artists can be added and which can not, so I posted a question on the discussion page for Found art, but got no response. I went to Modernist's page but couldn't seem to add a question as that page seems semi protected. So my question is, what are the rules on which artists can be added to Found art, and which ones cannot? Is there any particular reason I cannot add Marina DeBris to the list of found artists? Thanks Socialresearch (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unusually, that user's talk page is indefinitely semi-protected, I have notified them of your message here. Яehevkor 01:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I responded on Socialresearch's talk page. This is what the article looked like at the time it was removed from Found art - [2]..Modernist (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, Modernist. Яehevkor 02:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


Answered: Danger High voltage! 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have an issue with bias in the image: File:ARRA_Unemployment_Rate_Graph_2011-05.jpg

The issue is that it has repetitively been used on right wing biased sites to imply that the ARRA has actually made the economy worse. This is due to the lack of a line of what the unemployment would have been without the ARRA being enacted. This is furthering the right wing bias.

The file it was taken from has the exact note in it's footnote:

"Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

This means that the chart was never intended to be accurate, like the author implies.

I would like this either corrected as I had noted with the high end estimate of 11% unemployment as peak, or be removed.

The third option is to only leave the overlay.

Unfortunately I do not know how to plot an accurate curve of the maximum potential unemployment, or where to find other reports that have higher estimates. Additionally, being strongly progressive in political bias, I do not feel I could do such work without bias, and thus I abstain myself from more than reporting the obvious bias, otherwise I would do so myself.

Thank you very much --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that you've brought this up on the image and article talk pages, which are the best places to do this. If there's no response in a few days, you might consider posting a short note on the WikiProject Economics or WikiProject United States Public Policy that links to your post on the talk page to get the opinions of more expert editors than you might find here. Danger High voltage! 16:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistake on article Conor McCormack footballer

Resolved: Danger High voltage! 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey it is me Conor McCormack it says I am born in Dundalk when I was born in newry northern Ireland changing this and updating my artical to date would be very helpfull thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks for letting us know. However, as there is no proof that you are who you say you are, I've left a cn tag on it. The references didn't confirm the previous place of birth either. Feel free to make any other changes yourself, but do check our requirement for reliable sources first, and take a look at WP:COI to be sure that it's neutral. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

National Anthem Audio

Answered: Danger High voltage! 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The user: Canterbury Tail and I are debating National Anthem additions to a few articles:

  • National Anthem of England
  • Royal Anthem of Jamaica
  • Royal Anthem of Canada
  • Royal Anthem of The Bahamas

I believe the addition of the audio track of these are important, as similarly displayed on the United States article page. However, my additions of these tracks are being purged by Canterbury Tail. We've both discussed the matter on each other's talk pages and cannot agree. We would like some mediation as to whether or not they should be added/posted.

Twillisjr (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You may also find that member countries of the Commonwealth of Nations, the Commonwealth realm, British Overseas Territories, and Crown Dependencies that have the Queen as their sovereign or head of state, use God Save the Queen (see list of countries), as their national anthem. See also: National anthem of England. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, having reviewed the discussion, there is very little use in an encyclopedia for 'jazzed up' versions of a national anthem or poor quality sound files. Please see: Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files#Audio. Continue your discussions, do keep them civil, and consider requesting a WP:3O if you are unable to reach a compromise. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Answered: Danger High voltage! 20:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am an avid reader of Wikipedia. I just took out a user name. Clicking a bit, I got here. Please look at Youvan's biography. Nasty comments all over, and 3 ebooks removed in the past 2 weeks. What is this? I actually use the Pseudocolor book to teach. Is Youvan being censored over his Christian ebook? Reader135711 (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What 'nasty comments'? And no, Wikipedia doesn't censor people over 'Christian ebooks', though we do apply the same standard to them as any other - a biography is supposed to contain encyclopaedic content, not an advertisement for everything the subject has ever produced. Sadly, the subject of the article himself seems reluctant to accept this, as the article history indicates... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been blocked.

Stale: This is the user's only edit to Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been blocked, but I do not know why. I found this out when I went to my own Wikipedia page and wished to correct some misinformation I found there. Connie Crothers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constancerhea (talkcontribs) 03:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither User:Constancerhea nor User:Connie Crothers has ever been blocked. Which username or IP address do you think has been blocked, and why do you think so? PrimeHunter (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is article not noteworthy?

Answered: Danger High voltage! 07:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Captain Alan Leach RAF PO 185864 (Pilot)

I have recently submitted the above article and was advised to show it was noteworthy. Can I ask why another person noted in the article was seen as being noteworthy? What is the difference, I cannot see why this person should be any more noteworthy to the one in my submission? Please see -

If my editing is incorrect can you please advise.

Thanks and regards, Alan77.107.176.108 (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding on editor's talk-page. Haploidavey (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sec redirect error

Resolved: Fixed. Danger High voltage! 07:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

When you type in SEC and then click the link that should direct you the wiki page for the South Eastern Conference it directs you to the Securities and Exchange Commission instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Green tickY Fixed by Danger High voltage! 07:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Automatic Spam Removal

Resolved: . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I just stumbled over an edit in an article that red like this:

will be performing at a number of music festivals over the 2011/2012 [[New Years]] period, including [[Field_Day_(Sydney_festival)|Field Day]] in [[Sydney]]<ref></ref>.

For me this is an advertisement which should not be in an article. A side question. Is there a way to automatically find who inserted some text into an article? Because it took me some time to track down this specific edit.
Anyhow, I found the edit in the history and checked for other edits of the IP and they all look basically the same. Is there a way to automatically revert these edits or does it require handwork? TFTD (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Obviously someone spamming for the New Year Festival. There are only 15 of those edits, it's just a quick to revert them manually. How about if you do half and I do half? I'll start now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: all done, and some of the n on notable bands/performers PRODed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is an easier way to find out who inserted text into an article. At the top centre of the "View history" tab is a link called "Revision history search". -- John of Reading (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Louis Stevenson page looks like it has been hacked?

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, could someone please check the entry for Robert Louis Stevenson page? The section on his childhood does not look correct.


"Lewis Balfour and his daughter both had to "say it witcha chest!" and often needed to stay in the ghetto for better health. Stevenson inherited a disease called AIDS and developed an unhealthy attachment to horses"

"Stevenson's parents were both males. Homosexuals," — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It did look like that briefly, before it was reverted by one of our "bots" [3], if you try clearing your cache it should be correct--Jac16888 Talk 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec)The ariticle was vandalised yesterday. The text in question was reverted by a bot a matter of second after it was entered, see the [

title=Robert_Louis_Stevenson&action=historysubmit&diff=470461979&oldid=470461961 change log]. If you are still seeing the old version of the page you may need to bypass your cache. Яehevkor 20:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Herostratus conspires, in an open post, to alone completely redact the work of the current editors (as we complete our work?) He's a former administrator who knows the Wikipedia system.

Answered: User:Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I see a name here, but in fact I have received no answer from Jezhotwells. The answer below was written by the editor with whom I having a dispute. I have received no help, and would appreciate some attention to this problem. Radvo (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem edit containing a conspiracy to redact an article unilaterally.

Template:Http:// talk:WLU WLU's TALK page}}

I will post a page like this to the Rind et al. Talk page later today.

I am working with TruthinWriting, Legitimus and a few occasional other editors for the past 5 weeks to improve Rind et al. controversy. Herostratus and WLU are occasionally disruptive to the work, and have no interest in building consensus. They abuse their status as experienced editors (who know little about this subject) to ignore consensus.

The problem today is Herostratus, a former administrator. Herostratus is also a maybe still involved with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch

Copied from this post above, Herostratus wrote that he felt the Rind et al.Controvery article:

"was basically ok before, and I'm going to restore it to it's pre-Radvo/Truthinwriting state and just insist on that". Not the best thing, he continues,..but preferable.

Herostratus supports the current bias, but he does not want to work with the group of editors, but abuse his position to impose his views on the study when he show up briefly from time to time. I see this conspiracy as part of his overall attitude toward his participation in our work..

Here is a larger quote from Herostratus' edit:

This [Rind]article has been vexing lately. Thank you tons for engaging on it. I think that Flyer22 has (understandably) stated "I'm outta here", and Legitimus is busy, and I'm busy, and I don't have the expertise to do much (not sure about Flyer22 and Legitimus but maybe them too). Before you came along (thank you again!) I was starting to feel inclined, looking at the totality of the situation, to just be like "You know what? It was basically OK before, and I'm going to restore it to it's pre-Radvo/Truthinwriting state and just insist on that" or something. Obviously not the best thing but possibly preferable I guess. Anyway, if you too end up throwing up your hands or if you wish any other assistance let me know. Herostratus (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Herostratus and WLU have a history of redactions and IMHO destructive edits in the past 5 weeks. The conspiracy fits their current behavior.

The main concern is what may happen in the future. Herostratus does not contribute constructively to the work of the editors, but shows up occasionally to destroy the contributions of the few active editors.

