Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 67

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

Contents

"The English Qabalah" page vandalism

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, The English Qabalah page (link here: English Qabalah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) is undergoing repeated vandalism by individuals wishing to monopolize the subject by promoting their own theory. The users causing this problem are "Sticky Parkin" and "Dan" (who may be the same individual). A detailed account of what's happening can be seen from the page's history. For the sake of comprehensiveness, I've added information on other theories which they continually erase to aggrandize their own entries. Many thanks, Yuri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.132.4 (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you discuss your differences on the article talk page? That is why talk pages are provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really interested in discussing anything with banned sock-puppeteer User:EdwardLeeFrampton. Dan (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
OK if you reckon that is a banned user report at WP:ANI. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mother Sayamagyi or Mya Thwin

Answered: merge has happened, prod notice has been placed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mother Sayamagyi and Mya Thwin are currently identical articles, the latter containing all the editing history and talk page discussions. I'm asking for help building consensus on which name should be used so we can then ensure that article retains the history and discussions. --Ronz (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The former has now been redirected to the latter, so looks like the problem has been dealt with. – ukexpat (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The original page was Mother Sayamagyi and it contained all the page histories and talk etc. The move to Mya Thwin was made at a later date and is wrong. I tried to fix it, made mistakes and got bot-warned for my efforts. But Mother Sayamagyi is the most commonly used term. As far as I can ascertain, Mother Sayamagyi is never referred to as Mya Thwin in any of the sources, but always as Mother Sayamagyi or simply Sayamagyi.

English language sources are: Art of crossing cultures‎, Craig Storti; The Middle way, Volumes 71-72; The way to ultimate calm: selected discourses of Webu Sayadaw; The Buddhist directory: United States of America & Canada‎;

Mysticeditor (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem has not been dealt with. As far as I can establish, Mother Sayamagyi is not known as, and is never referred to as, Mya Thwin in any of the sources. Mysticeditor (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case you will have to open a merge discussion as described at WP:MERGE. – ukexpat (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
But the page was originally Mother Sayamagyi and it was moved without discussion. Mysticeditor (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No matter what the eventual title should be, it appears that edit histories may have to be merged, hence my suggestion above. – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My initial goal was to stop the move war; that has happened. Now that we have a temporarily stable situation, we can discuss the proper name for the article at length without the constant shifting back and forth (Ukexpat, I'm not sure there is actual edit history under both names, other than the history of the move war.) I temporarily defaulted to her real name, because our problem is that we don't have very good sourcing for this person. While she may be known to her fellow believers as "Mother", we have no evidence as to how she is known to the community at large, since we have no evidence so far that she is known to exist by anybody outside her circle of fellow religious believers. Does she even meet WP:N? If so, by what name is she known outside the two obscure sources provided so far? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I need help editing this article so it fits with the 'general notablity' and 'wiki' guidelines that appear at the top of the page. I can't work out what i've done wrong! Susanferreira (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you click on the links in the tags you will be taken to pages that explain. In brief, please read WP:BIO for notability and WP:RS for guidelines as to what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, and Wikipedia:Glossary#Wikify for Wikification. – ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with uncivil editor (Infinity0)

I am still new to all this so need some advice regarding a deliberately and persistently uncivil editor (profanity and personal abuse). The issue at hand arises out of some hot-headed anonymous remarks at Talk:Trust metric#Continuing reverts. Having knowledge that the person is a registered Wikipedia user I requested on his talk page that he cease the uncivil language (see User talk:Infinity0). His response was a blast on my talk page (which I have moved to his page), and further comment on his page. (See also User talk:193.60.95.68.)

It seems to me that there is no actual dispute here to resolve, just deliberate, acknowledged, and unrepentant bad behavior. Given his own comment ("Just ban me"), I am wondering if doing that would be the most elegant resolution here. (This would need to include 193.60.95.68 abd 131.111.248.85 as well.) I would appreciate some advice on this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Infinity0 left the message after you posted the following warning on his talk page:
Ximin, your continuing uncivil language and disruptive edits on Trust metrics are not as anonymous as may have thought. This is not about Mentifex, this is about you. So last request: cease and desist. You are known, and administrative action will be brought to bear. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[1]
Since he had posted nothing to that page, you should apologize to him for your warning.
The Four Deuces (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you are also restoring text that is not not from a RS but from someody's website the IPs are entitled to delete the content which constitute an attack on a BLP. I am deleting it now.Cathar11 (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that J. Johnson's October 31 edit to Trust metric seems to be a BLP violation against the person known as Mentifex. I support Cathar11's removal of this material. Johnson's edit to the *article* also included a complaint about some anonymous editors on the article's Wikipedia talk page. There is no reason for one of our articles to ever cite its own Talk page. The web page en.nothingisreal.com/wiki/The_Arthur_T._Murray/Mentifex_FAQ Mentifex_FAQ, used as a reference by Johnson, seems to be a personal website which criticizes the person known as Mentifex. Such a page is not a reliable source. Use of this material in an article risks being considered by admins as unsourced defamation. Now that the importance of following our WP:BLP policy has been explained to him, I trust that User:J. Johnson will use caution. EdJohnston (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I thank you all for your comments, and Cathar11 for the re-write, which I think is just fine. I am a little surprised to see my handling of Mentifex deemed to be an issue, and would like to comment on that. At a higher level the overall issue is the notorious self-promotion and sock-puppetry of "Mentifex", which intruded into the Trust metric article when an earliar editor referred to him as a "kook", which Mentifex "improved" to "noted AI theorist". (Which he most emphatically is not, which I know on the basis of being a personal friend.) I had thought that to the extent Mentifex has publicly claimed something which is disputed, it was relevant and even warranted to at least point to the third-party opinion. Although that is a personal webpage, I believe the author is credible, and his statements are supported by citations. As all that is narrowly focussed on a specific aspect of the subject's public behavior I did not believe it would violate the BLP policy. If that is a BLP violation (I ask, in case there was some misunderstanding here), then I stand corrected. But this is a side issue.

The issue I wish to raise here is regarding Infinity0. It is suggested above that I was wrong to post to his talk page. I am quite perplexed by this. I wished to demonstrate to him that he was not as anonymous as he seemed to think (and hoping that realization of that would moderate his behavior), but not to violate WP:outing by disclosing his user name on the article talk page. Even if posting on his page was in error, I do not see how that should excuse his uncivil blast of profanity on my talk page (or his prior remarks). I should like futher comment on this, please. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You could query this at Wikipedia etiquette alerts. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pea Galaxy Flags

