Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 60

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Editor making up acronym for article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor (User:Ti-30X) keeps trying to insert information about something he calls the "Novel Electromagnetic Materials Program" to which Ti-30X has assigned the acronym, "NEMP." I deleted it because that's not what the program is called, and a google search shows this name is being propagated to wiki mirrors.[1] A search of Duke's website shows this is not what the program is called.[2][3]

The professor's research group is called "Novel Electromagnetic Materials" and the professor lists "programs, collaborators and funding" on his webpage, and somehow this editor has turned this into an existing group called "Novel Electromagnetic Materials Program" with the acronym "NEMP." Please look at the professor's web site and see that this is so. Search Duke and the professor's page. There's no NEMP related to Smith's research group. It's not there. Not.

The editor has told me he will be reinserting the material.[4] What do I do now in lieu of edit-warring to keep this editors OR made-up acronym and research group title out of the article? --69.225.5.183 (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know wiki policies here but often people define terms intended to be limited in scope to a given publication or document. For example, many contracts or legal filings use general terms for specific parties. I guess if would depend on details but if a given term comes up a lot a clearly defined shorthand shouldn't be an issue that is too hard to resolve. If there is a well known acrynym or shorthand that would seem to be a more reasonable choice however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Internal references

Resolved

– account blocked - COI Jezhotwells (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We are making this wikipage about a military organization and we understand the need for references to validate the article. However, much of the information used comes from internal documentation that cannot be released to the public. Certain unclassified facts have been pulled from these documents to inform the public of our operations in Bulgaria and Romania. How do you suggest I reference these materials as I will not be able to provide a link or source document?

--JTF.East (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything should be referenced, so even if you know something but it is not covered in any reliable source it's likely to be regarded as original research and removed. In any case, it sounds to me like you are talking about publishing classified military secrets, which might have serious implications for you in real life. I wouldn't do that if I were you. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked this account as a role account (almost used the spamusername tag, but decided not to be too bitey). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OHL

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the Ontario Hockey League dominating the OHL wikipedia page. There is a company that has been operating since 1951 that does business as OHL and operates at www.ohl.com. OHL for the Ontario Hockey League is an acronym and I hardly think that gives that group the domination over "OHL". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.19.29 (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. OHL is a redirect to Ontario Hockey League because that is the most likely thing people would be thinking of when they search for OHL. The other topics are listed at OHL (disambiguation), which is linked from the hockey league article. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing the Name of an Article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We would like to change the name of the article "HCJB" to "HCJB Global" because it is the full name of the organization and we would like the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakerctrn (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bakerctrn. I looked over your request and, while this move would be possible, it is currently unnecessary as there is already an article about the organization known as HCJB Global at World Radio Missionary Fellowship, Inc.. Cheers! --tennis man 15:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A comment on my profile which is out of order!!

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

My name is Freddie Potter, if you look on my profile some has put this sentence 'where he is currently under FA charges for match fixing and being an all out beaut.' Can i please find out who has written this statement and for an apology as i am getting accused of this which is true but i am not guilty! and the 'and being an all out beaut' is angered me! Can you please found out who this was as i want it reported immediatley!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.8.136 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the comment, it was added by an anonymous user as vandalism, and apparently went unnoticed. Sorry about that--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Advertising Article

Resolved

– Article deleted

I found this article that looks to be advertising only. It is located here: Actim_prom_test. Terribly sorry if this is the wrong place to raise this question.

Chicagogeekwoman (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chicagogeekwoman. I'd suggest you read the page on what is and isn't viewed as advertising, because I don't see anything on that page that qualifies as such. Though the page you reference contains little content, what it does have appears to be entirely descriptive in nature and written from a third-person point of view. --tennis man 18:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason it seems like advertising. Here is the article:

"Since the concentration of IGFBP-1 is much higher in amniotic fluid than in other body fluids, finding IGFBP-1 in the vaginal or cervical sample can reliably indicate a membrane rupture. Many studies have shown that the diagnosis of PROM by detection of IGFBP-1 is the most reliable method, and therefore superior to other chemical, clinical and immunological methods available today.

The Actim PROM dipstick test can be easily performed by taking a vaginal or cervical secretion sample, extracting it and immersing the dipstick in a solution of the extraction. Results are clearly visible in 5 minutes. A positive result appears as two blue lines. A negative result appears as one blue line (only the control line appears)."

Here is the company web page:

Since the concentration of IGFBP-1 is several decades higher in amniotic fluid than in other body fluids, finding IGFBP-1 in the vaginal or cervical sample reliably indicates a membrane rupture. Numerous studies have shown that the diagnosis of PROM by detection of IGFBP-1 is the most reliable method, and therefore superior to other chemical, clinical and immunological methods available today.

The Actim PROM dipstick test can be performed quickly and simply by taking a vaginal or cervical secretion sample, extracting it and immersing the dipstick in a solution of the extraction.

Results are clearly visible in 5 minutes

A positive result appears as two blue lines – a control line and a test line – in the result area. If only the control line appears after five minutes, the test result is negative.

I'll leave this for someone else to sort out, since trimming the copyvio leaves very little text. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible that the test itself might be notable, but the item deleted was spam with a side order of copyright violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to Add a Link

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I need to say that I find Wiki to be incredibly complex and confusing. If I have done anything wrong, I apologise, but I really cannot figure out how thing work around here.

Some time ago, I tried to add a link for our website to the Cybele page. We are modern followers of the goddess Cybele, and our website is a very good source of historical information.

Each time I added the link, it was deleted by someone, and I got yelled at about it, until I guess I was "blocked".

So my question simply is, can I put my link anywhere on Wiki where it will be useful, and allowed ?

Here is the link to the website, so you can take a look at it.

http://www.cybele2.com

Thanks,

Jean

04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priestess Jean (talk • contribs)

signature added

--Priestess Jean 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priestess Jean (talk • contribs)

Comment: I have had an issue with sources being labelled "fringe" or "unreliable" but that depends on context. If you are a recognized or noted practitioner or authority on the subject, I would think your site could be a useful source of information about that topic. But, at least with creation science, there is a tendency to judge "fringe" against a larger universe of people. So, a relatively obscure site even if well known among a small but relevant community ( in this case people knowledgable on the subject) may be glibbly taken as fringe or unreliable. I'm not claiming every obscure site would qualify, but certainly the potential is there for useful information getting deleted as "crank" or "vandalism." Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That website fails our standards of reliability and neutrality. Your continued efforts to add it to the article have already gotten you blocked once. We do not challenge the sincerity of your beliefs, but your religious opinions do not qualify as encyclopedic content and links to your group's site will continue to be removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What?: There are articles on abortion that AFAIK link to popular advocates of both camps, what is the difference here? If the belief is "fringe" as astrology might be, but still notable, then those who represent the belief may be fringe in a larger article but perfectly reliable and mainstream regarding the topic. If they are "sincere" ( colloquial usage for this point), then they would indeed inherently be representative of the topic and be automatically reliable for at least one POV. A balanced article would probably link to more sites with different denominations within the topic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- The link is to a site for a religous group that claim to be modern worshippers of Cybele. The site has no verifiability since it simply reports their interpretation of information, and to allow its posting, especially by a COI editor, would be to allow spamming of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  - And you expected? : If you are waiting for Ted Turner to cover it, or MTV to get the latest from IEEE, then wikipedia will be quite sparse. What more do abortion groups do other than expound their own view points? Could you write an abortion article, no less pro-choice article, without refrence to POV groups? The fact that this is a smaller community ( of experts no less) means you can't use the same numbers in your cutoffs if you want to include any obscure topics. Sure, you want to make sure this site is not a single-purpose-site and had some notion, for lack of a better word sincerity, and secondary source coverage from unrelated groups, even attack groups, would be helpful. But, it wasn't clear if these exist of if their existence was considered. After asking a few questions on scholarly works on various historical artifacts, you can appreciate that in many cases evidence supporting confident conclusions is lacking. So, even if source is not "Credible" in terms of being able to factually support some assertion, they may be reliable about modern day followers, esp if they are the only ones. If crackpots are notable, then they are also reliable sources about themselves. Note I am making hypothetical statements and not arguing that your conclusion is wrong, it is just that these things do tend to automatically exclude good sources for TOPICS that aren't generally considered to be reliable for other purposes. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just two quick points... 90 percent of the website that I'd like to add a link to, concerns history... and is very well sourced. It contains over 70 clickable references, and provides a great deal of additional insights beyond the Wiki article on Cybele. BTW, almost all of the refs come from Wiki, so their accuracy shouldn't be in question.

Secondly, yes the website does present the existence of a modern group that worships the Goddess, however I would think that such information would be of value to people reading the Wiki article on Cybele, since it gives them a path to follow if they are interested in joining such a group, or simply asking some questions for a term-paper...

Blessings, Jean

--Priestess Jean 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priestess Jean (talk • contribs)

Ohoh: References back to wiki in fact are NOT helpful. That suggests that you are largely if not exclusively based on what you have found here. You need to show some evidence of being a reliable source about the TOPIC, and citations to wiki DO NOT help that in a number of ways. If those are just part of a larger whole great but otherwise they don't help establish notability or reliability of your site. Wiki miroors that only add viagra ads would probably not contribute to an article for example. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Some of the comments above are a little confused. External sites need not meet the requirements for reliability, neutrality and verifiability. These are requirements for the article's sources. If this site were to be invoked as a reference for the text of the article then those things would apply and it would fail to meet them. However, as an external link the relevant guideline is WP:EL. In an article about your own group, the link would be perfectly acceptable, even necessary. However, their does not appear to be an article on your group and before there could be one you would need to establish that it was notable in the Wikipedia sense of that word. It is unlikely that you will find anywhere else acceptable to place your link, quoting from the guideline, one should avoid...any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. So in short, no, you can't post the link. However, you are welcome to add information to the Cybele article (or any other) provided that it is well sourced. SpinningSpark 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So, an article on "pro-choice" could not in any way reference NARAL? POV sites can be reliable about the POV and if the topic is about a POV, then NPOV requires that the topic POV be described in an NPOV way? Does that help? You can't possible find any NPOV source about abortion AFAIK yet there are, IIRC, articles on both pro-choise and right to life. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See last EL here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice You couldn't possibly write this article without such a link, indeed citations to their site would be important and reliable about the BELIEF. The existence of competing views while maybe worthy of note, doesn't mean you exclude a reliable source that can accurately document the topic of the article. A source is inherently reliable about itself when an a self-refential claim is made ("foo believe bah"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Service Provider Pages

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this and I posted a question on the Talk page of the ExpertPages wiki page. It's been over a week and no one has answered, so I thought I'd ask here as well. I'm curious as to why a service provider has it's own page when there are many other, more well known service providers in the same space that do not have their own page. Can anyone advise? Thanks Dabrousseau (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an entirely volunteer operation. People create articles on topics they believe to be notable, and the articles are then improved and expanded. If nobody has created a valid (non-advertising) article about a notable company, then no article will exist. Sometimes, on the other hand, an article will be created about a non-notable company, or a "spammy" (highly promotional) article will be created, and then slip through the cracks (like I said: all volunteers here), to remain unchallenged until somebody says, "Well look at this piece of junk!" (Thus, we caution, "There are these lousy articles in Wikipedia already, why can't I add another one?" is not a useful argument for retention of an unacceptable article.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama-Brazil Offshore Oil Projects

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What is Obama's involvement in financing Brazil offshore oil exploration projects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.115.163 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you want the reference desk, this page is for helping editors with problems. SpinningSpark 20:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

AVG intercept of a page identified by Google as an attack site

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Page fortunecity.com/meltingpot has been identified by Google as an 'attack' page, meaning that it has been found recently to host viruses or Trojans. There are 1000+ links in Wikipedia to fortunecity.com , a small sampling of these showed the intercept showing up only on the meltingpot page; Wikipedia has about 40 links to fortunecity.com/meltingpot, not sure what should be done about these or where this should be reported. --CliffC (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The blacklist could probably stop all these links, but it could be possible that Google is mistaken, or that there were only ever a few such "attacks", added accidentally and which haave since been fixed? Intelligentsium^review 02:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, and I sure didn't go check after the above exchange, that whole domain only contains unreliaable sources anyway. Unless a given site or page is notable itself, I wouldn't think many articles would benefit from links or sources that point there. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute with editor over notability of article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The dispute began with the editor attempting to re-direct the lengthy article to a small List of Nip/Tuck characters, something I disagreed with as the character is a series regular who has appeared on the show from its first episode and is worthy of an article herself. The editor went on to suggest that I add sources and references to the article (quote "Anyway, why don't you add some sources to this article and the others then to indicate their notability???"), which I did to the best of my ability. This was also deemed not good enough ("redirecting, minor non-notable character, sources are almost entirely episode summaries and the like"). I have attempted to discuss the matter four separate times on the user's talk page, but the editor has ignored me every time.

