Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 65

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

Contents

Dispute resolution assistance

  • Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal has a lot of open requests. Things will probably be picking up even more over the next few weeks as many editors will have additional free time during the winter break season. No membership in any group is necessary to help out. Anyone can adopt a case. Please give them a hand with informal mediation if you can help.
  • All of the content noticeboards, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, need a few more regular outside editors to comment on requests. Even a small handful of additional regulars at each of those noticeboards would drastically increase their effectiveness. Volunteers only need to have a good familiarity with the ins and outs of the relevant content policies and guidelines.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment has a spotty and generally poor response rate across all of the topic areas. Several more editors are needed to regularly respond to the various content RfC requests. No specialist knowledge is usually required for most requests, but a general knowledge within the broad topic categories is suggested.

I would be very grateful to anyone willing to pitch in and regularly help out in these understaffed areas of dispute resolution. They are essential for resolving disputes before they reach a point of entrenchment with its accompanying disruption to the project in the affected topic areas. Thanks for considering this request for assistance. Vassyana (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Updating/uploading an image

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I have been trying to upload an image to update this page. I have rights to the image I want to upload. How can I go about uploading this image and replacing the existing one? Should I create a new account, use an existing one, is there a specific format the image should be in?

Mrmets5211 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You should find sufficient information at WP:Images#Uploading images. Please make sure that the image is correctly licensed. You don't need a new account, you are automatically registered in Wiki Commons]]. If your account is less than 4 days old and /or less than ten edits you will not be able toupload. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
One other point - it depends on how you got rights to the image. If the copyright owner just said "Sure go ahead an use it", that is not sufficient evidence of permission. To be on the safe side, you should ask the copyright owner to send a formal release as described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

seabass or sea bass

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What the correct way to write seabass or sea bass, please advise sds-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.63.17.10 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is probably the best place to ask, but from sea bass, both forms are used on Wikipedia. Wiktionary favours sea bass. – ukexpat (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia Day article

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish to describe the "debate" over Australia Day as a fringe discussion, which I believe it is.

Some fellow wikipedians are being irrational about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.114.44 (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How do you wish to describe it as a fringe debate? What evidence can you produce to justify the statement that it is a fringe debate? (An individual editor's personal opinion is not enough.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Bluesmobile" model year

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

3rdBluesBrother (talk · contribs) has repeatedly changed minor info in The Blues Brothers (film) to state that their car was a 1971 Dodge, rather than a 1974. This runs contrary to a wide range of online sources as well as long-standing consensus here. Another editor and I have both asked 3rdBluesBrother for citation, and got a response each time that was a variation on "I know I'm right." I tried to provide (anecdotal) evidence to the contrary, links to online images showing how the car could not possibly have been a '71 model, to no avail. I'm no longer confident that this editor is acting in good faith, and have turned here rather than let my tone become any more uncivil than it already has. Thank you. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about this on the article talk page. Use it - that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Clearly, my mistake was in continuing to engage the editor on their own talk page, which obscures the discussion from other interested editors. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It is generally better to use the artcile talk page. You can put a message on the other editor's talk page, along the lines of "There is a discussion about ...." at Talk:????? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Constantine (film) Dispute Resolution

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

This is a basic request for a third opinion or mediating party, whichever is necessary. With regards to providing a background and information about this dispute, I'd like to take this time to direct the appropriate parties to the talk page of the article in question, specifically here. I do not know the entire dispute resolution process and have read the FAQ so I hope I'm doing this properly. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ talk 20:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have provided a third opinion on the article talk page. Let's see how the editors involved in the dispute respond. — ækTalk 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:3O is specifically for making requests for third opinions, btw. Fences&Windows 22:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Measurement Preference

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia should default to using Metric first, then add Imperial in parenthesis if needed, and make that a policy. MetricCook (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MetricCook

generally you want to parrot reliable sources- conversions may be passable but citing the original first is probably most wikipedian; Essentially you are talking about a translation issue- witness issues with units of measure in ancient texts. A parenthetical note may be a good guide to reader, esp if sourcesd, but citing the Bible with metric units may create a problem for example. Or even football would be confusing. Probably confusing to porn bio's too, you get the idea. IF there is a policy or guideline contrary to this it would be a bit of a deviation from standing wiki ideals( essentially you are trying to push something onto the existing literature about a topic. ) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Our policy is stated in the manual of style, at Wikipedia:MOS#Units_of_measurement and at WP:UNITS. The talk pages there would be a good place to suggest any changes. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Is any of that contrary to what I wrote? When these guides say "most common usage" it isn't clear if they mean generally or by whom? Presumably this would be most commonly used by reliable sources on the topic. They mention scientific literature and "Strongly associated with a place" which indidates similar intent but my statement seems more general and concise. How does it differ? It seems it may be worthwhile mentioning you want to capture treatment of the RS's- and again presumably there are sources that cover the topic addressing a similar audence as that intended for wiki and those authors probably have a unit convention. Or, is OP suggesting "3.3metres(10 yards) for a first down"? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't think there's an explicit contradiction. Ultimately we'd need to look at what the OP might write, and any contention there would be addressed by reference to the MoS rather than by reference to any of our opinions. Perhaps the OP would like to propose a change to the MoS, and the talk pages would be the correct place to go for that, I think. So I don't think my post was contrary to yours, but it added something further. Best, --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, and the usage should reflect the usage in the country in which the subject of an article is located (if indeed it is located in a specific country or region) - so in an article about a Spanish river I use metric measurements followed by imperial, using the convert template - and for British rivers, vice-versa. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, presumably you use the sourced numbers first and then do some math. Arithmetic should not be too controversial but then you need to get conversion factors somwhere. If not NIST, maybe wiki has a place where it defined pi=3- for a couple of significant figures no big deal but in some cases this could matter. Essentially some prima metrica doctrine is POV pushing and doesn't help reader understand the literature- parenthetical reference numbers can be a good help to enhance familiarity for people unfamiliar with hectacres or hogsheads or cubits. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That is what Template:convert is for. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Zodiac Killer Book