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I have been working extremely hard on an article others seem keen to change to how they think it should be, even if that means the article gets worse. They have left flags asking for refs. and cits., which are now provided and used in the article. I have checked punctuation and grammar, as have others, until I am blue-in-the-face. I am an English teacher by profession. Yet they have left no real clues as to exactly what they want. I have someone called 'ukexpat' occasionally visit. I find this attitude to what is very new and exciting science pretty miserable. Indeed it reflects badly on Wikipedia as a whole. Please can someone with authority, not just someone with a large ego, have a look and tell me EXACTLY what needs changing? Thankyou, Richard. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly the article needs a lot of work. Please read WP:MoS to get some idea of how to lay out an article. citing sources will show you how to properly cite sources. reliable sources will explain that blogs and forums are not RS. Andromeda Galaxy is a good artcile and shows the standard you should be aiming at. (BTW, I note that several of the articles listed as good at WP:WikiProject Astronomy have in fact been de-listed.) You may find further help at the project. If yuou don't understand another editor's edits, then ask them on the article talk page. that is what it is there for. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Er, excuse me? My attitude is "miserable"? So much for assuming good faith. I may not understand the ins and outs of the subject matter but I have done some minor work on formatting the article in accordance with WP:MOS and making sure that the images are properly permissioned. If that's miserable, I give up! Take the initiative and reach out to the WP:WikiProject Astronomy (I have already attempted to do so) and ask for help. – ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

>>>>Some feedback is all I really require. With this particular subject, a great deal of it took place online- it is an online event. To suddenly negate any material drawn from the blog and forum in question seems somewhat patronising. Very serious scientists have worked on both the Galaxy Zoo Blog and Forum. Because of this GZ Forum new discoveries have been made by top astronomers. To say that they are not reliable sources cannot be a good thing. I will try my best to come up to the required standard- after all I am representing the quarter-of-a-million people who have taken part in galaxy classification. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not being patronising. Please assume good faith. Wikipedia has policies on verifiability and sourcing which need to be adhered to. Blogs and forums do not meet those standards as the identity of the posters is not neccessarily verifiable. Comment in reliable third party sources, eg. per reviewed scientific papers, books, journal articles is the kind of sourcing needed. Please do not assume that I am saying this about the sources. I am trying to explain to you how this encyclopaedia works. I understand that it can be difficult to find good sources. In that case sometimes statemnets are best left out of articles until the sourcing is available. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
And still no apology? Oh well, time to move on... – ukexpat (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

>>>>Perhaps you could advise me on how I might proceed? There is a 'history of discovery' section, which focuses on events on the GZ Forum. Should I delete all of this, as all its links and refs. are forum-based? It helps to put the discovery in context, indeed in a peer review a reviewer wrote that I should put it at the frot of the article. I'm confused really about how much I need links or refs. on something that is not necessarily verifiable, but not untrue. This is just how it was. To leave it out takes all context away, which in this case is all-important. Richard Nowell (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, you would be best advised to ask this at WT:WikiProject Astronomy. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This what I wrote there: >>>>The main problem I have with writing this article is that it has all happened online, as it is an online project. The discovery was the result of a forum and lots and lots of goodwill. How the Pea galaxies were discovered, how they got their name, mostly everything apart from the paper and the press release, happened online. However this use of material from the forum is frowned upon by Wiki. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to proceed? Should I abandon the history altogether? Have none of it referenced to anything? The history is central and gives it all context. 'A new way of doing Science', yet I can't use a lot of it. Confused... thankyou, Richard. Richard Nowell (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This section should probably be renamed as it does raise a topic non-specific question of the utility of blogs. Consider the reliable source noticeboard for further guidance. However, the scenario is interesting: Interactive collaboration online leading to novel results for which peer review could be done interactively and publicly. Imagine the exchange, "well I ran a simulation ( source code and docs posted here, foo ) and Joe's results don't make sense." The objection raised above is that identities could not be verified. Also, Wikipedia needs reliable source and no genre or source is excluded but normally blogs are not reliable or don't reflect encyclopedic archival facts. Normally you wouldn't document reviewer comments in public but the collaboration described above is something to think about. Expert blogs have been suggested to be reliable but then of course someone has to make a determination about expert status. So, of course this is quite subjective and maybe the astro project people have different criteria or processes than we normally consider here.It wouldn't be forum shopping to get opinions from probject and RS boards. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

>>>>I have removed the History of Discovery section from my article as its only sources are the Galaxy Zoo forum and blog. I do however think there is something in what I wrote. This is an online project from which 18 academic papers have so far been published in 2.5 years. Not any old papers either. The Peas are a result of something that could only happen online i.e. a quarter of a million people classifying one million galaxies. Yes on blogs and forums people can change stuff after it has been posted; who knows who the person is really? etc. etc. Where does that leave a lot of very good material from highly qualified astronomers that is also very educational? Galaxy Zoo, that is all I can write about, has been so educational to so many people. It may be an unreliable source, but it is also an untapped resource. Are we really writing that what Dr.Chris Lintott explains on the GZForum is rubbish? Unreliable? So I could go on... Anyway, I hope I can get a decent enough article together from what I have. It's about to become much more academic, though less educational I feel. Now I have had the subject explained to me much more, I can proceed. Thankyou Richard Richard Nowell (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comments above. You need to determine 1) if an encyclopedic claim could be substantiated and 2) if the source is reliable. There is no blanket prohibition on any type of source however. If there is coverage of this forum elsewhere, that could make it notable for its own article and if cited by others that could establish realiability. Anonynmity per se is not an issue, many papers have ghost writers and pseudonyms, but that doesn't help establish expetise. A blog which is widely cited by CNN or Nature may be notable and maybe reliable but for many claims then you could cite both blog and cnn/nature. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I would also note sometimes people talk about a wiki for original research, the limiting factor being merit review. IF this source has accompliahed that to some extent it may be useful

to consider in various places here. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

>>>>Thanks for your last post Nerdseeksblonde. I guess that the 'History of Discovery' section, though interesting and informative, relied too much on the forum and blog. I am also very much involved in the initial discovery, so I don't have a neutral view about it. It is easily findable if need be. "it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.". But, on the main Physics section of the article there were a half-dozen explanations that came from the forum that made things a lot easier to understand- were educational as much as academic. These have been written by very qualified people, who are giving a scientific opinion, not a personal one. The causes of interstellar reddening or the metallicity of the Peas are what they are. So ok, I will endeavour to draw on material that is verifiable and published. Even if that means the quality and educational aspects are significantly lower. Children want something else apart from academic papers, and as one can see if one bothers to go to the forum, there is an education section with 9 separate threads to give info and provide lesson plans. For 5 to 6 yr olds upwards. As Tony Blair said "Education, education, education.". www.galaxyzooforum.org Richard Nowell (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could argue about exactly who to target in a wiki article but generally it is not a "how to" article for the topic or teaching the topic. An online discussion that produces useful scientific results is not inherently bad and may make a good topic in itself. Many aspects of a discussion like this however are not likely to be encyclopedic themselves ( "you forgot to include a term for foo etc") but the source may in fact be reliable for some claims. See also reliable source notice board. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

wrong information in page about my company

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Someone wrote a page about my company, One Iowa, and there are errors. I've changed them a couple of times, but the person keeps changing them back (these are things like when the company was founded and some other mistakes in a Slate news article that the person is copying from). I also tried to fill in more information, like our mission statement, etc. The person changed them back and told me not to put bias into the article (but I feel like it's biased now, and if he's the judge, how can this be resolved?).

