Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 117

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

Contents

Mars Express Communications error

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(Mars Express#Communications)

The current descriptions states that the Mars Lander Relay transceiver is an Electra Software Defined Radio. This is incorrect, the radio is actually called Melacom and is made by Qinetiq (http://apps.qinetiq.com/perspectives/micro_news_article7.asp)

I would edit myself but I'm not sure if that would be against NPOV guidelines. Anyway, it's a simple change, and shouldn't be any issues with it.

Paul-T (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why you shouldn't do this yourself. Do provide a ref though. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Updated. Thank you for your advice. Paul-T (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert Stone (architect) wiki

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Robert Stone (architect) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

This page has a notice from 2010 that questions it's validity for "general notability" - yet it references over 50 articles in major international purblications. Is there anything we can do to remove that notice at the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.49.49 (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this meets the notability guidelines but the list of references needs to be changed to in-line citations where necessary and the more dubious non RS sources removed. I have removed the notability tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please edit this page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. ‘The development’, Queen Victoria Village (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I am writing in relation to the incorrect information found on the above article. The text I am referring to reads as follows:

“The "urban village" of QV is a high-density, mixed use precinct containing retail, business, and living spaces. Its different components were designed by several architects: Denton Corker Marshall, Lyons, John Wardle, and Robert McBride.”

Robert McBride needs to be replaced by the company name McBride Charles Ryan, in order for the work to be attributed correctly. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 203.45.44.8 (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to do these edits yourself including a brief edit summary. Please consider also mentioning on the article talk page what you have done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The first 99 footnotes to the excellent entry on the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 are, apart ftom the authors' surnames, still encrypted so cannot be read. Is there a way of obtaining those footnotes or can the error somehow be corrected? PGH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.129.0 (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
These are "shortened footnotes". A reference such as "White (1991) p.1" tells you to scroll down a bit to the list of works, where "White, Robin" is listed as the author of a book named "A Guide to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990". To get the full text you will have to find the book in a library or bookshop. This is less convenient than an online source, but meets Wikipedia's standard forverifiability - see Wikipedia:Offline sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition incorrect

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Frequent Flyer" is defined incorrectly. A Frequent Flyer is exactly that, yet the explanation describes loyalty programs that have no membership requirements re flying often. I have the explanation that will resolve this once and for all, worldwide, in any language. And make Wikipedia look good. I'm a novice. Please advise.GeorgeStewart1984 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, novice: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we are an encyclopedia. What were originally termed "frequent flyer" programs have now become "loyalty programs" and other euphemisms; but the ordinary term still in use in English is "frequent flyer". Thus, in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, that's what we use, and look darned good doing it. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Polytechnic Institute of New York University Article

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Based on the traffic observed in the article's history and the rate at which useless, advertisement sounding information has compounded since I first saw this article in 2005, it is clear that it is now somebody's job to develop an internet presence for this university. Obviously, Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for such a thing, and as my alma mater, I am sickened to see that such a high-quality school has to resort to the skill set of a used car salesman. Could someone lock this article, thereby preventing this PR person from making this any worse? Other reputable institutions do not have articles that read in such a way, and the notion of using Wikipedia to advertise is fundamentally offensive. The images that have nothing to do with the university (the stealth bomber, etc.) should also be taken down.

Best Regards, J.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.2.61 (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Polytechnic Institute of New York University (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
I agree. The article is disgustingly promotional. I'll remove some of the irrelevant images, but I won't have time to clear the rest of the mess up. However, I've taken the liberty of copying your post to the article's talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your swift and timely response - the article looks infinitely better already. As a religious user of Wikipedia for nearly a decade, I finally plan on registering and fixing the article when my schedule permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.2.61 (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I agree that the article was disgustingly promotional but I completely disagree with other reputable institutions do not have articles that read in such a way. Check the Wiki pages of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Harvey Mudd College(check it's Relations with Caltech section. I am an engineering graduate of NYU-Poly and I know that there have been vandalism in NYU-POly page before. Someone tried to promote Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and demote NYU-POly in NYU-Poly' Wiki page. This may 've prompted Poly people( or people from rival colleges) to mess up NYU-Poly Wiki page.

Thanks

REAL POLY ALUMNUS

Addressed at Talk:Polytechnic Institute of New York University, and all recent contributors have been notified. This thread can now be considered closed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the puff is back, for example, words like "distinguished", etc. This is a battle that won't be won unless the article is locked from changes completely - mangoeater has posted small, ad-like changes in the past on this page. To suggest that I am not a real alumnus and that I'm part of some inter-college conspiracy theory to badmouth Poly is both unfounded and inflammatory. I attended Poly just as the NYU acquisition was occurring, and I now live out-of-state. For employers that haven't heard of Poly, they may refer to the Wikipedia page for basic information. From what I've read here, if I were considering a Poly graduate for a position, I might throw his resume in the garbage; schools of the caliber of MIT and CalTech do not need to be hard-sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.2.61 (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mangoeater has been blocked as a sockpuppet and his edits are being reverted. The page will shortly be full protected. Unwillingly, but that's the way it goes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

MaxSea

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi,

I've recently created this article which received several warnings such as "This article may have been copied and pasted...", "This article needs additional citations for verification", etc. I've already added that information and wanted to know if i can delete those Warning notes myself or if I have to wait until a Wikipedia editor does it.

Thank you!

marcelau 09:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelaureta (talkcontribs)

Unfortunately the article has already been deleted. From what I saw of it, it might not have been copied from another source, but it was so closely paraphrased that the source text was clearly identifiable. The tone of the article was clearly promotional. The sources were mainly blogs and advertorial and did not comply with WP:RS. It is highly likely that the software fails to meet our criteria for notability at WP:NSOFT. Please see the messages on your talk page at User talk:Marcelaureta, and if you feel the article was deleted in error, please follow the instructions there.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't see the article (I am a Commons Admin and Checkuser, but not an Admin here) and I can guess that it probably was promotional, but your conclusion that MaxSea software is not notable is wrong. I have serious credentials as an ocean navigator -- racing at the National Offshore Championships, cruising a circumnav, and a Master's license (see User:Jameslwoodward for details). I do not use Maxsea (and am not connected with the company in any way), but I can say that it clearly is one of the top two or three navigation software packages on the market today. It certainly meets the first of the WP:NSOFT criteria, as it is regularly reviewed in the trade press. I came to WP:EN to read the article on it to see if I might want to switch from one of its competitors. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward(talk to mecontribs) 21:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see the other reasons why the article was deleted. That said, I heartily invite you to write one that complies with WP:N and WP:RS. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I can certainly imagine that the article was unacceptably promotional -- we see that a lot when people try to do the same thing with Commons Galleries. My comment was simply meant to encourage others to fix the article, or write a new one, without the thought that the software is not sufficiently notable.
As for writing it myself, if I ever decide to come back and write more articles on WP:EN, there are many other places I'll start. For now, active Admins have their hands very full at Commons and I'll continue to spend almost all my time there. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to mecontribs) 14:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki page: Wiki. Needs grammar fix.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In reference to the page Wiki, the page with a note on it's creator, near the bottom of the page: "an Hawaiian" should be changed to "a Hawaiian." Example: "an orange", "an apple", "A pear". I'm on a phone, so forgive the shortness of my assistance.

Fixed with this edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, either form is correct, see English articles#Distinction between a and an.--ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Indium mediated allylation

Hello: we received a message shortly after submitting a new article (our first "Indium Mediated Allylation") that it appears that some of the material is copyright protected and that the page would be speedily deleted. We are confident that we are the authors. Some of the material came word-for-word from an NSF proposal, for which I am still the copyright owner. Some may have come directly from or be very similar to text from articles we published, for which we are not copyright owners. So my question: Is it possible to find out which portions of the page are being highlighted as possible copyright infringement? If so, how can we get that information? Thank you very much. Ah1689 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)ah1689

I can't really say which parts are and are not, as I did not nominate it. You might ask the nominator, Gilderien. The fact that you are the copyright owner, however, makes no difference unless you are willing to, in effect, donate the material to the public by following one of the processes here, as Wikipedia will not accept material which has any copyright restrictions other than attribution to Wikipedia. There is no way other (at least none that Wikipedia will accept) to give permission in a way that only Wikipedia but no one else can use your material. Click that link for more details. Failing that, to the extent, if any, that it is a copyright violation, it must be rewritten from the ground up to the extent that it is not a close paraphrase or it will still be vulnerable to deletion to that extent. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


business valuation standards page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page "Business Valuation Standards" appears to have a large paragraph of non-neutral material written with apparent bias toward several professional organizations named in the page. I don't know how to edit or otherwise address this type of issue, but wanted to bring it to the attention of someone who could. 68.60.210.204 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably best to notify at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business where people with expertise can take a look. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


Copyright Issue

Answered: 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Longtime helper, first time help requester. I am looking to figure out whether a text has passed into the public domain, and would like some help from someone who understands copyright. The work is the book "The Gestapo Defied," by Martin Niemoller, translated by Jane Lymburn. Imprint date is 1942 (does not say copyright anywhere). made & Printed in Great Britain, William Hodge & Co, ltd. Appears to be public domain to me. Thoughts?Pastordavid (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You will probably get a quicker response at WP:MCQ.--ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, re-posted my question there. Pastordavid (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
See mine and other answers at WP:MCQ#Public Domain?. —Telpardec  TALK  16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A short list of articles to review/wikify regarding statistics (even if you are not statisticians)

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello all,

As part of a course assignment, students in my class have finished working on several articles, and they are ready to be reviewed with suggestions for future improvements (done by them and/or future editors). The articles are:

With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This is not really the place to ask for articles to be reviewed, articles are generally only given in-depth reviews if their editors intend to have them promoted to WP:GA, in which case the place to go would be WP:Peer review. That said, after a quick glance through them I find no glaring issues. Omnibus test has naked URLs and could probably do with a lot more sources. If you would still like more feedback, you may wish to repeat your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
will do, thanks Tal Galili (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for neutrality in Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article

Discussion moved: already under discussion at Talk:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. No need for forum shopping. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I request respectfully that someone looks at the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi article. I have recently used a quote from the book Blood and Oil to show that the current claim in the article that the Shah's White Revolution was a success is false. The statement was removed under the pretext of copyright violation.

It is impotant that wikipedia creates unbised information. Some in the current regime using these type of articles claim that wikipedia is a source of propaganda. I hope an editor stands support a libral demcratic point of view, and neutralise the current extremist version of the article. Here are some references to the scholarly published books with respect to the assessment of Shah's regime that have been ignored in the article;

  • 1. "The Shah’s ability to control the Iranian security forces proved to be considerable; He appointed several tough, competent, and ambitious men to the various top security posts and relied on their conflicting ambitions to neutralize each other, .. The longevity of the Shah’s rule is due largely to his success in balancing his security chiefs against each other …Although the Shah was clearly willing to utilize instruments of terror to remain in power, he nevertheless was probably sincere about wishing to bring economic, social, and political reform to his country." (R.W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran PP 295-297)
  • 2. The White Revolution ultimately "succeeded only in alienating everyone from the throne. Shoddily planned and haphazardly carried out, it caused waste and disappointment in equal measure. The elite felt undercut because it took away their land and privileges. The middle class resented it because it offered them little and made no provision for extending political or social liberties. It hurt the peasantry because overnight they become responsible for their own land (and well-being) even though they lacked the requisite tools and know-how". See:Farmanfarmaian, Mannucher and Roxane. Blood & Oil Memoirs of a Persian Prince. Random House, New York, 1997, ISBN: 0-679-44055-0, p. 366
  • 3. In addition to all his other titles he was often referred to , especially in a military context, as “Khodaygan” .. which gives the flavor of being a leader approaching divine (R.W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran P.329)
  • 4. In October 1971 the Shah celebrated the twenty-five-hundredth anniversary of the Iranian kings. The New York Times, October 12, 1971, 39:2 reported that $100 million was spent , where French chefs prepared breast of peacock for royalty and dignitaries around the world. This “was a major fiasco. Months before the festivities, university students struck in protest. ..Even within the entrepreneurial class there was much grumbling at what amounted to forced levies, large monetary contributions to the celebration. (R.W Cottam, Nationalism in Iran P.329) .On a dusty, windswept next to the ruins of Persepolis , the Shah gave orders to build a city covering 160 acres, studded with three huge royal tents and fifty-nine lesser ones arranged in a star-shaped design. No expenses was spared to make this one of the most lavish events of modern times. Food was catered by Maxim’s of Paris, the buildings were decorated by Jensen’s (the same firm that helped Jacqueline Kennedy redecorate the Whit e House), the guests ate off Ceraline Limoges china and drank from Baccarat crystal glasses… Indeed, the cost was sufficiently impressive that the shah forbade his associates to discuss the actual figures… The Persepolis ceremonies antagonized many of the Iranian people, for the contrast between the dazzling elegance of Persepolis and the misery of the nearby villages was so dramatic that no one could ignore it.(Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 22)
  • 5. Shah’s was a traditional approach to kingship,, and he never extended the elitism of the court to the technocrats and intellectuals who emerged from Iranian and Western universities. Indeed, the shah’s system provoked the new classes, for they were excluded from participation in real power … Power was based on the calculus of personal relationships; in the words of Manfred Halpern , “upon the intimidation of one prominent man, the purchase of another, upon the expectation of future favors by a third, and upon the fear of losing privileges not earned on ground of talent or skill” Unwilling to touch this way of conducting national affairs, the Shah fell victim to the limitation of what Halpren calls transitional authoritarian rulers, those who are “barred by the very nature of the ties that created their power from engaging in reforms that might harm the existing relationships” .(Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 23, ans Manfred Halpern , The Revolution of Modernization, Princeton University, April 24, 1964)
  • 6. According to the American Ambassador Julius Holmes; “ (the Shah) is not well served by advisers, either in government or outside it.. This is partially because of his innate suspicious of the ambitions of others and the lack of highly-qualified persons to assist him. Even those who are qualified are loath to give negative advice and follow the Persian tradition of telling the Monarch what they think he wants to hear. This often takes the form of exaggerated flattery, to which the Shah is surprisingly susceptible. He is a vain man and those around him know it . (Julius Holmes, Diplomatic cable, American Embassy)
  • 7. In the words a US Embassy dispatch “The shah’s picture is everywhere. The beginning of all film showings in public theaters presents the shah in various regal poses accompanied by the strains of the National anthem… The monarch also actively extends his influence to all phases of social affairs…there is hardly any activity or vocation which the shah or members of his family or his closest friends do not have a direct or at least a symbolic involvement.
  • 8. Shah proved to be a master in the cooption of the ideas others, both as tactic of control and manipulation and as a form of channeling creativity to his advantage. For example, the much-vaunted White Revolution of the early 1960s represented a projection of the views of Prime Minister Amini and his agriculture minister, Hassan Arsanjani, both of whom were defenestrated prior to the full implementation of the reform program. .(Michael Ledeen & William Lewis, Debacle: The American Failure in Iran, Knopf, p. 27)
  • 9. The shah claimed to take a two party-system seriously and declared “If I were a dictator rather tan a constitutional monarch, then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized” (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Mission for my Country, London, 1961, page 173). “By 1975, however, the shah had decided to finish this charade.. In an unanticipated initiative he announced the establishment of a new single party called the Rastakhiz or National Resurgence Party. All Iranians were pressured to join in. The thinking behind this was probably that the regime needed a more positive means of winning support and of forcing people…to declare their loyalty publicly. The shah’s own words on the matter were blunt enough; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t. .. A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization , or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law” (Fred Halliday, Iran; Dictatorship and Development, Penguin, ISBN 0-14-02.2010-0).
  • 10. According to William Sullivan the last U.S. Ambassador to Iran, Mission to Iran, Pp 161-163; “ Jolted by the events of September 7 , (1979) the shah summoned his military commanders to the palace and held a long meeting. The city and the country awoke the next morning to announcement that martial law had been declared …A demonstration had been organized and scheduled for September 8 in Jaleh Square. In short order the demonstrators who had gathered there and the troops who were brought in to disperse them. … In any event, a melee soon developed and shoving took place on both sides. After a few minutes of this, the troop commander called his forces back to a firing line and ordered to fire their weapons . .. The massacre was a shock to both sides. The opposionists seemed sobered by the force of military action; the government – and particularly the shah – seemed astounded by the number of casualties. .. Later, I received a message asking me to see the shah and inform him that the United States government felt it was in his best interest and in Iran’s for him to leave the country. ..The shah listened to me state it simply and gently as I could and then turned to me, almost beseeching, throwing out his hands and saying, “Yes, but where I will go?” The Cable of instruction had said nothing about this point. Accordingly, when the shah asked this question I told him I had no guidance, (After pondering on the Switzerland and England as options that shah dismissed for lack of security and bad weather respectively) I then asked, “Would you like me to seek an invitation for you to go to the United States?” He leaned forward almost like a small boy, and said “Oh, would you?”
  • 11. In possibly the most astonishing of a series of brilliant interview portraits, the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci has captured some of essence of the Shah’s self –image and demeanor. Confessing to an abiding mysticism, the Shah strongly asserted his contention of divine ordination. ”I believe in God, and that I have been chosen by God to perform a task. My visions were miracles that saved the country. My reign has saved the country, and it has done so because God was on my side.” By 1973, at the time of this interview, he was aggressively and publicly contemptuous of Western liberal democracy , boastfully proud of having the strength to order the shooting of dissidents. (Oriana Fallaci, The Shah of Iran, New Republic, Sep. 1, 1973 , 217:16-21.)