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For several years, in the book section in the entry Zodiac Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there was a book called "Dr. Zodiac" by Michael Rusconi and Douglas Oswell. That book is now out of date and out of print. I added the new version "The Unabomber and the Zodiac" by Douglas Oswell. Someone took it down. I went to the talk page and suggested adding the book. Someone suggested I do so. I did and it was again taken down by Hu12. In the past I tried several times to add an external link, but it was taken down and I was accused of spamming. I am trying to figure out the rules here. I no longer wish to add any external sites. But the book should be added - it meets all criteria.Akwilks (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like every one else at that talk page thinks you are spamming. They may or may not be right. There is nothing much that we can do about there here. You could make request for comment. I can't think of anything else. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal on Sidereel page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Editor 71.224.154.98 has been reverted several times for the nonsense he's added to this article since 17 November. --58.174.73.169 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this should be posted at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to see if they can do anything helpful. (This page is more a sort of help desk for non-bad stuff mostly)Shortfatlad (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You might want to consider requesting "semi-protection" whilst there - this will stop all non signed in users editing. Semi-protection usually only applies for a short time, and is not always used unless there is a lot of vandalism. The relevent page is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (see instructions).Shortfatlad (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If you are getting vandalism on this page you should warn the vandal, using some of the warning templates, then if the vandal continues you can report them and get them blocked. WP:VANDALISM spells it all out. I have started you off by placing one warning template on the IP talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly biased editor on Australian Democrats page

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. A friend who I am staying with at the moment got all inspired by my work with the Australian Democrats and thought they would help by editing the Australian Democrats wikipedia page. They have never edited a wikipedia page before. While the edits were mostly ok (aside from not doing things like noting what they were doing and why, normal newbie stuff) they got themself in to a nice little edit war with user User:Bjenks and before you know it had accused them of political bias, which Bjenks of course refuted.

I went back to check the page before heading to bed and noticed something I missed when posting my attempt to call a ceasefire earlier: Bjenks references to having a copy of the national executive minutes from 1993 on the talk page under 'Publication of Monthly Journal'. National executive minutes are party privileged information, while any member of the party is entitled to a copy, giving them to anyone who is not a member of the party is punishable by expulsion from the party for life. So despite his protestations, I am thinking perhaps my friend was right - not that they are aligned to another party (although they may be) but rather a former member who is toxic and biased against the party.

I have already sought advice from the political party project on the best way to reconstruct the page etc without our content being rejected as promotional - it needs an enormous amount of work really - my query here is how do I stop a toxic former party member, if that is indeed what we are dealing with here, from continuing to re-edit the page to reflect negatively on the organisation because they are bearing some grudge from way back when? At what point should their actions be reported etc?

I used to edit a bit on here ages and ages ago, but I've forgotten all this stuff and community attitudes may have changed. I have convinced my friend to stay away from the site and the page entirely - so there will be no further interaction between the two.

Appreciate the help --Kathoc (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if these "minutes" are not available to the general public, then information out of them is not verifiable. It's also bordering on original research to grab meeting minutes and do your own work—if whatever happened in that meeting wasn't important enough for anyone else to report on, why's it important enough for the article? As to what to do if you disagree with another editor, you did well by requesting help (both here and from the appropriate project), but avoid speculating on their motivations or calling them things like "toxic", as this tends only to inflame the situation. Stick to discussing content, and if you cannot come to agreement with them, seek additional input through mechanisms like a third opinion or request for comment. If you're as right as you think you are, the additional input will back you handily, if you find that not to happen, it might be necessary to step back and consider that if some people are agreeing with the other guy, he might have a valid point too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't read too much in to toxic, although I apologise for slipping in to jargon at 2am - it is a term used in political circles to describe a former supporter who has gone beyond no longer supporting to actively attacking, and indicates the person is past the point of no return. Appreciate the advice. --Kathoc (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Talking with assistants

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Page: Wompkees I received several responses back from editor assistance - Fuhghettabouit, RHaworh, Floquenbeam , but I cant figure out how to respond back directly. I've continued to add reliable sources to improve. In two cases, I left up the reference to a website, but then also added a news reference. Should I take out the web site reference completely? I continue to read and learn. Thank you for the help. TomTMaine (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to respond back directly to the editors who helped you, you can just leave them a message on their user talk page. If you'd like some advice on references, it would be helpful if you could tell us what articles you're talking about, to see exactly what references you're using. Websites vary wildly in terms of source quality, so some would be quite acceptable, while others would not even come close. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

sNOWsh was deleted

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dont know why, bewcause the content was not biased, just infomative. Was deleted by wizardman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.42.237.70 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bias had nothing to do with it, it was deleted because of the reasons here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SNOWsh--Jac16888Talk 19:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Siemens news

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure of whether this news story should be covered in the Siemens article [1] It appears to be a near current event with only limited facts as yet available. Should a wait and see attitude be adopted to see what happens or what? I can't tell how serious the incident is. Any suggestions?Shortfatlad (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It is generally best to see what a range of news sources report. Wikipedia is not a newspaper so there is time to wait and see what develops. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hank Bauer

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

The article concerning Hank Bauer's World War II service in the U.S. Marine Corps states that he won 11 campaign ribbons. That is impossible, since there was only one campaign ribbon for service in the Pacific: The Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal.

If the write meant to say 11 campaign STARS (for participation in that many major battles), that would be extremely unlikely. The average Marine participated in only 2 or 3 campaigns before becoming a casualty or rotating home.

Please check into this error and correct it.

This is my first time trying to report an apparent error, so please forgive any mistakes I made.

65.185.126.203 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) James Bonavia; MSgt, USAF, Retired; Dayton, Ohio

The best place to start would be to leave a message with the problem described on the talk page of the article. You could remove the material to the talk page and ask for clarification, OR, you could leave it in the article and add a tag such as {{fact}} or {{clarifyme}}
The other good place to ask would be at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history (it's linked on the talk page too).Shortfatlad (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There's two obits here [2] - ones says 11 campaign medals - not ribbons - is this possible?Shortfatlad (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

es.wikipedia.com Sebastian Piñera un-editable

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! I have been working on updated Sebastian Piñera's information on the American version of Wikipedia and using the Spanish version as one of my references. I have run across an abundance of dead, incorrect or false links, and erroneous information. The page is not editable because of past abuses. This is of a very important matter to me. I have no desire to use Wiki as a coercion tool. That said, how can I gain access and clean-up that mess? Please help! Thank you! --Neon Sky (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, The Spanish Wikipedia (es.wikipedia.org) and the English Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are two separate entities, with distinct sets of administrators. I imagine there's some sort of process on es.wiki to gain access, but we wouldn't be able to advise you on that, unless somebody here is fluent in Spanish to identify the process there. Sorry. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I searched high and low and I have not been able to find any editing help on that end. Their help "chat" has not yielded any results. If you know of someone who can help, please refer them. Also, if anyone out there can help, please drop me a line. Thanks! --Neon Sky (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like the talk page is unprotected; you could try that; there's at least some recent activity. There's also an equivalent to the {{editprotected}} template I think, at es:Plantilla:Edición protegida although my Spanish is, ahem, limited. --AndrewHowse (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
¡Hola! {http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tabl%C3%B3n_de_anuncios_de_los_bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Miscel%C3%A1nea/Actual} might be the place. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article "Taha Engineering Group"

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I started contributing to Wikipedia but while writing an article of "Taha Engineering Group", the page was straight away forwarded to speedy deletions. After one and two times, the page has been restricted for creation. I wanted to be neutral, following the guidelines for a good article but couldn't do so as it was my first article.

