Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 121

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


Change of article name

William M. Packard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)The article "William M. Packard" should be "William Packard" -- according to Wikipedia naming conventions. Packard never has been referred to with a middle initial, and he is widely known only as William Packard among poets, playwrights, students and those who buy and read his books. He wouldn't be recognized as William M. Packard. The initial appears to have been added in order to "make disambiguation easier", according to an editor's note in the article's history. Thanks for any consideration of this.Barklestork (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see: Requesting a single page move. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!Barklestork (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please help remove damaging comments on a page (that I made)

I wish to have a comment I made on a page removed completely from the page. I realise now that the comment I made is both untrue, and damaging and I wish for my comment to be totally removed (even from the view history). The comment was made by my account monkeybear5000, with the user name now changed to HatofCleverness7, 14:58, 17 June 2014‎ on this page The comment is: (Challenging the fiction that Mr Grovier has a doctorate from Oxford. To do so, you have to submit a final copy of your thesis to the Bodleian, before the degree is conferred. There is no record anywhere of Mr Grovier having completed this degree.) I now know that this is untrue, and I should not have written it. I cannot undo the comment now as it has been corrected, and I cannot roll back the statement. I wish for this to be removed entirely as there is no truth to the matter and I should not have made this comment on the page. Please can you remove this comment entirely? I would be very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeybear5000 (talkcontribs) 14:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The bit appears to have been removed by another editor. No admin is going to remove that from the view history, since it's not child pornography or something, and since he was adding sourced information (albeit original research, which we don't accept) in place of an unsourced assertion. Unless a source is added regarding his doctorate, nothing should be in the article about it. The way you say it's "damaging" almost sounds personal. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Note for other editors, the complained about edit is here. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Monkeybear5000 You can find more information about the action you are referring to here: Wikipedia:Oversight. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not requesting oversight on this, merely pointing out that it's not likely to happen (the contested edit replaced unsourced information that's forbidden under WP:BLP with sourced but OR information that's closer to fitting BLP). You may want to check the cross-post on WP:ANI, where some editors are raising suspicions that Monkeybear5000 is not acting in good faith (after all, why didn't the unblocked Hatofcleverness7 make this request?). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I concur that it's not likely that oversight is needed. Honest mistakes are just that. The removal, and in fact your statement here that you were incorrect, are enough of a retraction to satisfy any WP:BLP concern about the content. That shouldn't stop you from contacting oversight if you honestly think it's needed, however. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

How do I request review of the article

Sorry if this question is placed in the wrong page.

Some time ago issues have been raised is relation to may article Spider_Project_(software). I have now reworked an article (see talk page), but the user page of User:Technical_13, who raised these issues says, that "Due to certain personal issues, Technical 13 will be away from Wikipedia for an undefined period of time." Question: whom and how do I request to review my updated page with the goal to remove if not all but at least some of the issues raised? Thanks is advance Ev2geny (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Place a request here at Wikipedia:Peer review. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I think, Skamecrazy123, that Ev2geny just wants the maintenance banners removed from the article. In any event, it looks like Technical 13 hasn't really gone anywhere. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Consider this a hypothetical question if Technical 13 is still around, but if he wants the questions assessed again, and the user who checked it the first time around isn't available, wouldn't Wikipedia: Peer review be the best place to ask? Or have I misconstrued the meaning of the peer review process? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Nah, peer review is more like a prelude to a GA/FA nomination, in essence to help get peers to look at something and help improve it, make commentary on it. I mean, certainly, it'd be a place to go to get help improving an article, but by and large, it's set up for stuff like bringing an already decently-written article up to a higher standard, rather than getting rid of maintenance banners (in particular given I'm sure OP feels they should just be removed without any further changes being made to the article). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Noted :) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Perceived abuse of WP:ERA

User:Russ3Z is systematically replacing the BCE/CE notation with BC/AD, with the following explanation: "article begun using BC/AD dating scheme, reverted to this per WP:ERA" (check out his contributions). In my view that statement is false (he's simply converting from one consistent notation to the other), and these actions are not only unwarranted but they're precisely the opposite of how I understand WP:ERA ("Do not change the established era style in an article"). I tried contacting the user on their talk page a couple of days ago, but have still not received an answer.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in a revert war, especially since I'm not particularly familiar with the policies and practices regarding year notation and possible religious fallout. I didn't want to use the administrators' noticeboard or any other dispute resolution processes because there really is no dispute at this point. I simply wanted to let editors know about this, in the hopes that someone will get involved. --Gutza T T+ 13:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

He is clearly misrepresenting what WP:ERA actually says. In some cases his edits are obviously justified, eg removing extremely recent era changes. In others you could argue what 'established style' means. At Han Chinese there seems to have been no era nomenclature before BCE was added March 4 2006[1] so I have warned him about that (and revised the article so that it reflects the stable version which is also how it began. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please delete "playing and coaching history" from Mark Keil tennis Wikipedia page

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


My name is Mark Keil and I have edited MY own page. Now I want to delete two sections which are irrelevant and not accurate; I have tried many times only to have it put back on because they think its vandalism. Its not; its me Mark Keil doing it and I need to have two sections removed please.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mark Keil tennis — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, these two guidelines will explain what's happening. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Removed the content. It was very poorly sourced for BLP content, and moreover was probably violative of WP:NOTCV. Neither page cited above were relevant to why these edits were being reverted. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Reformatting and expanding the List of Presidents of Venezuela

Hello everyone! It would be greatly appreciated if someone can help at Talk:List of Presidents of Venezuela#Reformatting and expanding the article. Also, if you know some users who would be interested to help, please inform them. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Problems with a link

I can't get the Vienna link into the same shape as the other ones. Can anyone help? (Last para in "Life")

Instruments and apparatuses made by Ekling are in various physics collections in Austria (Innsbruck, Kremsmünster Observatory[16], Linz and ([ Vienna), Czech Republic (Prague), Germany (Augsburg and Munich), Italy (Venice) and the USA (Kenyon College, OH).--Julius Eugen (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is not the right page to ask this question, could some forbearing soul point me to the right place? I have replaced this link half a dozen times but it doesn't work.--Julius Eugen (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Not 100% sure what you're attempting here, if you want to add them as a reference you need to put them in like this <ref></ref>, this will result in a link like this.[1] GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Like the links connected to Prague or Venice it is supposed to open a link to a museum exhibit. And for some reason beyond my understanding instead of highlighting Vienna as a link word the URL plus Vienna turns up in this case. Search me why. I've never had this problem before.--Julius Eugen (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sahara One

Can you please review this page for Indian television channel Sahara One, which is constantly being re-directed by an arrogant user. The person keeps re-directing page to Sahara India Pariwar which is the main company that owns this channel. Person totally removing info and is not adding any information about this channel under parent company page. The page has useful info about the television channel which is currently broadcasting on many platforms throughout the world. The main company page does not mention anything about the TV channel. Also why re-directing only this channel when there are almost thousands of TV channel pages on Wikipedia that do not include very much info. Please provide some assistance to resolve this issue (I do not believe in edit war but this user TheRedPenOfDoom has previously removed useful info from several articles and has been blocked. He/she keeps threatening most of the new user's on Wikipedia by blocking them. I don't understand why such people believe that they own Wikipedia when this is available to any user who wants to contribute useful info to Wikipedia. (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

whatever Sahara One has, it does not have significant coverage by reliable third party sources - it has things like tellychakkar which is the media wing of a PR firm. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

History of Germans in Chicago

To whom it may concern:

I tried to edit a sentence which is inaccurate in a Wikipedia Article entiled the History of Germans in Chicago. The German People lived next to Puerto Ricans and it is why I was curious. A Wiki editor named Harry deleted the sources which are Http:// and Though the Young Lords appear to be a "gang" name they actually are considered authorities in Puerto Rican and Latino history. Among the group there are many PhD book authors, media personalities and leaders in Latino civil and human rights. But it is understandable for someone who may not be completely aware of the history to misjudge. All I was trying to do was to update the article because it contains inaccurate information about Puerto Ricans in Chicago. I am currently a Master's level student and an accomplished researcher. In fact, there are over 120 oral histories that I collected and are archived at Grand Valley State University under: Young Lords In Lincoln Park and another research project at DePaul University under: Young Lords Newspapers which I also initiated. Currently, I am working with other book authors who are writing books and currently writing my own book about Puerto Ricans, which includes their neighbors from the German Community. But the incorrect information in Wikipedia is well known among Latinos and scholars. The correct information is that the first Puerto Ricans arrived in Chicago in the 1930's and settled just south of downtown on State Street near 33rd Street.These were primarily middle class (Manuel Toledo, Caballeros de San Juan brochure, unpublished manuscript,1959, GVSU archives). They were children from prominent families in Puerto Rico enrolled in the universities. Some of the residents had also worked seasonally in the steel Mills.

It is well established via several books, videos and common history of the Puerto Rican People that Puerto Ricans arrived in great numbers to Chicago during and after World War II. They worked in the steel mills and as domestics near Old Town and downtown and as hotel employees. This migration is well documented. And it is not new research.It occurred in the 1940's and 1950's not the 1960's as the Wiki article states. I apologize because I had difficulty inputting the sources within the article and it is why I placed the links, in the external links. I appreciate Wiki Links,

Thank You for your time, Jose Jimenez — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Your edits that I reversed were for the external links (which you relinked here). I removed them only due to the links having no context, and too specific for the scope of the article: the article is about the history of Chicago, not specifically about the Young Lords. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners and inserting those links as citations for your edits, and everything should be okay as far as I can tell. :) Sorry for making you confused! Harry (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal Page / Article

Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but after googling the name of my former landlord, I found his personal user page: which is actually written as an article. Now I think everyone knows what the problem is: he has total control on a page that is in fact an article about himself. I couldn't write, for example, that he was banned from his profession for multiple harassment and serious misconduct:

What to do with a page like that? Propose to deletion? (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged the article with the speedy deletion criteria WP:U5. The account is only making edits to that page, and Wikipedia is not a webhost for their webpage. GB fan 12:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I thought. Thanks for your help. I owe him that. (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
... and it's gone. Well-spotted, brother tenant. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Cities and towns in Russia

I removed two categories which violate WP:SUBCAT and WP:V via WP:CAT. IMO, my arguments and counterarguments were not adequately addressed in the subsequent discussion. A DRN request failed because the other involved editors refused to participate. As a sanity check and last resort before beginning an RfC, I'd like an uninvolved admin who is also not involved in categorization to have a look at the discussion and determine whether my view of the current state of the discussion is correct. Specifically, I'd like to know whether I have the consensus by dint of the better arguments or not. Paradoctor (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You've omitted the first discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Exceptions to the rule that members of subcategories should always fit into the supercategories they inherit, and the category talk page discussion thread must be viewed in that context, as your category edit was done only after you didn't get the answer you were looking for there.