I had recently added a link to the show's official website which lists Kimber as one of the six series regulars on the series (in an effort to prove the character's notability), but despite having been the very thing the editor was looking for, he did not specifically respond to my latest update and simply re-directed the page once again.

While I admit that the page may require additional work in terms of sourcing and references, what is severely annoying me is the fact that it is only this specific page that this editor seems to have a problem with. In the editor's user talk I have listed several Wiki pages for fictional characters which have even less sources and references, while there are many minor characters from Nip/Tuck which still have their Wiki pages intact (including Eden Lord, Nurse Linda and Merrill Bobolit, to name a few) and yet this user seems to have absolutely no problem with those.

My real problem is that I see absolutely no evidence why out of all the many, many Wiki articles for fictional characters, a series regular on a major TV series is deemed to be undeserving of her own page.

I have requested several times to debate the article in question, but it appears in recent months the user has simply ignored me and continued re-directing the page regardless of my many improvements to it. I am seeking some kind of independent moderator to take a look at the article. But please take into consideration the many articles on this site for fictional characters beforehand, and realize that if Kimber Henry's article is worthy of redirection, so to are the many, many fictional character articles on this site.

Thank you. Maxpower03 (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, pointing to what is, or is not done, in other articles is not a good argument - see WP:OTHER for why this is so, arguments should be based in policy. There is no specific guidance on notability of fictional characters on TV but WP:Notability (books) has a few words: "articles should not be split and split again into ever more minutiae of detail treatment, with each split normally lowering the level of notability ... it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book, and it is often the case that despite the book being manifestly notable, a derivative article from it is not." There is also a proposed guideline WP:Notability (fiction) which says much the same thing. I suggest that you measure the notability of the article against the requirements of these guidelines and then see where you are. If you conclude that these guidelines support a separate article, then explain to the other editor how it meets the requirements with reference to the guidelines. SpinningSpark 16:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, but I'm guessing I can't do anything about it. The links you supplied have a basic list of what constitutes notability, and of course she barely fits. Yes, she's a titular character in the series. Yes, I've supplied at least two links to non-trivial articles about her. But, no, of course she isn't the basis of a college study. Of course there isn't a book about her. Is there absolutely no way it can stay a full article? She's an important character, I've added countless bits of trivia and character information, links to support her importance on the series. For whatever reason this editor is only interested in re-directing this very article. It just feels so ridiculous. Maxpower03 (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Titular means that the character's name appears in the title does it not? That would not apply in this case then. I think you possibly have an arguable case, but it is very weak. Most of the references in your article are either not independant, are about the actress or the program rather than the character in particular, or are just listings. I did see at least one article that discussed the character, so you do have something to go on. One solution here might be for you to compromise and expand the entry for Kimber Henry in List of Nip/Tuck characters instead of trying to create a seperate article. All the same, it is bad form to not respond to you, I have left a note on Doctorfluffy's talk page making him/her aware of this discussion and giving an opportunity to respond. One thing you must both do is to stop this back and forth edit warring before it attracts administrator attention which will only result in you both being blocked. Another way forward might be take the article to AfD, I notice that Doctorfluffy has already offered to do this at the point you were still talking to each other, and this is a way of getting a wider debate and a definite decision. SpinningSpark 19:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh just noticed, the link I gave you to WP:OTHER, should, of course, have been WP:Other stuff exists. I keep making that mistake. SpinningSpark 19:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the additional help. I guess titular does mean "in the title". Excuse that. The "AfD" suggestion is interesting, but the editor has never threatened to delete the article, only re-direct. But, of course, this does delete a lot of information in the process. I'll investigate AfD procedures and then make a decision of whether I want to pursue that. Thanks a lot. Maxpower03 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctorfluffy did indeed suggest AfD in this edit on the article talk page. Deletion debates can result in a "redirect" decision which is what Doctorfluffy wants, as well as "keep" and "delete" decisions. Even if he will not open an AfD himself, it is possible for you to do it yourself and then !vote keep. SpinningSpark 22:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving a page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already read on how to move a page, and I believe that my account is not yet auto confirmed. I also read that an adminstrator can move a page, would it be to much to ask for your assistance in doing this? Please?Jack W. 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Willow (talk • contribs)

I would happily help you if you could tell me what page it is. But if you're referring to User:Jack Willow/Kenneth B. Cromer, I can't, because the article does not explain the importance or significance of the subject (see WP:CSD#A7). This article would be deleted shortly after entering the mainspace. You may be interested in reading more about notability, and also reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

BosWash article should define neologism, not promote it as true name for region

Resolved

– Questions answered, thank you – Sswonk (talk)

In July of this year, I placed a {{Disputed}} tag at the head of the article after seeing nothing of substance done for over a year previous about concerns raised by me and Struthious Bandersnatch (talk · contribs) regarding the overall use of the article to declare de facto an area formerly described by the neologism "BosWash" in a forty-plus year old theory. Please see the discussion for the many reasons we found to object to the way the article is presented. To be brief, the opening sentence reads in part: "BosWash ... is a group of metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States ..." This is then followed by paragraphs of statistics and images that essentially treat "BosWash" as something that really exists, as in Benelux. It of course should read something like: "BosWash is a term coined by futurists Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener in a 1967 essay which they used to describe a theoretical megalopolis extending from the metropolitan area of Boston to that of Washington, D.C. in the United States.", which should then be followed by a brief tie-in to the work of Jean Gottmann and sixties-era socioeconomic theories about the concept of a "megalopolis", with all remaining copy removed, and the hatnote serving to direct readers to the Northeastern United States article for the demographics and cultural features that are currently masquerading within the article as being part of this mythical land.

To keep this short, I am providing only one of several examples supporting my view. The multi-dictionary search site onelook.com shows 4 separate sources with entries for Boswash: two describe it as "informal", another states "this definition appears very rarely" (Acronym Finder) and a fourth, the Wikipedia article in question here. Compare that result with 22 unique sources for Silicon Valley, 26 for Benelux and 27 for NAFTA. Please advise me on how to proceed with replacing the current article content, which has aspects of WP:OR and WP:CFORK, with only a definition of the neologism, while keeping conflict to a minimum. Sswonk (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you declare your intention to rework the article with an outline on the article talk page. Give other editors a reasonable time to respond and then be bold and go for it. Hopefully, any disagreement that arises can be worked out by collaboration, discussion and reference back to the sources in which case there will be no need to seek third party involvement. SpinningSpark 08:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To initiate this suggested solution, I am pondering using the talk page to lay out my case yet again, and also creating a subpage such as Talk:BosWash/Rewrite with my changes, properly sourced, presented. Would that method and temporary page title be helpful to forming a collegial consensus? Sswonk (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That can definitely be a helpful thing to do, but it might be unnecessary effort. It depends first of all on what other editors are watching the page - you could be playing to an empty house. Secondly, if the watching, interested editors do not disagree, or do not strongly disagree, with your proposals it will have been unnecessary. This sort of thing is only commonly done for controversial proposals so they can be thrashed out first, but not otherwise. I suggest you gauge the opinion first with a post on the talk page and that should give you a clue whether you need to lay out the detail in all its glory for discussion. Also, be advised that there are many editors out there who pretty much ignore the talk page until the article itself gets edited and then join in, possibly with a reversion. Sometimes the only way of getting a debate opened is to be bold and edit the article. SpinningSpark 15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The process and result of the discussion at Talk:BosWash#Notification of intention to rewrite article went smoothly and the article is now recast as a discussion of the term. The associated articles Largest companies based in BosWash and Highways along the BosWash corridor have been proposed for deletion. I would now like to address the remaining articles within this realm of neologism-described geography, ChiPitts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and SanSan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). My feeling is that these two terms are a degree less likely to be searched for than BosWash and should be deleted. Which process, prod or AfD, is most appropriate for these two? Sswonk (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely AfD, not prod. At one time, these three concepts were trendy (see the 1972 edition of the World Almanac for a somewhat breathless exposition of these futuristic ideas); I would say that an AfD is going to fail. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was leaning toward the same thoughts which is why I asked here. They exist under similar form as the original BosWash page, so I am assuming the {{disputed}} and talk page notification about recasting as a discussion of the term rather than treatment as a geographic location is in order? Sswonk (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ChiPitts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and SanSan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Thanks for the comment Orangemike. I am still not convinced a simple prod with a suggestion of redirect to BosWash might not be the way to go here. The subjects of the two articles might later be reformed under different titles or handled as sections of Megapolitan Area, but the words ChiPitts and SanSan are just neologisms cut from the same cloth as BosWash, that being Herman Kahn's book from 1967. A recent Virginia Tech study about "megapolitans" discards all of these terms; a redirect to BosWash, where this will be explained for both ChiPitts and SanSan as well, with links to any future descriptive article or section in a hatnote, would actually be helpful to readers attempting to stay current with the terminology. I am hoping others reading this thread will comment on this as I am not totally sure there will be agreement on that course of action. Sswonk (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Papyrus Leyden X page can't ne found

Resolved

– --Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 14:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The Papyrus Leyden X, Leyden Papyrus X page is not to be found. Was it deleted, renamed, or never existed? Thanks. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The deletion log shows It has been transwikied to Wikisource at s:Leyden Papyrus X. There was also a deletion debate at Wikisource concerning the copyright status of this work. SpinningSpark 18:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Side Effects of taking Acetaminophen and How taking this medication affects/alters Platelet Counts

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am currently receiving in-patient chemotherapy treatments as well as out-patient chemotherapy treatments. My platelet count yesterday was 21, which is critically low. I was told to AVOID any Acetaminophen, and I am just wondering WHY? and how does taking acetaminopen effect my platelet count, or cause it to plummet? Thank you!---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockie5265 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give medical advice. For general information, you could try to search for those topics here or in Google, but for your specific case you need to ask your doctor. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Acetaminophen causes an increase in antibodies that reduce your platelet count. But you shouldn't rely on the Wikipedia reference desk for medical advice. Ask your doctor. Good luck. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Try pubmed for general background. The above comment seems to relate to an idiosyncratic reaction but one that comes up with different specifics. Here is a case report that discusses more generally loss of blood cells due to an immune response to a drug metabolite, http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/full/109/8/3608 . Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Over on the ref desk talk page, there's a debate about whether answering the question "Will masturbation stunt one's growth?", which is strictly an old wive's tale, constitutes "medical advice". And here we are leading an editor toward self-diagnosis of a potentially serious medical issue that he should see his doctor about. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like all the comments are directing the questioner to other, more appropriate venues -- so what is the problem? Oh, and it won't stunt growth, but it will make you go blind. HyperCapitalist (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a much longer response that I finally scrapped- Indeed, it addresses these issues and talked about a recent situation with PFE making off-label marketting claims and COI editors here, freedom of expression, fraud, and the need for people to second guess and sanity check experts in all fields ( hence the value of an encyclopedia unless your doctor is omniscient and free of conflict). And, to continue in this line of "thought" IIRC, there is a funny case from the TV show House where a parent brings in her pre-school daughter convinced she has epillepsy but House diagnoses her as masturbating. So, ok, it could be medical advice. But, I also would not dismiss anecdotal evidence- my latest "thing" was health effects of citrate that could indeed have spurred anecdotes about citrus fruit that had been attributed to vitamin-C. Also, unless this OP has a home platelet test kit and made up the thing about "his doctor" and still couldn't find pubmed, it sounds like he has a doctor. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it may also be worth noting, as this general argument is recurring, that the value of an expert such as a doctor lies in things like diagnosing idiosyncratic reactions or rare or confusing clinical data where response time may be crucial. The encyclopedia is valuable for a number of things but the time constraints don't make it a suitable way to help a novice make a decision "now" and if not well written, it can exclude information on making uncommon differential diagnoses. But, this also highlights perhaps the need to avoid confirmation bias in articles and a rationale to present critical or obscure or uncommon information as these things can be important for background and perspective. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Marching Band