Can anyone help me to create this article on the above mentioned subject?

Best Regards,

Zohaib Ather <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohaib ather (talkcontribs) 04:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that your earlier efforts have been deleted as advertising and due to the lack of notability of the subject. You might want to read WP:CORP, especially the bit which says: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.
I can't find coverage of the above company by RS so I would suggest that it really isn't worth the effort. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a trade directory. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Request Editing Help

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

David Joseph Marcou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I would like some editing help with the above article. Is it specific enough, neutral in tone, properly formatted. Please let me know what to change or you can do it yourself. If it is ready to move to the main page, you have my permission to do so. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. Sincerely,--Kayak paddler (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC) I made a mistake and erased an earlier request for help. But I did not erase anyone else's requests and corrected the mistake I made in someone's request. Sorry for all the trouble.

As User:ukexpat mentioned in response to your earlier post, he left some suggestions for you at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive/20#David Joseph Marcou and also on your talk page, User talk:Kayak paddler. Once you've had a chance to review those and act on them, please do come back and ask again, if you have questions. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Change an illustration

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd simply like to change an illustration to help someone out, but instead of being a simple, straightforward process,there seem to be so many conditions and sanctions interposed in my path that using wikipedia.com has become as treacherous as traversing a piranha-infested river.

If you know someone from a website, it's a "conflict of interest"; if you post something about a long-dead relative (and even cite the source), it's a "conflict of interest." Mention was made of the "organization" I represented (which doesn't exist.) All I would like to do is to help someone whom I know - whom I met through a website devoted to his brother - update a book cover illustrating his website to that of his soon-to-be-published book. (He asked me to help because I know a little bit about computers.)

But - would changing the book cover then constitute "advertising?"

I have no commercial interest in this, and if liking excellent, reality-oriented literature could be considered a "conflict of interest," then there are plenty of others out there who must also stand accused. My ONLY interest in all of this is to help someone who asked me if I could update the website with the new cover, and the gentleman gave me his permission to do so.

Is this update tenable? If so, could you please tell me how to go about doing it legally so that it is not deleted? And, if it is not allowable (for some reason or another, possibly, because of the "conflict of interest"), please advise me so that perhaps someone else can do it.

diogenes1949Diogenes949 (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this from the talk page and left a note to that effect at your talk page. Without any information on which page and what image you wish to replace it is hard to say, but I haven't noticed any particular difficulties with the operations that you describe. You do use the term website, but in fact this is an encyclopaedia so it isn't just a matter of posting what you choose, you may wish to read up on Wikipedaia policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The article in question is James Brown (author). Diogenes is doing these things at the request of the subject, an acquaintance of his, and is shocked that doing edits at the subject's request might be deemed a conflict of interest situation. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have a book cover there at all? The article seems to indicate that the author is still alive, seems we could get a free photo of him instead? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article on Arches is incomplete

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Arch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article states that oldest known arch was 2nd millenium Picture from National Geographic Archives shows wooden arch built by Romans in 6th millenium BC was photographed in 1920s.

National Goeographic Nov 2009 Flashback section website of archived pictures ....bridge is second from left http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/flashback/2009 Crystalyne (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, I think you have misread the information:

An ancient Roman bridge spanned the Wadi al Murr near Mosul, Iraq, in the 1920s. Credited to German archaeologist Max von Oppenheim, this image never ran in the Geographic—nor did his manuscript for a story about his work at Tell Halaf, Syria, found with it in the photographic file. Von Oppenheim discovered the site (which dates from the sixth millennium B.C.) in 1899 and conducted excavations there over the next three decades. He shipped several treasures from the dig home to Berlin for exhibition in his personal museum, but many were destroyed in an Allied bombing raid in 1943. Objects salvaged from the rubble have recently been restored and are scheduled to go on display next year.

That says that the picture is of a Roman arch, it does not say that the Romans built it in the 6th millenium BC (that would have been difficultt as Ancient Rome wasn't founded until the 1st millenium BC). Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Suit (clothing)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Could you please add the list of countries where it is accepted not to wear a suit for informal meetings (such as in India or Saudi Arabia, where they use to wear something else). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.17.110 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some sources to support that? – ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You might find the articles Informal attire interesting - this is already mentioned at the end of the article : "Some non-Western businesspeople will wear national costume nonetheless..."
Potentially an article about business wear in non westerm countries may be appropiate, if it doesn't already exist. Also check Category:Clothing by functionShortfatlad (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The IP has also posed this question at a ref desk: [3]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of trade journal for "notability" issue

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a major trade journal in my field, which has a circulation of 60,000. It is received worldwide by everyone licensed in my field known to exist. The journal is CINAHL listed, but is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. I have situations in a related field in which publications in that field, which is generally less controversial are routinely accepted for use to show "notability", but when I have tried to show "notability" in my field, there are editors who fight like the dickens to prevent me from relying on that publication. They demand other media, like radio, tv, or "real" newspapers. If the issue is "independence", then from what and from whom? DC is privately owned as a part of a larger group of publications, and the owner is NOT a DC. The journal is Dynamic Chiropractic. I feel this is a double standard. Has this issue been previously decided here? Д-рСДжП,ДС 20:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You might be able to get some help on this issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. Specialists in that area can be found over there. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a larger issue that often comes up regarding notability. Signficance and indepedence are sometimes dismissed summarily from some classes of publications but it very much depends on the article. Trade journals often contain press releasess and promotinal articles but that shouldn't prohibit their usage when they contain independent significant coverage and there is a reasonable basis to believe they check facts. I've gotten into arguments over court documents and SEC filings - usually there is a precumption that such things are lacking significance as if you tried to use a birth certificate to establish notability or a person. However, if you actually find fitting content in these pubs there is no reason AFAIK to exclude them. On the opposite end however, we get a lot of people trying to establish notability with thinly disguised PR or ads or directory listings or other "info mercial" type things.I think I've also had arguments over press releases- it is important to remember that they are generally not used due to self-published natire and a competitor's PR may be usable if it contains signficant coverage but usually other parties will note the subject too. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
As was stated above, the reliable sources noticeboard is a good place to ask this question. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Basis of Notability