  • 12. The Shah contended that there were between three thousand and thirty five hundred political prisoners in Iran in 1977 (The Shah stated this figure in a CBS interview with Mike Wallace in 1976. In an interview with Aftenposten , Oslo, June 17, 1978, he used the figure of 3,300 for 1997).
  • Please note that these points can be summarized succinctly for the lead in a neutral tone, even allowing the current claims to remain in the article . I trust that unbiased assessment could provide room for these points. Please note that I have researched these points extensively and if there are objections on some of the references, I am reasonably confident that I can provide other references from the impartial westen sources. Please let me know if you would like me to summarize these points for the lead. Artaxerex (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Tenney Stevens

Resolved: IP blocked. Page protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This was left on my talk page. I don't have a clue as to how to handle this. --  :- ) Don 02:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Tenney Stevens page

Contact me please at email address on Lawrence Tenney Stevens Trust website. johnf<redacted>

I have concerns about the Lawrence Tenney Stevens page and don't know how to communicate with you or anyone else on the Wikipedia site. I'm just hoping you get this, as I stumbled upon it. I don't have the time to learn the ins and outs of Wiki-world, I just want the LTS page removed at least until it is accurate, has no copyright issues, and is non-libelous. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.36.172 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: An IP blanked the page repeatedly this evening. --  :- ) Don 05:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
On first reading, I do not see anything even potentially libelous. I will try to sort out copyright issues as the template suggests, but I do not see what else we could do.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This person needs to be encouraged to explain better what the perceived problem is and to point to better sources. SpinningSpark 10:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist Kudpung and others for advice. I think that resolves the problem temporarily, but this IP just dumped an email address on my talk page and slammed the door. Considering the tone, I'm not sure that I want to contact them directly, and I don't know that we can email to a regular address from the Wiki. I checked the IP and it is a dial-up. I guess my only option at this point is to leave a response on my talk page. --  :- ) Don 13:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You are under no compulsion whatsoever to reply to people by email or to respond to such demands. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Roger that, and thanks. Resolved then. --  :- ) Don 14:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


Request for Biographic/Demographic information on Photographer/Designer LaMont DeSal Jones

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings:

I am requesting assistance with the process of an editor to verify Biographic & Demographic information for United States citizen LaMont DeSal Jones. To provide a brief article regarding the accomplishments,timeline, media, pictures and history of this individual.

What is the approved process for this request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamontdesal (talkcontribs) 08:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In short, there is no approval process, any registered user is able to create new pages. We just delete the ones we don't like. See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for guidance on our criteria for inclusion of articles on individuals. As a new user you might consider creating a draft article at WP:AFC rather than risk deletion by creating directly in mainspace. They will help guide you on what should be in an acceptable article. SpinningSpark 09:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just noticed your username and you appear to be connected to the subject. It is strongly recommended that you does not write articles about yourself or persons and organisations with which you are connected. It is nearly impossible for one to write neutrally when one has a conflict of interest. If the subject is truly notable then eventually an independant editor will come along to write the article. SpinningSpark 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


HK Football Team

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

I tried to help out by adding recent fixtures to the Hong Kong national football team but I ended up screwing up the layout. Could anyone help me out? I've tried to fix it but couldn't without taking out the entire section out. Thanks!

75.96.164.14 (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, nothing is broken that can't be repaired. I've reverted your good faith edit, and replied in more detail on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Help with adding to Discography

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was about to add the debut single by the Go-Go's to their discography - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Go-Go%27s_discography - but then I thought I should ask someone about it.

I disagree that the single, "We Got The Beat" on UK Stiff Records in 1980, should be included with the re-recorded version from 1981. It should have a separate listing, even if it has no chart entries. It was a very influential single, and is widely considered superior to the band's punk origins than the remake. Opinion aside, it is a separate song, not just a reissue (that became popular), and should be added as a separate line item. BTW, it has a different B-side, too.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braitman (talkcontribs) 05:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please start a discussion either on Talk:The Go Go's discography or on the talk page of the parent article and link the one talk to the other. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


Non-free image

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do i need to provide reliable source about notability of non-free image it self, next to the source about image relation with the subject? Is that "a must" or not? --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I fully understand your question. Notability does not apply to images. Images are however subject to strict rules of copyright. The use of non-free images is restricted to very few exceptions that fall under a claim of 'fair use', but I see you have 'say no to fair use' on your user page. Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details, but I'm surprised that with your experience of article creation and editing that you are asking these questions - has your account been compromised? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No, i asked this per one very questionable situation from here. I finds it hard to understand what is asked from me, based on my knowledge of wiki rules. And i would be so happy if you can comment there? If you need any further info, i would be happy to explain. Thanks in advance! --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nichiren and Nichiren Buddhism

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask for advice on how to bring the articles mentioned to editors/admins attention concerning quality and neutrality. Just another edit-war lurking on the horizon. I am myself not 100% unbiased on the matter. The subject is a personal passion of mine latest edits worsened matters - in need for neutral but knowledgeable input.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The tags are pretty self explanatory. The articles need more, and broader, sourcing to aid neutrality. I have by no means done any sort of review on this article, just picked one sentence at random - "Some of Nichiren's kanbun works, especially the Risshō Ankoku Ron, are considered exemplary of the kanbun style." This is entirely unsourced, failing WP:V, and offers an opinion from the encyclopedia, failing WP:NPOV. I am confident I could very easily find numerous further examples. It needs a thorough rework based on reliable sources. SpinningSpark 14:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This should help (if it loads correctly). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks at ian.thomson I do already have most of the literature you mentioned and SpinningSpark you raised a good point, but at this point that would be the least of my worries. I made some entries within the talk page of the respective articles as an editor overloaded the articles with sections that reflect views that could only be held true for a certain organisation. I am now trying to bring some reason to why the added sections are simply ill placed. Both articles were rather general for a certain reason – to find some common ground and then linked to other articles.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You are not being very clear on what the substance of this dispute is about. In any case, Wikipedia administrators do not arbitrate on content disputes. Editors on this page would normally advise you to first open a discussion on the article talk page, but there seems to be a lengthy discussion there already in this case. If you cannot reach consensus locally, there are a number of dispute resolution processes that can be employed. If there are only two editors involved, and you both agree to this path, then asking for a third opinion is the most lightweight route. Otherwise, opening a WP:RfC is probably the best way forward to get more editors involved. SpinningSpark 20:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Spinningspark added RfC's in both articles hope this will lead to a more balanced and lively debate for improving the article.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RfCs generally get a much better and more focused response when they ask a specific question. As you currently have it worded, the RfC is unlikely to produce a conclusion that can be directly applied to the article. Also, I cannot fathom why you have not placed the RfC template immediately after the discussion to which it relates (ie at the bottom) following conventional talk page layout. SpinningSpark 17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the RfC is a somewhat new tool to me. Edited articles in other languages but never was in a situation like this one before--Catflap08 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeking assistance to comply with posting guidelines...

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The account "Old West Rodeo, Inc I.WAR.L was created within the past 24 hours (current date 08/08/2012). Shortly after posting it we've received 3 emails from your editors indicating that the username be blocked.

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Old West Rodeo, Inc I.WAR.L

A tag has been placed on User:Old West Rodeo, Inc I.WAR.L, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here}} below this notice. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE ASSIST IN ALLOWING US TO KEEP OUR PAGE; WE HAVE SEEN PAGES OF OTHER RODEO ASSOCIATIONS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD. LET US KNOW WHAT MUST BE DONE TO COMPLY TO WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES. THANK YOU. DECO, EM /OWR, I.WAR.L

71.221.100.22 00:27:25 (UTC)

Please don't SHOUT, then read WP:SPAM and WP:COI.--ukexpat (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Also read notability, the main requirement for the creation of an article, such as the one you'd like. Notability must be established. Then the article must be written neutrally. It will not be a sales brochure or be controlled by your company. It will also contain both positive and negative information. Are you prepared for that possibility?
When you have read these suggested sources, come back here and discuss the matter further. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Basic question about verifiability

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

When you read through wikipedia policy pages, you always find contradictions. Therefore, I tend to give up reading them, because they're so badly written. Anyway, what I wanted to ask was this. If I have in my possession a book, and I open the article on the book with "This book starts with the sentence "Bob went fishing on Monday."" This is an accurate depiction of the opening line. It can be verified by reading the book. Yet, no available review of the book contains this fact. Is it then the case that I have done original research, and must remove the sentence from the article? I want to know what editors think about this. It seems to me that it is not original research, but it is clearly defined as original research by wikipedia. Yet, the content is verifiable, trivially verifiable. Do we require a citation for material, that only an editor hell bent on trolling, would demand a citation for? Lecale42 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The verifiability policy requires an inline citation for any material which is challenged or likely to be challenged. A book says what it says and can, indeed, be a source for what it says. A movie, on the other hand, can also be a source for the fact that a policeman appears in a particular scene. Unless the actor who portrays that policemen is identified in the credits of the film, however, an assertion that the actor is a particular person would, if challenged or likely to be challenged, require a reliable source which is independent of the film itself. It is the act of identifying the actor that is original research. Anyone can look at the book and see what it says, but someone could identify the actor incorrectly. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are basically arguing that there is an invisible threshold of truth on wikipedia, below which the reader/editor cannot be expected to challenge. It could be a 2% chance that somebody might misidentify a well known actor appearing in a film, but only a 1% chance that they might be dyslexic? Is that basically what it is? I can get away with saying "Just go and buy the book buddy.", without worrying if the text changed in a previous rare edition. How do we stand on words spoken in a film?Lecale42 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Some context for this question might be helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Bacon&action=history . JohnInDC (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Lecale, have you ever heard of lookalikes? I'm supposed to take your word that you're really really sure that this is Dan Aykroyd? Regardless, why are you even introducing your personal observations when a reliable source puts him in the movie as uncredited?? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Someguy, I've never looked into the question of whether IMDB is generally considered a reliable source for WP or not, and without looking further do not have an opinion about it, but I would note that the editor who is deleting Lecale's edits (properly, in my opinion, at least insofar as the question presented above is concerned) is also deleting edits sourced with IMDB contending that it's not a RS, so using your suggested source may just lead to a new dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a general question. Why do editors always try to tie these things down to a single issue? In this specific instance, wikipedia has decided that IMDB is NOT a reliable source. Anyone can add content there, so obviously it could just be completely made up. Although something being made up is not a problem for wikipedia, so long as a reliable source made it up.

Unsurprisingly, I know that people can look alike, I also know what Dan Ackroyd looks like and sounds like. I guess that the people who cited Dan Ackroyd as appearing the film did too. What do they know, and why are they even bring their personal observations into it when.. umm not sure what. So back to my point. Is there an invisible threshold of "truth" existing on wikipedia? Lecale42 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone — anyone — whose claim is not fact-checked and vetted by an editor makes a claim that so-and-so did an uncredited cameo, that's OR. Lots of people make claims about stars in old Hollywood movies being uncredited extras when in fact that's not the case. In this case it might seem clearly to be Ackroyd, but we're not talking about just this case. We're talking about putting something uncited into an an encyclopedia and calling it indisputable fact just because someone anonymously says so. We can't do that, since there's no way of knowing when that anonymous person is right and when he or she is wrong. That's why use cited sources, so at least we can say, "This recognized film critic or film historian, who presumably did his research and is credible and trustworthy, says, yes, that's Joan Crawford uncredited in this early movie." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Rather than grind on general or hypothetical situations, Lecale, the verifiability policy speaks for itself and I'd recommend it to you (well, mostly, you might also want to read WP:RS and WP:NOR). Moreover, if a fact is important enough to be in Wikipedia, which is not just a miscellaneous collection of information, then it shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source for it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The information that had been cited to IMDB was for the sort of observational facts that are submitted by readers, which is largely opinion and non-expert original research. But it's not true that anyone can add content. Anyone can submit content for addition, to be reviewed by IMDB staffers. I don't think anyone has ever made a convincing argument that the mundane information on IMDB, such as casting, is unreliable. But regards the invisible threshold of truth, no. It all goes back to the policy on use of primary sources. You can only use content that every reasonable reader is likely to interpret the same way. Deciding that is always going to be a case-by-case issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I have found IMDB's casting lists to be remarkably unreliable, even for new movies where presumably IMDb gets a copy of the official credits. I don't know if IMDb has changed it yet, but its cast of the 2012 movie Sparkle is sooooo way off the official credits it's hard to believe. (See Talk:Sparkle (2012 film)#Here are the official credits) And countless times people add erroneous upcoming films for actors, based on no published source but just inaccurate gossip and rumor. As for checking by "staffers," a TV Guide editor once famously inserted a false credit for "turtle wrangler," just to make a point to his staff not to trust IMDb and to do their own research and reporting. As far as I know, it's there to this day. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Good enough for me, as I said I haven't looked into it and I'm sure you're right, Someguy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Though it looks like this issue has now been resolved, see this blog post by Ken Levine in 2009 how he could not get IMDB to change the incorrect information in his IMDB entry. isaacl (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You see, now you're just making up things about how IMDB works to avoid answering the question. How can you possibly know where they got their information from, and what policy was in place when that information was processed? Lecale42 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For reliable sources on movies, see Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Reliable sources and its footnote for the IMDB. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
See this page for general guidelines on citing IMDb. In general, you can use basic facts about a film as references provided they have been marked as approved by an official body such as the Writers Guild of America, but not any user contributed comments. However, the citation problems in Canadian Bacon that you're talking about actually stem from trying to cite the IMDB Wiki, and wikis are generally considered unreliable sources. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Even if it were totally verifiable, it's undue weight. IMDB lists a bunch of Canadian actors. Why single out Aykroyd? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with self promotion

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The following page for Vince Stanzione is a page that has existed for some time despite many thwarted attempts to delete it. The article is poorly sourced, written with no neutrality and reads like a bio on a personal website. Whoever wrote it did so in an almost advertising style. It has been alleged that this man runs a get rich quick scam and it has been alleged that this article is a tool so that a Google of his name will add credibility via Wikipedia. Somebody, I do not know who, keeps blocking attempts to have it deleted. I am trying to escalate this as it is unencyclopedic article and would likely fail to meet notability requirements. Michael Heseltin (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Richie is absolutely correct. If notability has been established, then follow NPOV and include content, both positive and negative. Real scammers and dubious characters first promotional efforts reveal they don't realize Wikipedia's a bad place for promotion. They often end up regretting having articles here because of NPOV and COI. This essay speaks to the point: Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for responding. I knew it had been nominated for speedy deletion but I thought - I think from the talk page of that article - that a user named "vince" was blocking the speedy deletion attempts. Those who do edit allege that it's a self written article by someone who puts a considerable amount of effort into ensuring his page sings his allegedly false praises. The sources seem dubious. I realise that if this guy is a scammer someone could come and source that, but not all scammers have exposés and this article has cruised along for a long time now. If this guy is a scammer, it could entice some of his alleged victims. I apologise for my newbie ignorance but surely something can be done about this other than trying to source him as something opposite to what is claimed? Michael Heseltin (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm putting it on my watchlist, so now "You have 7,728 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I really do need to prune it again! Face-wink.svg -- Brangifer (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I was just going off to check the references, but it seems someone has already done so. Because of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and conflict of interest, then it doesn't matter how much time he tries to put a positive spin on his pages - if it's not reliably sourced, it won't work. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverted link in the Bill Moyers article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I had been reading the article on Bill Moyers: Bill_Moyers (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). In the External Links section there was a link to a speech he made to the National Conference on Media Reform in 2008 but the link no longer works because the freepress.net site reorganized their servers. The only place I could find the video of the speech was on YouTube so I changed the article to reference that link. The bot reverted the change. If YouTube is not allowed as an external link for this then I am ok with it but you may as well drop the complete reference in the article since I could not find the video anywhere else that I thought was in the public domain; even the PBS.ORG web site references the broken freepress.net link.

