Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 22

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



Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I seek help with the discussion here: Talk:Barack_Obama#Relationship_with_William_Ayers. I am trying to insert a sentence into the article, but have not done so yet as I am seeking consensus first. However, I feel there is an editor there with WP:OWN issues towards the article. In essence, what I hear back is "POV! POV!", with not enough on-point reasoning/ explaination. I feel that I have done a good job of making may suggested sentence 100% proper as per wiki guidelines, but I am stumped as to how to address the "POV! POV!" chorus that seems immune to reason. Any assistance/advice that can be rendered, will be appreciated. 7390r0g (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly claim to be an expert on matters Wiki, but there are a couple of things you could try (or consider). One question is: where are you trying to insert the material. It could go into the Presidential Campaign section, to the extent that it is a significant controversy affecting his campaign. OTOH, at the moment it seems to be completely overshadowed by the whole Wright thing. Another option would be to start a section titled Controversies and mention it there. Another consideration is whether you were able to provide verifiable sources for what you write (i.e., avoid "original research"). There seem to be some in the page on Ayers, so that's a starting point if you haven't already found sources.

Once you've dealt with that, I think you'll have to deal with it on a person-to-person basis. You could point Scjessey to the WP:OWN page. If that doesn't solve he problem, you can follow the procedures for reporting abusive editing. I wish I could think of a better way of solving the problem, but it may be that you will have to get the managers involved. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, you stepped into the middle of a sock-drawer discussion that involved name calling, policy pushing, consensus rushing, and even what came close to a few personal attacks. Someone previously uninvolved in the discussion assumed you were the one who was reverting and bit you. You did appear to become slightly uncivil with Scjessey at one point, which is lamentable. However, if you continue to have problems with this issue, open an RfC as Ubiq said, or report the issue here. Fleetflame 03:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Welsh village of Pentyrch

Resolved: Per posting user. Fleetflame 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted some vandalism and unlikely statements in Pentyrch, but other parts seem doubtful, maybe someone familiar with the area could take a look. --CliffC (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that no one has replied, there probably are not many people who watch this page who are familiar with the topic. I have asked someone who knows the topic (or at least where to look for correct info) to have a look. You may also want to file a request for comment. Pastordavid (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any actual interest in the subject, I came across it when following a vandal from another article. It seemed unlikely that "the villagers of Irish descent were rounded up and marched into the sea" in 1962, so I removed that claim, but I think some other imaginative writing may still exist. Your approach of asking someone in-the-know to take a look sounds like the right one. Feel free to close this request. --CliffC (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If you posted the original question and you feel it is resolved, don't hesitate to place the {{resolved}} tag yourself. Fleetflame 04:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A149 road

Resolved: for now. Tag still in place, no discussion forthcoming. Open a new thread as needed. Pastordavid (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the {{essay-entry}} template to this article because the route description in prose format is not encyclopedia-friendly (compare, for example, to A1 road or A66 road). An editor has twice removed this tag [1] [2], for the reason that I can only believe to be because he feels he "owns" the article. The community's thoughts on this would be appreciated.  — MapsMan talk | cont ] — 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good faith interpretation of the tag removal. Also, I note that you haven't posted on the article's Talk page, which should be your first stop if you wish to discuss it. Undoing using only your edit summary to explain your position is a very bad way to resolve disputes, and is the first step on the road to edit-warring, a road which (pardon the pun) ends in a block. The solution is to engage other editors, either on the Talk page in question or (preferably) an appropriate Wikiproject page, and develop a consensus about what standard these articles ought to adhere to. You never know, this might even nudge an editor into helping with the editing work. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I re-inserted the tag (because I happen to agree with it), and left a note on the talk page. I also notified the appropriate wikiproject so that they could check it out. Pastordavid (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

China / PRC / Chinese Civilization

Resolved: for now. Pastordavid (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a lowly recent changes patroller. I see a single, relatively new user User:Singaga making his first contribution first agitating for changes (Starting April 29) and then making major changes across China People's Republic of China, and Chinese Civilization starting on May 6th. I can't see any record of discussion. This is an issue for powers greater than me. I really don't care how it is resolved (the new setup seems as good as the old to me), but I do care that the process be respected and that there be some "paper trail" that it was respected. What do I do?KevinCuddeback (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it helps to just wait it out. The editor in question has not made any contributions for over a week. Please open a new post if the problems resume. Pastordavid (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Patented Algorithms

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm editing the page on Tornado Codes, an algorithm that is patented inside the United States of America (which is where I reside). To make sure I understand the algorithm, I've done a toy implementation of it in Java. Can I legally post my source code on Wikipedia? Legal questions: 1) Is source code by itself a violation of a software patent inside the USA? 2) Does Wikipedia enjoy some fair use over patented (note: not copyrighted) material?

Thanks, Michael Nahas —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I think there are two parts to the first question. The first is "Is it legally permissible to do so?" and the answer is, "We can't answer that." My personal opinion is it's OK to talk and write about patented inventions, but not to profit from their use, nor to copy them. The second part is "Should it be posted here?"; perhaps some sort of pseudocode might help to explain it, but anything that would actually run would be a potential problem. I'm not sure that java code would be encyclopaedic anyway. On your second question, I don't think that the fair use doctrine applies to patent law. --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There's also the issue of original research. Some material is so trivial or common-sense that it can be added to an article without being first published by a reliable source. Writing code to implement an algorithm is definitely not in that category. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
IANAL, however, it is my understanding that any implementation (even for academic or personal use) is a violation of the IP rights granted under the patent, and therefore not legal. There is no "fair use" for patents. Publishing your code shouldn't really be necessary anyway. To obtain a patent requires disclosure of the invention such that anyone "skilled in the art" could produce it. Java code ( or pseudo-code) is only relevant to developers anyway, so it would seem more appropriate to simply reference the patent in an online repository, rather than your own implementation.--JCrenshaw (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Help request for "Editing Talk:Historical rankings of United States Presidents (section)"

Resolved: ish. Third opinions have been given on article talk page. Pastordavid (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on "Editing Talk:Historical rankings of United States Presidents " specifically, see section: "Current Events do not belong in this discussion (NPOV)" Would an editor assist with determining proper content of this article and help arbitrate this dispute? Thanks! NDM (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(slightly OT) I've bookmarked the page. Personally I'd decide on a new introduction. Surely this is a minefield if it was ever to considered empirical? If it is an off beat "on the street" poll, then it should be explained and lose any sense of explanation of yesterday, today and tomorrow. -- EhsanQ (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ehsan: Thanks for your input here and in the discussion page of the article in question. I feel this article is not in conformance with fundamental Wikipedia standards and have explained my reasoning in detail in my response, also found on the discussion page of the article. I would appreciate your input and any other editor's thoughts on this article. NDM (talk) 07:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: pointed in the appropriate direction.Pastordavid (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone with a knowledge of matrix algebra and complex vector spaces please come and arbitrate between myself and User:Lantonov on Talk:Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace. I'm trying not to be rude, but he's got no clue about basic undergraduate mathematics. -- GWO (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know much about matrix algebra. To find editors who do, I suggest you file a request for comment, under the Maths, science, and technology section. Hopefully someone knowledgeable about maths will be patrolling requests for comment. Also, you could leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, where there are bound to be people that can help you.--BelovedFreak 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Stale: This is a big mess, spilling over to the various AN. Pastordavid (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please explain me what´s the meaning of "the various AN" (???) Randroide (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
AN would be referring to the Administrator's Noticeboard, though I couldn't tell you what's been discussed there, or when. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I request for assistance in what I perceive as a very long and complex journey: To try to make a good article out of AIDS denialism.