Another issue, is what constitutes notability in my field? I have been told verbally by two admins that the senior officers of "notable" International Organizations are, or should be automatically themselves "notable". Has this been decided somewhere? If not, can we get a determination that will apply to everyone across the board, or do we have to duke it out on each entry's discussion page and waste everyone's time, everytime? Д-рСДжП,ДС


Again WP:RSNis good place to start. Be sure to link the source and the WP article in your query. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, inherent notability is essentially admitting defeat of the other guides and wouldn't normally be other than a bureaucratic victory ( although that may get your article onto wikipedia without as much hassle it could be overturned later). I guess one issue with a small "field" becomes not the obscurity, which seems to be recognized as a legitimate attribute of some encyclopedic knowledge, but the independence and reliability of sources.CNN doesn't cover everything that makes it into wikipedia but you need to convinc someone that notice has been taken in enough detail to write a decent article. It is hard to argue much without specific example and RSN would be a good place for more detailed discussion. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

AskPaulinaGirls!

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"AskPaulinaGirls is the best club on stardoll.comBold text" has magically appeared on the Twelve Tribes (New religious movement) article! no trace anyone putting it there! also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Cloud_State_University and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Wisconsin–Madison_people Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't find that text on any of those articles. If they were vandalized, it's already been reverted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Partiality?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ref. Page 1 Pramodjain3

page 2 lotus school, ahmedabad

I am not able to understand that why u people are making two standard to two contributors.

first with regard you have deleted pramodjain3 saying that it was based on living person. then why you have kept page pratima kazmi

second with regard lotus school, ahemdabad you want to delete the page asking what contribution lotus school had done to the society? for your kind information the particular school is providing international standard education at the rock bottom fees just for the cause of lower middle grade family. Same way there are millions of pages which don't have any knowledgeable facts, any impacts in society. if you still feel that you are right at your point then no use of arguing with you and my self has to look another one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramodjain3 (talkcontribs) 08:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I eventually worked out which articles you were referring to: Pramod jain was deleted as it did not meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia. Lotus school, ahmedabad was deleted because "it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader" These reasons were given to you on your talk page. You were given an oppotunity to contest the deletion. Please read up on Wikipedia policies, WP:Five pillars is a good place to start. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor ignoring discussion, reverting agreed upon changes without saying anything

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

user:Brian Boru is awesome has twice reverted edits decided on during a 9 day discussion period. The user has ignored the discussion and neglected to leave an edit summary both times. Do you think there anything that can be done about this? ArtistScientist (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to let us know what article you are talking about. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)



University of Atlanta

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ok as you can see the other editors that are involved with the University of Atlanta page will hear no other opinions but there own. I appears they will come over here and stop anyone else from getting involved. We have a real fight on our hands to work on this article. I think the two editors that posted the last time I asked for some outside input are calling anyone who has a different opinion a sock puppet and blocking them. I have been cleared of this, as the others have been to. If they are able to post non-related info on here, so can I. I am really hoping some other editors will step up and stop by, None of our facts meet there standards and by there standards I mean they did not post it. If you have an open mind and want to stop by please do, don’t let them scare you off. Baseball and Orlady I am starting to think yall are one and the same, funny, ones always around to back the other up. I am getting real tired of you calling me a sleeper account. I have proven who I am to those who matter more than once now because of yall accusing me. I think its time we looked at you. I might be nice to have an account to always back up what you are saying but that’s not playing by the rules--Super (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should assume good faith, the other editors on the talk page may not always agree with you but their approach seems conciliatory. I can appreciate the difficulties of finding good sourcing for this article as it is a virtual institution, not leaving many traces, except WP:SPS. Most of the possible sources turned up in my searches were to a pre-WWII black university of the same name. I doubt there will be enough material to substantially expand the article. The forum sources are not RS, neither are directories like Peterson's Colleges, which appears to just rpint whatvere information is supplied by the college.. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


I try to assume good faith every day of my life! But when other editors with good info to add are block for trying to talk there’s a problem. I just think there is no info on this school and something needs to give. I think it should be deleted or the two school separated.--Super (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

John Carew - only player to have played in four major european leagues

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides his apperances in the Norwegian and Turkish leagues, Carew have played in Spains La Liga, Italy's Serie A, France's Ligue 1 and Englands Premiership. He is the only person to have done this. Notably is also his apperances in the Champion League, although not a national league. He also have had at least one offer to play in the German Bundesliga, but have declined.

~Aasmund Fostervold <e-mail address redacted> Oslo, Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.114.126 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So post this at the relevant article talk/discussion page and the editors there will consider what to do with this information. You have reliable sources to hand for all of this information, do you? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe my comments in favor of expanding the article on UEA emails to "Climategate" have been unfairly removed. The comments by User:Scjessey in removing my posts appear to demonstrate a bias that is not POV neutral.

My point in the discussion is this: Consensus in science isn't science, it is politics. Science is the reasoned examination of all alternatives, and most importantly the concept of "falsification" through the examination of contrary findings. When information is suppressed, science becomes politics, and society suffers.

The story of the UEA emails is simply part of a wider story, the suppression of competing theories on climate change, which has through usage gained the title "Climategate". As such, the Wikipedia rule against using "gate" to create a name does not apply in this case because ClimateGate is a new word that has come into existence and general usage outside of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has now become part of the story, through the reported actions of William Connelley on Wikipedia and his ties to Real Climate and persons appearing in the UEA emails. The actions of User:Scjessey appear to be similar in intent. By attempting to suppress the inclusion of "climategate" as a topic in Wikipedia, Wikipedia further becomes part of the story of Climategate, which is contrary to the wikipedia policy of POV neutral.