You first started the thread at WT:CAT, and then dismissed most comments as "not relevant". You then edited the category in accordance with your interpretative opinion notwithstanding that discussion in which half a dozen editors disagreed with you. You then rejected as then "wrong forum" the thread I posted at Wikiproject Russia to get subject-specific input about your category edit after yet another editor commented saying he didn't think your change accomplished much. Then you started yet another thread on the category talk page, in which myself and another editor who had disagreed with you at WT:CAT raised our concerns which you largely failed to respond to and instead just repeated your unelaborated opinion that we were wrong and that there's a policy/guideline violation. Then you posted the DRN request, which we decided was a waste of time at this point given your repeated failure to actually develop your arguments in response to others so as to advance the discussion. And now you're here. This smacks of forumshopping. Particularly since this has all happened in less than a week, from your WT:CAT post to this EA/R (with less than a day on the category talk page thread before you posted the DRN request about it), and rather than give the discussions time to develop or find new participants to add more voices, you've merely hopped to another forum when you haven't found the rote compliance with your views that you've been expecting. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"omitted" The first discussion is linked from the second, as you might recall. Other than that, I'm sure the responding volunteer will be grateful for your neutral and balanced assessment of the situation. Paradoctor (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Non-neutral comment: How many fora is this gonna be taken to? As many as it takes to get the answer that one editor prefers? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The specific call for not only an uninvolved admin, but one with no experience in categorization debates is particularly strange; EAR isn't the place for that. It's more like a general call for third, fourth, and fifth opinions; almost an ANI for content disputes (though sadly not used nearly enough). I'm normally fine with people asking for more opinions in other DR fora provided it's not blatant crossposting and so long as they're up-front about it. To an extent, Paradoctor has been up-front about it, but I think this request is expecting a bit too much.
At any rate, I would personally say it's hard to go wrong with kicking off an RfC, though if you'd like some input on how to frame the RfC question, this would be a good place to ask. My personal advice is to ask whether a very specific course of action is appropriate, rather than a series of alternatives. To use an example from the common law, especially during the medieval period, prior to submitting an issue to a jury in a litigation, the court's job was to listen to the pleadings of the parties and whittle down the facts into a single question of material fact. (In theory this was to both parties' benefit, though in practice it just turned pleading into an exercise in framing the question in a way that would be guaranteed to be answered in a specific party's favor) I would argue that this is largely the approach to be followed when deciding how to frame an RfC: whittle it down to a single question (maybe, rarely, two) and put it before the community. Too long, or too confusing, and you risk not only getting too few responses, but those you do get will attract debate from "the other side", which someone will inevitably feel is stifling further discussion. I've seen some very poorly executed RfCs before. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that whittling it down to specific facts is a good idea. That makes your comment all the more amusing, because I've come here to get an assessment of an attempt to do exactly that: find facts. I see that I should have provided more context. A mistake easily fixed.
Let me first address the forumshopping accusations, because they are not only incorrect, they create needless drama. The discussion at WP:CAT involved several cases which were (IMO) similar but not identical. The discussion was not very productive, and I began to see that there appears to be a rather large problem with how categorization is implemented, maybe even with the guideline itself. In order to avoid becoming distracted into side issues, I decided to start with a case that seems to be a crystal clear violation of WP:CAT. I stated as much in that discussion.
The discussion started by postdlf at Wikiproject:Russia was not "rejected" by me, I simply stated that it was not in the proper venue, gave a reason for that opinion, linked to the proper place and welcomed participation.
At category:Cities and towns in Russia, discussion was initially only with Good Ol'factory. That didn't turn out to be particularly fruitful, especially when Good Ol'factory decided to leave. So I tried to get a WP:3O, which was mooted by postdlf entering. More of the same, so it became time for DRN, which failed because both of them refused to participate.
Which brings us here. I did not go directly to RfC, because I believe an uninvolved assessment will show that I have consensus through argument, which AFAIK is the most fundamental form. If that was determined by an uninvolved admin rather than involved silly old me, it might motivate Good Ol'factory and postdlf to come back to the table, and finally address my claims with adequate counterarguments. I should point out that this is the very same motivation as that behind my DRN request, which I explicitly stated there.
In escalating this dispute, I always chose the least blunt tool, and always with intention of getting my opponents to address the issue at hand head-on, instead of showing me their backs. I hope this puts these uncalled-for allegations to rest.
"call for not only an uninvolved admin, but one with no experience in categorization debates" I realize that, superficially, this might look like I'm trying to pull one over on an inexperienced admin. My reason for this is twofold.
First, as a look at my first post at category talk:Cities and towns in Russia should show, this is not an issue that relies on the finer points of WP:CAT. We're talking WP:V and the subset property of categories. There can be no talk of "exceptions", every single city and town in Russia gets miscategorized. There can also be no misunderstanding about what I was referring to, I cited and quoted the relevant parts of WP:CAT.
Second, it looks very much like this is not merely two editors making the same mistake. It seems like this attitude is pervasive in the categorizing community. Note that both Good Ol'factory and postdlf are admins doing a lot of category work. It is true that at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization (with two more or less neutral exceptions) local consensus was opposed to my position. It is also true that the first and so far only "outsider" to comment on the issue thought my edit was a improvement, if rather small.
I hope this will convince you that my "particularly strange" request was made in good faith and with good reason. I'm aware that I may sound slightly paranoid, but I think my assessment of the situation is at least borderline sensible, and I really need an assessment from someone I can reasonably expect to be neutral in this matter. If you still think this should go directly to RfC, well, then that's that.
Ok, having waded through my TL;DR, you've earned a little candy. I did a little experiment yesterday which not only confirmed my worst suspicions, it actually blew them out of the water. I picked a random page, and tried to find all the categories it inherits from its direct categories. I'll need a bigger boat. Which means I lost a little steam after about 700 categories. What did you say? You'd like to see a Best of? Here you go: User:Paradoctor/Outer Space Mongol From the Future. Pretty awesome for a 19th century German composer. Face-wink.svg Paradoctor (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
All of which is to say that categories on Wikipedia don't mean what you think they mean. Which is what we told you at WT:CAT in the first place, and as you're now seeing, category practice is pervasively contrary to your expectations. And no, those categories are not added and changed to articles or categories by an exclusive categorizing cabal, but rather by the editing community at large. The idea that everyone else is wrong but you is contrary to how Wikipedia works, particularly given that categories are nothing more than a navigational tool rather than some kind of real, concrete hierarchy with absolute inheritance of characteristics from one level to another (reification fallacy seems relevant). This is not the community saying Vladivostok is somehow in both Europe and Asia, which would be factually incorrect, but rather the editing community saying that inference doesn't somehow invisibly and irrevocably manifest within the article just because of the eventual parentage of the Russian cities and towns category in which Vladivostok is placed. You claim that view violates policy, but don't say where beyond just pointing to an acronym. No language, no prior community discussions, nothing. WP:V doesn't say anything about category subsets or hierarchies (it barely even mentions categories at all), so you've taken quite a leap to somehow read into it the principle that "When an article is categorized, it necessarily inherits the properties of every higher-level category." And that's a leap you've never even made an argument for, just a bald assertion.

When you removed the Russian category from Europe and Asia and moved it into a new, otherwise unpopulated Eurasian category, I asked you what the broader solution was you envisioned for such country categories where they straddled two continents (and thus were "in" neither according to you): merge all of Europe and Asia into Eurasia (unlikely to have support), or just move the two-continent countries (Russia, Turkey, etc.) into Eurasian categories (which would segregate them out from either the Asian or European categories despite them being part of both groups). So I saw problems with either approach, but I hoped discussing the bigger picture would help illustrate that or we'd surprisingly learn that consensus actually favored one of the changes. But you weren't even interested in addressing that problem at all even though it was posed by your edit. And those kinds of problems would pop up everywhere if we applied your approach.

Should Category:World War I be removed from Category:Conflicts in 1914, Category:Conflicts in 1915, etc., because the conflict didn't only occur in any single year, and thus the WWI category "incorrectly" parents event articles it contains with categories for the "wrong" year? Your comments suggest you'd think so. But then how do we fit it, or any other such multi-year conflict, in the conflicts by year category structure? What happens when it's missing from the 1914 year, where every reader (save you, apparently) would expect to find it?

You want to break up these navigational links that you think are "wrong" because of your views on inherited properties but you don't seem to be interested in examining how that affects the relationships between subjects—in other words, you have not shown interest in weighing the pros and cons of your "corrections" and whether they make use of the category system easier or more difficult. On the pro side of making your desired edits, you haven't substantiated in the slightest that any of this is actually a problem outside of your own opinion. Where are the readers confused about where Vladivostok is located? Confused about which year the Battle of the Somme occurred? No one is drawing these inferences from the parentage in the category structure but you. And all of this is why everyone who has discussed it with you has disagreed. postdlf (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────EAR is not the correct place to continue to hash out your dispute. Take it to the relevant talk page. Going all TL;DR is just going to make it impossible for outsiders to comment on the dispute. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion reverted

I marked an article for proposed deletion because while it has quite a few references, they're all press releases and marketing. It's an article about a band that has only existed for 3 years and is in no way notable. But somebody reverted my edit this evening. Curious if perhaps my proposed deletion was incorrect or if I should take some action on having my proposal reverted. The article I refer to is B.A.P_(Korean_band)David Condrey (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If a PROD is contested, even in bad faith, even by the article creator, it's considered successfully contested, and may not be re-added. Go to AfD if you think the article should still be deleted. But in this case, I would advise you to also look at Talk:B.A.P (Korean band) and discuss things with the person who removed the tag. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Malvern Preparatory School Malvern Prep

To whom it may concern,

Over the past year I have updated the Malvern Prep website three different times to include a section on the history of a sexual assault conviction of a priest at the school. I have cited the Philadelphia Inquirer's coverage of the event along with a link to an AP article from Bishop Accountability. Each time, I have flagged my edits on the talk page (though I didn't realize how to sign until this most recent time). And each time someone has taken down the segment without any explanation.

Given the impact of the wave of sexual assault convictions of priests in Philadelphia, which has a large number of Catholics, this addition to the school's page seems very relevant. It is also an important chapter in the history of the school itself, which obviously won't find its way into promotional materials and should therefore be on sites like Wikipedia's.

I'm not sure what the normal procedure is. I would like to lock the section from removal until someone offers an explanation or reason why it should come down. If there is another option, I would welcome considering that as well.

(snipped content)

Tollelege8888 (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. We have a very strict biographies of living people policy that states that strong claims like sexual abuse charges must be cited to very good sources. Have a look at Rolf Harris, for example, and you'll see that high-quality national news outlets such as The Guardian and BBC News are cited. You have supplied one news source that I would consider acceptable - the Philadelphia Enquirer, though hopefully a local PA resident will correct me if this is more akin to the National Enquirer. If another editor reverts, you should explain why the information is important and should stay on the article's talk page. Ideally, you should find another high quality news outlet that mentions the abuse charges and cite that too. When you reach consensus, you should change the article to what the result is from that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Tollelege8888 has added the material back in. Given that the Philadelphia Inquirer is a high-quality source, I think it can stay (for now anyhow), albeit pared down a bit to remove some other allegations by the police at the time. I've also started a discussion on the Talk page and with luck the concerned parties will talk this through instead of edit-war. If someone thinks this is still outside the bounds of WP:BLP, feel free to remove it - but say something on the article Talk page too. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating a Page in Another Language


Thank you in advance for your help! I would like to create a page in English that exists currently as a page in Russian.

This is the page:

Or: Центр современной культуры «Гараж» (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ideally, I would like to simply translate it and title it "Garage Museum of Contemporary Art." If there are errors in translation, I can edit from there.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best, Alinacerisse524 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Alinacerisse524

Seems like a reasonable article but I think you'll find that our criteria for referencing are somewhat stricter than the Russian Wikipedia. Probably best to find sources first before you do the work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lacking verifyability

Hello, I posted an AfD request for Sabbath because a template about lacking citations had been there since 2011 and no attempt had been made to improve the article since. The request was closed within a day by a non-administrator, both the discussants and the closer stressed that this is not a reason for an article to be deleted. I'm seeking confirmation for their latter statement, and also I would like to check if it is permitted to close a discussion that quickly. Thanks for your advice. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It requires more citations but it has lots currently, the closure of the AFD looks proper, there was No chance of it being deleted. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 20:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Both the reasoning and quick closure were correct. Please read WP:BEFORE. --NeilN talk to me 23:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, mere lack of sources is not a reason for deletion in almost all cases. Editors are presently expected to make an effort towards improving articles before nominating them for deletion. Even if there weren't a single source, that alone would not be reason to delete the sabbath article. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That's clear, thanks all for your time. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Creating a New Page

Please advise whether it would be worth starting a page on trams which operated in Karachi, Pakistan for 90 years. Here is some material.

(Copyvio of removed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC))

Tissueboy (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't mention having reliable sources for the information you list up above. If not, I don't see an article going very far. If so, then it might be worth pursuing, especially if you have multiple sources available. That's my two cents anyway. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Could have the makings of an intertesting article but as Doniago says, all the facts would need to be referenced to reliable sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It would also have to be substantially reworked to avoid a copyright violation of previously published sources. Merely rewording it would not be sufficient to avoid a close paraphrase. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your prompt feedback. I am encouraged to have a go.

Tissueboy (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at my draft and advise. Thanks. Tissueboy (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Tokorozawa, Saitama, Japan

Hi there, I was hoping you could edit people born in Tokorozawa. Chisato Okai from the J-pop group °C-ute was also born in Tokorozawa, and i'm pretty sure she still lives there. I know alot about the Hello! Project girls. If you need help on them, please feel free to contact me at (Redacted) (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

AROBAZE.png Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
While you are free to edit articles yourself, I would not recommend adding Chisato Okai to that article unless and until some reliable source stating she was born in or lives in Tokorozawa specifically is produced (the Okai article at present only states that she is from Saitama). As a living person, we must exercise great care with respect to content about her. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS)

Dear all,

The above article got some deserved criticism in 2009 and 2013. But now it seems the article has been improved. Please have a look. What do you think, can we remove the "multiple issues tag"? Thanks, Hansmuller (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in my opinion. There are still entire sections of that article, and vast reaches of material in other sections which appear to not be reliably sourced, and it still has a spammy tone. But that's just my opinion. The real test is to remove the tag and see if anyone reverts. If they do, then don't remove it again; discuss it on the talk page or, better yet, continue to fix the problems. Remember that improvement tags are not badges of shame, just notice that more work needs to be done. (And if you have a connection with the subject of the article which is so close that they feel like badges of shame to you, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. See conflict of interest.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

One word dispute on the article for the dwarf planet Pluto

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

This probably sounds absurd, but I've been having a dispute with a few other editors over a tiny part of the very first sentence of the article for Pluto. There is a group who claims that absolutely and positively that Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper Belt (which they have also redefined in the face of the larger scientific community, but that's another issue). I first tried changing the line to "largest KNOWN object", but that was removed repeatedly, and I was charged with launching an edit war. I gave up for a while, but in May I added a 'citation needed'. Which has been removed a large number of times, without any citation added. I believe that constitutes a violation on it's own.