The most constructive contributor is Truthinwriting, who claims to be a professor, who teaches statistics and research methods. My opinion of TRuthinwriting's edits is very high. Contact him for confirmation of my story. He does not know about the conspiracy yet.

I would prefer that Herostratus be banned from editing at this particular site because of the conspiracy and because of general abuse of position. Radvo (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like what you want is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As that page points out, various venues available (in a more or less escalating direction) are the talk page of the user with whom you are in dispute, the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, Wikipedia:Mediation Committee or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, then moving up to RFC/U and the ArbCom if necessary. Not all these steps are appropriate in all cases. There are also some noticeboards such as the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard which may be appropriate, and sometimes Wikipedia:Requests for comment are helpful (but that is for purely-content disputes). It's necessary to inform the editor with whom you are in dispute when you take any of these steps, so that he can participate. All this is detailed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance with non-registered user

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The user, who I believe isn't registered, has at the article ( continually reinserted the external link ( for the last six months while also calling me a many derogatory names. During this period, he has made enough flaming comments to fill up a typed page(Just view some of his contributions at It is impossible to have a discussion with this maniacal individual. My request is for this external link to stay deleted.TL36 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

While I understand that this situation is frustrating, characterizing the IP as "maniacal" is not helpful. I've left a warning on the editor's talk page, which hopefully will have some effect, but it's possible that they have moved on to a new IP address or quit editing. If the link is re-added, I suggest that you discuss the issue on the talk page; hopefully everyone will come to some reasonable consensus this time. If not, you might ask at the external links noticeboard. After a quick glance at the website, it does not seem to me to meet the inclusion guidelines for external links. Danger High voltage! 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Concerning the Arthur Leigh Allen article, I fail to see the warning you put on the editor's talk page. Meanwhile, the user has once again restored the link that I've been trying to have eliminated. Since you mentioned that the website may not meet the inclusion guidelines for external links, I'll be contacting them.TL36 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "Socialism", "Economic calulation problem" and "Non-market socialism"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia entry on 'Socialism' suggests that Pat Devive has developed a non-market socialist model. He hasn't. He explicitly writes, in his article 'Participatory planning through negotiated coordination' (Science & Society 2002 — link from wikipedia entry on Devine) that 'The model outlined below retains market exchange but replaces market forces by negotiated coordination.' Again in the entry "Economic calculation problem", a reference conflates socialist planning with non-market socialism: "without the information provided by market prices socialism lacks a method to rationally allocate resources. Those who agree with this criticism argue it is a refutation of non-market socialism and that it shows that a socialist planned economy could never work." Non-market socialists advocate a market-free, state-free, class-free and money-free world. There is no wikipedia entry on non-market socialism, on which there are two main print sources, both edited collections, one by Rubel and Crump (1987, Non-market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries) and the other by Nelson and Timmerman (2011, Life Without Money: Building fair and Sustainable Economies). Since I am one of the co-editors of the latter, I thought it better if someone else do an entry on non-market socialism and then delete or alter the wording in the other entries accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitranelson (talkcontribs) 07:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please make any suggestions on the talk page of the related article(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How to cite information when the source is the subject himself.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My colleague Gordon Waterman Chaplin is concerned about the "citation needed" flags on his biographical page (not written by himself or me) and has asked me to look into it. Having read the pages of advice on this issue, I remain uncertain enough to post here for assistance. In particular, the items flagged on his page may not have a specific public record associated with them, but neither are they contentious or likely to be challenged.

For the first, most basic biographical section, for information such as his birthplace and school attended, I understand the source is Mr. Chaplin himself. What citation is preferred for this kind of basic information on notable persons who have not been the subject of biographies?

The next two "citation needed" flags concern a business matter (an unproduced screenplay) and work done for an NGO. Again, it is unlikely that these arrangements are matters of public record, but neither are they secret, likely to be challenged, or untrue.

Any advice on navigating this issue is much appreciated. Could an interview be conducted with Mr. Chaplin to create a source, though that seems a bit of the tail wagging the dog? I am loath to delete the flags merely on the basis of my incomplete understanding of the rules, which as far as I can tell hinge on potential challenge to claims made. Firstmilast (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:RS for guidance as to what constitute reliable sources. Generally speaking, we need secondary sources, the subject himself would be a primary source and incapable of being verified. Also note that "citation needed" tags are nothing to be overly concerned about - they are not impugning the character of the subject or implying that something is untrue, they are just an indication to the reader that the information may be incorrect and inviting them to look for and cite reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Turkish carpet Entry and Carpet Entry: Persistent reverting, deletion, disruption and harassment by user Ronz. Please Help!

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


Please help me get this persistent user Ronz off my back. He is extremely disruptive with mundane and sometimes unfounded edits, deletions and reversions. I am attempting in good faith to contribute to Wikipedia and have amassed a very large quantity of time and effort in doing so.

Please speak with this disruptive user.

I cannot continue to contribute if this is what I can expect.

Thank you. cl Cllane4 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • This is an example of Cllane4's so-called good-faith editing. I have left a warning on his talk page about personal attacks. freshacconci talktalk 04:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    • What Freshacconci said. Ridiculous accusation, and now forum shopping as well (they tried protection already). One more misstep from this editor and they will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, Cllane4 should read WP:BOOMERANG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
What's funny is, no one who should ever does. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
He can spend the next 24 hours considering the humor in that. DMacks (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest with the contributors for the Article called Oasis

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am the author of two articles which have Oasis in the article title.

OASIS (Open Artwork System Interchange Standard) OASIS.MASK

About two years ago, I created my first article and then added a link for the article to the Oasis disambiguation page. This year, I created a second article and added the second link to the new article on the Oasis disambiguation page.

When I type in the term oasis only, Wikipedia refers me to an article called Oasis. In small type on that page and following a promotional link to the musical band Oasis is the link to the Oasis disambiguation page. Most people I know who do searches would not think to look for a disambiguation link buried in an unrelated article.

So, after two years, I felt I had the experience to have the term 'Oasis' lead to the disambiguation page first so that all usages had a fair chance to be found. I edited the Oasis disambiguation page so that all articles that had been included before were still there. I changed the title of the original Oasis article to Oasis (Geography) and created the appropriate links. Simple enough. At the time I could not have possibly imagined why anyone would object to this. The next day, everything had been changed back to the way it was with little or no explanation.

I undid the changes and again stated my reasons for the changes. They ignored what my rationale and undid the changes. This has happened four or more times. Now, one of the articles has a name (my fault) that is incorrect and the name cannot be modified to what it should be. Furthermore, one of the contributors insists on defining what term oasis on the disambiguation page which seems misplaced.

I did review a few articles from Wikipedia about what should or should not be done when moving an article to another name. There are so many usages for Oasis that there is no primary use for the term that fits with the rest of the usages.

It is clearly unfair to the rest of the owners of pages using the term 'Oasis' and having their presence obscured by one article where the tiny markings for a disambiguation page follow a promotional link to an article for the musical band Oasis.

I think that Oasis has so many usages that anyone typing in the term 'oasis' only should be referred to the disambiguation page first.

I know that if I change this page once more, it will be changed back again to the way it was. Can you help us work this out? Thank you. Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrebinski (talkcontribs) 06:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you try discussing this dispute on Talk:Oasis? (No.) Did you try proposing a move of the page to a different title, using the Requested Move process? (No.) Those would be the first steps to take to try to resolve this issue. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Needing a review prior to submission

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Michael Yessis


I am looking for help/review on my article prior to re-submission. I have submitted once and the article was declined saying there was more information needed to show how this individual is notable. The entire submission has been reworked with new references, academics, published works included (books not his extensive article listing) and internal and external links added. Is it possible to have the article reviewed and if there are problems have a little more specific feedback given?

Thank you very much, --Kam012069 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

From a quick read it looks far to much like a resume/C.V. to me, but others may disagree. Please follow the instructions in the pink box at the top of the draft to resubmit it for review. – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Image Noticeboard?