Comments follow:

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Please don't use the article talk pages for soap boxing your point of view. Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading the talk what I find is everyone is presenting their point of view. Who's point of view are you presenting through the use of prejudicial terms such as "soap boxing"? Who made that determination? 24.87.71.192 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are ramming your skewed point of view down other people's throats by posting the same information twice (and now three times). That is soap boxing, and also rude. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am simply reporting information that is widely available. I find your use of prejudicial terms such as "skewed point of view" and "soap boxing" without basis in fact. These terms suggest that you are suppressing my information because it does not agree with your point of view. As such, you are not acting in a fashion that is POV neutral. Please refer this matter for arbitration as I beleive you have acted in an unfair manner, contrary to the interests and policy of wikipedia.

I hereby make a formal complaint against Scjessey and request that this matter go to arbitration.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.87.71.192" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.71.192 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried to discuss with User:Scjessey? Please consider the possibility that he has some legitimate points to make too, and please be civil in the discussion. --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this and often new people do want to push a POV or argue excessively over merit but no one has objected to some merit discussion on most pages. And, I've also been accused of soapboxing for just discussing decision criteria on the Creation Science page ( IIRC, or another creation page ) because it seemsd that the topic was considered a fringe POV about itself ( a situation which is not possible) so I have some sympathy for people who argue soapboxing charges are designed to push a POV. Merit discussions may help isolate and elucidate passionately held attitudes towards what constitutes proper citation in an actual article but the article can't reflect new conclusions or take sides beyond what the existing literature takes.In the case of Climate Gate, merit discussions may help elucidate issues of intellectual independence and relaibility of sources who are tied to certain types of funding- people who believe that all "religious sources" are homogeneous and dependent on each other tend to forget about "scientific" funding source(s) having various agendas or conclusions that are "Too obvious to question." I would even point to the handling of Watson as a clear example- he was fired for answering a question arguably within in his field but contrary to political objectives. Regardless of what you believe about climate or racism, clearly intellectual independence is an issue relevant to wikipedia. General issues that go beyond a specific topic may be better handled at places like the reliable source discussion board. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

New Word

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Appologies if this question is not for you; I have just had an argument with my boss, I used a word that my spell checker did not recognise, everyone in the office agree's that although the word does not exist but it does make sense. The word "Intergratability", used in the context " The future integratability of the system must be taken into account". I would like to propose that this word be given life, and placed into the English lanuage, how on earth does one do such a thing? Many Thanks

David A. Reynolds21:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.76.2 (talk)

First of all you should have shown him this google result - [4]
Secondly future questions such as this would probably be best asked at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language were they are well used to answering such things.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Bites tongue so as not to comment about spelling and misuse of apostrophe... – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There's wikt:List of protologisms/A-P. Assuming you don't mean by "intergratability" "the ability to be between grates," and probably instead mean integratability, I'd note that "ability to be integrated" is probably itself able to be integrated within the meaning of wikt:compatibility. Шизомби (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

' Celts' - racism.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article entitled 'Celts' seems to be an attempt to put forward the idea of a pure race of people. Untouched by any mixing That alone plus the absolute lack of historical evidence makes the article quite dangerous I would say.

So this is a complaint of racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.161.136 (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Celts describes celtic as a cultural/linguistic description and not race so the writer of the above comment is confused and needs to re read the article.Cathar11 (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it appears that the OP has poor English language reading and comprehension skills. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Need help moving Swedish General Strike

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Swedish General Strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I would like to move Swedish General Strike to Swedish General Strike of 1909, as per discussion. I can't seem to find how to do that. Thanks in advance, Axel Löfving (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I don't think that's necessary, if or when there is another article about a Swedish General Strike, then the article can be moved accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Need help with Graham Jones pages

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I met Graham Jones (director) twice and he agreed to let me manage copyright of 4 images so I can improve 4 pages that relate to his books and films. I received warnings after uploading them and while Graham himself agreed to send an e-mail to permissions clearing all the stuff I don't know if the matter is resolved. It may well be resolved. I did get subsequent notifications but don't understand them. Could someone have a look and see whether the images are deemed acceptable now or if they are still at risk of deletion - and if so what Wikipedia wants? Grateful.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoursedge2 (talkcontribs) 21:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the notice at File:Graham5.jpg is asking you to let the OTRS people which file you are talking about, so I suggest that you let them know. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
See also WP:CONSENT. ResMar 13:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential use of wikipedia entry to drive traffic

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_of_the_World:_Radiant_Mythology


Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tales_of_the_World%3A_Radiant_Mythology&action=historysubmit&diff=333649294&oldid=333631102


User from IP 68.187.183.67 continues to re-add link to a "fansite". Link doesn't appear to be necessary and does not add any value to the article. Appears to be an attempt to drive traffic by piggybacking the link on a highly visible site.


Was previous removed by another user back in Oct 2009: Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tales_of_the_World%3A_Radiant_Mythology&action=historysubmit&diff=318146686&oldid=318143828 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.74 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I put a warning template on the user talk page, I recommend that you get an account and please remember to sign your posts with four (~)s. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chief Editor and Associate Editors I would like permission to post new poetry pages

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Chief Editor and Associate Editors I would like permission to post new poetry pages such as the home pages of my 2 quarterly poetry journals in print:

Sonnetto Poesia ISSN 1705-4524 (quarterly in print since 2005) http://sonnettopoesiahome.homestead.com/

Canadian Zen Haiku canadien ISSN 1705-4508 (quarterly in print since 2006) http://canadianzenhaikuhome.homestead.com/

both quarterly journals in print on deposit with the National Library of Canada.

plus I would like to add links to these journals in the appropiate pages on the sonnet & haiku in Wikipedia. Which pages do you suggest? I ask this because I recently saw an article on the Internet complaining about illegitimate entries (which is truly understandable). I do not wish to infringe on Wikipedia in any way, and that is why I come to you first.