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide factual evidence for the statement "award winning marching band" I am unaware of any awards showered upon the cobra marching band 2008-2009. If there is no good verifable evidence please remove statement.Kkunkel2 (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The editors here are all volunteers and you should not demand actions of them, it is more usual here to fix problems yourself. It would also help if you identified the article you are talking about, there are many dozens of articles containing the phrase "award winning marching band". If you happen to mean Cane Bay High School (which has a football team called the Cobras) then you should tag the statement with a {{fact}} template, or, if you know the statement to be untrue for certain, you should delete it. SpinningSpark 11:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling abortion infanticide

Request unclear

– --Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

On your page about Abortion, under Social Issues, it has "female infanticide" in the paragraph title, when infanticide is not discussed, just the abortion of fetuses that are known to be female. That is not infanticide, that is abortion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catharingrace (talk • contribs) 17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true; abandonment of newborn girls is also mentioned, although the main article goes into more detail. But the full paragraph title is "Sex-selective abortion and female infanticide"; as in the relation between the two phenomena. That's not the same thing as calling abortion infanticide. -- Vary | (Talk) 18:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, do you actually have a request for assistance? SpinningSpark 18:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Wordsmith arbitrarily deleting my material

Resolved

– The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some work on the Colorado Balloon Incident story over the past few days, showing the Father in the incident had paranormal beliefs and claimed that the balloon operated on a pseudoscientific principal. I cited all.

Wordsmith claims the material is tangental which it seems to me could be said about most anything you wanted to delete. Wordsmith's own pages show some interest in paranormal topics and I wonder if that motivates his deletions and whether I have to accept them.

Lance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancemoody (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

One problem I have noticed with this edit is that it appears you might have been referring to other citations/references but the citation style you were using does not match our standards. I have added a welcome to your talk page which may help you with citation style and formatting. 7 01:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, i'll weigh in here. I removed biographical information, including some that Lancemoody contributed, from the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), which states "biographical information about participants should be limited to that which can be linked to the event; material that establishes the notablility of the event, or which is reasonably required to explain some aspect of the event." The content would be perfect for an article on the father, but only tangentially related to the event itself. I attempted to explain this to the user on the article talk page, and the user reinserted the material (with sources not intact), which I reverted. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As a newbie, I think I now understand better how things work here. Please consider this matter resolved. Lancemoody (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

what the options and/or protocols are for putting the original content back after someone has dramatically and inaccurately rewritten a wikipedia article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CAP-e (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The original wikipedia article was dramatically and inaccurately rewritten with the explanation that it was not notable. Clearly it is notable as it describes a unique and published method for determining antioxidant bioavailability. I am having difficulty determining what the options and/or protocols are for rolling back the current article to the original content. --Dcruickshank 99 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor who made the changes explained on the article's Talk page why, in his/her view, the process wasn't notable; and commented that the rewrite was to avoid a nomination for deletion on that ground. At first blush everything appears to have been above board and in good faith. Your first stop in trying to sort out this disagreement would be to review that editor's points and respond to or comment on them there. Good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am in the process of preparing a response, but what next. I mean conceivably we could just go back and forth rebutting each others comments. --Dcruickshank 99 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcruickshank 99 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well - first see what the discussion teases out. It may be that s/he misunderstands the process. It may be that you misunderstand the relevant policies. Or something between. Perhaps you will find agreement - hard to say. Please remember in any case to assume good faith and remain civil, and the discussion will go more smoothly, even if you can't find middle ground. Should that happen - no middle ground that is - and no other editor(s) appear to help break the deadlock, then there are mechanisms for bringing the dispute to a wider audience so that consensus can be reached and the article stabilized. Do take a look at the policies that editor has noted - a good understanding of them will make any response on your part more persuasive. Again, good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again! Although, in addition to responding on the discussion page is there any reason I can`t provide a concise and thorough rewrite of the article on my own.--Dcruickshank 99 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

we cant judge merit bu notability is established from unrelated sources, not self-cites.

There is no rule against it as such but my sense is that at this point it would probably be best to discuss the issues, and any further revisions you want to make, beforehand. You could put your proposed counter-revision onto a page in your user space for comment (although, ever the dilettante, I can't advise on how to do that precisely). You really do want to avoid ping-ponging back and forth between two different versions. JohnInDC (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add information to the article en.wikipedia.com/wiki/eng-tips.com about how users are frequently blocked from using the website or many people are experiencing difficulties with the website. However, a few people who own the site keep a close eye on Wikipedia and delete any negative comment immediately. Numerous websites confirm that difficulties exist but nothing has been published by a publisher. Is there any way to include this content, such as criticism or controversy? I have seen lots of examples of this on Wikipedia.

Thanks, LG Magone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If no reliable sources have published the information, then no. Such content is not only unverifiable, but would be insignificant even if true. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mishawaka, Indiana

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the above article and discussion. COM continues to revert changes which are accurate and made in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.133.201 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

By "made in good faith", the IP means against consensus. The IP was nearly blocked for 3RR, was reverted by 3 separate editors, and now wants to keep adding the same material. The material he/she keeps adding is either uncited, or against consensus. With another revert on this article, the IP will once again be guilty of violating 3RR, for which he/she has been warned, again. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On a larger note, what happens when "against consensus" is in conformity with the existent literature? For example, if you did get a flood of pro-foo editors when the literature was anti-foo? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

benzodiazapine drug misuse, lack of credible sourcing

Stuck

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Benzodiazepine_drug_misuse article is being continuosly reverted by Literaturegeek. They have not provided a credible or secondary source for the, in my opinion, already irrelevent subtopic of Drug-related_deviance in the article. This person has also accused me of being a sockpuppet and has not responded to my posts on the Talk page. Skrewler (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In reality you were reverted by 3 editors, one of whom was an admin. I only reverted you twice. You deleted the same text 4 times. If you are not a sockpuppet it is strange that you have "requested admin assistance" but worded it in such a way as to make your dispute an "issue" only with me, why not mention the other editors who were involved in the dispute? Also another editor tagged your userpage and filed a report of you being a sockpuppet and it was another editor who accused you of vandalism, an admin I think. Why single me out, if this is not personal and you are not a sock puppet? This trying to recruit projects to join your side is also strangely familar.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR is for 3 reverts on a single page in 24 hours. I see User:Literaturegeek has only reverted you once per 24 hour period. However, the 3RR rule is not really the best first option (though as I said, Literaturegeek did not come close to violating this rule). Also, given Literaturegeek's continued work on the article, I'd imagine he would have the best interests of the article in mind during his revert. Given that two editors have reverted your removal, it is best to take it to the article's talk page before violating 3RR yourself. Commenting on the article directly, I see a lot of general conclusions based on a single government source. While I trust the Australian government just as much I trust every other government, it does seem a bit much to give an entire paragraph to a single survey performed on a island country founded as a penal colony and generalize to drug misuse/abusers everywhere. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Oldie5533. I agree with your points. I have been in discussion with another editor regarding these very points, on her talk page.User_talk:Cosmic_Latte#Reverted We are discussing how to resolve undue weight, see my last post to her. I think that it should be bore in mind that the article in question is a relatively new article and for its young age is in good shape. I am certainly open to other editors improving the article, consensus building and so forth. I am just having issues with disruptive and combative editing. I will in the near future try and incorporate findings from other countries.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is up to debate. It is original research by Literaturegeek on benzodiazapine drug deviance. There is probably a reason why I can find absolutely nothing on benzodiazepine drug related deviance or crime on multiple journal sites (yes, I have fulltext access). In the talk page I explained this, yet you resorted to a personal attack instead of addressing any of my points. I have no idea why you think that a primary source from the Australian government is a reliable source. Unless you can find some sources, it should be removed, why I had to request help with this, I have no idea.Skrewler (talk) 00:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop these false accusations. It was Cosmic latte who edited in the term deviance in preference to crime not I. The reference was on crime, I will change it back to crime though as that is what reference was about. I actually personally think crime is more accurate than deviance. I have addressed your concerns on talk page. If you find a recent secondary source covering the very points that a primary source is covering then it should be removed. If we deleted every primary source from wikipedia half of wikipedia would disappear. Primary sources are not outlawed. See WP:MEDRS, they can be used cautiously. They should not be used to cast doubt on secondary source but no secondary source is tehre that it is casting doubt on. Please read WP:MEDRS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care what the name of the subsection is, whatever the name, it is not encyclopedic and should be removed. Your link WP:MEDRS simply strengthens my argument, not yours. Some claims made on one website (that is a broken link now), does not mean it should be included in the encyclopedia. Your claim about deleting every primary source on all the articles is hyperbole. Just because there are equally bad, or even worse, subsections in existing articles does not mean that this one should stay. I have already provided two secondary sources, review articles, about benzodiazipine related crime. In fact it's in the article right now. The claims made in that section from the Australian government lack verifiability and constitute original research.Skrewler (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comments seem to me like you think this is some personal vendetta on you or something. To be clear, I couldn't care less who did what first, last, blah blah blah. The subsection needs to be removed, it makes the encyclopedia look bad.Skrewler (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The reviews which you provided were on drug facilitated sexual assaults and robberies, i.e. drink spiking. This is a whole different aspect of crime from the Oz government report. If you are claiming that drink spiking reviews should be used to delete the Oz gov report which is not about drink spiking then this is misusing irrelevant refs. I don't think that you understand what original research and verifiable means. Undue weight is a policy might be useful though with the Oz gov report, perhaps we could compromise and work out a way to give it less prominance in the article and shorten the section?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that info on drink spiking is more reasonable because it's properly sourced. If it's verifiable and not original research then show me a valid source. The burden is on you, not I. Also when should I escalate this to a RfA? Skrewler (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced. Arbcom would not accept a case like this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, both Skrewler and Literaturegeek have (at the core of their arguments) valid points. Skrewler is right that primary sources shouldn't be given undue weight. But Literaturegeek knows this, and he's right to note that if secondary research is not forthcoming, then decent primary material, if available, might have to do for the meantime. Material derived from primary sources can't really have undue weight if it can't even be weighed against anything else. Yes, it can be easy to fall into original-research traps when citing primary sources; one can inadvertently create emphases and connections that the authors did not precisely make. WP:SYN can be one of the toughest obstacles to get around. But in a thought experiment that I've just devised, I imagine a primary source that, for one reason or another, passes WP:GNG, even survives WP:AFD, and ends up with its own, solid article space here. Won't the article have to go into some detail about what the study says? In this case, too, there likely wouldn't be any secondary material against which to weigh the primary findings. One could see the benzodiazapine section as a microcosm of the aforementioned article-about-an-article. I just would want to ensure two things. First, the section cannot allow the reader to lose sight of the fact that the section is derived from a single study. And second, the section should be compared with the full text of the source, and should be cleaned of any conceptual brushstrokes that do not appear proportionately in the source. And on a slightly different note, c'mon now. Neither sockpuppetry accusations, nor threats to "escalate this to a RfA", are going to improve the article. A little bit of WP:LOVE can go a long way. And that, I think, is pretty WP:COOL. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Words of wisdom Cosmic as well as good common sense advice!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? Are you an admin or just some random dude? The link doesn't even work. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi336.pdf Skrewler (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I dont know what arbcom is. I guess I meant RfC. Skrewler (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article. If you feel that I've misread something, please feel free to tell me what I missed. To answer your second question, I'm "just some random dude"--but it doesn't really matter, because 1) arguments rest on their own merit, not on the administrative capabilities of the arguer, and 2) individual administrators generally shouldn't exercise their extra capabilities in a content dispute involving them. As for the link, I'm glad you pointed out that it was broken, and I introduced a live link here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems inserting external link into Southern Comfort Conference

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a staff member of the Southern Comfort Conference, and am also the moderator of the conference's Yahoo Group. We use this group as an information resource and exchange for attendees. The group has been around since 2001, with over 2200 members.