My contention (and that of some others who have been intimidated away) is there is no way to make that claim. We simply do not have enough data, short of going there in a manned ship, and surveying that entire section of the solar system. In the article for the Kuiper Belt, there is an illustration near the top that shows a *huge* gap in an area of the belt that we cannot survey, because of background noise from the heart of the Milky Way. Articles on optical and radar astronomy all make the statement that when dealing with distances that great, the accuracy and completeness of surveys are questionable. They claim that the probability of something larger out there is extremely remote, and Occam's Razor gives them grounds to make that absolute statement, without any citation needed. One thousand years ago, the principle of Occam's Razor told everyone that the Earth is the center of the universe.

Could someone help restore some scientific accuracy to this? Will102 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@StringTheory11: One of our newest Admins may have an opinion on this subject. (Hope I didn't put on the spot :P ) Mlpearc (open channel) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the users Serendipodous and Kheider have been engaging in a rotating edit war against this over the past few hours.Will102 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all the Kuiper belt is 50AU across (if we do not include the scattered disc which extends much further). So a manned mission to the Kuiper belt is pointless as the Kuiper belt is better surveyed from Earth (or near-Earth) with large telescopes and automated surveys like we have had for 10+ years. Secondly, radar astronomy is worthless for discovering new asteroids or KBOs. We also do not know for a fact that there is not a 1.1 Jupiter mass planet 30000AU from the Sun and yet Wikipedia claims Jupiter is the largest planet with no disclaimers. -- Kheider (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
that is not a valid argument GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 18:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, I need help from somebody in a hurry. The user Kheider has just reported me for edit warring on this, even though I placed the original 'citation needed' in the article, and all I have been doing is reverting it's placement. He is claiming that the "consensus" overrides everything, even though the rules clearly state that self-reverting does not count. These guys are ganging up on me, and I don't have enough experience to know how to fight them off. Kheider has filed false information to get me removed from Wikipedia.Will102 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You made 4 reverts in 24 hours. That's a clear violation of WP:3RR. If you misunderstood and believed that adding citation needed tags weren't covered by the rule, I would reply to that edit warring discussion thread and make it clear that you didn't realize, that you now do realize, and that you'll stop reverting. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Please either explain to me how replacing the citation is not self-reverting, or tell me where there is an exception to the self-reverting rule. All I did was self-revert my 'citation needed'.Will102 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Self-reverting means this, and only this: reverting an edit you made yourself. When someone else reverts you, and then you revert that other person, it is not a self-revert. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How do we get this to proceed?Will102 (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

InMarq article

Dear editors,

I've recently created an article about a newly emerging InMarq platform as a service in Netherlands. The organization is at the early stage of development. There is existing research data and the platform itself presents a new concept for digitalizing retail industry.

I believe that there is a lot of valuable information that could be created on Wikipedia related to retail industry and digital content. I have a lot of respect for the services wiki editors do and refer to the collection of wiki knowledge on a daily basis. Please help from your point of view with editing the InMarq page. Thank you for your time and effort!

Hristos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hristos Heron (talkcontribs) 11:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This article has already been deleted as not meeting our notability standards. Please see the community's discussion and decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InMarq. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:EMERGING; Wikipedia is not a place to publicize things in their early stages, that might or might not become significant someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Frank D. Parent

Please let me know why this image was removed. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the image page, here, the image was deleted in 2010 because it lacked a non-free use rationale. JohnInDC (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. How can that supposition be proven or disproven? Who made that determination? How can it be countered? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I suppose an admin could look at the image and page in the form in which it was deleted and ascertain whether the image did in fact contain a non-free use rationale. But I'm not an admin so I don't know for sure. If it were me I would probably start with a note to the admin who deleted it back then (if they're still active), whose name appears on the linked page above. Also, if I were the original uploader I might just upload the thing again, making sure to include a proper rationale and see if this time the upload sticks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest you contact the admin who deleted the image, but Fastily is retired on enwiki. You might try WP:REFUND and agree to provide a valid FUR (it shouldn't be hard given Parent is deceased). It's unlikely that Fastily was wrong about the image lacking a FUR. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The "rationale" given was that the picture was "over 70 years old." No assertion was made that the subject was deceased, or that the picture had been published sufficiently long enough ago to be in public domain, or that the photographer (apparently unknown) had been dead long enough ago that copyright was lapsed in all countries. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

How to publish an article in Wikipedia containing content that is common knowledge to a community but not openly discussed in public or books due to its sensitivity and thus lacks reliable sources?


I am currently writing an article with the hope of it being published in Wikipedia. The information in the article is about sexual practices that took place in the army of a specific country at a specific point in history. Though the sexual practices are common knowledge in this country, they are hardly ever openly discussed in public because they are taboo and because the actions of the army at that point in time are highly controversial. Thus there are few if any reliable sources. It is nonetheless important to share the information for the purposes of posterity. How could I get the article published in Wikipedia without citing? Is there a way to publish articles in Wikipedia and provide an introductory note which explains why the information lacks citations?

Thank you Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monica Mbaraga (talkcontribs) 09:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You can submit a draft via Articles for Creation but if you really don't have any reliable sources you shouldn't expect it to get accepted. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, no. Contrary to Mendaliv's advice you should not use Wikipedia to 'share the information for the purposes of posterity'. That is not its purpose, and will achieve nothing beyond wasting everyone's time before it is inevitably deleted. If the material hasn't been published elsewhere first, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, there are other sites that are better for that sort of thing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Would not the "common knowledge to a community but not openly discussed in public or books due to its sensitivity" sensitivity be the same here? There a tons of websites which will gladly host your article. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
While you three are all correct that there are better places to publish such things, I think it's rather BITEy to flat out tell someone not to even try just based on their own assessment of the quality of sources and an unfortunate phrasing of their intent. While it's clear in this case that there was nothing to be written about, it wouldn't have been the first time someone has submitted an article on a noteworthy (and notable) topic. Anyway, /rant. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The proposed 'article' has been rejected. For what is it worth, I have had a look at it - and at the editor's other contributions. It is utter gutter content based on personal experiences involving isolated incidents in un unusual setting that are far from reflecting reality. Judging by the author's other contributions he appears to have an obsession with masturbation. The editor added about 10 Afrikaans words to a list of South African slang most about "when a group of soldiers form a circle or a line and masturbate themselves till they ejaculate" the rest about some or other variant of the group masturbation event already mentioned, which another editor had the good sense to delete. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Finding and fixing legacy red archive talk page links

On Talk:Graphoanalysis, the first two archives are redlinked since they seem to be pretty old. Can someone help find them and re-link them on the template? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. All that happened was that someone misconfigured the archival script, and really auto-archival was totally unnecessary... so I removed it. There are no missing archive pages. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Two Articles of the same Person


Cástulo Guerra and Castullo Guerra are the same Person. Maybe somebody can fix it. I would do ist by myself, but my englisch ist not as good as it should be.

--McSearch (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably would be best to just make the second one a redirect to the first. It was made two years later, and has basically no content, no sourcing, and says nothing the first doesn't. VanIsaacWScont 08:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, did it --McSearch (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing warring on Thane Rosenbaum page

On the bio page for Thane Rosenbaum, an edit war is brewing. On one side, a contributor is writing a very long bio that would seem to violate most standards, most importantly WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. On the other side, an editor (yours truly) is trying to include a very recent controversy about Rosenbaum and to adhere to NPOV. Can we get some direction here? It would be helpful. Thanks! Aemathisphd (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Right on the cusp of a war indeed; good that you sought some additional eyes. I'll comment at the article Talk page. I've also warned the other editor about COI editing - looks a lot like autobiographical work to me. JohnInDC (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The article needs some attention. It appears to be largely autobiographical, and, if my quick Google work on the subject is any kind of fair indication, fails altogether to indicate that the subject has been the focus of some controversy. I probably will not have time in coming days to give the thing a proper work over (even to ascertain how far off the mark it is) and ask that other editors give it a look too. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Determining consensus when nobody debates you?

Take a look at a question posed at Talk:War rape proposing to rename that article. It was posted 6 days ago. Nobody has responded. At what point, assuming that the proposal is reasonable and grounded in Wikipedia policies and the five pillars, does an unanswered proposal become a consensus and it's okay to go ahead and rename the article? Lugevas (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • You've established a case for making the change, and there are no objections, so it is time for a WP:BOLD edit.  This is not the same as establishing consensus to keep the change.  See WP:BRD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • And it got reverted, with the admonition that it should have gone through the WP:RM process. Frankly I agree with that. The change is one that has a decent chance of being controversial. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Forezine (Anime Magazine) Recover

I need assistance to recover the deleted article Forezine (Anime Magazine) I am willing to listen on what should I do but if you will gonna delete it I will left with nothing and can't improve my contributions. It is a the first digital anime magazine that was published I hope you understand my side because it was a claim and people should know. Thankyou --Carlo ramos08 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Has been userfied to User:Carlo ramos08/Forezine (Anime Magazine). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Obscenity heading a User Talk page?

I wanted to discuss an edit with User:Lugnuts, who would seem to be a far more experienced editor than I. I intended to leave a note on the appropriate Talk page - User talk:Lugnuts - but find myself obscurely offended by the obscenity at the top of that page (i.e. User talk:Lugnuts) and wondered if I might draw attention to this.

Is it to the broader benefit of the project for editors to be addressed in this fashion? I assume User:Lugnuts is trying to be amusing and as the notice has headed the Talk page for some time, I assume this is acceptable behaviour (although it would seem to contravene WP:WQ if nothing else). Nonetheless I would be grateful for further comment. Thank you. Testbed (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a quotation from Full Metal Jacket. It's actually quite mild compared to the full line from the film. I personally think it's pretty funny. Anyway, it doesn't look like you even attempted to discuss this with Lugnuts prior to asking for outside intervention. That's probably a better idea in the future. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not know that quote (the heading itself links to an entirely different film). I have already explained that I had intended to leave a message and then did not do so, precisely because I was offended by the heading.
Your answer does not really address the point I was trying to make (incidentally I did not ask for any "intervention" but for comment) However I recognise that I may be too old-fashioned for this project. Sorry about that. Testbed (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If you're concerned about someone observing your internet traffic and noticing that you left a comment on a page with foul language, you might be interested in using Wikipedia through its secure server. If you have scruples about interacting with people who use that sort of language, while I understand your concern, it's just one of those things that isn't likely to change. Wikipedia cannot be acceptable to all people at all times. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. WP:CIV is one of the pillars of the project so I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Pity the quote is not labelled as such, but rather heads the page as, what could be seen as, an offensive comment on potential discussants. Testbed (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
This is basically Testbed raising a WP:POINTY question as they insist on adding links to films that are not in the public domain into WP articles. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Lugnuts However what you say is not correct. I wanted to discuss the individual edit with you on your Talk page (many obscure films are in the public domain and YouTube anyway tends to remove those which aren't) but was put off by the red sign which currently heads your page. I came here for guidance about this, an issue which is unrelated to film copyright.
As you have linked to WP:POINTY perhaps it is not unreasonable to direct you to WP:GF. Indeed, as you have now moved the discussion away from one about your Talk page on to my interest in film copyright, might WP:POINTY be said to apply to you?
What do you think of my suggestion that you edit your Talk page heading to make it clear that the words are not intended to warn people off (or to be uncivil) but are drawn from a film, presumably as some kind of humorous metacommentary on a subject (a film?) in which you have an interest?
Testbed (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Honestly Testbed, you should take this discussion to Lugnuts' user talk page unless there's some reason for it to continue here. Given you're willing to accept a clarification that the statement is a quote, rather than demanding its removal, you evidently have no problem with seeing the quotation yourself. This isn't the place for either of you to continue to hash out your dispute. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course I have a problem seeing it (and imho it goes against the spirit - at least - of WP:CIV). So of course I have a problem going to the page and contributing (I have however posted on the film copyright issue elsewhere).
So far your advice is (a) you think the words are "pretty funny" (b) possibly - but I am not clear - you feel that putting the thing in quotes with the source would be better (but what about the red "stop" hand?), and, above all, (c) you believe this to be a private matter between myself and the individual editor, rather than, as I believe, an issue of community standards.
I responded with a question to the editor only in order to show I have taken your comments on board and in reply to his (to me offensive) remarks, also posted here. As I said before, it seems we must agree to disagree about the main point but I can generalise the question if that is useful: what standards of behaviour are appropriate for Talk pages (I read round fairly widely before posting here and am not sure of the answer)?Testbed (talk)
To be honest, I don't see a particularly egregious problem. I wouldn't put the quotation on my own userpage, but I don't think Lugnuts must remove it. I don't have a problem with the quotation, and if you'd read past the four-letter words, you might notice it's a statement about treating people equally and about fairness. Anyway, I see nothing against policy here. If your intent is to propose a change to the userpage policy, you might find the talk page for the userpage policy to be helpful, or the village pump for policy. This page is more for resolving editing disputes. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very helpful. I did not know of WT:TP - had I done so I would have gone there, not here. Testbed (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Being an unattributed movie quote, it's a mild copyvio. Maybe that's the source of the trouble? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mixamo page - removal of the flags

Dear Editor,

I'm asking your help to get a fair evaluation of Mixamo wikipedia page:

As the founder and CEO of such organization I found myself able to provide more accurate information about the company, and thus i'm a contributor. Nevertheless many other people have contributed, and the claims on the article have been supported by citations.