Sincerely

Richard Vallance Janke Ottawa, Ontario, Canada <redact email>

Vallance65 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of like Organia here, there isn't really anyone in charge and you don't need permission but if you want to put something in without being driven by an article you need a pretext. Certainly people who have conflicts are encouraged to discuss their contemplated contributions with others and even avoid editing but if you know the field and think you have a notable or reliable source, even one you authored yourself, you may be able to include it some place where it seems to have an ecyclopedic purpose.Someone may also be able to direct you to a project page that is watched by people more familiar with your field. Generally blogs and self-published works don't meet encyclopedic needs but if you have published something that has some semblance of reliability such as peer review it may be ok. Keep in mind there are online journals claiming to do peer review that are often little better than blogs or vanity books but, again, it would help to find someone who knows and cares about your area. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - if your works are notable and backed up by verifiable and reliable third part sources then there may be a place for them. Check out the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and the tutorial. It may be better to create the pages in your user-space first and then come back here to ask for comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian O'Connor (a phenomenon! singer, rapper, performer, promoter, songwriter, music producer, music company CEO, video maker, graphic editor, deal maker)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear editor: I would like to work on this lengthy and informative bio page with your assistance! I can come here or where you point me to edit, change, update and make this page a great page on Wikipedia! Please let me know how to proceed. I started it, but didn't want to continue until I hear back from you. Thank you for your consideration. My email address is <redacted> Thank you. Have a Super Holiday!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianBilionaire (talkcontribs) 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have collapsed the text as this is not the right place for a draft article. Before we get started, a question: are you Brian O'Connor? If so, please read WP:AUTO. If you are otherwise connected to/with him, please read WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I would add that I can find nothing to support the notability of this particular Brian O'Connor. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Change request for article title

Resolved: as per User:Orangemike. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Could an administrator please change the title of Goodwill Bridge, to Goodwill Bridge.

I have attempted to correct this title myself, by moving the article to Goodwill Bridge (to remove the unnecessary comma at the end of the title), but my attempts to 'move the page' to the correct title have been refused. Figaro (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you need to post this at WP:Requested moves. I think the comma is stopping ordinary users from doing this. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Figaro (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Beer in Serbia and Montenegro

Resolved: mirror reference removed after correspondence with other editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting assistance on whether footnote 1 in Beer in Serbia and Montenegro from economicexpert.com is a footnote to a mirror Wikipedia site as prohibited by Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks or is it a valid footnote. Nightkey (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the bottom of the page in question says: This article is from Wikipedia licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Beer in Serbia and Montenegro". So it is of no use as a reference or footnote as per WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I have placed a tag on that reference. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

'Media Institute decries unethical journalism in Tanzania'

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Username: mhegerapr Date: Dec 28/2009/12/24 Tel:<redacted>

By Elias Mhegera, Dar es Salaam, email: <redacted> The Media Institute of Southern Africa-Tanzania Chapter MISA-Tan has condemned unethical journalism that has characterized recent debates in the Tanzanian media outlets.

This was a core matter in the roundtable discussion on Saturday 20th this month when some members reviewed the importance of online journalism in modern media work.

The chapter’s chairman Ayub Rioba said that media practitioners who have decided to engage themselves in this trend where trivial issues are given popularity at the expense of serious pertinent issues should be ashamed of themselves.

“It is disheartening to find that journalists who are well trained have decided to become stooges of some unscrupulous politicians and engage themselves in this fiery exchange of words” he said rather sadly.

Rioba’s comments followed a request from attendants of establishing an online journal and a blog where they could report freely without interference from editors who have taken sides in the tug-of war particularly within the ruling CCM.

One contributor who preferred anonymity said that he was not comfortable by how his media house has turned itself a main defender of ‘mafisadi’ corrupt people.

“At times I cannot even report properly simply because my editors will not publish what I give them, they have been blinded by this corrupt money” he said.

Godfrey Dilunga who is working with Raia Mwema said that online publication will offer a right avenue for media practitioners whom he termed as ‘patriotic’ to excavate ill doings going on in Tanzania.

He said that it was unbecoming for journalists to launch a series of scathing attacks against fellow professionals and retirees who have chosen their right to comment on the incumbent president Kikwete’s rule.

“It is strange to find that some journalists are spending their precious time condemning retired Premier Joseph Warioba, Joseph Butiku, Dr Harrison Mwakyembe and whoever has stood firm against ill doings this is ridiculous! He Commented.

He said it was high time that journalists were involved in serious pertinent issues like the ‘Kilimo Kwanza’ initiative. “Otherwise without that we are degrading ourselves to the news consumers” said Dilunga.

In what appeared like a day of self censorship another contributor Bilham Kimathi from The Guardian said that if this trend of journalism is not stopped it could lead the country to political chaos

“It is high time we should establish our online magazine which will be edited by ethical editors under the supervision of MISA, I am sure this will be used as a source of reference in so many ways” said Kimathi.

Kimathi himself an editor advised a blog to be used as an ombudsman to the media and a source of well balanced news without fear or favour.

Features editor with Tanzania Daima Ratifa Baranyikwa shared same views saying that without such a magazine which will distance media practitioners with some corrupt editors and owners who intrude in the working of their media outlets, the profession will be jeopardized.

She added that there is a need for frequent meetings, of journalists in order for the professionals to re-address themselves to the social demands.

ENDS

NB: Joseph Warioba is retired prime minister Joseph Butiku is Executive Director and Trustee of the Mwalimu Nyerere Foundation (MNF)

Dr Harrison Mwakyembe is one of the outspoken crusaders of the Anti-corruption war in Tanzania

@eliasmhegera,daressalaam,Tanzania —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhegerapr (talkcontribs) 14:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Too long; didn't read. Do you have a request for editor assistance? – ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to say the same here. If you need help with something Wikipedia-related, please do ask, but I really don't see what it is that you need help with. It's a bit beyond our scope to help with journalistic ethics in Tanzania. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(My concern is typed in bold text below.)

One More Question About Criticism Sections

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do so few of the pages have a criticism section anymore?

This makes all the article seem like a one sided discussion. You will lose many readers and have fewer visitors to this web site because there are so few open minded articles in it anymore. I liked wiki how it was before.

BRING BACK THE CRITICISM SECTIONS!!!

from wiki user J Jensen seatle wa

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)"


P.S. I dont really use wiki anymore because its too much like encarta or webster. I miss the criticism sections and I think alot of people do.