When I tried to add an external link to the group, it was removed by your bot, and I was send a vague message that it didn't meet Wikipedia standards. Does this mean that all Yahoo Groups links are invalid? This means that we cannot link to one of our most useful resources?

Please let me know why I can't link to this group.

--DivaMissZ (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not to be used to accumulate a collection of links. External links are only used in articles for some very specific reasons and there are many more reasons for excluding them. See our guideline WP:EL for more details. I would advise you to concentrate on finding some reliable sources to establish notability of your group rather trying to insert a Yahoo Groups link. Without sources their is a danger the article will be nominated for deletion. SpinningSpark 01:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the links you have just inserted after making this post are even more inapprpriate and have been removed. SpinningSpark 01:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The links are being removed by a bot. If a bot removes them, they are blatantly inappropriate, not just borderline. please read WP:ELNO.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 13:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Diva, sorry about the rough welcome here. The above editors are correct in their assessment of those links, first of all. Second, though, I do see some hope for the Conference article, since I found a few relevant hits in Google News. (You really need to focus on finding more of those reliable sources that help establish the notability of the subject!) Since I do have some faith in this topic's notability, I have removed the PROD. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

FEMA Article

Resolved

– EDitor blocked Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Users QueenofBattle and Sceptre are vandalising the talk page on the FEMA article. Refusing to discuss the inclusion of subject material and instead deleting user comments, despite those comments meeting discussion on-topic with inclusion the article and their dismissal of anything related to agreeing it should be in the article. 203.171.199.156 (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Sutter Cane

For your consideration, and as can be seen, user 203.171.199.156 has used the talk page as a forum. Additionally, I have reported 203.171.199.156's 3RR behavior here. ANON has also filed a retaliatory, bad faith 3RR notice, while continuing threats and incivility at my talk page. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As an update, user 203.171.199.156 has been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule and using a talk page as a forum. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The same editor ("Sutter Cane") had 203.171.196.230 blocked from editing for block evasion. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be advised that Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) has been baiting and goading me into having an edit war with him. Please refer to the message he left on my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jiujitsuguy#Gaza_War_3 What makes this more troubling is the fact that just prior to this post, he filed a complaint against me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tyw7#Hi_again.21 I believe that he is deliberately attempting to set me up for an ANI complaint. Mr Anon Unsigned has a nasty tendency to revert sourced material and when he encounters resistance, he files a complaint in an attempt to censor those who disagree with him. But please don't take my word for it. The post below is from Stellarkid (talk) and directed at Mr Anon Unsigned:

"I do think the comments that Juijitsui guy put up at ANI that you put on his talk page were inexcusable, however. And I see what is going on, where you make POV edits and then when someone reverts them, you report him, as non-collaborative. It certainly appears to be an effort to silence those who disagree with you. Hey but that's just my opinion." Stellarkid (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"You are of course correct that one can see another's errors more easily than one's own. You accused me of combativeness in your last post, but it was not until you began with the wikilawyer at various boards that I became less willing to WP:AGF. Prior to that, I excused much of what you said on the basis of my assumption that English was not your first language, which made it harder to understand why you were so willing to revert (without comment) material that rested much of its rationale on English grammar, and WP:NONENG and was being amply discussed at TALK. Looking over your edits more closely and listening to you at TALK, I did come to believe that your removals of material were quite one-sided and thus inappropriate. The chart, which covers only a little over a week of edits, does seem to reflect that. Again, I probably would not have been inclined to be looking so closely at your editing behavior, if you hadn't been running off to "Etiquette Boards" making charges against others when you clearly had a "moat" in your own eye!" Stellarkid (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can plainly see, he is not constructive but rather destructive and many of his comments are laced with racist invective. I'm doing my best to ignore him but it is difficult given the fact that he continues to post on my page (despite being told not to), continues to issue complaints against me, continues to revert sourced material and continues to goad and bait me. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not much that we, the volunteer assistants at WP:EAR, can do. You can file your own complaint at WP:ANI. Remember to stay calm and not respond to provocation. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Doublemoon Content in Wikipedia

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir / Madam,

This is Ezgi Canerli from Doublemoon Records. We have a problem with regards to our pages on Wikipedia English..We have pages of our artists that include their bios. All rights about these bios belong to us, as you can see on our own official web site, we use them in our press kits, web site, rosters everywhere since they are written by our team.

Ayhan Sicimoğlu Bio

But when we use them on wikipedia they are somehow deleted. I dont know how to process with this problem and kindly ask your help since this platform is important for us and keeping editing the deleted articles doesnt make any sense.

Looking forward to your feedback,

--Doublemoon (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Ezgi Canerli

Contact info removed to minimise spam.

Everthing contributed to Wikipedia must be released under the CC-BY-SA licence and the GFDL. It says so right beneath the edit window. IF you choose to retain rights in the material then it obviously is not released as described, so it will be deleted.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for advertising and we require a neutral point of view, not a promotional tone.

Please also see our username policy at WP:USERNAME; you appear to be at risk of breaching that too. --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted as blatant copyright violation. All content is licensed under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license as well as the GFLD, so material that is copyrighted elsewhere (and is not a fair use image) is not allowed on Wikipedia.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tribe: Spin offs and Continuations section

Unresolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am working on The Tribe article and have tried to make it as factual as possible and have added references. I have a disagreement with another editor on a section of the article. User:Lancemitchell added a section about fan productions that has changed name three times since then. I have tried to explain on the talk page why I think the section is problematic and why it needs to be improved and properly referenced but we can’t seem to understand each other. (Talk:Fan Productions and Talk:Spin offs and Continuations) I asked for some feedback on the article and other editors added different templates but User:Lancemitchell removed them. Could you help me in resolving this dispute? Am I wrong in thinking the section needs to be worked on? Thank you. ErisDysnomia (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Loading several images into one page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Example: I'd like to upload different images (of a book cover) unto one Wiki image page.

Is it permitted by Wiki rules if it's just a Cover (of a crime let's say) submitted at different times?
How do I upload a couple of images unto one page?
Please respond on my Talk page at User:Ludvikus.

--Ludvikus (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Each image must be uploaded separately, but several images can be displayed in one article. See WP:IG for more info. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Preparing a biographical entry

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been encouraged, by friends, to prepare a biography. As a senior professor at the Catholic University of America Law School here in Washington, D.C., I have a rather substantial bibliography. Asking people around here at the school for someone whom I could retain to do the submission has landed me nowhere--for, no one seems to understand the process that you have laid out for submitting a biorgraphy. So, I write to ask whether you might be able to suggest the name(s) of people whom I could retain to prepare my submission? Many thanks. (Prof.) George P. Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.148.205 (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers who are interested in this type of activity scan the lists at WP:RA, so you could add yourself there, perhaps to the section WP:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law#Jurists, judges, attorneys and legal workers. One of the criteria to be applied is that we require subjects to be notable, and the usual standards for academic people are laid out at WP:PROF. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to reply with a lawyer joke but I think the confusion relates to this being predicated on volunteer contributors without much formal process or review(editorial prior restraint?). Generally if people stick to the topic rather than personal issues it seems bureacracy can be minimized and only in reaction to problems do "formalities" exist. So, I suggest you just get an account and start editing in your own user space ( terms that others can point you to) and solicit feedback from others here as you progress. It isn't clear exactly what bio you are talking about or if you would have a conflict but certainly it is possible for people with experience writing impartial or other non-promotional pieces to write COI entries especially if you solicit additional opinions here. Wikipedia does have a problem with self-promotional pieces but if you have a notable topic as described above, usually these issues can be fixed. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Once an article is created the original author no longer has control over its contents and anyone can edit it. You may wish to look at the edit histories and discussion pages of biography articles first to see if you really want an article. There is an article about the Columbus School of Law which provides a link to the School. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidance on complaints about RFC closure

Stale

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have closed an RFC Talk:Information_Technology_Infrastructure_Library#RFC:_Link_to_itilcommunity.com and prior to closure struck out a comment from an anonymous vandal that has now been blocked for 5 years 69.65.40.43 (talk · contribs) in compliance with the guidance of WP:TALKNO. After closing the RFC, two editors have complained that the anonymous comment was struck out and the RFC does not represent consensus. It should be noted that this is the second attempt to reach consensus on this matter and one of the complainants has a long history of lobbying for the external link under discussion, as per the lengthy and emotive discussions on the talk page spanning for a year and a half, whilst the other has made only one edit (to undo vandalism) to the page in question.

I believe the RFC was closed fairly and would welcome an independent view one way or the other; or advice on how (or whether) to proceed.—Ash (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look anything like consensus to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

re. invalid neutrality disputed tag

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

re. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_for_the_Survival_of_the_Ogoni_People

An unidentified user or 'Nihonjoe' have tagged the page with a 'neutrality disputed' and 'references needed' tag, saying that he/she was 'just passing through' but actually if you look at the history -they've been doing much more than passing through.

It looks probable that this is a Shell troll trying to undermine the credibility of information against them by just adding a 'neutrality disputed' tag without providing the slightest evidence for why the article fails on NPOV -if you look, it mostly consists of just listed hard historical facts, not opinions of sympathy.

As everyone knows, Shell has one of the worst histories of human rights abuses in poor countries of any major company, and just don't want the facts being published if they can possibly prevent it.

I would like to remove the tags unless the pro-Shell users can provide specific evidence for why the article is biased. Kester ratcliff (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kester, please assume good faith of other editors. Nihonjoe is actually a Wikipedia administrator and somewhat unlikely to be a shill or a troll for Shell. I took a look at the article and I agree with the assessments of Nihonjoe and the IP on the talk page; the article is phrased in a way that presents not only facts, but opinions about those facts. Phrases like "the degradation of their lands by Shell in Nigeria" are not neutral, and the article generally presents the situation only from a point of view that appears to be sympathetic to the MOSOP. It is not Wikipedia's job to be sympathetic to either side in a dispute; we must remain neutral and present only facts and/or well-sourced analyses by reliable sources.