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a concern about the copyright status of a couple of images at Occupy Rose Parade. Is there a noticeboard for this type of item? I couldn't locate one. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There sure is. "Possibly unfree files" is the place to list questionable images. If you need any help with the listing, let us know. Danger High voltage! 20:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Those images are on Wikimedia Commons though. There is nothing we can do here. If you think the license is incorrect, you can bring it up at Commons:Deletion requests. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Arg, I should have checked the actual images. Sorry for the unhelpful answer, Dino. Danger High voltage! 20:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


You can access every past version of the Jerusalem article by clicking on the "View history" tab at the top. Use the "Browse history" area at the top to get back to 2004 or so, and then double-click on any date/time to see that version of the article - there's more detail on this at Help:Page history. I've looked at a few old revisions but haven't seen any mentioning pink walls, I'm afraid. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Lion Capital

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted a comment on the Talk page for about a factual error at the top of the page, but not edited the page directly myself (because of COI reasons). As the talk page there and also in WikiProject Companies are pretty quiet (and my postings haven't yet triggered a response from anyone), could someone take a look? Thanks. Markpackuk (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done in this edit by User:Danger. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you muchly. Markpackuk (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A client has hired me to make minor changes to the FEARnet page. Most have to do with the capitalization of the FEARnet name. I have made the text changes, but I cannot figure out: a) How (or whether it's even possible) to change the capitalization of the page title, and b) How to replace the current logo with one that does not contain the URL. The uploading rules and procedures seem very complex. I'd appreciate any help you can give me. Thanks! Alexwillis (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell your client that is not how we do stylized trademarks on Wikipedia. See MOS:TM. Sorry —teb728 t c 19:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Need Help with new article

Resolved: user indef blocked (spamblock) and notified by OrangeMike. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the process of creating a new article describe a new word for a new industry that is emerging online. I'm trying to remain unbiased, yet still give credit to the correct people. Can someone assist me in the editing so I may do this correctly the first time? The article is . Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebEstate (talkcontribs) 17:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising or publicity. It is also not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, in your university lab, your garage, or the pub, even if you've written about it in your blog or on your website, and it has not yet been featured in reliable sources, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Automatic sum of elements in table

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to add automatic sum of elements of a column in a table? Or does it have to be computed externally and inserted as any other line? In this article the table would benefit from something like that... --Flukas (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the MediaWiki table-formatting codes only know how to format a table. There are no options to do arithmetic. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
It might be possible using DSV. The table source would need to be copied an pasted into a spreadsheet. Sometimes pipes can be recognised as delimiters, if not, it would be easy with search/replace to convert them to commas or colons. That said, unless the table is exceptionally large, it may not be worth it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Maummar Gaddafi

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

When reading the very 1st few lines it says "I like Cats" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It did, but doesn't now. A wonderful bot has reverted the vandalism that resulted in that oddness. See the difference between the versions of the page. In future, if you spot other out of place things in articles, feel free to fix the problem. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. fredgandt 06:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Affiliated sources

Resolved: Per requester. Danger High voltage! 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This tag has been added to Sinai and Palestine Campaign and Battle of Magdhaba articles without any explanation by the editor. Despite repeated requests for explanation and cutting the tag, this only invites its reappearance, still without explanation. As War Diaries have been the only sources which have been contentious, although no longer so, I wonder if these may be the cause of this dispute. Are official published War Diaries of World War I (used by the British and Australian armies since 1907), and written by adjutants or intelligence officers, considered to be affiliated sources in Wikipedia? --Rskp (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC) PS I have asked the question about affiliated sources at Wikipedia:Affiliated sources (which led me to a page, the address of which escapes me) but then thought that its a specific problem and better put here.--Rskp (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just identified the page where I first raised this problem. It appears to be moribund as there has been no activity and the link generated by my post History) does not lead anywhere.

Today I posted on the talk page of the Battle of Magdhaba article here [4] and on the Sinai and Palestine Campaign talk page here [5]

As you will see the editor responsible for the Affiliated sources tag had repeatedly reinstated the tag, despite the light use made of war diaries and it is a gross misrepresentation of the content of these two articles. This has already been going on since 15 January. What can be done to cut this wrong tag and advise the editor concerned? --Rskp (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears the editor who added these tags has finally stopped, so the problem seems to be, at this stage not in need of any resolution. Time heals all, as they say. :) --Rskp (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Found art

Answered: Danger High voltage! 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Found art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have another question about what makes an artist notable. I though I had asked a similar question previously but don't see it now. I also posted my question on the talk page of Found art and got no response. These artists Gustavo Aguerre,Tolleck Winner have only one reference and very short bios, and these artists Guillaume Bijl, Tom Friedman, Rodney McMillian, Joe Rush, Tomoko Takahashi have no references and also short bios, so how are these artists notable? What criteria are used to judge these artists notable? I'm not saying these artists are not notable, but I'm asking for clarity on what makes an artist notable. Why these and not Marina DeBris, who has more to her bio and more citations. What makes the difference? Is it because I asked about DeBris and no one asked about the other artists, so no one questioned their notability? By the way, I added more references to DeBris's entry after the notice of notability was posted, but no one seems to have re-reviewed the entry. Thanks for any clarity on this issue. Socialresearch (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 112#Found art, which artists can be listed?. – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, but the response on that page was not helpful, as it simply referred to a response to my previous question, without answering my current question. If someone could explain why some artists, with minimal information and few or no citations, are considered notable, that would be very helpful. Socialresearch (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Whether articles are kept or not depends very much on how they escape our attention when they are created, particularly at WP:NPP which is an underperforming process - if new articles are accepted untagged for maintenance or as needing sources they may go unnoticed for a very long time. All Wikipedia articles, and most especially biographies of living persons must be referenced with WP:RS (reliable sources). Also, why some articles exist and some don't is explained at WP:OTHERSTUFF. Feel free to be bold and make any changes or tag as you feel appropriate. You can learn more about what asserts notability by reviewing these policies and/or guidelines: WP:GNG (general notability guidelines), WP:BIO (biographies), WP:BLP (biographies of living persons), and WP:CREATIVE (for artists). For possible deletions, see WP:DELETION, in particular WP:CSD, WP:PROD , WP:BLPPROD, and WP:AfD. (Sorry to drop you in the deep end with all the acronyms, but if you click the links you'll be fine - we need all the help we can get. Welcome on board and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
Thanks for the info. I will look it all up. I don't want to delete any of them because I'm sure all these artists are notable for something. Two questions. 1. I'd want to add tags or questions about reliable sources to those other artists. Do your links let me know how to do that? Adding the notice on top of the article that is. 2. Could someone re-review the entry on Marina DeBris? I added a bunch of new sources from 'reliable' sources since the warning and I don't think anyone re-reviewed. Thanks. Socialresearch (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The best and easiest way to tag articles is to install WP:Twinkle, but at WP:TMC you can find a full list of most of the maintenance the tags you have seen and that you can apply manually to the article pages. For deletion tags see also WP:DEL-PROCESSES and there is also more about tagging on that page. Again, I'm sorry about all the links, but those advice pages provide you with the best overview; if there is something specific that is not clear, don't hesitate to ask me directly on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Pawel Maciwoda

Answered: Danger High voltage! 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that the article about Pawel Maciwoda be completed with the fact that he now has a son. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome to do this yourself if you feel the information is of importance to the article. Please enure that it referenced per our requirements for Reliable sources. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

film Chatroom 2010

Answered: Danger High voltage! 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

you have named the actor who played "Tony Layton" character but not the actress who played "Tony Layton as a girl" the actress is Jodie Miller & I feel this should be added as the parts were equally credited in the film credits thanks Janloum (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are most welcome to do this yourself if you feel the information is of importance to the article. Please enure that it referenced per our requirements for Reliable sources. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Eve Online Article - Captialisation of Eve/EVE

Answered: Danger High voltage! 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have been recently doing a fair amount of work on the Eve Online article and I have come to ask you about the debate that has happened several times in its discussion board about the proper name of the page weather it is "Eve Online" or "EVE Online".

I have read the pages about full capitals and capitalisation in Wikipedia and I feel that the full capitalisation of the word is the correct context. I wish to outline my points below and ask of your opinion.

CCP hf the makers of EVE Online have stated that the trademark name is EVE Online and not Eve Online, CCP Guard also stated that CCP does not use "Eve Online" or "Eve" at any given time and instead uses "EVE Online" or "EVE". The capitalisation also impacts on context and understandability of the sentence, if "Eve" is used as singular looks incorrect and can be misleading to someone that does not know what EVE Online is, where as "EVE" as a full capitalisation establishes the context and makes it more understandable for the reader.

Quotes from CCP hf representatives:

"Hello Rhys Kommins, Thank you for contacting the EVE Community team. The trademark name is EVE Online and EVE is not an acronym but rather named after the EVE gate which brought colonists to this universe. Yes, of course we care, especially if you do :) Kind regards Pete 'Navigator' McKay Community Manager"

"We can't create a link to this petition that's visible to others I'm afraid, but if you look at any news item, Facebook status, or article/dev blog that we put out, we always use "EVE Online", so it's the official way as far as we are concerned. And you can quote me on that anywhere you want :). We don't mind you borrowing the Crucible picture at all. In fact, thank you for taking the trouble of caring for EVE's legacy on this venue. Is there anything else that I can assist with in this regard or do you have any further questions? Best regards, CCP Guard EVE Community Developer"

The "EVE" part of EVE Online is actually a direct quote from the game and the game's literature and lore, the history of the object is largely unknown but it is understood that it is a jump gate (in the game's context). The only pieces of text associated with the gate are an ancient language that is yet to be fully decrypted and the Latin letters EVE that feature predominantly on the front of the gate. Members of the EVE universe and members of the Yulai Archives & Record Repository Team [YARR] of the Interstellar Services Department (a team of experienced players that maintain the EVElopedia and lore of the game appointed by CCP Games) name the gate EVE due to there being no other text in the entire universe that states that it is written in any other way.