I can't figure out how to post or respond, so I'm at a loss as to what to do. I do apologize; I work on websites for a living, but am having a terrible time trying to figure yours out. Any help you could give would be great, and any mistakes are completely to do with my newness here. Not a very welcoming crowd so far. DSMJSM (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First you have a conflict of interest so you should not be editing the article yourself. Please go to the article's talk/discussion page and post a message there disclosing your COI and explaining the things that you think should be changed. You will need to provide references from reliable sources though - personal knowledge is insufficient.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Aircraft upset

Discussion moved: to WT:WikiProject Aviation Jezhotwells (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello, there has been a history of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and uncivil behaviour (WP:CIVIL) on Aircraft upset and it's talk page.

There don't seem to be any other editors participating in this article recently, making it hard to find NPOV with only two active editors.

Any tips/feedback/help would be much appreciated!

Kind regards, PolarYukon (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have posted this query at WT:WikiProject Aviation which is probably the best forum. If you can't get help there then perhaps try WP:3 or WP:RfC. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish PostCodes - Whether An Post Supports Or Not

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland postal addresses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Request assistance with a disputed etit - details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland_postal_addresses#An_Post.27s_Support_Or_Otherwise

Thanks Dubhtail (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion added at talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Dubhtail (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for that - pity that Bastun retains the upperhand in undo's, did not seek a resolution, has assumed his own good faith but no-one elses and so far has ignored your councel. Does concensus and good faith only require one dominant editor ???
There has been a large body of evidence and refernces in this article up to now (for a few years)stating that An Post is against a National Postcode in Ireland - surely given this history does it not take a little more that an apparant oprphaned statement in the Web edition of the Irish Times to over throw that?? Dubhtail (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As I said, please discuss at the talk page, if that doesn't work, I have left other pointers there. This page exists to point editors in the right direction, not to sit in judgement on whether one editor is right and another is not. You could perhaps give the other editor a chance to respond as a matter of courtesy. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Article : Skanderbeg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On Skanderbeg talk page here (Talk:Skanderbeg#Summerize_the_Serbian_claims) it was agreed that Skanderbeg's mother was Serbian princess, by sources.

User:Gaius Claudius Nero reverted information.

I write to him, he answered here (User_talk:Gaius_Claudius_Nero#Skanderbeg) All sources are there...

Page is now fully protected, without that information.

--Tadija (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that looks like an edit war. I suggest that you follow the recommendations of User:Rodhullandemu. Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
But most of those authors are already used on wikipedia as reliable sources? That's not question? --Tadija (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The context in which sources are used may well affect their eliability. WP:RSN will give you some information. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -Tadija (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthrace/Ady Gil editing dispute

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthrace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have tried to add referenced material about the collision between the Ady Gil and the Shonan Maru 2 in the appropriate section of the article "Collision with Shonan Maru 2 and abandonment". My contribution was deleted for dubious reasons. After a lengthy discussion on the article's discussion page, I tried again, but my edit was changed dramatically. Please check out the discussion under "Removal of referenced material regarding collision with Shonan Maru 2". Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source, so you don't have much of a case. In fact there is a lot of dubious sourcing in that article which looks like it needs a thorough cleanup. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My edit does not appear but I don't think it has been reverted.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I posted an up date and a further edit said "who wrote this horrid pap?". I had to agree and re wrote the edit to comform with wikipedia rules. I contacted the author of the further edit using talk and accepted their comment and explained why I had deleted their edit ie. becuse they were right! None of these edits appear in the article when I log on although they are on the edit page. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.20.150 (talk)

The edits by your IP address are at Special:Contributions/212.85.20.150. All edits to Sad Lovers & Giants can be seen by clicking the "history" tab there. You don't quote what you see in the edit page and miss in the article so I cannot say for sure but maybe you had to bypass your cache to see the changes in your browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pickleman's

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pickleman's is a sandwich shop that has toasted sandwiches, soups, thin crust pizzas and salads (1). Pickleman's has been in business since 2005 and is based out of Columbia, MO. The shop is owned by Doug Stritzel and his wife Nikki. Doug is the former COO of Jimmy John's and has worked in the restaurant industry for 16 years (2).

Pickleman's has 3 locations and the shop recently started selling franchises in the Missouri area (3). The first franchise was purchased by Allen Willis. The five-store development is set to expand in southern Missouri. Additional franchises are in the works throughout the Midwest (4).

(1) www.picklemans.com (2) http://www.bluetoad.com/publication/?i=22733 (page 22) (3) http://www.columbiabusinesstimes.com/3352/2009/02/06/pickleman%E2%80%99s-marketed-as-franchise-opportunity/ (4) http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/12/28/smallb1.html


Katie.pickle (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Katie Morris, Pickleman's Employee

Ok what exactly are you asking about ...Do you wish the article to be created??? or was the page deleted ??? We just need a little more info so we can help you!!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
What makes Pickleman's notable? Remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not a trade directory. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding My Name to a List

Request unclear: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I read the article about Puerto Ricans in the various professions including the U.S. military. I would like to add my name to the list of those that served in the military. Please inform me if I need to provide any documentation and where to send such documentation.

Here's a sketch bio on myself:

Felipe (Phil) Torres Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired Served from 1966-2000 (34 years). At the time I retired, I was the senior ranking Puerto Rican on active duty in the history of the Marine Corps. Vietnam 1968-1969. Awarded Silver Star Medal for gallantry in action. Born: July 13, 1949 in Ponce, Puerto Rico. Lived in PR with my maternal grandmother until age 11 and then joined the rest of my siblings in Bronx, NYC, NY in 1960.

Please let me know what I need to do. I presently reside in San Antonio, Texas.

Respectfully, F. Phil Torres Cell: <phone number redacted> E-Mail: <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torresf713 (talkcontribs) 23:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Which article is that? Can you provide the name of the article or an URL? If there are reliable sources that can support your service then possibly you will meet the Wikipedia notability requirements. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over picture discription Balck Sabbath main article

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Sabbath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) All references to Black Sabbath and Califorina Jam are correct, the picture is not. Although this is a picture of Black Sabbath on stage, it is "NOT AT" the Califorina Jam. It was sited a couple times on the Talk:Black Sabbathpage but no resolution has been noted. I offer the following external links as reference. [2] [3] [4] [5] Mlpearc (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any dispute but there was some comment about this September. Why don't you find out where that was and change it? Jezhotwells (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is, thats not a picture of Black Sabbath "at Califorina Jam" since the section containing the picture is referencing Black Sabbath and the festival, I think the picture sholud be removed, or use a picture of them at the "Califorina Jam". Mlpearc (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So why don't you post this at the article talk page for discussion there as you are unwilling to take action yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It was brought to the talk page approx. 7 months ago and the picture is still incorrect, so I will take action and remove the picture so if a person is looking for factual infromation about Black Sabbath and/or the Califorina Jam they will be presented with the most accurate and up todate information. Mlpearc (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A dispute on sources

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This problems regarding the articles Banbi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Beizi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two articles are about Chinese clothings but most of us or Chinese wikipedians don't understand korean, I'm doubt the legitimacy of his source so i came here for help. Cydevil38 [6] provided 4 sources which are either unfindable, korean language source, non-english books without an specify page, and didn't mentioned Banbi or Beizi in them. I requested him to provide some links to his sources at Oct 2009 and not until lately that he start to reply but with only a few sentences. Yet if you see his contributions[7], he's pretty much active and ignoring my request.