In October 2013 the article was flagged. Since then a lot of improvements have been made. The editor Mr Ollie has a personal issue with Mixamo. Thinking it is not a relevant organization. You may try to google "3d character" or "3d character creator" to find that Mixamo is at the top of relevance for the #1 search engine.

I'm here to ask you to review the article and remove the flags if you consider it appropriate, given the work done in improving the article.

Thank you.

Stefano001 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

External links - image galleries

In the Durham Travel Services article, an external link to a Flickr gallery was deleted on the basis this was prohibited by the WP:EL policy.

I acknowledge and agree external galleries should not be added if they require a password to open content, are not open to all readers or actively seek to sell images. But as often articles have no relevant Commons gallery, or are often much narrower in content than available elsewhere, would have thought of value to include if the source meets this criteria. I can't find anything in WP:ELNO prohibiting the inclusion of external galleries.

While at 3 images, the gallery included in this article was only of limited value, was seeking clarification on the validity for future reference. Busgb (talk) 07:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Flickr profiles generally fall afoul of several points of ELNO. They are self-published, which has issue with points 10 and 11 of ELNO. It's a guideline only however, but as the link has already been challenged you should bring it up at the article's talk page (or the talk page of the deleting user) and gain a consensus on its inclusion or otherwise. Яehevkor 11:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Username issues


My page ( was not accepted by the reviewer, reasoning that my username and the page name are the same which could be a "conflict of interest". Could anyone please rename my username from Monika Kapil Mohta to MKMohta? I also couldn't upload a picture file, although my a/c has been created more than 4 days ago. I hope you could help me with the aforementioned two things. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monika Kapil Mohta (talkcontribs) 11:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The reason Draft:Monika Kapil Mohta was rejected was because of a lack of reliable sources, not simply because you have an apparent conflict of interest. You may request a change of your username at WP:CHU. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are the person described in the draft, the conflict of interest will be there independent of your username. --mfb (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

August Suter I'd be grateful if an editor could review this article. I have full editing rights on the German Wikipedia, but perhaps I launched the English page in the wrong way. --Julius Eugen (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed your article. It looks like a very good start, but the lead needs expanding.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Lister Hospital Chelsea

Hello, I propose redirecting to

as it seems to me that the first article adds no value and the history of the institution is covered adequately in the second article (in section

Would someone like to review/validate this action?


Clivemacd (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a reference to Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder Theorem.

Dear Editor,

I have tried to add a reference to the said site but got a template warning. Could you help?

The reference is to my book: "Proofs of the Cantor-Bernstein Theorem. AMathematical Excursion" by Arie Hinkis, Springer Basel 2013.

Thank youu for your assistance.

Arie Hinkis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arikis (talkcontribs) 14:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you give more information? What exactly was the template warning ? And a link to the page? Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II 2005 miniseries

Part 1's first paragraph needs references to his celebration of Nowa Huta's first ever Mass, e.g. the sentence about his appointment as Krakow's auxillary bishop should say "In 1959, he ends the decade by celebrating Nowa Huta's first ever Mass on Christmas Eve, followed by an early 1960s religious procession of the Black Madonna of Czestochowa's empty picture frame through Krakow during a time of Communist restrictions against displays of religious images". Part 2's first paragraph needs "December" and "1985" deleted from its references to his appointment of the Holy See Press Office's new director and formation of World Youth Day, as they were both done by him in 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The person who is making this request has been working on the article Pope John Paul II (TV miniseries) obsessively for at least two years, using several IP addresses from Michigan in the general Grand Rapids metro area, and probably the user account Examplar. Altogether he's made about 1,390 edits to that article, 89.4% of all edits by quantity.[2] In May 2014, I removed a bunch of his plot development which violated the 700-word limit as recommended at WP:FILMPLOT, and I informed him about the FILMPLOT limit, but he kept adding to the plot in subsequent edits. Accordingly, I kept removing the excess plot detail.
I'm sure this Michigan guy is frustrated by my insistence at keeping the plot section within limits, and I'm sure his frustration brought him here so that he could get someone else to make changes to article without having me revert them.
Frankly, the continual push to expand the plot section is not helping the article, which should be about the production, release and reception of the miniseries itself rather than being a brief synopsis of the life of Pope John Paul II. Wikipedia already has such an article! Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex Belfield

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

Nearly all the sources cited in this BLP are to "Celebrity Radio", a website run by the subject of the article. I am not saying he is not notable, but as it stands the article appears to be written by its subject without independent sources. -- Alarics (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Even better, it seems like some of those references don't even fully support the text they're attached to. For instance, the sentence In 1999, he was offered a six-month contract working Nairobi, Kenya presenting 'Belfield at Breakfast' at 98.4 Capital FM. is supported by this reference: [3] It says absolutely nothing about 1999 or a six-month contract. As to this reference, it should be removed and replaced with references to the individual news clippings on that page. At least one of these links is dead. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

New Editor

I would like to become an active editor for Wikipedia, but find myself a bit overwhelmed.

For example, on the Wikipedia page for capital punishment in California -- -- there is a broken link regarding the phrase "This report, by Arthur Alarcon, long-time judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and law professor Paula Mitchell, concluded that "since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California taxpayers have spent roughly $4 billion to fund a dysfunctional death penalty system that has carried out no more than 13 executions."

How would I flag that link or correct it?

Thank you,

Douglas Issyvoo (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's an inline link, which isn't the preferred means of citation. And of course it's also a rotted link. What you can do is find the report elsewhere (googling the quotation might help) and replace the link (preferably in a footnote reference, as is standard; see Help:Referencing for beginners for an introduction on how to do this). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Card Factory Wikipedia page


I was wondering if someone could update the Card Factory plc Wikipedia page with more recent financial results and employee numbers - at the moment they are from 2009/ 2011.

For the fact box: Revenue £327 million (2014) Employees 6,500 (+6,000 seasonal) Website

They have also raised more money for charity than stated - Card Factory has raised over £2.8 million for Macmillan Cancer Support. - - under About Us tab

Thanks v.much, Naomi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncslanemhp (talkcontribs) 14:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg OK done. While the company website is OK (though not ideal) for employee numbers and revenues, we would prefer a news story for the charity numbers, but I suppose the website will do for now. Herostratus (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack Evans politician

The jack Evans page is unduly negative. Most of the content should be deleted. Much of it comes from will sommer at city paper who has written any unfavorable articles. How can I get help fixing this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evansjack1 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The poster, who appears to be the subject, has been blocked for edit warring and does not appreciate truth vs verifiability; but also is not wholly off base on the substantive issue. Discussion has begun on the article talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thread also open at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive205#Jack Evans (D.C. politician).--ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Difficulties in including a new article.

I have been looking to include a new article about Sun Yat Sen Lodge. I try to create the page using my personal user name 'Arnaldo Goncalves' but I receive some odd alerts about blocking contents. I never receive any alert about this and cannot remember any action though which I vanadalize others materials. I am absolutely neutral on those issues. Can you please look what is going on? Thanks in advance. Regards. Arnaldo Goncalves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnaldo goncalves (talkcontribs) 08:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No assertion was made that you'd committed vandalism; but the article as you wrote it was pretty clearly a copy of existing web content, and thus constituted a copyright violation. It has been deleted, as we cannot host copyright violations here. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Warned of Post that I did not do

I was warned of a post about Mansfield, AR. I have made no such post. This must be some sort of spam via my account? Haven't logged into it in a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerret (talkcontribs) 18:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The warning was made to your IP address, not your account. Users' IP addresses can change from time to time, and so you may receive warnings intended for someone else when you are logged out. The warning to the IP does not reflect on your account or your person. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Gene keady basketball coach

Omitted US Olympic basketball Please add to Wikipedia Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpetrie (talkcontribs) 05:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Gene Keady is already an article, and it mentions his coaching at the Olympics. I'm not sure what else there is to do here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

uncivility from admins

Hello. I am having trouble with multiple admins insulting me. I read the civility page and thought there would be a form there to request help but there isnt. Is this the proper place to report admins being callus and disrespectful and rude? (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence shows that unblock requests from this IP are being made while he or she evades their block with other accounts. The block was extended, and an admin (not myself) removed their access to editing their own talk page. I would guess that this is what they are terming "being callus and disrespectful and rude". --Orange Mike | Talk 04:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am still waiting to see this checkuser evidence. I am not blocked and am not editing any other way. The terms I used are correct. It is okay to attack my english repeatedly? (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser information is highly confidential, accessible to only a few trusted users, see Wikipedia:CheckUser. Яehevkor 12:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that "callous" and "callus" have different meanings. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Orange mike, no. The callousness and disrespect were repeat comments (attack) of edit in your own language, an equivalent of saying f ck you.
Hello. Rehevkor. I am accused an am told their is proof. I am not allowed to see it ? Confidentiality doesnt extend to me the subject of the investigation?
Mendaliv when frustrated I am liable to misuse they're their there ;too to; band banned; knead need and any many other words interchangeably. I was so disgusted by the abuse and callousness that a callus grew. Lastly were the comment written to me reviewed? Those are civil and not a personal attack? To say my English is poor and I should edit in my native language is allowed(not aloud) ? (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

page about paris opera ballet choreographer samuel murez

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

I added and worked on a page for paris opera ballet choreographer samuel murez today. I got feedback that my notability sourcing wasn't good enough, and I tried to fix it as indicated on the topic's talk page. Could an experienced editor have a look, and either remove the tag questioning the notability, or offer some further feedback about what's missing ? many thanks Vwysihngber (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Request appears to be for the removal of maintenance templates. This needs to be looked at by someone more experienced with WP:CREATIVE than me. The article definitely needs work. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've just removed the notability template. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC) does not work.

Help improve the Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album) page. Log in to edit.

The section labeled " Background " has been vandalized. The very last line of the section has the words " and chicken wings " added after the period.

This is today's featured article, so I thought you might like to know about it.

Also, I can't fix it myself because I get this message :

" Cannot create an account. DoRD has blocked Access to the following IP addresses ... " and the range includes mine.

Hope this helps.


Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out! --NeilN talk to me 18:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Some dodgy articles: where to post a request for help with editing?

Like many other occasional editors, my knowledge and expertise sadly outstrips the time I can give to Wikipedia editing. But I am always hopeful of running across sensible folk who might be able to help out: this request is for guidance on where to post a request on some (loosely linked) articles which I believe have been in bad shape for some time.

Last year I posted the below on both Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group but no one responded. I tried drawing attention again in November 2013 and again this year, but perhaps other editors share my heart sink feeling, or I am out of order, or (which is why I post here) I have not yet posted in the right place. Hope someone can help with where I can best raise my concerns. I am happy to do some editing but, following my experiences with Subud, I won't edit in isolation as these people are cult types, well organised and not Wikifriendly. Thanks. Here's what I posted.