In addition, I would recommend that you not remove any tags from the article, as it appears that you may be emotionally involved in this dispute and may not be able to remain impartial. If you disagree with the tag, the thing to do is generally to discuss it on the article talk page and either try to persuade the people you disagree with that the article is neutral, or work with them to remedy the shortcomings in the article. Accusing people you disagree with of bad faith and of being trolls or biased is unlikely to resolve the dispute. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this but with notable issues, several options exist. Abortion is so large that both sides have their own pages. If there is a controversy, it is likely multiple POV's exist and the goal is to represent them inline with their prominence. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you haven't, then your suggestion may not be very helpful. This isn't abortion, it's a clear-cut case of an organization active in a field where there are great differences of opinion. Controversy sections should be discouraged, in my opinion, since they often invite sensationalism and recentism. The article can easily be made to be as objective as it needs to be, by careful editing for POV language and by giving proper references. As it stands, the article is not encyclopedic--it is not entirely neutral in perspective and language and needs additional sources to verify the information. The tags are there for the right reason, and they should stay until the issues are resolved, on the talk page for starters. Happy editing, and power to the people, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you may not find pro-genocide groups to cite but if there are notable differences or opinion I'm not sure what you mean by "objective" other than by objectively describing statements of opinion from whatever notable groups may exist. I'm also not sure what you mean about contrast with abortion situation as the rest of your sentence seems to contradict your point- are you saying that in the case of this article one side is right and the other (clearly )wrong? Sensationalism can't be the contribution of the wikipedian but if in fact a prominent group with a role in this topic makes sensationalist claims, they may qualify for inclusion but they need to be sourced. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all. That article can definitely be improved by going to some NEWS sources for information, rather than simply to sources that are sympathetic to the Ogonis. Try http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=ogoni&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn, and you will find other places for information. I am also putting this info on the Talk Page for the WP article. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Prominent Grunge acts

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In the Grunge article, I have contested that the supergroups Temple of the Dog and Mad Season do not belong in the "Prominent bands" section in the article, and have listed my argument and facts in support of in the article's respective [page] with little success. Please see my statements in support of my argument on the talk page and advise. Thank you for your help. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On a quick read, this seems to be the same problem what comes up in all taxonomical or catagory debates. In the case of classifying living organisms, or even defining attriubtes of life, you are engaging in original research. I don't see any reason why this would be much different. That is, unless all the authoritative sources in the field have a single list of "porminent groups" they use, you are stuck defining the term in some made-up way either from wikipedia guidelines or colloquial usage. The latter debate can not be settled by appeal to factual material with more precise definition and original research. If you want to use wiki criteria on promience, you end up with things like relative weight of coverage, it isn't so much binary. Personally it seems something like a footnote or explanation or multiple/hierarchial lists may break the stalemate in this "false-dichotomy(" just yes or no please"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to blow up on me. According to JD554 I have gained consensus and have been issued an three-revert rule warning. I'm trying to do the right thing here, but now it seems that I'm on the verge of being reprimanded. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I said there was no consensus (diff). --JD554 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Misread that one, mistook "consensus" as a bad thing, lol. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all a bit silly and has been blown out of proportion. Darwin's Bulldog is the only one pushing for this content removal in the face of long-standing consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone made a list as part of the article, maybe 2 lists, and it doesn't seem there is any established criteria for inclusion. If there are relevant distinctions, then maybe adding details or catagories or levels to the list would help. Sometimes people show up with new detauils to add. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The criteria has long been "bands notable enough to have an article". WesleyDodds (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add the Rolling Stones. It looks like the Grunge class is the issue. If there is a notable distinction, it would seem to serve the reader to point it out and maybe add a branch to the list or something. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Branch out to what, and what do the stones have to do with the subject matter? No offense, but this isn't making much sense. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK stones have nothing to do with this, earlier poster suggested band with article is all that is needed but dispute seems to be over divisions of grunge. I have no idea how you split this phylum into species and subspecies but species anyway is define generally by ability to produce fertile offspring, if that is any help here(LOL). The OP on this topic seems to have specific reasons those contested entries are different, if they are helpful to topic split list according to some criteria like these. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant "grunge bands notable enough to have an article". WesleyDodds (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think everyone knows what you meant, including me. At issue from the talk page seems to be definition of taxonomy of these groups. Exclusion notion came from some details. This would suggest making a grunge tree, not a simple list or two. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Koo86 uploads

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Koo86 (talk · contribs) has done some fine work improving the Rochester Institute of Technology article, but he/she recently began uploading photos for use in the article. The first one I noticed, I tagged for speedy deletion, as it had no source or license information. Koo86 made no response to this except to remove the image from the article after it was tagged for deletion. None of this user's image uploads have any source or license information, but the user has not edited Wikipedia since my most recent message asking him/her to stop uploading images without source and license. Should I go ahead and tag the rest? If so, is there an easy and/or quick way to do so? Powers ^T 13:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If the images are indeed unlicensed then by all means please do so. This is a volunteer project and needs active participation. I don't know of any quick bulk way of doing this. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer on Packers Plus Energy Services Page

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Packers Plus Energy Services page has been rewritten several times to keep it from sounding like an advertisemnt, but the disclaimer is still on the page. How should I rewrite it to keep it neutral?

Egjackson (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The disclaimer doesn't automatically go away. I'd recommend talking to whoever thinks the article has a problem, finding out if they think any problem remains. Once you've got a consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS) that the problem has been solved, you or somebody else can remove the disclaimer.

It seems to me like there is still a little bit of a problem. It's not bad, but parts like "created the ... (R) system and the ... (R) system" and "worked in numerous locations including" still sound like somebody trying to tell me how wonderful the company is.

So I'd recommend posting at Talk:Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. (the article's talk page) and User talk:CardinalDan (the talk page for the user who added the disclaimer) to get the discussion going.

I also see another problem in article. A Wikipedia article should reference reliable, third party sources. See WP:RS. That's things like newspaper articles, books, and so on that are independent of Packers Plus (so, not the company website, and not press releases) that were published and that say something significant about the company.

Ideally, every piece of information in a Wikipedia article should be traceable to one or more such sources, which should be cited in the article (see WP:CITE). It doesn't always turn out that way, but, we try.

Having sources also helps establish notability. Notability is what determines whether a subject should, or should not, have a Wikipedia article about it. See WP:NOTE for the details. It's often a problem for new Wikipedia articles.

The article in Oilweek Magazine here that you linked from the original version of the article looks like it might be a usable source.

Also, if you, personally, are affiliated with Packers Plus then you should be aware of the possibility of conflict of interest. It doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't edit, but you may have to be careful. See WP:COI for an explanation.

I've included links to various Wikipedia policies in my reply above. I hope I don't frighten you into thinking you have to read every one of them. I never have. But they're a good place to look for more information. Others I'll mention: WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:WELCOME. -- Why Not A Duck 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

schuminweb

Resolved

there is a user named schuminweb who keeps delteing my edits I make. I live in De and I know the fire drill regulations there. i make the edit and he deltes it and keeps stalking me. If this continues i will call the police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dperry25 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User blocked for making legal threats. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unmerrited Article Merger -- Proposition (Grammar) with Proposition

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Article Proposition (Grammar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which deals with the linguistic use of that term in describing various grammar phenomena has been merged twice today with the overall Proposition article which while also talking about sentences is an article which is primarily about the use of the term in philosophy. My article has NOTHING to do with philosophy and the pages which reference it are linguistic pages and not philosophy pages. To avoid confusion the article is named Proposition (Grammar) because it is about propositions in linguistic analysis of grammar and not philosophical arguments of logic.

I have unmerged it twice and asked on the discussion page that it be left that way pending discussion. This has not happened. Please protect the grammar article until this can be resolved. Drew.ward (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I invite any linguist and grammarian to judge this request on its merits. But let me add that it misrepresents ever so slightly what is going on: editor is trying to draw some absolute distinction between grammar and philosophy, but connecting these two is logic, which he does not mention, and which is in fact takes up a large part of Proposition. "Philosophical arguments of logic" is a vaguerie, and whatever it may denote, it is not what is going on in Proposition. Please see also Talk:Proposition (Grammar). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

So the two of you are in a deadlock. You could ask for a WP:Third Opinion or start an WP:RfC. That is the best I can suggest. WE don't do judgement on who is right or wrong here - this will only progress via compromise and editors working together to advance the project. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCKK

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The page for my company, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCKK, is continually vandalized by an anonymous user. I have tried to block anonymous edits to this page, but the vandalism continues. Any assistance you can provide is greatly appreciated.

KCKKRadio (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Only admins can protect pages, so I have removed the template that you added to the page. I have warned the IP about the vandalism. If it persists you can request protection at WP:RFP. – ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lend America

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For the past two days, I tried to develop Lend America's stub entry since they were featured in the news in connection with a government investigation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_America

However, since English is not my first language, and since this is the first time I am contributing to Wikipedia, I need help with the citations and grammar. Can someone look at these issues? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikobetta (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source, whoever led with that. It would help to start with popular press and back things up with other sources but there is disagreement at this point- I prefer citing primary sources as an aid to reader ( court documents etc) - but it at least has to be something that you can believe as a credible source for whatever you claim. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Made improvements so that entry does not read like advertisement or spam

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I recently followed Wikipedia's suggestions and made changes so that this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Illinois_College_of_Medicine

would not read like an advertisement or spam. Can you review it and tell me if it's revised enough to have the spam notice at the top of the page removed? If it's not, what else should be changed? Also, what is the process of having such notices removed; do contributors make changes and wait for a review, or make changes and send the revised article to Wikipedia and request a review? Thanks. 128.248.93.114 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) MS

Looks pretty good. Needs a tad of copy editing, and it definitely needs inline citations. Any newspaper articles you could link to? Anything deal with the history of the place? Any big controversies? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a duplicate of College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GeorgeLouis, and thanks Jezhotwells. Also wanted to note that University of Illinois College of Medicine is not a duplicate of College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign. The Urbana campus is part of the College of Medicine. The college offers a program at four geographic sites: Chicago, Peoria, Rockford, and Urbana 128.248.93.114 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)MS

Jordan Belfort spam

Resolved

– offending editor blocked Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A series of editors have attempted to turn [Jordan Belfort] into an advertisement. Attempts to engage the editors in discussion are ignored and a revert war appears imminent. Any suggestions? Splorksplorksplork (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Now up to third revert. Have added plea to discuss both on user page of spamming editor and article page in question, no engagement. Splorksplorksplork (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Added edit war warning to userpage talk for Reaction93 Splorksplorksplork (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I ended up blocking the user for 24 hours after warning them myself. It looks like they are willing to engage though, after their block expires, I hope we can come to a compromise version. --Leivick (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

warning sighn that appears on the wikipedia page on ayisi makatiani

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayisi_Makatiani

How can I prevent the warning sign that reads "This article may not meet the general notability guideline...." from appearing at the beggining of the page when infact I have exhausted all my sources yet I still feel the individual is notable enough to warrant there own page. (At least in our corner of the world - Kenya and Africa) for example being a founder of one of the Largest ISP providers in Subsaharan Africa at a time when technological revolution had yet to hit the continent...just an example.

Please assist,

Thanks

<email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.213.38 (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have any sources and simply holding obscure even if "high-level" company positions doesn't usually qualify. Probably he is notable if the statements in article are true but someone needs to document- consider moving external links into inline citations where possible. I'm big on "notable but obscure" but I'm not sure who had noted what about him. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

is there a means to make editor lists for notifications (spam) on a given topic?

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We have a few editors who have contributed to a page but have since had scattered conversations in various places- too many for them all to watch. Is there a way to make a list of editors to which the same message can be sent at once? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You can use AutoWikiBrowser to deliver the messages, but you'll have to get the list of editors manually of course. I'm not sure if this is what you're asking though. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think rather than use a Windoze app in C# I'll just modify my scripts to do this. Users may be better of installing cygwin instead of custom code that only runs on one proprietary OS ( windoze). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've advertised by creating bogus page, this seems to work now. Fairly simple bash script but it does have failure modes etc. Should work anywhere that supports bash but I haven't tried it on debian yet, works ok on cygwin. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Automatic Listing in a category is doing it by first name, not last name

Resolved

– sort fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Friends:

My latest posting 'Edwin Russell' is appearing under 'E' not under 'R' in category of newspaper editors. Is there a way to see that it gets to 'R' ? Thanks,

ETCCERC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etccerc (talk • contribs) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added the {{DEFAULTSORT:Russell, Edwin}} code to fix the sorting. – ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dick McMahon

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How can I delete this article written about me? Thanks very much Dickmcmahon (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Only admins can delete articles and then only after one of the deletion procedures is followed (WP:CSD, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD). Is the article factually inaccurate? If so we have a mechanism for those errors to be corrected, see WP:BIOSELF. – ukexpat (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_McMahon It looks like you were a big contributor to it but in current form may fail notability and be deleted anyway. Unsourced information can be removed quickly in BLP articles- you may be able to flag it yourself "db-blp" placed in double curly braces iirc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Db-blp}} is for attack pages, which this clearly is not. – ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Request removal of "cleanup" and "references required" tags

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello:

In 2007, prior to my edits, the article was tagged as requiring "cleanup" and "references . . . [to] reliable third-party sources."

Because my edits specifically addressed the tagged concerns, I'd like to request review of the updated entry and removal of the aforementioned tags, assuming the sufficiency of my changes.

Thank you.