BRING BACK THE CRITICISM SECTIONS save wikipedia BRING BACK THE CRITICISM SECTIONS save wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.216.137 (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are falling into disuse because in most articles, criticism is simply incorporated into the prose, as would be with most encyclopaedias. Generally, only articles dealing with topics that have received widespread and very notable criticism have criticism sections. (Further reading: WP:CRITS). Intelligentsium 17:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Link on Wiki - Idiopathic Pulmonary Hemosiderosis

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I posted a link to my personal website on Idiopathic pulmonary haemosiderosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This was not a commercial site, but a personal site with links to articles, treatments, and doctors who are familiar with this disorder. As a parent of a child that is living with IPH for 25+ years, and the only site dedicated to IPH, I feel that including this site is as important to the information that a Wiki would provide considering the rareness of this disease. The links on the site are up to date, verifiable, and of particular interest to parents, patients, and caregivers of those with IPH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iphnet (talkcontribs) 03:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The addition of the link was reverted by the bot as it appears you have a conflict of interest in adding this site. Please read our policy on external links, personal websites are strongly discouraged, as per:
It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines.
The original sources may be of value, if reliable sources, to support information in the article. The article talk page would be the best place to start discussions of such. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

KCKN (defunct)

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am terribly confused and need assistance with my contribution: KCKN (defunct) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I have attempted to make the changes per editor Mr. Pinckney, but I am unable to figure out how to complete his instructions. I left a note in the "Reference" section explaining my difficulties. Any assistance will be appreciated. Even if I did not have dyslectic tendencies, this is the most difficult web site I have encountered -- but I love it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Lester (talkcontribs) 04:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What User:JohnFromPinckney is saying is that you need to provide full citations for newspaper articles, etc. You can use Template:Cite news for this. The essential parameters are:
  • title: Title of the article. Note that title must be on one line in order for the hyperlink (if there is one) to display properly. Do not enclose it in quotations marks, italics or other formatting, though it may be wikilinked. Reduce "all capitals" to some other title case.
  • newspaper: Name of the publication that ran the item, e.g., Newsweek, The Scotsman, etc. Can also be used for the name of a column or subpart of an issue. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically. (You may also use journal, magazine, periodical or work, but do not use publisher for this.)
  • date: Date of publication. To avoid ambiguity, write out the month in words, using the same date format as in the main text of the article. When this information is absent for an online source consider using {{cite web}} instead.
Hope that this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

locked post?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I wonder why this is locked?

I do not wish to prejudge anything but there is a trial pending and articles which seek to defend an accused may be read by those who will sit on the jury.

In the interests of fairness this article should not be locked but under the supervision of lawyers so that neither the defence nor prosecution may make a case in it outside of the UK courts.

11:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)~ ______ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanavati (talkcontribs) 11:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you perhaps bringing your own POV to this? The article is semi-protected so that only established users can edit it. This is to reduce vandalism from people rushing in their own point of view. As to your suggeston about lawyers, I don't think that anyone here would agree to something like that. Of course, courts in any juridisdiction may remove internet access from jurors. The article talk page is the place to discuss concerns. A brief look at the article shows that information about the trials is cited to reliable sources, which are mostly newspapers, which one assumes are careful about what they print. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NO DEFINITION FOR SIGN DESIGN

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Editors:

Why isn't there a definition for Sign Design?


Mike Burke <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signdesigner (talkcontribs) 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Because no-one has written it yet. Wanna give it a try? Click here -> Sign Design (There is Traffic sign design, though...)
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
What content do you tyhink should go in such an example, remember that definitions are for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Namespace 4 (Projects) being redirected to an article in namespace 0?

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've run across a Wikispace page name in namespace 4 that is being used as a redirect to an article in namespace 0. Wikipedia:Snowblind (synonymous to WP:Snowblind and Project:Snowblind) is redirected to an article titled Project Snowblind (no colon). I thought pages that start with 'Wikipedia:' or 'Project:' were reserved for Project namespace 4. The article name is fine, but should this redirect be deleted? Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

When you put a title into either a link or the search bar, the software looks at "Project:" "Wikipedia:" and "WP:" as the same thing. So to make the link Project: Snowblind send someone to Project Snowblind, Wikipedia:Snowblind has to be a redirect. That is to say, when you try to search for or link to "Project: Snowblind", the software won't send you there. It will send you to "Wikipedia: Snowblind", and once again, there must be a redirect. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Article "Digital Sculpture" was deleted

Resolved: article was prodded as an essay, deleted after seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, the article I wrote called "Digital Sculpture" was deleted summarily, with no discussion or notice to me. I had it up on a trial basis for a week or so with no response from any editors, so I brought it live only to have it wiped out. Is this not considered a valid topic? I did have some references, were there not enough? I don't get it...

Awerby (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Werby

Hi, I can't find any evidence that a page named Digital Sculpture or Digital sculpture was ever created or deleted. Are you sure that that was the name you created it under? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It was "digital sculpture". You were notified of the proposed deletion at User talk:Awerby#Proposed deletion of "digital sculpture". You still have a copy of the deleted article at User:Awerby/Digital sculpture. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
So you were informed - it was proposed for deletion as an essay and original research, and after the statutory seven day it was deleted. Please read up on how to write an article, links on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Totaldramaman

Proposed Addition to Incomplete List of Terrorist Incidents

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Add the following to the list at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

April 4, 1968: The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee

June 5, 1968: Senator Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles, California

These assassinations meet the same criteria as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendyalisonnora (talkcontribs) 22:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  • i think saying that the assassination of those people are terrorist attacks will not be accepted by the majority of people. Even if it was a terrorist attack.if you add it anyway it will definatley be removed by somon later in my view.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
this the problem with lists like this, it invites moralizing and arguments over words. What about ambushes on British soldiers in Colonial America? Is that terrorism? You need to find sources that use the term, you can't inflict your own morality onto the topic. This is no better than "criminal" or "inane" etc etc. If you want to include an incident, you need to find a reliable source that already makes the claim, you can't just say "well surely this is terrorism" etc etc etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the JFK assassination from List of terrorist incidents - doesn't appear to me to meet the criteria. – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Australia Day article

Answered: answered multiply Jezhotwells (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been attempts by political and community leaders to involve the common people in the debate over moving the 26 January Australia Day holiday to another date. [1] Yet when I write this fact into the article it is repeatedly removed.

Also Captain James Cook claimed New South Wales in 1770. When I write this into the Arrival of the First Fleet subsection this to is removed.

I don't know that the whole "debate" is a fringe discussion of radical aboriginal rights activists and something that is being kept artifically alive by sections of the political class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.99.250 (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the other editors that "common people" is a loaded term, introducing a point of view. Here at WP:EAR we don't make judgements on who is right, it is up to editors to establish consensus on the article talk page. Please read up on how this works. It is not a matter of saying "I am right" and then forum shopping to get support. Remember that we are creating an encyclopaedia here, not a platform for points of view. It is a matter of give and take, of editors assuming good faith. Keep discussing at the article talk page. If you really feel that other editors are being unreasonable then consider formal steps for WP:Dispute resolution. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
There have been attempts to get people other than political and community leaders and radical aboriginal rights activists involved in the debate.
But when you mention this fact in the article it gets removed.
Why should that be?
124.183.245.186 (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia Day

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as suggested new dates for Australia Day go practically every day on the calendar has been suggested at some point. But by who?