Please check out my dispute with him here [8] and please someone give me some advise or join the discussion. It's pretty unbearable since he keeps avoiding it. Thx :) --LLTimes (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry - which part of "These are academic sources. You find them in the library, not google. You may ask other Korean editors for verification if you doubt my good faith." do you not understand? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm new okay? I didn't know okay? Your reply doesn't really help since tehcnically if i understand that, i wouldn't be asking. why you have to be so mean! xP I GOT THE ANSWER I've been wanting from other section ==" --LLTimes (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my reply seemed unhelpful. The other editor was pointing out that there is no requirement for sources to be available online. This is fairly self-evident, since despite the Google books project and Project Gutenberg many books newspapers and journals only exist in printed form. And most of these digitisation projects have a bias to Western and specifically English sources. If you check out WP:Five pillars you will get some notion of how Wikipedia artciles are edited and how the project works. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
okay! Thx for the info :3 --LLTimes (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ashoka Chakra information edit

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Article Ashoka Chakra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) mentions that " The wheel has 24 spokes. It symbolizes the teachings of the Buddha. "

This statement is wrong, this can also be viewed in 2 ways. The ashok Chakra could have 24 spokes representing the teachings of Buddha, but the Dharma Chakra, the one in the centre of the Indian Flag has 24 spokes and a blue half moon representing 24 hours in a day. Either the mention of Ashok Chakra in Indian Flag is to be corrected or the representation of 24 spokes is to be corrected.

Xxmkcxx (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes - so talk about this on the article talk page, find reliable sources and update the article. Remember that information needs to be verifiable. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Suu Kyi trespasser incidents

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Discovered this while fixing other problems. Definitely needs a grandmaster uber-guru class Wikipedian's attention. - TB (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the commentary and left notes at the talk page and User talk:Johnyettaw and WP:BLPN. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Brahmagupta

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Brahmagupta was a 6th/7th century mathematician. As such, his name could be added to those respective categories, so that he can be more easily found by cross reference, when looking for, say, 7th century mathematicians.

TheodoreGG (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well he is in the Ancient Indian mathematicians category. I have added 7th century Mathematicians. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Winnie Ruth Judd

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Winnie Ruth Judd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My contribution (pasted below) to this article on Winnie Ruth Judd has been deleted two times in its entirety by a contributor. I feel this person is in error by calling my additions "tabloid" in nature and using the excuse that "WP is not a tabloid." I am simply providing more detail about a notorious murder. While I understand that some of the facts of this 1931 historic case are rather gruesome as say, the Lizzy Borden ax murder case, I am only stating the facts of the case as recorded by known researchers of the case, not purposely sensationalizing it. It just so happens that the basic and known facts of the case happen to be very dramatic in their own right.

I would like the contributor who is deleting my entries allow me to finish.

Thank you for addressing my concerns.

Chloe93


Incident

At about 10:30 PM on the night of Friday, October 16, 1931, several gunshots rang out in a small bungalow just a block north of Thomas Rd. on east 2nd Street in Phoenix, Arizona. According to Phoenix police, a pretty, 26-year-old woman named Winnie Ruth Judd had allegedly shot two of her former female roommates with a .25 caliber handgun in a fit of jealous rage over a common romantic interest, a rich Phoenix businessman named Jack Halloran. Then, according to prosecutors, both Winnie Ruth and an accomplice dismembered Sammy Samuelson in several places and stuffed the head, torso, and lower legs into a black shipping trunk, and the upper legs into a beige valise and hatbox. Apparently with no need to downsize the body of Anne LeRoi, they stuffed her intact body into a second black shipping trunk. The victims were Agnes Anne LeRoi, aged 32, an X-ray technician at the Grunow Clinic where Winnie Ruth also worked as a medical secretary, and 24-year-old Hedvig "Sammy" Samuelson, a friend of Anne LeRoi. The three woman had previously tried living together at the murder bungalow, but after some infighting and arguing over small things like housekeeping, Winnie Ruth moved back into her small apartment at 1102 East Brill Street, a short distance away.[1]

Please cease edit warring and discuss proposed edits on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How to delete a file I uploaded?

Resolved: file deleted. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a file (a picture) that I used for an article, however, that picture (which I created myself) must be deleted because I did a mistake in the picture. I have moved it from the article, so that's not the problem. But I still like to remove it permanently.

How do I do?

Thanks,

Sirwanii (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sirwanii

Presumably you are talking about File:Campaignphoto.jpg. I note that you stated that you created it yourself, but it appears to be an image of a campaign poster which is likely to be copyrighted. I have placed a speedy delete tag on the image page and have also placed some useful links on your talk page. WP:Files for deletion explains the deletion processes. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

editing tools?

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Where do I find the tools for coding different stuff? I mean the formats to get different colors and boxes for different things? I'm not even really sure how to ask my question. Is it possible to learn how to code these wiki pages without having to go take a class at the local junior college? Perhaps there's tutorial I'm missing? Thanks anyone. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia - The Missing Manual and Help with Wiki markup. – ukexpat (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you greatly. I'm sorry I'm so dense. I remember now wanting to get back to those. There's just so much I want to do that I get ahead of myself. --Neptunerover (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated link to Simple English version

Resolved: problem sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In Portal:Origami Simple English is referenced twenty times in the other languages section in the page at the left. I see only one reference in the page but I suppose it could be transcluded, but not that number of times. Any idea what's happening or how to fix it please? Dmcq (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Three transcluded pages had simple: links but some of them were transcluded multiple times. I fixed it by using noinclude here and two other places. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I wouldn't have known what on earth to do with them. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bungled moving talk page to archive

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just tried to move my 2009 talk into Archive 6. I seem to have bungled it and when I hit Undo that doesn't seem to work (talk doesn't default to its usual location - plus it trashed the link to the archives. Could somebody help. All I was trying to do was move the talk in 2009 (along with edit history) to the new archive while keeping 2010 in the correct location. Thanks. 15:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you sign your post properly (four tildes [~]), we can work out who you are i.e. your username, but without that information there isn't much we can do. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
From the talk history of this page you must be User:Americasroof, right? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that I have have fixed this. Don't use the move page facility to archive, you need to create the archive and manually copy and paste the threads you wish to archive. 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing it so quickly (and figuring out after I didn't properly sign). Thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Accusation

Discussion moved: to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lucia_medea Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I created an account to be able to join in a discussion where I felt the request of page creator to delete a page created in error was being pushed aside. I posted one comment in support of the request. This prompted "Josh Parris" to accuse me of being a "sockpuppet", presumably because I was not in agreement with his stance. I feel this is an abuse of power and an attempt at to intimidate people who disagree with him. Would someone please remove this false accusation from my account and the account of "Lucia media", as we are not the same person. Thank you.Wikiauthenticity (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You need to respond at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lucia_medea as stated on your user page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Shon Harris

Resolved: IP blocked Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A page: Shon Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), seems like a self-promtion bio (forbidden by living persons rule). I have tried to contest this, but someone on the sweep team keeps deleting my postings. I have nothing against Shon (don't even know her) but to me, even as the last post pointed out, is a resume. I flagged to delete, but someone on the "tolls" list removed it. Please investigate.