Hpetite (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Best to drop the link altogether then, especially if it does not actually support notability, or only helps to promote the person. There are already more than enough external links in the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Which makes the most accessible format of list/table for a long list of names?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled across this List of polar explorers and found that it's not in alphabetical order. It just seems so disorganised, so I thought I should sort it out. What stumps me is this: how the list should be organised? A simple list in alphabetical order? A sortable table? Categorise by surname, century, or area of polar exploration? I had a look at List of to see how the others did with theirs, but it's all so inconsistent. Is there a page somewhere on Wikipedia that offers an index of table/list types? Actually, if there's a specific type of list or table you think could work best, I'd love to know. Thank you. 0zero9nine (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about accessible formats. The list is currently alphabetical (for the most part) so you could simply bring the errant entries into line, for now, to make it internally consistent. But you might consider what it is that you wish to format, and why? What purpose does it serve? As it stands, this bare list doesn't seem particularly useful; in what way does it elucidate, expand or link to the main topic of polar exploration? It needs at least an introductory paragraph that clearly states the purpose of the list. Which is...? I suggest an expansion, in which named entries are accompanied by useful summary information; entries might be better positioned chronologically, according to the dates of their exploration; and restricted to persons whose explorations are/were notable. Format-wise, I think you could do a lot worse than List of Russian explorers, and remove at least some of the red-links in the current list. Anyway, there's my tuppence worth (possibly worth even less). Haploidavey (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't actually a particularly notable list as it currently stands. A better solution would be to add all of the articles to Category:Polar explorers, if it hasn't been done already. That way the sorting will be done automatically for you. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a much better suggestion. Haploidavey (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ravidas

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to add a reference to the page on Ravidas but the ref list is protected??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihelper555 (talkcontribs) 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Guru Ravidass (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)? The article is not protected and you should be able to edit. The references are edited where they are indicated in the body of the text, not in the references section. If you look at the article in edit mode you will find them between <ref></ref> tags. SpinningSpark 18:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Lottery Winnings

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

8-12-12

Good evening. I was alerted via email from Eric Dorsete that I have just won a lottery. This was on July 28th 2012. Mr. Kim Williams was handling my information for the issue of these funds which was f12,000,000.00 I was emailed by Mr. Dorsete that in usd it comes to alittle over $18,000,000.00. I last week on August the 4th scanned and emailed Mr. Kim the confidential form for the lottery. I received my certificate for my winnings but they wanted me to issue a letter what the funds will be used for which I understand and also money in the amount of over $1,800.00 which I emailed him and said I do not have that kind of money. I make minium wage at a factory here in Ohio and live from pay to pay. So I have won this lottery but can not claim it because I can not come up with the money for this Administration Charges. They tell me it is in a A bond fund. What is that? I look on your site of the unclaimed winnings I guess my will eventually be added. I know your lottery is run differently here in the US taxes and everything is taken out before any funds are released. Is it true that no money would be released because of this rule in your lottery system. I gave on his form my banking information which I emailed Mr. Kim Williams that it better not be jepordized. I have contacted my bank to let them know what I had done just to be on the safe side. Please respond to my email in what I can do if any? Cheryl Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.51.2 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You have most likely been scammed. I suggest that you follow the links at the end of that article to find out more about these types of confidence frauds and what you can do now. My sympathies. Danger! High voltage! 01:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
They want the $1,800 so they can run off with it. If and when you pay that, they'll then ask for a larger amount - maybe $5,000 - for other fees. This will keep going on and on and on until you run out of money and give up. There is no $18M - it does not exist. If you've given out banking details, run (don't walk) to your bank and explain that you've been scammed and they should block everything. Did they, perchance, ask you to send the money via Western Union at any point on the way? Mind you, for all I know you're actually a troll and just having a good old laugh now at me telling you this. In which case I am actually the holder of 450 squillion dollars in a major Antarctic bank and I've just been told you are the sole beneficiary of this money, so just send me the $50,000 process fees and we'll get moving. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a variation of the advance fee fraud/Nigerian scam.--ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: My Dad

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam, Could you please let Me know How I could find My Dad's Side of The Family. I was 1 Year Old When He was No More but, I did Meet Cousins & Know My Aunt Who lived in Mission Compound, Shillong Assam. His Surname was Hooroo but, @The same time I Dont know How They Spelt their Name This is My Way I am Trying Huuro Horoo There is Family out in Mulwakee, Officers Colony, Lumding Railway Colony Maligom, Assam. I Would so Appreciate Your Help Just to Tell Me How & Where I can Find Them on Wikipedia/or as to Help Me Regarding The Name Hooru. Thanking you in Anticipation, Yours Faithfully, Miss. C. Keys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.136.78 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tito Perdue

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The article that describes my life and work - Tito Perdue - has not been adequately verified by other sources. I submit the following recent article as verification: QUARTERLY REVIEW, vol 6, No. 1, Spring,2012, pp. 57-62 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordrach (talkcontribs) 13:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

See magazine and article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lesley Arfin

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The single-purpose account VictoriaR2020 is repeatedly adding defamatory (and verifiable, but almost totally irrelevant) material to the article Lesley Arfin. Three other accounts have also added the same material. See also this help-desk item. Maproom (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how. You do it, please. Maproom (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, well first thing you need to do during an edit war is put a note on the talk page asking what's going on. I've done that here. That should hopefully get a response. If not, and the reverts keep happening or the response is unacceptable, we can take it to WP:AN3. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

PBS World is under new management

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

PBS no longer manages this television channel and we need to change the name of the channel as well as update the content description, change web addresses and links and update the licensee channels which broadcast the channel (this needs to be updated frequently as the licensee numbers grow. It seems foolish to start a brand new page as viewers will be interested in continuity. How may we edit the page? Jamie Haines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie haines (talkcontribs) 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Errrrmm.... who is "we"? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Malaysians with Awards of ChevaLier L'Odre des Palms academiques

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir, you might want to check with the French Embassy in Kuala Lumpurr the few more recipients. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Dr. Donald Chuah Guan Siong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.63.15.35 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Obtaining information in that way is prohibited by Wikipedia's no original research policy. The information must be published. If you are aware of such a source, please provide it or feel free to add the information yourself and provide an inline citation to a reliable source. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Borgnine

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying to edit Wiki's Ernest Borgnine Article, Specifically: the first sentence of the second paragraph,in "Other Activeties". Actually have tried 3 times now without success. The first was totally my fault, I did not understand the verification process. The second time, I used a reference that was already in use in the article regarding Borgnines Masonic and Scottish Rite affiliation.

That reference is No.19 in the Article and is a link to the Supreme Council's web site and is as follows: http://scottishrite.org/2011/04/dedication-of-long-beach-scottish-rite-theatre-to-actor-brother-ernest-borgnine/

The Article currently reads: Borgnine was a Freemason in Hollywood Lodge No. 355, and a 33rd° Scottish Rite Mason in the Southern Masonic Jurisdiction.

I am trying to change it to read: Borgnine was a Freemason in Hollywood Lodge No. 355, a 33° Scottish Rite Mason in the Southern Jurisdiction and recipient of the Grand Cross of the Court of Honour.

Reasoning: The Scottish Rite of Fremasonry has two Jurisdictions, Northern and Southern. It is not called the "Southern Masonic Jurisdiction" it is called the Scottish Rite of Fremasonry, Southern Jurisdiction. The fact that he was a recipient of the "Grand Cross" is significant.

My question: What am I doing wrong? I signed the edit with Fbf123fbf (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) and enclosed the above link in the <ref>http://scottishrite.org/2011/04/dedication-of-long-beach-scottish-rite-theatre-to-actor-brother-ernest-borgnine/<ref> thus.

Not clear on what else I am supposed to do. I do want to do it right.

Thanks, Fbf123fbf (talk · contribs) 00:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that the editors who are removing your information are taking the position that the source which you are citing does not qualify as a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia (click that link). The proper way to address this is to discuss the issue on the article's talk page (and someone has already started that discussion here). If you don't get a response, drop a note on the deleting editor's user talk pages asking them to discuss the matter at the article talk page. If you are dissatisfied after having such a discussion, consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Staines

Discussion moved: To Talk:Paul Staines#Article protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Paul Staines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines (also a user) has been editing his Wikipedia article and it currently reads like a CV - it's not at all neutral, and does not contain a single negative word. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but stuff like this: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/14/guido-fawkes-attacks-journalists-at-ken-event/ is removed because apparently it's just some website, but content from his own website is allowed here. How is this possible??

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthyness2 (talkcontribs) 09:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I see you are a new user here - thank you for bringing this up. Paul's attention has been drawn to various policies. There may, or may not, possibly be warnings for other users on the way when investigations are complete. In the meantime, if you wish to help, please familiarise yourself with these policies: WP:3RR, WP:SOCK, and take any action which you deem necessary. If the issue cannot be resolved on the article talk page, please raise your concerns at WP:DRN. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New page curation: page with multiple issues

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've come across Energy Healing - Alternative Cancer Treatments through new page curation, and beyond tagging I'm not sure what to do with it. It's promotional, but perhaps not so promotional as to merit a speedy deletion. The topic partly duplicates Energy medicine. Its notability is questionable. Should it be tagged with {{notability}}; tagged with {{Expert-subject}} and referred to WikiProject Alternative Medicine; PROD'd; sent to AfD; merged; redirected? Alexrexpvt (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest either AfD, or if your feeling bold, perhaps a summary redirect to Energy medicine followed by AfD if reverted. Its poorly written, and largely redundant to Energy medicine, but not so obvious that a full CSD A10 deletion seems called for. Monty845 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I just speedied it as a fork. I really don't think we can allow this. It has extraordinary medical claims without citation and without much indication this is entirely fringe. If anyone wants to argue with that, we can take it to AfD and debate it. SpinningSpark 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikitravel vs Wikivoyage??

Answered: This forum is for editing help. Questions like these are best posed on the Village Pump. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I had always assumed that Wikitravel was part of the Wiki portfolio. I was therefore surprised when Wikivoyage was announced. I was even more surprised to discover that the content on several randomly selected entries was almost identical.

Could you please clarify what is going on??

Personally, I would suggest that Wikivoyage is redundant & valuable time & resources might better be directed to other sectors

Dave Ansell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.158.79 (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikitravel has always been a separate website owned by an unaffiliated company. Unlike Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation-owned websites, it is supported by advertising revenue. Wikivoyage was founded when a large portion of the wikitravel editing community wanted to leave for a website with more Wikipedia-like governance. The content is identical because the copyrights allow it, and in the setting up of Wikivoyage much of Wikitravel was simply copied over. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Page: Death of Jill Meagher"

Resolved: The deletion discussion was closed as 'keep'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am very disappointed to hear of your decision that this page does not meet Wikipedia's criterion of being notable enough to warrant its own page!

What you have just declared goes against all of your freedom of information claims and the respect of the rest of the world for their right to their history being represented online and therefore their place on Wikipedia.

I strongly urge you to re-consider our wish to declare our country's history online and the value of the ally that Australia is to the US and in our support to our mutual values of life such as democracy, freedom of speech, etc..

For the sake of a few megabytes on your server, surely you are not considering to alienate 9/10 of Australians who I assure you feel the same way as I do. For every email you receive, how many does it speak for??

I am one of your biggest fans and supporters. I hope to receive a reply.

Yours truly, Mr Alexey Souvorkin <email address redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souvorkin (talkcontribs) 15:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has yet made any such decision, certainly not here at Editor Assistance. The article has been nominated for deletion, which means that the issue has to be debated. The discussion is still ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jill Meagher and you should make your comments there if they are to be effective. SpinningSpark 16:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi some questions about reference of the article : Disruptive Technologists

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

AFC of Disruptive Technologists

Hi, the reviewer wrote that the first two links of the reference is invalid and believes that it is written by the company. However,David Craig,the writer of the article, does not work for Disruptive Technologists, he is a freelance writer. Lauren Keyson does write freelance articles too, and also writes for NY Convergence, but she is not a team member or employee of NY Convergence. She is considered a "contributor." Will that make a difference in your decision? Thank you Lygmahan (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:N. It is more a question of the reliability of the sources and establishing the notability of the subject. NYConvergence is described as the blog of Trylon SMR, a PR company. Not really a suitable source for an encyclopaedia article. You also need to read carefully the comments of the reviewers at AFC - a good encyclopaedia article does not consist of telling the reader about the company's trademarks. SpinningSpark 18:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

WHY SO FEW IMDB RANKINGS ON FILM PAGES?

Answered

Just wondered why the decision was made to publish Rotten Tomatoes ratings on almost all film pages, sometimes Metacritic, but hardly ever IMDB? I would have thought that IMDB was the most important rating to include? Jdavies555 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)--

I have moved this post here from the talk page. I believe the reason is that IMdB ratings are user generated, whereas Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregator of reviews in other publications. Rotten Tomatoes is not universally accepted by all editors as being a reliable source for this purpose. In my opinion, using Rotten Tomatoes is better than Wikipedia editors drawing their own POV opinion from an assessment of available reviews. SpinningSpark 18:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
From MOS:FILM#Reception: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Cheers. Doniago (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The same guideline also says "review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews". These are aggregates of reviews of professional critics, not user submitted reviews. A distinction needs to be drawn between the two. SpinningSpark 22:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

partial merge question

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am very new to Editing, and I have what I think is kind of a tricky problem.

I'm looking to two book articles: The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity Is Near. These articles contain a ton of predictions by the author. But then there is also a separate article containing predictions from all his books and from other sources (interviews, etc): Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil. There is a ton of duplication here, the predictions from each book appear both on the book pages and on the predictions page. Plus they have diverged significantly, so neither can considered complete or correct.

This doesn't seem to be an article merge issue. Because at the end of the day, I expect there will still be all 3 pages. There is content on the book pages besides predictions, and there are predictions on the predictions page from non-book sources. So it's hard to see anything being merged away completely.

So the first question is should the predictions really live on the book pages or in the combined prediction page? I'm sure the answer is it's up to the interested parties on those pages, but really there is not much activity there. I'm wondering if this has come up generically in other contexts? Better to push as much as possible to the shared/aggregate page, or better to keep it in the separate individual pages.

Second question is how to mechanically do the merge, considering there are a lot of conflicts and it's not clear how to resolve them all. Do we follow merge protocol even though this isn't a full article merge?

I have raised these questions on the talk pages, but there is not much activity. However I think it's worth doing, because I think this much duplication is really bad for readers and editors alike and it's only getting worse the more they diverge. Thanks. --Silas Ropac (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To answer your second question first, there is no reason why you should not follow the procedure at WP:MERGE to actually gain consensus and carry out a merge. You can always open a discussion on the talk page (which should be done anyway) to explain that you are only proposing a limited merge. A merge template on the article itself will often attract more comment than just the talk page, but if there is still no reaction you can go ahead and merge as you see fit.
I looked at the first book article you linked. Honestly, judging just by what is there now, there is no justification for that article to exist at all on notability grounds although a search for sources may turn up something more substantial. The article is entirely about the book's content, which it covers in far too much detail. There is no coverage of reviews, the book's impact or legacy. Of the three references given, one is the book itself which as a primary source does not count towards notability. The other two are blogs which in most cases are not considered reliable so also do not count. The second book has rather more references (but I have not reviewed them for reliability, I leave that to you) but suffers from exactly the same faults - a long discussion of content with no indication of why the book is notable.
In my opinion, both book articles could be entirely merged into the "predictions" article. But if it were me, I would carry out a thorough search for more sources first to satisfy myself that decent book articles could not be written. There is a notability guideline specifically for books at WP:BOOK. SpinningSpark 17:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. I also wondered about the "too much detail" issue. I have seen many articles which seem to summarize the plot of books or TV shows in excessive detail. But that doesn't mean we should do it here. I will look at WP:BOOK for guidelines. With "predictions" I think it is tricky because if you leave some out, it generates a lot of discussion, are you hiding his bad predictions, or vice versa.
I think the predictions page deserves to exist. It grew of the author's his main page (Ray Kurzweil), and predictions are core to what he is all about. They come mostly from his books, but also from other sources.
As for whether the book pages should exist, once the predictions are moved, I think that is TBD. For the 2nd book The Singularity is Near it got a lot of coverage, I think it's just a matter of tracking it down and citing it correctly. For the 1st book less coverage for sure, but I will look into it.
I think the order of events is:
  • follow WP:MERGE and eventually do the partial merge, leaving all pages for now
  • fix up the newly minted predictions page. With duplication issue gone, I think there will more motivation and energy to improve this page, maybe thin it out some.
  • look at the now smaller book pages, and either improve them or decide they go away
I guess two smaller followup questions are:
  • WP:MERGE says don't put discussion on a page which is frequently archived. We just started archiving on these talk pages, with 90d period. Seems like 90d is long enough? Or else where would you put a discussion so it's permanent?
  • As far as actually doing the merge. With these lists there's going to be essentially conflict for every line. I guess one editor just takes their best shot, then people can propose changes and fixes after the initial merge? Or else is there a precedent or reason for doing the merge on some subpage somewhere, and then swap it in only when it's settled down?
Thanks again. --Silas Ropac (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:BOOK is a good place to look for guidance on writing book articles, but actually that was not the guideline I meant to point to. I intended of course WP:NBOOK which defines the notability criteria for book articles. SpinningSpark 00:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Tech problem at Dean Foods talk page

Resolved: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There are talk posts that can been seen in edit mode but do not appear in normal read mode of the talk page. I can't figure out what's wrong. Can someone look at it please? Many thanks! -- KeithbobTalk 18:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit removed a character so all the following was interpreted as part of a non-displayed comment. I restored the character [1] but also had to handle two attempted signatures by other users. They were not expanded to real signatures at the time because they were inside the unclosed comment tag. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for fixing that!! :-) -- KeithbobTalk 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Invalid Citation / Falsely Cited

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Description section of the Holtzman Inkblot Test has a claim about the typical cost of the procedure and what it costs. The cited source is a medical dictionary entry that mentions neither the cost nor what it should cover. How should I deal with this? I thought there was a way to flag it as an invalid citation, but I couldn't find it. If I have posted this in the wrong place, please politely tell me and I will post elsewhere. --un4v41l48l3 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The correct way to go about this is to start or continue a relevant discussion at Talk:Holtzman Inkblot Test. If there is no response after a couple of days, invite the contributor of the information to join in the discussion. If that does not work after a couple of days, and the information is clearly inappropriate and/or unsourced, you can remove the information per WP:BRD and wait for further developments. It would also be advisable to say on the article talk page what you have done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
To answer your direct question, the correct tag to use in this situation is {{failed verification}}. However, the material seems to have been removed now, which in my opinion is a good thing even if it is accurate. Price and contract information rapidly goes out of date. It is not the function of an encyclopaedia to act as a price list, although it is often legitimate to discuss historic changes in cost - for instance, when discussing the falling cost of technology. SpinningSpark 09:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fate of USS Constellation 1797

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

USS Constellation (1797) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Hi, I'm about to submit a major edit to the article: USS Constellation 1797; the following is an example of a major change to the fate of the Constellation, citing a primary source reference. Your advice on how to proceed, in keeping with Wikipedia etiquette guidelines will be appreciated. Thank you.–

Fate: Museum Ship, Baltimore, 1955-2012

Admiral Hefferman quoted a memorandum signed by the Secretary of the Navy that states “Official records disclose that the Constellation was many times rebuilt, including major rebuildings at Washington in 1812 and at Norfolk in 1853-1855. Nowhere in these records, however, is there any indication that the original Constellation, launched in 1797, was in fact broken up, stranded, scrapped or otherwise disposed of, nor is there any statement authorizing or sanctioning the disposal of the ship by any means whatsoever” The Navy’s Director of History had responded to the writer Howard I. Chapelle’s statement in a book that Constellation had been broken up in 1853 and a new ship was substituted and without Congressional authorization and named Constellation II. Hefferman’s memorandum was never contested by the Navy or anyone other than Chapelle until the publication of “Fouled Anchors, The Constellation Question Answered” in 1991. During the interval the National Archives and Records Administration collected and cataloged Constellation’s repair records in the 1970s that confirmed the position taken by the Navy in 1954.

