Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 114

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

Contents

Gypsy Heart Tour

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Here IP have introduce a lot of dates saying they're true. In es:WP another IP has removed them saying they´re FAKE -in this exactly way-. This article look highly edited by IP. Can someone check this, please? I'm admin in es:WP. Sorry if this is not the place to make this question. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing wrong with an IP editing. The best place to raise concerns is Talk:Gypsy Heart Tour. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't exactly agree with "there's nothing wrong" since table introduce here has templates in spanish ({{bandera2}} = {{flag2}}) and ask in TP seems not very usefull since the same IP will answer, but thanks anyway. I´ll try to find out in someother way. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It is pointless comparing what has happened on Spanish and English Wikipedias, neither can be taken as a reliable source. The first step, as Jezhotwells has already stated, is to discuss on the article talk page. Ultimately, the sources determine what should be in Wikipedia, not who entered the information. Have you looked at the cited sources? There is absolutely nothing wrong with IPs editing. Not only is this allowed on Wikipedia, it is a founding principle of Wikimedia. SpinningSpark 10:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Who's discussing that? I'm trying to know if the info is right or not, 'cause is pretty much obvious that is a copy from es:WP. I think you did'n understand the point, but there´s no problem for me. Anyway, I've seen this version has the same problem of delete/restore/delete/restore. But, obviously is not my problem anymore. I´ll return to my admin work in es:WP. Good Luck. Cheers. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pea bean

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Some time ago Pea bean was deleted. I assume I was on a Wikibreak otherwise I would have intervened. Most unusually there is not even a re-direct left behind. I could easily re-create a redirect to Vicia faba but if I did I would loose all the previous history and access to the historical content. Provided that the original deletion followed proper AfD process, I would be grateful if an admin could restore the original Pea bean article and, if required , make it into a re-direct to Vicia faba . That would give me an opportunity to develop a well sourced article building on the original text. If due process was not followed, a simple restore of the article would be appreciated. Many thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted in February 2011.
  • 05:16, 1 February 2011 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) deleted page Pea bean (Expired PROD, concern was: (1) There's no source which confirms that Phaseolus aegypticus is a valid botanical name. (2) What evidence there is suggests that the 'pea bean' is a cultivar of P. vulgaris – see the discussion at [[Wikip)
Have you tried contacting the admin who deleted? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
As a non admin I was unaware who the deleting admin was and neither could I see the deletion history. However, your information gives me the possibility of a way forward. Apologies also as I now see that I could have determined the deletion history myself - doooh! Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   23:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)course
Articles deleted under the prod process should be undeleted automatically if challenged (because they were deleted without discussion). However, you may no longer wish to challenge after reading the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive54#Pea bean which suggests any undeletion would simply result in a new nomination for deletion at the full WP:AfD process. SpinningSpark 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

English Defence League

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My concerns with the above article is with neutrality. The group in the article is described as anti-muslim and far-right. The sources that support these claims simply repeat the same assertion, without actually saying why they are far-right or anti-muslim. I have previously changed far-right to "single-issue movement" and removed anti-muslim, but it got reverted. I have also added a talk page article about both issues.

I need an editors help to clarify if we determine a groups goals as majority opinion of that group, or by some other means, such as the official stated goals of that group. Because this article seems to be using the former method, unfairly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.168.146 (talkcontribs)

The article uses the former method, fairly. Or to be more precise, we use reliable sources, which overwhelmingly describe the EDL as 'anti-muslim and far-right' - so we do the same. If the EDL wishes to be seen as something else, it is going about it a strange way:[1][2][3]... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ranina Reddy Wikipedia

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Hi. I am Vithur from India... I have a simple request.. I have added some data to the wikipedia of Singer Ranina Reddy.. Those are all Data which have ample proof and webpages linked to each one of them.. Please consider my requests and approve them... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vithurgod (talkcontribs) 05:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You should discuss the issue on the article talk page with other editors of the article and not edit war in the article itself. SpinningSpark 08:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

National Chamber Choir

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have edited a page for the company I work for National Chamber Choir of Ireland on 4 April. My changes were undone by a user who is not connected with my company User:Gerda Arendt to a version of the page that is irrelevant to the company at the present time as it dates back to 2007/2008. I am new to editing a page on wikipedia therefore I have no idea how to go about resolving this issue. I would very much appreciate your help on this matter. Majella Hollywood (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I have undone your edit again, because it was overly promotional. Wikipedia does not allow editors to edit about subjects with which they have a conflict of interest as you do, because you will automatically be biased, you probably don't even realise your changes were promotional. What you need to do is request neutral, referenced changes to the article on the talk page, Talk:National Chamber Choir, using the {{editrequest}} tag--Jac16888 Talk 11:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists (television)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Now this page is an essay, but it still consists of bunch of advices that may be either unnecessary or bad. Is anybody here interested to slim down the size into a typical essay format? --George Ho (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination". Utter bollocks. Slim it down to two words - "ignore this". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I have replaced the recently removed {{failed}} template. This page has the status of a failed proposal (even by the admission of the editor who removed the template) and should be marked as such. If it is really an essay (rather than a proposed guideline) it appears to be the opinion of a single editor and does not belong in the Wikipedia namespace. Essays which do not have consensus, or at least support from a significant minority, should be restricted to userspace. If it's not going to be marked as a failed proposal (which generally are kept) I would be in favour of XfDing it. SpinningSpark 12:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I was never in support in creating it as an essay for the sake of making it an essay and moving it to my userspace ever since I proposed the guideline when I first created the page. It should be a failed proposal and stay as a failed proposal and not move the the userspace. "Resurrecting this?" as User:SMcCandlish suggested is fine. As that user suggested,
I am fine with that, and I would love to engage in discussion to make it from a failed proposal to an actual guideline, but in no circumstance do I wish in any way shape or form to transform it into an essay for the sake of transforming it into an essay. The only reason I used {{Supplement}} was to show what policies, guidelines and essays I used in the header in order to write the guideline when I proposed it and to sprout new discussion, and that is why I did not use the {{Essay}} template. If there is or was any confusion on why I changed the template header, I apologize and now make clear in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television) should be a guideline or a failed proposal, not an essay. Taric25 (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I want to write an article about a research project founded by the European Comunity. The aim of this article is to explain what the project is about and provide external links for the community in order to allow access to the research results. There isn't any intention to promote products or companies, more than a mention to the partners that compose the consortium. I tried two times to create this article and it was deleted due to reasons A7, G11 and G12. I used similar wikipedia entries as examples, such as IST-Plastic or SATSIX. and I couldn't find significant differences. Could you give me some guidance about how to proceed? Jturiel (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you need to establish the notability of the subject. This can be done by providing verifiable and reliable sources. You also need to avoid copy-pasting text from an external website. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Also note that just because other articles exist doesn't mean that your article can exist. Each article stands or falls on its own merit, see WP:OTHERSTUFF for the reasons and more detail. (And, indeed, both of the articles that you named appear to me to be seriously defective and I've marked them for potential deletion.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Chisinau

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Chisinau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dear Sirs, I am about the capital city of Republic of Moldova -Chisinau article Chisinau is the capital of Republic of Moldova and its largest city. It has a total population of 794,800 inhabitants not as You wrote as 667,000 or 723,000 in the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi%C5%9Fin%C4%83u). See: http://www.statistica.md/newsview.php?l=ro&idc=168&id=3719. PLEASE NOTE: accordingly to National legislation in statistics and census, the concept of so called " City proper population" is absent! The Chisinau always is seen as municipality (city + metro), due to its special status, You can not differ the city proper and metro here, it's not correct to Chisinau. Also, it would be good to change its list position according to population, to 97th place, not 116 as it is now in the list (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_capitals_by_population). I have repeatedly tried to make changes in the article information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi%C5%9Fin%C4%83u)and (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%91%D0%B2#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.81.D0.B5.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.B5) regarding population, but someone of You makes my changes in vain. It is not correct -there is no more city proper, since 1994, there is municipality (metro) ONLY! Please do not MISLEAD the society. Thank You.

09:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The article talk page is the place to discuss this - I see no discussion at Talk:Chisinau about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

removal of Notability tag vs taking to AfD or providing sources

Discussion moved: article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khurshid Ahmad (Professor of Computer Science). No further discussion needed here. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The article Khurshid Ahmad (Professor of Computer Science) had been tagged for Notability concerns for a while. the Notability tag was removed and replaced with a Primary sources tag with the comment no action on notability in more than six months; replaced it with template better indicating the problem In dealing with some BLP issues, I noticed that the Notability tag had been removed, but didnt see the specific diff, and having same concerns about notability, I readded the N tag, which was again removed with the edit summary AfD it if you like; there is no need for a permanent template if you are not going to do anything about it) . I still think there are Notability issues along with the primary source issues.