In a final note "EVE Online" is the name of the windows client application, EVElopedia is officially named "EVElopedia" not stylised and if you investigate the EVE Online website you can see that the term EVE is used instead of Eve and that Eve is not present anywhere.

EVE Online Website

EVElopedia page on the ISD (see bottom of page for YARR)

EVElopedia page for ISD YARR

EVElopedia entry for the EVE Gate

Eve Online - Please note that the "stylised EVE Online" present at the top of the page was added my me as a place holder.

Astrel (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks. The guideline says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners." EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Longtime user and editor. My history and personal page disappeared!

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please help. StewartNetAddict (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you found yourself logged out? I see that you have edited your talk page since posting here. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with an IP's vandalism

Answered: Danger High voltage! 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've recently stumbled upon a bunch of IP's starting with 201.19 that have been vandalizing music and film articles, often making references to a song existing on a soundtrack where it is not. A bunch of these changes have gone under everyone's radar for a little while, and I worry that there are some even more subversive ones. Is there anyway I can look up contributions by IP's that beging with this string to see if I can find more vandalism?

The contributions of the vandals I found are Special:Contributions/ Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/

Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked at Admin intervention against vandalism for someone to assist (I figured they would know best how to deal with this). fredgandt 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, this is going to be really technical, but since you asked, yes there is a way to do it:
Click on "My preferences" and select the "Gadgets" tab. Down at the bottom, under "Advanced", click on the "Allow /16 and /24..." tick-box. You may have to logout and back in and refresh your cache, but when you go to Special:Contributions from now on, you should see in small text at the top "You may enter a CIDR range...". Now you can check contribs for entire ranges of IPs instead of just one address at a time.
Now pick one of those IPs and bring up their contribs page. Down at the bottom is a "WHOIS" link - click on that and you will get a report showing the CIDR range for that IP's subnet. In this case it is 201.19/16, so you need to search the entire /16 range. IP addresses have 4 components, so in the User: field of the contribs screen, put in and hit enter. The system will first say "No changes were found..." but then it will grind away and check every IP address in that range that ever contributed here. That's all we got, in this case it's still grinding away for me and throwing up lots of addresses. If you want to learn more about CIDR sub-netting, it's possible that you could narrow down the range to a tighter netmask. Ready to give up yet? :)
Sorry. Yes it's possible and yes it's really clunky. Hope that helps (though I have a feeling it really doesn't :). You can ask more questions here or at my talk page. Franamax (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh my. Well it certainly does answer the question, so thank you! But I think I may need to get some sleep before I try to work my way through all that. In the meantime, anyone smarter than me is certainly welcome to give it a shot. And thanks again, much appreciated!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait, actually, I do have a question. When you said to put in , did you mean ? Something else? Or am I just looking at this all the wrong way?--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I did mean Congratulations on spotting my deliberate test for you. ;) Or noticing my mistake, if you insist. ;) I did look at the contribs for the accounts you mentioned but there was nothing recent enough to be actionable. The contrib results for that netblock were way too numerous for me to go through, unless there was a specific serious problem (evidenced with specific diffs) that I wanted to track down. There are other strategies, like checking article histories those IPs have touched and looking for other changes from the same IP range (maybe you can narror it down to a smaller netmask, or just catch other vandalisms that way) or searching for favourite bits of text they like to add using the internal search engine, that's worked for me before; and of course if you can track it to an already blocked user, you can go to WP:SPI, but that's a more advanced step. Let me know if I can help more. Franamax (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Got it, thanks again. I think searching through the histories will probably work out the best, but I'll give 'em all a shot.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Parrs Wood High School

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

14th January 2012, I posted (Jacksonian)the following to the 'Parrs Wood High School' Wikipedia entry that I found on the British and Irish Legal Information institute (a widely reported institution) regarding the result of a court case at the high court on the 5th January 2012. No names were mentioned and the piece was placed under a long standing header in this Wikileaks page 'Controversy'.

Copy was as follows:

<redacted> Today on the 19th January 2012 the entry has been deleted by what appears to be Councillor Mr Jeffrey Smith of Manchester City Council. He appears not only to have removed my sentence but also factual and true information from a number of contributors.

This seems very wrong to me when what I have posted is something that is simply fully in the public domain.

Can I please ask that my posting is put back on the page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstonian (talkcontribs) Jackstonian (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your assertion that the school described is Parrs Wood High School is not supported by the stated source, and cannot be restored, since it is sheer speculation on your part. Other content has been restored. There is no evidence presented that the editor in question is that Councillor Smith. Do you have a basis for this assertion? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The poster cllrjeffsmith appears from a google search to be a Councillor at Manchester Council and a school governor at Parrs Wood High School or if not is someone attempting impersonation. The posting made refers to a recent legal case against the school reported on the UK national site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditpedian (talkcontribs) 21:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

is the point of putting in clean up tags to invite people into a discussion? thats what i thought. so if there is a discussion going on, the tags are more useful? or am i wrong? anyway just trying to understand this [6] thanks. Bouket (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tags have two main purposes: 1. To indicate to a reader that what they are reading may not be complete, or reliable and 2. as an invitation to anyone, readers and regular editors alike, to address the issues; hence maintenance tags should generally remain until the issues are resolved. Discussion is essential to good collaboration - perhaps it would be a good idea to ask the the user why s/he removed the tags and you are welcome to ask them on their talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
i asked on the talk page of the article should that be enough? i dont want to be annoying so im trying to be cautious Bouket (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
oh and thanks for your explanation Bouket (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No editor should consider another annoying when they are trying to work on improving an article, so carry on. The article talk page is an ideal place to discuss changes to the article, but some individual actions are sometimes better discussed at users talk pages. Each situation should be considered in its own light. fredgandt 03:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thanks. so since the user hasnt responded on the articles talk page i should ask on their user page? Bouket (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no deadline so if the user hasn't responded yet maybe give them a little more time. A message on their talk page certainly isn't rude though, so sure, go ahead. Some editors like to use {{talkback}} to advise other editors that their attention might be needed elsewhere. However, it is quite simple to say all the same things that the template does, without using it. The choice is yours. fredgandt 04:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Bouket, although I am not saying this is hounding, as you've been warned against hounding this editor, it might be better to keep it all on the article talk page, where I see that you, the editor who reverted you, and a third editor were in discussion last night. I think you are being a bit hasty in bringing this here as your post to the article talk page was after Beyond My Ken had posted there and just as he was finishing posting for the night. And as you weren't involved with the article until recently, and you were advised by an Administrator to avoid "talk pages where they commented," (something I only noticed just now as I was writing this), I'd suggest you withdraw entirely from that article. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a fairly experienced editor

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

with a copyright question. I've looked around, I am quite sure the answer is already here, somewhere, but I have not found it. In the USA there no freedom of panorama, meaning that to use my pictures of sculpture by Marshall Fredericks I need to get permission from the copy right holder. Fredericks' daughter (he is deceased) and the museum that houses his work are unclear about who has the rights, but after discussing it amongst themselves have given me the okay, in an email, to post the pictures on wikipedia. How do I make that clear when posting the photographs? I had posted them years ago, and they were eventually removed. I want to avoid that happening again. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You should have them email the folks at WP:OTRS with permission. Whoever deals with the email will put a template on the image(s) indicating that permission has been given via email and allowing that permission to be verified by someone with access. When you upload the photos, put {{OTRS pending}} on the file page. However, the permission that is given has to be compatible with Wikipedia's license; the images must be able to be reused, even commercially, with attribution. If they restrict the use of the images to Wikipedia only, then they aren't free enough. Danger High voltage! 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of legitimate article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Climate of Northern Ireland page contains specific climate information for the country. However, some very determined user(s) who is clearly an Irish Republican, repeatedly keeps maliciously deleting the page contents and redirecting to the Climate of Ireland page, which was originally for the Republic of Ireland, which is a separate sovereign state separated from Northern Ireland by an international land border. Information is being lost by this action, which I am certain is an act of pure vandalism with the intention of offending Northern Irish readers. The editor(s) who enforce the redirect use offensive arguments such as by saying there is no consensus for keeping the page, which is clearly untrue. The page needs protection against redirects being put in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus48 (talkcontribs) 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You've been at it for 20 days now with no success and 2 blocks. You need to get a different hobby. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are currently the only editor supporting keeping a separate page, as far as I can tell. Unless you are using a profoundly different definition of "consensus" than that which I'm familiar with, consensus is clearly for keeping it a redirect.
Your accusations of bad faith and vandalism are not acceptable. I see that you've already been warned for them, but the point bears repeating.
In the future, legitimate requests for page protection should be brought to WP:RPP. Danger High voltage! 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with WP page for Vassula Ryden

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

My edit concerns quoting criticism by Joe Nickell about the subject Vassula Ryden. The other editor states that I am using conjecture words that affect a living person. I state that I am quoting a expert who is giving his opinion. Another editor (sorry I'm confused which editor is saying what as the posts are unsigned) feels that because Joe Nickell has not met Vassula Ryden he is unable to provide criticism. I don't believe that makes much sense, he is a expert in hand-writing analysis who is looking at her hand-writing samples.