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.126.197 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who declined speedy deletion, I will say that I had never even heard of Shon Harris before reviewing the article for speedy deletion. I declined it because notabiliy was asserted, and so is not a candidate for deletion. I have advised the editor twice on their talk page about the correct process for deleting by other means, but they insist on commenting in article space, and continuing to add the CSD tag. Stephen! Coming... 22:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The anon IP continues to blank content and insert commentary into article mainspace. I have warned the user on their talk as well as mine. I am loath to keep reverting...I want no appearance of edit warring. Regards Tiderolls 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The anon IP who initiated this thread has been blocked, report made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help needed at Shon Harris. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dana Perino; re: an early request

Answered:  – ukexpat (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I recently posted in here about a user removing what I felt to be pertinent 9-11-related information from Dana Perino. Per suggestions recieved here, I attempted to engage the other editor in a discussion as to why. As seen on the talk page and the editor's talk page, all I have recieved are insults and vague motivational reasons I do not understand. Any assistance/advice in the matter is appreciated. Lots42 (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor insults and I see that you joined in on User:Cmcgone's talk page. The only major insult is from an IP. I suggest you forget about it and walk away, is it really that important? And if your only evidence is a Youtube video, that is not a WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
What makes Youtube so bad? Lots42 (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
In my view, YT is not reliable because anyone can upload a video about almost anything at all. There are instances where it might be considered as a self-published source, but those instances are few and far between - there have been exceptions. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, this has been discussed countless times at WP:RSN. You can search the archives there for previous discussion, but the basic reason is as stated by ArcAngel. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Where do I report an invalid signature?

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is, a custom signature which violates Wikipedia:CUSTOMSIG#Appearance_and_color? Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Signatures advises:
If you encounter a user whose signature is disruptive or appears to be impersonating another account, it is appropriate to ask that user to consider changing their signature to meet the requirements of this guideline. When making such a request, always be polite, and assume good faith. Do not immediately assume that the user has intentionally selected a disruptive or inappropriate signature. If you are asked to change your signature, please avoid interpreting a polite request as an attack. Since the success of Wikipedia is based on effective teamwork, both parties should work together to find a mutually acceptable solution.
Signature formatting has been the subject of Requests for Comment, and has also resulted in some very heated debates. In one case a user who refused to alter an unsuitable signature was ultimately required to change it by the Arbitration Committee. This is an extreme measure for users who refuse to cooperate with reasonable requests, and should be considered a last resort. When dealing with potentially problematic signatures, simply being polite is often sufficient and can prevent the situation from escalating into a dispute.
If you don't get anywhere with the other editor then you could consider reporting it at WP:AN. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Do'h! Looked there and just didn't see it. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Alex Healy

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I came across the article Alex Healy, the original article on a fictional character has been over written with that of a racing driver (that seems to merit its own article). I could try do the required page creation/moves my self but it would disrupt the page histories, could I please ask the assistance of an Administrator to do the moves and preserve the histories.--blue520 15:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. It seems an Administrator independently came across the article and has taken the required actions. --blue520 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate articles: Burma VJ and Burmavj

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two articles about the documentary film Burma VJ by Anders Østergaard.

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

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

Could someone with better Wikipedia knowledge than me please move some material from the second article into the first one, and then delete the second one?

Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you can tag a page to be merged using Template:Merge. Or, learn how to do it here: Wikipedia:Merging. --BelovedFreak 16:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JRG/Corey Worthington

Resolved: deleted after discussion at WP:ANI. – ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This article was moved per a user request into userspace. Now, I'm not sure at all what is going on. I reverted one edit that was unconstructive by an IP, but now many IPs are editing the page, and I can't find the policy for editing in userspace. I'm also sure to what version you would revert and whether protection is necessary. Thanks NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that User:JRG has not edited since December 2008, and has announced their retirement. I think that you should take this to WP:ANI as any resolution of this may have to involve someone with admin powers. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV on article

Answered:  – ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there.

An NPOV was placed on this article I edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presagis

I don't know how to: 1. Correct the article as no comments were provided to help update the text 2. Remove the tag

Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Presagis (talkcontribs) 16:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have retaggged it with COI and advert tags. If you are connected with the company as your user name suggests, you have a COI and the article reads like a press release (it has all the corporate marketing buzzwords in there), so it will need to be toned down considerably. – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Presagis blocked, advised to create new account with no connection to company. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Contemporary Culture

Resolved: draft moved to Institute for Contemporary Culture. – ukexpat (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wiki-experts, I've created an article on my subpage User:BzbE/Institute_for_Contemporary_Culture and would like it to be posted online. How do I best go about doing that without having to do it myself? Thank you for your help. BzbE (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - you ask here and someone like me moves it for you! (I made some formatting fixes too). – ukexpat (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I also looked over your formatting fixes. Thanks for the feedback. Cheers BzbE (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute over whether YouTube is a "reliable" reference for purposes of verifying that a cited expert made reported statements.

Stale: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

With regard to 9/11 Truth movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1) There is an issue, under dispute, as to whether a YouTube citation is deserving of a [unreliable source?] tag . The specific issue at hand is whether a YouTube video is a reliable reference for purposes of verifying that statements, attributed a person, were indeed made by that person. Specificly, the article in question attributes certain statements to Noam Chomsky. The referenced YouTube video shows Chomsky making these statements. It is my claim that in this instance is YouTube is *indisputably* an authoritive information source.

2) My removal of the unreliable tag have been repeatedly reverted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cs32en and once reverted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arthur_Rubin . At no time did any reversion address my initial edit comment "The referenced YouTube video shows Noam Chomsky making the statements in the article. The YouTube video thus *verifies* that Chomsky made the statements in question."

3) Cs32en has made, on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deicas , accusations of vandalism.

4) I seek confirmation that my assertion that YouTube is, in this instance an *indisputably* reliable reference.

5) I seek advice on how to, in the future, deal with other editors that undo my edits without addressing the material issue at hand. I seek advice on how to, in the future, avoid spending so much time addressing a seemingly straightforward issue.

Deicas (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to your first question, instead of citing Youtube itself you should cite the conference, news broadcast, or whatever this appeared on. Certainly Chomsky made these remarks at some symposium or whatnot, and you can use that as the reference.
In response to your other questions, you were edit warring, and edit warring is never acceptable no matter how right you think your edits are. If there's disagreement, you must engage in discussion at a talk page to settle it; making 4 reverts in a day isn't ok. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, please read WP:YOUTUBE#Linking to user-submitted video sites. This link is to a copyright violation and thus is not permitted. If this was Noam Chomsky's official YouTube page then it might be considered OK, but as it stands, it isn't. If you persist in edit warring, you will be blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
With regard to Jezhotwells "This link is to a copyright violation and thus is not permitted.": I see no indication that the YouTube page in question is a copyright violation -- on what basis are you making this determination?