Please take a look at Subud, George Gurdjieff, Findhorn Foundation etc
You have been doing great work. However I tripped over the article on Subud a few weeks ago and discovered it was written entirely from within this relatively obscure little movement (ie taking the movements jargon etc as commonly shared) and not even mentioning any of the criticism or controversy which has followed it round the world for decades. For example the suicide of the founder's son - which features in academic literature as well as an otherwise hagiographic biography - finds no place.
Subud is categorised as a NRM but doesn't appear to have benefited from your NPOV work. I added a small academic reference to it being called a cult (by the French government among others) but this was deleted on spurious grounds. Just put some in again but have little confidence this will survive.
Looking at Subud led me to George Gurdjieff, an article which is just as biased. Most scholars would these days characterise GG as something of a joke - but there is again no NPOV in this article, no criticism, and merely a (to an outsider) baffling, lengthy and jargon-heavy exposition. The bibliography doesn't include a major accessible scholarly work on him and his kind (Madame Blavatskys Baboon), no doubt because it is not to the taste of GGs few remaining followers.
Going further I found plenty of other articles which relate to these two subjects - and whose articles are linked in one way or another - but which are similarly flawed. I hope someone can take a look at the whole group.
Finally, some time ago a 'controversy' section was deleted from the article on the Findhorn Foundation (something of a clearing house for esoterica in the UK) and so I have copied that material here, having given up on my attempts to try and keep some balance on that page. Hope someone can help:-
There have been many critics of and controversies surrounding the work of the Findhorn Foundation since 1962.[1] For example:
  • A. Roberts, writing in the Fortean Times, alleges that in the 1960s, Caddy and other 'channelers' believed that they were in contact with extraterrestrials through telepathy, and prepared a 'landing strip' for flying saucers at nearby Cluny Hill.[2]
  • In 1993 the Scottish Charities Office commissioned a report into holotropic breathwork, having received complaints about it at the Findhorn Foundation. The report caused the Findhorn Foundation to suspend its breathwork programme. According to The Scotsman, Dr Linda Watt of Leverndale Psychiatric Hospital in Glasgow said that the hyperventilation technique might cause seizures or lead to psychosis in vulnerable people. (The Scotsman, 14 October 1993).
  • In 1999 one of the foundation's long-term members, Verity Linn, died of exposure on a Scottish mountain while following the teachings of the self-styled Australian guru Jasmuheen (not connected with the Findhorn Foundation[citation needed]), who teaches that human beings can "live on light" alone.[3]
Testbed (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Just looked again at Subud for the first time in a couple of months. And yes, as predicted, every possible even only questionably critical reference has been removed. It now reads entirely like a brochure produced by and for the Subud group. Is it reasonable to tag, and if so, which tag do people think is appropriate? Testbed (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Testbed (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Castro, Stephen J, 1996. Hypocrisy and Dissent within the Findhorn Foundation
  2. ^ Roberts, A, Saucers over Findhorn, Fortean Times, accessed 12-08-08.
  3. ^ Braid, Mary, "The Magic Kingdom", The Independent, 12 June 2001, accessed 27 March 2009

Unfortunately Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Skepticism is a bit dead these days. May I suggest that in future you should bring this kind of concern to the much more lively Fringe Theories Noticeboard which would be delighted to assist. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try posting there and see what happens. Testbed (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Civil Rights Defenders

The draft has been deleted as spam and the editor (presumably the same as the IP editor here) indefinitely blocked. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:03, 28 August 2014 (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.

Hello there,

I am so sorry to bother you because I know how busy you must be.

We are a human rights organisation in Sweden called Civil Rights Defenders.

I have set up or what I thought a page for one of our Projects called the Natalia Project

I want to have it up on Wikipedia but have not quite figured out how to get it out of the Sandbox so it just stands on its own as a wikipedia page.

Thank you for your assistance.

Keith Begg — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2014 (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.

Complex problem

I have encountered a problem that has some wrinkles I have not run into before. Over the past few days, User:Fresternoch and I have had some disagreements, mainly regarding the article on the musical composition Nach Bach, but peripherally also George Rochberg, Partita for keyboard No. 4 (Bach), and Partita for keyboard No. 6 (Bach). Together with genuinely constructive edits, this editor has persistently refused to accept reliable sources as evidence, and will not supply sources in rebuttal, insisting instead that he or she "knows what is true". Attempts made on the talk pages of these article to reach agreement have broken down, and certainly this will have to go either to mediation or arbitration (which one is more appropriate?), but there is another issue I am not sure how to deal with. The user page of this editor presents some manifest untruths. He claims to be a rollbacker, reviewer, and autopatroller, all of which are falsified when checked. Less seriously, he claims to me a "master editor" (therefore with more than six years' service and 42,000 edits), insupportable since this editor first registered only on 29 May 2014. It is impossible to verify his claim to have MMus and Phd degrees in music theory, but this entire block of templates (together with several more: global account, majority≠ right, clarinet player, enjoys early music) could have been copied from my own user page, leaving a faint whiff of stalking, but no hard evidence. Other claims made by this user are also dubious, especially one of level-5 English, displayed alongside grammatically tainted statements such as "Another of my favorite hobby is composing" and "I like music from Middle Ages to Early-20th century". What action, if any, is appropriate in such a case?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I had also encountered a problem with the user who had mentioned me above. OK, User:Jerome Kohl, at first I want to tell you that I did not copy anything from your user page. Your user page does not have any sports listed, and we spoke different languages and came from different countries. I would suggest mediation other than arbitration. And as for the grammatical problems you had mentioned, I wrote my user page when I was tired from all the things I did in the morning and I didn't check the grammar or punctuation. I didn't claim that I was a Master Editor specifically to you, it came to my mind because the name just sounds cool, and I am not trying to cheat or copy. User:Jerome Kohl refuses to admit that he is trying to find any evidence to prove that I am a cheater, and he amplified the effect by listing all this personal information such as the Master Editor issue on a public talk page instead on my personal talk page. I am a clarinet player and drummer as I use to do it in my school band. As for the article issue, it is User:Jerome Kohl who started all this complex issue since I created the page Nach Bach (Rochberg), Partita for keyboard No. 4 (Bach), and Partita for keyboard No. 6 (Bach), and history will do the prove. He did expanded the Nach Bach composition's background information, analysis of the work and reliable references, but he also refuses to stop amplifying the effect about disrespecting just because he is on Wikipedia longer than me, being a "Master Editor", and one of the "1000 most active Wikipedians". What actions are appropriate to stop this user to discontinue his disrespect for other users just because he "thinks everything he knows everything"?—Fresternoch (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that userpage copying is harmless; and it's clear Fresternoch, that your userpage is based on Jerome Kohl's, so let's drop the pretense. The badges and such are also things that nobody really cares about (the claiming to be autopatrolled, rollbacker, etc. is not good though, and I've removed those boxes). That part of the dispute is simple. The rest, not as much. I'm going to have to see diffs establishing a pattern before I want to comment on whether Fresternoch's conduct merits administrative action. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Mendaliv. Fresternoch suddenly went silent some days ago. My guess is his mom found out what he had been up to and took away his computer privileges.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@[[User:Mendaliv: I see that Fresternoch is back, and has reversed your removal of the claim on his user page to be an autopatroller.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming it was in error and removed it again. I know we usually don't get anal about userboxes, particularly those that don't convey an appearance of real authority (i.e., it would be different if he claimed to be an admin, 'crat, etc.) but it's still probably not a good idea to make demonstrably false claims to having user rights. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Mathematical Correction

Atmosphere of Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Third (3rd) paragraph:

The common name given to the atmospheric gases used in breathing and photosynthesis is air. By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

The percentages given add up to 100.009% BEFORE adding the small amounts of other gases and the 1% of water vapor. Such an obvious error may be cause for doubt or question of reliablility about the rest of the article. No?

Would request that author or Editor make appropriate mathematical changes so as to reflect more credence to the author.

Thanks, --PapaCrusoe (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. The place to mention this normally would be at Talk:Atmosphere of Earth. The issue is probably that the nitrogen and oxygen values are sourced to one thing, while the Ar, CO2, etc. values have no source. The fix would be to go to Atmosphere of Earth#Composition and take the values from that table instead. Preliminarily looking at it, I think it's a rounding error. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, taking a second look at it, it's clearly a rounding problem. I won't say "error" because all the individual figures are rounded correctly to two decimal places (where the source chart below has everything to three decimal places). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned this at Talk:Atmosphere of Earth. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion Push for Wikipedia 'Vivation' entry.

Resolved: Pages deleted at AfD. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

It came to my attention last night that an article I originally authored vivation was being proposed for deletion. After a very long engagement, with requests for inline citations and secondary sources, these have all been provided. All criteria has been met as requested. Yet, the push for deletion continues to get escalated, with the editors showing no signs of cooperation, helpfulness or compromise. At the end of this afternoon, it appeared that all criteria were met and this issue would finally be put to rest. However, User:Orangemike has now escalated the conflict by now referring to this self-applied breathing and relaxation technique as a "cult". It should be noted, that the entry contains as neutral language as possible, with my full cooperation and support to make it ever more so from the editorial community. Yet all of this has been summarily ignored, with standards and libelous comments continuing to escalate. Playanaut (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Leonard (Vivation). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Image display

I have just posted {{disputed}} on 17th Training Group and images are now not displaying properly. I can't find what I marked improperly. Any help would be appreciated. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems to work now, thanks to whoever did whatever. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
There was a glitch on Commons today (well yesterday by UTC time), more discussion on it at WP:VPT. SpinningSpark 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers with dashes

Some sources, particulary technical books and documents, use a dash in the pagination, e.g. 2–4. This is horribly ambiguous in a citation as it can be mistaken for a page range. For this reason I have been formatting citations I insert with the dash replaced with a stop. So for instance a three page range might appear as pp. 2.4–2.6 meaning pages 2–4 to 2–6. Does anyone have any better ideas or even a link to a manual of style addressing this issue? SpinningSpark 16:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I know the Bluebook, which is used for legal citations, discusses this problem to some extent. Those sorts of weird paginations occur in legal treatises all the time. I don't quite recall how it handles this; I want to say you write out the "to", but I'm not sure. I'll try to look it up later. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I was right. Bluebook Rule 3.2(a): "If a hyphen or dash would be ambiguous because of the page numbering system, use the word 'to'". So in your example, you'd put pp. 2-4 to 2-6. I'm not sure what other citation guides say, but it seems pretty straightforward that they'd encourage the retention of whatever idiosyncratic pagination or sectioning a particular publication uses, rather than rendering it in a manner different than what appears on the printed page in the source. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it up, that's food for thought. To my mind that still leaves an ambiguity if a single page is cited. I know it is distinguished by "p." instead of "pp." but still easy to misread. I also don't like the idea of the inconsistency in form (some citations using dashes, some using "to"), that's bound to get picked up at FA. SpinningSpark 00:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I get the feeling it's the closest you'll get to an acceptable solution. Putting something other than what's printed on the source's page is just going to confuse people. I can't think of another symbol you could use that would be visibly different from a page range dash, but also look close enough to the hyphen used in pagination not to cause confusion. The closest I might suggest is using an em dash, but I expect a lot of people have AWB typo scripts that "correct" things like that. Maybe this is something to ask at a citation style talk page. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
And just to note, Bluebook citations don't even use p. vs. pp. I can tell you that in practice I doubt there'd be any confusion even there. But you're right that someone at FA is likely to complain. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

References to sources with inflammatory titles

See: Talk:Email#Unexceptably inflammatory titles of references. I am editing an article on a topic that has proven to be controversial. Certain other editors have used as sources (references) several blogs that the source authors have given highly inflammatory titles. In my opinion the use of these blogs as WP sources is acceptable (they argue a respectable opinion), but I believe the titles should not be given because they are both inflammatory and possibly libelous. (The worst is that the titles themselves accuse other authors of "lies" and "spread blatant falsehoods", no 4-letter words though.) So here is what I have done, I deleted the tiles in the references, but maintained the URL links to them. I also described in the text, in language I think is accurate, what the position is that these sources take.

My question here is: Have I taken the right approach or is it acceptable to have references with inflammatory titles. Please cite WP policy if it has any suitable points on the titles of sources. Thanks. --Zeamays (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you should not remove the title of reference. Wikipedia is not censored, and besides, the title may be required to find the source again if the link goes dead. Anyone following the link is going to see the title in any case. I would be asking a different question here: is the blog acceptable as a reliable source? In general, blogs are not acceptable but it depends who is writing them. The fact that they express a "respectable opinion" is irrelevant. If they are just reiterating opinions found in properly reliable sources then it should be possible to find a better a source, and if not, the material probably does not belong on Wikipedia at all. WP:RS says that blogs "may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." (their emphasis). SpinningSpark 09:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I have just seen that the disputed item is in external links rather than references. The same comment about not deleting titles still applies, but I think you are misinformed on the purpose of external links. First of all it is not "normal to include a few self-authored websites in External links or Further reading sections" as you claim. By default, an article should have no external links, only inserting them when there is a positive reason for doing so. These reasons are listed at WP:EL. Amongst the reasons not to include an EL is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." SpinningSpark 09:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. When I referred to self-authored external links I had in mind corporate websites, university homepages and the like, but your arguments are very useful. The references were pasted into the original listed external link by an editor for balance of a controversial opinion. I think there is nothing special about any of the links on the list, as far as I see. In that case, shouldn't the entire section be removed? Please advise. --Zeamays (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Zeamays, if you are referring to the external links section of the email article, that should certainly not be removed without building consensus for it on the talk page. I believe the current EL's comply with "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." from the WP:EL rules. JD Lambert(T|C) 17:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
JD Lambert: I hope you will understand I am looking for comment from disinterested views who have not taken a position on Talk:Email.--Zeamays (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


Can someone take a look? [4] I've got an IP and a "new" editor accusing me of racism and vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 22:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding that content probably violates WP:UNDUE as well. Who's to say that particular incident, tragic as it may be, is so significant to the country and its history, that it merits mentioning in a top-level section in the article about the country? Perhaps it should be included in an article on race relations in Algeria or something similar... but not in the main article. I've removed it again and given the new user a welcome template. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 22:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of template:collapse

I am the author of about 100 pages of information on worldwide nuclear testing. On these pages are tables which summarize the tests; the data in a table column might be rather complex. A concrete example: such a table can be found on the page Operation Buster-Jangle. The column "Local date/time" contains information on converting the event date/time to local times. The instructions about how to use this data is in a "table note 2", referenced in the column header. As it turns out, all the column headers contain notes about their content, upwards of about 150 or more characters per note. In the past these notes were all displayed immediately following the table, and that worked out well. However, all the notes in all the 100 or so tables are identical, and after the experienced reader works through the notes, they aren't very useful, and are rather unsightly under each table, taking up half a page on content.