My case (no, I am not being neutral here for the shake of presenting my case clearly, please note "IMHOs")

IMHO the article, as it is, would be an excellent article if titled "Criticism of AIDS denialism", with a separate article for "AIDS denialism".
In other words: IMHO the article as it is is a POV nightmare of biblical proportions. It is (IMHO) so bad that sometimes I wonder if it would be better to leave it as it is, because its over the top partiality is going to be obvious to the discerning reader.
Just an example: ALL the highlighted quotes in the article are from critics of the "AIDS denialists", none of them from the "denialists" themselves.

Current discussions in which I have a stake are:






I want to be very open to any potential "adopter": I am an "AIDS denialist" (we call ourselves AIDS Dissidents).

OTOH I am not a newbie, I have made 8000+ edits (see my talk page) and I think (think...) I understand well the basics of Wikipedia.

Any feedback to this post is welcome is welcome. Even a line saying "the article you denounce is perfect", if you really think so.

Thank you for your attention Randroide (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Randroide, if you are looking for honest feedback, then judging by the discussion both on the article talk page and your talk page, you seem to be heavily engaged in wikilawyering by taking bits-n-pieces of wikipolicy that support your viewpoint and ignoring those that refute it given to you by MastCell.
One point that I would like to clarify with you is that WP:NPOV IS a viewpoint as stipulated by WP:YESPOV, which is a section of NPOV, so however you write an article, it will be POV.
Anyhow, your one guiding policy, which supersedes any other policy you wish to throw into the mix for THIS sitation, is WP:UNDUE - more specifically, "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view." By creating an article "Criticism of AIDS denialism", we would be doing just the opposite and presenting the dispute as though it had a much larger impact on the scientific community than it really has. AIDS denialism is a minority viewpoint with little or no scientific support similar to Flat Earth theories, and should therefore be represented as such on Wikipedia as per WP:UNDUE. That being said, I am in full agreement with MastCell, in that the direction in which he proposes the article to take is the correct one, and no other article is necessary.
Finally, keep in mind this is my opinion only and if you still disagree, you are welcome to continue in the dispute resolution process or simply wait until other editors weigh in here. I hope this helps and good luck! — Dorvaq (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ehrrrr...yes, Dorvaq: I am looking for "honest" feedback. In fact, if the consensus position is that the article is wonderful, that would settle the issue with me for good. Simply: The wikipedian in me can not rest with that article, unless I have community feedback telling me that the article seems A-OK to the community.
  • You wrote: By creating an article "Criticism of AIDS denialism..." Seems I presented my position badly. I never proposed such a thing. I simply said -just like an illustration- that IMHO the correct title for AIDS denialism would be "Criticism of AIDS denialism". Just an illustration, no more.
Yes, I disagree with you. But your feedback (and other readers feedback I hope to read here) is priceless for me, because community consensus here is (almost) the last word. Thank you very much for your time and attention, Dorvaq. Randroide (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
All the points you are bringing up here have already been addressed on the article talk page so I am not going to dive into them again.
If all you truly want to know is whether or not the article does meet WP:NPOV criteria, well, as explained above, it does. — Dorvaq (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think (thought?) that the atmosphere on the article talk page was not representative. If it is, the issue is settled. I hope to be able to find out here if it is or is not. Thank you again. Randroide (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
For this situation, the talk page is representative because MastCell did a fine job explaining to you how policy refuted your arguments, and policy was developed by consensus in the first place. So like you said, the matter should be settled by now, and I'm not sure what more you'll gain here. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not. You are not. I am. Randroide (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Two authors with the same names

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two authors that have the same name (both are male and are currently alive.) How would I create a wikipedia page for the second author? Thanks in advance. --Stefan T. 00:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If the first is named Bill Writer, say, then the second, who is particularly noted for writing about a specific matter, say astronomy, would have a page titled Bill Writer (astronomy). That will typically do it; if it's a very common name then we might have to be more creative. Please post again here if need be. --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Another option is to use their middle names (if known) so then we could differentiate them as Bill Robert Writer and Bill James Writer. Full names is a convenient way to differentiate two similarly named people. Look, for example, at Roger Meddows-Taylor (the Queen drummer) and Roger Andrew Taylor (the Duran Duran drummer), both commonly just called "Roger Taylor". 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If both authors have exactly same full name, you can create a Disambiguation page and list all instances of that name, and then further create individual page for each with their field of notability mentioned in brackets(as AndrewHowse said). Consider this example, three persons with same name(Mohammad Yousaf) but different field of notability. --SMS Talk 08:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Dab pages are optional for 2 similarly named entities. Not wrong, but not required. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
You can also use the birth year, like John Q. Doe (1951) and John Q. Doe (1962). If there are more than 2 John Q. Does, make appropriate disambiguation pages for John Q. Doe (disambiguation) and possibly John Doe (author) (disambiguation) if there are more than two authors named John Doe. Also update or create John Doe (disambiguation) if there are more than two John Does. Create redirects and/or add disambiguation templates for all related names, such as John Doe, John Q. Doe, etc. Regarding redirects from the bare name: If one John Doe is much more well-known than all the others, usually his article gets the name and you put a disambiguation template at the top redirecting to John Doe (disambiguation). If two or more are approximately equally famous, John Doe is redirected to John Doe (disambiguation) or you just make John Doe the disambiguation page. If ONLY two people share a name, you can give the more famous person the main name and/or redirect John Doe to him, and put a disambiguation template at the top of both articles pointing to each other. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Aliases and Stage Names

Resolved: as far as can be. Pastordavid (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


I've noticed that there are two general formats for treating stage names of public performers:

Foo Bar, ... [more commonly] known by his/her stage name, Fig Bar, .... (see Sting (musician))


Fig Bar, (born Foo Bar) ... (see Cher)

are there any WP guidelines for which is more appropriate? For example, is the second example reserved for those who have legally changed their name to their stage name, or is this decided on a case-by-case basis?

Thanks everyone!

Webbbbbbber (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME is a good starting point. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! This is indeed a good starting point, and also provides some good examples of people with pen and stage names. However, while WP:NAME adequately addresses the issue of the title of the article itself, it doesn't really talk much about the opening sentence of the article. I'll keep poking around and see if I can find something in the style guide... Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Looking for a free webhost/advertising venue. Pastordavid (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am writing on behalf of IMImobile. We would like to add the below content to Wikipedia. Can you please assist us to upload. We have registered and the username is imimobile2008. If you can approve this text below, so that we can add it to Wikipedia. As we are aware that there are some set of rules & regulations. So please some one assist us from your team.