Deicas (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply earlier. The presumption is that any materila on websites is copyrighted unless there is a specific copyleft,Creative Commons licenses or GFDL notice. Please read WP:YOUTUBE#Linking to user-submitted video sites. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
With regard to User:Rjanag comment "you should cite the conference, news broadcast, or whatever this appeared on. Certainly Chomsky made these remarks at some symposium or whatnot, and you can use that as the reference". I did not add, to the article, the Chomsky quote nor the associated reference, I only removed the unreliable tag. It is not clear watching the YouTube clip the circumstances under where Chomsky made the statements in question. What is certain, from the video, is that Chomsky made the statements referenced and thus those statements are thus [1] on this topic via discretionary sanctions per authority granted by [[9]]. Given this information am I to understand that you continue to view me as a culpable participant in "edit warring"? If this is the case would you please provide a refer(s) to "edit warring" so I might better understand the topic.

Deicas (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To Jezhotwells regarding your statement "If you persist in edit warring, you will be blocked.": I call to your attention to the paragraph just above. Given this information am I to understand that you continue view me as a culpable participant in "edit warring"? If this is the case would you please provide a refer(s) to "edit warring" so I might better understand the topic.

Deicas (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing - Wikipedia:Edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
To Jezhotwells: I ask a second time; per your prior "This link is to [to [[10]]] a copyright violation and thus is not permitted.": I assume you are refering to [[]YOUTUBE#Restrictions_on_linking]: "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright." I've seen the video. I see no copyright violation. The video has been up on YouTube for over two years and viewed over 260,000 and has not been taken down, thus creating a reasonable presumption that there is not a copyright violation therein. I thus claim that "due care" has been exercised. Would you please substantiate your "[t]his link is to a copyright violation" claim or *explicitly* withdraw the claim. Deicas (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── How about WP:YT? – ukexpat (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The presumption is that material found on websites is copyright, unless there is a specific note saying that the material is released under a Creative Commons licence or the material is in the public domain. The burden is on the author who provides such material to demonstrate this if challenged. Whether or not the video has been challenged or how long it has been up is irrelevant. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean by "The presumption is that material found on websites is copyright[sic?]". Please cite the specific Wikipedia policy and relevant text therein whence this alleged presumption derives.
Please clarify whether you are referring to: 1) linking/citing a URL, the material at which is copyrighted or; 2) linking/citing a URL, the material at which is available at that URL in violation of the copyright of that material; 3) something else.
You reference to burden utterly irrelevant. No mention is made therein to the copyright status of cited material.
Please attempt to write with clarity to be expected of a Wikipedia editor giving advice to another Wikipedia editor. I am beginning the believe that you know not whereof you speak. Deicas (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless material is published with an explicit copyleft, Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) or GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), it must be assumed to be under copyright under the laws of most countries. Copyright does not have to be asserted. If you can demonstrate that the copyright owner of the video has released the content under suitable licensing then that resolves the copyright issue. However, it does not resolve the issue of whether the material is a reliable source. Unless material published by the author of this video is regularly cited by other third party reliable sources, and unless it can be shown that the author of the video has a reputation for fact checking and reliability, then it is not a reliable sources If you wish to investigate this further please ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, where the issue has been covered exhaustively. If you search the archives of that page you will find the same point adrressed many times. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know just when my Wikipedia page will be unfrozen so that I can edit it. Currently it is filled with misleading, unprofessional and fannish information and is way out of date. I can bring it up to date with awards won, books written, etc., but not until I'm allowed to edit it. On the discussion page I explained why certain information was not only embarrassing but also had no bearing on me as a professional writer/historian. I also am not very technologically savvy and am not even sure that this is the correct place to voice these concerns and ask these questions. Along with all its other problems, Wikipedia needs to be more user friendly. We are not all computer whizzes. Trina Robbins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.142.243 (talkcontribs) 06:45, 12 January 2010

The page is semi-protected so only established users can edit it. Beware that you have a WP:COI. I have looked at the sentence about the fanzine and your appearance as a pinup. I removed the sentence because it was poorly sourced, not because it caused you embarrassment. I left a note on the article talk page which is where discussions should take place. If you do decide to add material to the article, please be aware of our conflict of interest guidelines. Also, material added should be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The sentence in question was sourced to Skyrack, in its time the best-known news 'zine in the science fiction field. For the history of science fiction fandom in that era, there is no more reliable source. I'm sorry that the Trina of this era is embarassed by what the Trina of that era did; but it did happen - I own a copy of that issue myself, picked up at a SF fanzine convention. She is still thought of with affection among those who knew her back then. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Split Enz link.

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I put a link to my site on to the Split Enz page and it has been removed as inapropriate. I dispute this as my brother Nigel Griggs is a member of Split Enz and my own site contains the full story of how we grew up and started our own band together, which would be of interest to fans. There is no financial gain and I feel the link is legitimate. I already have a link on Split Enz personal site.

From Paul Griggs (log in name Claudhamilton) my site is www.paulgriggs.comClaudhamilton (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL for our policies on external links. Basically personal home pages, except those of the artist themselves, are not permitted. You may be who you say you are, you may not. Don't take personal offence at this it is a long established policy and also have to be careful of WP:BLP isssues. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

dispute with a no-editable user page's editor

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A editor has undid a change of mine (without specifying a reason), but i can't ask him why he did it, because he's talk page is non-editable. How i must proceed?--Nahuel.carvajal (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you started up a section in the talk page of the article about it? If you do that and then change the article back to the version you want that should get the other editor to respond. It is better to discuss improving articles on the talk page anyway and just leave a note on a user talk pages if you want their contribution and they might miss things otherwise, it helps disputes stay focused on the subject rather than get personal. Are you reasonably sure about your facts? Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Who, where, when? In other words give us a clue as to which article and which reversion if you expect a response. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The article in cuestion is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale and, the issue is that i removed the anarchist from the list of who consider it as slung song, say at my edition's comment that reference must be given in order to put anarchists on that list. The user is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RepublicanJacobite and at the moment his user discussion page still locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahuel.carvajal (talkcontribs) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
It didn't take me much time to type 'anarchist anthem' into google books and find the Internationale referred to as the anarchist anthem in some books. There were a few other songs too but I'd have to say the best action here would be to add a citation rather than just go around deleting things because they don't have a citation. Or at least just add a citation needed tag as in {{cn}} unless you're fairly sure it's wrong or such a tag has been there for some time. And discussions should in the first instance be on the talk pages of articles. I don't see why you felt the need to delete that in the first place. Dmcq (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Make a few more edits and you will be able to post on repjac's talk page. Kittybrewster 00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Aircraft upset

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion [[11]] on the article Aircraft upset, regarding the section Aircraft upset#Jet upset. At issue is whether the list of examples in the Aircraft upset#Jet upset is appropriate. Shortening the text for each example has also been proposed.

This has been posted at [[12]], but due to limited participation we have yet to reach consensus.