Is it standard practice to remove a Notability tag after a time if no one has bothered to either go through an AfD/provide documentation to show that the Notability criteria have been met? (note that there are at least 2 "Khurshid Ahmad" who have each been published a number of times making it difficult to quickly/easily determine whether the hits are valid for the actual subject of this article) -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And while I was composing this, someone weighed in on the other side Notability has /not/ been established, tag should remain until it has. Just because no one address it it doesn't automatically make the subject notable. Shouldn't be removed without consensus. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The template documentation only talks about removing it if you are sure that there there are enough reliable sources to make the article notable but you don't want to bother doing putting them in, though you ought to point people to those sources. As far as I know there are no firm, fixed rules about problem tagging. It's just one of those things which must be decided by consensus. If the tag had been there for a long time, I'd agree with the person who said that it shouldn't be removed without consensus, per policy at WP:CONS#No consensus. I will note in passing that I remember someone respected — it might have been DGG, but I'm not sure — once express the opinion that there was some sentiment around the community that all university professor are inherently notable, so you might look for that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how that last bit can be right - see WP:PROF.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
There are really only three possibilities:
  1. Notability has been established - remove tag.
  2. The article does not pass the notability guidelines, but a WP:BEFORE check turns up sources establishing notability - add the sources and remove tag.
  3. The article does not pass the notability guidelines, and it passes a WP:BEFORE check - send it to AfD.
At this point I would say there is no reason to leave the article tagged, some resolution should be possible. Monty845 00:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The article has been taken to AfD. However, there is at least a fourth possibility: The article, as sourced, does not establsh notability. No one is willing to look for sources that would establish notability. No one is willing to take it to AfD because of the work required to search for sources. The tag remains.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
the issue will be settled at AfD, In general, arguments about placing or removing of a tag are among the least productive in Wikipedia. Tags are meant to indicate potential problems, not to directly solve them. If the notability tag is placed, and anyone thinks otherwise, they can remove it--after all, it was originally placed with the intent that others would look at it. If there is a dispute of notability its just a waste of time to revert: the way to resolve it is AfD, which will deal with the problem in a definitive fashion. There are only two tags that is not permitted to remove without dealing with the problem or giving an explanation of why there is no problem: and those are BLPPROD, and the various forms of the copyvio tag. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Although there are some tags that should absolutely not be removed - for example, the creator of an article cannot remove the speedy delete tag, and no one is permitted to remove an AfD tag except the closer of the AfD - maintenance tags should normally not be removed without "dealing with the problem" or an explanation either in the edit summary or on the Talk page. Although WP:TAGGING does not address every issue and it is "only" an essay, it is somewhat helpful in this regard (see section Removing tags). Also, there are templates for warning editors who "improperly" remove tags, implying that doing so is at least ill-advised (see {{Uw-tdel1}} and its escalating series).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Anything can be done in a manner that contributes to conflict, rather than to the encyclopedia. Both the placement and removal of tags can in a particular case be abusive. As the template you quote says, maintenance tags should be removed if one thinks there is in fact no significant problem, and placing them where there is clearly no problem is abusive. There are also a few cases where it is specifically not permitted to place tags, such as replacing a prod for the same reason, or placing a speedy tag after a speedy was declined for the same reason. Disputes about notability are of all possible disputes here the easiest to solve, for AfD is one Wikipedia process that is at least effective--as compared to such things as Dispute Resolution over content. The most troublesome tag-related problem is edit warring over NPOV tags. And one thing is certain: replacing or removing tags except to prevent vandalism are both always considered an edit in context of 3rr. DGG ( talk ) 14:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything you've just said.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


referencing negatives

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

my contributions have been deleted for failing to provide references. i have been advised to seek instruction here. please explain how to reference a negative, such as, for an action not yet taken. thanks.

Metoo702 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In addition to references, information on Wikipedia also needs to be neutral. That's my primary concern. Perhaps a better way to go about it would be to state that the criticism exists, and provide a reliable reference including a criticism.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
How do you know that some action (event, etc.) has "not yet" happened? Two ways. 1) Someone else said so, whereby you have a source. (Although only WP:reliable sources count here.) 2) You have found out on your own, perhaps by doing a thorough search. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires everyone to be at least one step back from WP:original research. That is, editors are not reporters or researchers. So if you can't find that someone else (someone reliable) has said that something has — or has not — happened, then it does not belong in the article. In other words, an assertion that something has not happened is documented in the same way as any assertion that something has happened. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


How do I stop this stupid vandal?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Rayburne1997 is purposefully disrupting the article on Jayne Mansfield, repeatedly removing codes from sortable lists to make them unsortable (that's about the only thing he is doing. Repeated notices and warnings have made no dent into his/her attitude (he/she just igoners them). How do I stop this person? Where can I report this clear and unambiguous vandalism, though a rather stupid kind of vandalism. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Go to WP:AIV. If you have twinkle supported by latest version of your browser, such as Internet Explorer 9, report him with the TW. --George Ho (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
AIV usually expect a user to have been warned multiple times, including a final warning, before they will do anything, which has not happened in this case. In any case, AIV is for cases of indisputable vandalism and I doubt very much that this will be considered as being that. The edits are more in the nature of a content disagreement, and it has only been done twice. The user is certainly being uncollaborative by not discussing, but the edits are meaningful (I am not saying that tables should or should not be sortable, just that the edits have not actually vandalised). I suggest the best course is to open a discussion on the article talk page with the aim of establishing a consensus among editors. SpinningSpark 17:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
User:Rayburne1997 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
There is definitely something fishy about this user. No communication at all, not even edit summaries. A report to WP:AN/EW may be more appropriate than AIV. SpinningSpark 18:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. Check here. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Solved at AN/EW, I believe. Aditya(talkcontribs) 12:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


Well-intentioned editor leaving poorly-written notes on my Talk

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel very awkward asking about this, but I have an editor who I believe is well-intentioned asking me for assistance on my Talk page, but they clearly don't speak English as their primary language and I'm having a difficult time understanding what they're trying to say/mean. I occasionally have communications problems even with people who are fluent in English; I certainly don't want to drive someone away by having to repeatedly ask them to clarify their concerns. Any suggestions (or intervention, feel free to chime in directly! (smile)) would be greatly appreciated! Thank you so much! Doniago (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to deal with him yourself, you could try directing him to an appropriate help desk such as WP:HD or WP:NCHP, or even here WP:EAR, depending on the level of the request. But I think it is reasonable for an editor to ask you to explain why you have deleted their material. SpinningSpark 18:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but I can't address their more specific concerns when I don't understand what they're asking. I'm sure their questions are perfectly legitimate, but I can't make-out what they're asking due to their grammar. Thank you for the suggestions. Doniago (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd welcome other suggestions that don't involve punting them to a general Helpdesk or saying "please come back when you've learned to speak English". Would asking them to take their concerns to the article's Talk page be appropriate in this case? I really just have no idea what they're asking of me specifically (I understand the general concerns)...they might as well be speaking a foreign language. Thanks for the assistance. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
According to his user page he comes from Iran. His native language may be Farsi, and if it isn't, he probably speaks it better than English. You might want to look for an editor who is skilled in both Farsi and English to help out. You can find Farsi speakers at Category:User fa. Not all of them will be good with English; you might narrow it down with Category:User fa-4 and Category:User fa-5. These are users who are skilled in Farsi but are not native speakers, so they might be English speakers. Category:Wikipedian translators might also help, but unfortunately it does not have sub-categories by language. Or you could try asking at WP:TRANSLATE. SpinningSpark 19:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll definitely look into this! Thank you very much! I was feeling quite bad about wanting to help him but being unable to do so because I couldn't determine what he was trying to say. Doniago (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I should also have mentioned the WP:SPEAKENGLISH which requires all talk page posts in a foreign language to be accompanied by an English translation. SpinningSpark 23:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
While I'm no fan of broken English, I don't think it quite qualifies as a foreign language, heh. ;) Doniago (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking more of the potential for conversations to take place solely in Farsi if a "helper" was found for you. SpinningSpark 00:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I ended up browsing the list of fa-4 speakers and it appeared none of the ones I looked at had been especially active this year. Posted a Helpdesk request to see whether there might be other ideas; no joy. Left a note on my Talk page for the editor who had questions and haven't heard back, so I guess it's become a moot point, though I'm left a bit frustrated that I wasn't able to find a good resolution to this. Oh well. Doniago (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Baby borrowers episode 5