IMImobile is a fast-growing global company with 310 employees worldwide, operations in 51 countries supporting 202 operator deployments and over 400 content partners. IMImobile is a leading provider of carrier-grade messaging platforms and gateways, content management systems, and voice platforms through managed services. Services provided by these platforms include interactive portals, community and user generated content applications, caller ring back tone and video streaming. IMImobile delivers managed VAS and content platforms and aggregates content for operators and portals, manages the delivery of content for content partners and manages mobile campaigns for media, advertising and enterprise customers. The customers include operators such as Airtel, Vodafone Essar and Maxis, enterprise customers such as Google and Reuters, content partners and portal customers such as Jamba, Sony, Disney and Universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imimobile2008 (talkcontribs) 11:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" Please see the welcome page for more on how to contribute.--Hu12 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Account - Other Wikipedias

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm a new user and would like to know the following: Is it possible to transfer my account to another language wikipedia?

i.e.: I'm on en.wikipedia and go to fr.wikipedia. i am automatically logged out. is it possible to stay logged in with the same name in several language wikipedias? i know i can register separately, but i'd prefer to be able to keep the same login. I've seen that some users (at least appear) to have done precisely that. Eagerly awaiting a reply! :-) A. Aryadne (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, it is not possible to log into to several Wikipedias at once. However, you could make an account of different Wikipedias using the same username and password. Good luck, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
All users, prior to just recently, did precisely what you are describing. I, for example, have accounts on the Italian and German Wikipedia with the same username, as well as on wikimedia commons and wikisource, which I got by registering the username on each site. However, just recently a system for global log-in was initiated to address concerns just like yours. I know that is works across english language projects, but am not sure if it works across languages. It is a very new feature. Pastordavid (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much - i'll keep an eye on how that progresses! A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryadne (talkcontribs) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe global login currently only works for sysops(admins)--Firebladed (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking--they're gonna see how it works first. Fleetflame 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are editing on your own computer, you can use the automatic password storage function of your browser to log in to each WP automatically whenever you switch. That's what I do. Obviously, if you do this you ned to take appropriate security precautions with protecting your computer account & require a good password for logging onto the machine, and turn it off when you aren't around. DGG (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Help restoring a page

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally deleted the reference for I had poor coding/editing-fu. Someone please restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Just a matter of closing the reference tag like this </ref>. Pastordavid (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: No assistance required. Pastordavid (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

TO LAY A BASILISK EGG: Proverb There is saying that one will "lay a basilisk egg" if you're indolent or have an irresponsible lifestyle: meaning that later some dire consequence will result (hatch) in your life, which will probably destroy you and cause general destruction. The meaning is similar to the Biblical: “Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenski (talkcontribs) 15:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The function of this page is for those seeking help to post questions or describe problems and issues that other can then assist with solving or offer advice about. Your post doesn't contain any question at all. I would note that the subject of your post, the "basilisk egg" proverb, does not have an article and probably shouldn't since first, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and also because a Google search (a crude gauge but sometimes meaningful) indicates that the expression is, if not nonexistent, then extremely obscure such that it doesn't appear in a single mention on billions of pages of the Internet indexed by Google. As such an entry oin it is likely unverifiable. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Lotte Motz

Resolved: Edit war appears to have died down. Pastordavid (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please check in to the Lotte Motrz entry? The person who created the entry has taken control of it, and is perosnally abusive and hostile to any attempts to edit the site. The article has been frontloaded with a large number of direct quotes from a 3-page tribute biography heavily slanting the NPOV. This has been going on for weeks now. Please assist. Thank you. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps the two of you involved in editing that article might benefit from informal mediation. It's in no way required that either of you participate, but if both of you would be willing to do so, perhaps it might help toward getting the heat turned down a few notches and coming to a resolution both of you can live with. (One side comment: The "selected works" is generally a few of the person's best-known works, generally no more than five, not an exhaustive listing, and could use a good deal of trimming.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of information about arrested non-head pastors

Stale: Discussion has moved to the article talk page, where it appears that consensus is being reached. Pastordavid (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In Prestonwood Baptist Church, two anonymous editors have added information about a pastor that was not the head of staff. The pastor in question was arrested for a serious crime related to child sexual abuse. I removed both edits on the grounds that they were not encyclopedic for this article. It would be encyclopedic if the article previously mentioned the person in an encyclopedic way or if the person was notable enough to have his own article and had one. I also removed the second article because it was uncited and therefore a WP:BLP/WP:V-required violation. After each removal I posted my reasons on the article talk page. Am I being too arrogant or narrow-minded about this? Should I have left the first edit stay and/or simply added a reference to the 2nd one to bring it into BLP-compliance? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not only un-encyclopaedic but crosses the line of whether Wikipedia is a news-sheet. Articles should be up to date, but aside from a definite BLP abuse the entry was irrelevant to the article. In similar circumstances, I would consider asking for a deletion of some edits controversial and sub judice. My concerns would extend to removing this post and your posts to the talk page . -- EhsanQ (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree on this one. The pastors are not notable enough for their own articles (because it is only this one event that makes them notable). However, within the context of this article, it would be worth mentioning -- as long as it is backed up with verifiable and reliable sources. (cross posted to article talk page). Pastordavid (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's syndrome

Resolved: Second thead opened below. Let's keep comments on that one. Pastordavid (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Assistant Editors; The COI issue of last month relating to the Da Costa syndrome page has been renewed again so I would like assistance from NPOV editors, particularly history editors, relating to 5000 words of criticism of me and my contributions on the WP:COIN and discussion pages in the past 12 days. Most of the research history of J.M.Da Costa, Sir James MacKenzie, Sir Thomas Lewis, Paul Wood O.B.E., Mandel Cohen, and Paul Dudley White has been deleted as cruft. I would like to ensure that I get the right of replyPosturewriter (talk)posturewriter —Preceding comment was added at 04:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Groomer Has It Entry


Resolved: Per this edit removing basically quoted material from Animal Planet. Fleetflame 22:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This entry does not have a neutral point of view and should be altered. It is basically a transcription of an advertisement for the show. The URL is here: (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a tag on the article requesting someone check it for NPOV. Can you give any specifics about what needs to be fixed? Fleetflame 00:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Acronym - WBIC

Resolved: User:tac12 added an appropriate hatnote to WBIC --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of editing a page for the Wolfson Brain Imaging Centre (WBIC), and I have noticed that WBIC already exists as an entry to a Radio Station. Could someone suggest an elegant and acceptable way to enable visitors be directed to the appropriate entry? tac12 (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you solved it for yourself, just as I would have done. If we find other meanings of WBIC then we'll need a disambiguation page, and that's straightforward too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wondering about a subject's notability

Resolved: Not much else to do here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone take a look at Fred Kahler? I have a conflict of interest. --CliffC (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly did have a look, and that article was blatant promotion of the subject, so it was subject to speedy deletion. Since it was promotional, it was hard to tell if the subject is notable or not. In the future, you can tag ad articles with {{db-spam}} if there is no non-spam version to revert to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Improper Surname - Twimaps.

Resolved: Vandalism fixed. Pastordavid (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My name is Neil Sinclair and I'm the partner of Christopher Biggins. I have just discovered that my surname on Wikipedia has been changed to TWIMAPS. As a result numerous other websites are now showing the same incorrect surname.