--Asiangoose (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think the issues have been dealt with please go ahead and removed the tags. Would be a good idea to explain on the article's talk page why you have done so. – ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

2016 Olympics Edit War

Resolved

– consensus achieved Jezhotwells (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am requesting that the editors review the 2016 Summer Olympics page for an edit war between registered user Limongi and IP user 67.182.141.118 and Jrgilb. The IP user and Jrgilb referred to safety concerns in their edit history of the page, but Limongi promptly removed such discussion with the rationale that the stated and cited sources for the violence of Rio as "Points of View." While whether the city is safe or not may be a "point of view" simply stating that there are safety problems is not and other Summer Olympic wikis (e.g. 2008 Beijing Games) have other examples of issues facing the Olympics. Therefore, it is my contention that Limongi's edits are unfair and should be reviewed.

Thank you.

130.76.32.145 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the additions of material by IPs about safety is couched in highly POV language and thus has been correctly removed. I also note that there is no discussion about this on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a short exchange of views at Talk:2016 Summer Olympics#Crime concern in the city. – ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, missed that. I have left a note suggesting an RFC if consensus can't be achieved. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin: Children's birth dates

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a small squabble about the article on Sarah Palin. Some, including me, would like to include the birth dates of those children who have attained their majority or have been often in the news. Others want to eliminate the birth dates, especially of Track Palin, Sarah Palin’s oldest child. James Nicol (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't achieve consensus on the talk page to include the dates, leave them out. Are any of her children notable in any way? I think not, so it really doesn't matter, does it?Jezhotwells (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the reason for including the birthdates is to "prove" that Sarah Palin was pregnant when she got married. I thought that nonsense was settled a year ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you think all the trolls have magically left here and won't come back? They are still here and I doubt they will ever leave. Just part of the project unforetuneately.--Tom (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The trolling has now spilled over to the husbands article. Can somebody step in? TIA --Tom (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If we can't achieve consensus, then let us leave them in. Why would a site whose mission is to provide information default to a position of providing less information? As for "notability", in the biography of a public figure--particularly one who has surrounded herself with her children, one who defines herself (before governor or vice-presidential candidate) as a "mom"--one's children become notable. Indeed, one, her eldest daughter, Bristol, has her own article (yet the Palin-censors won't permit Bristol's birth date to appear in articles about her parents); another had his birth defect proclaimed in every medium just a little over a year ago; and a third has a website that prays for him to be safe in Iraq. Could someone please explain why the date of his enlistment is more pertinent than the date of his birth? James Nicol (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

punch cards, APL, Fortran, Cobol, dotnet, Java, i could go on...

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

i'm a 35 year programming veteran. punch cards, APL, Fortran, Cobol, dotnet, Java, i could go on...

i've been a big contributer to wikipedia for 4 years.

lately, all my edits are "reverted" for some reason. i'm extremely bugged by this.

i'm most likely giving up on wikipedia. i believed in it strongly -- but what is going on with this website???

Tim Predmore <e-mail redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redraider57 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the edit history of Piseco, New York. IMHO the pre-stub version read more like a travel journal or holiday brochure entry. Please consider adding back some of the content in a more encyclopedic form rather than reverting it back wholesale. – ukexpat (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

David Lane- Attorney

Resolved

– vandalism reverted Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

His brief entry has been edited to include the halfhearted slur "But in FACT Media Darling Lawyers are "CHEAAP" if not disgusting."

I thoroughly believe that Lane is a repugnant human being. However, this is not an appropriate entry for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.157.141 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed. Thanks for letting us know. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Lactoferrin - external links

Resolved

– spam ELs removed and explanation given Jezhotwells (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have placed a link to my research infromation site about Lactoferrin in the "External Links" section of wikipedia's "Lctoferrin" page. I believe the information is a valid resource on this glycoprotein.

However, somebody or something continues to remove this link. At the moment there is a link to a page called "lactoferrinresearch.org", and that page contains no valid information on the subject of lactoferrin?

How can I prevent my link placed, from being continually removed in place of unvalid "content-less" links?

Many thanks

Seph88 (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. In the lactoferrin article, I removed the link to "lactoferrin-supplements.com" while leaving in place the link to "lactoferrinresearch.org". Per WP:LINKSPAM, neither link is appropriate therefore I now have removed both links. The "lactoferrin-supplements.com" website contains unsourced material claiming the health benefits of lactoferrin and contains very little information that would be useful to a wide audience. The primary purpose of this web site is to promote the sales of lactoferrin from one particular distributor in the UK . This type of external link from a Wikipedia article is clearly not appropriate. Boghog (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart radio signals section

Answered

– discussion continues at talk page Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amelia_Earhart#Section_on_Radio_Signals_After_Loss_is_outdated.2C_inaccurate.2C_and_poorly_ordered This article is semi-locked. I made extensive corrections on the talk page, the most important of which are factual in nature, including corrections to broken links and other non-subjective issues in the references. I am not sure who is controlling the lock, but a user tending the page seems to be intent on keeping it unchanged despite a request from editors that it be revised to be considered as a featured article. Dan Knauss (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you have made arequest at the talk page for addition so you just have to await a response. Jezhotwells (talk)

Jayne Pierson

Answered

– article has been cleaned up, discussion continues at talk page

Dear Sir/madam,

My user name is saber.etc and I recently created a wikipedia profile for Jayne Pierson (fashion designer). In doing so I have stuck to the guidelines of "biographies of living people". I have established, internal links , citations, references and external links. The citations are from reputed news websites such as BBC. Also the writing is in a neutral point of view with a component for criticism.

Therefore, I request that the box appearing on top of the article to be removed. The quality standards and citations concerns are dated September 2009 and if you look at the versions recently, you will be able to observe that since September I have met all the requirements for this article in terms of internal links, external links, references and in line citations.

Also If I have left anything out, please let me know as soon as possible so I will be able to fix what ever is wrong and get back to you.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Regards,

Navam Niles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.232.41 (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article ( fwiw, it would be easier if you copied link from browser to this page so we canjust click) but often people in this area mistake puffery for encyclopedic content ( don't worry, this is not an occupation slur, the scientific/financial modellers at various real companies have gotten confused about puffery too LOL). Also, there can be an issue with notability- you need to find sources independent of the topic that have mentioned the topic in at least enough depth to create a decent article without much reference to dependent/primary sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like User:Fluffybunny0101 has removed it already. If you feel that you have addressed such issues, it is fine to remove such tags, preferably leaving a note on the talk page to explain. On another note the image File:Jayne Pierson.jpg does not appear to be correctly licensed as it states that Photograph cannot be re-used without the permission of Jayne Pierson., yet is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 which is essentially contradictory. Did you, User:Saber.etc actually taker the picture. If you did not then you are not the copyright holder. It would appear the Ross Pierson is the copyright holder. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I added notability tag after looking at refs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayne_Pierson , as they all seem to be confined to interviews with a local pub, walesonline, or directory or ad listings. The tone is more that of an ad with lots of peacock terms but many seem to be sourced, can't tell if peacock came from wikipedian or sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wales Online (The Western Mail), the BBC, fforwm.ac.uk and London Fashion Week are all RS, so that tag is unjustified as has been removed. There are a number of issues with the artcle, I have left a note on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess it first depends on what "national/regional" or "local" mean in this context compared to the coverage of the Wales publication. I also didn't look in detail but often these "interviews" are promotional or otherwise non-news items but I'll have to give benefit of doubt on this until I've looked. The other ones looked like directory listings or ads and coverage of her as a student( "hometown girl goes to school"). I've taken this to the talk page as I'm not sure there are larger issues involved but just topic specific. I guess I'd just have to ask exactly what she is notable for maybe but it may be clear in article once puffery is gone. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Local official languages in Russia

In all the articles for the federal subjects of Russian there is a footnote stating that: According to Article 68.2 of the Constitution of Russia, only republics have the right to establish official languages other than Russian.

But this is wrong. In the Constitution it said that: The Republics shall have the right to establish their own state languages. I.e. it's stated that the republics are guaranteed to have this right, but it is not stated that other regions are not allowed to establish their own official languages. Hellerick (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that as well a while back. I guess as long as you can dig up a source for each of those local languages (for example, some sort of official declaration), I would list them again. Let's make a test-case @ Jewish Autonomous Oblast (see there)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Autonomous Oblast Charter states that В области создаются условия для сохранения, изучения и развития языков еврейского народа и других народов, проживающих на территории области (In the oblast shaw be created conditions for preservation, research, and development of the languages of the Jewish people and other peoples living on the territory of the oblast). Well, I guess it does not make Yiddish and Hebrew its official languages, but it is not the matter. The matter is that Wikipedia should not claim that non-republics are not allowed to have their own official languages unless it's verified by a reliable source. I think it would be better to remove the footnotes altogether. Hellerick (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is probably best dealt with at the relevant talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

spent some time trying to contribute-- won't happen again

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add this to the Monty Hall problem article under Aids to Understanding. It was reverted 3 times. I will not contribute again thanks.

A Simple Explanation for Math Simpletons (like me)

After the Nobel laureate has made his guess as to which door the car is behind, and Monty has revealed a goat behind one of the two doors he didn't select, the Nobel laureate is then asked if he believes that there is an equal probability that the car is behind either of the unopened doors. They affirm their belief that the odds are 50/50 that the car is behind either unopened door.

They are then asked to affirm that if this is the case, the door they would originally select should win the car half the time in a series of such games. Even a Nobel laureate will be forced to admit that given his assumption of a 50% chance of winning with his original choice, he should win about 50% of the time given a sufficient number of games. It is then pointed out to them that, in such a series of games in which he never switches his choice, the game is now identical to a straight guess of which of the three doors hides the car—since he never switches his choice. One choice of three equals a 33% chance not a 50% chance. Quite simply the laureate is confusing the number of doors with the probability of car that each door represents.

(Stoner Bob -kitchen table, 2009).

76.212.9.250 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well this is a featured article, you should discuss adding something like this on the talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I admit, I reverted this. I assume that anything attributed to "Stoner Bob - kitchen table" is meant as blatant vandalism. --NellieBly (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias editing

On the below page there is a section for Scholarly Oganizations

Internet Studies

The editor [Halavais] removed 1 links in this secion. (UNDO) of my placement

I am Wreid and my interest is in TCFIR and unbiased editing. The link inquestion is:

The Center for Internet Research (TCFIR)

I am not suggesting the removal of his links, but the inclusion of the one listed here. All of these organization have a role in internet studies. (some more notable than others) Notability is an opinion easily influence by bias.

Of the links left in, one is an organization in which he plays a major role (AOIR VP) and the other I believe he is a member (ACM). Halavais and I have a long standing dispute and I have requested arbitration regarding his Bio page Alexander Halavais

TCFIR and me personally are held in low regard by Halavais and that is the subject long standing dispute. I ask that someone look at TCFIR Blog and TCFIR Websitespecificly the membership and directors and make a determination for inclusion. IMHO, if the exluded organization remain so, then the entire section (Scholarly orgainzations) should be deleted.

My motive for this request is simple; I am trying to avoid further editing wars, if possible.

Wreid (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have psoted a 3rd opinion at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Need to see if this article is fine to publish onto the mainspace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zelysion/Tony_Wang

Thanks! I would really appreciate someone's expert judgment on this case. I want to make sure I don't get in trouble for publishing this article. I think it should meet all the wiki requirements. Zelysion (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)zelysion

The only potential concern I see is the pictures. Where did they come from? You uploaded both of them to commons claiming them as your own work. While that is potentially believable for the first photo, it can't be for the second, unless you are in fact Tony Wang or one of his employees. Images that you don't actually own, and that have not been released to the public domain or on a free license, cannot be uploaded to commons, and their use on Wikipedia is limited according to the non-free content policy. Someguy1221 (Talk) 05:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I did make a mistake there. My bad. I removed that second image. And yes, I do own the first image. With this change made, should it be fine? I got in trouble once for not having enough links, so I did my best to create a good reference list based on what I could find. Zelysion (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)zelysion

The references seem quite problematic to me, actually. Some of them are largely insignificant as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and others fall into what I would call "false referencing". This is not an accusation of bad faith, but more of poor form. A falsly referenced statement goes along the lines of: John was highly acclaimed for his work on Blah [1]. Where [1] is a citation to Johns work on Blah. You see, while this is OK for mentioning that he did the work, it's not a reference for the actual statement, which is that he received acclaim. I'll run down the references to identify the problems.