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi just to let you know the children's names in this episode are spelt wrong it's conner not Connor and Aidan not Auden as stated. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.184.53 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Baby Borrowers, if that's the article you mean, has Aiden and Connor. The BBC page for the programme does not give any information. Apparently their used to be a page with that information, but it is now a deadlink. I have to question why Wikipedia needs to have such fine-grained information for a one-off programme on a minor channel in the first place. SpinningSpark 21:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
An old BBC page in the Wayback Machine confirms the names are correct. SpinningSpark 21:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I got warnings for a simple mistake.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to tell between what's AGF and what's "vandalism". Am I gonna get a warning every time this happens?--Deathlaser :  Chat  16:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you have been warned, just given some helpful advice by another editor. If you have been warned, please link to it with a diff. The general rule here is that if you are not sure then you should assume good faith. I believe you were using STiki when the problem came up. STiki has a "Pass" button you can use when you are not sure. This puts the edit back into the pool and it can then be sent to another STiki user to decide. You should use the "Pass" button whenever you cannot tell the difference between vandalism and good faith editing. SpinningSpark 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with Mendocino Music Festival please Mendocino Music Festival

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I posted some questions on the talk page for this article, mainly about how I can fix the tags? I am new and have made lots of mistakes, but I really want to learn how to do things right! The article is about a festival in Mendocino, and I don't know what kind of references to add or how to deal with the tags. The only people who know about the festival are people who are volunteers, or the two paid staff we have, so I am not sure how to deal with the conflict of interest tag or the tag about needing more references. You already deleted all the stuff I had put in there that was not factual, so that is fixed, but I want to deal with the tags somehow if I can. Thank you very very much for any help you can give me! I am trying to do it right!! Mendokitties (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If "The only people who know about the festival are people who are volunteers, or the two paid staff we have" then it sounds like the festival is not notable, and we shouldn't have an article about it at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
A search of gnews seems to show that it does at least have some local notability. What you need to do is get down your local library and find some of these newspaper articles. Some of them may also be available online. I am afraid Orange Mike is right that we should only include in Wikipedia things that are found in reliable sources. Anything that cannot be referenced should be removed from the article. The issue with conflict of interest is that if you are associated with the festival, you are discouraged from writing the article yourself since it is very difficult to be write neutrally. SpinningSpark 19:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Sikandar Hayat Khan (Punjabi politician) article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I am a bona fide editor and contributor and among the articles that Im regularly working on, is the above mentioned one. Sometime ago, an IP Address User:76.17.7.56 began to disrupt and vandalise this article, and its my fault and that of other less reg editors that we didnt previously report all incidents. However, over the last 10-12 days we have been doing so. It seems that some relative/s of this subject seem to be riled up because of our inclusion of some names of some grandsons/great-grandsons of (which were only included, mostly by me, on grounds of notability, along with others) and theer seems to be some sort of 'online family feud' going on the talk page now. But today, in their comments, this IP address user, giving a long list of names, has started to abuse and issue threats to the editors. Under the circumstances, its very stressful to edit this article/page and though I have responded on the articles and user's talk page, and warned again, Im afraid this 'vicious cycle' will now go on. Im just reporting this matter, and would be grateful if some of you could pl help/guide me. Thanks Khani100 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

The vandalising IP has been blocked now so hopefully you will not suffer repeated vandalism. If you do get more from IPs then you can get the article semi-protected, by requesting this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Don't know what's going on in the article, but what's going on on the talk page is legal threats. This is one of the few things that attract instant blocking without warning. Consequently both User:76.17.7.56 and User:39.54.55.137 are blocked until and unless the threat is withdrawn. Persons with a problem with one of our biographies can ask editors to resolve the problem, or they can take legal action. It is their choice, but they cannot do both. Once legal threats are issued they are no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia. They should go talk to our lawyers instead and not bother the editors. SpinningSpark 20:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Spinningspark, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Block_lengths. Monty845 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I have continued this on your talk page. SpinningSpark 21:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

English variation dispute over the article Welfare

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have recently began a discussion about the article welfare. I am not American and to me the word welfare means WELL-BEING. The article has been written as though WELFARE means the same as WELFARE SYSTEM or WELFARE PAYMENTS (government organized assistance to the poor to ensure their well-being). I am aware of course that this is normal usage in the United States of America. The word WELFARE in most of the world has positive associations because it means "doing fine" or "not being in a state of poverty" whereas in the United States the meaning is now almost the very reverse of this and has become a derogatory term because of its association with dependency. here is an external source dictionary that shows clearly the main meaning and the secondary usage as being chiefly American.

Consider these terms that are well known

(a) child welfare (b) animal welfare (c) welfare state (d) welfare payment (e) welfare fraud

To be, as a non-American, in (a), (b), (c) and (d) usages, the word "welfare" means "well being" though I am fairly confident that most Americans on the other hand see the meaning of "well-being" in (a) and (b) but only see the meaning "government aid" in (c) (d). (e) is slightly different because it means defrauding the welfare state so (e) is a usage in which "welfare" could be read as "government aid", though in reality the root meaning here of welfare is still from "welfare system" and thus ultimately "well-being". In the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa the word WELFARE on its own never means "government assistance" as it does in the United States. Never, never, never. Americans talk about "living on welfare", and though I understand what they mean, this is not normative language outside the U.S. (because it would mean living on "well-being" which is nonsensical). Outside the U.S. people would use term "benefits" or "welfare benefits" or "social security" or "assistance" but never "welfare" as Americans do.

Because of the above I thought it wrong for an article entitled welfare to be about a meaning it has in just one country. In my opinion the article ought to explain the main meaning of the word and how it is used. After this, the article should explain the secondary meaning it has in the United States and should offer links to more normatively named articles such as Welfare state, Welfare system, and Social security.

I recently discussed this issue on the Discussion Page and obtained consensus for a change to strip the article of a large tract of information about social welfare and implement this simpler explanation that the main meaning of welfare is well-being but that it in the United States it mostly means a "government program of assistance to reduce poverty". The article was changed and I moved much of the American specific content to Social programs in the United States. However, despite getting consensus another editor picked up the changes I made and though I have explained the reasoning and pointed him to the discussion, he has simply reverted the article back to its original state. I do not want to get into an edit war and would like some external assistance on what to do.

How can this dispute now be resolved?--84.250.230.158 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Welfare, from which there was never a consensus for the changes implemented. The thread there should answer any questions. This IP doesn't seem to appreciate our WP:ENGVAR policy, particularly as it applies to titles. I welcome additional input at that discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Needless to say, I disagree with the idea that there was no consensus. Wilhelm_meis, an American who had lived outside of the US, agreed that the meaning of welfare outside the U.S. is not the same as that inside the U.S. User Dyklon had also said that the article had been "mangled" by this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Welfare&diff=443458237&oldid=443423894 and agreed that government aid ought not to be the primary topic and that it should be fixed. He suggested making it a disambiguation page (which there was in the past in fact). As I see my final edit, this in effect was what the page became. Shadowjams was not party to any of these discussions. He only became involved when he saw that an IP user had deleted a lot of text and he reverted it, only commenting on the talk page AFTER the revert. Most of the text I deleted was already covered by main articles and I did move the American related section (which was historical) to a new history section of the American article referred to above because there was no historical overview in that article. The change did not seem controversial so I did not refer to to WP:RM as had earlier been suggested. Indeed there was no need to do so given that there was a general consensus had been reached that the meaning ascribed to the content is not one that is universally accepted and that there could be a disambiguation page. If Shadowjams is still contending that the article should be be renamed, he should suggest a title for the renamed article, The content would need to be extensively edited because it uses the word "welfare" to mean "government support" which is not international English. If he thinks the content should be dispersed to other articles, he should say to which ones. The article simply cannot be left as it now is IMHO. I thought the re-write that I did to give it the main meaning and the American meaning with pointers to other articles was the consensus position and a good all round solution. We can have an honest disagreement about the approach, but I think that the two editors who came in later and moved it all back should explain why they think this is acceptable. I will ignore the claim that I am ignoring policy with regard to English variation because, as I have already explained to him, I have read these policies and I think they support my position rather than his. --84.250.230.158 (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, it is rather pointless continuing here if you can not agree. You have a few options.
Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Asking for a third opinion is going to have the same problem as coming here. It is only of any use if both parties are willing to accept outside advice and opinions. SpinningSpark 11:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

smartphone therapy

Discussion moved: to Talk:Smartphone. Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Answered: Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

We are a group of occupational therapists working with clients with all abilities. Technology has a larger presence in our regular day to day life for everyone.. including our clients with a chronic condition.. be it clients living with a brain injury, spinal cord injury, arthritis etc. As a therapist, we are beginning to realize the potential of use of smartphones to help folks remember to take meds.. caregivers to locate their loved one who may not remember and problem solve through how to get around.. manage their meds etc.