Can anyone help to rectify this? Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can fix it yourself. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit... and we mean it. 15:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've made the change. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Resolved: tag fixed; article revealed! --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the article Indiana University of Pennsylvania and I see that part of the article does not seem to publish. I thought the article was not categorized, so I was going to add categories, but when I tried to edit it I found that everything after "Roll of University Professors" does not show in the published article, nor do the category links. I don't see anything in the code that would not make the rest of the article appear in published form, so I thought I should ask for someone to see if could be fixed. Thank you. Jllm06 (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a <ref/> that should have been a </ref>. When that closing tag is missing, the rest of the code doesn't get rendered properly until the next correct </ref> arises. I think I fixed it - plse review and post here if that's not right. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cannot Insert Reference, "Citation Needed"


I have inserted the following statement in several Wikkipedia articles;

“About 80% of the world's electric production is by use of steam turbines”

An editor has inserted a “[Citation Needed]” following these statements.

The source of the 80% number is found in an already existing Wikipedia article reference, however I have limited computer language knowledge, and I am baffled as to how to insert the required citation/reference. I have visited the Wikipedia instruction page about how to insert a reference, but I am still baffled by the instructions. Would it be possible to request that someone knowledgable in these arts insert the required reference, or give me instructions that an old engineer as myself can employ?

In the Wikipedia article, "Electricity Generation", reference number 1 is the relevant reference, I have copied it from the Wikipedia page:

Net Generation by Energy Source by Type of Producer, (c. 2006), accessed 28 March 2008, Washington: U.S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

The reference is needed in the following articles:

Power Station, Steam Engine, Steam Turbine

Thanks in advance for help.

Fredrosse (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on talk page. naerii - talk 15:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I need some help with reinstating the Tekelec page. I had gone on to revise the article (delete companies that have been sold, revise the boiler plate etc.) All of the revisions were accepted until I started adding product descriptions which were deemed as blatant advertising which I understood so I deleted. Then someone took the page off the Wikipedia site. I was working with an adminstrator and he had italicized all of the text I needed to delete which I did and I added references. The page is still not back up.

I just need for someone to put the page up at the point before the violations supposedly started. The page had been on Wikipedia for at least a year without any notice.

Also when I go out to google and place Tekelec in the search area it shows all of my sandbox questions/replies. How do I delete that?

I am trying to work with Wikipedia but it seems I've come across some pretty ill, or angry individuals, who when they send a response, seem to give curt answers and not much assistance, at least assistance that leads me to a positive end which is getting the page back on Wikipedia. To me the Tekelec page that I revised was no different than a lot of other company sites on Wikipedia. In fact I took the style of one company site and tried to use that example when working with our page.

I'm not a "Web code" specialist so I don't want to have to recreate our site. Is there a way to go back and tell when the site was acceptable and put it back on? Then I'll leave it to someone else to edit.

Thank you. Laramie51 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Hendry article - intro dispute

Resolved: Per article talk page; great job reaching consensus guys! Fleetflame 01:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, a user named WalterMitty is continuously altering a line in the introduction to the article on the snooker player Stephen Hendry. I and others have altered various versions of the line which currently reads 'Hendry is widely considered to be the most succesful player in the sport's history'. I consider this edit to be the most appropriate, it is no longer in any sense subjective (as it might be claimed that 'greatest player'), and is backed up by citations I have provided. It also matches similar comments made in the introductory sections of other leading sports figures including Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus and Jahangir Khan. I see no reason why such a comment would be inappropriate to snooker, especially when sources can be provided backing it up.

WalterMitty has simply denied to relevance of the arguments and comparisons I have made and continued to edit the page and remove the citations. In the talk page he has also engaged in personal attacks.

I don't see the problem with following the precedent set in other sports articles, and have provided more citations than any of them do. WalterMitty has now threatened to apply to have the page locked down. I don't want this to happen, and think it would be deeply unfair for one person overturn general opinion, especially on such a minor issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleadermaynard (talkcontribs) 16:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to sign: Jleadermaynard (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about citing sources...

Stuck: Until the cleanup tag is removed; feel free to help out. Fleetflame 01:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The specific article is Tutti Camarata.

Background: Some of the basic biography "facts" are easy enough to cite (though a couple of newspaper articles/ obits have some details wrong); a great deal of the info in the main body comes from two living sources: Larry Blakely - who was Mr. Camarata's long time friend, (nearly as) long time employee, and business associate (Mr. Camarata's last project was "The Power and the Glory" which Mr. Blakely was the producer -- Mr. Blakely owns Celesital Visions, the record company that produces the album) - and during which project I became acquainted with Mr. Camarata).

I also have direct information from Mr. Camarata's son who has viewed the page in question to verify it's accuracy - which also is not a "published" source - but obviously quite an "expert" on the subject.

Question: how do I cite such sources?

Second question: I am NOT a writer - pretty good story teller, but this Wiki stuff needs more skills than I have - how can I get help getting this article into better shape?

User: Comcents. Comcents (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, In short, one can't cite those sources. One of the basic requirements on Wikipedia is verifiability and I don't think those sources, though seemingly well-placed, could be verified by anybody who wanted to do so. That's why we recommend reliable third-party sources for references. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess that explains why I was unable to find anything in the various references on citations that covered this instance. At this point "The" best source on Mr. Camarata's career is this article on wiki - if someone chooses to challenge it - let them cite acceptable sources. I've done all I know how to do.
As AndrewHowse said, that type of research isn't generally allowed- you might want to take a look at WP:OR. As for part two, you can try placing {{cleanup}} at the top, though progress may be slow. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have indeed added a cleanup tag at the top - and added some comments to the talk page. Thanks.

please assist in updating an article

Resolved: User has been instructed. Fleetflame 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear sir,

I am writing to you because I came across a problem with creating a wikipedia article. Recently I wrote two articles: "ReaSoft Converter" and "PDF Printer ReaSoft". Both of the articles have been speedy deleted, because "they seem to be blatant advertising ". However, I tried to dispute that fact with the editor on the articles talk pages, but he/she didn't reply or whatever.