--Maxwell404 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Provided the source meets with WP:Reliable Sources, and is verifiable per WP:V, there should be no problem. The effort should be to merge your text with existing content in a manner that avoids representing a conflict between content added by other editors. The normal procedure would be to signal your intention on the article talk page, but there does not appear to be much recent action there, although you could invite the opinions of other main contributors (see: list of contributors). The main thing is to avoid any claims that the addition could be your own WP:Original Research. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed the broken links to the citations in that paragraph. I recommend that anyone considering making changes read the available material in the references first, which is quite extensive. SpinningSpark 08:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Loading a photograph to a biography of a living person

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Brenda Gourley

I am helping a friend, Pref. Brenda Gourley, update her biography. She would like a photograph to be loaded. I see that you need to be an editor of some standing to do this. Can an exiting editor load a picture for her? (she can email one to you)

Many thanks Anne Chappel Zanzibar64 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Anne, I have confirmed your account so you can now upload images. However, you might want to consider uploading to Commons: instead so that the image is available to other projects as well. Please note that the image must be released under a free licence (CC-BY-SA) by the copyright owner. This would normally be the person who took the photograph (not you). SpinningSpark 08:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

An English Translation of a Suicide Letter

I searched Wikipedia's help pages for an answer to my question. I'm still stumped. My father has translated an Olympic athlete's 1968 suicide note, for Wikipedia on my behalf, from Japanese to English. The suicide note is available online through various Japanese-language sources (newspapers, support group for people with depression or anxiety issues, books, published essays and so on), but none lists the ownership of the suicide note.

According to three newspapers, the police released a copy of the note to the public two weeks after the athlete's death. All three did not mention whether the family supported the police's decision to allow newspapers to reproduce the letter. My father says it was common to see the reproduction of suicide notes in newspapers, but he doesn't know if this is still the case today as he emigrated from Japan during the 1970s.

I was told by a Wikipedia editor that it's fine to publish the English translation since we won't be reproducing the Japanese contents of the letter, but I'm not so sure. Particularly the legal aspect of publishing an English translation of a Japanese-language note in Wikipedia and the copyright of the 1968 letter's contents. Please advise. Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to "publish" such a translation. If you are intending to use it as a reference in an article, the best way to do so would be to use an appropriate {{cite}} template to cite the original letter, and provide the translated text in the citation. It could be argued however that a translation that has not been published in a reliable source is original research. Don't forget that sources do not have to be in English, although English is preferred.--ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The suicide note is already provided through an off-site link in the athlete's Wikipedia entry, but the note is in Japanese and the athlete's Wikipedia entry is in English. Hence, my question. However, a fair point that an unpublished translation could be seen as original research, so I won't use it. Thanks. 0zero9nine (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you should worry too much about the OR problem. It's perfectly acceptable to use the translation as a basis for, say, usefully quoting portions of the letter, or for describing its contents. Adding a wholesale translation of the note might be inappropriate (depending on how long it is), but you should be prepared to have the translation questioned. As ukexpat says, foreign-language sources are totally acceptable. But it sounds like you're also concerned about copyright issues and respecting the author's family's wishes. With respect to the former, it depends a bit on the length, but you could argue fair use for quotes. As to the family's wishes... that's more a matter of editorial discretion. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic edit campaign (European-American, black)

I came across an anonymous editor 218.153.88.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · what links to user page · COIBot · count · block log · x-wiki · Edit filter search · WHOIS · RDNS · traceroute · robtex.com · tor · StopForumSpam · Google · AboutUs · Project HoneyPot) whose thirteen edits consist entirely of changing

  • "white" to "European-American"
  • "African American" to "black"

I reverted them as it seems to be some kind of WP:POV campaign. There was no question of matching sources or any context like that, and no explanation of the edits. Two questions:

  1. Is there a clear WP:MOS or WP:Policy on this?
  2. Is there a search to find similar edits to see whether the campaign extends beyond this one anonymous editor?

-Colfer2 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY appears to offer the answer: "the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself." I interpret this to mean "African American" would be the preferred term, and "white" or "Caucasian" used interchangeably, depending on context. "European-American" is incorrect on so many levels...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
According to the Oxford-American dictionary, Caucasian is more specifically an American term, and is indeed rarely used in the UK, hence 'white' would probably be more neutral and less confusing for our international users. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Right to left text problem

Resolved: Directly resolved. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Shabbatai HaKohen (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Someone edited the article on December 20, 2012 to fix a date order problem in the first sentence (1662-1621) -> (1621-1662)‎. The right to left text in the lang-he template messed up their edit. I could not fix it using Firefox 19 on Max OSX. Could someone fix it? Thanks. --Bamyers99 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, the template was missing closing braces. SpinningSpark 07:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Element Mobile

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Requests: ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I requested an edit to the Element Mobile Wiki page a week ago on the talk page but the page seems to be inactive. Is there someone that can assist me with editing the page? The current content is outdated and has several expired source links.

Akbemis (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The request is in Category:Requested edits awaiting review, so I am afraid that you will have to be patient, we are all volunteers.--ukexpat (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source & scholar quotes v. primary & tertiary inference.

Resolved: Taken to a more appropriate forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

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

How do we get MEDIATION on a page by someone familiar with WP policy? I have tried Requests for Comment, Third Opinion and selecting from the editor assistance list over a two-months discussion. The United States article says it "includes 50 states and DC". But a scholar looking at U.S. expansion from 1803, says, "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p.232). And now collaborating with Buzity, we have at U.S. Government Printing Office, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, and the territories ...” (Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants, 2007. p.77.)

Golbez agreed to “include territories”, but then reverted them, citing wikilink to the Insular Cases. He has since promised to revert any further edit. Buzity and I found law journal articles, court cases, statutory law, executive orders superseding Insular Cases. U.N. resolutions cited for "include territories" have secondary sources. I have a summary at "Include territories” summary for mediation, and at WP policies for “include territories”. Golbez added a citation using a tertiary source, but WP policy would prefer secondary sources. We are warned that we are only two, we can be banned from the article and talk page, we are illogical and we cannot change anything unless we agree to change everything in all related articles, none of which rings true. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've posted to the talk page. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to note, VH, you may want to relax your style of argumentation. It comes off as Wikilawyering, and you may be interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines way too strictly. Things here are very flexible normally. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
We could use a bit more input here. Please don't be daunted by the volume of the discussion. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Dispute resolution request filed. See WP:DRN#Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Lists of award winners

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

I understand from recent discussions regarding award categories that in general we discourage these (many of them have notability issues). I need to ask about award LISTS. At Fred Jarvis I have provided a list of winners of the Fred and Anne Jarvis Award. This is presented annually by the National Union of Teachers so maybe it would be better placed there, or perhaps a list should be created under its own name (say "List of winners of the Fred and Anne Jarvis Award"). At John Read (psychologist) it states he won the New Zealand Psychological Society’s Sir Thomas Hunter Award in 2010. We have a stub of an article at Thomas Hunter (psychologist) and no article at all for New Zealand Psychological Society (although we do have an article for its parent at Royal Society of New Zealand). I have begun researching the Sir Thomas Hunter Award with a view to adding a list of award winners, but where should this be placed (if at all)? If an individual is considered notable enough to have an article in his/her own right then isn't it appropriate for an award named after that individual to be noted somewhere, along with a list of its recipients? Do such lists belong under the organisation presenting the awards (difficult for the Sir Thomas Hunter Award!), or as separate entities (with a mention of the existence of the award in the article for the individual for whom the award is named)? I don’t want to create lists if this breaches any Wikipedia guidelines (I’m guessing it may have been discussed before but I couldn’t find a suitable guidance note). May I have advice, please? Thanks. LenF54 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that for an example you look to the articles James Tiptree, Jr., James Tiptree, Jr. Award and List of James Tiptree, Jr. Award winners: three (linked) articles, each properly sourced and linked. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I will create separate pages for the two lists ("List of Fred and Anne Jarvis Award winners" and "List of Sir Thomas Hunter Award winners"), with citations, and add links to the various pages. I don't feel, however, that there needs to be separate articles for these awards, and am happy to simply put explanatory paragraphs in the main articles. LenF54 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you create the explanatory sections as part of the NUT article rather than under the List articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

Years ago, My parents had a red covered about one foot oblong square and about 9 inches thick, I think it was about 1953/4 edition. It has some small black drawings/photos in it, with a couloured maps in the back. I'm not after a school dictionary, but a extensive dictionary that is beyond the bookshelves. I wish to have it on my 'puter with a icon. I know that I will not able to compleatly download all the information, but is there a way that I can some how click on a letter or what ever that I can access to please? If you cannot assist me in my request, can you please suggest a another dictionary that will suit me? As I said, I do not want a kids dictionary as I am 72 years old and at times I find in the ordinary dictionary there is no such word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bywater (talkcontribs) 07:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried Wiktionary:? SpinningSpark 09:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The OED is a pretty comprehensive dictionary. Wiktionary is going to give you more current information though. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The OED is great but you need to pay for a subscription or be a member of a library or institution to get the OED online. There are many free online dictionaries: examples are Meriam-Webster and The Free Dictionary, or if you are looking for slang and modern unconventional usages there is Urban Dictionary. But Wiktionary remains a good choice. SpinningSpark 11:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Prosperity theology

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

Reverend Ike=Father of Prosperity Theology???

Talk:Prosperity theology - johncheverly 00:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an ongoing dispute. There was some disagreement over including information about Reverend Ike in Prosperity theology, but an editor has added something since the last post. If the disagreement is over whether we can call someone the "Father of" a movement or school of thought... my take is that you need to find a reliable source calling him that, and then phrase the usage as "[such and such a source] has called [person] the 'Father of [Movement]'", then cite the work. And then it should only be included if it's pretty clear it belongs. Calling someone the "Father of" a movement comes dangerously close to being a peacock term. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Albanian LAnd Forces

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

Albanian Land Forces (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I got all my article deleted from the page Albanian Land Force.. please i need a clear explanation of why was my article deleted, and why was that called a vandalism when i was just adding information to that article because there was almost no information. I don't think what I did was vandalism or something near it, in fact erasing it can be. I'd be thankful if you respond to this email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.83.98 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your initial mistake seems to be that you not only deleted a large amount of information from the infobox without explanation (lack of explanation will often get you reverted) but also broke the page formatting in the process (which will nearly always get you reverted). Your second edit added unsourced information to the infobox. Unsourced information is often also reverted, as it was in this case, probably encouraged by the previous reversion. Finally, because you have been repeatedly reverted in the article by human editors, ClueBot (an automated process) reverted your subsequent edits as possible vandalism. Click the "history" link in the template above to see the full chronology.
I have no doubt that you are a good faith editor and it is unfortunate that this has happened. Your work can easily be restored (and perhaps it should) but I am not willing to do it myself as it is poorly sourced. You cited two sources: Who is Log gets most of its information from Wikipedia and is hence a circular reference while internet forums are never considered reliable by Wikipedia.
I suggest you run this past other interested editors before atttempting to insert in the article again. Start by posting your suggested additions (you can retrieve your text from here) on Talk:Albanian Land Forces. Next, alert interested editors to the suggestion by posting a link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history amd/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albania. Hope that helps, and good luck with your future editing. SpinningSpark 18:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Fictional" character or "comic book" character?

Answered: . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

:

I was just curious which category is correct for fictional characters who have appeared in, or even originated in, a comic book, but have moved on to other media, where they may be more well known. For instance, Optimus Prime first appeared in a Marvel Comics comic book published in 1984. I could categorize him under "Fictional characters introduced 1984" or "Comic book characters introduced in 1984". The comic book category is included inside the fictional characters category, so either could be correct, but would you define a character as a "comic book character" just because that's where he originated, even if he's more well known for TV and movies today? Should he be called specifically a comic book character, or simple a fictional character? If the character had appeared in TV or movies FIRST, but then went on to comic book, should it be a fictional or comic book character then? Thanks!Mathewignash (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason Optimus Prime cannot be in both categories. It is irrelevant which medium he first appeared in. If the article is discussing the character in all media then both categories are appropriate. SpinningSpark 18:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It would make no sense to list BOTH categories, since the category "Fictional characters introduced in 1984" contains "Comics book characters introduced in 1984" as a sub group. You generally would not list both.Mathewignash (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If there were a "film character" sub-category then there would be no argument he should be in both. If the character was only in film and there were no film sub-category there would be no argument he should be in the parent category. So my reasoning still stands, as a comic-book character he is categorised as he would be if he were only that, and as a film character he is categorised as if he were only that as well, and moved to the film sub-category if and when it is created. You could always solve the problem by creating it yourself. People get way too hung up with the arbitrary rules about categorisation. Objects are often not that neatly categorised as you have just discovered and some flexibility and common sense needs to be sometimes applied. SpinningSpark 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Advise on article

Answered: . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I've created the article FocalScope Email Ticketing Solution (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). FocalScope is a Singaporean product which was developed in 2005. It has since then been recognised for "changing the ways emails are being handled" and is being deployed by global companies such SingTel, American Express, DHL and Radisson Hotel to support them with their daily operations and deliver their customer support. Looking at its users and growth, I would definitely say that it's a notable product. It's however up for deletion discussion. Maybe its notability needs to come across stronger in the article/discussion?

Based on the discussion which has taken part so far, it seems like a more experienced editor need to participate since some of the messages are tagged with "made few or no other edits outside this topic." It would be great if you could provide me with advise of what to do to ensure that an article about a notable product doesn't get deleted. Thanks. Samira Holma (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability is judged on Wikipedia by how much it is discussed in reliable sources. To establish notability you need not only to make claims about notability, but also provide citations to reliable sources (please read both those links which will explain the requirements in detail) which have substantial discussion of the topic. Notability is different from importance or fame (although such subjects are more likely to be notable) and is certainly not the same as market growth. Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 19:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You should also read this essay on the shameless abuse of the legitimate word "solution" by flacks. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Hello. We have a contents disagreement on that page since a long time. I see my edits are deleted by more than one user (one being more prominent) and my attempts to resolve the issue on a reasonable ground in the discussion page seem to be failing. On the other hand, the most actively opposing user expressly stated he is not willing to cooperate to bring the issue to a third party mediated dispute resolution mechanism. In fact one of my past attempts to bring the issue to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard failed because the other party did not respond to calls to discuss. There are also some issues of conduct: The other party responds whey I try to contact in the talk page, but those discussions are led to a futile ground by questions and comments not exactly related to the topic. Could anyone please suggest me how to proceed in this issue? Filanca (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This would be a tough issue to get any help on: it appears fairly nuanced (thus requiring someone familiar with the topic), it involves a culturally sensitive issue (thus possibly requiring detachment from the issues at stake), and it's gone on for awhile leading to a palpable atmosphere of frustration (as well as a general TLDR situation). I don't think I can help with this, but it sounds like WP:DR/N is all you can do right now and hope the other editor responds to the request this time. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
While the other side explicitly said they will not cooperate in a moderated dispute resolution (and really did not cooperate when I tried) it would be naive to expect the opposite in the future. I will try to find another solution. There are many articles in this encyclopedia with culturally sensitive issues and there should be a way to bypass the block of a user (or a group) against resolution of disputes like in this case. Thank you anyway. Filanca (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
In that case, WP:DRN may not be appropriate... but I'm not sure what your next step should be. I'm loath to suggest arbitration at this point though. I think it's way too early and still too much of a content dispute. I can only suggest reading over WP:DR a bit more. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Editors who refuse to collaborate in some circumstances may be deemed to be disruptive. For instance, if their behaviour has degenerated into edit-warring or abuse of other editors. In such circumstances administrators can deal with it as a matter of editor behaviour, although they will not arbitrate on content disputes. However, as Mendaliv has said, every effort must first be made to cooperate and discuss before taking the matter to an administrative forum. I have not looked at any of the material and have no idea what the dispute is about, but the advice is always the same: argue and write from the sources. If one does that good faith editors should be able to find a solution. On the other hand, repeatedly inserting unsourced material after it is challenged, or deliberately misrepresenting sources is disruption and can be dealt with by administrators. SpinningSpark 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Is an edit suitable?