1. This is supposed to reference the interview, but instead is about the interviewer (a false reference)
2. This is just Tony making a post in a comments section; it doesn't reference anything
3. Same as above
4. This is sort of a false reference. It is supposed to support that this is his best known work, but it doesn't support that it is known at all, merely that it exists
5. This is the best reference so far, but the coverage is very minimal
6. This reference would classify as trivial coverage. Tony is mentioned, but only in passing as a member of a list. There is no actual discussion of him
7. Same as the first reference
8. This is the same as the second reference
9. This is the same as the third reference
10. Tony writes articles here. A demonstration the suitibility of an article requires articles about Tony, not articles by Tony. The link also doesn't clearly support the statement it's attached to
11. See the first part of my objection to the previous source
12. Google searches don't qualify as sources. Explicit source locations must be given, as Google searches are dynamic (they may vary from day to day)
13. Same problem as two references above
14. Same problem as two references above
15. This doesn't reference the statement given; sort of like the first reference, it's about one person in the interview, but not the actual interview
16. This would qualify as a trivial entry in a list
17. As with a few of the above, this is a collection of articles by Tony. While it references the statement given, it doesn't demonstrate the suitibility of the article

I know this may seem like a lot to take in, but there are a couple of simple ways to go about fixing all of this. The first is to recognize that the purpose of a citation is to provide an explicit reference to the statement it's attached to. A citation says, "If you click on me, you'll see that the sentence to the left of me is supported by a reliable source." The second, and this is extremely important, is that only sources written about Tony, by people other than Tony, demonstrate that he is notable. If his notability is not demonstrated, the article may be deleted. The best way to write an article, and a way that ensures this will not be a problem, is to write the article based on reliable sources. What you would do is first round up as many articles written about Tony (and not by him, and not hosted on his website or any blog) as you can find, and write the article only with content you can find in those articles. I hope this helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this advice. I will do my best to do some more due diligence on this matter. I'll try to get more compliant citations as soon as I can. As an issue of standards, I have been looking at other pages for people and I cannot understand why some of these pages would pass by the standards you and some other editors have applied. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XiXi_Yang doesn't seem to pass the same test this article is put under. At any rate, for now I cannot edit the article until later in the week. Thanks! Zelysion (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)zelysion

You can see the standard response to this at WP:OTHERSTUFF. I might take a look at that article later. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a bureacracy and it isn't myspace, the intent is to document what others have found notable. I've sometimes wanted to include external search links for "recent updates" but they are too vague for any inline citations as they can't establish anything except the most nebulous claims (" joe has billions of hits on goog") even by my thinking :) There is always a subjective and editorial component to "Reliable" but the attempt is to make it reliable for whatever you are trying to state- and, AFAIK, Fox news is considered generally reliable here (LOL). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

the artist tommy pavletic

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

about three years ago some by me was told i was a world famous artist by someone else around the eprson went to look me up on your web sight and i was not there I would like some one to contact me to explain why <email redacted> thank you for a quick reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.97.30 (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no article on you because you are not notable. You don't get an article simply because you exist, or even because you and one of your friends thinks you're world famous, which is doubtful given that your name produces only 25 unique google hits. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, we don't reply to requests for help via email. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

working on wikipedia tools/scripts, where do I go to look for larger interest here?

Resolved

– posted at WT:Tools Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started playing with tools such as this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nerdseeksblonde/scriptTest

which creates wikipedia formatted citations from an XML file down loaded from pubmed ( this is on the topic "pyruvate cycling"). While such a list would not be used in raw form for an article, it could save a lot of time by generating good citations ( once it handles all the cases properly, note the leading "-" in one date LOL) and it is easier to delete unused citations rather than add them manually. Are others doing stuff like this from other DB's? Anyone intersted in stuff lke this Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks interesting, I suggest you go to WT:Tools. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A R Rahman's relation with P. Jayachandran

Answered

– requestor has not returned. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding the first song composed by A R Rahman. Kindly read through the link

http://www.rahmanism.com/2007/11/ar-rahman-composed-malayalam-song-at.html

This information was confirmed in front of atleast 10K people, by Mr. K.J Yesudas in presence of A. R Rahman himself. I think the citiation and news to good enough to add this info to Wikipedia. This is already a question in veriouis quiz programs in India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.150.195 (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And your request of the volunteers here is what? If you think material should be added to an article then please discuss it at the artcile talk page. Be very careful about adding material that cannot be properly cited. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the link you provided - that does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"confirmed in front of" suggests a verbal citation. You need to get a reliable source to put it in writing, as famous person once more-or-less said, "a verbal citation isn't work the paper its written on". Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to indulge in a war, and not seemingly having transgressed stated rules

Resolved

– discussion contuinues at talk page Jezhotwells (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have the following problem.

I modified the entry to reflect the current accepted scientific knowledge in the area and pointed out how the study was popularly misrepresented. I attempted to keep all my writing apolitical (and in tobacco related issues that can be a challenge). I did not have to prove anything because the supplied references were all the proof required.

I made a change which was reverted. I negotiated directly with that editor and they withdrew saying they would let the community decide. The next editor was not as accomodating and possibly because I am new to this, I do not know the best way to communicate my concerns. At any rate, they overruled and have now complained about me.

The question is this: where do I go from here? All I did was remove supposition and get it down to the scientific evidence that was presented in the very citations. Or should I give up, and resign myself to being politically overwhelmed. Thank you. Pbergen1 (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)pbergen1

You don't appear to have tried to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, which the edits summaries of other users removing your edit have been advising you to do. You (or your opponents) cannot win a disagreement by reverting until your opponent is exhausted - that will only get you blocked for edit warring. The way to resolve something like this is to take it to the talk page. Describe the changes you want to make and why you believe they are correct. Provide evidence from the sources that you believe supports your change. Then, when the other side does the same, you can hash out just what should and should not go into the article.

If you are unable to reach an agreement with the other party on the talk page, then you can take the issue through the dispute resolution process, which might involve a third opinion or mediation to resolve the dispute. But really the way to go here is to start with making an effort to discuss, on the article talk page, the changes you want to make. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You have been specifically asked in edit notes to discuss your edits on the article talk page, but you have not done so. What do you expect? Use the article talk page, lay out your concerns and then negotiate with other editors in the open, rather than jumping in and changing something because you think it is wrong. Remember that WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources are a cornerstone of Wikipedia policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I will do that. I thought I had left sufficient notes since the issue was so simple (ie. facts from the articles already cited) but will try to elucidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.181.31 (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Packers Plus Energy Services references

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I added some more credible references to the Packers Plus Energy Services article so I was just wondering if I needed more or is everything okay? Egjackson (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that main concern would be notability, it is likely that this article would not survive an WP:AfD. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bound wrong

Answered

– question was wrongly bound, questioner redurected. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be an odd question but I have a Louis L'Amour book, "The Daybreakers", hard back leatherette collection and the pages of the book were bound in the leaterette book cover upside down. Does this effect the value of this book ? If you could let me know or help me find someone who could I would greatly appreciate your time! Thanks so much for your attention to this question!

Stacey Kinney <e-mail redacted out> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.242.76 (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please consider asking this question at the Miscellaneous reference desk. They specialize in knowledge questions and will try to answer any question in the universe (except how to use Wikipedia, since that is what this Help Desk is for). Just follow the link and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for an article related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady of Zeitoun: Edit war

Answered

– discussion now back at talk page, consensus against the additions of Danmav Jezhotwells (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the Criticisms section of Our Lady of Zeitoun some time back. A new user, Sheodred, came along a few days ago and removed it completely. After I restored it (as obvious vandalism) he then deleted several key paragraphs. I refuted his objections to these paragraphs (it is all in the discussion page of the article) and he now refuses any further discussion and insists that these paragraphs are to stay deleted. This is a problem that needs resolution by a third party as we cannot reach agreement. Danmav (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case I suggest you try WP:Third opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. Danmav (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What I did does not constitute as vandalsim,if so I would have been notified.The paragrpahs I deleted were POV and violated wikipedia's policy on neutrality within articles.I am not refusing further discussion,can you point out Danmav where I wrote that?I would appreciate that,as you are trying to label me as a vandal and disruptive editor in the wikipedian community.I insisted on these paragraphs that were edited to remain absent until an administrator decides what is best,until then it does violate neutrality.I am being civil and patient.I have engaged with you in discussion on this matter.I am hardly a vandal.My regards sir.By the way,I am not new to wikipedia,I only opened an account recently yes,but I have used and contributed to Wikipedia for a long time.Sheodred (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance Adding Pertinent Information to my Jennifer Nicole Lee Wikipedia Entry

Jennifer Nicole Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am seeking help adding information and facts to my Jennifer Nicole Lee entry. I am new to this site, and still learning. Therefore, I am seeking assistance in compiling historical notes to this article on Jennifer Nicole Lee. First, the correct description of her as a top fitness model due to her achievements, awards, and being on the cover of over 30 different magazines in under 5 years, a key media personality, an author, an electronic lifestyle program developer, a CEO of her two companies, and an award winning fitness and figure competitor holding many titles and awards. Specifically, I am seeking help in adding information on these details: "The Mind, Body, & Soul Diet: Your Complete Transformational Guide to Health, Healing and Happiness", the fact that she is a mother of two boys named Jaden and Dylan, the fact that she is married to Edward Lee, son of Byron Lee and the Dragonaires, is the official "pitchman" and spokesmodel of the Ab Circle Pro featured in infomercials, and also has been awarded two consequetive years in a row from 2008-2009 the World Bodybuilding and Fitness Federation the Miss Bikini Diva World Champion title. I need to also mention that she is a CEO and business owner of her two companies. Her first company was created in January of 2005 entitled JNL, Inc. Her second company was created on July 4th 2009 entitled JNL Worldwide, Inc., which was modeled after Kathy Irelands company called Kathy Ireland Worldwide. Thank you

MrhomasedisomMrthomasedisom (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm personally all for "obscure but notable" and in my thinking about this catagory, it would require some effort to find good sources. So, just taking your request in general terms, requests for thoughts on sources are probably of general applicability to many articles. However, it sounds like you want specialty databases or industry journals and if you are familiar with topic and industry you may already know better than many here. In any case, emails to interested parties may help find citations to independent reliable sources that would be suitable here. The observations, however, and the sources you have, strike me as being largely gossip or fad type of material or maybe single event/record setting situation. That is, this person is known largely for a fast weight loss but has used that "accomplishment" to gain publicity for weight loss approaches. If you have reliable sources you can establish notability but it may be difficult to write an encyclopedic article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Mrthomasedisom - A number of very experienced editors have given you advice here.(edit)

The article talk page is a good place to get help or gain support for your edits. I continue to encourage you to make use of it.