I believe that those two articles don't promote or advertise that products, I reviewed them several times and excluded all the facts that may be treated as advertising. They are both of informative kind, not promotive. However, while searching Wikipedia I saw several articles which may seem akin to those that I tried to post. (this one, for example - Please assist me with solving this problem. Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

- Best regards, Elena Sukhanova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vein eater (talkcontribs) 09:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect the key to this is the concept of notability. It might well be that these articles didn't make a good substantiated claim to notability, in which case they probably looked like promotion of the software. Your best bet is to ask the deleting admins (User:Trusilver and User:Jonny-mt respectively, I believe) to restore the articles to pages in your userspace, e.g. User:Vein eater/Sandbox. You can then improve the articles until they meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, or decide to hold them back until such time as they become notable. Please feel free to ask for help as and when you need it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

content not suitable for a certain article

Stale: Or possibly stuck, depending how you look at it (see here). Fleetflame 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the articles I've been editing recently is Brainiac (comics). On May 1st, some information was added regarding Brainiac and the TV show The Batman. Later, I noticed the section, read it and removed it. I figure if the subject of the article wasn't in the show, or mentioned in the show, that section shouldn't be in the article. The same ip then readded it here. I removed it again, requesting in the edit summary that it be discussed on the article's talk page. I even started an attempt at a discussion here. The same ip came back on May 3rd and added it again without discussing it. On May 7th, I started an RfC on the issue. Noone commented. The section is currently back in the article, and I would like to know what would be the next step?--Rockfang (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the information added really is vandalism (or useless information) and you are correct to remove it (per WP:SILENCE), The next thing to do would be to discuss the situation on the IP's talk page. Going there, we see multiple warning templates, so the IP has a history of making this kind of edit. The next stop, then, is WP:WARN, to let the IP know his edits constitute vandalism. After he has been sufficiently warned and still adds it, report him. As always, consider requesting page protection. Hope this helps! Fleetflame 03:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I read WP:VANDAL and it says "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I think that is the case here and I don't think it is a vandalism case. I think the editor truly thinks it should be in the article and he/she is improving the article, but I disagree and I think adding the section is wrong. I also checked out WP:SILENCE. It says: "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." Well, I've been reverted a couple times now, so I don't think a consensus has been reached yet. Any further suggestions?--Rockfang (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dstumme left a note on the IP's talk page. Also, I reported him to AIV because he violated a last warning for another article. We'll see what happens. Fleetflame 04:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

question about a template

Resolved: Fleetflame 01:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm putting this in the right place! I've just started working on a major edit of Christianity in Korea and one big problem is that the reference/citation formats are inconsistent. I know how to fix most things, but I've never seen this before: {{ref|intro1}} and I don't know what to do with it. So far it's the only one of its kind that I've seen on the page; should it be changed to another format to match the others, or should it be left as is? I've looked through all the editing/citation information that I can find and I don't see it anywhere. What is it? And to what does it refer? Thanks! -- edi (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I had never seen that form of references used either, but the {{ref|intro1}} refers to the {{note|intro1}} in the Sources section. I would suggest not changing it unless the inconsistency leads to confusion. It's really up to you and what you think is the best for the article code, however that article uses {{ref|...}}/{{note|...}} pretty regularly and simply. On the other hand, the numbering seems screwed up. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the information; I really appreciate it. Could you explain what the templates actually mean, and what they refer to? I've never encountered them before (I always use <ref>[citation here]</ref> or some minor variant thereof) and I think if I understood what they mean I'd probably be able to work with them just fine. And yes, the numbering is screwed up and that's what I'm trying to fix. That, and the fact that it uses both [citation] and <ref>[citation]</ref> formats, which makes the appearance of the page inconsistent. But I'm getting there, slowly but surely.  :) Thanks again for your help. -- edi (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried explained what they refer to. In other words, {{ref|intro1}} has a link to the "intro1" note in the Sources section. I found out more about this style of referencing at Template:ref. As you know, this style of referencing is rarely used. You create a {{ref|NAME}} in the article text and then you create a {{note|NAME}} in the "References" or "Notes" section. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 19:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, thank you! Template:ref is exactly what I was looking for but couldn't find. That helps a lot. Thanks again! -- edi (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI in case anyone else is confused about this now or in the future, Wikipedia:Footnote3 is actually even better for explaining this system. -- edi (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy on copying info from another WP article?

Resolved: Fleetflame 01:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy that addresses copying entire sections from one article and pasting it to another article, such as [3]? Alanraywiki (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For GDFL, a note is supposed to have been made. In this case, the IP caused a duplication problem, so the text should have been removed from Kilmarnock, which it was. If this is done as part of a merge (which is, of course, acceptable), the edit summary needs to make note of what article it was merged from, so the merged article's history can be pulled up. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jeremy. It looked like some experimentation to me, so I just reverted, and clean forgot to come back here and explain. I'm sure you're right about the GDFL licence; as a matter of style, I think we prefer a wikilink to the article on East Ayrshire over duplicating the text.
Alanraywiki, did we answer the question? Please post here again if not. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sort of. Sorry to sound dumb, but what is GDFL? It just did not look right for someone to add large sections from one WP article to another related one. As you noted, a wikilink would be more appropriate (or a see also). I was just wondering if there was a specific policy stating not to do so. That would allow me to refer the editor to the policy if I revert the edit. In this particular case it was some mischief from a sockpuppet, but sometimes it is just an honest mistake. I appreciate the thoughtful answers, though. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops. It's GFDL, or Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License to spell it out. I don't know of a policy that says don't embed chunks of one article in another; it just seems to be common(ish) sense. Anyway, thanks for bringing it up. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Alanraywiki (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Question of whether the category structure integrity should be preserved after a category delete resolution

Resolved: per below. Pastordavid (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a disagreement with User:Kbdank71 on the above issue, which we've been trying to settle on his talk page, with no avail.

There was an agreement on deleting Category:Agatha Christie by medium a few months ago, and he implemented the necessary changes in the articles involved. The problem is that he didn't (and doesn't) seem to care about whether the category structure remains usable or not, on the ground that the resolution didn't explicitly imply a merger of the categories. For example, he left the category Works by Agatha Christie without any connection to the category Agatha Christie,[4] which I think was a positive deficiency in the category system. It remained unsolved until I came across it a few days ago, three months after his change.

I tried to ask him to revise his earlier contributions (implementations of other CFD's) and make sure he would watch out for that in the future, but he doesn't agree with me that he is supposed to preserve the integrity of the category structure, whether or not it's explicitly stated in the resolution.

Thank you in advance for you assistance. Adam78 (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I come from WP:3O Kdbank71 is correct, the closing admin is not responsible for taking an action not covered by the proposal. It appears this situation is already resolved, ie, that Category:Works by Agatha Christie has already been made into a subcat of Category:Works by Agatha Christie, which I feel makes the most sense here. RlevseTalk 15:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Layne Staley Article

Stale: Nothing to do without more info. Pastordavid (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I received an email from Layne's mother Nancy (see below). She asked me to contact someone at Wiki and tell them that there are a lot of inconsistancies in the article about her son. How can she go about getting the article pulled?

Thank you, Machel Morton ...............................................

From: "Nancy" <> To: "'Machel Morton'" <>

Maybe someone could report that the wickipedia article is so full of misinformation that I wouldn’t know where to start to make corrections. Definitely not a source-of-fact.


Nancy Layne McCallum Layne Staley Fund

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machel131 (talkcontribs) 17:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 
The lead singer of Alice in Chains is pretty unquestionably notable, so it's not too likely the article would be "pulled". However, we certainly do wish to take special care with biographies, and though the subject is deceased, we certainly still do not wish to have errors.. Are there specific parts of the article which you (or Ms. Staley) believe are inaccurate? It's very difficult to work from "this is wrong," without any specifics. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say to get specifics, then check those parts of the article and evaluate the sources. If something is labeled incorrect and it's not cited, it can safely be removed. If it is cited, the reliability of those sources would need looked at. Keep in mind that if a piece of information is well cited by reliable sources, it's going to be considered more reliable than Ms. McCallum's words- per WP:OR, it's not really sufficient to take someone at their word. You might also have Ms. McCallum contact OTRS, which is a system that would allow her to verify her identity to the administrators. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Time travel: Time travel, or space-time travel?