Just because a scribe working for a daily newspaper with a barrow to push pens a piece suggesting an alternative date does that become immediately noteworty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.245.186 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And your request here at Editor assistance/Requests is what? Or are you just posting a point of view? If you wish to discuss improvements to the article Australia Day, then Talk:Australia Day is the place to do it. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Australia Day (again)

There have been attempts to widen the debate over the date of Australia Day by getting engaging the common people.

Yet when you write this into the article replete with references it gets removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.245.186 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


Content on the article about Arístides Mejía

Answered: ækTalk 00:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello:

Over the last few days I have been deleting soe content on the Arístides Mejía (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, because I thought it was contentious and it was unsourced. I left my reason in the discussion page yet the person making the changes just reverted it without adding a source or responding to the post in the discussion of page. I'd rather not enter a back and forth but I feel that the information should not stay on the page. Any help?

Brumere18 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, what do you mean by "soe" content? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I presume that you mean unsourced content as that is what you reverted. You need to warn the other editor when this sort of thing happens. If it is an IP, as in this case, use an appropriate template such as {{uw-unsourced2}} (level 2 as the editor already had another warning.. There are plenty more at WP:Template messages/User talk namespace. I use WP:TWINKLE to do this. If the editor carrie son then report at WP:3RR or WP:AIV as appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident?!?!?!

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has no editorial board. Revisions are not reviewed before they appear on the site. Content is not the result of an editorial decision by the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff."

Get real - at some point you guys have to take responsibility for clear distortions of truth on your site, and Orwellian attempts to outright censor and misinform the public.

If 'ClimateGate' is not a valid term, then I agree, we might as well just throw Wikipedia in the trash along with all the other liars and phony propaganda sites out there masquerading as real discourse.

You have a responsibility to, and a faith in humanity, and you wouldn't be doing this site if you didn't. Allowing this kind of cynical obfuscation of truth is not only disgusting and fascistic, but violates every principle that drives WikiPedia to its foundational core.

A tax on CO2 is a tax on BREATHING.

Are you willing to have your body's annual CO2 output evaluated by some stranger whose salary is the sole purpose of the tax which they will assess upon your very person?

CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. To criminalize CO2 is to CRIMINALIZE HUMAN LIFE.

The contributors who have so cynically turned 'ClimateGate' into a fancy piece of NewSpeak on your server should have their privileges on this site unceremoniously REVOKED, in the interest of free speech, transparent debate, and frank analysis of the increasingly cynical world we live in.

If you allow this kind of behaviour to occur on your page, then there won't be a world left worth having WikiPedia in it. What is the point of having an information site that can be so easily and disingenuously manipulated?

I was going to send you money in the New Year, but now I have serious doubts about the value of your site. "ClimateGate" is already a solidly entrenched colloquialism in the common consciousness of the world, and on that basis alone merits inclusion on it's OWN page on your increasingly irrelevant site.

I now see the true value of WikiPedia - it's a FANTASTIC place to find walkthroughs for computer games!

We do not live in a Democracy today, but a Hypocracy - shall history ultimately confer the same judgment upon your clearly failing concept of intelligent human discourse, which has now shown itself to be little more than another platform for the concerted and indifferently selfish agendas that permeate every corner of our modern age?


The choice is yours. Show some backbone, or you will never get a dime from a least one person in this world.207.6.254.220 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.254.220 (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC) 
Request unclear. You want a page on climate gate and it was rejected? Again, after having to remove halocarbon graph from the little ice age page I can appreciate your apparent concern. Wikipedia is about documenting the state of human knowledge which presumably will "save the world" without a need to have wikipedian editors inflicting a POV paving the road to hell with good intentions. The rest of your argument is not relevant to a specific article but there may be other pages for discussing overall wiki policies. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship at Wikipedia

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

What is your policy when two editors have opposing views on the same topic?

I have seen the entry on Max Gerson and know that some items are not there that should be. When I asked the Gerson Institute about this, they said whenever they add the items, those items are immediately removed.

I'm using this tool to ask my question because I can't find a "contact us" link anywhere.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary5Montano (talkcontribs) 05:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the page? Presumably a site controlled by the subject would be a reliable source about itself but citations to the site can't create an advertisement tone. For example, it is probably ok in an article about Foo Inc to say something like ("cnn reported that joe said foo is evil but foo issued a statment [foo site]"- even this is a bad example since it reads like a news story and needs to be encyclopedic with balance reflecting coverages). You have to avoid doing original research and cherry picking observations and an intellectually dependent source can not establish notability. But probably you could collect observations about issues which have already been raised by other reliable sources. It depends, some editors will just remove material that appears to be from a COI source without much thought but often it is material that doesn't make a better article. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't see you discussing this on the article talk page which is the appropriate venue. Also I note that the Gerson Institute clearly has a conflict of interest so they need to be careful about any information that they add. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library RfC closure

Resolved: Superseded by events so assistance not needed.—Ash (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

At RfC: Remove the open wiki http://www.itlibrary.org from External links? an editor with RfC experience and independent of on-going (if unsubstantiated) accusations of personal attack by one of the contributors is needed to summarize the discussion and help close this RfC. Note that there has been an attempt to use sockpuppets during the discussion and the RfC has been re-listed due to an initial attempt to close the RfC with a biased result. Ash (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfC has only just started, I suggest you let it run its course. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
No, as I mentioned above, it was re-listed after a biased attempt at closure summary. The original RfC was opened on 22 November 2009, see diff. The link the RfC was about has now been removed as per apparent consensus but I was looking for someone independent of the heated debate on the talk page to close.—Ash (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction to a Reference

Resolved: reference fixed Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I created a login simply to make one correction and it seems it is protected so that I cannot edit it. Reference #1 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Diocese_of_El_Camino_Real points to a URL that no longer exists due to our implementation of a new diocesan website. The new location for Reference #1 is http://www.edecr.org/sitefiles/file/otherdocs/Hist-ProfileExcerpt-200610.pdf . Since I could not update the reference, I added an external link for this. How does the original reference get corrected?

Stephenie Cooper, Web Sacistan, Episcopal Diocese of El Camino Real, [email redacted] --Src4ecrwiki (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the url.[5] References are written and edited in the section where they are used as references. See more at Help:Footnotes. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Stephenie Cooper --Src4ecrwiki (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/gilly-backs-australia-day-debate/story-0-1111118672763