It is important to understand that WP is an encyclopedia that contains information summarized from published, generally wp:reliable sources. Until information is published in these sources, it is not generally appropriate for WP.- Sinneed 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC) - edit - Sinneed 16:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for the book "The Mind, Body & Soul Diet: Your Complete Transformational Guide to Health, Healing and Happiness" authored by Jennifer Nicole Lee

I am seeking help in crafting the article on the book authored by Jennifer Nicole Lee entitled "The Mind, Body & Soul Diet: Your Complete Transformatinoal Guide to Health, Healing and Happiness". Facts about this book that need to be noted are the following: Jack Canfield, co-creator of the book series "Chicken Soup for the Soul" and featured author in The Secret states a quote on the back cover. If you can find his exact words, this would be helpful. Also, that the foreward was written by Dr. Joe Vitale, also a featured author in The Secret. If anyone can find factual backup to where the book is being distributed, this would be helpful as well. Also, factual backup that fitness model Jennifer Nicole Lee, did indeed author this book. Thank you, Mrthomasedisom Mrthomasedisom (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine you might be able to find that sort of information on the internet. Look for WP:Reliable sources. You could also ask at the WP:Reference Desk. If you don't have any source material to hand why on earth do you think it would be useful to have an article on this book?Jezhotwells (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the book is not out, it is unlikely to have the wp:notability needed to make an article. It is listed in her article.- Sinneed 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ab Circle Pro

Hello, I'm seeking help in creating the article on the Ab Circle Pro. In particular, I need to build an article showcasing that Jennifer Nicole Lee is the official "pitch woman" and spokesmodel of this ab and cardio machine. I need to support the fact that TimeLife buys the media time for the infomercial. The fact that it is being globally distributed in over 90 different countries, with Jennifer Nicole Lee's voice being dubbed into over 20 different languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrthomasedisom (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that this is not particularly notable so I would suggest that you don't bother as it might well be deleted quite quickly. Try reading up on WP:Notability and the other guidelines that have been linked on your talk page. Also bear in mind the warnings that you have already received. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting to think "soapbox?" I've learned a lot about these topics already this morning just from reading these requests. I've been accused of that on Creation Science for less. LOL. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"...showcasing that Jennifer Nicole Lee is the official 'pitch woman'." doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me and also has a hint of spam. – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Mrthomasedisom seems to be a single-purpose account, creating spammy articles and links about Lee and associated subjects. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, you can sell snake oil from a soapbox, not just espouse political stances. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Carabins

Under WP:COMMONNAME, this page should be called the Montreal Carabins. This is because University athletic teams include the short University name and the team's nickname. However, I tried to move the page and there is a redirect to it already called Montreal Carabins. I realize this is all academic really, but how do I switch the two so Carabins is the redirect and Montreal Carabins is the proper name? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow the instructions to make a move request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the article Brazil

I have worked for a couple of years on the articles about the history of Brazil and I decided to improve the text about it on the article Brazil. The old text was full os incorrect informations or with sources that came from websites. I replaced it with a much improved text with sources by famous Brazilians historians. I am writing the text for each session one by one. The problem is that a user called Opinoso is accusing me of being monarchist (what?!) and is making an edit war for no reason at all. I really need help on this one. Thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This user (Lecen) removed the sourced work of other users, and replaced them with biased informations. I think he does not know that he is free to add new (sourced and neutral) informations, but is prevented to erase the work of other users. In fact, he is against two rules of Wikipedia: he erase the sourced work of other users and, even worse, he replaced the old good work with his personal adimiration in relation to Monarchy, and his personal negative view of Republic. Neither neutral point of view, neither good faith principles are being respected by this user. I tried to open a discuss with this user on the talk page of article Brazil, but he was really rude and avoided a civil discussion. He cannot erase the work of other users. I reverted to the original article, and he decided to open an edit-warring, reverting to his biased posts about History of Brazil. Opinoso (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke

Hello

I was wondering if you could add on to the page about Arthur C. Clarke. Recently, he completed three books that are not on the page:

-"Time's Eye" writen with Stephen Baxter -"Sunstorm" writen with Stephen Baxter -"Firstborm" writen with Stephen Baxter

Also, if you could add a paragraph concerning these 3 book as there were the last books he wrote before his death in 2008.

Thank You, Regards, Kathy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.240.12 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this is Wikipedia - the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - so why don't you? But please take a look round, but please start with Wikipedia:How to edit a page. The best thing would be to post your list of books on the talk page of the article, rather than just diving in. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Campaign of abuse/personal attacks

I have an IP user 193.128.223.67 who is launching a campaign of abuse and personal attacks against me. On the Daily Mail article he keeps reappearing on several occasions and posting vandalism. When myself and other editors have removed it, he gets very abusive and starts posting personal attacks and threats on my talk page and Talk:Daily Mail. He is just bullying me and other users just because he cannot accept his edits are vandalism. He responds with torrents of abuse saying he has got campaign groups planning to report me to Wikipedia. He keeps claiming I am 'censoring' the Daily Mail page when all I am doing is removing POV/vandalism they have posted. He has also posted libellous comments accusing me of being a Daily Mail employee which I am not. I would be very grateful if you could resolve this situation. I have applied for Administrator intervention and Page Protection but they referred me here. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the article's history, I'm inclined to think the IP has a point, however crudely expressed. You do seem to have a bit of an ownership attitude towards the Mail. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree they have been posting personal attacks at me and I am not taking ownership of the article. I am simply following Wikipedia policies by removing content that is unsuitable such POV or sourced from improper sources. Christian1985 (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I give my 2 cents. I am the person he is referring too. I think we may get some resolution with open discussion with a 3rd party.

My "vandalism" is adding in a "controversial articles" section, where I detailed some notorious headlines. Headlines that brought charges against them by the press complaints commission. All sourced and verified. Very similar to the "controversy" sections that appear on 99% of wikipedia media articles.

My campaign of abuse/threats, it seems is complaining about this user continually deleting edits.

I don't think one user should be able to completely control a page, by trying to claim that making verified edits is "vandalism". What's more threatening to report, and reportin anyone who dares to make consistent changes. Especially when much of this reporting it seems, refers to "vandals" "bullies" and "torrents of abuse". Which is a tad inaccurate, if you actually read the discussion page.

Anyway, I'd like to hear what the actual policy is on these sorts of cases, and the edits that have been deleted. If I am the party in the wrong, I'll happily accept it.

I just don't think it's right that articles can be controlled, in a way that can be deemed to political, and that anyone who makes these changes can be reported as "vandals"?

If I make a verified, accurate edit, that 99% of the nation seem to want, why should one person be able to dictate their will on a page so much, because they don't like the fact that it casts aspersions on the product they seem to like? You know. It's an encyclopedia, not some PR excercise!

And what's more, I realise that a lot of these reports are not acted upon, but shouldn't people be able to make verified changes and edits, without the fear of being labelled a "vandal" and finding themselves reported?

thanks

~~

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to work this out. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

people help

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ask —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.228.39 (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So what is the problem - or are you just messing around? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is James Karl McDougall really as important to this school as it appears.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_College_(Ararat)

This article seems to have a lot of references to James Karl McDougall. Is he really as important to this school as it appears? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.169.157 (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

no. It was accumulated vandalism. Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Record lock during edit.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Newbie Q: Is an article locked while you edit it, thereby ensuring that, on saving, you don't overwrite someone else's save made just before yours? Jimlue (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually. Whoever makes the first save gets his edits in. Anyone else who had an edit window open and then tries to save will see an "edit conflict" notice. Two edit windows will be displayed, one showing the most recently saved revision, and another showing the revision you tried to save. Inbetween, you will see a side by side highlighting of the differences. Read more at Help:Edit conflict. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reply, Someguy1221. (As a newbie I just disc'd I shoulda posted this in the Edit Help area, but whatever.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimlue (talk • contribs) 03:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cable Street Mural, London

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Cable Street mural is one of the largest and most spectacular murals in Europe. It is recognised internationally because of it's significance as a monument to 'The Battle of Cable Street' which took place in 1936 when an estimated 300,000 people blocked London's east End in order to prevent Oswald Mosely and his Fascist army of 'backshirts' from marching through Stepney - a predominantly Jewish part of the East End. The entire mounted corps of the police was mobilised to force a path for the blackshirts. The focal point of the 'Battle' was a barricade set up in Cable Street where, following violent clashes and running battles, the Fascists were stopped and Mosely called off the march. Subsequently the British Union of Fascists were prevented from wearing their uniforms.

The mural itself had a complicated history, largely because it was subject to repeated attacks and perhaps for this reason much information on the web is inaccurate. It was originally conceived and researched by Dave Binnington who raised money for the project and had the wall on which it was to be painted, on the side of Saint Georges Town Hall in Cable Street, prepared with a special render. However shortly after he had completed designs and commenced work Fascist graffiti was scrawled in huge letters across the whole surface. Dave Binnington, exhausted and demoralised resigned from the project. Paul Butler, who Dave had comissioned to paint a series of 'praedella' panels across the bottom edge of the mural, then took over the project and invited mural artists Ray Walker and Desmond Rochfort to work with him to complete the project. The wall had to be re-rendered and re-primed across about three quarters of its surface. Paul, Ray and Desmond took over a room in the basement of St Georges Town Hall as a studio and created a new design loosely based on Dave's but substantially different in structure and imagery. They divided the wall into four sections, Ray Walker designed and painted the left section, Paul Butler the central section and Desmond Rochfort the right section. The upper section was united by all three with the lower part. The buildings at the top of the mural are all that remains of Daves work.

The mural took a year to paint and the artists remember it as a hugely enjoyable and rewarding process - as well as back-breaking. The mural is about 65'x 50' (17x22m approx) and the process of painting involved repeatedly climbing up and down the scaffolding to check scale and structure of the design.

The mural has subsequently been attacked repeatedly by Fascist groups. Ray repaired and restored the mural in about 1985 and Paul Butler twice in 1991 and 1994. On this last occasion his car had white paint poured over it, the tyres slashed and his life threatened by an neofascist organisation calling itself C18 ( a code for Hitler's birthday).

Ray Walker died tragically prematurely at the age of 39, Desmond Rochfort moved to Canada to take up an academic post, Dave Binnington moved to the country and became a furniture maker and Paul butler continues to practice as an artist in London.

Paul butler can be contacted at <email address redacted> his blog-site is www.spaceofforgetting.typepad.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.171.127 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So the talk page of that article might be an appropiate place to post this. Please don't post email addresses on Wikipedia as this page is highly visible and the address will be spam comprimised, Jezhotwells (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued deletion of my post and club email address

Resolved

– as per JohnInDC Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is in regard to the article and club website address that I continue to sumbit on the Page for Plymouth Prowler. It is under the topic of 10th Anniversary. There is a rival club who continues to delete my article about the 10th Anniversary Celebration that was done by our club on August 16, 2007 with Chrysler Corporation. I have also posted a url link to our club website, Prowleronline.com This club continues to delete the article and our club website link. I have complained about this before and for a while, it was not taken down. Apparently, they continue to do this. How can this be resolved? They deny that they are doing it. Thank you for your assistance

CJ Longstreth Prowleronline.com xxxx@comcast.net

I took a look at the page, and by my lights, *all* of those fansite links are inappropriately included. Accordingly I removed them all, and included in the edit summary a link to the appropriate WP page, namely WP:ELNO. JohnInDC (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This matter is resolved. JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

How to i post the content of one website called www.sgrabby.co.nr to wikipedia.... i'm unable to understand to post

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Iam sankar from India. intrested to post the content of "sgrabby - share knowledge" (www.sgrabby.co.nr) website. Hw do i do that? I'm unable to know wwhere to start and wher to post? can help me related to this? thanks, sankar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnsomuch (talk • contribs) 12:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple answer - Please do not do this. It will lead to the content being removed, and possibly, you being banned.

Please read the links in the welcome template on your talk page to get some idea of Wikipedia is about before even thinking of posting articles. (also posted on user talk page as he had posted this directly on my page. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the website cited, very definitely do not post details of this non-notable company on Wikipedia. This is not a directory. It is an encyclopedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jsuit Tea

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit tea appears as an alternative name for "pozote" and under "Jesuit Tea & Bark. The description of the qualities varies from article to article. I would like to know which is correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.235.243 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you said which articles you are referring to. Using an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia means y7ou may need to evaluate which articles have the most reliable sources. One indicator of this may be the class of teh article, i.e. Good Article, featured, A, B, C, start or stub. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't figure out why section edit links are missing

Resolved

– There is a problem with a template that was used at the bottom of the article. Removing the template cleared the error. - Sinneed 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fathima Rifqa Bary conversion and custody controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is missing the section edit links and we can't figure out why. JRSpriggs tried hiding {{Muslims and controversies}},[5] but it didn't help. —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 06:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice that "Christianity Topics" has an edit instead of a hide. Commenting out the footers makes the edit links come back. Looks like a template issue.- Sinneed 06:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see the section edit links (currently using Internet Explorer); is this still an issue for anyone? GlassCobra 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing the troublesome template cleared the error.- Sinneed 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)