Stuck: appears more help might be warrented. Pastordavid (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


My comments on it:

What I want: People to stop posting arguments base on special relativity. Since accelerations are involved, it cannot be used. They will have to use general relativity. I also don't want any sneakiness in trying to use the language to disguise special relativity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawncorey (talkcontribs) 20:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual accuracy + WP:BURDEN - correct procedure

Resolved: for the time being. Pastordavid (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask for your advice in regard of the use of Template:Disputeabout and more specifically WP:BURDEN in case of unsourced assertions. In particular, I would like to know the correct way of deleting unsourced information from a Wikipedia Article.

The subject matter behind this request of mine is the claimed princely Koháry title for a branch of a Royal House known as Saxe-Koháry (see Talk:House of Koháry for earlier discussion, which resulted in rewriting/shortening of the said Article). Short summary: I am not aware of any evidence (other than Wikipedia, that is), where this title is mentioned as being inherited by Saxe-Kohárys, and in the above-mentioned discussion, no such evidence was shown. It was therefore edited out of that Article accordingly.

Now, in another Article (Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, 4th Prince of Koháry), I had some revert discussion with User:Charles on this Prince of Koháry thingy — I think there has been produced no source verifying such title for the said person (not only legality, but even the very existence of the claim, incl. its use by said Prince), he evidently thinks quite the opposite. I therefore subsequently asked for such a source, but he unfortunately did not respond to my repeated requests (see more details here) and later deleted them in the Archive of his Talk page along with other posts under the edit summary Reformatting, removing petty ridiculousness, minor posts removed etc (Naturally, I would also love to know whether request for a source is petty ridicuousness or minor post, but it is of course most probably quite peripheral). Finally I used Template:Disputeabout; after circa six weeks without any reaction and (AFAIK) in line with WP:BURDEN, I deleted the whole claim once again. Nevertheless User:Charles reverted me — once again without any argument, returning the info and the template into the Article.

Obviously, I do not want to start any further pointless revert war and I appreciate that he at least left the Disputeabout template in the Article, but how long should one wait after inserting this template before removing such unsourced statement, when there is NO factual reaction from the other party? It is true that the template draws reader's attention to the problematic nature of the specific statement, but I do not believe that leaving it (i.e. the unsourced statement) there for a long time is meaningful and in line with WP:V. User:Charles ignores my attempts to discover his sources and likewise ignores that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, although I specifically mentioned WP:BURDEN in the summary to my last edit. So, what should I do now? Thank you. Pavel -- (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added an {{unreferenced}} tag to that article and to Kohary. I've also left a note on Charles's Talk page. I hope it helps. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much, but it does not seem to have any impact (see the fate of your note). User:Charles probably does not consider request for sources as relevant, unless it comes from registered user. Strange, one would think that Verifiability is more important than user's registration. Would WP:3O be of any use in situation, where the other party simply ignores any of my attempts to start discussion, or would this better be handled by WP:RFC? I do not think that the problem here is of technical nature, I see it rather as a simple ignorance of WP:BURDEN. Any thoughts? Pavel -- (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, one option is to register an account. Unfortunately some editors (and even some admins!) are prejudiced against dealing with IP addresses. To an extent this is understandable, because many people find numbers harder to recognise and remember than names, but at the same time it is fundamentally opposed to Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". I am not saying that you should register, although it might help in this case.
A third opinion is probably the best way to proceed from here. Note that an RfC on article content (while apparently the perfect way to get feedback) may not get many editors responding. In order to file the other form of RfC (on user conduct) at least two editors need to have made good-faith efforts to resolve the problem, so that option isn't available yet.
Another option is, after a suitable delay, to simply remove the unsourced material. Leave an edit comment and post to the article Talk page explaining your actions (citing WP:V and WP:BURDEN as necessary). If your actions are reverted, do not get involved in an edit war, do not say anything impolite (see WP:CIVIL) or accuse the other editor of acting in bad faith (see WP:AGF). If nothing else works, you might consider contacting an administrator on the administrator's incidents noticeboard WP:ANI - read the instructions, provide a brief summary, and be clear that the problem isn't content but the other editor's refusal to follow verificability policy and to discuss with an IP.
Hope this helps SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Per Sheffield's comments about IPs, do not edit war, as there is a 99% chance you'll be accused of IP vandalism and the article will be semi-protected. I'd agree that if waiting and re-removing it gets reverted, take it to ANI. Be sure to provide diffs like the one above. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Redneck (Stereotype)

Resolved: Sources needed. Pastordavid (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page of this article, you will see a section called The Hippie (Counter Culture Movement) and the Modern use of Redneck. I put a history of that section there because an anonymous user keeps deleting it from the article over and over, with little justification. Finally, not wanting to get into an edit war, I explained why the paragraph was important and left it to him/her to put something they approved in it's place. The response was to delete it again with "my permission". I was just going to let it all go, but I think to leave this paragraph out would be like having Pearl Harbor left out of the WWII page. It would be great if an Editor would assist by putting a good paragraph in the article. I just don't want to fight about it. TheGrandPubah (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to start by finding sone sources of information. As it is, the sources are either other Wikipedia articles (which should never be done), or links to lyrics sites, with the text saying "the song reflects..." In short, the section is a big problem with the guidelines WP:OR and WP:SYN. Worry about finding sources per WP:V and WP:RS first. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ports & Railroads Internet Listings

Resolved: asked. answered. Pastordavid (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been posting files to the Special Pages since Feb 2008 and when I went today to see what contributions, the only things listed were the files I posted today. What happened to the other files I posted? Please advise. My contributions are as follows: File Date Insert Date URL Hypertext Link 31 Jan 08 2 Feb 08

31 Jan 08 2 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 2 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 3 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 8 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 10 Feb 08

31 Jan 08 10 Feb 08

31 Jan 08 10 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 10 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 10 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 10 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 14 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 14 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 14 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 15 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 16 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 17 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 17 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 18 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 18 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 18 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 18 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 18 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 18 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 20 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 23 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 24 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 24 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 25 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 26 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 26 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 27 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 28 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 29 Feb 08

29 Feb 08 3 Mar 08

31 Mar 08 9 Mar 08

31 Mar 08 15 Mar 08

31 Mar 08 30 Mar 08

31 Mar 08 30 Mar 08

31 Mar 08 30 Mar 08

30 Apr 08 27 Apr 08

31 May 08 20 May 08

31 May 08 20 May 08

CARLOS J. TIBBETTSCarlos J. Tibbetts (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If this helps, it seems User:Rettetast was the admin to delete most of these, and the reason was WP:CSD#I10: Useless media files. Files uploaded that are neither image, sound, nor video files (e.g. .doc, .pdf, or .xls files) which are not used in any article and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use. What purpose did you have for uploading these documents to wikipedia? Do you understand fully what Wikipedia is (a free online encyclopedia, not a free file hosting service or what have you)? -Andrew c [talk] 22:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Biography of Michael Misick

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The page for the biography of Michael Misick, now the premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, does not have a single reference source on the page. In addition, there is an addition at the bottom of the page which reads, "Upon assuming the premiership, he was all but broke, with no family or self-made wealth. He has since amassed a fortune of no less than $100 million. This is understood to be the product of graft and bribes. He sells land belonging to the Crown and pockets the proceeds." Again, there are no sources listed for this information.