We wanted a place on the www to share what we find helpful and for other therapists to share with us what they find helpful. Specific info about the different features on a smart phone.. apps folks find helpful working with specific population etc.

I am not very savviest with technology and was wondering Wiki is a place for this kind of information sharing? If not, wonder if you have any suggestion of a free (we are in healthcare) blog site that you recommend?

Thank you, Helena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.38.79 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the right place for what you want to do, because it is an encyclopedia about specific topics. (Indeed, this forum is not even really the right place at Wikipedia to ask this question, but we won't quibble about that.) If you just want a do-it-yourself place to talk about these issues, then a discussion forum such as Google Groups or Yahoo Groups would serve; for a somewhat more structured place arranged into articles about each app, you might want to try Wikia; somewhere between those two would be a blog such as Blogger or Wordpress. All of them are free to use. Each of the preceding links are to the Wikipedia articles about those sites; you can find a link to the actual sites in those articles. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I think there may be a place in WP for an article. I have put 'nowiki' on the answer tag for now. Can this be moved to articles for creation requested articles Smartphones in healthcare or a sub-section in Smartphone that could later be split off if it gets too large?? Sub-sections could include uses, what apps exist etc. If I was out of line with the answered tag, feel free to wikify it again. Moving this to Talk:Smartphone may work as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It can't go to Articles for Creation because no material has been offered to submit. It is pretty clear that what Helena wants to do is not an article. The first thing needed to write an article is sources. Are there any? In any case, whether or not anyone wants to go off and create an article, the inquirer has been given suitable assistance so there is nothing more to do in this thread. SpinningSpark 02:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ooops. I meant requests for articles. That can be a slow boat from what I hear though. I may be reading it differently from others. If smartphones are used in a niche area like this, then there may be reasons to include all of that information in one page or section somewhere as a reference. It should meet WP policy of course. I made a sandbox article for it to see if it gets any expansion. User:Canoe1967/Smartphones in healthcare. I addded this link to talk:smartphones as well. I agree that this should be carried on in talk:smartphones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I wikified 'answered' again. It seems there is interest on the smartphone talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

edits to references

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've searched FAQs for how to update broken links, but to no avail, and, the edit window comes up empty. So, I could use help providing some updates for broken links.

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_quality, the very first (broken) reference should point to http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/scisummaries/welcome.html

Ditto for the first reference on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algal_bloom as well.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could either make these updates happen, or instruct me as to why I can't seem to.

Thanks, Michael Buchman Web Admin, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.26 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Most articles use a referencing system where you add and edit references in the section where they are used and not where they are displayed. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Click the "Edit" tab at top to see the whole article at the same time. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Losses

Discussion moved: to Talk:Other Losses. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Other Losses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I recently removed what I thought was a stale and resolved POV tag from the article after spending much time reading through the consenus discussions. Within minutes a massive edit to the article was performed that I promptly reverted. The massive edit was contrary to existing consensus. It is quite a long read of article and talk page. If any have time they may wish to start with my 'Lest We Forget..'entry at the bottom of the talk page, and then make suggestions from there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No.
First the tag is not stale, but that's not even the main issue. Second, there is no "existing consensus" on the talk page. What you got there is one editor who keeps arguing with everyone on the talk page and reverts/disrupts any efforts to present a more NPOV version of the subject. Canoe1967 can you please show me where this supposed "consensus" actually exists? All I see on the talk page is a bunch of editors pointing out various problems, and Wayne wearing them out with tedious and irrelevant posts.
Since I pointed out that there were STILL NPOV problems with the article in January 2011, the only "discussion" on the talk page has been Wayne responding with essentially the claim that he is right and published historians are wrong. That's not consensus. And just because a NPOV tag is old does not mean it's "stale"? What kind of logic is that anyway? So if a problem isn't fixed for a long enough period of time it ceases to be a problem? Seriously?
Discussion SHOULD take place on the talk page of the article - and this discussion should continue there. However, I AM going to restore the older less-POV (but still POV) version of the article since there is simply no support - and no policy reason - to include/remove the material added since January.
Note also that some of the most obnoxious POV pushing (previously removed by myself and restored by Canoe1967) has recently been removed by User:Orangemike: weird claims that the book was "suppressed" for 20 years made by some publisher and the disparaging of a historian who's critical of the book. This is good, but it's just scratching the sources.VolunteerMarek 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. We should continue this on the talk page of the article, and I believe others should as well. I have since posted a proposal to split the article to seperate the book article from the controversy of the content of the book. That may be the easiest solution for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

article "American Catholic Church in the United States"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

04/24/2012

I need help.

I have been attempting for over a year to provide content which will address the issues of the inadequacy of previously posted text for over a year now.

Each time that I have posted text to "American Catholic Church in the United States", within a week (usually within hours) of my posting new text, a single user removes the content as though the information I posted was never there.

If you will take a look at the latest log update for all users to this article, you will see a number of content updates I made last night. One editor was very kind and removed only section on the "Talk" page I added because it is considered "harassment". That editor was StAnselm. I thanked StAnselm for his assistance.

However there is another user which deleted not only all the content, cites, and 3rd party references I added last night in order to comply with the concerns on the "TALK" page, the editor event deleted any notes I left (appropriately noting that each issue was properly addresed with new text) was ALSO DELETED.

I am at my wits end. Never in my life have I had such difficulty adding information before. If the user has issues or concerns I can understand, but to DELETE IT ALL within 24 hours, there has to be something else going on of which I am not aware.

Can you PLEASE look at the contribution log for the article "American Catholic Church in the United States" and in particular compare what StAnselm deleted (only in appropriate information on the TALK page) vs the user right after StAnselm who deleted ALL MY CONTENT on both the Article and TALK page.

How am I have to have an appropriate dialogue on the TALK page about content I add, when it looks as though NOTHING was added to the article at all?

Please help me.

jeff359w Jeff359w (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

American Catholic Church in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Have you contacted Angr to ask why they edited out material with the comment "(rv copyvios)". Was the material added by yourself in fact a copyvio? Jezhotwells (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have not. I will attempt. However, the content I provided was thoroughly cited with third party sources throughout the entire article so I am not sure how it could be a copyright violation. I will ask him and let you know what I find out.

thank you for your help. Jeff359w (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There were certainly problems with your edits. It read more like a brochure or webpage of the church itself then an impartial encyclopedic article. "The ACCUS traces its origins back to the Apostles through the unbroken line of apostolic succession of our bishops." is just one example. It should be sourced from independent third party sources reflecting what those sources say about the church, but your version was basically what the church says about itself. See WP:RS for the criteria for such sources. Jiffynotes definitely should not be used. I would have reverted you if I'd seen it. You also need to read WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
A simple google search immediately shows that your edits are copied from other websites. This is copyright violation whether or not you have cited the page as a reference. You do not have permission to do this. Your talk page edits were quite rightly deleted. Disclosing personal information about other editors is grounds for blocking. Please do not do that again. SpinningSpark 15:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I reverted the additions because they had clearly been added from other websites. There are also severe problems with WP:NPOV in the edits. Angr (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

04/24/2012 I would like to thank both of you for your help. Forgive me for my inexperience on Wikipedia. I am learning.

I will do a complete re-write to remove any bias which is present. However, I will continue to use the cited sources and I will ensure they are in the correct form.