Answered: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I would like to know if an edit to Vela is suitable. Vela is also an acronym for a popular music app, Vela (Voice Enabled Listening Assistant), that lets you voice control music on your mobile phone. I would like to request that an editor add it to the list of varied meanings of Vela. It would be similar to the Shazam edit which list shazam as mobile phone application. Please let me know an opinion if this is suitable? If so, please refer me to editor whom can add the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juslog12 (talkcontribs) 03:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving the encyclopedia! This edit, though, wouldn't be appropriate at the moment. Pages like Vela are not intended as a list of all the possible meanings of the word, but are there to help readers find Wikipedia articles - you can read more about this at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Since there is currently no Wikipedia article about the app, it doesn't belong on the Vela page.
I have left you some introductory links on your talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Dylan Taylor (executive)

Resolved: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dylan Taylor (executive) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

How should we proceed regarding edits to Dylan Taylor (executive)?

Apologies, I'm Dylan's assistant, and we're new at this. A POV/neutrality tag was placed on this page in May, and we made corrections and expansions according to the editor's advice, and asked on the entry's Talk page whether the tag should be removed.

The original editor has not responded (and appears to have been inactive since August), and subsequently another editor pointed out that we may now have created a COI situation. After reviewing the COI guidelines, he may have a valid point.

So I'm stumped on what the next steps should be. How do we get someone to rule on the neutrality issue, and does someone need to render a decision regarding whether our edits actually constitute a COI?

Am concerned that anything I do will now make things worse. Thanks for any advice you can provide.

Dylan Taylor (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid you are right that there is not much you can do. COI editing is nearly always a bad idea here. Editors will show extreme reluctance to remove tags on articles written/contributed to by a COI editor. Your best hope is that an uninvolved editor will take an interest (which will eventually happen if the subject is truly notable) and rewrite/expand the article. By the way, if you are not Dylan Taylor, you should not really be editing from an account that makes you seem as if you are. SpinningSpark 23:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Appreciate the help. Dylan Taylor (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User conduct issue (Opening an RFC)

How do I open an RFC on myself?

Concerns were raised about what I was doing (and the response) on a sister project, and I am wanting to be sure I'm not making the same mistakes here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Why, what have you been doing? The direct answer is that you can't open an WP:RfC/U on yourself because that requires at least two other editors to testify that you have been a bad boy and that they have already tried to resolve the issues with you. If that were the case you would already know there was an issue. You can however request an Editor review. SpinningSpark 18:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
See the talk page on that project... In effect in validating some pages, a number of typos got missed, and in trying to resolve it in good faith I was over-bold. That's why I want to be sure I'm not making simillar mistakes here.

Thanks for the suggestion. 19:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What project are you referring to? You have not provided a link to the talk page you mention. SpinningSpark 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
en.wikisource.org, but the issue is there is currently being considered. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I doubt that that would get you blocked here, but if you do go for Editor Review I suggest that you openly explain that's what you want them to look at. You will get a better and more focused response that way. It was only after your third post that I was able to see the issue, and then only because I bothered to search for it on wikisource, you still have not stated it here. I would also note that if you are using automated processes here you should get approval for the tasks to be done at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. SpinningSpark 22:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Autoconfirm the Timeshare Article

I would like to put an indefinite Autoconfirm status on the Timeshare Article. (Timeshare) If there is any article that deserves to be auto confirmed it is the "Timeshare" article. I hawk the article every chance I get; however, the sales people in the timeshare industry continue to use every trick in the book to eliminate the negative facts concerning this business. The latest attempt was this morning, when a user went in and nicely did grammar corrections to the article, just so he could try and eliminate a reference to the Cancellations chapter. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You need Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. SpinningSpark 22:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Following exchanges on the article's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Jobs#Apple_Computer.27s_1997_Financial_Rescue), three editors have been joined by a moderator following a dispute resolution request. The dispute resolution dialog is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Apple_Computer.27s_1997_Financial_Rescue_discussion

The moderator has become uncivil in this person's view with ad hominem comments though he's been asked to be mindful of those partaking in the exchange. A non sequitur further attack has led to requesting a new moderator for dispute resolution.

Two of the three editors have provided conflicting sources, with one party's sources being viewed as editorial content either unattributed or from anonymous sources in otherwise non-editorial news content and the other party providing the company's information as filed with the US government, which the first party views as original research.

The editors are aware the article's subject person is a source of controversy. The contention however is narrow revolving around one sentence in the article involving the subject person's last employer and its financial and legal condition during a change of control.

Request for a replacement moderator is being made.

Pdunbarny (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is already being handled by other volunteers at the DRN listing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Request for a replacement moderator is being made.
Pdunbarny (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The matter has been closed out due to lack of participation and unlikelihood of consensus. JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My article got deleted

Hi I submitted an article but it got deleted (copyright laws) Could I find out why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariuspranskunas (talkcontribs) 08:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The article you uploaded was copied word for word from a website, which is not permitted per Wikipedia policy. However, even if this were not the case, the article has multiple issues that may have lead to its immediate or eventual deletion. Namely, no explanation was provided for why the company was notable enough for an entry (companies do not get article simply because they exist) and no reliable sources were referenced in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for help / mediation

School Psychology International (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I happen to edit (i.e., in real-life as opposed to the Wiki-World) the journal School Psychology International Journal. I've added several updates to that page (e.g., "articles most cited"; the journal's-focus; theme-issue title) to record contemporary information about the journal. This has all been encyclopedic in manner ~ non-promotional. I'm experiencing a new Wiki-editor undoing all my edits...citing 'promotional' even though it's merely factual recordation. How might I proceed? I'd appreciate your review since I want so much to be a contributor of verifiable facts to the Wiki-World. My user name: CavenMcloughlin Cavenmcloughlin (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The first place to take any discussion on an article is to its talk page. This one is currently entirely empty so it is premature to start asking others for help. You can also communicate with other editors on their own talk pages. Editors with a COI, as you have, are strongly discouraged from editing articles directly. It is next to impossible to write neutrally when one has a COI and it is much preferred that you make suggestions on the talk page and leave it to others to add to the article as they see fit.
I pretty much agree with User:Randykitty's deletions. Trailing future content is WP:PROMOTION and WP:CRYSTAL. By the way, they are not exactly a new editor, they have over 7,000 edits on this site. SpinningSpark 20:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper

Hello,

I am requesting assistance as a first time user of Wikipedia for my edit which has quickly bogged down into dispute. I am seeking an immediate resolution because I do not have the time or inclination for the protracted process this may involve to simply contribute what I know to be credible , useful and missing data to an article.

The relevant links are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_the_Ripper#Edit_request_on_5_March_2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper&action=history

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Rolling_archive

I have encountered undue accusation from editors, which I regard as neither true or reasonable, who do not want to discuss content or have it considered for inclusion in a neutral fashion.

I hope that in time I may be allowed to include the material for the sake of completion of the article alone.

Sincerely 27.99.110.80 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't do dispute resolution on this page. We can advise you where to find our DR processes, but if you are not willing to follow them then there is nothing we can do to help you. SpinningSpark 22:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

For Editing of Wikipedia Article

Hello, I am new in Wikipedia. I want to know how I shall editing an article of Wikipedia and how it will upload. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohabbat328 (talkcontribs) 12:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome! I have left you some introductory links on your talk page, including "How to edit a page" and "How to create your first article". I hope that helps. Feel free to ask more questions whenever you are stuck. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Italian-speaker needed

Marino Alfonso (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)
Is there an Italian-speaker willing to explain COI, copyrights, self-promotion and so on to Archivio mafonso (talk · contribs)? He has again pasted in copyrighted Italian text into the Marino Alfonso article. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Bogdangiusca is an active editor, administrator, fluent Italian speaker, and translator. He might possibly be able to help. SpinningSpark 13:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Seeking to unblock a user, blocked by overzealous administrator

Resolved: Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Lmartval (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) I made a request on the user's talk page and the merits of the argument are apparent there. The request received the response "There is no provision in wikipedia policy for granting an unblock in response to a request by a third party. I will not initiate a precedent, although I accept that your request is meant in good faith". Any suggestions on a way to proceed? Kaffiend (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

yes. Do nothing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"No policy for x" is different to "there is a policy not to do x". I want help about how to approach a problem where policy guidance seems to be absent. Kaffiend (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Look, it is currently against policy to have a third-party unblock request. If you think it should be in policy, then suggest it at WP:VPP. Mdann52 (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
(after ec) The administrator is quite correct, unblock requests must be made by the blocked editor, no one else. The reason for this is that before unblocking we need to be convinced that the behaviour which led to the block will not continue. To answer your direct question, you can take the matter to the administrator's notice board but in my opinion you are not likely to get a different answer there. The block has been reviewed by three different administrators, all of whom declined the request. You now have a fourth one looking, I am an administrator myself, and I would not have granted an unblock. Even if I was convinced that the contributions were not promotional, the editor has engaged in an edit war in order to get his material in. This is a big no-no on Wikipedia and is grounds for blocking by itself regardless of the value of the material. We work by consensus here and expect discussion to follow challenges or reversion of material, not an argument taking place in the article itself. To unblock, I would at the very least want to hear from the editor that they are going to desist from edit-warring. You should also note that we strongly discourage editing of articles where there is a COI, which there certainly is when an editor is linking or referring to "their own stuff". So I would also like to see an undertaking not to edit the Kopi Luwak article directly, but instead just leave suggestions on the talk page for other editors to take up as they see fit. If LMartval has nothing else to contribute other than the material that has already been rejected by other editors then there is not a lot to be gained by unblocking in any case. By the way, if you do take this to ANB, it won't help your case to level accusations like "overzealous" highly experienced administrators. SpinningSpark 09:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all - appreciate the thoughtful comments. What I'm reading from Spinningspark is that "there is a policy not to do x" whereas my unblock request indicated "there is no policy to let me do x". Also, the 'overzealous' was actually borrowed from the description of a more experienced editor - I have no sense for what is the norm here - and prompted my attempts to get a review of the situation. Kaffiend (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Please tag as resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffiend (talkcontribs) 09:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Dick Cheney Edit

I was a doctoral candidate (ultimately successful) in the late '60's at the University of Wisconsin department of Political Science and witnessed Dick Cheney's abuse of his deferment to work in Washington when all the other students were actually students. I want to add that to his page. He was not on site. His work for Steiger [if I recall his guy - I do recall Cheney's legendary absence] was notorious, and no other student was flagrant in that manner. No one else so openly manipulated the availability of academic deferments to avoid the draft.

Emily Albrink Hartigan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehartigan (talkcontribs) 21:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion you can't add it in yourself because if so it would be original research WP:NOR which is not permitted on wikipedia. You need to find a source claiming that somewhere, book or magazine article or website, and quote that source. However, seeing that its a bio on a living person they, the person, could always object to your edit and have it removed by wikipedia's powers that be.Wombat24 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
You cannot use personal recollection as a source for an encyclopaedia article, much less your personal opinion of that recollection. SpinningSpark 09:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Shout Factory

Hi,

We have been making improvements to the Shout! Factory page and would love it if someone could look it over to see if we are meeting the criteria needed (or to provide suggestions). Also, the company has been categorized as "low priority" in several places, which doesn't fit the descriptions as it is a nationally recognized company releasing high-profile and mainstream titles.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

Retropolis1 (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead paragraph was wholly promotional in tone and a copyright violation, being lifted apparently from the company's own press releases. I pared it down to a couple of sentences. (It is perhaps telling that several sentences of PR puffery didn't really say what the company does!) I also removed an extensive listing of all artists, shows, etc. released on DVD by the company, on the ground that Wikipedia isn't a sales catalog. It's great that you want to add to Wikipedia, but if you have any affiliation with the company, you should read WP:COI to make sure your edits stay within the aims of the encyclopedia. That is probably the best piece of advice I can offer at this stage. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
And if you are using the pronoun "we" because more than one person is using the account, please note that that is not permitted.--ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback--I meant "we" as in myself and one other person (with a different account) who was helping me, not more than one person for this account. I will take a look at the page and see how else I can enhance it. Thank you for all the tips and links!! Retropolis1 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Threat from Administrator

Resolved
Closing per request Mdann52 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Being suspicions of someone WP:SOCK two editors wrote on my Talk page that the person I suspected wasn't a SOCK, however I still doubted (Obviously if they were a SOCK they'd defend themselves) The two editors mentioned that I was entitled to file a WP:SIP which I hadn't come across before so I read up on that and filed one. Turns out that both those editors are Administrators. However after filing the WP:SIP I got this from one of those Administrator:

"Ah ...--you went ahead with that stupid SPI anyway......I removed that talk archive template you placed here incorrectly, since it fucked up the page. Back to business: that SPI will be closed very quickly, and it will find that no socking has taken place .... If I find you making those accusations again after the SPI is closed I am blocking you at least temporarily for disruption, harassment, and/or incompetence. ...." (edited for space)

My questions are 1) can an Administrator used foul language saying F*%^* -and calling a SIP 'silly' ? can we, or can I swear too elsewhere in a Talk page? 2) can an Administrator threaten to block someone due to 'incompetence' seeing there are wiki rules I didn't know about? 3) Or is it just pointless following up on this and better to ignore it altogether? I did, by the way, delete the paragraph from my Talk page.Wombat24 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This has now passed far beyond the bounds of acceptable contact. Wombat24, a SPA who was on the wrong side of a content dispute, claimed without any basis whatsoever, that an editor who opined in the content dispute must be a sockpuppet of the other editor he disagreed with. His theory, apparently, was that there was something suspicious about a regular editor at WP:BLPN to comment on the talk page of a BLP that was the subject of a BLPN post. This was on the heels of claiming that there was some off-wiki conspiracy when an admin, using Twinkle, took note of his edit warring on the BLP, and warned him against it. Having been told, repeatedly, that there was no basis whatsoever for his SP delusion, he persisted in filing a SPI, was kicked to the curb by SPI , and now is complaining that he is getting picked on, insisting that there should be no consequences should he/she make continued baseless personal attacks. Three admis have given him due warning. At this point, there should be consequences to continued disruptive editing and personal attacks per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Fladrif (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Your comments here Fladrif have no relevance to the questions asked above. I've came here in good faith to ask for some guidance form other editors due to that Administrators language and possible threat, nothing else. No delusions mentioned above. Plus you are transferring to this page what we already argued in the Talk page and dealt with, plus I actually deleted the paragraph in dispute, before filing that SIP, which was what you argued for. However to briefly answer you the basis of that SIP was the IP addresse's edit history which was inactive for 3 years but then suddenly turns up in a BLPN as his first visit after 3 years which seems odd at least. It is explained in the WP:SIP which is still under administration. The checkuser only was rejected because they say it can't be used for IP address only and not based on the argument presented. But they will decide and that will be it! End of story! I suppose they will tell me what the ruling is....However I'd actually welcome your answer the questions I posted if you answer those because I can't find a procedure for complaints against Admins. And by the way it was two administrators, not three, of which only one used f*&* and threats. The other one was informative and correct in his/her language.Wombat24 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Context: The article talk page that spawned this waste of time [2]; the discussion at Wombat's talk page [3], at an administrator's talk page [4], and the SPI [5]. I've the honor of being the 99IP. This unnecessary drama was presumably begun by Wombat's indignation over having two users call an edit into question. What's followed is self-evident: an editor who reacted by making unfounded accusations of socking, refused to heed the warnings of two admins, went ahead with the SPI, has yet to admit the error or apologize for it, and is instead complaining about the behavior of one of the admins. See WP:CHUTZPAH. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
99, you aren't, the IP was 99.149.87.54. Your IP here is different. Or are you the same person? I don't know. However your entry has no relevance to the questions posed nor the help sought. I was going to just delete it but then again people should see that you post has no relevance to the questions asked or the Administrators behaviour or commentsWombat24 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I've made quite clear that I'm the same user as the other 99IPs, and that relationship has also been explained by two administrators as well. That you'd even consider deleting my post, or consider it irrelevant, speaks volumes. I do think the matter of competence is an increasingly appropriate concern. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
No you didn't. You never made that clear, plus wrote "It's too late. You've said more than enough, I'm afraid. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2013". Why would I think you are the same as the that .87.54? There are millions of IP addresses around. I considered deleting it because it had no relevance to the questions posed or the help requested, but its all still hereWombat24 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Last answer to you 99 cause I'm getting sick of this pointless arguing with you. Your comment on 'what's follow' is just wrong. I suspected socking or wrongdoing, not 'reacted' since I actually conceded the point in the original argument to move on and improve that page, then two editors wrote on my talk page without identifying themselves as administrators at first, later one did and the other I assume he/she is but still don't know for certain, I lodged a SPI in good faith and await an result, if I'm wrong with the socking I'll admit it in due time but no result yet plus the checkuser was rejected on what is basically a technicality since it just can't be used with IP's, but now I am seeking advice on how to complain about an Administrators comments which I believe to be wrong especially when considering that he is in a position of authority, but as yet I haven't found a procedure to follow, if there actually is oneWombat24 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 99, Fladrif, let's let Wombat be. I think the arguments have been presented very well on both sides. If I am to be reprimanded for my use of the word "fuck" or some conjugation thereof, if the IP is to be spanked wherever he may be, if Fladrif is to be scorned for having a funny name and the gumption of providing a correct timeline, we'll find out soon enough. Let us all move on and screw up some more articles. Also, Wombat, there's been some merry-making over "fowl language"--I think that's silly because everyone knows you meant "foul". Let those jokers be; there's no point in trying to teach them manners. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I should employ you as my spell-checker, an appropriate job for someone with your creative language skills. So then, can I use "fuck" in good faith on wikipedia Mr Administrator? seeing you are here you may as well answer just one question. Good point though about screwing up articles, I should have mentioned that before. But sooo much time wasted here arguing instead of improving some article or apologizing for loosing your cool there DrmiesWombat24 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Finally one answer to the above questions. Fladrif wrote on my Talk page to take it to WP:ANI for any complaints on admins. I'll read up on that soon. But seems to be a board where one complains about editors for Admins to intervene? Any other suggestions? agent 99? Drmies? since you three guys seem to be reading everything I rite lately, sorry 'write'.Wombat24 (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, the only stuff you seem to be writing is complaints about us, so yeah, we read that. If you want an administrator to intervene, to block me for instance, you should go to ANI, yes. I'd make a prediction--but it would be pretty much the same as for that ill-fated SPI. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Dude, Am having a great day here. But look, only you threatened someone and used insulting language so it should be correct to complain about it; I suspected wrong doing so I brought it up on the appropriate Talk page and then, due to the responses, I reported it to SIP. We do that, report things, in law abiding countries. Then the authorities decide what to do with said report. But you three seem to be following me around all of wikipedia, I mean I asked here for guidance concerning an admin's comment without naming you nor linking to the page but then you three write all the above? c'monWombat24 (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I want to be involved... but, here I go. To the admin in question in re: language, WP:TROUT. As for WP:SPI, generally a great deal of evidence is required to start an investigation, per the privacy policy. I don't know anything about the SPI request in question, but I will agree that, in general, a request regarding a well-established user is very likely to be thrown out. Why? Because frankly, a well-established user is probably not going to engage in disruptive sockpuppeteering. As for the policy standpoint on blocks for incompetence, there are none for "incompetence", specifically, but WP:DISRUPT could apply, arguably.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Trying again (last one got deleted by admin): Cool, will do that, Thanks for the clarity, cheers.Wombat24 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Please tag as resolved; answers are enough to settle thisWombat24 (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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


Possible "vanity" editor or hoax?