Also there are two flags on the page for neutrality and one for weasel words. I'm not comfortable stating where the problems are. Could you please run your eye over the page as someone neutral with the subject and state where the problem areas are so they can be fixed?

Would welcome any help you can prove, if you think that this can't be resolved with your help could you please advise who we need to go to? Sgerbic (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to resolve this issue with Sgerbic in the article's talk page under the discussion topic called Scientific and Theological analysis. As you will see in that discussion, wikipedia guidelines, which I quoted, are being violated by the insertion of Sgerbic's text. I invite you to take this opportunity to review this topic as well as other topics in that talk page. The violations in wikipedia policy in the Vassula Ryden entry have been rampant. These include and are not limited to:
  1. Extensive usage of self published websites to back up untrue and defamatory material
  2. Use of conjuncture wording and Experimenter's bias (as is being discussed here)
  3. Extensive usage of weasel wording, with no specifications as to who said what.
Furthermore, there have been numerous edits from people in the article who hide behind IP addresses in order to insert poorly or even totally unsourced false and defamatory material about Ryden being excommunicated, despite topics explaining why this is not the case in the Talk page that were created to address this issue.
Due to the numerous edits by anonymous individuals who consistently violate wikipedia policy on BLP's, some of which who have clearly indicated they are not bothered to create an account in order to edit the article, I would like to request that this page be locked, so only registered users can make edits. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talkcontribs) 00:56, January 26, 2012
There have been very few IP edits on that page in recent months (none since November) so it won't be semi-protected. I can see no reason why we can't use Joe Nickell appropriately. The fact that he hadn't met her before writing the article seems irrelevant. There are clear POV problems on the page and your removal simply made the article even more POV. I also note that virtually all of your edits have been about Ryden except for a handful to the article of one of her supporters. You seem to have had contact with Ryden in the past, so I'm wondering if there are any WP:COI issues here. Hm, going back to your statement about registered users, I see a number of registered users whose only edits are to this article or who have edited only one other article, perhaps long before their account became active again to edit this article. These include Sirius Plutobase (talk · contribs), MLPIO (talk · contribs), Perrum (talk · contribs), Webwidget (talk · contribs) and Rn2hearts (talk · contribs). Most of these are supporters of Ryden. Editing by a large number of single purpose accounts is rarely beneficial to an article. I also note that this article falls under WP:FRINGE. Although Experimenter’s bias may be relevant here it probably applies to supporters and critics alike and unless sources discuss is specifically I don't see it as a relevant way to choose what sources to use and what to exclude. No time now for more comments, but this is clearly an article with some problems and an extreme lack of balance, and one way of starting to fix them is making sure that critics such as Nickell are included in the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
While I agree with notion of balance, please take note that the Joe Nickel paragraph involves the usage of conjuncture words which was why it was removed by Rn2hearts. Wording such as: “suggest; suggests; suspects; supposedly; suspicion” – violate Wikipedia policy on verifiablity / citing reliable sources / NPOV especially when the subject is a living person. Such wording was used extensively here as Joe Nickel's theories are based on speculation. They are based on speculation since he has never met Ryden to conduct a proper investigation.
I don't see the point of having wikipedia guidelines if its acceptable to ignore them just in order to "balance" an article. Don't get me wrong, I for one, am all for balancing this article as long as the guidelines are followed. Perhaps I am overstating the importance of usage of conjuncture words? I leave that to you to decide.
Regarding your mention of lack of balance due to shortage of critics in the article, I can assure you that critical and negative information is not lacking. I would like to invite you to check out the Church's Stance section in the article, notably this section. Its anything but balanced - there have been numerous positive events in the Orthodox Church regarding Ryden and there is also support for Ryden in the latter, however no such information is mentioned here. There is only one topic on Ryden regarding the Orthodox Church and its negative.
With regard to me knowing Ryden, I did contact her at one point to ask her for permission to use her picture. And she chose it for me. I will get back to you on some of the other topics you mentioned but can't do so right now as I am short on time. Thanks for the input sofar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talkcontribs) 17:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I should have commented on the language issue. WE shouldn't use such words normally, but it isn't a problem if our sources do. I'd probably have more problems with Nickell if he hadn't been cautious in his language. The guidlines there are for editors, not sources.
As for criticism, I was thinking of non-Church critics. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clarifying this - it will be useful for future reference. It would be interesting to hear your feedback on the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkatakor (talkcontribs) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Status of Euclid university

I would like to raise an issue with the entry on Euclid University.,_Euclid_University)

This entity is not a recognised degree granting institution despite their claims. They are blacklisted by many governments around the world.{{Citation needed}}

A recent report by an independent research organisation concluded why they are bogus and it can be found here:

This publication came after constant threats from Euclid; {{Citation needed}} Government agencies around the world got the same sort of contact (eg. Oregon, Texts and others). {{Citation needed}}

In the following page you will find citations for the above claims including the original documents euclid provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the entry on Euclid on Wikipedia has been written solely by Euclid and any attempt to fix it by adding facts and removing nonsense is rolled back by their shills.

This is what the IAU / UNESCO had to say on the Accredibase report in a LinkedIn forum:

Thanks for sharing the report, very useful in dealing with Member States as we do for validity reasons at IAU. Our next action will be to ask for a list of recognised institutions in CAR to the Permanent Delegation of CAR to UNESCO as somewhat recommended in the report. I doubt we will get an answer. For information, Euclid University is not included in the International Handbook of University 2012, nor in the WHED. It only appears on the page of our website on regional/international higher education institutions, stating that it has been added upon request of the Permanent Delegation of CAR to UNESCO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about Euclid Consortium or EUCLID (Pôle Universitaire Euclide, Euclid University) ???? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This will be EUCLID (Pôle Universitaire Euclide, Euclid University) - eg [7] linked from [8]. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I added this entity to List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, with two reference citations to support its inclusion there. I don't have time to deal with the article right now. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Accredibase" is not suitable as a reference and should be removed. "Accredibase" is just a private limited company in the UK. Not government mandated. However, Euclid is listed as an IGO in the UN Treaties database (UNTS) and is listed with WIPO. Please refer to the talk page on the article. Satinmaster (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Acceptability of a source is not determined by its "official" governmental status, but rather by its reliability per WP:Reliable sources. The detailed reporting on the Accredibase website qualifies as "reliable" by Wikipedia standards. Additionally, the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, which has long been established as reliable for this purpose, lists Euclid as unaccredited. Primary sources are problematic as sources, largely because they can require excessive interpretation (and are open to misinterpretation). The primary sources mentioned here and cited in the articles do not necessarily contradict, much less disprove, the statements published by the secondary sources cited in List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. The UN does not accredit or authorize universities. The existence of a treaty is not an indicator of accreditation or authorization status. All that this UN link and this other UN link demonstrate is the existence of some sort of international agreement (treaty) related to an entity called "EUCLID". The same could be said for this page, except that its credibility is low because it is published by Euclid -- not by a third party. --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but what about Euclid's "WIPO article 6ter protection" listing on The Federal Authorities of the Swiss Confederation website: Hence, further proof that EUCLID is intergovernmental. It actually says on that document in french "Execution of the Federal Law of 15th December 1961 concerning the protection of names and emblems of the United Nations Organization and other Intergovernmental Organizations". Or doesn't that count because you don't like euclid?Satinmaster (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Trademark protection is not a proof for having degree granting powers. No one disputes Euclid's status as an entity, international or not. Being an entity does not give it degree granting rights.

I said that proves its status as a universitySatinmaster (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have with accredibase is, they are applying national methods to international agreements. They also have a seriously flawed understanding of Public International Law and what treaties are. The "report" is also full of doubts about what is or isn't credible or legal. So wikipedia no longer respects treaties signed by Heads of State? As for the Oregon ODA getting a mention, this is laughable. The ODA does not even respect the constitution of the United States, much less Public International Law. Also, why is the ODA even mentioned? Would you put into an article on COLT 45, that these handguns are illegal to possess in London?Satinmaster (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

International treaties do not provide degree granting powers. Issuing degrees is a state monopoly. [citation needed] Euclid is not a recognised degree granting institution even by the states that signed the said treaty. Accredibase has requested Euclid to provide it with specific documents to back their claims. Perhaps they can provide the answer here? Here is the specific request:

Intergovernmental organization "Intergovernmental organizations are an important aspect of public international law. IGOs are established by treaty that acts as a charter creating the group. Treaties are formed when lawful representatives (governments) of several states go through a ratification process, providing the IGO with an international legal personality" Satinmaster (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Still this has nothing to do with degree granting powers.