Thank you again Jeff359w (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Make sure that when you use the sources that it is really a "complete" rewrite. Close paraphrases are still copyright violations. Also, remember that the sources must be reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia and your use of them must avoid synthesis or original research and undue weight. I've not looked at your sources, but just because no one has complained so far about them having one of those problems doesn't mean that they're necessarily acceptable, and the copyvio problem may have just been the most obvious problem. Finally, remember that writing about an issue in which you have a close personal interest is not prohibited, but is strongly discouraged because it is so very difficult to do in an acceptable manner, especially by a new editor who is not very familiar with Wikipedia policies. If that's not you, good deal; if it is, then proceed with caution and be prepared to have a high tolerance for reversals and frustration. Good luck with your editing and best wishes, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Profile Request for SONYA SPENCE

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Just joined the wiki world. Please kindly create a biography/profile for one time Jamaican singer named SONYA SPENCE. I'm sure fans all over the world will contribute in building the profile. Nwachukwu Chinedu Thanks--Chidyze (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please ask at WP:Requested articles or use the WP:Articles for creation process and create it yourself.--ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi, Welcome to Wikipedia. I have placed some links on your talk page which will start you off on finding your way about. This page is really for users who are having editing problems. You can request new articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers, bands and songwriters, where you should list the artist together with reasons why you think that she meets our notability guidelines for music. I notice from a few references that I found that the artist is known as Sonia Spence, rather than Sonya Spence. You could of course start off an article in your user space yourself, using the Wikipedia:Article wizard, then get it checked out and moved into WP:mainspace when it is ready. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Friedman

Resolved: User given final warning, hasn't vandalized since. No further action needed at this time.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Someone keeps erasing all content which has been referenced, and adding a much bigger page of content that has no sources to verify the content. I suspect it's the person who the page is about, but that person is vandalizing the entries of other people by removing them. Also, can a person be trusted to write his own wiki biography without bias? That's why it's important to keep the old content that has been has verifiable references.

205.156.36.13 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor has been warned by Orange Mike, and is likely to get blocked if he continues. He is breaching one of our more important policies WP:BLP. Please be cautious with accusations of vandalism, this is not vandalism as understood on Wikipedia, just someone who does not understand the rules. I also do not think he is the subject of the article, judging by his username, but he may be someone closely associated. SpinningSpark 21:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphan talkpage Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/srongyl

Answered: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I found a talkpage for a project suggesting creation of an article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/srongyl. I haven't seen a page like this before and wondered if it was in the wrong place or legitimate. A Google search of srongyl didn't seem to turn up anything notable. Not sure if this is the right forum either. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the IP intended to create an AfC request, but accidentally put it on the talk page. Maybe you could offer them a helping hand with the process? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the submission template, and declined it under WP:NEO.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 15:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I learned a lot about creating an AfC request from this. Ward20 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I had to look, but that is where AfC requests are done; in the Wikipedia talk space. I hadn't done AfC in a while. There is a huge backlog, so, anyone who wants to get involved, please help out! It's pretty easy. You can see instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 00:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
IP's can only create pages in talk namespaces. That's why AfC is in Wikipedia talk. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Well, there you go. You learn something new every day.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes (novel)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This article needs condescending plot and real-world impact. If anybody is more interested on this novel more than I, feel free to edit and/or discuss. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you contact relevant projects about this. What do you mean by "condescending plot"? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I might add that this page is for those needing help with editing Wikipedia, not for requesting edits which could be made by yourself. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


Todd Siler

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

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

For any veteran editors who have been monitoring this page, many thanks for your kind consideration. As you may have read, my COI prohibits my contributing. However it has been suggested that I could help by posting relevant source material. I have taken the last few weeks to review and source references in an effort to assist those who may have an interest to improve this BLP. In line citations are needed as indicated in the banner and I have created a list with footnotes. It would improve the page to have separate sections for Publications and Bibliography. This too I have included for your perusal. Please forgive any errors in the presentation. It all looks great in a word document but not here. The markups are not done as I am unfamiliar with them having never attempted to write an article and have no plans to do so. I do hope my work meets with your approval and can be of use. George Cabe (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC) -

Probably best to leave this to editors on that page. Is there a specific request you have for an uninvolved editor? The most commonly used markups can be found at Wikipedia:Cheatsheet and a more thorough guide at Help:Wiki markup. SpinningSpark 17:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Oppenheim

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I just registered. FeanorStar7 recently updated edited a page for the artist Dennis Oppenheim. I would like to add to the page, the complete bibliography but need help in doing so.I compiled the bibliography. Thank you. Amy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyvanwinkle (talkcontribs) 12:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • We seldom add a complete bibliography to an article, as it distorts the balance of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Instead, we place a small selection in the main article, and may link from there to a subarticle: a List of works.
    A small selection of the most notable works can be placed in the main article with a link to a subarticle comprising the comprehensive list. Vladimir Nabokov is an example linking to a separate list; Henry James contains them in the main article. As Dennis Oppenheim is a short article, and the list on the official website spans 40 years and is lengthy, a subarticle may be better. Welcome to Wikipedia, Amy. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Willy Stöwer

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have recently done quite a bit of stuff with the Willy Stöwer article, and frankly somebody who knows what they're doing should take a look at it -- preferably somebody fluent in German.
Due to a HD crash, my current IP is temporary, my usual user talk page=(talk) ~Eric F 98.26.28.41 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you can cite http://www.askart.com/AskART/artists/biography.aspx?artist=11073111 for the birth years. It would be nice to have dates as well. Does the de:WP have them?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong Trade Development Council

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong Trade Development Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a message on the Hong Kong Trade Development Council wikipedia page that claims the material is of a marketing/advertising nature. This is not true - the info on this page is merely factual - editors please see for themselves.

Kindly remove this erroneous claim ASAP, or kindly advise what other steps need to be taken to remove this message from the top of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council wiki page.

Thank you,

Parker Robinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkrobinson (talkcontribs) 10:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors have been working on removing the more spammy bits of the article starting with this edit. A more serious issue is the lack of citations to establish notability, which ultimately may lead to the article's deletion altogether. SpinningSpark 19:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Closeout (sale)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This needs sources but reliable. I wonder if this meets WP:GNG. --George Ho (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think that an article does not meet the notability guidelines then you can follow the procedures listed at WP:FAILN. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't under mentorship agreements. Under those agreements, I need approval from one of my mentors. Without approval, I can't nominate it for deletion. I was hoping that you or anyone else would fix this article to prove the topic's notability. --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you find the sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Delegation, or passing the buck? — GabeMc (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping either of you are interested in this topic. --George Ho (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia policy violations/Yogi Bhajan user talk

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am new to Wikipedia. I don't want to get in trouble, so I am posting here. A few days ago at the Wikipedia YOGI BHAJAN user page. I posted a lengthy complaint citing each of the multiple Wikipedia policy violations cited in the Wikipedia flag at the page top. I HAVE YET TO RECEIVE A RESPONSE. My main concern is I feel the editor, Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa, a Yogi Bhajan follower and 3HO member, is treating the page as his personal website, cost free at Wikipedia expense. He is the major, if not, the sole contributor to the page,and he undos any post not to his liking, fudging Wikipedia policies. If you read the court affidavit I submitted on the user page of an expert witness, the testimony states the 3HO organization is a CULT. IT SEEMS AS IF THIS 3HO CULT CANCER IS INFESTING WIKIPEDIA WITH MULTIPLE PAGES. Please look at the Wikipedia page concerning Miri Piri Academy, a 3HO organization, written as an advertisement, against Wikipedia policy. ' Without getting into trouble, can I undo all the text on the Yogi Bhajan page with "sources affiliated with the subject", i.e. citations from 3HO organizations or 3HO members?' Seems Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa is also very active on the Wikipedia 3HO page also. And there is also the Akal Security, and Yogi Tea pages, more 3HO organizations. Just found the Wikipedia pages for the following 3HO members and Yogi Bhajan followers: Gurumukh, Dharma Singh Khalsa, Hari Jiwan Singh Khalsa, Singh Kaur, and Satkirm Kaur Kaur Khalsa, Hari Jiwan Singh Khalsa, Snatam Kaur, etc.. The Yogi Bhajan page has a serious neutrality issue. Please advise. Respectfully Submitted, Daan Singh Daan singh (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC) April 24, 2012

You may not get an instant response at an article talk page as other edits may have other real life things to do. Might I suggest that you concisely state your concerns as at present you post at Talk:Harbhajan Singh Yogi looks like a bit of a rant and will likely be ignored by others. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It might also help if you don't shout. It's rude, and people tend to ignore you if you are shouting.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


David Ricardo

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not the person to do it. I am a very old man. But the entry on David Ricardo is very inadequate.

Ricardo is surely one of the half dozen most important economists who ever lived. He was the primary founder of the English Classical School of Economics, and through that of the entire orthodox, Anglo- American economic tradition of the last two centuries, from Ricardo to John Stuart Mill, to Alfred Marshall, to the 20th Century explosion of professional economics, with addition of macroeconomics in what Paul Samuelson, the greatest economist since Keynes, called "the neo-classical synthesis."