I happened across the collapse template, and though that this would be a good way to eliminate the unsightliness without burdening the user, old or new. The info is available in a bubble by clicking on the note name in the column header, as usual, and the text of all the notes is available if needed by a single click on the collapse bar. I migrated this to all the tables a week ago.

Today a bot by the name of Sporkbot has started to remove the collapse templates, claiming MOS:COLLAPSE (See In Ekker series, French nuclear tests). I find nothing specific about boilerplate text (which is what this is) in the MOS:COLLAPSE description that requires this to be done, and I think it is detrimental under the requirement that if formatting works, even if it does break a rule, then it should be done. I believe that is the case here. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

While I understand that keeping those explanatory notes in a collapse might seem reasonable, the MOS page is quite right that it may impair display on certain browsers. Furthermore, quite frankly, those explanatory notes are nowhere near long or obtrusive enough to merit collapsing. It's quite uncommon for anything other than navboxes and long information in infoboxes to be collapsed in articlespace (and the infobox example is rare).
You might consider trying to render the information explained in those notes as prose for the article, or at least substantially shortening them. Many can or should be removed entirely. For the In Ekker series, French nuclear tests article, for instance: Footnote 1 should probably be removed entirely as the article only concerns French tests. Footnote 2 should probably be rendered as a separate table column rather than methodically explaining how to do the conversion. Save our readers the time and trouble. Footnotes 5 and 6, and the column to which they're attached convey information that just isn't amenable to being conveyed in a table. Footnote 8 should be removed entirely, and the yields given dual TNT-based units and SI units with the {{convert}} template.
I understand that you may be creating many of these articles on a template framework, with standard footnotes, but there's something wrong with providing an explanatory footnote that doesn't explain anything actually in the article. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'll consider what you say and think about how it can be done better. SkoreKeep (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

David Hale

Good morning, I wanted to thank cryptic and Wikipedia for the expeditious removal of the deletion discussions on Mr. Hale. Mr. Hale and myself are grateful and again we apologize for any inconvience. Thank you, Thomas

Good morning, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countertrap (talkcontribs) 18:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC) I am requesting that all discussion regarding "David M. Hale" be removed it is slanderous and the article was created without Mr. Hale's knowledge. The article written was incorrect but not entirely untrue. We are simply asking that the content under the reason for deletion be removed. We were informed by clients of our business and is causing quite a stir. The comments made by Tokyogirl79 paint a poor picture of Mr. Hale and again are slanderous. We have the necessary documents to verify Mr. Hale's playing career. We are simply asking for all discussion on Mr. Hale to cease. I apologize for any inconvience. Thank you again for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countertrap (talkcontribs) 18:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia, as your language above not only betrays a gross misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works ("the article was created without Mr. Hale's knowledge") but repeatedly uses the term "slanderous", which has specific meaning in law and when used in this manner cannot be interpreted as anything other than a legal threat. If you wish to be unblocked, see the advice on your talk page about how to withdraw the tacit legal threat and request unblocking.
I would also like to ask what is meant by the repeated use of the word "we" in the above post, since the account User:Countertrap is supposed to belong to and be used by one and only one natural person. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not one to usually care about this sort of thing, but I note that the AfD was CBLANKed... if the user above is to be believed it's because the outcome was to delete per G3 as a blatant hoax. That seems a rather strange reason for a CBLANK. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Need help creating talk page

Resolved: Page unprotected. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ghost Rider (motorcyclist) is a new article re-created by me after a refund and move out of my user space after a prior AfD. I can not create the corresponding talk page, Talk:Ghost Rider (motorcyclist), perhaps because it was salted. -- Brianhe (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's salted. Unprotection requested at WP:RfPP. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

British Universities Articles - time for a project?

I'm concerned that many/most entries for British universities (apart from Oxford and Cambridge) contain a lot of value-laden, essentially marketing, material - such that it appears that much material has been put there by persons employed/engaged by the institutions in question. For instance, there are a lot of references to rankings and the like some years ago - usually dating to whenever the institution in question got its most favourable rating. For instance, the University of York page states it is the highest rated university under 50 years old in Britain, but this was in 2012, in 2014 it is Lancaster, and so on. This sort of information is of very short lifespan. Surely, it would be better if league table rankings were standardized, restricted to a few leading tables and confined to a single infobox in each article?

The University of Kent page states that it is "one of the prestigious British universities" which is not only illiterate but is also clearly a matter of opinion and unverifiable. My attempt to deal with this has been met by a revert and an accusation of "vandalism" which it most certainly was not. Many such pages contain statements about "excellent public transport links" and lists of on-campus catering outlets like KFC and Subway. This hardly seems notable material appropriate to an encyclopaedia entry.

In short, it appears that many wikipedia entries for British universities are being hijacked for marketing purposes by the institutions in question. These institutions have their own webpages and paper prospectuses in which to put this material before the public. They should not be abusing wikipedia.

Is it possible to launch some sort of Universities in the British Isles project to eliminate marketing and POV material from these articles and to police the pages to seek to prevent future corruption? I don't know how to go about this, but these seem to me to be important pages which ought to be properly neutral and "respectable" so to speak. Merehouse (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've got to tell you that it's a problem with university articles generally, not just British universities. You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

List of religious sects and cults in Canada

can you make a list of religious sects and cults in Canada? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability feedback

I'd like some feedback on whether or not this person is notable. He's been the CEO of several companies and he's mentioned in several well known publications. However, not all the articles are in depth. Here's a list of the best ones--I also have some smaller publications that I found through Highbeam:

Sorry if I've posted this request in the wrong spot. If there's a better place for this, please let me know. Thanks!Cecibell (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources you've provided here are both reliable and substantial. Most are basic announcements of hiring. The interviews are considered primary sources, and therefore don't count towards notability. Honestly, writing an article based off these sources not only would result in notability problems, but I don't see how you could write something coherent with this little reliably sourced information. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please help me with using convert to automatically convert pressure into multiple units.

Black light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hello,

I was trying to edit Black light, specifically section "1.3 Mercury vapor". I wanted to add a second converted unit; the article previously had "...between 5 and 10 standard atmospheres (500 and 1,000 kPa)", using the markup "convert|5|and|10|atm|sigfig=1". When I tried to add psi as well, using the markup "convert|5|and|10|atm psi|sigfig=1" I got "5 and 10 atm psi[convert: unknown unit]". I thought I had folowed the instructions at Help:Convert units, Help:Convert, and Module:Convert/documentation/conversion data/doc but obviously I did something wrong. Can anyone help me with the correct syntax? And can the help pages be updated to better explain the proper syntax usage? peatswift (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You probably want {{convert|5|and|10|atm|psi kPa|sigfig=1}}, which produces 5 and 10 standard atmospheres (70 and 100 psi; 500 and 1,000 kPa). Add abbr=on if you don't like the "standard atmospheres" instead of "atm". You should include kPa alongside psi since kPa is a SI unit. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

correction in data

I would like to bring into your notice regarding the error in the data entry of Indian Badminton championship winners viz, 1968 women's doubles winners is Sammy anti Tame and Jessie philip (it's entered wrong as Joe philip)..kindly make the necessary change. warm regards Dr Benjamin Philip s /o Jessie philip — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to bring into your notice regarding the error in the data entry of Indian Badminton championship winners viz, 1968 women's doubles winners is Sammy anti Tame and Jessie philip (it's entered wrong as Joe philip)..kindly make the necessary change. warm regards Dr Benjamin Philip s /o Jessie philip

this is the original link in which I have noticed the error — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy consensus

If I correct an MOS error (i.e. correcting 12:00 p.m. to Noon per WP:TIME), but another user changes it back, then I revert it, and another user again reverts it, if this cycle continues, assuming I post on the article's talk page that directs to an already-established consensus (per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR), could I still be docked with edit warring since I am conforming pages to consensus? BenYes? 12:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Edit warring, even if you are convinced you are in the right, should always be avoided. From WP:EDITWAR "it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring"". Яehevkor 13:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
You might not get hit as hard for plain edit warring, but you will get hit for 3RR if you violate it. So don't. If the other party is edit warring in violation of MoS, report it... after you've tried to discuss, of course. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Where would that (MoS) violation be reported? BenYes? 23:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ben. Have you tried talking to the other editor first? Or tried getting a WP:3O? --NeilN talk to me 16:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How to split a list in 2 or 3

I would like to know it. May I request to answer on my talk page or let me know on my talk page when someone answers? Thanks in anticipation. I need help here - -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We have a page at Help:Columns specially dedicated to the creation of columns. However, having briefly reviewed the article, I find the list of awards to be largely unsourced, and hence as such without any real encyclopedic merit. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your time. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Karam Family

I came across this article which consists of mostly redlinks. I searched for a couple names and didn't find anything useful. Any suggestions on what to do with it? --NeilN talk to me 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that it provides no evidence that the family as a whole meets notability guidelines, I'd WP:PROD it, and then take it to AfD if deletion is contested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I see it had already been WP:PRODed - and nothing has been done to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm particularly concerned given many of the entries here seem to be BLPs. Membership in a particular family, or relationship to a particular person, is something that requires sourcing. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karam Family. --NeilN talk to me 13:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re article problems

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

Dear admins, hello, I am having some problems with the article Tanoli and am not quite clear what to do at this stage/step? I went off Wikipedia some time ago and returned now and a short while ago edited this article mentioned here, for basic factual and reliability issues. See article Talk Page for full details. However, I find that possibly some users/editors have taken umbrage at my changes and I dont want to be involved in an edit war/conflict and I dont want at this stage to be over-alarmist either. Im not even sure which noticeboard to post my query/problem. So what should I do? Im at a total loss and in a bit of a quandary. Advice/guidance is requested, thanks. Khani100 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Khani100

Mahfouz Bin Marei Bin Mahfouz / The Mahfouz Foundation

Hi there,

I have created the English version many times and every time the page is deleted without sufficient support from the Wikipedian who deleted the page. And everytime i ask anyone for an assistance either i get ignored or they are very busy and do not have time to respond.

So, please i need your assistance to retrieve the page of Mahfouz Bin Marei Bin Mahfouz as well as the page of The Mahfouz Foundation.

As you can see from the pages, they are very important for charities, students and patients in UK, Middle East and Worldwide.

Also, the Arabic version of the page of Mahfouz Bin Marei Bin Mahfouz is already approved in Wikipedia Arabic as per the link below:

Please help me as i have been more than three months trying to create the pages and evertime i create them they get deleted.

Of course, any advice and suggestions from your are very welcomed.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance and look forward to hearing your positive feedback asap.

Kind regards, Ahmad Midoahmad (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Appears to have been AfD'd in the past: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
As pointed out above, the article has been legitimately deleted via articles for deletion. There appears to have been an aggressive push to have the article here which is non-constructive towards the project. If you feel strongly there are some instructions you can follow at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Undeletion. My advice would be to drop this, either by waiting until the subject can be considered notable by the English Wikipedia's guidelines (not the Arabic, it is run independently) or asking yourself why this is so important to you and weather that desire is in light with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically our conflict of interest guidelines. Яehevkor 11:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's what it takes to get an article into Wikipedia: Multiple mentions in multiple WP:RSs. That's how you document WP:NOTABILITY. If you can link to many articles about the subject in WP:RSs like the New York Times and other examples listed in WP:RS, you're in. If not, you may not be able to get in. There are a lot of grey areas at the margins as to what is a WP:RS. The organization's own web site, for example, doesn't count. I'm not sure how WP:RSs in foreign languages work. --Nbauman (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Editors

I worked very hard to bring balance to a bio page that was more of a promotional page than a biography. Some wiki nazi's removed all edits and blocked me. The page is again an one sided biography and all negative facts have been removed. I might not be good at editing but I know right from wrong.