Your input would be sincerely appreciated. 15:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If no-one responds from here try a WP:RFC or WP:Third opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete prod of Zimmer Real Estate Services

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A speedy delete prod was placed ONE MINUTE after I first created the above referenced article. I created the article to flesh out a story on the Kansas City Plant which builds 85 percent of the non-nuclear components of the U.S. nuclear bomb arsenal. It has a contract to privately own the new facility -- the first time this has happened in U.S. history. As if this was not notable enough it also developed the 4 million square foot headquarters of Sprint Nextel and managed the move of of the Kansas City Federal Reserve headquarters to a new building. I am just asking that the speedy delete prod be removed. Americasroof (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it to give you a chance to work on it, but you still need some third party reliable sources to support notability - hence the tags I have added. Also note that WP:SPEEDY and WP:PROD are different procedures. This one was a nomination for speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Americasroof (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Article now at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zimmer Real Estate Services. – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Simon Fanshawe

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hello Wikipedia There is an entry in here about me. I went on the other day and updated it (ie I am now Chair of Sussex) etc And I removed one potentially libelous comment that some one had added.

Now there is the equivalent of an auditor's note on the entry. This doesn;t sem reasonable as i was correcting matters of fact. The entry is now factually correct , yet your comment makes it look like it may not be. Well it is. I should know. It's about me!!!!

Can you rectify?

Thanks

Simon Fanshawe —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonFanshawe (talkcontribs) 10:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The tag says "This article or section is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." That seems reasonable to me if you are who you claim to be. I have added a tag as this is an unreferenced biography of a living person. This is standard procedure and alerts editors to the need to find verifiable and reliable thrird party sources. I recommend that you read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy before making further edits. If you have a problem about this article you can contact the OTRS team, details at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well,I'd be surprised if it doesn't get AfD's. It sounds like a resume, all the inline cites seem to be authoered by topic ( except Jon Sale is unclear ) and except for apparent notability from having broascasting jobs there is no indication of notability in secondary source coverage. Serving on various boards or high school clubs doesn't establish notability. This really needs independent sources to establish that anyone else cares and what they have noted about the topic. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The subject is definitely notable [13], but the article is as I said not well referenced. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you upload a photo please? Kittybrewster 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Llama artical

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Llama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In the article of the llama' page there is a table under the heading 'Fibre' which lists the average fibre microns of different animals. The alpaca (haucaya) is listed as an average of 27.7. This strikes me as misleading and in my opinion should rather be represented as per an assertion by Nic Cooper at http://www.rd1.com/web/content?in_section=10&in_item=927&in_page=7482 states that Alpaca range from 12 micron through to 40 micron.

The Author Nic Cooper has been breeding alpacas for 20 years concentrating on achieving a uniform commercial fleece herd. In the past few years the fleece from the Southern Alpacas Stud herd has been processed into some of the finest and sought after alpaca yarns available. An alpaca judge, Nic has been instrumental in changes made to bring fleece judging closer to commercial reality.

Furthermore being a breeder myself and with Alpacas with microns ranging from 15- 29microns I believe that Nic's statements is a far better representation of the potential quality of alpaca fibre196.214.68.22 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to find valid sources for any factual claims. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
And then discuss on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil comments from editor

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Seyran_Ohanyan (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Seyran_Ohanyan|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BLP noticeboard section.

The editor Jarhed made a comment that was excessive about another editor, refering to the other editor as a psychopath . When challenged about this and requested to strike the comment, he replied with this conmment.... Thank you for your support. I don't respond well to threats and I don't give a fig about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints.

I feel this is excessive commentary and would appreciate some assistance in moving forward with this editor. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I would give an "only warning" for personal attacks, then straight to WP:ANI if there is a repeat. – ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, I agree with you and I have left him a warning and I hope this helps, I am open still open to discussion regarding this. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey listen you guys, I don't attack people. What are you talking about?Jarhed (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this for starters, and then this for your unwillingness to follow Wikipedia procedures? – ukexpat (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, perhaps I am slow. Would you mind giving me the details of who or how I attacked someone? And I said "I don't give a fig about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints." How do you get that I have an unwillingness to follow Wikipedia procedures from that???Jarhed (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Read the links above, particularly the word psychopath and the I don't give a fig about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints bit. What else could those words mean, unless perhaps those particular sequences of letters mean something else in a language other than English? – ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to get in a shouting match with a psychopath - This is a personal attack on who? I don't give a fig about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints - Well, some editors do but I don't, is there something wrong with that? What does this have to do with following WP procedures?Jarhed (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Really, really? Presumably "psychopath" was a reference to another editor who made a previous comment in that section - what else could it mean? And an express lack of interest in Wikipedia "proceedings" or formal complaints gives the clear impression that you are not prepared to act in a collaborative manner to build this encyclopedia, otherwise, presumably, you would not have made the "psychopath" comment. Perhaps you would explain what you meant by it? – ukexpat (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You said that I attacked another editor, I don't think it is unreasonable for you to tell me which one, because I can't figure it out. You said that the fact that I don't care about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints is wrong, and I don't think it is unreasonable for you to explain what is wrong with this. I *don't* care about wikipedia proceedings or formal complaints, I mainly work on arts and arts bios. I am not trying to be contentious, I am trying to understand what I did wrong.Jarhed (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously my native grasp of the English language is proving insufficient to explain this but let's have one more go: when you said, I am not going to get into a shouting match with a psychopath what did you mean? You must have meant something about someone, so please explain, or did your fingers just happen to type out a string of letters that just happened to form this expression? Similarly, on the the proceedings/complaints issue, if someone makes a complaint against you as they have done here, you can't just bury your head in the sand and ignore it, and indeed you have not. So you may not care about them, but you have to respond to and deal with them. – ukexpat (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to get in a shouting match with a psycopath, but I did NOT say that about any particular person. What do you mean I can't ignore a complaint against me? Of course I can ignore it. I will be blocked or not blocked according to whatever the editors who care about such things do, but that does not mean that I have to care about that. You seem to me to have an odd notion about what constitutes uncivil behavior.--Jarhed (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Crestwood , Illinois

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Crestwood, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just noticed over the last two weeks, this page has tripled in size as an editor has provided details on a water contamination situation. At first glance it seems undue, but I haven't read through all of it. I'm headed to bed, but the changes seemed big enough I thought I'd bring it here and let someone with more time take a whack at it. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could always leave a note on the artcile talk page yourself tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


Baker Lake

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. On the Baker Lake page, there is somebody named Cambridge Bay Weather who keeps changing the page back to "his" version. He deleted the additional information I added on the artwork of Baker Lake, which was limited in "his" version (it only mentioned prints and crafts, which are the lesser forms of art in Baker Lake, so he doesn't seem to know very much). He also deleted my link to our website. I find this rather insulating. I've reinstated these improvements and would appreciate that other person being told to not do this again. I also notice he's changed other people's additions by reverting to "his" version. Who does this person think he is? By the way, I am a gallery owner and longtime collector of Inuit art, and know both the history of Inuit art, particularly in Baker Lake, and some of the artists personally. 134.117.141.66 (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Which one of these Baker Lake pages are you talking about? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I guess it is Baker Lake, Nunavut. You had added promotional information about your gallery and a span external link to your online shop, which wer quite properly removed by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Is there anything else we can help you with. Please raed WP:Five pillars to get an insight into Wikipedia policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

sheila steafel biog.