How can something be a University and not have degree granting powers? You are saying that several governments cannot come together and form a university? Are you for real?Satinmaster (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

NB: I have moved the article to EUCLID (university) - disambiguated titles should be as simple as possible and this one wasn't. – ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The OIC (the 2nd largest IGO after the UN) confirms in their Journal about Euclid University Charter here: (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC) The name 'Euclid University' is internationally protected by the WIPO Law. ( As proven here: Satinmaster (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I should have some information/clarification on this issue to present on Euclid's behalf within a few business days. Appreciate everything the community has already done to defend the article against editing wars and POV pushing. King4057 (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

creation books page problem

Dear Editor, Can you please advise on a problem with I cannot approach this editor for a resolution because he is a criminal hiding out in Thailand who has stolen my intellectual property and that of many others. Basically, here's the deal: a fraudulent publisher named James Williamson started a page on Wikipedia to promote his company Creation Books. The details to this are at I added this link to the Wikipedia page yesterday along with some information to protect other authors, and the webpage was immediately returned to its pre-edited condition the next day. This is a highly sensitive legal issue involving copyright law. It might be best just to take the Wikipedia page down, because in the form that it's in Wikipedia is actually promoting a business that is taking advantage of authors and owes authors hundreds of thousands of dollars. Please take a look at for more details and let me know what you think the best method of approach is. Thanks,The octopus44 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest attempts to link to a website which exists only to attack the subject. If there are actual problems with them, then links should be provided to impartial third-party reports made by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creation Books which I agree is likely to be closed soon as a procedural keep. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not. :) Notice the nom's earlier positive contribution reverting obvious attack material. It looks to me like a good faith nomination for deletion by a new user having trouble completing all the steps. Been there! I remember having a lot of trouble doing my first couple AfD nominations and I already had a lot more experience than this editor. It's not that easy if you don't already know how. Msnicki (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Creation Books Fraud site does not exist "only to attack" the subject as OrangeMike wrote. It exists to protect other authors from being ripped off to the tune of thousands of dollars and years of work. If this is Wikipedia's stance, then Wikipedia is protecting a criminal and punishing the victims. Read the info on and feel free to contact the_Octopus44 for contact info for the victims. I will supply it.The octopus44 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Buddy Emmons

I wondered if the picture of Buddy Emmons on the Minors Aloud site could be moved to his site also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbiecapps (talkcontribs) 19:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to File:Minors Aloud.jpg, probably not, because that file is used on the album article under the non-free content criteria. Those criteria usually do not apply to images of living people, the rationale being that someone could take a picture of the subject and release it under an appropriate free license. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization

I would like to request some input from some impartial wiki editors on the following article. Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization It seems that the ODA lost a court case against someone with an unaccredited degree and was forced to list thier University as "legal for use in Oregon" as a result. It is surprising that this has managed to escape the article, especially when the ODA is bandied about so often on matters of legitimacy of schools. I notice that someone tried to mention this in the past, but it appears to have been whitewashed. Surely it is in the best interests of the public at large to know about this controversy and loss of a court case, given the credibility that the ODA is often afforded on wikipedia? Satinmaster (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You want WP:RSN] but your quote is not in the pdf, which says "Finally, the judgment is not, as the district court found, evidence that plaintiff can point to “in support of the trustworthiness

of her education and her credentials.” Rather, the judgment is merely evidence that the former version of O.R.S. § 348.609 was applied to plaintiff in a biased manner. The evidence that plaintiff can point to regarding the legitimacy of her credentials is the finding by defendant Contreras and the Office of Degree Authorization made pursuant to the revised version of the statute that Bob Jones University meets the standards of academic quality comparable to an accredited institution." Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


I produce the Gasparilla pageant annually. I had a link up here.

I would love to know how I can best put my information where it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia and content needs to be sourced to verifiable independent and reliable sources in order to establish their notability. If you are talking about the Gasparilla Pirate Festival, then there is already an article of that name. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of information on a website

I have a quick question.

If information from a website is used as a reference, but that website says that they cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information on their website, can it be used as a reference on wikipedia?

ThanksSatinmaster (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information is legal boilerplate put up to protect oneself, and does not disqualify a generally recognized reliable source such as Accredibase from use here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've just undone this edit by Satinmaster [9]. This is just one more effort by this editor to remove any mention of this website. Saturday I told him if he was unhappy with this website to go to WP:RSN. He also raised objections to this website at [10](and also to another one if you scroll down to the bottom). Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(Here is the problem I have with accredibase. They make a statement, yet admit they could be wrong. But that statement is used to defame a school on wikipedia. If Accredibase are not prepared to stand by their information in a legal sense, then why should we? They also say they rely upon 3rd party sources and claim to have a "group of experts" writing the reports. Where are the experts, they are not listed are they?)Satinmaster (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why we attribute the opinion to its provider. We don't state it as an absolute fact. Legal disclaimers are indeed commonplace and do not usually affect the state of a source as "reliable". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor Barooshian

Dear sirs/Madames; I am Eleanor Barooshian and wish to add to my bio more bands that I have played with. Regards, E Barooshian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebury1 (talkcontribs) 16:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor Barooshian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thank you for asking. Please post the information at Talk:Eleanor Barooshian along with enough referencing information that would allow potential readers to check it for themselves. For example, if your involvement was reported in a newspaper we'd need the title, date, page number and author of the item; for online news we'd need the URL, and so on.
For general advice on editing your own article, please see "If Wikipedia already has an article about you". -- John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult editor(s).

(Personal attack removed)

The dispute resolution noticeboard is the place to take this. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wally Lamb Article Tag Removal

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

Hello Editor Assistance,

Thank you in advance for your help in sorting out this matter. I am very new to Wikipedia and have been trying to post a neutral, accurate, well-supported article on author Wally Lamb. This is my first attempt at Wikipedia editing, and I managed to get myself into a dispute with The Mark of the Beast, which I hope to resolve. When I edited the original, inaccurate article for Wally Lamb, I disclosed that I am an assistant in his office and that I was asked by the author to update the article and correct errors. Although I did the work on the article independently with print and online references, I realize now that my association with the author caused an issue in terms of neutrality (although I have since checked the standards for Biographies of Living Persons and it appears that the subject is allowed to correct errors in their own articles). The Mark of the Beast contacted me alerting me to this and tagged the article. The major issue seemed to be with the lack of inline citations. I have since gone to great lengths to document every piece of biographical information within the article (both inline and in the reference section) and to establish a completely neutral tone. I believe I have successfully created a well-documented article in accordance with the Wikipedia standards for Biographies of Living Persons. I posted a notice on the Talk page of the article that I had added inline citations and requested that the page be reviewed and the tags removed. I received no response, so I went to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and notified The Mark of the Beast directly on his Talk page. TransporterMan closed my Dispute on the noticeboard because I had apparently selected the wrong venue for this type of issue. He advised me to remove tags regarding references but to leave the one regarding neutrality for someone else to remove. I followed his advice, and again explained my actions and requested review of the neutrality tag via the article talk page. The Mark of the Beast did not respond but did post another note on the article's talk page alerting users to my association with the subject (a fact I've been absolutely upfront and honest about since I posted the article). I responded to him directly on his Talk page asking for clarification and requesting that he re-consider the neutrality tag. I have had no response from him, so I am reaching out to you in the hopes that you can help. I realize that I have probably done just about everything wrong that a person can do, but I assure you my errors are simply mistakes due to inexperience and nothing more. I am happy to provide further information if necessary. Thank you again for helping.

Amandatindersmith (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the COI tag as I believe that you have made every effort to comply with our policies. I have posted to that effect at User talk:The Mark of the Beast Jezhotwells (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, Jezhotwells! I appreciate it. Amandatindersmith (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Constant and Incorrect Edits by multiple people

Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello! I have tried to make Wikipedia as accurate as I can (including grammatically) and it bothers me that despite constantly citing my changes (as proof) that the info I am putting down is correct, I get the feeling that multiple people keep changing it and sometimes removing my citations. The issue in concern is the two main protagonist's age. Wiki Page (Khusi and Arnav - protagonists):

My source:

Thanks! preceding comment by (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You should initiate a discussion on the article talk page. You may find it easier to keep track of the converstation if you register and get yourself an account. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Images deleted

Hi all!

Why is that everytime I upload an image I check back in a couple of days and the image has been deleted? I keep the LD Alajuelense page uploaded and pretty much all the changes made stayed there but the images I uploaded...

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmacho2685 (talkcontribs) 00:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi all!

Why is that everytime I upload an image I check back in a couple of days and the image has been deleted? I keep the LD Alajuelense page uploaded and pretty much all the changes made stayed there but the images I uploaded...


Elmacho2685 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC).

These images are being removed from Wikimedia Commons because they are nonfree. Commons only accepts images that are released by their copyright holder under a free license. Essentially, that means the copyright holder allows anyone to copy, modify, and distribute the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Wikipedia requires the same, in the case of a living person. If these images are copyrighted and nonfree, they will continue to be removed from either Commons or Wikipedia. You may wish to contact the copyright holder of the image and ask if they're willing to release it under a free license, and I've had some success doing that myself in the past, but they are of course free to say no. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Florin mall

Resolved: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Florin mall is gone the city tore it down due to crime you need to update that — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

See Florin Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have split off the Florin Towne Centre material into a new article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a few questions

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have a few questions but, although I searched the tutorial, I can not figure out how to send a question via a Help Page.