I'm done with Wikipedia. I'm not going to fight for truth- you can keep your image Harry Potter editors and slanted views.

This is the page. It is an inaccurate biography- all traces of anything negative has been removed. Two major newspapers have written on this fellow and NO reference of such is allowed by the Nazi editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Over the years I have learned that when "Nazi" is the first card played in a content dispute, it's rarely worth the time to investigate further. JohnInDC (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Step one: Genocide and failed attempt to dominate the world.
Step two: Whitewash the history of a documentary producer.
Step three: Profit.
My plan is coming together nicely. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
However much of a a**hole the initial poster was, the article in question is pretty crummy and could use a good cleaning-up. I've taken a first superficial swipe at the thing, but it needs some serious work. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Potential Vandalism

The information on the Corona Del Mar High School page continues to be vandalized. I am not sure how to address this and would appreciate soem help from a more experienced editor. Here's a link: [[5]] Thank you. Dalton Hird — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaltonHird (talkcontribs) 02:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan honorific titles

I am new to editing and would appreciate some advice. I have asked for more clarification on the talk page of the relevant article but have had no clear answer. The page Kelsang Gyatso used to be called Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, he was also referred to as Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in the body of the article. Subsequently all the titles Geshe were removed from the Header and the page. One argument for doing so was this is an honorific title and therefore should not be used. I have said if his title is going to be removed for this reason then surely all Tibetan honorific titles, of which around 60 are listed on Wikipedia, including Dalai Lama, should be removed on Wikipedia; otherwise there is an inference that Kelsang Gyatso is somehow inferior to the other Tibetan Lamas whose titles are being used? I am not in favour of removing all titles but if Kelsang Gyatso's title is not going to be used then it is surely only right that all titles be removed? I think this could potentially cause some considerable offence but if this is the policy Wikipedia is choosing to use then surely it should be universal? If it is going to be universal then at what point and who should remove all the other titles? I have shown that Geshe kelsang Gyatso is usually referred to in academic articles by this full name, I am not sure why Wikipedia would want to be the only information source not using this. I am genuinely unclear about this, I have read suggested policies, but I remain unclear as to why this title is not being used when so many other Tibetan titles are. I would appreciate any advice.HighWindows (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You say, "if Kelsang Gyatso's title is not going to be used then it is surely only right that all titles be removed." That very well may be true. Based on your comment in this edit that it, "also does not address the point of who is going to remove the title Geshe from all the other Wikipedia pages if it is going to be removed from this one because otherwise there is an inferred inferiority to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's position? This would suggest bias on the part of Wkipedia," I believe your real objection is this: "Why should the title be removed in this article when it still exists in all those other articles." The answer is that the remedy isn't to keep it in Kelsang Gyatso but to remove it from the others if it shouldn't be there. That principle is clearly enunciated at OTHERSTUFF and the essays linked there. As to who is going to remove it, the answer is that if you feel that it is wrong for it to be in those other articles, or implies bias, and are concerned about it, then you remove it. We're all volunteers here and only have to do as much or as little as we care to do and have the right to set our own priorities as to which work we will do first and which we will do next or not at all. The fact is that even making those changes which are clearly and unequivocally required by policy is often a struggle here due to other editors objecting and fighting those corrections (ahem) and no one editor is required to correct errors on every Wikipedia page simply because he or she chooses to correct them on one particular page. To require that would drive editors away from Wikipedia in droves. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the title "Geshe" from several articles. I'll probably remove it from more as I come across them. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been reluctant to remove all the titles because I don't agree with the principle but I will do so if it removes this bias. Thank you for your feedback, I have to say it is not just the Geshe title, it is all the Tibetan honorific titles, so any help removing them would of course be appreciatedHighWindows (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Dougweller: As I view myself as capable of neutrality on the topic, (I'm not a Buddhist) I've been watching these for problems. This user has been reported at ANI and is being WP:POINTy in his moves of articles and editing suggestions. He should not move articles. Where MOS is clear, moves of articles with "Geshe" (which is a type of religious degree, sort of akin to a secular PhD), these need to be done by neutral editors. ( I did this a while back for Native American leaders who had articles titled "Chief" this-or-that, save for obvious IAR exceptions like Chief Joseph)

The real issue here is that, based on his edit history, HighWindows appears to be promoting the POV of the New Kadampa Tradition, and the Dorje Shugden controversy, which are movements that have strong opposition to the Dalai Lama, and there appears to be a concerted effort by several new editors to tagteam articles with a pro-NKT and anti-Dalai Lama POV. While there MIGHT be an argument to be made for the Geshe titles, he is also doing disruptive things like trying to rename the 14th Dalai Lama article (not understanding in that case the honorific is "his holiness") I explained to him here that the Dalai Lama is akin to the Pope and both have name changes with their ascension to their post.

I explained this to him previously at Kelsang Gyatso, where HighWindows wanted to add the honorific "Geshe" to that article's title, [6], though that particular individual's right to use the title is also somewhat disputed. But more to the point, I researched the issue in Catholicism and in British nobility, where I have more knowledge, and where there is apt to be a longstanding policy, and found that all the Popes' articles are under their papal name, but most of the articles on Cardinals (other than historically famous ones like Cardinal Richelieu, are under their birth names - but that makes sense because they don't give up their name with ascension to their rank. HighWindows also was trying to remove the titles of other high lamas, notably at Choekyi Gyaltsen, 10th Panchen Lama, which per examples of British nobility, such as Anne Blunt, 15th Baroness Wentworth (comparable to a Panchen Lama) or George VI (akin to 14th Dalai Lama or Pope Francis), is perfectly appropriate. ("Lama" is a title, like "Baroness," I'm not a Buddhist to explain this properly, but it's a different deal -though "Lama" can be used as an advanced title, in the cases of Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas, it is used because they are part of a lineage of reincarnate lamas, so it's kind of akin to an inherited title and appropriate to be part of someone's article name) Montanabw(talk) 01:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree in principle (and probably in detail, I haven't re-familiarized myself with those rules, but it sounds correct from what I remember on that subject) with everything Montanabw is saying here and at ANI. My point to HighWindows was only about OTHERSTUFF and the fact that he has no room to complain about other people not doing stuff. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC) (cross-posted here and at ANI)
With regard to Monatanabw's comments. I have explained elsewhere that Dalai Lama is on the list of Buddhist honorific titles. You say that it is appropriate to use it because it is inherited, then why isn't the Queen's used on her page? You say the title can be used because he is part of a lineage of reincarnated lamas, you are not a Buddhist but you think that reincarnation gives someone the right to a title? The Dalai Lama has himself said he does not consider himself to be a reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lama in a TV interview but you, as a non Buddhist, think he is and therefore he is outside of the Wikipedia policy, even when the Queen and the President are not? You have accused me of biased, in-house references before without explaining why you said that, my references were neutral and reliable. You claim you have explained things to me when actually you have just made curt, abrupt statements without explanation. You are now accusing me of some other kind of bias. I am entitled to my opinions without being aggressively accused and ganged up on by you and others. I have done what I can to try and address the imbalance between Kelsang Gyatso's page and the pages of other Tibetan Lamas, possibly in a very clumsy way and I apologise to others for that.HighWindows (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
HighWindows, it has been explained in various places that a title or name change is not the same thing as an honorific. The "honorific" for the Dalai Lama, as for the Pope, is "his holiness.' FPMT folks use the shorthand "HHDL" for "His Holiness (the) Dalai Lama." So it would be a problem if we had, for example, a title like "His Holiness Pope Francis," or "Her Majesty Elizabeth II." (Incidentally "II" is a title). To take a different example, though, we also have Queen Latifah, which is not her birth name, it is her stage name. Montanabw(talk) 22:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification re certain sections in my article

Hello I need some assistance re I was pointed to issues w.r.t presentation of citations and references quoted for the article. Through the live chat, one of the admins assisted me to a certain extent. He pointed me to this page for further help. Can someone let me know how best I can present the "Other References" section in my article and any other points that I need to modify? Re the profile image, I have already forwarded the authorisation email to the permissions-en@wikipedia - Coolkrc (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even if the notability question is resolved, the entire article is in an entirely inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. It needs to be substantially rewritten in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Especially with respect to "peacock words". —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Correction in data

Anastasia (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like the runtime on Anastasia (1997) to be corrected. It lists the movie as being 94 minutes long, but I watched the movie online last night from start to finish with nothing edited out and it was only 90 minutes and 17 seconds long. Plus the source that was used as a reference for the runtime of the movie lists Anastasia (1997) as coming out on January 4, 1998, when trailers for the movie and the Wikipedia article itself says that it came out November 21, 1997, so I feel that it isn't a reliable source. I tried to fix this myself but it was switched back to the wrong runtime with the same unreliable source. So please fix this. Ichigo341578926 (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft - Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP

I would like assistance in a request for article creation that I have started. I have added a request in Articles for creation: For Profit companies [7] for the Chicago firm Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP, of which I am a current employee and have disclosed this in the request. See User: RJ rjx page. I have also created a draft of a potential article for Barack Ferrazzano, citing numerous sources and remaining factual and neutral in the description [8]. I would like help from an editor to review the article creation request and draft created to assist in moving/creating a Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg LLP page in mainspace or for direction in the best way to do so within wiki's guidelines. Thanks!RJ rjx (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Merging Fantasy literature to Fantasy

I want to merge the first into second. I tagged both on Monday and started a discussion at Talk:Fantasy literature#Merging to Fantasy. I'm willing to do the merger myself and expand on Fantasy some (neither article is nearly comprehensive enough). But I don't wanna be bold without SOME input...halp! Pariah24 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussions and proposals can take some time. You may want to list the proposed merger at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, as well as relevant WikiProject talk pages (e.g., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Fantasy task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I posted it on RM several days ago. I'll try the project pages; didn't think of that. Thanks. Pariah24 01:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

How find out editor statistics?

I'm sure I used to be able to click somewhere to find out what percentage of an editor's total edits were in article/talk/user/project/etc space. Can't find that now. Does it still exist? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: The edit count link at the bottom of every editor's contrib list. Example. --NeilN talk to me 22:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Will write it down this time :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Vauxhall bus station

A disagreement has arisen as to the validity of including some cited information at Vauxhall bus station. An editor has objected to its inclusion on the basis that it is in breach of WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTGUIDE policies. Upon reading the policies, I have not been able to find a section that covers this.

I thus asked on the article's talkpage on 3 occasions [9][10][11] and once on the editor's talkpage [12] for clarification. I even went so far as to cut and paste the relevant sections of policy and asked for the relevant sections to be highlighted. I don't think my request was particularly onerous, but each time the editor has reverted, and is taking the line of 'you have had your answer, now go away', with accusations of vandalism, disruptive editing, soapboxing etc.

Perhaps the policies have changed since the editor last read, or perhaps the editor is trying to use the policies as a means of enforcing a personal preference? It has been difficult to ascertain, with the editor's reluctance to engage. Either way, it is not possible to further the discussion, while the editor is claiming my post is in breach of policy. Is there a forum where I can take this for an external party to review? Thank you in advance Astbam (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Need help with making Napoleonic Wars timeline

Timeline of Napoleonic Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am making an article called Napoleonic Wars timeline. Which will show events, battles from date to dates. I need with getting information and what battles where fought. I want a time for example like this one: Timeline of World War I. I'd like anyone thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowNinja1080 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 12 October 2014‎ (UTC)

You really should ask for input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History. It's one of the most active WikiProjects. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Condo Owners Association

Request unclear: Basis for complaint not clear. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. The Condo Owners Association does. It have anything to do with HOA. It stands alone in Ontario as a non profit Association. Wiki is providing false information when you purposely delete this article and on search engine direct This title to HOA Your editor is negligent. There are numerous requirements to submit articles on Wiki however your review structure is detrimental because it does not force these editors to properly research submitted content Please correct immediately — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risingsky (talkcontribs) 16:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Dan Kahan

Dan Kahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article seems to be written by the subject and feels like a violation of the style guide. Others have discussed this on the talk page:

For instance, under "teaching style" this seems gratuitious, and has 0 citations: "Kahan receives great attention from his students. He is considered a lively and popular teacher at all the law schools he has taught at. In class, he dashes up one side of the class and then the other, enthusiastically challenging students about issues surrounding the death penalty. His voice booms off the walls as he asks questions, most of which come with a laugh and a smile..."

Rather than delete the article is there a way to delete huge swathes?