There are certainly rumors afloat in the TCIs that the government is corrupt and Michael Misick is at the center of the storm. It is, however, a disservice to not show reference sources so that follow-up can be conducted.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltraker (talkcontribs) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked the unsourced allegations (rape, bribery, molesting uncle), and tagged the rest of the article as being unsourced. -Andrew c [talk] 22:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

IPaddr EricV89 edits every post I make, now is that right? Or is he just working on those ranks? Why can't I edit my own page on my DSLinux without getting yelled at for "vandalism" 12:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No one was yelling at you, they were simply notifying you that edits like this are not appropriate. Comments about the article belong on the article talk page (click discussion on the toolbar above the article), not in the article itself. Further, edits like this are usually considered vandalism because they do not meet the standards for information included on wikipedia. All information must be verifiable, that is, it needs to be attributed to a reliable source and cannot be your own research or opinion. Also, editing the comments of others so that they appear to be insults is a good way to be blocked from editing.
May I suggest that this is a good place to begin reading about what wikipedia is all about before adding more info to the site. Following the links in that page will greatly help you to understand why you received the notices that you did, and will help you keep from receiving others in the future. Pastordavid (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My articles aren't original research: Am I wronging?

Stale: Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles: Substantialismus and Turnary Democracy

Someone wants to delete my articles. i don't understand what he means with "original research". The Substantialist theory is comproved by articles and publications edited in many years.It is supported by indicated reliable sources Please, can you kindly explain me why do you want to delete my article? How do you want i change my article?

before delete it can you explain and help me? if my english language is not perfect, you can help me to correct the single mistake.

Original research is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material.

Well, the bibliography sources are indicated in the article: what else i must indicate? i don't understand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empereur (talk • contribs) 14:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

i don't understand anything i'm new in wikipedia: where the administrators respond to me, where they explain to me? someone can help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empereur (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Empereur (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Empereur

The biggest problem is that there don't seem to be any outside sources that mention these ideas. "Turnary democracy" gets no Google hits outside of Wikipedia, which is very unusual even for a very obscure academic term.
This might be because you are translating from the Italian. If no common English translation for these ideas exist, then simply use the original Italian rather than inventing your own translation. Even an original translation qualifies as original research. - SimonP (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks, this is true. Now i try to change substantialismus in economia sostanziale, in italian language. but what i can do if the original name is in italian and not in english language? i must stranslate it , in one or other way? or not? Empereur (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about using the onesource template

Resolved: it seems. Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have asked the following question on Wikipedia talk:Template messages but received no response, and there is a similar question on Template talk:Onesource which was never answered.

I was reading in Template:Onesource#Usage and it seems to me that the {{onesource}} is for when citations are inappropriate or misinterpreted. On the other hand I can not find anywhere in WP:Citing sources which shows that a section needs to have more than one source (although I agree that in most situations, the more the better in a section, and that it is a problem if the entire article is based on only 1 source). Please correct me here if I'm reading this wrong, or correct the Template:Onesource#Usage to be more plain in its correct meaning. If I'm right that a section can be based on one source and still be effevtively written, then why does this template give the option to be used on sections, instead of only on entire articles, and why do people constantly use this template for sections that have one perfectly legitimate reference, instead of using refimprove or something else similar? Mathman1550 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Imagine a section like this. It would be problematic if all we cited was one book, especially if that book was a POV source. We'd need to cite multiple POVs. Now imagine a section like this. We would not need more than one citation to verify the single fact found in that section. So while there clearly are instances where it would not be appropriate to tag a section in needing more sources, there are also instances where it would be problematic to have a single source in a large, controversial section. Therefore, it seems like it would be problematic to not allow users to tag sections. I'll read up on the documentations and past conversations, and see if I can't recommend anything to improve the guidelines.-Andrew c [talk] 23:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The instructions for the template say "This template alerts readers that citations in an article or section may be inappropriate or misinterpreted. Examples include quotations taken out of context and false assertions about a source's facts or conclusions." That would seem to be a copy from Template:Citecheck and this is the issue that is most confusing me about the template. Thanks for looking into this. Mathman1550 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3 talk page

Resolved: Pastordavid (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

HI, i would like to discuss this edit that i made to the page reffered to above, that keeps on getting sent back to tha original state an the edit is good.

thanks, Mjriley933 (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)mjriley933

  • Generally you should not edit others' comments on a talk page. Per WP:TALK: As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. If this were allowed, it would certainly make it easy to edit someone's comments and make them misrepresentative of the original conversation. --Kinu t/c 05:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Oaten's sex scandal

Resolved: At least for this page - OTRS issue. Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to ask you to make some changes to the page: on English Liberal-Democrat MP Mark Oaten's sex scandal from January 2006 involving male prostitutes. As you know, the tabloid newspaper The News Of The World is not a reliable source of information. The aim is to shock the reader. The story was sold in an act of jealousy from my former flatmate who was also involved in this 'business', but was not quite as successful. That - together with some financial gain - is what motivated him to sell the story. I did not have that relationship with Mark. Apparently I was invited to the '3-in-the-bed' but I honestly cannot remember having Mark Oaten as a client, and I certainly know nothing about the alleged 'act of humiliation' either (please see # 5 Scandal and resignation)

I will only add, that already when the NOTW acticle was published, I fought for justice and stated facts on my Gaydar profile (which was then - for that reason - removed).

Not many people may be interested in this story anymore, but as someone allegedly deeply involved in this whole thing, it hurts me that such incorrect and shameful information is still available on the internet, on Wikipedia et al redirected from various search engines.

Please consider my plea to amend/remove the "5 Scandal and resignation" passage from That will at least make it less likely to appear elsewhere. Should you have any questions about this matter, do not hesitate and ask. I have changed my profession since and would like this horror to be over one day.

Yours sincerely,

Tomash —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomashescort (talkcontribs) 09:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the user's Talk page. This looks like an issue for WP:OTRS. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

old telephone exchanges

Resolved: Pointed to appropriate forum. Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am writing a novel about the period between l935 and l945. I need a description of a typical telephone exchange in a small town in the South... equipment, number of operators, times of operation, physical layout of the exchange, unusual experiences, or anything else which would help me set the scene.

Mack Lofton personal info removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. You may get a better response taking this to the reference desks - the editors there are quite good at finding information like this. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You could consider watching some old Andy Griffith Show episodes. Fleetflame 02:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bianca Chiminello (actress)

Resolved: Error corrected. Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The birthday date has been changes on this site and it is no longer correct. The birthdate to which the page was opened is: Born September 5th, 1976. It now shows a completly different date and year, also listed in an area which cannot be ammended. Please make this adjustment. Regards.