Find someone to do a good job on Ricardo. Suggestion: Go to the University of Chicago graduate school.

A good entry on "The Bullion Controversy" would be in order. I could send you a paper that's too long, if you could find someone to edit it down to Wikipedia length.Gunnj (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)John M. Gunn Lewis Whitaker Adams Professor of Economics, Emeritus Washington and Lee University

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


Do we have policy for notability of list-articles?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we currently have a notability policy for list articles? For example the following articles are all recently created pages (and have flaws in addition to lack of notability):

  • 2012 Time 100 which might also be a copyright violation (since it duplicates a list produced by Time magazine and is single-sourced).

These seem somewhat suspect to me and might have been better implemented as a category. Do we have any relevant policy or guidance that relates to this kind of article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Time 100 is a special case as wholesale inclusion is a copyvio as determined by the Foundation lawyers - it is the case because there is a creative decision used to select the inclusion in this list and thus is not like factual data which can't be copyrighted. So those should be quickly cleansed (if that means deletion, that too). An exception here is when we've gotten permission to reprint (the AFI various lists have ORTS backing).
For lists in general, some guidance is provided by WP:N#Stand-alone_lists, in that we would like that the topic of the list be notable. But we've tried before to establish an overarcing list notability aspect but it's difficult to assert. So some lists like the fictional mustelids, we have no advice - either direction - whether its notable or not. --MASEM (t) 21:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
An editor has already nominated the 2012 article for deletion. I note that the are articles for the preceding years which suffer from much the same problem (substantially duplicating a copyrighted list), but with an intro that does not appear to be an obvious cut & paste. In my opinion 2006 Time 100 is probably also a copyright violation. Do you agree? --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Those are two different kinds of articles that you link to above. The first is about a real world list, and so completely apart from any copyright issue, it is proper to ask whether the Time 100 is itself a notable subject just as any other; the fact that the article's subject is a list does not change this (see also Nixon's Enemies List, AFI 100 Years... series, etc., for other articles about lists).

The second is an indexing or navigational list, i.e., a list of Wikipedia article topics or subtopics; it is not about any real world list of fictional mustelids but is instead merely uses a list format. The list's entries are themselves limited to notable subjects, whether the characters themselves merit standalone articles or at least the works of fiction that depict them. For these kinds of lists, there is no one single way to evaluate their validity. Look to WP:CLN, WP:LISTPURP, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTN for relevant guidelines. postdlf (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lists, like all articles, should be about notable subjects. Ideally the list itself should be notable, which should be easy to establish if the list was published in a major magazine. As a strong deletionist when it comes to lists, I think the TIME 100 list is clearly notable for inclusion as one of the most well-known and respected magazine lists. The fictional mustelids list, on the other hand, is listcruft; this type of list is a relic from our overly permissive state 4 or 5 years ago, where listing random information was freely accepted alongside encyclopedic writing. ThemFromSpace 23:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Heroes

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject Heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There are 40 transclusions of this template; I have replaced this template with Template:WikiProject Television because WP:HEROES is now a task force. What can I do: either replace it more times or turn it into a redirect of Template:WikiProject Television? --George Ho (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any guidelines on this, but I would have thought it was perfectly ok as it is. Wikiproject Heroes redirects to the task force so anyone clicking through the template will go to the right place. Looking through the featured articles of the Los Angeles task force, they handle it by linking to both in the template. See Aliso Creek (Orange County) for instance. SpinningSpark 12:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Linda Thompson (actress)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have (today) read incorrect info on 2-3 wiki profiles. RE: LINDA THOMPSON. I grew up with her and entered many of the same beauty pageants as she. Check the record splease! ALL the winners of the Tennessee pageants are listed w/pics. Please correct erroneous info found on her wiki page; her son (Brody's page) and several other family members. It is so wrong to see you put forth such outright lies. Makes me question all your wiki profiles to see this.

Seems to me that fact checking should be paramount in this venue!!

As you say:: Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view.

My info is 100% verifiable. Check the web. You have posted and held out as fact lies. I was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.117.13 (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The official pageant website lists Ms. Thompson as the third place finalist in 1970. If you have reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia (click that link), which shows that information to be incorrect then please feel to state them and request a change by leaving a note on the primary article talk page, with a note saying where it is also incorrect. Wikipedia policy prohibits your personal recollections and testimony from being used for that purpose, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Artist Manager Help Updating Artist Page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, We manage country group Rascal Flatts. I updated Joe Don Rooney's Wikipedia page yesterday with new photo and additional biography information and sourced everything and had the rights to post the photos. I see today that all my changes have been deleted and do not know why. Can you please tell me why and how I can update and make the updates stay?

Thanks JDR1234 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you have a conflict of interest here. Your addition of facebook and twitter links has been reverted as these are not reliable sources. The image you added is probably not copyright free unless you are the photographer. You will need to provide evidence of its licensing to WP:OTRS, as the source is a website with a prominent copyright notice. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I get too many warning

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  1. Requesting permission to ignore deltalk as I want to put the past in the.....past.--Deathlaser :  Chat  19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure what you mean. If you want to avoid certain types of notifications on your user talk page then see {{Bots}}. Does that help? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
He must mean WP:DELTALK which is an injunction against administrators deleting user talk pages (because conversation history would be lost). There is no problem with users removing or archiving unwanted material though, it's done all the time and you don't need anyone's permission. SpinningSpark 00:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am looking for an advice, for a problem what I personally think is inappropriate. I will try to explain it as short and clear as possible. I know this isn`t discussed on the talk page but since there isn`t an initiative (yet) by the changing party I am really asking for advice on this matter and what Wiki policies states in this case.

I don`t think that adding wikiProject country Y is appropriate to add to already existing wikiProject country X. I have 2 examples for this,

  • Târgu Mureș, a city in Romania (recently added WP:HU).
  • Komárno, a city in Slovakia (recently added WP:HU).

It is recently added to an already existing WikiProject (Romania,Slovakia) WikiProject Hungary what I believe to be inappropriate because if we start to do so adding this tags everywhere is losing it`s purpose. If we add other wiki projects, as that we can add almost to every article other wikiProjects(country X). Ex: We could add to almost whole Eastern Europe WP:TR(Ottoman Empire) on the same basis but there isn`t such attempts.

Also I noticed that is against general practice on Wikipedia, where one article contains WikiProject only of that country, unless it is a special case ( autonomous province, cultural center for that minority, or similar).

Diff of the problem I am talking about: 1, 2 and 3.

I am asking for advice is it appropriate to add other WikiProjects country X to places in other countries where there is no special case ( autonomous province, cultural center for that minority, or similar) present. Thanks in advance. Adrian (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think in the case of Târgu Mureș, for example, this is a city which historically was part of Greater Hungary, with an important role in the history of Greater Hungary, even though most of the population was not Magyar. It is by no means unprecedented for an article to be under quite a few differing projects, and no harm is done by it. Perhaps putting Târgu Mureș under WikiProject Hungary will inspire one of our editors who specializes in early modern Hungarian history to improve our coverage of Târgu Mureș in the context of Balkan history! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok for Târgu Mureș since it had an important role, but what about Komárno? I am afraid that this kind of inclusion could start some problems because this can be sensitive if we start to add this tags all over Wikipedia. Adrian (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe this could cause many problems since it can be sensitive if we start to include this banners other than where it should be. If we include WikiProject Hu in this places, what is stoping us to add wikiProject SK to 90% of places in Hungary? Or Wiki Hu to all Slovakia? Or Wiki Austria to 5 current countries? I don`t think this is a good idea. Adrian (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the thing to do is drop a note to Wikiproject Hungary and ask if they think Komárno is within their scope. If it is not then remove the tag, if it is, I am sure they will tell you why. SpinningSpark 01:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Adrian (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics (edit|project page|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm not sure that I am posting this in the proper place, but I think that some help is needed on the talk page for WikiProject Comics. One user in particular David A has left several comments there, which seem completely unrelated to the subject matter being discussed. When asked for clarification by other editors, he then deletes the comments, and uses edit summaries to carry on debates and express opinions, which also seem completely unrelated. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but I'm at a loss as to what can be said, so that this user can actively participate in the discussion, instead of just thoroughly confusing everybody. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes you do have a problem there. With matters involving longterm contributors that are likely to involve "health issues", bringing things up on the Incidents noticeboard (AN/I) can make things worse—of course it depends on who you get responding. Contact the arbitatration committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org (it may also be reached through the "Email this user" feature at "User:Arbitration Committee") and raise the matter with them. They will look at the issue and be able to deal with it discreetly if need be. If they decide they wish to send it back to AN/I that's fine.  --92.6.211.228 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A bad start