A page I'm editing has a warning at the top of it that reads: "This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout." Does this mean the content I added may be automatically deleted?

I've tried to add references and link the related copy, but it's not showing up for me. I'm following the tutorial, but for some reason, my link only shows up as a small box with an arrow, but no text qualifying what it's referring to, and it doesn't link to the link I added. Does anyone have any suggestions on what may be going wrong? Is there a space I can go and send questions to more experienced Wiki users and editors? Is there a simple explanation of how to contact editors via their Talk Page?

Thanks, David C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertselbyrocks (talkcontribs) 22:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the article? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It sounds as if you are using the wrong number of square brackets. To make an internal link, you need to use double square brackets - [[Example]] renders as Example, a link to the "Example" article. See Help:Link for more. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction on main page

Resolved: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The last "On This Day..." for today is incorrect. "A United States Air Force EA-6B Prowler inadvertently severed...", the aircraft was a USMC aircraft.

Rittermj (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This belongs at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in today's or tomorrow's On this day. It has already been posted there. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about removed bio page

Answered: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that my "bio" page (Jesse Liberty) has been taken down, as have all references to me on other pages. I can't find the page to dispute this decision but I note that (a) the majority opinion was 'keep' and (b) other similar authors are listed. What is the right process to dispute this decision? Jesse Liberty 21:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jliberty (talkcontribs)

The place to have a review of the AFD is at Deletion review. GB fan 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
But be mindful that these discussions are not votes, but policy discussions; so a mere "majority" of !votes is meaningless. Also: "look at these other articles" is not an argument for retention of a non-complying article, although it may be a clue that there are other articles that should have been deleted for the same reasons. Also: it was never your bio page: it was a bio page about you -- a vital philosophical distinction. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Whitney Houston never sang backup for Chaka Khan

Under the heading of 1977 - 1984 Early Life, it is reported that Whitney Houston sang backup for Chaka Khan on Ms. Khan's "I'm Every Woman". On 02/12/12, Ms. Khan was interviwed via phone by Lester Holt on The Today Show and the singing backup story was brought up. Ms. Khan corrected Mr. Holt by informing him, Whitney Houston never sang backup for her, she said, "That is a common misconception" Please do Ms. Houston the honor of correcting this error in your article.

Thank you,

Donita F. Palmore 02/12/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Whitney Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm not finding the source. Could someone help me out there?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC) , a little past the 2m30s mark. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I will take a look when I get home (they have Hulu and everything else totally locked down here...)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation note changed because current one is no longer valid

I recently changed a citation here: Because the old external URL no longer points to where it is suppose to and redirects to a site that is not specific to the sentence that is cited. I updated it to reflect a site that fits exactly to what the article is talking about and the changes were reverted. Can anyone assist me in this or should I just leave it alone as useless as the reference is now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbryant03 (talkcontribs) 01:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the change on the history page nor in your contributions. Did you make sure to hit the "Save page" button? The most common cause of this problem is clicking the "Show preview" button, instead of the "Save page" button.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor assistance needed for Noreen Renier entry

On January 15 I made a new entry on the Noreen Renier entry Noreen Renier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Subsequently it was removed by another editor. The history page indicates I cannot undo this deletion because of "conflicting intermediate edits." I would like to know who and why my entry was deleted and how to undo it without re-entering it manually. Thanks, WashTeh (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit history (accessible from the link above) shows the edits, who made them and their reasons for doing so. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Since your last edit to that article, four other editors have maded edits to that article. It would be grossly inappropriate to simply undo their edits, rather than take into account the substantive changes they made. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the edits [11] you made were clearly in violation of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines - please read WP:RS, and particularly WP:BLP - any unsourced allegations regarding individuals must be reverted immediately. Furthermore, we don't editorialise in articles by commenting on what the 'focus' ought to be.
The article needs serious attention from an uninvolved editor though - it is a contradictory mess, and reads like an attack article - one has to ask whether Renier meets our notability requirements, and if she does, whether the article would be better rewritten from scratch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit [12] removed the inline citations and replaced them with manually entered footnote numbers and footnotes. It's full of raw urls. I added 2 section headings and some spaces, but I suspect it should be stubbed so it can be rewritten. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm no longer really with Wikipedia, but I was following up on a few things today and saw the request for me to come comment. I came across this article randomly through AWB and was surprised by the number of unverified claims it contained, and that it bordered on an attack page. I tried to reduce it down to only more neutral and verified claims.[13] However, User:Amindformurder (a single article account whose name suggests a connection with Renier--it's the title of her book) promptly undid these entirely, even deleting the orphan tag.[14] (User:WashTeh, incidentally, is also a single-article account editing only this.) I agree with AndytheGrump's suggestion that this just be taken to AfD--I'm not sure I see any real evidence of notability here. At the very least, however, the original research and attack sections need to be removed per BLP policy. The sources are almost entirely blogs, personal websites, or primary sources. Cheers, (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC) (formerly User:Khazar)

Jessica Nordell - Removed the Notability Flag - 2/13/2012

Resolved: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote an article about the writer and poet Jessica Nordell ( At the early stages, someone posted notices about 'needs additional citations for verification' and 'establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic.' Since those were posted, I revised the entry and added a lot of new references. Could someone please review this entry and let me know whether those notices can be removed? This is my first entry but the research that I have conducted is thorough and accurate. Please let me know who the correct person to speak to about getting the Notability Flag removed from the page.

Thank you for your time.

Erinleecarr (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Erin Lee Carr

I have removed it and cleaned up the article a little. – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you very much. Erinleecarr (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC) ELC

Boom! Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion moved: Sources provided on talk all good, and it's on my watchlist if it happens again.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Moved to talk.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been persistent attempts to remove Andrew Cosby's long-standing status as co-founder, despite a preponderance of evidence from numerous reputable online and print sources supporting the position, including Boom's own comics and interviews with both founders. A Los Angeles Times interview was cited in a response to a request by the editor (Njkaters) for a reliable source, then promptly undone. More sources were cited, and undone. Talk page requests have gone unanswered. Since then, more edits have been made to completely remove any mention of Andrew Cosby and his contribution to the company. This is a serious issue. Please advise. Thanks. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

La Bayamesa - Cuba's National Anthem

My question refers to the composer of the music, not the lyrics. The music sounds identical to Mozart's music in The Marriage of Figaro. In fact, I have even seen a video of the Buckingham Palace guards playing it during the famous Changing of the Guards. Could it be that Figueredo just adapted the music rather than compose it outright? Signed, Ana Marshall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitinamartin (talkcontribs) 05:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This page is for specific requests about editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you should ask at the reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions, and will try to answer any question you have about almost anything.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Editor help with new article title

Resolved: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gertrude Theiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- I need an assist with correcting the title of this article I created earlier today. The title should read "Gertrud" without the "e" -- her name appears both ways in scientific and lay references, but she was of Swiss ancestry and she used the traditional Swiss spelling. I should have caught this when I created the article, but... Thanks for your help! Cohee (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - now at Gertrud Theiler. – ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Ukexpat! Cohee (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding a page of guidelines

I want to add a page of guidelines to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government/United States#California. The page is now sitting at User:GeorgeLouis/Sandbox. How would I go about doing that? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume this is the correct revision for the sandbox page.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


look i am not really sure whjat i am doing here but i cant sign in as i dont havean account but it appears there is a mistake in the exact mplar mass givin for ethanol it is quoted as being 46.041864814 g mol when if you add the molecular formula of CH3CH2OH it comes to a molar mass of 46.06844 i and if for some reason the former is right i would like to understand why as it says 46.07 then goes to say an exact mass of 46.041864814 g mol which would have an aprox of 46.04 cheers lawrence — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt you'll check back here, but there are subtle differences between the terms molar mass, molecular mass, and exact mass and how they are calculated. In short, it depends on whether (a) it is measured or inferred from the atomic make-up of the molecule and (b) whether isotopes are considered. I've linked the terms to their wikipedia articles, hopefully they'll shed a little light on the distinction. jheiv talk contribs 06:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My article is proposed to be deleted

On 13th of February I wrote an article about Blaustein Vadim. I got a proposal to delete the article or to change it because there is no indication of notability. I changed it by adding some information about charity and social activities. I still didn't get any reaction. I think that V. Blaustein is doing great things to bringing all russian-speaking people in Benelux together. He initiated so many projects regarding this activity. He is the first person who wants to support the magazine Rus and give many people to read magazine (which is about life in Europe not Russia) in their own language.

Thank you for considering my post.