After reverting an unreferenced, non-notable edit to Honorary degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Honorary_degree&diff=543635460&oldid=543627026), I noticed that the IP editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.122.91.93) appears to be inserting unreferenced mentions of "Peter Bush" into a number of articles. This appears to be either a vanity edit or a hoax of some kind. Could somebody else investigate and render an opinion? Reify-tech (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

He's just making stuff up. I've reverted the edits. JohnInDC (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it turns out that Peter Bush is an actual person, who has received some (minor) measure of coverage in the local Port Talbot, Wales, press. I've been engaged with a Talk page discussion with a now-registered editor who believes he should be added to Port Talbot's list of notable residents. I disagree, but rather figure in this case it might be good to get a bit of community input. The discussion can be viewed on my Talk page, but in the meantime here are the articles suggesting Peter Bush's role in Port Talbot:
http://goldcross.webs.com/who-we-are
http://www.southwalespoliceauthority.org.uk/en/content/cms/getting_involved/community_safety/2012_winners/2012_winners.aspx - Go to Neath Port Talbot in this article
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Tories-pick-candidate/story-14018671-detail/story.html
http://www.lnpt.org/2011/10/11/i-couldnt-believe-it/
http://www.nptcvs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/VolVoiceDraft10.pdf Go to page 13
Comments welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • He seems notable enough for inclusion to me. The editor who added the person has raised some good points for inclusion, and it's sourced with reliable sources, so I don't see anything wrong with including this person. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
What? in honorary degree? We cannot possibly include every person who has received an honorary degree, and a complete nobody from Port Talbot with some local notability is certainly not in the same bracket as Benjamin Franklin and Billy Graham. SpinningSpark 22:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The material added to honorary degree was unreferenced, and non-notable, even embarrassing for its self-promotion over everyone else listed in the article. I think the stuff added to the other articles was pretty marginal. Somebody should suggest that this would-be editor read WP:COI and WP:ADS, for starters. Reify-tech (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I understand why the information was deleted from honorary degree, I myself am only getting to terms with this now, this discussion is whether or not, it can be included in the Port Talbot Town page, of which I believe I have shown enough local notability for it to be included, so please comment on whether it should be added to the local Port Talbot page.Ittfellow (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
My first impression was that this was a case of self-promotion but I'm not altogether sure now. I think Ittfellow may simply be a Port Talbot resident who thinks highly of Bush. That would not make Bush any more or less worthy of inclusion but it might affect the way other editors approach the issue. JohnInDC (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Ittfellow, please do not delete other editors' comments, this is considered to be extremely rude. In general, do not delete anything without explanation, and always give an edit summary. Please read WP:ETIQ, as well as the guidelines suggested earlier (WP:COI and WP:ADS), to make a more auspicious start in joining the Wikipedia community. Reify-tech (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on dialogues with Ittfellow, I believe that 1) he is not Peter Bush but rather someone who simply knows and respects him and 2) he is a new editor without any good sense of our (sometimes non-obvious) policies and protocols and might benefit from a bit of helpful explanation. He has raised the point that while a person should be Wiki-notable to appear in a standalone list, that may not be a hard-and-fast requirement for subordinate lists within articles. I am not sure that's true but can't say why it isn't, and perhaps another editor would like to take a crack. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The most relevant policy here is WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTDIR. The guidelines WP:LIST and WP:EMBED specifically refer to WP:NOT in this context. My understanding is that there should be an encyclopaedic need for a list within an article and that the members of the list should be limited to definite criteria. That is, there should not be a possibility of the list being extended without limit per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Notability is not, in fact, a policy requirement for members of a list, it is just the most common criterion we apply as an editorial decision in order to meet WP:NOT. The list in Port Talbot is a list of notable people from Port Talbot. It should be self-evident that the criteria for inclusion in the list are 1) notability, and 2) from Port Talbot. If the person has a Wikipedia article then by convention we assume notability is established. If the person does not have an article then WP:V requires that a source indicating notability is provided if the entry is challenged. SpinningSpark 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe then that the inclusion of Peter Bush in the notable people from Port Talbot should be allowed, I have provided many sources indicating notability and he does match both criteria 1) He is notable and I have provided sources for this and 2) He was born and lives within Port Talbot. Many Thanks As a guide as I am new on Wikipedia, I have just edited Port Talbot to include information in the sea rescue part, as it just included details of the Coastguard team, but I have added details of the RNLI (Lifeboat) Team who also cover Port Talbot, can you confirm I have done this correct, so I know I am going in the right direction. Many Thanks All Ittfellow (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:uw-delete1 broken?

Resolved

The template generates something like:

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Registered jack without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User_talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks!

For comparison, the Template:uw-delete2 appears to work properly.

Apologies if this isn't the right place to report the problem; a quick scan of Template:Uw-delete1 didn't turn up anything. Please let me know if there is some other place to report a broken template. Thanks! Reify-tech (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It works fine for me - does the below appear normal to you?

Hello, I'm Mdann52. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

Sorry if I shouldn't of subst this in! Mdann52 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the subst worked properly for me here (so I had to change {{Template:uw-delete1}} to [[Template:uw-delete1]] when reporting the problem). But it didn't work when I tried to use it at User talk:110.234.24.120, so I resorted to Template:uw-delete2 for expediency. I just tried Template:uw-delete1 again in that context, and it still fails. Reify-tech (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Check the documentation at Template:Uw-delete1; the template is supposed to be used with "subst:", and that mess of square brackets is exactly what happens when you leave it out. Template:Uw-delete2 is also supposed to be used with "subst:", but it doesn't fail in the same way when the subst is missing. Notice that after you saved the page with a {{uw-delete2}}, a bot came along and did the subst for you. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
(More) I noticed that {{Uw-vandalism1}} doesn't break when you forget to subst it, and have made a couple of edits to {{Uw-delete1}} so that its code matches the other template. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for resolving the mystery, and fixing the code so it doesn't fail in such a baffling manner. Reify-tech (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of proposed new article requested

User:Sebriscoe/Association_of_State_and_Territorial_Health_Officials

I would like guidance before a new article to the main article space. Thanks! Sebriscoe (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The thing that slaps me in the face as soon as I look at it is that it is very short of references, see WP:V. In particular, there are no sources verifying notability as defined in our guideline WP:N. This is our primary criterion for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Of the three references provided, the first one, the book The Sanitarians, does not metion the Association at all, lkewise the third one, and the second one is not independent of the subject and hence does not count towards notability. SpinningSpark 18:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
To submit it for review add {{Subst:Submit}} to the top and save the page.--ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Translation of Quotation and Improper Combination of Quotations

Pope Francis (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) In the discussion of the Pope's positions on poverty and inequality, there is the sentence: During a May 2010 speech in Argentina regarding the poor, he directed his message to the wealthy by saying: "You avoid taking into account the poor. We have no right to duck down, to lower the arms carried by those in despair. . . ." This is an overly literal and incorrect translation of a quote from La Nación. When interpreting or translating, the goal is to accurately convey meaning and ideas, not words, from the source language to the target language. Also, the Wikipedia entry takes from the La Nación article two different quotes and combines them as if they were a single quote. It is inappropriate to treat exact quotations in such a manner. The sentence should be re-written as follows: During a May 2010 speech in Argentina regarding the poor, he chastised "the comfortable" whom "avoided considering" the poor, saying: "We have no right to look away, to turn down the raised arms of the desperate. . . . "Rodneygriffith (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)rodneygriffith

I see that you have proposed this change on the article talk page about an hour ago. Please wait to see if anyone responds there in, say, the next 24-48 hours. If they do, then discuss the matter with them there. If they do not, then make the edit to the article and see if anyone reverts it. If they do, then ask them to engage in discussion. In general, see the Consensus policy and Bold, revert, discuss. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis

The article says Pope St. Francis is the first pope outside of Europe, which is not true in Catholic tradition. Saint Peter, who was from Capernaum in Israel is considered the first pope. [1]

it doesn't say that. read again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you do when there is an edit war and the other side refuses to debate by giving sources but just reverts you back?

For three months, at the Second Amendment to the Constitution article, I have tried repeatedly to include the history of the Amendment prior to 2000. I have cited the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, three judicial decisions and even a professor whose chair was endowed by the National Rifle Association for the simple proposition (uncontradicted by any source I have ever seen) that judicial decisions between Miller (1939) and Emerson (2001) exclusively provided a right to keep and bear arms in a miltia -- and not the individual right first proposed by Emerson and later upheld by Heller (2008). For months, my opponents have cited NO sources in opposition (Just an hour ago, I got my first sources from a completely new editor who was not involved in the discussion, but none of them are a decision between 1939 and 2000.) I believe both sides of the controversy should be represented. Their response is my sources are wrong but they refuse to provide any sources to back up their view. (I've even offered a $100 reward if anyone can find any reliable source contradicting mine.)

Not only do they refuse to allow my reliable sources -- or dispute them with any source of their own -- now the page has been locked with their inaccurate POV. And even my disputed tags have been removed. I'm getting very frustrated. What should I do next?GreekParadise (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Dispute resolution.--ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oji Paper Company

I am unsure how to completely update the page for Oji Paper Company: Oji Paper Company

Please note: In 2012, 'Oji Paper Co., Ltd. transferred to a pure holding company system and started anew under the trade name "Oji Holdings Corporation." Ref: http://www.ojiholdings.co.jp/english/group/about/history.html

Full company website should be corrected to: http://www.ojiholdings.co.jp/english/index.html and the company name: Oji Paper Company should be corrected to: Oji Holdings Corporation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davelees (talkcontribs) 08:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Research on contributing behaviour

Dear Wikipedians,

I am conducting a research on contribution behaviour regarding social media platforms such as Wikipedia. I developed a questionairre with the intention to reveal different motives in contributing to different social media websites. I would much appreciate it if you could help me out by filling out the following survey: www.thesistools.com/web/?id=329391. It will only take two minutes of your time!

Thank you in advance,

Lester — Preceding unsigned comment added by LJJvanKlink (talkcontribs) 13:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Help, keep the title cards that I uploaded

A Wikipedia user named AussieLegend has taken out the title card pictures that I uploaded for TV shows such as Grey's Anatomy, Body of Proof, Nashville (2012 TV series) and Red Widow

I really don't know what to do, I uploaded them in the first place because most of the articles for the TV shows that are currently airing right now has a picture of their title card/intertitle (that is being shown in every episode of the show) inside the infobox. So I uploaded these title cards, so people would see the title cards of those shows instead of just a logo. I really don't know what "Replaceability" reason to write. Please someone help mme so I could keep the images that I uploaded to improve the articles of those shows that I mentioned. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason given for the removal is "replacement of free content with non-free content is a violation of our non-free content policy". It is correct that we are obliged to use free content rather than non-free whenever it is available. So the issue hinges on whether the title cards you have provided are "replacements" for the logos or have added something encyclopaedic that is not available in free content. For instance, does it significantly aid identification of the show above what the logo provided? To some extent, these are questions of editorial judgement and you should therefore be discussing this with the other editors involved at the relevant articles or on their talk pages. You could also ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television for guidance on this, they may even have addressed it already in their guidelines.
In the meantime, your images are likely to be deleted - non-free content is not allowed if it is not in any article. They can always be uploaded again, but please make sure there is firm consensus amongst editors before doing so. I think your non-free use rationales leave a lot to be desired, you need to address all the requirements of WP:FUC. Putting "n.a." against the "not-replaceble" requirement is not acceptable. The image most definitely must not be replaceable with free content and you need to demonstrate that. Likewise "minimal use", and "respect for commercial opportunities". I am pretty sure that the show's owners would not agree their commercial opportunities for the show were "not applicable". See File:NCIS title.jpg for a fuller fair-use rationale. SpinningSpark 09:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Lumsden Newfoundland

The Facebook Places has a wiki specific link but no picture of Lumsden, Newfoundland my hometown.

[2] https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lumsden-Newfoundland-and-Labrador/108657692492190

I've fixed a problem with the format of the image on Lumsden, Newfoundland and Labrador. This may or may not solve whatever problem Facebook has. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nouns vs. verbs as article titles (good indexing from general to granular)

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

Question related to article titles and what is preferable. Specifically on the article Stress test

Right now Stress test (newer article) co exists with Stress testing (older article) and one or the other clearly should be deleted. 100% of the content of the old article exists verbatim in the newer article and the newer more granular articles. Zero content is lost if the older article Stress testing were to be deleted. The newer article also has additional content.

"Stress test" has radically different content at finer levels of granularity (e.g. software, hardware, mechanical, financial, etc). A general "Stress test" article must therefore be about the commonality across all the various sub-types.

Alternatively, all granular content might be moved to granular pages and the page "Stress Test/Stress Testing" (which ever survives) could carry ONLY the content now in Stress test (disambiguation).

See:

see also:

To me it seems like the choice is obvious, however I'm open to different interpretations if it's not just and open and shut case. Would love to see this "indexing" area cleaned up. Rick (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me, on a quick review, as if someone has deliberately created a fork of the article for no very good reason. As there is new material in the new article they should probably be history merged but this is only possible if there is no significant overlap in editing. I don't have time to do it this morning, but will take a look later today to see if it is possible. In the meantime it would be helpful if everyone refrains from editing it as that is only going to make it more difficult to do. SpinningSpark 07:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Spinningspark, appreciate your help. I moved Stress testing to Stress Test then proceeded to add content, and move some of the more granular content down to individual, more specific articles: Stress test (hardware), Stress test (software), Stress test (financial), and Stress test (disambiguation). Prior to the title move and the creation of the more specific articles I reviewed the entire proposed naming scheme with a highly experienced Sysop who gave his thumbs up. At that point "Stress testing" became a redirect page to "Stress test".

Someone then reverted Stress testing from the redirect back to its original form as an article.

With the move Stress Testing to Stress test and creation of the granular articles 100% of the prior Stress testing content was preserved verbatim, however some of the more granular content was moved out to the individual, more granular pages. Each topic area (hardware/materials), (software), and (financial) is huge in itself, and there is nill crossover between them once a specific interest is identified. Coverage in the hardware and software areas seems spotty, a bit dated, and needy for better Wikipedia organization. However they are useful as starter class, with some very valuable content. Also, the financial stress test as a "science" area is receiving worldwide attention, massive R&D spend, and is likely to grow substantially over time. Sorry for my role in this, I was executing an organizational plan that seemed to make a lot of sense and had a thumbs up. As I understand it, using straightforward simple nouns as article titles has many benefits, not the least of which is cleaner foreign language mapping (wikidata Interlanguage links). Very much appreciate the "top down" expert review to set things straight here. Rick (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Rick, I have replied on your talk page. SpinningSpark 17:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Spinningspark, thanks for your note. I apolgise for the copy-paste error. I understood why you purged all content from Stress test and made it a simple redirect. Not quite sure why your move was then immediately reverted as it, at a minumum, solves the blatent dual article problem, as only the prior Stress testing article then left standing.

With "Stress test" blanked there is nothing to merge, so that discussion could conclude.