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I having a bad start, or am I like any other newbie. Is there any newbie who have had a worse start then me?--Deathlaser :  Chat  14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have a consensus that getting a start here can be tough. I got slapped down (properly) for a copyright violation, got chided for incivil language, and got accused of COI violations; and now I'm an admin. This project keeps getting bigger and bigger, and as we acquire more street cred we also have acquired more guidelines, more triplines and traps and taboos. It's part of the ever dreaded "learning experience"; and I encourage you to hang in: it gets better (or at least easier). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I see I am not the only one. Despite a bad start, you are admin! Everyone forgave you and you never gave them awards as compensation. Didn't anyone oppose you at Rfa? I have voted in many Rfa's and everyone uses such tiny things as excuses to oppose! Compared to that half-a-dozen articles of mine getting deleted is major. Can I have copy of your Rfa.--Deathlaser :  Chat  19:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
That would be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orangemike. As you can see, I had some serious opposes, and some neutrals; it was by no means a WP:SNOW situation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Heroes task force

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Now WP:WikiProject Heroes is a task force of Television Project. This page needs a makeover. --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

External link to "Reported Attack Page!"

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In Vikarabad, there is a <ref> link to [4], and in Firefox, clicking on this link brings up a Reported Attack Page warning, on which, clicking on "Why was this page blocked?" it says that there is a Google-provided advisory saying, "Of the 3 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 2 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent."

Is there an {{unsafe link}} template to use? Does Wikipedia have any standard way of dealing with this sort of thing? —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Attack sites should be removed immediately, which I have now done, per WP:ELNO#EL3. Don't tag and leave for some unsuspecting reader to find out the hard way. SpinningSpark 09:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Need help at editing Infoboxes

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish to add free label to an article's infobox here Central National Herbarium. However, they don't show up. Where is the problem? and also kindly suggest some constructive ideas. Vivek Rai (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Template:Infobox museum supports free labels. You may get more help at WP:HELPDESK Jezhotwells (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Massive Updates to Airline Deregulation article to address "Bias".

Resolved: Editor removed tag following their improvements. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

I made massive updates and editing changes to this article to address the "neutrality" issues. it had been leaning the article heavily to the "conservative", "privatization" side. Hope you like the changes and agree they are assets to the article, thereby removing the "bias warning".

Thanks, --XB70Valyrie (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And what do you want us to do here? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
S/he wanted you to look at the article and judge if it's sufficiently neutral to remove the POV tag. That's how I read it. Since posting this they've today removed the tag themself. Thus, resolved. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yogscast deletion

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there is a standard regarding youtube video's/celebs. Specifically, it was brought to my attention the recent deletion of the yogscast article by NawlinWiki. I can't speak for the article itself, as I cannot view the last deleted version, however, this user has a history of contentious deletions, to the point where their talk page has had to be protected, and a personal policy of deleting youtube based content, which I personally think is EXTREMELY out of place in the current internet culture, where many youtube producers are FAR larger stars than TV producers.

Yogscast has a regular following of nearly 2 million users, and nearly ten million hours of content having been viewed. There is no way that this is not a notable reference on the standard of popular human culture. The numbers yogscast puts up would put to shame most popular television series to date. They are by a wide margin the most accessed internet content in the UK.

I'm just wondering how, by anyone's standards, deletion can be the better option for their article as opposed to requests for more information or improved references?

Apologies if this is not the right place, I'm not familiar with the labyrinth of Wikipedia communities. Please feel free to direct this complaint to the correct location rather than being a jerk.

SwiftSpear (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)SwiftSpear

That article has been speedily deleted 8 times by no less than 5 different admins, 7 of those times for not indicating why the subject is important or significant (a pretty low standard). I can't see the deleted text either, but my guess is that if it had cited some reliable sources that demonstrated any kind of notability, it would have at least survived speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Each version is basically the same crap. The lede of the most recent version read, "This article is impotant because it helps the Yogscast fans
The Yogscast are a very popular Gaming community, Can be found on Youtube. They do gaming how to's and gaming reviews. the Yogscast members are Simon Lane, Lewis Brindley and Hannah Rutherford". --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously either no one can, or no one wants to comply with our very basic requirement for sources that confirm notability. We can't make exceptions, and after examining the deleted versions I fully concur with Ukexpat, OrangeMike, and the deleting admins, and would have deleted it myself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfinished article

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia article called "Jade Dragon Snow Mountain" that is a link from the other wikipedia article "Long March". It is listed as a link from the "Long March" page as the article (Long March article), states that the Long March featured the event in which people travelled through the Jade Dragon Snow Mountains, yet the information found on the "Long March" page does not exist in the "Jade Dragon Snow Mountain" page nor is there reference to this event on the related article. I do not have the recourses to complete the information on the "Jade Dragon Snow Mountain" page, though I am very certain information exists on this event in that particular place.

"Long March" wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march

"Jade Dragon Snow Mountain" wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Dragon_Snow_Mountain

I hope this is the right place to address this issue, I have been looking for the right place to post this and this page seems to be the right place. I am new to wikipedia.

--Scary Pigeons (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding this. Jade Dragon Snow Mountain is linked in Long March because it is a geographical term that may not be familiar to many readers, not because more information on the Long March is to be found there (although there is no reason why a summary of important historical events should not be in a geographical article). By the way, all articles on Wikipedia are not finished. SpinningSpark 09:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland - song title to Add

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

My name is Jordan Thorsteinson, principal songwriter for the hit song "Unity" by Kelly Rowland. After further review on Wikipedia's site, I noticed this song was not included alphabetically in Kelly's list of songs.

Click on link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kelly_Rowland_songs

Can you please add "Unity" when convenient.

Best Regards, Jordan Thorsteinson JHT Music Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.175.128.1 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The link you have provided is to a category, not a list. Categories show the articles that actually exist on Wikipedia on a given topic. Articles for individual songs are only created if the song itself is notable, not just because it is sung by a notable artist. The song is listed, and you are credited, on the article for Ms. Kelly on which it appears. SpinningSpark 20:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Cutler

Stale: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

cutler family history uk from staffordshire betley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek bestford (talkcontribs) 23:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a question about using or editing Wikipedia? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why am I repeatedly being denied?

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I'm posting... "On May 10th, 2012 the Rex Putnam Wind Ensemble, led by conductor Jeff Wilson, competed in the OSAA Band Championships in Corvallis, OR and ended up finishing in 5th place.[1]

Can you tell me why it keeps getting taken down? What am I doing wrong? I'm trying to post it on the Rex Putnam High School wiki site...

Please help... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.158.236 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit summaries by User:Tedder are state championships only and Again, only first place at state. 5th place really isn't notable and doesn't belong in the article.--ukexpat (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So, even though eleven teams competed and the top five were recognized with award plaques, it's not noteworthy, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.158.236 (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No. This is a global encyclopaedia. 5th place in a regional event is not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Need editing help

Stale: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:

There's some information on the Quanah Parker entry that I believe needs clarification. But I'm having a hard time understanding the procedures for adding or editing information, wiki markup, etc. Is there a way in which I could work with an experienced editor who could help with this? I don't see myself doing a lot of editing, but I believe in this case some clarification is needed. Thanks. Lstclaire (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify what exactly you are having difficulty doing? There is no procedure required of you before you are allowed to edit an article, you can just go and do it. Do not worry too much about markup; just write what you need to write, others will correct any formatting problems and/or let you know what you are doing wrong. Be sure to include the details of the reliable sources from which your information comes. You are welcome to contact me directly on my talk page if you wish. SpinningSpark 20:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Resolved: - or stale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

:

this has also been asked on my talk page SpinningSpark 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Having trouble with linking image to what is written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.125.23.146 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Updating Links Disney Interactive Media Group

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:

Hi,

My name is Angela, and I have been trying to update our links to our wiki here: Disney Interactive Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to link "mom" to www.babyzone.com/baby-names/ and www.spoonful.com/ to "parenting."

Can you please help as the links are not updating.