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still very much alive in spite of a posting on my biog. that says I died in Jan. 2010 Sheila Steafel Popsy08 (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

HI thanks to alerting us about this. I have reverted the erroneous information and warned the offending editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WIP article request

Resolved: Article cleaned up and moved into mainspace. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've got a work-in-progress article for the BBC documentary Berlin. If it's not too much trouble, would an editor mind taking a look, to see what I might need to change/add/subtract/etc before I should create a proper page for it? Sorry if I'm being a nuisance, but I feel that I'd rather be safe than sorry... --Nerroth (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you need to find some third party reliable sources for this. The BBC references are primary sources which are OK but need to be supported by something else. Newspaper reviews would be good. Also note that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are these entries on the Guardian website, which show over a million people watched the broadcasts of parts 2 and 3. (Part 1 wasn't listed on the page for the 14th, but the entry for that day is less comprehensive in any case, dominated as it is by the England-Brazil match on that day.) Plus, there is a review for part 1 at the Times, though for some reason finding the weekend review pages for the two subsequent weeks seems less than straightforward. Oh, and I found this review, though I'm not sure how the site counts in terms of use here.
In any case, how are they? --Nerroth (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppet?

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

When logging into my account, it said "An editor thinks you are a sockpuppet" - after reading about it i am still none the wiser. I think this might be a result of my conversations with the editor of the "Apple Cider Vinegar" page. I made an addition to the page, as the page is full of inacuracies and claims. After he removed my edits I contacted him and asked about it. I then contacted him to point out the problems with the page and the fact that it looked like he was using the page, aswell as the "Vinegar" page to promote a number of other websites containing many unproven claims.

I think he was annoyed that I suggested this and he has slapped this 'sock puppet' thing to be difficult. Can anyone help with this?

Regards

Seth —Preceding unsigned comment added by SethCRKOne (talkcontribs) 15:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has removed the tag and placed a notice on User:Kintetsubuffalo's talk page at User talk:Kintetsubuffalo#SethCRKOne. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


Infobox

Resolved: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Need to add a parameter(s) to locked Infobox can anybody help ? Mlpearc (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't help unless you give some more information such as which infobox and what parameter. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Infobox @ User:Mlpearc/Don E. Branker need ,spouse(s) from (when to when) option, Children, and may be more as I go on

Mlpearc (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As you no doubt have discovered, you can't simply add these parameters. Perhaps if you ask at WP:WikiProject Musicians/Infobox you may get an answer as to why these parameters are not included in the same way at they are for Template:Infobox person. There is also a discussion on this at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#All_musicians are celibate. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ThanksMlpearc (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Literature

Answered: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

simply generic question - what is the common definition of Literature with a page? To me it is something that has been published - as a book, in a magazine, but not on the web. Is there a standard definiton within Wikipedia, and if so what is it?

Mrhorseracer (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Literature, the project page, should give you the information you need. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Character theory (Media) - Removal of content relating to myself

Resolved: content re-instated by another editor after poster placed request on article talkpage Jezhotwells (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Character theory (Media) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am an author in the field of online communities and e-learning systems. Naturally, my work which is peer reviewed may be of relevance to users researching the field on Wikipedia.

I actively monitor pages that mention me, though don't add citations to myself as much as I would like to. The Character theory (Media) article contained reference to my work. It was however deleted by an anonymous IP, which I believe is that of someone associated with a former girlfriend of mine acting in bad faith.

I would be grateful if someone could restore the mention of my peer reviewed article published by the foremost reference publisher in Information Science, IGI Global, as I believe it is of high importance to the article.

--Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You should mention this on the talk page of the article(s) in question, but please mention your conflict of interest. You really shouldn't be adding material as you did here [14], at least not without prior discussion on the talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, that edit was simply to correct a technical innacuracy by changing virtual community to online community. I shouldn't have edited it really as I suspect a Wikistalker looked at my edits and seized on the opportunity to dilute my contribution to the field. I've added a request to the article's talk page as you suggested. Thanks. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sulpharic Acid

Answered: wrong venue, pointer given Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know what is the short and long term damage sulpharic acid can do to your vehicle, keeping in my mind I live at the coast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.244.118.132 (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a request for editor assistance. Try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Boffo Box

Resolved: Nothing further to discuss here

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talkcontribs) 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Boffo Box is a new website that provides Broadway information. This site can be found at boffobox.com. and one article that still retains a link to this website is The Pitmen Painters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This website is similar to Ibdb or Imdb, which can be found on many pages in the external links section of of sites. I was posting links to Boffo Box on appropriate Wikipedia pages to link to their Boffo Box counterparts. This was to provide Wikipedia users with further information on the topics in a format that Wikipedia cannot provide (ie. graphs of potential grosses of shows) however when providing these links in the external link area, the user OhNoitsJamie removed the links and said i was spamming. I would like a third party to intervene and make a judgement on this matter because i feel like providing these links only provides more information for users and could be beneficial to users. Ridaderek (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also since i submitted this post the link on The Pitmen Painters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been removed, however the like would have been

this was removed and i have yet to receive a reply on this matter, what is the proper route for me to bring this matter to an administratorRidaderek (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Boffo Box does not meet the critiera at WP:EL for what constitutes a useful link and thus has been correctly removed. Boffo Box - clearly fails WP:ELYES #3 : Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.. In general if you are unhappy about reversions of your edits then discuss as you have done on the reverting editor's talk page or ven beter on the article talk page. As you and User:Brianmcm32 seem unable to grasp the EL linking policy, I suggest that you cease adding such links. Looking at both of your contributions, I see that they consist of merely adding this s[pam link, which is not particulraly useful. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to consider my case. But, I feel that you may not have seen everything that Boffo Box contains on the website when relating to shows, because the example i gave is a show that has no yet ran on Broadway and its statistical information will not be updated until it opens on Broadway. However, after reviewing WP:ELYES #3, i find that Boffo Box fully fits this criteria. View the page:

This is a page for a show which has already done a Broadway run, and there are many aspects of this page which cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia format, if you click on the grosses button st the top of the show, a graph is displayed showing weekly grosses compared to their potential (this information is also updated on a weekly bases for currently running shows). If you dig deeper into the Boffo Box website by clicking the attendance/capacity sidebar you can also see a graph displaying the attendance at a show compared to the possible capacity on a weekly basis as well. This aspect certainly fits the requirements listed in WP:ELYES #3.

The El is to a page which contains this information: "Synopsis: In an empty theatre, on a bare stage, casting for a new Broadway musical is almost complete. The field's been narrowed down to just 17 dancers. For these men and women, this audition is the chance of a lifetime. It's what they've worked for — with every drop of sweat, every hour of training, every day of their lives. It's the one opportunity to do what they've always dreamed of. Not to be the star, but to get the job ... to have the chance to dance and come through." In what way is this additional information which cannot be "integrated into the Wikipedia format"? The grosses button provides information which could be incorporated into the article, but as there is no indication of reliable sourcing it isn't very useful. You fail to grasp the point that an article in Wikipedia about a play or a show is about the work itself, not about box office figures at one theatre in New York. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your assistanceRidaderek (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ [[15]]