Diablanco (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)diablano

There is the question of whether the subject would remain notable if all improper material was removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Thomas (prosecutor) - comments on talk page from subject of article

user:Royalslongbeach1 is the subject of the article Andrew Thomas (prosecutor), and has provided long and detailed suggestions for changes to the article at Talk:Andrew Thomas (prosecutor) -- including proposed language, and (at my request) citations. He has not, by the way, made any edits to the article itself -- only the talk page.

I'm not certain how to deal with this properly. My sense is that it's too much, and that he's overstepping and promoting his personal POV. (Not that that's unexpected or unreasonable.) But I just don't have the time to filter through all this stuff. I've done a lot of editing on the article in the past, and have already made updates based on points he's raised. I certainly want the article to meet WP standards, but I have a life outside of WP.

As a side note, I think he's setting himself up -- because local media could easily pick up his talk page comments, as they have in the past.

I'd like a bit of advice, possibly a few experienced eyes on the article, and perhaps some other responses to Royalslongbeach1, so that I'm not the only one talking to him. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

attempting to create a Public Library web page

Ej1128lib and Priker928 were attempting to create a Public Library web page linked to the local county page. Our was removed by C.Fred based on violation that a library system is not a notable organization in its own right. Many public libraries have web pages and we believe this is in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. We had hoped to eventually complete the page with quality content but we are now unable to link from the county page.

We would like an opportunity to correct this and continue to create the page please help us make this possible by having C.Fred reinstate our work in progress or explain how we can convince him.

Ej1128lib Ej1128lib (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote your cause, however noble. Most public libraries and even systems are not notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article about them. Most public libraries have web pages, yes; but very few of them have Wikipedia articles about them, because very few of them should have such articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Template: CIA World Factbook

Template:CIA World Factbook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is bust if you specify year=2011, for example. The reason is that old editions of the factbook are picked up from the University of Missouri (UMSL) website, but this no longer maintains archival copies of the fact book. Help! AWhiteC (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@AWhiteC: is there anywhere that you are aware of with a working copy of it I can redirect the target to? --Mdann52talk to me! 11:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
In the meantime it's probably a good idea to cause the template to throw an error if you specify year=2011. I imagine that there are a number of cases of that usage that would go undetected otherwise. One possibility: Did the UMSL website maintain archival versions of the factbook previously? If so, can we use the Wayback Machine to access those archival versions? That's about all I can think of without doing any serious digging. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I have found a source (the CIA World Factbook download page) that allows editions for earlier years to be downloaded but not browsed. Is that any good? Also, CIA World Factbook FAQs > General > (last item) says that there are browsable earlier editions out there, but doesn't say where. I haven't looked under the Wayback Machine – time for bed. AWhiteC (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Well they're still citable even if they're not online. A link is nice for convenience but not strictly necessary. If the old version is presented similar to a monolithic PDF, another option is to link and give a page number. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I suppose the next question is "who edits the template?". I feel a bit out of my depth. Any volunteers, or shall I (as a vanilla editor) just have a go? AWhiteC (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Theoretically you could do it, but I agree that if you don't feel comfortable we should try to consult someone experienced in template editing. I feel like there should be a template help board/noticeboard or something like that somewhere. I'm just not sure where. Maybe WP:VPT? At the very least it's a starting point. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I actually raised a Request for Comment; see here and here (when the bot logs it). AWhiteC (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Resolved now, thanks to Mr. Stradivarius. AWhiteC (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

fraud ads to disguid people — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Arya Samaj does have rather a strong promotional tone. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit notices

Could someone move these edit notices [13] to coincide with the new article titles (per consensus here)? The only thing that needs to be changed is Han Dynasty → Han dynasty in the disambiguation. I'm rather unfamiliar with them and can't move them anyway. Thanks, Cold Season (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Template:Editnotices/Page/Wang Rong (Jin Dynasty) also need to be moved Jin Dynasty → Jin dynasty. --Cold Season (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with the length of the GamerGate controversy article

The article has some problem such as an ongoing NPOV dispute, however I think the current biggest problem needing serious attention is the shear length of the article. The article is currently over 115kB and it seems to still be going. I think the problem is quite complex, there is an attitude to add more from new articles without removing anything. The NPOV dispute has caused problems to the length too, the resolutions often end up longer. I guess part of it is that people don't like to see their work removed, but really I don't know. But I think the article needs outside help. HalfHat 17:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Dear Sir/Madam

You´ve made a popular assumption - windsurfer (sailboard correctly) was the 1st sailboard production company so it is a misnomer to use their name You´ll find Olympic board sailors use sailboards not windsurfers. Infact Mistral * Lechner * Windglider * Neil Pryde RS:X are only some of the sailboards chosen for the olympics

Would be excellent if you were to inform the world correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a general complaint that the Windsurfing article is not the Sailboarding article, relating in part to the longstanding disputes over the term as a trademark. The right place to discuss this would be at Talk:Windsurfing or maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Water sports... though frankly in both cases I get the feeling that both pages are of low enough activity that there would be little response. My general "feeling" for this issue is that Wikipedia generally doesn't give trademarks or brands prominence over what's in everyday parlance. So unless there's a clear indication that the dominant term for the sport is "sailboarding", the article is going to remain where it is. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Collard Greens article shows no text to anon users on mobile site

I am using Chrome on iOS. I visit the wikipedia page for "Collard Greens". There is no article text although the page appears to load correctly. Visiting the desktop site shows the correct article text. This is not a case of page-blanking which is then reverted. Here is an imgur link screenshot. This is likely to affect a wide range of pages. I have not tried to fix it myself. Gustavail (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned the problem at WP:VPT, as people who can solve the problem will be more likely to see it there. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Pages not displaying. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thank you for doing thatGustavail (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Error in source

Is there a policy that defines when it's ok to ignore/contradict a reliable source ? For example, this source talks about an incident during a game between Beitar Jerusalem F.C. and Bnei Herzliya, a basketball club. Obviously there was no hybrid soccer/basketball game, there is a mistake in the article and the game was actually with Maccabi Herzliya F.C., which can be proved by another source.

Sometimes the mistake is less obvious to spot, for example a secondary source quoting parts of the primary source but paraphrasing other parts in a way that would be considered misrepresentation if it was done in a WP article. In this case the primary source can be used to prove that the paraphrasing is not factually correct.

When there are two contradicting sources NPOV requires us to represent both, but writing that an incident occurred during a ball game that was either soccer or basketball is silly. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's simple factual correctness. In the same way, writing that X said either Y or Z (on a specific occasion) when we have X saying Y in a primary source seems wrong to me.

My question is - is there a policy/guidelines on when it's ok to discard/override a source that can be proved wrong, and what is required for such a proof ? WarKosign 12:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There is, to my knowledge, no policy or guideline which bears directly on this issue. It's been an issue of long controversy here, mainly surrounding the lede of the verifiability policy which until July 30, 2012, read, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable." The "verifiability and not truth" concept was demoted to a footnote to a new sentence in the lede, but still exists: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1]"
  1. ^ This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth.
If something is so completely and obviously wrong that there can be no reasonable disagreement about it, it ought to be fairly easy to correct it without the help of policy. If there is disagreement over it, an request for comments ought to sort out the problem fairly easily since it ought to be easy to demonstrate that those opposing the change are clearly pushing a point of view or being otherwise disruptive. On the other hand, if those opposing the change have any weight at all to their position, then we ought to deal with the matter as a normal conflicting-sources situation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Discharge certificate

In 1983 a Naval Board of Corrections changed my discharge to Honorable. I was promised a new certificate of discharge and never received it. I'm 83 years old and would like to have the certificate to show my grandchildren before I die. Could someone help me?

Not here. This is Wikipedia. You need to talk to someone in the Defense Department. Ask your local Congress person if you need assistance. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Permissible Actions when attacked by another user on article talk

Discussion relating to the underlying dispute has relocated to ANI. Ongoing discussion here appears to be counterproductive. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:12, 25 November 2014 (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've been subjected to some very broad vicious attacks on an article talk page that have nothing to do with the article. Is it permissible to Delete personal attacks? Collapse the content of personal attacks? I'm not seeking action against the editor here, just guidance on what self help I can do without violating policy. Thanks for any guidance you can give. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In general WP:ANI is a good place to call for admin's attention. WP:AE is also a good place, if the article falls under one of these topics. I couldn't immediately find these vicious attacks in your history, but in general note that admins will examine you as well as those you believe attacked you, it is not uncommon for both parties being banned for wrongdoing, "but he started it" doesn't work as an argument. WarKosign 07:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank-you WarKosign for your helpful comments. I decided to try RPA template rather then drag the issue to a ANi. The AE does not apply. I removed the PAs with NPA templates and was quickly reverted so I restored the NPAs again. Hopefully I was justified. I'm not always the most diplomatic editor, but there is a line I'll not cross. We are supposed to discuss improving the article not each other right? Legacypac (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A lot of, if not all, is not really what would be covered under WP:NPA (specifically Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?). At least not to a degree you should be unilaterally deleting anything you slightly disagree with, it appears extremely disruptive. You really should restore the text and see what happens in your WP:ANI post. As is you both appear to be on pretty thin ice. Яehevkor 10:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rehevkor. What you have removed is not blatant personal attacks. You should self-revert. At this point you are at three reverts on that exact same material and are on very thin ice. -- GB fan 10:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
My advice? Don't go near AN/I. It's a Kangaroo Court with no effective rules. All sorts of bullshit can be written by anyone about anyone with no fear of consequences. Just ignore the personal bullshit on a local scale. Perhaps point out nicely that it's happening, then move on. Bullshitters need you to engage for them to succeed. It really annoys them when you let the insults slide off. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Erm.. okay? Very eloquent. The issue already appears to be at ANI, but alternatively there are other avenues at Dispute resolution. Яehevkor 14:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Interesting I actually agree with HiLo48 today. User GB actually restored the attacks against me, which is the same as making them against me himself it seems. So if I said about GB "your own history of POV edits and false edit comments pushing your POV (which is the same as that of the government/police agenda) has been clear enough. And you smear the foreign media as being in a "fog" when you've also used their reportage to push the "terrorist" content of this article and have ardently resisted and criticized inclusion of materials that dispute that." and (as a lot of your edits have). What "research" do you have access to, or is that just another part of your fabrication/conflation of sources like so often before? but this isn't the first time your "logic" hasn't made any sense. Once again, as always, you are misusing sources and distorting what they say or what they mean. Your ANI is just a bit of nuisance bureaucracy IMO, your record of distorting sources and making misleading edit comments I've already noted above more than once. Here you're just doing more of the same, and now invoking the wiki-bureaucracy to "deal with me". as you have, and which you have cheerled on e.g. talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2014 to bolster a SPA proposing to "shoehorn in" material based on START materials, who claims to be a newbie but clearly has Wikipedia experience]. In your little whine above, you presume to invoke NOT3RR for something that was only 2RR because you had started yourself to edit-war over removal of RS-cited information, based on your OR "logic" about what your cribbing/misquoted of RS and not on what they actually said. You are in the wrong, just as your edit comments on various highly POV "edits" were false." and so on would be perfectly appropriate? Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no ANi yet. Thanks for your comments. Legacypac (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2014 (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.

Help splitting 'List of American officers killed in the line of duty' by year

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

I've been trying to make the List of American police officers killed in the line of duty more comprehensive (because compare its old version to the year-by-year version of killings by officers--the latter is much longer than the former, yet the two link to each other). Specifically, I've added the lists from the last four years in as tables on a single page, and I'd like to similarly split the tables up up year-by-year. However, I don't know how to create dynamically-linked pages or navboxes or templates like the "Killed by" page has.

Could I get someone to help? I don't understand the Wikipedia help pages about dynamic lists/templates and I'm afraid I'll mess something up. A video tutorial would be fine if an experienced editor doesn't want to quickly get it done.

I'd also like a pointer: Is it a good idea to add the link as each reference URL, even if each officer's memorial page is not yet Archived? I personally like the idea, just in case went down, but I'm not sure.

Zerim (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A-league goals scored 2014-15.

Games played at 35. Goals scored shows 92 but when you add actual goals scored for the teams on ladder, total is 97. Please check. Must get statistics correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)



Article wizard needs some content editing

The Article wizard mentions "writing about a company, organisation or foundation", but everything following from that is strictly about commercial companies and corporations. Please see § What about noncommercial groups? on the Talk page there for details, and ping me if you want me in the discussion.--Thnidu (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Salted Page

The article Captain Cook Cruises is blocked from creation as a result of salting back in 2007. As the instigator of the block has retired, what is the best way to have the block lifted to allow creation of an article, obviously without breaching policy as the previous articles did? Mo7838 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To begin with you should discuss it with the admin that salted the title, Secret. You could also create a draft article such as Draft:Captain Cook Cruises. Then request the article be moved to Captain Cook Cruises. -- GB fan 22:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)