My disney email is [details removed]

Thank you, Angela DIMG (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You did update the page, but another editor removed them again as they were not appropriate for a Wikipedia page. The rules here on links to external sites are at Wikipedia:External links, and they are stricter than many editors realise. Have another look through the messages that have been left on your "talk page", User talk:Londonberry. (I have removed your email address to protect your privacy) -- John of Reading (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah for giving me some direction and help on the Teahouse forum. I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonberry (talkcontribs)

Developing Naming conventions (character)

Stale: F Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:

User:George Ho/Naming conventions (character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Previously, I have discussed this user subpage in WP:village pump (proposal). However, it was an unprepared proposal. Now I am discussing this here to help me turn it into a good Wikipedia page, either essay or guideline. --George Ho (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Angeligue Dark Shadows

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:

You have so much information, some correct and some not. The dracula legend really started from a husband loving his wife and carrying her around and kissing her neck because she loved it so much. It has nothing to do with biting animals and drinking anything like that. It was simply a wife lvoing her husband to carry her around and she liked to put her head back and he'd walk back and forth carrying her and giving her kisses on the neck. She loved that. She was spoilled with love, lots of love, and he'd walk her back and forth every night. He had a room where he would take her and kiss her neck. She loved that. The walkway of one of their houses was a long dark creeky walkway and her head would be dangling over with her arms hanging out all relaxed. She knew she was on her way to getting kises and loved the room where he took her. The curse of Baranbus Collins will be lifted when they give one of her houses back and her and Barnabus talk, and she feels like it. Until then, he can keep walking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.49.69 (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have information to be added to an article, please feel free to do it yourself, but remember that all contributions must be supported by inline citations to reliable sources and that synthesis and original research must be entirely avoided. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Appropriateness of content - editorial views sought

Stale: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Editor,

I have drafted an edit in my sandbox page that, if I post it anywhere, would be the Henry Purcell page, in the "In popular culture" section, after the first paragraph, which makes reference to "The Cold Song", which, as Dryden wrote it and Purcell set it, starts "What power art thou, who from below hast made me rise, unwillingly and slow, from beds of everlasting snow".

It has some very sensitive content, that includes reference to trying to take one's own life, so while it is also very constructive and compassionate it may be unsuitable to post. Please would you have a look and let me know your views. I will separately be seeking advice from a mental psychological and psychological health professional about its suitability for inclusion in a publicly available place.

Yours,

George Gretton — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Gretton (talkcontribs) 11:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi George. Your request on this page is the only contribution you seem to have made so far. Which sandbox did you use, and under what IP account or name? If you wrote in Wikipedia's general sandbox, the material has probably been automatically deleted, or altered by others. Perhaps you used another account; if so, please provide a link. Unless other editors can read the text you're worried about, they can't offer assistance or advice. Haploidavey (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I provide useful factual information and it is deleted every time. Why is that? I even referenced my sources and it was still deleted. I am not experimenting and I don't need the sandbox. I feel Wiki is not allowing me to put facts in the articles. How can anyone edit or add to the site if Wiki never lets it go on the site? what did I put in here that was wrong, incorrect or abusive? Quixmillion87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.181.26 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

1) Youtube is not a reliable source. 2) Your edits pretty clearly violated WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. In short, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --NeilN talk to me 19:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, it was not biased at all. so if I posted the same information and soureced it to TruTV, in which a Navy Seal has done the research. is that reliable? How is Youtube not a good source when it shows an unedited TV show that presents facts? I understand if I made my own video or linked to an idiot taht would make sense but to say all of youtube is garbage doesn't seem right. I'm not on a soapbox I am trying to get the truth available to the public. I will repost just tell me what is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.215.181.26 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are opinionated and argumentative. They are utterly unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, however good your sources are, which is not very good. There are plenty of places you can post this sort of thing on the internet. Wikipedia is not one of them. By the way, do you think those videos were posted with permission of the copyright holder? There is no indication that they were and sites hosting copyright violations cannot be linked from Wikipedia under any circumstances. SpinningSpark 00:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I will also note that despite the name TruTV programs are not generally regarded as reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Americans in the Venona papers

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a frequent visitor so I'm a bit confused as to what to do. Wikipedia's rules, styles, guides, etc. are a bit overwhelming, so I hope this is the right place. But it seems to me that this page (linked below) is entirely based on one book tha is not a reliable source. It's a screed and polemic. At the least the title of the page needs to be changed as the people listed are not on the Vernona list, they are code names that some unreliable authors believe they have figured out. I can give examples if needed, but at most the page (if kept at all) should be renamed after the book. No? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.3.63 (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. This page has been a source of controversy for a long time as can be seen from its talk page, and the talk page of Venona project. There has even be a deletion debate, but no consensus was reached. It seems to me that a further problem is that, according to the Venona project article, there are 349 names on the Haynes and Klehr list, but our article is much shorter than this with no indication of the method used for selection. The procedure for requesting a rename is at WP:RM (be sure to use the procedure for controversial moves). The procedure for nominating for deletion is at WP:AFD - it is perfectly acceptable to nominate for deletion a second time, especially as the previous debate was way back in 2007 and did not reach consensus. SpinningSpark 09:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I tried my best, but can you see if I did it right? My arguments are WP:NOR and WP:IRS . Although the book is academic, the inference from the page is way over the top and the book is controversial, to say the least. As is this page, as you note. Sorry I find the deletion instructions a bit bewildering. I'm not a code writing or html type. :) Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.3.63 (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid an user without an user account cannot currently nominate an article for deletion via AfD, as IP cannot create new pages. (Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.) As such I have reverted the attempt. You may try again if you decide to create an user account, or another user with an account already decide to nominate it for you. -- KTC (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Then to keep wiki a quality site can some admin just start the process? The page seems to clearly violate several rules. Y'all need to a find a way to streamline the system around here. Its a very steep learning curve just to participate moderately, which seems to lock out many good people (and some cranks, no doubt, too, but still...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.3.63 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Material "typo"

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

:

I just wanted to bring to someone's attention a material "typo" in the Wikipedia entry for the U.S. House of Representatives.

The "History" section includes the following paragraph. I have highlighted (bold) the questionable text, where I think the author means another date besides March 4, 2001.

Eventually, the Convention reached the Connecticut Compromise, or the Great Compromise, under which one house of Congress (the House of Representatives) would provide representation proportional to each state's population, whereas the other (the Senate) would provide equal representation amongst the states. The Constitution was ratified by the requisite number of states (nine out of the 13) in 1788, but its implementation was set for March 4, 2001. The House began work on April 1, 1789, when it achieved a quorum for the first time.

Thanks, David Rogers, 184.39.4.45 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. Someone made an unhelpful edit a few days ago. I have restored the original date, 1789. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion and restoring of redirects by admins

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

:

I occasionally put redirects up for speedy deletion. Sometime they are deleted but then are restored by User:Rossami (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). There is obviously a different interpretation of guideline by admins. It seems that Rossami interprets guidelines in such a way that every redir is kept.the latest example is here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_27#Stephen Preston (disambiguation). I want this sorted out so we all don't waste our time. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong forum Alan, and perhaps you should try discussing it with Rossami first. With your experience (111,000+ edits since 2004), you should know how Wikipedia works by now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, you may want to comment at WT:CSD; I trust you'll find the thread I'm referring to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not know of any admins who interpret WP:INTDABLINK differently, although there are sometimes admins who are naturally unaware of it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Rouge editors trying to disrupt my userspace

Resolved: Misunderstanding. GB fan 16:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

HI, I'm trying to edit an article in my user space because it's a somewhat major revision and I want to allow other editors to comment before making it live. Unfortunately, other editors keep deleting it or messing with it. THIS IS EXPREMELY FRUSTRATING. I consider it a serious violation of wiki ettiquitte to simply blow away several hours of my donated time without discussing it first. User Kudpung is the main problem, but also user Buggie11 has also interfered.

1) Why do these users think it is appropriate to interfere with my work? 2) How do I get them to go away and leave me to write in peace?

I understand that whatever revisions I make will be subject to review and editing by other editors. I have a very good working relationship with the active editors on the page in question, and I'm sure we will come to a good consensus on the talk page once the proposed revision is in place on my user page. But Kudpung and Buggie111 are preventing me from even proposing the revision, and while I'd like to presume good faith, I'm not seeing it here. Kudpung has now wrecked the proposed revision twice. Help. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Swordfish, I've tried to explain this to you on your talk. Your work was being sent to articlespace, not your userspace. It is still there, at User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle and User:Mr swordfish/Bernoulli principle/1. Buggie111 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks again for clearing up the confusion on my part. Please consider this request closed, and I apologize for implying a lack of good faith on your part. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)