Goal #1 has to be to finalize the name. Then, if need be, the related article names (hardware, software, financial and disambiguation) could also be changed to all align with that final naming decision. I've expressed my opinion on naming (which I had run by an experienced Sysop prior) so leave it up to the sysops/others to make that call.Rick (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A user named Ratemonth is continuously vandalizing the article "Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Bogus accusations of "vandalism" by a new single-purpose account trying to push an ideological agenda and who has not pursued any legitimate method of dispute resolution. This account has been blocked for edit warring, WP:NPA violations, and tendentious abuse of various venues within Wikipedia (including this one). (One also wonders: who is the "We" of whom the original poster writes?) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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

We had written an additional entry based on the Classical Liberal view on the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.

First he deleted our article for no real reason, then he deleted it again accusing a collection of works by Law professors a "bunch of Jibberish."

Then he went through the sources and said that the "content was not present" in our sources, but that's because he's obviously NOT a Libertarian (Classical Liberal) and has absolutely no idea of how to read those sources, or disagrees with them fundamentally (one of his edit reasons was "biased source). Ultimately, he is practicing censorship and disguising it.

Of course the source is biased towards Libertarianism, because WE ARE EXPLAINING THE LIBERTARIAN INTERPRETATION (BIAS).

NinthAmendment (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)NinthAmendment

NinthAmendment's writing is not encyclopedic. Most of it is not based on any sources. Some is based on unreliable sources. I was able to salvage one sentence, and have put it in an appropriate section of the article. Ratemonth (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are either very ignorant of Libertarianism (unqualified to edit) or greatly opposed to Libertarianism (censoring information). Amazing that you took an 84 page PDF source and made the instantaneous judgement that the source was "biased", that speaks wonders. The Ninth Amendment itself is Libertarian declaration, of course any colonial era sources will have a bias, they just recently freed themselves from England.

NinthAmendment (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)NinthAmendment

First of all, we do not settle content disputes on this page, although we can advise where to find help on this. However, the first step in any dispute is for the editors involved to discuss the matter on the article talk page and try to resolve the issues amongst themselves. I don't see your name on the talk page, or anything that looks like this issue. Secondly, repeatedly inserting the same material after it has been challenged is considered disruptive. When this happens the article should be left alone and discussion opened, see WP:BRD. There is a policy against edit warring which can lead to editors being blocked regardless of who is right or wrong in the dispute. Finally, please do not accuse good faith editors of vandalism, especially in headings - which should always be neutral. It is not going to help achieve consensus and we reserve this term only for things like schoolkids inserting offensive words or gibberish into articles. SpinningSpark 07:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

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


I think I've found a company editing their own page.

Hi there, I don't have much experience with editing Wikipedia, but I think I've come across a page that has been edited for PR purposes. The page is full of unneeded detail and promotional language that glorifies the company while minimizing any mention of criticism. Looking at the edit history, most of the PR edits have been made by accounts whose only purpose is to modify the page - one of them even had the name of the company in it and referred to itself as "we."

I added {{Advert|date=March 2013}} and {{Cleanup-spam|date=March 2013}} to the page, but I'm not sure where to go from here, and how to report the suspected sockpuppets. Any tips?

Thanks! JakeMates (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You might post a notice at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"Flagship universities"

I could use a few more eyes and opinions in an increasingly circular discussion concerning the 1) propriety and 2) wisdom of including a putatively definitive list of "flagship universities" in the Flagship article. Whether I'm right or wrong I've already spent too much time on the discussion without making much of a difference, and some fresh thoughts & perspective would be welcome. The relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Flagship#Listing_.22flagship_universities.22_is_a_bad_idea. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Template listing reference sources in categories

Hello,

This is a dispute about Wikipedia:Categorization policy. I created two categories: Category:Process philosophy and Category:Process theory. Immediately Gregbard added {{Philosophy reference resources}}, a list of external reference sources to the categories. I reverted the template and Gregbard instantly reverted me.

I asked at the Village pump/policy - Policies about Categories. The four editors responding supported my position, saying categories were for navigation only and should not contain lists of reference sources.

I tried to discuss these templates with Gregbard on his talk page[6][7], my talk page User_talk:Star767#Removal_of_Reference_resources, but he told me to "desist". He asked Vegaswikian his opinion[8] who said: "categories should not include references. I also believe that as I stated, categories are for article navigation and should not be used to provide reference sources, like this template does, in a category. That is something that belongs on a project page."[9] Gregbard responded: "Much of my effort in organizing categories has been toward making them consistent with PhilPapers, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Indiana Ontology Project, as provided in those links listed in {{Philosophy reference resources}}."[10]

I feel this is very much against the policies/guidelines of Wikipedia and is POV because only Gregbard is deciding the sources used to organize these categories - over sixty that his reference sources link to. (Note: one link Process philosophy in the template is dead.) And there a many more such templates he is using on other categories.

Can you give me advice on what to do next? Star767 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Policies about Categories still seems to be ongoing. There is no advantage in opening a new thread here. If the discussion does not seem to be getting anywhere, then open a WP:RfC on that page with a definite (and simple) proposal that people can respond to as either support or oppose. SpinningSpark 13:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that a user is a repeat offender of hoaxes

Tron9698 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have just noticed a user who's talk page is full of speedy deletion requests and they are all focused on one issue. This issue is Eritrea. It seems that all are hoaxes or otherwise misinformation. I do not know how to proceed to get this user (Tron9698) stop abusing Wikipedia. He does not seem to reply on his Talk Page. Any help is appreciated!

Merhawie (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Tron9698 has not edited since December so there is no immediate problem that needs dealing with. A page full of warnings like that is not good, but it does not necessarily mean that the user has not done anything constructive. If that were the case they could be blocked as a vandalism only account, but that is not obviously so from a quick look at their editing history. You need to wait till they start editing again before taking this further. Obvious and straightforward disruption can be reported at WP:AIV (please read the prerequisites on that page carefully before reporting). More complex cases can be raised at WP:ANI. The latter will expect you to provide WP:DIFFs to examples of the problem behaviour. SpinningSpark 18:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

HELP WITH SOME BOXES

Also asked at Help Desk and WP:THQ, being handled at the latter.--ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I made some changes on the WP U2 page but then it chaged its original format. the the Wikiproject box, the Quick links box, the discussion pages box and the Statistics box went to the bottom instead of staying the right where it always were. Please, help me to undo this but keeping the new adds

Wikipedia:WikiProject U2 - > Wikipedia:WikiProject U2/leftpanel

See, this is where I add and I need to keep it there:

Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 117:

  Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


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


Talk:List of best-selling albums#Michael_Jackson's_HIStory Past Present and Future......this is a link to the page

Also asked at Wikipedia:Help Desk#no answer to semi protected edit page and is being handled there. SpinningSpark 12:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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

List of best-selling albums (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

hi ,,im trying to put m. Jackson History,past, present, future album ( 20 million sales) back on the best selling album page,,,,i have place an semi protected edit protection template on that page because I am not autoconfirmed,,,,,I place the citation,,,,,http://avaxhome.bz/music/MJacksonHIStory.html,,,, indicates 20 million in sales ( and is the same one used in m. Jackson History Album page,, to this point it has been one week and no one has done anything ,,,,thanks,,,--65.8.188.32 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of best-selling albums#Michael_Jackson's_HIStory Past Present and Future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.188.32 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


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


Feature Phones

Discussion moved: To Talk:Feature phone. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am looking for assistance with the Feature phone article. The article is in generally bad shape but one editor is making it difficult to make any progress. User:Limefrost Spiral continually reverts the article to contain false information. He/she cites some sources, but said sources don't support his claims. He/she erroneously claims that Nokia's Lumia Phones are feature phones, not smartphones, simply because of their price point. He/she also slips in praise for the iPhone, something that is completely irrelevant and obviously not neutral. Limefrost makes reverts without explanations, and does not engage in discussion on the talk page.

I would very much like some assistance to clean up this page because I feel that if I go it alone I will just as guilty of edit warring as the person I accuse.

Thanks in advance. Ropo153 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to make a good faith effort to engage this editor in dialogue before going anywhere else with this. I do not see much evidence of that happening on either the article's or user's talk page. From what I can see of this editor's behaviour it probably will not do much good, but you do need to try very hard first. If they do engage, then try to reach a compromise, and if that fails see WP:DR for your options. If they do not engage, then state on the article talk page what you intend to change and why, leave it for an appropriate time to see if it attracts any commnents (a week say) and if still nothing happens make the changes. If you still get reverted without comment after that, then report the editor to WP:ANI, or if you prefer, you can contact me directly (I am an admin). Please note that admins can only take action on the editor's behaviour - it is no use complaining to admins that the edits are wrong, admins are not authorized to adjudicate on content disputes. SpinningSpark 14:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. It seems that we have finally started a dialogue on the article's talk page. I don't know if the article's subject is of interest to you, but I welcome you to join the discussion as a third opinion. Ropo153 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem at Talk Sparta

Hi. I posted on the Talk:Sparta about a discrepancy. I've posted. No one responds. Then, they change the item and I ask for references to that. No one responds. I'm just curious about the product you produce here at Wikipedia. I'm I stupid? It says on its own article that Sparta had a "Mixed government" yet in the sidebar it used to say it is an "Oligarchy". When I complained, they put Sparta as a "Dual Monarchy". I then asked for references for doing that. No response. You can check my homepage and I'm a published author on Sparta especially on her form of government. Yet, I don't get any response. I would like to know who is in control of the article. That would be nice to know. I would like to know their credentials. Second, I just want an answer to why there is a discrepancy between what the article says "Mixed government" but then the sidebar says something completely different! Do you agree with me that you can't write it has "mixed government" in the article but then in the sidebar you classify it as Oligarchy or Dual Monarchy. I mean do you people stand for this crap? For three weeks now, no answer, no feedback, no references posted. I wish somebody with some freakin' credentials correct the article! Is that too hard? Can you have a little consistency. I mean people read that and you are all looking like the laughing stock. Logic requires consistency. WHEELER (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer the who is in charge question first; no one is in charge, on Wikipedia anyone who wishes to edit has equal status regardless of academic qualifications, or anything else. Decisions are made by consensus and we expect editors to discuss disagreements in a collegial atmosphere. I presume you are referring to this edit. There is no evidence that the editor made that change in response to your talk page post - they may possibly not even have seen it. There is nothing stopping you going ahead and editing the page directly. You may instead, however, wish first to mark the disputed text as suspect and wait a bit to see if anyone responds to it. There are a number of tags available to mark disputed text. The most widely used one is {{cn}} which will mark the text as "citation needed". It should be placed immediately following the suspect passage. You should then explain your reasons on the article talk page. I advise starting a completely new thread to do this, your last post on the page was not helpful. First of all it is WP:TLDR and second of all a sarcastic rant is not moving towards consensus in a collegial atmosphere. Finally, I would advise you that citing your own stuff is considered poor etiquette here. It would be advisable to find an independent source for the changes you wish to make. If you cannot find another source, you might want to consider the possibility that your views are not the mainstream view of scholars in the field. Please don't take offence at that, I really have no idea whether or not that is the case (I am an electrical engineer). If you really have to use your own publications it might be better to post the change you want to make on the talk page and leave it to others to insert in the article. If you take the trouble to format it exactly as it is to appear in the article then you can use the template {{request edit}} to attract the attention of another editor. It is important to format the change so it can be done with a simple copy and paste operation: editors who service these requests do not necessarily have subject matter knowledge and will be unwilling to make complex changes. SpinningSpark 15:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. The page is locked. You have to post what you want to change on the talk page, and they change it. That is how that page has operated for years. Prof. Paul A. Rahe has written a three volume work describing Sparta as a republic. They declined to pay attention to it. Anyway thanks. WHEELER (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There may be a misunderstanding here. Your account (WHEELER) is autoconfirmed, so you are able to edit the Sparta article. People with newly created accounts, and people who are not logged into an account, will not be able to edit the Sparta article, so would need to post edit requests on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I will not edit it because like much of what I do around here gets deleted. All I want on the page is that what is talked in the article-----should match what is on the sidebar. Plain, simple, consistency. I know what I am talking about will never be accepted. On the page they talk that Sparta has Mixed Government. Then on the Sidebar, they had "Oligarcy". Then, they changed that to "Dual Monarchy".
Either change the damn article to read Sparta is an oligarchy and have Oligarchy in the sidebar OR Sparta is a Dual Monarchy in the article and have Dual Monarchy in the Sidebar. What is in the Article should match what is on the Sidebar. All I'm asking for is consistency. The people running that page can't figure that out! You have a glaring INCONSISTENCY. Fix it! I won't. WHEELER (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Listen. This sentence, from Wikipedia Sparta Constitution The Doric state of Sparta, copying the Doric Cretans, developed a mixed governmental state. comes from MY paper, MY work. That appears nowhere in Paul A Rahe, nor anywhere else, nor from Paul Cartledge nor anybody! I am the only person that uses this phrase "Doric state of Sparta". Moreover, I am the only person anywhere that connects the Spartan form of government with the Cretan. I DID NOT put that sentence in the article! That is MY work.
What is Mixed government then? Is it Oligarchy? or is it Dual Monarchy? Here is a freakin' college textbook: Richard Dagger, 2nd ed, HarperCollins College Publishers, l995. pg 267. 1.Mixed constitution (or government)—The republican policy of combining or balancing rule by one, by the few, and by the many in a single government, with the aim of preventing the concentration of power in any person or social group. Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, pg 265. I don't know how many times I have referenced this---and have been ignored! I am still being ignored! I did not put my own work in that article that is UNATTRIBUTED. No reference. I post countless references, and nothing is done! And then the stupidity show up calling Mixed government an Oligarchy and now a Dual Monarchy. Is this scholarship? Is this Political Science which requires accuracy in detail. NO. YOU figure this out. I post a college text reference--It does no good. I post Paul A. Rahe--it does no good. You lift my work and tell me I can't use my own work as a reference! Mixed Government is Republican Government! Mixed = Republic. Rule of the few = Oligarchy. Rule of kings = Monarchy. Which is it? Look, I did not write or put anything in that article. But you have stuff reported there that is INCONSISTENT. Do Something! This is NOT my reputation at stake----It is YOUR REPUTATION and ACCURACY that matters. In this case, Get a freakin' professor. Obviously the knuckleheads editing over there can't get it done---going on years now. In this instance four weeks. What is it going to take. WHEELER (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
If I had realised that you were a POV pushing edit-warrior, I would not have wasted so much time trying to advise you. This is not the complaints department and is not the place to let off steam about how awful Wikipedia is. Nor are we a free resource to do your editing for you. SpinningSpark 17:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Honestly, an edit request in this manner is not helpful to anybody. Regardless, Wheeler seems to have made his proposed edits... though I don't see a textual reference for his statement. And the whole mixed government thing is reminiscent of past issues. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Flag for Cote d'Ivoire

Resolved: Go Irish! (sorry, had to) —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Cote_d%27Ivoire.svg was moved to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire.svg (great). Except the mover did not edit Template:Country data Côte d'Ivoire to reflect the name change, so now every page that uses flagicon for CIV has a broken image in it. As country data templates are editable only by admins, can somebody please fix that template? Cheers Geregen2 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by User:Tide rolls.--ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

removal of a reference while an article is at AfD

Summary: I believe that this issue needs to go to AN to request other admins to explain that referencectomies and informationectomies are not considered good practice during an AfD.

I originally created North Louisiana Historical Association as a redirect, and the redirect was soon made into an article that I helped develop.  I added a reference/citation/bibliography here that was mostly behind a paywall.  The portion that was available for free showed a limited amount of content, but when I looked yesterday is entirely behind the paywall, which makes the quote preserved from April 2011 more important.  Note that there is one explicit newspaper article included in the selected quote.

The article has recently been posted at AfD, and immediately this reference became a target for removal of the AfD nom, and soon thereafter a delete !vote.  The situation was under control until an admin became involved and claimed a consensus was "emerging" based on the desire of the nom and the delete !vote to remove the reference.

The issue here could get involved with diffs starting from last Saturday involving myself and the admin and myself and the delete !voter.  While ad hominems are not necessarily off-topic, and there is relevant ad hominem material to discuss, I think that the principle here needs no such elaboration.  If an AfD deletion argument is sound, it is not improved by removing references from an article that is worthless.  I think it should be obvious to the most basic principles of why we are here that admins should not be helping delete !votes to get an article deleted that would not have been deleted if the references were still in the article.

As for why I am asking for assistance, the admin is channeling words such as WP:COMPETENCE, AN, ANI, Boomerang, and "topic ban"; the admin has issued a warning on my talk page; and the delete !vote is joining in tag-team grumbling on two user talk pages.  Also, my experience has been that trips to AN or ANI are not effective, for reasons that I've not been a Wikipedian long enough to understand.  I can take this to AN by myself if I at least have someone to agree that such is reasonable. 

I have discussed the issue with the admin here and here.

Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A link to search results is not a reference as you have been repeatedly told, and is a breach of WP:EL#EL6 and WP:EL#EL9. That the item has been removed four times by three different editors should be telling you something, and repeatedly reinserting it is WP:EDIT WARing so I would stay well away from ANI with that one. How can you possibly claim those results are WP:Verifying the article when they are behind a paywall and you haven't read them? They might do, but really, you have no more idea whether they do than me. SpinningSpark 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • SpinningSpark, As per the article on argumentum ad populum, "the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct."  As per WP:Citing sources, "A citation, or reference, is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source".  The "Bibliography" section in this example is a synonym for a WP:MOS "Further reading" section, and as per WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Further reading, "Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article."  Q.E.D., a "Further reading" entry may be known as a "reference".  The "Further reading" entry goes on to explain, and is the most specific reply to your question about WP:V, "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content."  The notability guideline WP:NRVE states, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."  And WP:EL states, "this guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content."  I hope this responds to your technical points.
Discussion about the specific example, and advice that EW can result in blocks, doesn't help me with the general topic "removal of a reference while an article is at AfD".  Another example is here.  The two key sentences of my OP were, "If an AfD deletion argument is sound, it is not improved by removing references from an article that is worthless.  I think it should be obvious to the most basic principles of why we are here that admins should not be helping delete !votes to get an article deleted that would not have been deleted if the references were still in the article."  You thought that ANI would not be productive, but what about WP:AN, since that is for issues specifically affecting administrators?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • More or less as Spinningspark posted above. The warning was well deserved as you had already reached 3RR (and the other party was likewise warned). If you were to read any of the links I gave you, or even the edit warning which you admitted to not reading, or admit to being wrong when you write RfD instead of AfD, or listen to feedback when you perform an out-of-process non-administrator close and patently ignore people who tell you it was wrong, no one would question your competence to edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492, WP:EA states, "Editor Assistance is intended as an informal method of requesting one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor who may be more experienced about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and how they may apply to the issue or situation that you are experiencing."  I request to refactor your post to your user page.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You have had one-to-one advice but have chosen to ignore it and replied with wall-of-text wikilawyering. Links in an article to search results are not acceptable. The removal was justified. Your attempts to reinsert it are not. Arguments for keeping the article belong on the AfD debate page, not in the article. I am not going to waste my breath replying to all that point-by-point, just please accept that the opinion of the community is that you shouldn't do this. SpinningSpark 06:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to reply to that point by point: WP:CONSENSUS. Make a new one with extended discussion, if you disagree with the current one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just throwing my voice in here: it's not a good reference, the removal was legitimate, and your repetitive reverting to readd it even if the removal was incorrect falls within the ambit of WP:3RR. AN and ANI won't do anything about this. Don't shoot yourself in the foot. It looks like the AFD is going to close as keep or no consensus... what more do you want? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

About changing the title for Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den

Answered: At the talk page. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I just post this suggestion on the talk page for months and no one ever noticed. What should I do?--Inspector (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to you there so you at least now have one response. SpinningSpark 10:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Overseas Christian Fellowship - request to view deleted article

Overseas Christian Fellowship (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I write regarding the deleted article with the title "Overseas Christian Fellowship", the subject of which is a sizable student organization that I am a member of. Perhaps there were very good reasons for this deletion, but as I am looking to start a bit of a research project into the organization's history in order to write a proper, cited and complete article, I would like to ask if I can view the deleted article. It may be a long time before I actually contribute an article, but I just want to make sure that there is no chance of my making any similar mistakes. Thankyou. dan (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The article was deleted, in part, for copyright violation and therefore cannot be restored under any circumstances. The copied page can be seen here. The rest of the article reads like it was also copied but I don't know where from. In any case it is entirely unsuitable as an encyclopaedia entry. It reads more like something one would find in The Watchtower liberally sprinkled as it is with bible quotations and exhortations to the reader.
There was a previous article which was deleted for lack of notability. The deletion discussion can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overseas Christian Fellowship. If you can write an article that meets WP:VRS then it probably won't get deleted, the deleted article had no references at all. When you are ready to start writing, this older article could be userfied so that you can use it as a basis for the new article, but if you have found good sources you would be better off writing from the sources rather than anything that has gone before. SpinningSpark 10:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated/verifiable statements

Colorado Time Systems (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

I have tried to remove statements regarding the CEO of Colorado Time Systems on two occassions because they are untrue and defamatory, and the edits have been reversed on both occassions. I was told that I did not summarize, the edit; but I did and am not sure how to proceed. Straighttime (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)straigttime

I have removed the "overtime" stuff again as, contrary to the edit summary of the user who reverted you, it was completely unsourced.--ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
We require reliable sources: that means neither rumors, personal experience, nor the company's own website can be used. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Article titles for The Old Halls

Answered: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There are approximately — this is, admittedly, OR — 10^23 villages in that royal throne of kings, that sceptred isle, England, which have a listed building in the National Heritage List for England which goes by the name Old Hall. Locally these are often referred to as "The" Old Hall, and many of them are listed in that List as "The Old Hall" (see this search for examples), whereas many others are (thankfully) Listed as simply "Old Hall" or "Blitherington Old Hall". Many of those called "The Old Hall" in that List are also referred to locally with the definite article firmly attached. See e.g. The Old Hall, Asfordby, which is referred to as "The Old Hall" in the List and at the Parish Council website (presumably — again OR of the rankest kind — to avoid confusion with the many other ancient or decrepit halls in that and other villages). Thus via this circumlocution we come to the nexus of the matter upon which I desire advice upon from my brethren and sistren here: Should the article title for the The Old Halls include or omit the The? I have perused Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles, WP:DEFINITE, and WP:THE and have come up with a firm opinion of something which falls between "meh" and "probably." But at the same time, "Old Hall, Asfordby" seems more like a title which could refer to any-old old hall in Asfordby and raises the secondary question of whether or not if the The is to be omitted whether the Hall should be lower–case, since this is not really a proper noun but just what it happens to be called. (Music of — ahem — The Beatles playing in the background...) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

My personal view is that the "Old Hall, Asfordby" or "Asfordby Old Hall", or (less so) "Old Hall (Asfordby)" constructions are better than any with the definite article.--ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Should "The Old Hall, Asfordby" exist even as a redirect to "Old Hall, Asfordby"? — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Can't see why not, redirects are cheap.--ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. I'd argue WP:R#K2 and WP:R#K3 at an RfD on such a redir. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo

Also asked at Wikipedia:Help Desk#Using photo and answered there]] SpinningSpark 21:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Dear Sir, Please assist me in putting my photo with my article? I have tried and tried? Thank you, Gena Medici Etherton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.92.5 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


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


reback my mistaken deleted songs

Request unclear: Site logs show several thousand delete entries for the relevant period. We need something more specific. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to reback my mistakenly deleted songs..which was deleted on 12 April 2013...pls its a rqt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.225.165 (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain your request a little better. Which Wikipedia page is involved here? SpinningSpark 10:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Issue of OR/SYNTH, assistance required.

I kindly request assistance regarding an issue of OR/SYNTH at Talk:The_X-Files:_I_Want_to_Believe#Charts, the discussion resolves around the use of two sources that does not directly support text. Any input would be most welcome. Яehevkor 13:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attack: What to do?

Stale: —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken accused me of sockpuppetry on my talk page. It's pure invention, and consequently he has no evidence whatsoever.

What would be the best way to dissuade him from making further personal attacks against me and other IP editors?

(Note: I'm on a dynamic IP and I might have a different address tomorrow.) --91.10.58.188 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's what he accused you of: "Editing with an IP when you have an account to avoid scrutiny of your edits". Your use of a dynamic IP and obvious experience in Wikipedia will bring such accusations, true or false. If it's true, use your username. If it's untrue, get a username. No, getting a username isn't obligatory, but it's a good way to avoid what you interpret as "personal attacks", and avoidance of them is what you say you want. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
That awfully sounds like I would have to go out of my way to avoid being falsely accused.
Do you think his behaviour is acceptable? --91.10.58.188 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
In view of the ease with which an existing user ID can be employed (unless of course it has been blocked), the ease with which a new user ID can be made and used, your obvious familiarity with certain by-ways of Wikipedia, and what appears to be a boneheaded insistence on the letter of MoS on your part, I'd say that the out-of-the-way-ness is trivial and Beyond My Ken's behavior is acceptable, yes. I wonder if you're here in order to construct an encyclopedia or merely in order to waste people's time and/or be the center of attention. -- Hoary (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Hoary. I don't mind IPs editing as a "try before you buy" way of dipping your toe into Wikipedia, but for experienced editors, it usually indicates they have a problem with authority or have something to hide. As you say, "I'm on a dynamic IP and I might have a different address tomorrow" - it might be an IP that's never edited here, it might be one that a banned or indeffed user has previously used. We just don't know. Ironically, I can do a whois lookup on 91.10.58.188 and see it's registered to a domestic Deutsche Telekom AG address, but get an account and I wouldn't be able to get that. Alternatively, you can create your own free encyclopedia and try and encourage everyone here to edit it, then you'll be able to do as you please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I work as an IP. My reasons do not matter.
The question is: Is it ok to attack IP editors? Do IP editors have to work extra hard to avoid unjustified attacks by others? If so, could you point out the regulation where this is described?
One more question: If editor A tries to follow MOS, and editor B does not; why is editor A accused of "waste people's time and/or be the center of attention"? --91.10.58.188 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
(Oh, and by the way: Is the role of Editor Assistence to attack editors who try to find help here?) --91.10.58.188 (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Being accused of sockpuppetry isn't a personal attack. "You're a big fat jerk!" is a personal attack. I don't see BMK accusing you of socking, I see them noting that, if you are engaging in such behavior, that it is against policy.
As noted, the most sure-fire way to deal with such an issue, if you find it bothersome, would be to set up a username and/or return to working under your existing username. If you're not willing to do so, then BMK's note to you is essentially meaningless in any case. If BMK feels you're socking, the next thing they will likely do is open up an investigation. If you're not socking, you have nothing to worry about. If you are socking, then you're violating policy and should be worried.
In short, you're construing this as a personal attack when it isn't one. You may wish to review WP:NPA for more information about what is considered a personal attack. I'd also recommend taking BMK's message as a piece of friendly advice rather than an accusation; they could have requested an investigation without doing you the courtesy of sending you a message first.
If you're genuinely seeking advice regarding your editor A vs. B question, please provide a diff so that we have a specific example to look at. The one you provided is too vague.
Also, I don't see where you've been attacked here either. Please assume good faith. You're giving the impression that you're intent on seeing personal attacks where none are being delivered. Happy editing. Doniago (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
"Being accused of sockpuppetry isn't a personal attack." - From WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."
"I don't see BMK accusing you of socking" - "I suggest you don't do this again, and return to editing ONLY with your account"
"In short, you're construing this as a personal attack when it isn't one." - From WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."
"I'd also recommend taking BMK's message as a piece of friendly advice rather than an accusation;" - He accused me directly, twice, without evidence, of a blockable offense. I have trouble filing that under "friendly advice".
"If you're genuinely seeking advice regarding your editor A vs. B question" - Yes, I am indeed genuinely seeking advice. The A vs. B question is a side remark however, and completely contained in this section, see a few lines above for the quote. I seek advice as described above: What is the best way to deal with an editor who accuses fellow editors of blockable offenses?
"Also, I don't see where you've been attacked here either." - Not in a PA sense, but go through the discussion yourself: My own behaviour is under review here, although nobody pointed out what I did wrong. I'm just "boneheaded" and "here in order [...] to waste people's time and/or be the center of attention". (quotes from this section) --91.10.58.188 (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In case someone wonders: My aim here is twofold: 1. Not being falsely accused of sockpuppetry; 2. Being able to implement WP:MOS, unless there is good reason to ignore it. --91.10.58.188 (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Background reading: WP talk:MoS/Archive 136; WP:AN/I Archive 776; Talk:Croton Aqueduct. Solution for the IP: log in as User:Curb Chain. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Doniago asks above: "Also, I don't see where you've been attacked here either." - Here you go, I request assistence because I am accused of sockpuppetry, and the result of my request is a further accusation (which just as much evidence, I might add).
Thank you for your research, Hoary. Let me first point out that by the rationale employed by you and BMK, the two of you are sockpuppets since you agree on one particular item. (Note that this is not an accusation, I only try to point out how weak your argument is.) I will get back to the material in my response to BMK. --91.10.57.242 (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

BMK doubles down on his accusation elsewhere, but I want to keep this part of the discussion here.

He writes: "Hmmm. "Change the style sheet" Where have I heard that exact language before? .... I know, it was from User:Curb Chain." - So your argument is "These two agree on a particular item, so they are sockpuppets." You got that very wrong: Both CC and myself (and User:Dennis_Brown, and possibly others) recommend you to attempt a change of the style sheet because that would be the fucking right thing to do if you want to add visible white space.
BMK continues: "[...] User:Curb Chain. who brought me to AN/I over this issue [...]" - This is not your first time then. Digging a bit in the history provided by Hoary above, there are indeed several cases where your changes have met with opposition. Let me ask you just one question right now: Since the white space is so important to you, why don't you propose a style sheet change, and change millions of articles in one stroke?
BMK continues: "User:Curb Chain. who brought me to AN/I over this issue and was told that it was one of the most unimportant and trivial things ever brought there, and was told never to come back with it again." - If this is indeed your summary of your past, I can only call it downright dishonest. I can only invite everyone to take a short look into BMK's long history with this. Let me quote one admin in particular, as a direct response to your lengthy explanation of a previous instance of this: "In other words, you have to resolve the issue within the structure provided by Wikipedia, or you are being disruptive to the process. You can start an RfC, go to WP:DRN, but you need to do something besides continuing to add them at this stage."
I could go on, but I would rather proceed. See below for that. --91.10.57.242 (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you have an account? GB fan 02:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I once had an account, but I haven't used it for years, and I have no intention of ever using it again. --91.10.57.242 (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still here to get advice. The advice given so far seems to be based on false assumptions, which I corrected above.

I hope the following would happen:

  • User:Beyond My Ken refrains from making further sock puppet accusations without solid evidence.
  • User:Beyond My Ken seeks proper channels (pointed out repeatedly in the past by multiple editors) to get the changes he wants to see.
  • I'm on my merry way. I haven't asked for this, and I would rather do something more productive with my Wikipedia time. --91.10.57.242 (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"I once had an account, but I haven't used it for years, and I have no intention of ever using it again." Then you're sockpuppetting - "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". One member - one account. Using an anonymous IP to argue is particularly cowardly, in my view. If you have a problem with Beyond My Ken, work it out openly between the pair of you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense.
  • "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry" - Not the case here.
  • "Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." - Not the case here, I left my account in good standing.
  • "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust." - Not the case here.
These are the heart of the policy. Your quote is downright misleading: I did not just log out to make some problematic edits, and not to mislead; my old account is unused for years, and will remain so.
The only problems I have with BMK are outlined above: He wrongly accuses me of deception, and he ignores community consensus. Do you think he should be allowed to do that? --91.10.57.242 (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you, or are you not, logged out right now? Are you, or are you not using an account you assert is yours right now? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. Am I using an account right now?
Please respond:
  • In what way am I using "multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose"?
  • In what way is my unused account "disrupt[ing] discussion[s]"?
  • In what way am I misleading others by freely admitting my status?
  • In what way am I "distort[ing] consensus"?
  • What are the advantages I could possibly have from this? Debates like this?
  • Forget about me for the moment, should BMK be allowed to smear User:Curb Chain, an active editor in good standing?
You (barely) clinch to the letters, when you should follow the spirit. --91.10.57.242 (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
OMFG. I visited User:Curb Chain's block log to see whether he is indeed "in good standing". That brought me to BMK's block log. Guess what the first entry is? --91.10.57.242 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Back to topic. I hope the following would happen:

  • User:Beyond My Ken refrains from making further sock puppet accusations without solid evidence.
  • User:Beyond My Ken seeks proper channels (pointed out repeatedly in the past by multiple editors) to get the changes he wants to see.
  • I'm on my merry way. I haven't asked for this, and I would rather do something more productive with my Wikipedia time. --91.10.57.242 (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
An accusation of sockpuppetry out of the blue does seem a bit, I don't know, churlish. I suppose too it might even qualify as a personal attack (never mind the conceptual issues in "personally" attacking a deliberately anonymous editor who might be at a different IP in an hour). I did have some sympathy for the IP even if the original dispute seemed trivial, and his reaction thin skinned. I Now that I see the context, however, Ken's reaction and comment make perfect sense to me. It would have been a lot easier for the IP simply to respond, "I know it's tempting to conclude that I'm that other person, but I'm not him, and I welcome an SPI report and a CU to clear it up." IP 91, if you didn't know about this prior history, I'm sorry that Ken's comment to you seemed personal and mean-spirited. By now I hope you understand why he reacted that way. I suggest you now give it a rest - nothing more is going to come of it here. If you did know about that history, and still brought your complaint here - well, shame on you. JohnInDC (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. Doniago (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Note that Checkuser is not something you really can call upon yourself to clear your name; the tools don't do this, they only are useful to show guilt. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

BMK doubles down again. --91.10.57.242 (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to take this to WP:ANI if you'd like. Doniago (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this can be wrapped up, let's hope that nothing like it will ever happen again. --79.223.18.180 (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Common Core State Standards Initiative

Answered: Needs more discussion. ANI thread archived. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Common Core State Standards Initiative (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Editor assistance definitely needed with this page -- Common Core State Standards Initiative --as this is a very controversial topic and the "Criticism"section does not adequately reflect it and, also, with the amount of controversy this federal education program is stirring up nationally, the "Criticism" section neads to be higher in the article. It has already generated considerable discussion on the articles talk page: Talk:Common Core State Standards Initiative

Thanks,johncheverly 19:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is what we in the business call a "buttload" of article maintenance boxes. And I don't see any "considerable" discussion, nor any controversy in how discussion should proceed. Go back to the talk page, continue discussion. I've reverted your templating because it's WP:POINTy. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Note that I've started an ANI thread on this editor's conduct (link). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ Bible:John 21: He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."Matthew 16:19
    • ^ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lumsden-Newfoundland-and-Labrador/108657692492190