Bc5976 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been changed back. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Trevor Marshall article

Resolved: Still problems, but this particular one seems taken care of. Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I am a frequent user of yiour website and appreciate the quality of information very much! Today I have seen that you have an article about Dr. Trevor Marshall. It's a unfortunate that the article is misleading, to say the least! From the article it appears that Mr. Marshall is a medical doctor. He is not. I advise that you take a look at the following website

The website clearly shows that one should regard any information regarding Mr. Marshall's references with the utmost caution!!

Rgds, Fl. Stanley —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. As I read the article in question, it says that Marshall has a PhD, not an MD. There is no claim in the article that Marshall is a medical doctor, rather that he is a medical researcher. The link you provided is interesting reading, and I am sure that some people find it useful. However, we cannot use it on wikipedia. All information must come from reliable sources, especially not those that are self-published. This is particularly true in biographies of living people, which would quickly become clogged with libelous information that someone posted to their blog, if we did not have standards for our sources of information. Again, thanks for your concern. Pastordavid (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, we have had major problems with this article. I am not the least sure we have it right yet. DGG (talk) 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Trouble editing clients page

Resolved: asked. answered. Pastordavid (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I work for Catapult Management, representing Greg Camp from Smash Mouth. I'm trying to update his personal information to reflect his solo album release on Bar/None Records & Seavolt Records this Summer. I'm also trying to update web information, and relationship status. Information is not saving... please advise.

Maggie or Ron with Catapult Management

I assume you're editing Smash Mouth? Look at the page history, and you'll see that a bot, an automatic helper program, is removing your edits. It's removing them because you're trying to add links to myspace, which we generally don't consider a reliable source of info. Once the album has been released and has been reviewed in some reliable publications (see other musicians for examples), an editor will no doubt add suitable references. As an encyclopaedia, we don't usually need info on future events.
By the way, would you mind taking a look at our policy on conflicts of interest, please? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ownership of autobiography and personal attacks

Resolved: Fleetflame 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am new on Wikipedia and I appreciate advice with this. There is an autobiography Mark Hanau, the owner said he was an official photographer for "Royal Academy of Dramatic Art", he has a source and page number. The page in the book doesn't say nothing about him. Search the electronic version of the book, his name is not in it. So I moved the section to Talk and explained the owner why, [5] asked if some one has a good source for it. Twenty minutes later the owner reverted w/o telling why. Also my other edits of stuff that doesn't verify b/c from poor sources. Editors tried to explain the owner before what a good source is but he does not read it I guess or doesn't understand, it is frustrating. Then the pages owner put a warning on my talk that he would block me for any more changes. He put a notice at the admin board against vandalism and he attacked me at the incident board in a closed discussion. He calls me a spa may be I am I spent so much time trying to help on the article, he says I am in a hate group that is hounding him for years?? So my question, how do I improve an article when it's owner is not going to discuss? RetroS1mone talk 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been deleted now, so unless it's undeleted, I don't think you need to be concerned with it any further. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rico Tice, Evangelist, All Souls Church Langham Place

Resolved: nothing to do here. Pastordavid (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand exactly what I am doing.

I was baptised in June 1997 as a Christian. I was confirmed in to the Anglican Church in June 2008 at St James's Church Muswell Hill by The Bishop of Edmonton, Bishop Brian.

I am a member of the congregation of All Souls Church Langham Place, I am not permitted presently to attend. I feel myself the subject of harassment by Rico Tice of All Souls Church Langham Place and by his colleagues and have felt this to be the case for some years.

I was imprisoned by Rico Tice for a sexual harassment charge on 14.1.2001. I was imprisoned by All Souls Church Langham Place as well for 'criminal damage' on the same day. That is to say I was imprisoned with two charges from the police and the Crown Prosecution Service into Holloway women's prison in London. The charges were the major one of 'criminal damage' and the secondary one of 'sexual harassment'. This is an Anglican Church and I was therefore imprisoned in the name of this institution.

I was incarcerated for four months until 15.7.01 and then released on bail. I met the forensic psychiatrist Dr Joseph at St Mary's Hospital Paddington on 30.11.01 and he wrote a report to say that I had been suffering from a temporary psychotic disorder at the time of the offences. The trial to be held on the following Monday was cancelled, as the charges against me were dropped due to the medical report that Dr Joseph made.

I was arrested by police on 28.11.07 at Seymour Street and they said that Rico Tice had said that I had been harassing him. I am forbidden from honouring my confirmation vows because I am not allowed to attend All Souls Church and then leave of my own free will.

I feel that the page about Rico Tice is incorrect as is the page about All Souls Church because this matter of an excluded member of the congregation is ommitted. Furthermore, there were various incorrect statements made in the one that Rico Tice submitted to the police and Crown at Seymour Street police station on 13.3.01 with regard to self. I did address this matter on 14.8.06 and send a document correcting the statement made by Rico Tice to them which, together with the statements made by other members of the staff of All Souls Church, resulted in my incarceration. All Souls Langham Place is a church. The congregation and wider world know nothing of my existence as an excluded person from that church. Furthermore it does state on the two boards outside of the church: 'All Welcome', which is not true because I am told I will be arrested if I stand outside on the pavement. Also if I stand on the church property or steps.

There was no response to the document that I sent to Rico Tice at All Souls Church. It was ignored. This action by Rico Tice is called 'Bearing False Witness'. Is it possible to put this on to the Wikipedia pages in any way? My email address xxxx

Many thanks. D Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, no. Wikipedia is not for use as a soapbox, nor is it for posting one's personal knowledge or experience. I'm sorry that you feel aggrieved by the organization, but if you wish to tell your story to the media, newspapers or magazines would be more appropriate. You are, of course, also welcome to set up your own website and put material of your choice on it, if you wish your story to be told online. But while it is good you asked rather than simply adding inappropriate material, such material would not be appropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation errors common within many articles, e.g., commas outside quotes

Resolved: No request for assistance - just an editorial choice. Pastordavid (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear friends, As a copy editor, I am continually noticing punctuation errors in articles, in particular the matter of commas and periods appearing outside quotation marks. This mistake is a sign of illiteracy, in my humble opinion, and editors should follow proper grammatical rules, most particularly on this prestigious and widely referenced site!

The rule is simply, that ALL commas and ALL periods must always appear within quotation marks. And to follow, for colons and semicolons must always appear OUTSIDE the quotation marks. Thus, the variable is for question marks and exclamation marks to appear either inside or outside, depending upon their meaning.

This rule can be found universally in grammatical references. In particular, and not exclusive to, is Rule 16e of the Harbrace College Handbook, all editions.

May I formerly urge Wikipedia editor staff to globally search/replace all inaccurate punctuation errors, such as this, before an article is published, revised, and, if possible, to existing articles in a efficiently automated manner.

Very best regards,

-Dan Murray Art Studio Graphics Big Timber, MT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fineartz (talkcontribs) 18:13, 26 May 2008

Hello, Dan. The rule is not simple. You're referring to a very common punctuation rule called typesetters' quotation (and I actually learned that rule in school). Such a rule is not used in every manual of style. For example, the manual of style that we use says "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation; this system is referred to as logical quotation." WP:PUNC. Some reasoning is also included, "scientific, technical, and legal publications, even in the United States, almost universally use logical quotation because it always renders accurately the source material being quoted." ~a (usertalkcontribs)