Best regads, Kristina Kerbel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristinakerbel (talkcontribs) 09:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has been speedily deleted as it read like a promotional piece for the subject. Please take a look at WP:SPAM and the welcome message on your talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Doing good work is not necessarily the same as notable, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Notable means that the subject is discussed in a non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. SpinningSpark 23:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What could I have done better and is the other party truly tendentious and if so what should I do

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello and thanks for your help. I wish one on one advice because I don't want to escalate or worsen things. This matter is still on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard under dog discussion [[15]]. However, I'm not here about the content of the article Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but to find a better way to deal with the other party, review my own actions and solicit advice for improvement, and to decide whether to proceed farther with a party who I view as possibly tendentious. I look forward to hearing from you. Best. Jobberone (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to denigrate your request (I can feel your frustration), but I would suggest reading WP:No angry mastodons and taking a breather for a while. In a week or ten days your opponent will have gone on to other things. Also, I always advise "Be Overly Polite" when writing messages, even to people who are truly furious. Thank you so much, and good day! GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
While I admit to being annoyed and a little frustrated, my main purpose for posting is for advice on whether to proceed further. And I do not think this editor will 'move on'. This particular editor has been banned before and I think meets the definition of a disruptive editor. My intentions are not to win, seek punitive measures or gain personal satisfaction from confronting another but to seek help in deciding if my opinion is justified and where to proceed from here with the goals of Wikipedia in mind. My personal feelings here are irrelevant.Jobberone (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, when you bring a complaint about another editor to a noticeboard, the etiquette is that you should inform that editor and provide them with a link. Have you done so? I can see that there is a dispute on the talk page but nothing overtly tendentious (although a few edit summaries in the article have a bullying tone). With this, or any, behaviour issue you need to provide diffs to the behaviour you wish to discuss and explain why you think the behaviour is problematic. We will be better able to advise you once you have done this. SpinningSpark 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't brought a conduct complaint. I want to discuss it first because I've never done so and I'm not sure I'm either qualified to ascertain a conduct problem nor staying objective about the issue. I refer to the editor's past editing pattern [[16]] as well as the current one [[17]] at the OR dispute board. I'm reasonably sure the other editor is acting in good faith. Here is the discussion at the dispute board [[18]]. I'm not going to post a bunch of diffs but refer you to the Dog page.Jobberone (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It is simply common politeness to inform another editor they are being discussed, whether or not a formal complaint has been lodged. Normally, I would now inform the other party myself, but have decided instead to close this discussion for reasons given below. It is not reasonable to expect other editors to spend a significant amount of time trawling through talk pages and histories to try and find what you are referring to. If it is not important enough for you to find the diffs then why should anybody else think it worthwile? You have now referred to at least two other boards where there is a current discussion of this issue. This is beginning to smack of forum shopping, especially in conjunction with the reluctance to show with diffs that there is any issue different from that already being discussed elsewhwere, consequently, this discussion is closed. SpinningSpark 08:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

the utica,ny write up ....

Resolved: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

an addition to the utica,ny report would be under prominent names ...mark lemke ,pro baseball player born in utica 1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added, in this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Liv Mildrid Gjernes


how do the images in this article be on wikipedia if it is written © visual description. mvh. (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The copyright holder is the one who uploaded those images and licensed them to make them freely redistributable. Like all other images and text on Wikipedia, there has to be attribution somewhere, though I'll grant you that attribution's normally not on the article itself but on the image's page. — madman 22:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:CREDITS, image credits belong on the image information page, not in the article. I have removed it from the caption. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Good call; I'm not as familiar with the MoS as I probably should be. Thanks! — madman 20:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Meryl Streep


Could some one please edit Meryl Streep's page to include her movie "Defending Your Life" fom 1991? Thre is a glaring omission of this movie on her filmography list. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Defending Your Life appears on Meryl Streep filmography; the filmography on Meryl Streep is by necessity only a small selection of that larger list. Cheers! — madman 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

questioning source for an article

I recently removed what I thought was an unnecessary section from the bio of Jerry Only (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), that stated the following:

"In November 2011 Jerry Only threatened to cancel a show in Richmond Virginia if a band known as Blitzkid didn't cancel their own show which was meant to take place the previous night. Blitzkid ultimately ended up canceling their show so Jerry would play. The reasons for the threat remain unknown though has been placed as an instance of "bullying." [2]"

There is a source: but the author wrote the article solely using a comment from Blitzkid's Facebook page. That link is also the only information that I could find with anything about this story. There is some discussion between myself and another editor about whether this section should be left in the wiki article or not. I'm just wondering if anyone can help settle this and whether it should be left in the article or not? Also, I'm sorry if this isn't the correct procedure for this, but I'm very new to editing on Wikipedia. Thank you! Spgilbert (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)spgilbert

The reason newspapers are considered reliable sources is that journalists are expected to verify their facts before printing. The usual rule in journalism is that a story should be confirmed by at least two independent sources. The source here is a local student music news network and cannot be trusted to properly verify their stories in the way that, say, a national newspaper would. The author has admitted as much by saying that it is only sourced to the facebook page. He also seems to have a pre-existing pov against Jerry Only and is writing with an agenda. Imo you need at least one more source that substantiates the story in a way that is independent of the facebook page. SpinningSpark 22:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Implementation Science

I'm very interested in the relatively new field of Implementation Science, but see no article on this topic. Dean Fixen and others at the Univ. of North Carolina have, for over 40 years, been accumulating evidence regarding the core components of this science, much of which is documented in their 2005 review of the literature. You can see that (and much, much more) at the National Implementation Science Network (NIRN) website:

I am not affiliated with NIRN, but am an education professional concerned with effective implementation of educational programs and services. The principles of Implementation Science apply to all fields of endeavor, and should be of interest worldwide. In fact, over 700 practitioners from health care, juvenile justice, family and child welfare, veterans affairs, etc. attended the Global Implementation Conference in Washington, D.C. last August.

I would be willing to help write/ edit the WikiPedia article on this, but much of it should come from the work of Dean Fixen and others at NIRN.

Thanks! (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Norm G. Sacramento, CA 95819

You don't seem to have asked a question. If you are asking how to go about starting a Wikipedia page, you don't need anybody's permission, we encourage people to be bold. Anyone can edit a page, but you will need to open an account (very easy, takes seconds) before you can create a new page. Then all you need to do is click on Implementation science and start typing! SpinningSpark 23:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Translusion of content between articles in article namespace.

I created:

and there is content in the US section of

that I want included in it, and some editors like standalone lists so there is a need for

To link them all I transcluded {{:List of banned films in the United States}} into two of the articles and with liberal use of <noinclude></noinclude>. This makes it easy to make updates to the list. Is there any technical or editor issues with this method in article namespace? I have spent a lot of time cleaning up List of banned films and List of banned books over past few days and I feel that crerating a set of these by country lists will go along way towards tidying up these page. Ah, thinking about portal construction which commonly uses this structure I think that there should not be any issue. Thoughts please? Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Normally, a redirect to a subsection of the parent article would be simpler. But here you have transcluded into two different articles, just the situation that transclusion is useful in my opinion. SpinningSpark 07:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Jones Enterprise Academy


Peter Jones Enterprise Academy has a fairly large controversy section wp:undue is probable. An editor user talk:Pjea (same initials as the academy) is trying to remove it. I reverted a couple of his edits (unexplained removal of content template) before I realized the extent of the controversy section. I have not attempted communication with Pjea (concern with wp:coi) Any suggestions on what should be done here would be appreciated. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Pjea has been indefinitely (in effect, permanently) blocked for violation of our user name policy. His last edit in the article was a violation of Wikipedia copyright policy in the form it was written, but was a valid addition to maintain the neutral point of view of the article, so I found a reliable source for it and rewrote it. I also rewrote the initial allegation to make it less detailed so as to help avoid undue weight. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


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

I am new to Wiki and have recently become director of Veritasse Ltd. The old article was out of date and had issues. I have rewritten it completely. How do I get the issue notices resolved? Many thanks Sue Newham (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Because of your conflict of interest, you should discuss the changes on the article's talk page, providing reliable sources to support them. – ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Creative problem solving

Discussion moved: To Talk:Creative problem solving#Advertisement. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The page has one reference used 7-8 times. A book by Richard Fobes. Richard Fobes also happens to be editor that added all the references to that book. His wikipedia user name is User:VoteFair. Though the page does not have overt advertisements for this users book, I don't believe the article should stay as it is. I know nothing about the topic, else I would do the alterations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User informed of this discussion. SpinningSpark 15:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Concern re editing


I peruse wikipedia pages more or less at random every so often, and have noticed certain grammatical mistakes or left-out words happening every so often, which I try to correct if I have the time. Call me paranoid but I don't think people are that careless or uneducated. There's also the phenomenon of people adding in refs to promotional websites all the time. I think this may be mainly due to people being allowed to edit pages while still being unsigned. Wouldn't it make more sense if only those members signed-in could edit a page? That way, if people spammed, or trolled the sites to delete words at random, they presumably could be swiftly banned from Wikipedia. Is there a wikipedia ban on this idea of mine, and if so why? Just curious. Loki0115 (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That idea has been debated ad nauseam throughout the history of Wikipedia, with passionate defenders upon both sides of the issue, but continually rejected. See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing for some background. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
PS: Thank you for the help in copy editing. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)